O/T Why should this b.astard breathe again?

[Brin]

Can anyone on here, all the legal eagles included, tell me why this monster of no remorse, gets to live at all?

If ever the death penalty should be brought back this story hammers the nail home! I'm not even talking Southport.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydwr859dgo

[Ronners]

Wow, very powerful is that Brin.

[Pocket rocket]

Simple solution. Line up shot job done.

[KerrAvon]

If we reintroduce the death penalty innocent people would be executed just as happened in the past.

[Brin]

Wow, very powerful is that Brin.

Ronners, you say 'very powerful'. Is that in relation to the title header or the heartbreaking statement read out by John Hunt before sentencing was carried out?

I take it you read all the statement? I contemplated Mr Hunt's statement and had to pause several times, such was the powerful content. No one should ever had to go through what he and his surviving Daughter have had to.

KerrAvon makes a statement that innocent lives may be lost if capital punishment is re introduced. Surely by modern standards
we shouldn't get things wrong now. Forensic science has moved on leaps and bounds and is now proving beyond any reasonable doubt in order to assist in arresting murderers.

It is stark cases like this one with 100% evidence that proves that Kyle Clifford was a triple psychopath murderer so, why should he have the right to continue living for what he carried out? The cost to keep him behind bars for many many years to come will run into hundreds of thousands of pounds if not a Million. The Lord Longfords across the UK will say 'Thou shall not kill'....he did so he should also die for his heinous crimes in my eyes.

[UlleyMiller]

I've seen a lot of reports (admittedly, this was a while ago and the position may have changed in more recent years) that capital punishment ends up costlier than life behind bars. That shouldn't ever be a decision point IMHO.

I'd hope that (if this were to ever be a decision made by the government of the day) the rationale for change (or retaining the status quo) was made on a the basis that the weight of evidence drives the process, not any single case, however emotive. I fully appreciate this is easier to say without any connection to a particular case, but I believe it's the responsibility of those in charge to remove any and all emotion from decisions as big as that would be.

I'd only ever support a change if:
Evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. (I believe the former links back to some religious/superstitious nonsense to give jurors a clear conscience, and appreciate that the latter would need a very clear set of guidelines)
There was a sufficiently high bar for crimes and their nature before the option opened up.
There was a very clear, transparent, appeals process which had an appropriate timeframe around each aspect.

[Ronners]

The powerful bit was about the heartbreaking statement read out by John Hunt Brin. Whilst I understand your disgust with this murderer, I'm with Kerr in not wanting the death penalty back as innocent people would end up being executed sometimes, and even one innocent person being executed would be one too many for me.
This bit about killers refusing to come to court to be sentenced is seemingly happening more, and I would put into law that if a person convicted of killing refuses to come to court for sentencing, then they would be given an automatic life means life custodial sentence. I know that wouldn't matter to people such as Kyle Clifford who was always going to get a full life sentence, but if someone convicted of manslaughter refuses to be present for their sentencing, then automatically make it life. It will never happen of course but it would certainly focus the defendant to attend court.

[KerrAvon]

I've seen a lot of reports (admittedly, this was a while ago and the position may have changed in more recent years) that capital punishment ends up costlier than life behind bars. That shouldn't ever be a decision point IMHO.

I'd hope that (if this were to ever be a decision made by the government of the day) the rationale for change (or retaining the status quo) was made on a the basis that the weight of evidence drives the process, not any single case, however emotive. I fully appreciate this is easier to say without any connection to a particular case, but I believe it's the responsibility of those in charge to remove any and all emotion from decisions as big as that would be.

I'd only ever support a change if:
Evidence wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. (I believe the former links back to some religious/superstitious nonsense to give jurors a clear conscience, and appreciate that the latter would need a very clear set of guidelines)
There was a sufficiently high bar for crimes and their nature before the option opened up.
There was a very clear, transparent, appeals process which had an appropriate timeframe around each aspect.

‘Reasonable doubt’ went out a long time ago. The direction given to juries is that they must be 'satisfied so as to be sure’ before they can convict. I’m not sure where that sits with the notion of ‘beyond any doubt’ and I’m not sure what ‘beyond any doubt’ means in any event. It all comes down to the opinion of the jury hearing the evidence and given that juries are human, they are open to human error.

And, of course, juries base their decisions on the evidence that they hear, but what happens if that evidence changes? The Birmingham 6 were convicted in part upon the basis of forensic evidence that was later discredited. More recently, Sally Clark was convicted on the basis of expert medical evidence that later proved to be not so expert. I’ve no doubt that they would have hung had the death penalty been available. In any event, the reality for Sally Clark was that being found guilty of murder killed her.

Brin mentioned forensic evidence, which generally turns up whenever this thread appears, but it can rarely, if ever, provide certainty. DNA evidence, for example, is subject to issues such as innocent transfer (we all leave our DNA wherever we go) and the outcome of DNA evidence is expressed in a statistical form, because the reality of even a high order match is that there may be several people in the country at any one time who could leave a particular DNA trace behind.

And forensic evidence is rarely going to help if the issue in a murder case is, say, whether the defendant was acting in reasonable self-defence

I wouldn’t even take a guilty plea as proof ‘beyond any doubt’; I have had several clients who have entered guilty pleas even though their instructions to me were that they were not guilty. Sometimes that would have been because they were guilty and didn’t know how, or were too proud, to change their instructions to me, but in others, I had little doubt that they were innocent, but entered a guilty plea because, for example, they couldn’t bear the prospect of having the case hanging over them for any longer.

[Stovicmiller]

Yorkshire ripper , Donald Neilson just to name a couple, no doubt they were guilty.

[Stansmate]

Hes ****in guilty too many you do gooders !