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

[KerrAvon]

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

The jury in the Peter Sutcliffe trial were unable to reach a unanimous verdict and he was convicted after a majority direction. In other words, at least one jury member who heard the evidence was not sure of his guilt.

[KerrAvon]

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

I don't think that anyone on this thread has suggested that he is innocent.

[CTMilller]

?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.

Like many others, I oscillate between the two poles of thought on this. Your professional comments are very helpful.

I was friendly at school with a girl who was the niece of Derek Bentley who was hanged in 1952 for a murder that he may well not have committed in the famous Bentley and Craig "Let him have it" case. I've always taken close interest in those proceedings as a result (and the jury's very debatable verdict) and this continues to inform my opinion of capital punishment.

On the other hand, I see Brin's point of view and wonder whether there is a case for it when there is incontrovertible proof (if such a thing can be arrived at.)

[Brin]

Like many others, I oscillate between the two poles of thought on this. Your professional comments are very helpful.

I was friendly at school with a girl who was the niece of Derek Bentley who was hanged in 1952 for a murder that he may well not have committed in the famous Bentley and Craig "Let him have it" case. I've always taken close interest in those proceedings as a result (and the jury's very debatable verdict) and this continues to inform my opinion of capital punishment.

On the other hand, I see Brin's point of view and wonder whether there is a case for it when there is incontrovertible proof (if such a thing can be arrived at.)

CTMilller, a well balanced view by yourself as always and maybe the point you raise on Clifford was what I was trying to get across where
incontrovertible proof stands 100% and my reasoning for him being removed from society.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

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

Yes that?s a factor but the bottom line is that the British legal system is so clumsy and flawed that errors can be made

[Brin]

Yes that?s a factor but the bottom line is that the British legal system is so clumsy and flawed that errors can be made

Grist the British legal system is so antiquated it requires a total strip down and reassessment for our modern day times so, the punishment fits the crime. This would of course probably take many many years until the old wigs all agreed.

[Brin]

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.

Ronners, I thought as much pal. Didn't think you were referring to the header.

On your point of criminals refusing to attend a sentencing, I'm sure I read quite recently a bill was either being discussed or had actually been passed where criminals had to attend their sentencing or would be physically taken to attend. Therefore I was surprised to read he wouldn't attend the Court. Can anyone shed any light on this?

[howdydoo]

The old 'they might be innocent' line comes out again and again.

How many innocent people are murdered by killers let out of prison who go and do it again? What about their right to life?

Far more than miscarriages of justice, I would think.

It wouldn't have to cost more. Convict and get the job done.

[Townerslovechild]

This man is pure evil,probably a pyschopath,and since the death penalty was no longer an option,there have many other people equally as evil,and everytime an awful case like this comes up,the option of "A life for a life" seems like a good idea to many people.
However as Kerr says,it only takes one person to be executed who was innocent,to make the whole argument to be pointless,and I`m sure over the last 60 years or so,if we did have the death penalty,many people would be now in the ground who shouldn`t be.
I would say that in cases like this,this monster should be made to have an awful existance for the rest of his life,maybe there should be special prison rules for these people,basically his life should be hell,that would be a more fitting punishment.

[millersrus]

The jury in the Peter Sutcliffe trial were unable to reach a unanimous verdict and he was convicted after a majority direction. In other words, at least one jury member who heard the evidence was not sure of his guilt.

The jury voted 10-2 on Sutcliffe, it was a vote on whether he was sane or not. Not whether he had done it or not.