Skull found on the Moors
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I hope it is Keith, for obvious reasons. I just find it odd that an author can find something Police couldn't find in 60 years.
If it turns out a publicity stunt for his book............I pray not
If it turns out a publicity stunt for his book............I pray not
This user liked this post: Juan Tanamera
-
- Posts: 4394
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1156 times
- Has Liked: 1282 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
It certainly does not stop reoffending on many levels..
- Many of the crimes above were committed and repeating when there was a death penalty in the UK.
- There is no guarantee, especially when looking at history, that the right people are convicted and subsequently executed.
- Once a murder has been committed there is no repellent to stop repeating murders - you can only be executed once.
- Comparisons with other countries that use the death penalty, example USA, show that this does not deter those type of people from committing murders.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Is that true? which countries are you using to prove this?Roosterbooster wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:50 pmTotally untrue
Murder rates decline when the death penalty is abolished
Countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates
-
- Posts: 14562
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
It's hard to tell in the UK because they've changed the way various deaths are recorded/measured.
For example when he was caught in 2002, Harold Shipman is known to have murdered close to 200 people and they're all recorded as individual murders in the statistics.
In 1997 they would've been recorded as single statistic.
https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-ra ... abolished/
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Aye, just like in America, eh! The solution to all crimes is capital punishment! What a way move forward that is for the 21st century!! What should it be? a referendum, a national vote? or just a select few ala Kangaroo court style? or just public jury?Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:52 pmNo wind up at all it's the way forward I believe, the public should have the choice in serious cases such as murder, put it this way you would soon see a drop in people getting murdered if we reintroduced capital punishment it's the biggest deterrent out there.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Every single convict put to death is an admission that the punishment is not a deterrent.
The execution of the punishment contradicts the argument made in favour of the punishment itself. Were the death penalty truly a deterrent, no person would be put to death, for no person desiring to live would commit a crime punishable by death.
For a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime punishable by death, which is to say, for a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime for which the punishment by definition did not act as a deterrent, either because of a lack of concern for their own mortal existence (in which case, owing to a lack of concern for their own existence, death did not deter them), through ignorance of the law (in which case, owing to their ignorance of the punishment, the punishment of death could not act as a deterrent), or through criminal conceit — the belief they would not be caught (in which case, owing to their conceit, they acted in a way undeterred by the punishment of death).
The execution of the punishment contradicts the argument made in favour of the punishment itself. Were the death penalty truly a deterrent, no person would be put to death, for no person desiring to live would commit a crime punishable by death.
For a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime punishable by death, which is to say, for a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime for which the punishment by definition did not act as a deterrent, either because of a lack of concern for their own mortal existence (in which case, owing to a lack of concern for their own existence, death did not deter them), through ignorance of the law (in which case, owing to their ignorance of the punishment, the punishment of death could not act as a deterrent), or through criminal conceit — the belief they would not be caught (in which case, owing to their conceit, they acted in a way undeterred by the punishment of death).
Re: Skull found on the Moors
The criminal drug dealers act as judge,jury and executioner, criminals dispatching instant justice if someone crosses them knowing the culprit is finished as a threat, yet we give these same people the human rights act, barristers on tax payers expenses and cushy cells and freedom in say 15 years.
This user liked this post: Jakubclaret
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Human rights and criminal defence lawyers protect the innocent from being mistreated, wrongly accused and subject to miscarriages of justice. Rights protect you from false accusations, from the potential corruption of police; rights protect you from becoming the career or still more frightening, political expedient of someone who sees your arrest as useful to them, regardless of your guilt or innocence. The "collateral damage" (so to speak) of these rights is that your primitive bloodthirst goes unsatiated — the police can't knock seven shades of $hit out of the people they arrest, judges can't imprison people without a balanced and thorough and rigorous process being followed. Should barristers only be provided to those who can afford them? Think of the implications of this. This is the "justice" found in antiquity, which is not justice at all.bfcjg wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:38 pmThe criminal drug dealers act as judge,jury and executioner, criminals dispatching instant justice if someone crosses them knowing the culprit is finished as a threat, yet we give these same people the human rights act, barristers on tax payers expenses and cushy cells and freedom in say 15 years.
These 2 users liked this post: longsidepies Duffer_
Re: Skull found on the Moors
So no current punishment deters crime. Else no crime would ever be committed. So is the answer to have no consequences for crimes?Spiral wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:38 pmEvery single convict put to death is an admission that the punishment is not a deterrent.
The execution of the punishment contradicts the argument made in favour of the punishment itself. Were the death penalty truly a deterrent, no person would be put to death, for no person desiring to live would commit a crime punishable by death.
For a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime punishable by death, which is to say, for a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime for which the punishment by definition did not act as a deterrent, either because of a lack of concern for their own mortal existence (in which case, owing to a lack of concern for their own existence, death did not deter them), through ignorance of the law (in which case, owing to their ignorance of the punishment, the punishment of death could not act as a deterrent), or through criminal conceit — the belief they would not be caught (in which case, owing to their conceit, they acted in a way undeterred by the punishment of death).
Re: Skull found on the Moors
So what is the appropriate sentence for someone that has deliberately fked up the countries economy?bfcjg wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:07 pmhttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/r ... d-28123342
Should evil people be punished, severely punished as a proper deterrent, either by a full term sentence with such harsh conditions suicide is a better option, or the death penalty, or as the liberals want to enhance their oh so wonderful conscience a prison regime so comfortable that relationships can be started, video games can be enjoyed,gym,games etc whilst their victims rot in the ground and their relatives get a full term life sentence of grief.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I'm attempting to frustrate the argument being made that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, not that punishment of any kind acts as a deterrent. My argument is that in the case of anyone for whom not even the gravest and most final punishment acts as a deterrent, no supposed deterrent will ever deter them from the crime.
The justification for the punishment of a crime is not that it deters, but that it is just. This pessimistic Hobbesian view of humanity as being malevolent and savage, as requiring laws to temper and moderate behaviour and to bind all humans, this view is defied by most interpersonal relationships, by most of the human interactions you'll ever have; it defies anthropology which understands human beings as being social creatures. The pursuit of justice is itself a social endeavour which implies the good nature of human beings, for it is only those who transgress socially accepted codes of behaviour whom it attempts to bind.
So, do well-behaved people need to be deterred from crime? Are they well-behaved because of law, or is good, social behaviour innate in most people? And in those who do not or cannot behave socially, their transgressions of the standards of behaviour we consider to be good — their criminality — in their act of criminality, by definition they are not deterred by punishment, yet a punishment remains just, you must agree? So we must punish the guilty in the name of justice. The question then becomes one about the conditions under which killing someone is just. One alternative to killing the guilty is incarceration. So, owing to the finality of the option: 'killing', when the choice is between incarceration and killing, a powerful and logically sound argument must be made — importantly, one that considers the possibility of miscarriages of justice — that killing is more just than incarceration.
-
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:03 pm
- Been Liked: 287 times
- Has Liked: 407 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I grew up in the 1960's hearing about this tragic case perpertrated by 2 evil people. RIP Keith.
As a side note my mother in law worked in a factory in Gorton when she was about 17. She left work one evening and her workmate offered a lift home with her sister and boyfriend who picked them up in their van. It was only later that she realised that the driver of the van was Ian Brady and her workmate's sister was Myra Hindley. Chilling to hear her tell this tale.
As a side note my mother in law worked in a factory in Gorton when she was about 17. She left work one evening and her workmate offered a lift home with her sister and boyfriend who picked them up in their van. It was only later that she realised that the driver of the van was Ian Brady and her workmate's sister was Myra Hindley. Chilling to hear her tell this tale.
This user liked this post: jen1066
Re: Skull found on the Moors
If you say so, try sitting in room whose children have been slaughtered by people who get off with proper punish claiming human rights and the right to family life etc. However your sort will bend over backwards and kiss the human rights act ar&e as it is the embodiment of your oh so wonderful conscience and opportunity to cash in.Spiral wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:52 pmHuman rights and criminal defence lawyers protect the innocent from being mistreated, wrongly accused and subject to miscarriages of justice. Rights protect you from false accusations, from the potential corruption of police; rights protect you from becoming the career or still more frightening, political expedient of someone who sees your arrest as useful to them, regardless of your guilt or innocence. The "collateral damage" (so to speak) of these rights is that your primitive bloodthirst goes unsatiated — the police can't knock seven shades of $hit out of the people they arrest, judges can't imprison people without a balanced and thorough and rigorous process being followed. Should barristers only be provided to those who can afford them? Think of the implications of this. This is the "justice" found in antiquity, which is not justice at all.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I'm really struggling to understand what point you're trying to make. It sounds like there is a war going on inside your head.bfcjg wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:19 amIf you say so, try sitting in room whose children have been slaughtered by people who get off with proper punish claiming human rights and the right to family life etc. However your sort will bend over backwards and kiss the human rights act ar&e as it is the embodiment of your oh so wonderful conscience and opportunity to cash in.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Okay I've re-read what you scribbled, bfcjg, and I'll try to respond based on what I think you're saying. I don't expect you to read closely what I say, even though I've chosen every word carefully, so this is for the benefit of anyone interested in following this discourse.
Thought experiment, totally hypothetical: I rouse a rabble and make an accusation against you, bfcjg, that you murdered those (again, hypothetical) children. You have few, or no human rights protecting you, the so-called justice system is vengeful and retributive, you have no legal team defending you, helping you navigate what is left of the justice system you've decimated in the name of giving the condemned a good thrashing, because in your utopia defence lawyers are no more. Child murderer: would you take this charge with grace? "Oh no, not me, I'm innocent." You're condemned to be put in a room with the families of the victims of the crime you've been found guilty of. My point of contention: You're brazenly assuming they'll be equally as retributive and violent as you are in these fantasies of yours, and this says a lot about you and your violent fantasies, but I'll sustain that belief for the purpose of this argument. They're given permission to bludgeon you to death. Is this just? Did the families get justice? Did you face justice? Was society improved by this process of criminal justice? There are no criminal defence lawyers in this utopia of yours, so you're quite on your own, it appears. It seems as though there's no opportunity for appeal, because that was sacrificed in the name of your utopia. You have few-to-no rights, and anyone can make an accusation and rally a mob, perhaps even bribe the police, and because the system is weak and does not protect the wrongly accused the trial is a sham, swift, slapdash, and you suffer its consequences. Is this the world you want? Is this a price worth paying for the momentary satisfaction of reading about a bad person being hanged?
Thought experiment, totally hypothetical: I rouse a rabble and make an accusation against you, bfcjg, that you murdered those (again, hypothetical) children. You have few, or no human rights protecting you, the so-called justice system is vengeful and retributive, you have no legal team defending you, helping you navigate what is left of the justice system you've decimated in the name of giving the condemned a good thrashing, because in your utopia defence lawyers are no more. Child murderer: would you take this charge with grace? "Oh no, not me, I'm innocent." You're condemned to be put in a room with the families of the victims of the crime you've been found guilty of. My point of contention: You're brazenly assuming they'll be equally as retributive and violent as you are in these fantasies of yours, and this says a lot about you and your violent fantasies, but I'll sustain that belief for the purpose of this argument. They're given permission to bludgeon you to death. Is this just? Did the families get justice? Did you face justice? Was society improved by this process of criminal justice? There are no criminal defence lawyers in this utopia of yours, so you're quite on your own, it appears. It seems as though there's no opportunity for appeal, because that was sacrificed in the name of your utopia. You have few-to-no rights, and anyone can make an accusation and rally a mob, perhaps even bribe the police, and because the system is weak and does not protect the wrongly accused the trial is a sham, swift, slapdash, and you suffer its consequences. Is this the world you want? Is this a price worth paying for the momentary satisfaction of reading about a bad person being hanged?
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Final point: I cannot help but feel as though many people's insistence on handing out more severe punishments to the guilty fundamentally comes from a place of absolute confidence and certainty in the verdict, from a position of having an incredibly high level of trust in the verdicts of a justice system that they ironically perceive to be sluggish and 'soft', all without recognising that their absolute trust in the verdict is in fact a consequence of the rigour within the system they so loathe. The rights that protect the innocent exist to ensure the guilty are found. Those rights make for a rigorous system that aspires to more accurate results. Without this rigour there can be no faith in the verdict. You owe the sense of certainty you have in a verdict to these very rights.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Essentially any criminal - whether a murderer or a driver on his mobile phone - has internally assessed the penalty for doing the crime against the risk of getting caught, and decided to go ahead anyway.Spiral wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:38 pmEvery single convict put to death is an admission that the punishment is not a deterrent.
The execution of the punishment contradicts the argument made in favour of the punishment itself. Were the death penalty truly a deterrent, no person would be put to death, for no person desiring to live would commit a crime punishable by death.
For a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime punishable by death, which is to say, for a convict to be put to death, they must first commit (and be found guilty of) a crime for which the punishment by definition did not act as a deterrent, either because of a lack of concern for their own mortal existence (in which case, owing to a lack of concern for their own existence, death did not deter them), through ignorance of the law (in which case, owing to their ignorance of the punishment, the punishment of death could not act as a deterrent), or through criminal conceit — the belief they would not be caught (in which case, owing to their conceit, they acted in a way undeterred by the punishment of death).
The problem with your argument is that you're assuming a deterrent must be 100% successful, or it isn't a deterrent. Not correct. It's the other way round, in fact - if only one person changes his mind about committing murder because he fears the death penalty, then the deterrent has worked in a very small way. By all means argue that it's not an effective deterrent, or not a just punishment, but it certainly is a deterrent to some degree.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
This is essentially what I was talking about when referring to criminal conceit.
That's somewhat of a misreading of the point I'm developing over this thread. I'll elaborate. But for a start, I see the goalposts have been moved from "it is a deterrent", to "it is a deterrent to some degree". This is what I hoped to achieve, to frustrate the argument. It might be practical to say, "well some are deterred from criminality by the punishment", but the important point I wish to make is, if I could direct you to my follow up post, that deterrence isn't the justification for punishment: the justification for a punishment is that the punishment is just and necessary to the fulfilling of justice. It is the carrying out of the punishment that fulfils justice and thinking on this matter should revolve around whether the punishment is just. Its deterring qualities are incidental.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:05 amThe problem with your argument is that you're assuming a deterrent must be 100% successful, or it isn't a deterrent. Not correct. It's the other way round, in fact - if only one person changes his mind about committing murder because he fears the death penalty, then the deterrent has worked in a very small way. By all means argue that it's not an effective deterrent, or not a just punishment, but it certainly is a deterrent to some degree.
Consider this: we could theoretically deter people from littering by making it punishable by death, but the idea that arises in your mind at this provocation is that such a punishment is unjust. You might consciously make a case for punishment-as-deterrence when it is convenient for you to do so, but the moment you're confronted with an unjust punishment such as above you admit to the carrying out of the punishment being of primary concern, in this case, in an excessive and unjust fashion. Would the death penalty be justified for littering if it deterred some, if not all from littering? Assuming you're sane, we both know the answer. So again, the deterring qualities of a punishment are subordinate (if they exist) to the reason punishment exists at all: the proportionate fulfilling of justice.
So, it is the fulfilling of justice that takes precedence over the deterring qualities of a punishment; this is my main concern, and it is along these lines, through this prism, not deterrence, but justice, that punishment is determined. I wish to dissolve this thinking around deterrence because it is flawed. As you say yourself, deterrence is not entirely effective. It's unreliable. I'm not arguing, as you represent me of doing, that a deterrent must be 100% successful to have value, I'm going beyond this by arguing that if the entire framing of punishment based on the concept of deterrence is muddled and bordering on ad-hoc, then we have a flawed and borderline ad-hoc conception of justice, and it is for this reason that the deterring qualities of a punishment are a flimsy justification for its existence. A punishment has a much firmer footing in its capacity to fulfil justice. And from this point we consider, "what is just?"
-
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2274 times
- Has Liked: 2153 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
The one I’ve never been able to get my head around is ‘murder is terrible and you shouldn’t do it, so your punishment should be murder’Spiral wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:30 pmAnyone who thinks a serial killers get PS5s in their cell has had their brain rotted away by tabloids. Every prison has its own guidelines on what privileges a prisoner is allowed (presumably with those housing the most dangerous inmates, on the most severe regimes, having the severest rules), and in any case, such privileges need to be earned, and then only paid for with money earned by the prisoner working in the prison, either in workshops or around the prison itself, where they are paid a few pounds a week, and the amount they can spend per week capped at something like a tenner. An internet connection is also strictly forbidden, ruling out modern consoles. Gym access ostensibly keeps prisoners healthy; this ostensibly reduces medical costs. I fail to see how this is a problem.
Almost every tabloid claim is refutable, but that fact won't change the mind of the bloodthirsty cowards who think a more barbaric justice system brings security to their life. These people are led by fear, not reason.
Strange way of thinking
-
- Posts: 2109
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 134 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I’m a defence lawyer and I can tell you from years of experience that the sheer threat of punishment is not nearly enough to ensure the smooth functioning of a law-abiding society. The majority of criminals I deal with on a daily basis aren't the sort to stop and weigh the consequences of their actions.
-
- Posts: 9247
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4069 times
- Has Liked: 6535 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Skull found on the Moors
So PPP, how do you manage to offer them a skilled and effective defence? You must KNOW when talking to them that they are ‘bang to rights’? You must be privy to all the evidence, the recordings from interviews, the cctv footage, everything that the CPS has reviewed before deciding whether to prosecute.
I have often wondered where the line is between ensuring someone isn’t being “fitted up” and ensuring justice is done. I’m assuming that you can refuse to defend someone you know for a fact is 100% guilty? If so, does that happen? Genuinely interested in knowing why a person who is so obviously guilty gets any defence at all…. (Other than a ‘civilised’ society being able to see that a proper process was followed)
I have often wondered where the line is between ensuring someone isn’t being “fitted up” and ensuring justice is done. I’m assuming that you can refuse to defend someone you know for a fact is 100% guilty? If so, does that happen? Genuinely interested in knowing why a person who is so obviously guilty gets any defence at all…. (Other than a ‘civilised’ society being able to see that a proper process was followed)
Re: Skull found on the Moors
For me if you commit a murder, of nothing else the murder of a child, you should be put to death yourself. Not by way of deterring anyone from committing such a crime; it won't deter them sadly.
However I see it as a simple resolution, to me there is no point in a murderer being kept in a prison, costing us a fortune, where they have the 'luxury' of TVs, games consoles, mobile phones, gym, library etc and are given opportunity to train and learn and better themselves, something that their victims will never have the luxury of doing.
However I see it as a simple resolution, to me there is no point in a murderer being kept in a prison, costing us a fortune, where they have the 'luxury' of TVs, games consoles, mobile phones, gym, library etc and are given opportunity to train and learn and better themselves, something that their victims will never have the luxury of doing.
This user liked this post: Jakubclaret
-
- Posts: 5756
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1746 times
- Has Liked: 344 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I think I’d be more likely to commit horrible crimes of they was a death penalty. At least that way I’d get an easy out. Though even by American standards, at my age, I’d probably die in prison before my execution.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
FFS can't you just stick to the subject. Let's hope it is the poor lad's remains. Full stop.
These 5 users liked this post: jen1066 Juan Tanamera Quickenthetempo tiger76 groove
-
- Posts: 2582
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 688 times
- Has Liked: 361 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Bulgaria, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Estonia, SA, Latvia, Ukraine, Albania: Murder rates decline (sometimes not immediately) after the death penalty is abolished
State-level data in the United States repeatedly shows lower murder rates in states that do not have the death penalty than in states that do
- Attachments
-
- Murder rate after abolition of death penalty
- InternationalAbolition.png (144.5 KiB) Viewed 1379 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Well if they admit to you that they are guilty you can't act if they plead not guilty. They have to get someone else to act.bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:47 amSo PPP, how do you manage to offer them a skilled and effective defence? You must KNOW when talking to them that they are ‘bang to rights’? You must be privy to all the evidence, the recordings from interviews, the cctv footage, everything that the CPS has reviewed before deciding whether to prosecute.
I have often wondered where the line is between ensuring someone isn’t being “fitted up” and ensuring justice is done. I’m assuming that you can refuse to defend someone you know for a fact is 100% guilty? If so, does that happen? Genuinely interested in knowing why a person who is so obviously guilty gets any defence at all…. (Other than a ‘civilised’ society being able to see that a proper process was followed)
There's a huge difference between thinking somebody is guilty and knowing that they are actually guilty. We all know of cases where people that aren't guilty admit guilt when they aren't, or admit guilt under duress. Frequently they get accused of an offence, but while they are guilty of something, it is not what the offence that they are actually charged with.
I had one instance years ago where the police put somebody into custody overnight for gbh. He used the "it was my twin brother" excuse. Only, when they got around to telling the person that was beaten up that they had caught him, the victim told the police that, yes, he did have an identical twin and they had picked up the wrong one. That sounds stupid, but why would the police ask if the perpetrator had a twin brother, and why would the victim tell the police that unless they asked?
Anyhow, if you have ever been on a jury, you would realise that the system is more than a bit flawed. The likes of ppp should not be allowed to sit on a jury. Until about 15-20 years ago, he and I were banned from doing it. My jury experience showed me that I could have just as easily got the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict as a guilty verdict had I chosen to do that, given the nature of the case. For instance, I knew that defendant A had no previous convictions without that being part of the evidence because of the way that the trial was conducted. Was I supposed to know that? Should I have told the other 11 that and how I knew?
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I'm struggling to find the words to say what I feel about posters hijacking a thread like this so they can tell everyone about how much they'd love it if the state started killing criminals
I mean, you wonder why you get banned?
JFW
I mean, you wonder why you get banned?
JFW
This user liked this post: Juan Tanamera
Re: Skull found on the Moors
It may be that if you charted the number of manslaughter convictions in those countries you would see the line going in the opposite direction. Seems to be a trend for accepting a guilty plea of manslaughter rather than pursuing a charge of murder. I can see no logical reason why removing the death penalty should reduce the number of murders. Look at London, Liverpool, Manchester etc the increasing use of the knife and the gun .Roosterbooster wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:38 amBulgaria, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Estonia, SA, Latvia, Ukraine, Albania: Murder rates decline (sometimes not immediately) after the death penalty is abolished
State-level data in the United States repeatedly shows lower murder rates in states that do not have the death penalty than in states that do
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Conversations move in different directions, not just in the way one person wants them to... Unless you live in Russia.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:46 amI'm struggling to find the words to say what I feel about posters hijacking a thread like this so they can tell everyone about how much they'd love it if the state started killing criminals
I mean, you wonder why you get banned?
JFW
Discussing death penalties around the moors muderers isn't really that far off topic.
This user liked this post: Jakubclaret
-
- Posts: 2109
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 134 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
First thing is that you do not judge the person. Leave that for the court. If they are bang to rights, as you say, then you inform them that the evidence appears extremely strong and then you explain credit to them and explain that in this instance admitting your guilt at the earliest opportunity and getting full credit from the court might keep them out of prison etc. However, you leave the decision for the client. Never tell them what to plead.bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:47 amSo PPP, how do you manage to offer them a skilled and effective defence? You must KNOW when talking to them that they are ‘bang to rights’? You must be privy to all the evidence, the recordings from interviews, the cctv footage, everything that the CPS has reviewed before deciding whether to prosecute.
I have often wondered where the line is between ensuring someone isn’t being “fitted up” and ensuring justice is done. I’m assuming that you can refuse to defend someone you know for a fact is 100% guilty? If so, does that happen? Genuinely interested in knowing why a person who is so obviously guilty gets any defence at all…. (Other than a ‘civilised’ society being able to see that a proper process was followed)
You don’t refuse to defend someone because they are guilty as everyone is entitled to put mitigation forward and the reasons behind their offending. If you mean, why do you defend someone when you know they are guilty and they have told you this and they want to run a trial then this is different. This puts me in a difficult position.
I then have 2 options. I can tell the court I am professionally embarrassed, or I explain to the client that we can still run a trial and put the prosecution to proof, but we won’t be able to call him as a witness. Ie we only listen to the Crowns version of events and leave it for the court to establish if the burden of proof has been met. Can they be sure of guilt listening to the prosecution evidence only. This is where a good defence lawyer can come into play with his closing speech.
Finally, before a person is sent to prison the court consider 3 main things. Firstly, is there a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Secondly, has he any strong personal mitigation and finally the consequences on others if he was sent to prison.
As a defence lawyer there is always a lot of scope to put forward some good mitigation on behalf of the majority of clients to keep them out of prison in the hope, they can get rehabilitated.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I agree about the death penalty for many murderers but then think about Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans and think what could have happened to Stefan M
Kitsku ( ?spelling)
Kitsku ( ?spelling)
This user liked this post: jen1066
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Stefan Kisko
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Stefan’s case was an awful miscarriage of justice and shows how relatively recently the innocent were stitched up to make a person fit for the crime
Re: Skull found on the Moors
In order for that statement to make any sense you have guarantee that such evidence would be put before the courts by the police and prosecutors that are not corrupt or just plain lazy. Experience shows that this is not always the case as illustrated by the case of Leslie Moleseed. She was murdered and semen was found on her body. Stefan Kisco was prosecuted and found guilty of her murder and spent a very long time in prison for it. Evidence that was in the possession of the police at the time of the prosecution proved beyond any doubt that Stefan Kisco could not possibly have been the murderer as he was sterile and could not produce semen. That evidence was not provided to the defence and was not put in front of the jury. In the scenario you put forward, taking into account the emotion attached to the case, he would most certainly have been put to death. A totally innocent man, hung because of a corrupt prosecution system.
That one case alone is enough for me to take the view that capital punishment, and death by public vote as you describe should never be on the statute books. There are plenty of other miscarriages of justice, I have just described one.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Has someone actually suggested death by public vote?
Crikey!
Crikey!
Re: Skull found on the Moors
What surprises me is that his defence would or should have known that he was sterile and therefore the full PM results were kept from them at the time.Chobulous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:16 pmIn order for that statement to make any sense you have guarantee that such evidence would be put before the courts by the police and prosecutors that are not corrupt or just plain lazy. Experience shows that this is not always the case as illustrated by the case of Leslie Moleseed. She was murdered and semen was found on her body. Stefan Kisco was prosecuted and found guilty of her murder and spent a very long time in prison for it. Evidence that was in the possession of the police at the time of the prosecution proved beyond any doubt that Stefan Kisco could not possibly have been the murderer as he was sterile and could not produce semen. That evidence was not provided to the defence and was not put in front of the jury. In the scenario you put forward, taking into account the emotion attached to the case, he would most certainly have been put to death. A totally innocent man, hung because of a corrupt prosecution system.
That one case alone is enough for me to take the view that capital punishment, and death by public vote as you describe should never be on the statute books. There are plenty of other miscarriages of justice, I have just described one.
He clearly must have done it as the sequence of events was- a young man deprived of testosterone by his pituitary problem gets fired up because he starts treatment with testosterone and all of a sudden gets urges he cannot control-and so the judicial system gets carried along on a story that has to be true-but sadly for him and his mother-it wasnt and from day one it couldn't have been so so different.Two peoples' lives shortened (Stefan developed mental illness in prison and died a free man and his mother may well have died from all the stresses and strains on her life as she tried to get her son freed) by a system that was and may still be corrupt and yet as far as I know on one who was clearly part of the stitch up was convicted of any wrong doing
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I meany could have been so so different
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Timothy Evans would not have been found guilty if there was DNA testing then. That was an awful miscarriage of justice but it wouldn’t happen now.
-
- Posts: 6571
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Did not post last night as I thought it would be a locked thread by now.
However having said that.
When I lived in a small village, there was a discovery of bones, rumours quickly turned to human remains.
Specialists arrived in a couple of hours, very quickly ascertained it was not human. All done and dusted in about 8 hours.
So the fact they are still there, reports saying they have sent material away for DNA testing, it’s highly likely it is human remains.
It’s also very close to where the other poor children's remains were found.
So fingers crossed it is him and he can finally be laid to rest.
However having said that.
When I lived in a small village, there was a discovery of bones, rumours quickly turned to human remains.
Specialists arrived in a couple of hours, very quickly ascertained it was not human. All done and dusted in about 8 hours.
So the fact they are still there, reports saying they have sent material away for DNA testing, it’s highly likely it is human remains.
It’s also very close to where the other poor children's remains were found.
So fingers crossed it is him and he can finally be laid to rest.
This user liked this post: jen1066
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Some criminals would be deterred by the prospect of the death penalty and some wouldn’t. I suspect many of the the really twisted ones wouldn’t. It’s whether it’s about a deterrent or justice or a combination. You do find mass murderers on death row scared of needles etc There was a case recently where the prisoner chose gas. The threat of punishment can affect murderers. I know someone who was responsible for taking Shipman’s TV away. He was upset about this and killed himself 3 weeks later.
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Also skewed using countries like USA as any kind of comparison, for various reasons. It's 6x the size, different states with different rules and they're allowed to own fully automatic machine guns. It's hard to imagine a death penalty wouldn't be a deterrent, I'm not sure on any kind of figures though just seems somewhat logical.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:18 pmIt's hard to tell in the UK because they've changed the way various deaths are recorded/measured.
For example when he was caught in 2002, Harold Shipman is known to have murdered close to 200 people and they're all recorded as individual murders in the statistics.
In 1997 they would've been recorded as single statistic.
https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-ra ... abolished/
-
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1133 times
- Has Liked: 1606 times
- Location: Worsthorne
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Back to the original idea of the post it isn't poor Keith's remains found
https://news.sky.com/story/police-searc ... g-12708994
https://news.sky.com/story/police-searc ... g-12708994
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I read very soon after that it was a fragment of a bone, thought to be 'maybe' of a jaw.Claret Till I Die wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:43 amBack to the original idea of the post it isn't poor Keith's remains found
https://news.sky.com/story/police-searc ... g-12708994
The news immediately did this: potential bone jaw fragment > full skull > 12 year old Keith.
I mean, come on.
This user liked this post: Claret Till I Die
-
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1133 times
- Has Liked: 1606 times
- Location: Worsthorne
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Claret Till I Die wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:07 pmI believe that it's not Keith nor has a skull been found
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Precisely my point. The news jump to conclusions to sell impressions.
This user liked this post: Claret Till I Die
-
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1133 times
- Has Liked: 1606 times
- Location: Worsthorne
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Or somebody likes the limelight....
Re: Skull found on the Moors
Quite.
Author researching the death of Keith Bennett miraculously finds possible bone parts whilst out on the moors.
I hope that I’m being overly cynical but it smells suspiciously like an opportunity being taken generate interest in the work he / she is producing.
If I’m anywhere close to being correct, I hope not one single person puts a hand in their pocket!
These 2 users liked this post: jen1066 Claret Till I Die
-
- Posts: 10841
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5520 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I initially thought this too. There is a supposed forensic expert quoted saying they were definitely human teeth.DCWat wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:23 pmQuite.
Author researching the death of Keith Bennett miraculously finds possible bone parts whilst out on the moors.
I hope that I’m being overly cynical but it smells suspiciously like an opportunity being taken generate interest in the work he / she is producing.
If I’m anywhere close to being correct, I hope not one single person puts a hand in their pocket!
Hope they are arrested and charged with wasting police time.
-
- Posts: 6571
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1233 times
- Has Liked: 56 times
Re: Skull found on the Moors
I disagree, any opportunity to find Keith should be taken, next time it might be him.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:36 pmI initially thought this too. There is a supposed forensic expert quoted saying they were definitely human teeth.
Hope they are arrested and charged with wasting police time.