I've seen figures from the US that seem to show it's more expensive to execute than life imprison.
Paul
Paul
Who'll be next?
- Thread starter MO!
- Start date
julian2002
Muper Soderator
paul,
this is in america, the land of the apeal, suit and counter suit. the place where a man can be found not guilty criminally but guilty civilly and made to pay millions in damages to the victims family. in short this is country where money or public exposure can get any verdict you want at either the initial conviction or at an appeal.
this makes quite interesting reading as to another potential benefit of having the death penalty as an option.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0345/031105_news_mossback.php
cheers
julian
this is in america, the land of the apeal, suit and counter suit. the place where a man can be found not guilty criminally but guilty civilly and made to pay millions in damages to the victims family. in short this is country where money or public exposure can get any verdict you want at either the initial conviction or at an appeal.
this makes quite interesting reading as to another potential benefit of having the death penalty as an option.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0345/031105_news_mossback.php
cheers
julian
joel
Shaman of Signals
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
The death penalty in the UK (we have it in Japan for exceptional cases) would probably be an extremely long and expensive process, too. Even if the UK left the EU...
The evil mastermind behind the Tokyo gas attacks is expected to hang sometime around 2010. That's 15 years after the crimes were committed.
Just a thought.
Tony,
Even in Devil's advocacy mode, the argument of the cost of incapacitating a murderer by life imprisonment versus that of the death penalty is a strawman, as you probably know also.
Devil's advocacy is good because it provokes the opposing viewpoint to be voiced, with which you actually agree.
I remember those devil's advocacy viewpoints that I was forced to voice back in my student daze during role plays in French - they usually got me higher marks than the others because I had the balls to voice them against my better judgement.
I still only landed a 2:2 though
Bt then I was a lazy bastard student.
Even in Devil's advocacy mode, the argument of the cost of incapacitating a murderer by life imprisonment versus that of the death penalty is a strawman, as you probably know also.
Devil's advocacy is good because it provokes the opposing viewpoint to be voiced, with which you actually agree.
I remember those devil's advocacy viewpoints that I was forced to voice back in my student daze during role plays in French - they usually got me higher marks than the others because I had the balls to voice them against my better judgement.
I still only landed a 2:2 though
Bt then I was a lazy bastard student.
The US Constitution guarantees that you cannot be deprived of life nor liberty without due process of law. It's hard to argue against that.
US law derives from UK common law, including the distinction between 'reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities'. It's the same here, in principle at least.
Paul
julian2002
Muper Soderator
paul,
i guess the bit of english law that says you can;t be tried twice for the same crime failed to make it over there then? also i'm dubious as to the merit of a system of law that ensures that those with money get special treatment. any accused murderer should be treated exactly the same way, be he president or a homeless person off the street. in the usa this is most certainly not the case.
cheers
julian
i guess the bit of english law that says you can;t be tried twice for the same crime failed to make it over there then? also i'm dubious as to the merit of a system of law that ensures that those with money get special treatment. any accused murderer should be treated exactly the same way, be he president or a homeless person off the street. in the usa this is most certainly not the case.
cheers
julian
Criminal law and civil law are different. Where you risk getting put inside the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
In civil cases where it's only going to cost you money the plaintive must merely demonstrate a balance of probabilities in their favour.
OJ Simpson couldn't have been tried twice in a criminal court. AFAIK, the double jeapardy law applies in the US too.
In civil cases where it's only going to cost you money the plaintive must merely demonstrate a balance of probabilities in their favour.
OJ Simpson couldn't have been tried twice in a criminal court. AFAIK, the double jeapardy law applies in the US too.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
I have never understood the logic behind double jeopardy; surely if evidence can later be produced to conclusively prove that a person who has escaped prosecution committed the crime for which they were accused it should be used. Advances in DNA profiling are a good example ââ'¬â€œ if this technology can prove people who escaped justice for murder / rape etc were in fact guilty they should be re-tried and convicted IMHO.
Tony.
(who is pretty much convinced OJ was guilty!)
michaelab
desafinado
You have a point Tony but the reason it's there is to prevent attempts to try someone for the same crime until the "correct" result is obtained.
I think cases where someone has actually been tried for a murder and acquitted and compelling evidence is found some time later are extremely rare (I've never heard of one). Usually in cases like that the suspect is never tried in the first place because of a lack of evidence.
Michael.
I think cases where someone has actually been tried for a murder and acquitted and compelling evidence is found some time later are extremely rare (I've never heard of one). Usually in cases like that the suspect is never tried in the first place because of a lack of evidence.
Michael.
I agree Michael. The prosecution gets one shot at proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty.
If they don't get the result they were after, i.e: a conviction, they can't hound you for the rest of your life with "new evidence" until they do.
If they don't get the result they were after, i.e: a conviction, they can't hound you for the rest of your life with "new evidence" until they do.
julian2002
Muper Soderator
why, then, should you be liable to unlimited civil prosecution when you've been judged innocent by the supposed highest court in the land.
cheers
julian
cheers
julian
Because that's the way it is. There's a doubt you did it, but it's still probably you and the police aren't looking for any body else.
I think there's a move afoot in the UK to remove or modify the double-jeopardy protection when new evidence turns up.
In the US there is State and Federal court procedure. The LA policemen who were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King in a State Court were later found guilty of infringing his civil rights in a Federal Court.
(Or something, not being an expert on the exact charges...)
Paul
I think there's a move afoot in the UK to remove or modify the double-jeopardy protection when new evidence turns up.
In the US there is State and Federal court procedure. The LA policemen who were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King in a State Court were later found guilty of infringing his civil rights in a Federal Court.
(Or something, not being an expert on the exact charges...)
Paul
julian2002
Muper Soderator
oh goody the further americanizatiuon of our country. soon we'll have a huge gun crime rate, 'medicaid', paranoia will be rife along with runaway capitalism that would disgust even gordon gecko. perhaps joining the european super state is not such a bad idea after all.
cheers
julian
cheers
julian
MO!
MOnkey`ead!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,881
- Reaction score
- 1
What I found *wrong* about your earlier posts is that you seemed to blanket all homeless, drug takers, big issue sellers.... togeather as "scum". You've since said that this isn't the case........... why couldn't you be mature enough to just agree you'd made a stupid comment earlier?
I've, both directly and in directly, had *trouble* with homeless, junkies, dealers, on several occasions. However, that still doesn't mean all are bad!
One homeless-drug taking-big issue selling person is bad, doesn't mean they all are. 99% of them bad would still not meant they ALL are!
The black kids who attacked a guy on the train I was on a while back were *bad*............ but that doesn't mean all black kids are.
The white people I work with who look at the Asian employees recently starting at my work place, with disgust, fear, and hate are bad......... but that doesn't mean all white people are.
The football hooligan who attacks the kid wearing the rival teams shirt is bad............ but, again, you still don't tar them all with the same brush!
michaelab
desafinado
Well, not unless they're Rangers supporters eh MO!
Joking aside, you make a very good point.
Michael.
penance
Arrogant Cock
Mo
i have my views
the end!
i have my views
the end!
penance
Arrogant Cock
Originally posted by MO!
erm.... a bit silly no?
I was trying to clear it up.
You'll grow out of it though
Michael, correct, all rangers followers are bad! They are a unique case!
Mo
im not interested in continueing
and i have no need to grow out of it
penance
Arrogant Cock
Hmm
