Theres a little fucker update .
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Theres a little fucker update .
Next: 2 kids, 1 pup
From: Kevin Gleeson on 15 Apr 2010 09:08 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:56:05 +0100, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Thomas <keensurf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 14, 10:12 am, "Hog" <sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>> It doesn't have to be expensive, the Yanks only choose to make it so. >> >> Oh yeah. But considering that so many have been wrongly sent to death >> row, I'm more in favor of life without parole than the death penalty. >> It's tough to reconcile executing an innocent person. > >I think a post sentence review panel would work. A trial concludes on the >balance of evidence and "reasonable doubt". A death sentence can be handed >down. A review panel can then decide if the combined evidence was absolute >or contained doubt. If not absolute then suspend unless reviewed on new >evidence. Chances of executing the innocent under an arrangement like that >is very slight. Yeah, but that depends on the evidence which can be flawed no matter how many ways you examine it. Would you like to be on the "very slight" end of the argument? Kev
From: 'Hog on 15 Apr 2010 09:14 Kevin Gleeson wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:56:05 +0100, "Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Thomas <keensurf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 14, 10:12 am, "Hog" <sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> It doesn't have to be expensive, the Yanks only choose to make it >>>> so. >>> >>> Oh yeah. But considering that so many have been wrongly sent to >>> death row, I'm more in favor of life without parole than the death >>> penalty. It's tough to reconcile executing an innocent person. >> >> I think a post sentence review panel would work. A trial concludes >> on the balance of evidence and "reasonable doubt". A death sentence >> can be handed down. A review panel can then decide if the combined >> evidence was absolute or contained doubt. If not absolute then >> suspend unless reviewed on new evidence. Chances of executing the >> innocent under an arrangement like that is very slight. > > Yeah, but that depends on the evidence which can be flawed no matter > how many ways you examine it. > Would you like to be on the "very slight" end of the argument? I think a professional review panel can evaluate all of those things, moving from Reasonable Doubt to Any Doubt. Erring on the side of caution. -- Hog
From: The village previously known as Charlie on 15 Apr 2010 09:32 On 15/04/2010 14:14, 'Hog wrote: > Kevin Gleeson wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:56:05 +0100, "Hog" >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Thomas<keensurf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Apr 14, 10:12 am, "Hog"<sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> It doesn't have to be expensive, the Yanks only choose to make it >>>>> so. >>>> >>>> Oh yeah. But considering that so many have been wrongly sent to >>>> death row, I'm more in favor of life without parole than the death >>>> penalty. It's tough to reconcile executing an innocent person. >>> >>> I think a post sentence review panel would work. A trial concludes >>> on the balance of evidence and "reasonable doubt". A death sentence >>> can be handed down. A review panel can then decide if the combined >>> evidence was absolute or contained doubt. If not absolute then >>> suspend unless reviewed on new evidence. Chances of executing the >>> innocent under an arrangement like that is very slight. >> >> Yeah, but that depends on the evidence which can be flawed no matter >> how many ways you examine it. >> Would you like to be on the "very slight" end of the argument? > > I think a professional review panel can evaluate all of those things, moving > from Reasonable Doubt to Any Doubt. Erring on the side of caution. FWIW, I am vehemently against an imposed death penalty. There have been just too many examples of miscarriages of justice and belated exoneration of the innocent. What should be available, however, is a procedure under which the guilty could themselves opt for judicial execution. This could be for one of a handful of reasons. It could be in expiation of the crime and to provide the bereaved with 'comfort', or it could simply be that someone looking at a full-life tariff might prefer not to spend 30/40/50 years in prison with absolutely no prospect of release. Perversely, it might be seen as a humane option to allow them to opt out of a life behind bars. It would make eminently good economic sense for the state, too! There would have to be safeguards to protect the mentally incaapable, but I think it could be made to work. I wonder where the bereaved would then stand. Would they take the view that they were getting the satisfaction of a life for a life, or would they condemn the deal as the prisoner taking the easy option?
From: 'Hog on 15 Apr 2010 09:46 The village previously known as Charlie wrote: > On 15/04/2010 14:14, 'Hog wrote: >> Kevin Gleeson wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:56:05 +0100, "Hog" >>> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Thomas<keensurf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Apr 14, 10:12 am, "Hog"<sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> It doesn't have to be expensive, the Yanks only choose to make it >>>>>> so. >>>>> >>>>> Oh yeah. But considering that so many have been wrongly sent to >>>>> death row, I'm more in favor of life without parole than the death >>>>> penalty. It's tough to reconcile executing an innocent person. >>>> >>>> I think a post sentence review panel would work. A trial concludes >>>> on the balance of evidence and "reasonable doubt". A death sentence >>>> can be handed down. A review panel can then decide if the combined >>>> evidence was absolute or contained doubt. If not absolute then >>>> suspend unless reviewed on new evidence. Chances of executing the >>>> innocent under an arrangement like that is very slight. >>> >>> Yeah, but that depends on the evidence which can be flawed no matter >>> how many ways you examine it. >>> Would you like to be on the "very slight" end of the argument? >> >> I think a professional review panel can evaluate all of those >> things, moving from Reasonable Doubt to Any Doubt. Erring on the >> side of caution. > > FWIW, I am vehemently against an imposed death penalty. There have > been just too many examples of miscarriages of justice and belated Which is what I said seeks to address. Just because a system is broken doesn't mean you can't fix it. I'd be the first to agree that the Merkin system is broken. What about the Chinese system, I wonder how that works. > exoneration of the innocent. What should be available, however, is a > procedure under which the guilty could themselves opt for judicial > execution. > > This could be for one of a handful of reasons. It could be in > expiation of the crime and to provide the bereaved with 'comfort', or > it could simply be that someone looking at a full-life tariff might > prefer not to spend 30/40/50 years in prison with absolutely no > prospect of release. Perversely, it might be seen as a humane option > to allow them to opt out of a life behind bars. It would make > eminently good economic sense for the state, too! > > There would have to be safeguards to protect the mentally incaapable, > but I think it could be made to work. I wonder where the bereaved > would then stand. Would they take the view that they were getting the > satisfaction of a life for a life, or would they condemn the deal as > the prisoner taking the easy option? It's called suicide. I'm not aware of any means short of a rubber cell to stop you doing so if you decide it's right for you. -- Hog
From: The village previously known as Charlie on 15 Apr 2010 09:53
On 15/04/2010 14:46, 'Hog wrote: > The village previously known as Charlie wrote: >> On 15/04/2010 14:14, 'Hog wrote: >>> Kevin Gleeson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:56:05 +0100, "Hog" >>>> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thomas<keensurf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Apr 14, 10:12 am, "Hog"<sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't have to be expensive, the Yanks only choose to make it >>>>>>> so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh yeah. But considering that so many have been wrongly sent to >>>>>> death row, I'm more in favor of life without parole than the death >>>>>> penalty. It's tough to reconcile executing an innocent person. >>>>> >>>>> I think a post sentence review panel would work. A trial concludes >>>>> on the balance of evidence and "reasonable doubt". A death sentence >>>>> can be handed down. A review panel can then decide if the combined >>>>> evidence was absolute or contained doubt. If not absolute then >>>>> suspend unless reviewed on new evidence. Chances of executing the >>>>> innocent under an arrangement like that is very slight. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but that depends on the evidence which can be flawed no matter >>>> how many ways you examine it. >>>> Would you like to be on the "very slight" end of the argument? >>> >>> I think a professional review panel can evaluate all of those >>> things, moving from Reasonable Doubt to Any Doubt. Erring on the >>> side of caution. >> >> FWIW, I am vehemently against an imposed death penalty. There have >> been just too many examples of miscarriages of justice and belated > > Which is what I said seeks to address. Just because a system is broken > doesn't mean you can't fix it. I'd be the first to agree that the Merkin > system is broken. > > What about the Chinese system, I wonder how that works. > >> exoneration of the innocent. What should be available, however, is a >> procedure under which the guilty could themselves opt for judicial >> execution. >> >> This could be for one of a handful of reasons. It could be in >> expiation of the crime and to provide the bereaved with 'comfort', or >> it could simply be that someone looking at a full-life tariff might >> prefer not to spend 30/40/50 years in prison with absolutely no >> prospect of release. Perversely, it might be seen as a humane option >> to allow them to opt out of a life behind bars. It would make >> eminently good economic sense for the state, too! >> >> There would have to be safeguards to protect the mentally incaapable, >> but I think it could be made to work. I wonder where the bereaved >> would then stand. Would they take the view that they were getting the >> satisfaction of a life for a life, or would they condemn the deal as >> the prisoner taking the easy option? > > It's called suicide. I'm not aware of any means short of a rubber cell to > stop you doing so if you decide it's right for you. That's awfully imprecise and messy, though; painful, an' all. To formalise it into an elective death sentence would allow the guilty some dignity in his choice, and would give the bereaved the 'closure' that people bang on about. I don't see it giving me any satisfaction, if one of mine had been killed, but it appears to work for some folk. |