[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I would build slendid new ampitheatres where convicted murders, terrorists, child-killers and cop-killers could be dressed and equipped in the style of gladiators and made to fight to the death.

Huge revenue could be raised from the cost of admission tickets to the public, which should be in line with say 'Front Row' seats to the theatre or major sporting venues, and also from the sale of food, drink, refreshments ice creams and souvenirs and novelties.

Before each show, the victmis families can address the killer with something along the lines of:

"My name is Maximum Decimated Citizen, loving father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life and the next."

It would save the Crown a fortune, make it a fortune and provide much needed entertaintment considering the peurile shet that's on the telly.

No????

Ok then - Anyone for tennis?

Yes make them play tennis but with hand grenades instead of tennis balls.

[Johnnyuk123]

If you really wanna make some money to give back to the families who have lost loved ones to these murderers then why not make a horror movie using them. A Saw type of horror. The dvd sales would be through the roof.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

If you really wanna make some money to give back to the families who have lost loved ones to these murderers then why not make a horror movie using them. A Saw type of horror. The dvd sales would be through the roof.

Snuff movies uh Johnny? Ammi would defo buy or rent a copy - She watches loads of movies.

[lime]

No No..I do not believe in executions....It irks me beyond belief that in 2016 their still some folk that thirst over wanting to witness the death of anonther....I come from a country where street justice is considered the way forward.,....no trial ..public executions is shocking but I think those who cry out for this must witness it some times

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by lime

No No..I do not believe in executions....It irks me beyond belief that in 2016 their still some folk that thirst over wanting to witness the death of anonther....I come from a country where street justice is considered the way forward.,....no trial ..public executions is shocking but I think those who cry out for this must witness it some times

I agree with this.
and to make it entertainment like some are suggesting here, would make us no better than the Saudis or Iranians who make executions a family day out.

We also have to remember that killers create many victims and that includes their own family members.

[Z]

I don't know, I just think the margin for error is not worth it - obviously if somebody is locked up for a crime they didn't commit they can never get the time back, but at least they're still alive and can work towards proving their innocence hopefully... I feel it's something we brush under the carpet in our past if people were given capital punishment and it then turns out they were innocent all along...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Z

I don't know, I just think the margin for error is not worth it - obviously if somebody is locked up for a crime they didn't commit they can never get the time back, but at least they're still alive and can work towards proving their innocence hopefully... I feel it's something we brush under the carpet in our past if people were given capital punishment and it then turns out they were innocent all along...

Yeah, I agree with this

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, I agree with this

I'm trying to put myself in the position of somebody who lost someone they love in some kind of horrible crime... a murder... and they're led to believe that Person X committed this horrible crime and they grow to hate this person and want them to suffer as much as their loved one did... and the state sentences them to death, they die, and you start to maybe move on a little bit/completely only to then find out that that person was innocent and it was actually Person Y who killed your loved one... and now you have the guilt of wanting Person X to die when they did nothing wrong and now do you wish the same on Person Y or do you think twice about wanting them to die because what if they didn't do it and it was actually a third person, Person Z? It's just such a grey area and I wonder if maybe you'd have those feelings of regret even if Person X was the real culprit, feeling guilty for wishing death on someone... does that make you any better than Person X? I don't know, I can certainly see the arguments for capital punishment and think a lot of them are valid, but it's just not worth it for the small chance they've got it wrong.

[lostalex]

We all agree the justice system is ****ed up....

but what if it was a 100% certainty that the person was guilty of the worst crimes, like rape, torture, murder.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

We all agree the justice system is ****ed up....

but what if it was a 100% certainty that the person was guilty of the worst crimes, like rape, torture, murder.

What's 100% though? It wouldn't work because you'd have to draw up some sort of guidlines of what is and what is not 100% and if something is not 100% shouldn't that be reasonable doubt and they shouldn't be in jail in the first place?

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

We all agree the justice system is ****ed up....

but what if it was a 100% certainty that the person was guilty of the worst crimes, like rape, torture, murder.

But a lot of the time it's not a 100% certainty, it's only the most serious of crimes that get a proper analysis and even then you're relying on teams of lawyers trying to convince an impartial group of people to believe their argument - human error is always going to be a factor and I just don't feel confident that any trial can 100% prove someone's innocence or guilt - it's all based on arguing a point of view that a jury of people of different backgrounds, beliefs and abilities can most easily digest and come to a consensus on - if you have somebody accused of rape, that really is just somebody's word against somebody else's so the lawyers are trying to set up the scene around those words and make you not believe the accused/not believe the accuser... Certainly in murder trials there's forensic evidence but that's not fool proof either and how many stories have we heard of people being put away for crimes they didn't commit even now?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

But a lot of the time it's not a 100% certainty, it's only the most serious of crimes that get a proper analysis and even then you're relying on teams of lawyers trying to convince an impartial group of people to believe their argument - human error is always going to be a factor and I just don't feel confident that any trial can 100% prove someone's innocence or guilt - it's all based on arguing a point of view that a jury of people of different backgrounds, beliefs and abilities can most easily digest and come to a consensus on - if you have somebody accused of rape, that really is just somebody's word against somebody else's so the lawyers are trying to set up the scene around those words and make you not believe the accused/not believe the accuser... Certainly in murder trials there's forensic evidence but that's not fool proof either and how many stories have we heard of people being put away for crimes they didn't commit even now?

i'm talking about a hypothetical though, the poll says if you knew 100% they were guilty of the worst crimes...

you aren't reading the poll correctly.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

i'm talking about a hypothetical though, the poll says if you knew 100% they were guilty of the worst crimes...

you aren't reading the poll correctly.

I haven't read the poll lol, my bad. I can't imagine a scenario where somebody's guilt is 100% proven, I don't think I can get past that to answer the poll question to be completely honest. Evidence can be faked. Testimonies can be confused, they can be downright lies, they can be full of mistakes. Trials rest entirely upon strong arguments and the people that are chosen to be in the jury, that's all. Juries can be influenced or blackmailed. The whole system is susceptible to human error and while I do believe in it and think that it's overall a force for the greater good, I don't know if I totally trust it.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

I haven't read the poll lol, my bad. I can't imagine a scenario where somebody's guilt is 100% proven, I don't think I can get past that to answer the poll question to be completely honest. Evidence can be faked. Testimonies can be confused, they can be downright lies, they can be full of mistakes. Trials rest entirely upon strong arguments and the people that are chosen to be in the jury, that's all. Juries can be influenced or blackmailed. The whole system is susceptible to human error and while I do believe in it and think that it's overall a force for the greater good, I don't know if I totally trust it.

pretend we could resurrect the dead, they could testify in court as ghosts and point to exactly who murdered them.

or maybe a more realistic scenario, we could analyze brain matter, and see people's memories after they die. they have a way to analyze people's brains in an autopsy and we could see their exact memories and everything in their brains.

[Ninastar]

When I say '100% guilty' I mean when there has been countless witnesses who have seen the crimes, the person has admitted they are guilty, fingerprints on weapons, camera/video evidence etc etc

There would have to be concrete evidence... otherwise I wouldn't make this thread/poll lol. There's no way I'd make a thread about this and mean that someone might not be guilty. Sorry, I should have made it clearer lol.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Chaos

When I say '100% guilty' I mean when there has been countless witnesses who have seen the crimes, the person has admitted they are guilty, fingerprints on weapons, camera/video evidence etc etc

There would have to be concrete evidence... otherwise I wouldn't make this thread/poll lol. There's no way I'd make a thread about this and mean that someone might not be guilty. Sorry, I should have made it clearer lol.

..you need to watch The Making of a Murderer, Caitlin....

[Ninastar]

Yeah, I do... But I've also seen reports of his now ex-wife saying that he's not innocent. I definitely want to watch this though.

Were his fingerprints found on weapons and stuff? Did he admit to being 'guilty'?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Yeah, I do... But I've also seen reports of his now ex-wife saying that he's not innocent. I definitely want to watch this though.

Were his fingerprints found on weapons and stuff? Did he admit to being 'guilty'?

Spoiler:

No and no. Evidence is quite dodgy but you'd have to watch it

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

No and no. Evidence is quite dodgy but you'd have to watch it

Yeah, I will do. I just meant in my OP that before being subject to death penalty, there would have to be 100% evidence (with all the examples i posted) before any decisions were made. If there was uncertainty/the person still said they weren't guilty, I wouldn't wish for them to be sent to death row.

When I made the thread, I pictured a case I think I saw on youtube, where I saw this man happily admit had had made countless murders and even admitted to commit more if he ever got out. It was bizarre and a little scary to watch. Thats the type of person I'm talking about when I made this thread. Sorry for any confusion guys, I just thought that when I said '100% guilty' people would think along the same lines.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Yeah, I do... But I've also seen reports of his now ex-wife saying that he's not innocent. I definitely want to watch this though.

Were his fingerprints found on weapons and stuff? Did he admit to being 'guilty'?

....it's far too complicated for any of those answers but it will make you think about '100%' in terms of the death penalty and how sure any of us can be to think that it would be a thing to have...

[TomC]

No because I think life imprisonment is a worse punishment than to die anyway.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by TomC

No because I think life imprisonment is a worse punishment than to die anyway.

I agree but then life should mean life in prison and not partly in prison and partly on parole. The killers of Lee Rigby can be out on parole in 45 years and that means one of them will likely get parole when he's 63... that is just wrong

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I agree but then life should mean life in prison and not partly in prison and partly on parole. The killers of Lee Rigby can be out on parole in 45 years and that means one of them will likely get parole when he's 63... that is just wrong

I also totally agree with this. I find the jail sentences in this country pretty lenient. I believe life should mean life.

[Ammi]

..I guess that another 'against' example would be right now and the family from Leeds, Geraldine Newman and her two children, Shannon and Shane being brutally murdered with a hammer...and now in Wales, possibly her ex husband committing suicide..?..so he's taken the 'coward's way' and not going to have to face what he's done, what would a trial and then the death penalty have achieved there, all it would mean is that he would have had to go through a trial and then be given exactly what he wanted in the first place/death...why should someone be given that/let them live many years and every day, face what they have done...

[joeysteele]

An example of 100% certain case was the murder of Lee Rigby, the guy was talking about why he had done it with Lee's blood on his knife.
A woman had even gone to try to reason with him as to why.

No doubt there at all in that one as to the murder of Lee and who had carried it out too.

That kind of certainty would have to be the criteria for any death penalty and they would probably be very few and far between.
There however was a 100% certainty as to a murder and murderer.