ultimately it would be the judge handing down the sentence juries do not sentence people
Death penalty
- Thread starter algas
- Start date
This isn't a sentencing matter. It's about determining the degree of certainty of guilt. Surely, that is a matter for a jury?
The wrongly convicted and executed are murder victims of the state in your mind. That's interesting.
When convicted murderers are freed to kill again. Are their victims also state murders ?
edit: there
Last edited:
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
Hasn't there been instances of murderers being found not guilty due to the risk of them getting capital punishment?
of course its a sentencing matter thats why its called a death sentence.
But there could also be a case for no need for trial at all someone filmed cutting someones head off why bother wasting money
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
You have missed the fact I never said what you said I did. I didn't say it wasn't clear cut. try reading, then try understanding.
I asked, who decides? You, me, A judge, a group of judges, the Home Secretary, a panel of people? 1 person makes all the decisions?
Clear cut decision, It's just another slogan. But slogans appeal to some.
how is clear cut a slogan ? you dont think a murder can be clear cut
You are missing the point. It is for a jury to determine guilt, not the judge. It would be ridiculous to have a trial where the jury finds somebody guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" and then the judge decides there is actually no doubt at all. There would be no point in having a trial! Which is the bedrock of our justice system. It's not Judge Dredd. I think it's very simple. The jury would have two verdicts. Do you find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, do you also find the defendant guilt beyond all doubt? If the second then the death sentence. (Which I am against.)
Would I want to sit on a jury where the defendant is pleading for mercy when the death penalty is the potential sentence on conviction? Tough one!!
Juries are today finding 'climate change' offenders not guilty, despite them pleading guilty as they are sympathetic to their cause. Would the same jury find a killer not guilty to avoid sending them to the hangman's noose?
And as i said for absolute clear cut why bother with a jury at all ?
They are no pleading guilty. They are claiming that their actions are justified and as such they should be acquitted.
also is that not the case at present were a murder or manslaughter verdict can be reached by the jury
judge instructs jury
This means they will go over the facts of the case and tell you, the jury, about the relevant law. The judge will also give you advice before you retire to the jury room to discuss the case.
The laws
This means they will go over the facts of the case and tell you, the jury, about the relevant law. The judge will also give you advice before you retire to the jury room to discuss the case.
The laws
Possibly, however the debate here is about convicted murderers being put to death, not about murderers who are released. I'm all for a whole life tariff behind bars for taking someones life but not for their execution. If they're behind bars they can be set freed if found to be innocent, that cannot happen if they're dead.
Far from the case.
When "three strikes and you're out" was introduced to combat crimes against tourists in florida, murders went up.
Why?
Because crims, when faced with "you're completely screwed" were choosing to leave no witnesses and increase their chances of not getting caught at all .........