Death penalty

[JonathanM]

also is that not the case at present were a murder or manslaughter verdict can be reached by the jury

I'm trying to think this through. But I believe that is different. The jury are still deciding whether the crime has been committed beyond reasonable doubt. But they are looking at different levels of intent. If they decide it's killing with intention, then that is murder. But if they decide there is killing with a lesser degree of mens rea, such as recklessness or gross negligence, then that is manslaughter. But in every case they have to be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[securespark]

Whatever. The people got the result they voted for. That’s democracy.

If you're talking about Brexit, you could argue that people didn't know what "Brexit" they were voting for. Then there were lying b'stards with the big red bus, not to mention an idiot PM who turned on a sixpence WRT Brexit.

One minute he was pro Brexit and said it would be a disaster to leave Europe, then as soon as he spotted the potential to be in the hot seat, he turned about and began the campaign of lies.

Should a vote won on the back of lies stand? Is it morally right?

 

[Mottie]

Should a vote won on the back of lies stand? Is it morally right?

I d t think they’ve introduced VAR on voting yet. Could say that every time a new government is voted in.

 

[securespark]

You could! Have you any elections in mind?

 

[Vinty]

What I cannot understand is why people who cannot see beyond their noses and just want to stir the wotsit only EVER blame brexit. Yes brexit was squandered but that was because we have had 15 years of rubbish who had the audacity to call themselves a government. This lot are no better. The last lot also let in at least 750,000 (probably a hell of a lot more now) immigrants a significant number of whom are illegally in this country without anything being done about it and this lot of scroungers who call themselves a government will quite possibly let in a load more. All using our meagre resources and preventing legal taxpayers from using what they pay for.

Well said Fred.

 

[Vinty]

Essentially, yes. They build up this hope that the death penalty will give them closure .

Who is they? How do you know what the families of murder victims feel.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

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.

Which is why it needs to be restricted to cases, where there can be no doubt..

 

[carmanmemoranda]

how is clear cut a slogan ? you dont think a murder can be clear cut

No, you need to think a step further.

WHO decides it is clear cut. You, me, an other (could be of any background don't forget), judge, group of judges, jury, local council, home secretary. other?

It is easy to say "clear cut". It isn't easy to legally decide that. it's just a slogan.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Which is why it needs to be restricted to cases, where there can be no doubt..

Sure but who decides that?

 

[Stivino]

Which is why it needs to be restricted to cases, where there can be no doubt..

I sure there are thousands/millions of people who have been executed in cases where there was no doubt.