badgerx16

a) Just what parallel universe did you pop up from ? b) Pure sarcasm, brilliant. Delete as necessary

Let's agree to differ, I do not think I will ever sway you, and personally there is no way I will ever be convinced there can be a 'safe' way of managing state sanctioned murder. ( Mind you, my wife has just suggested a variation on the theme of 'capital punishment'; anybody who fails to use an upper-case presentation for the personal pronoun deserves to be shot :smt036 )

Without completely reprising the entire thread - what if it was a miscarriage of justice ?

Which again brings us around to a measure of human judgement; how can you legally define 'depraved; or 'cold blooded' ? Is your value on such measures the same as mine, or a High Court Recorder's, or the Justice Minister's ? All such descriptions are at one end of a scale of relative values, and you have to be able to mark the point at which the law indicates sufficient 'depravity' to qualify. Cue court room, and appeal court, arguments between defence and prosecution as to how depraved the criminal actually is. For instance, in the case of the Wests, there were a number of bodies under their house and garden, - agreed this indicates a level of inhumanity. But the law deals in absolutes: how many bodies would you need to bury to be judged legally 'depraved' ? If Fred West had stood trial and ultimately been found mentally ill, would that get him off your hook, despite his actions, ( surely no SANE man could do that ) ? Morally the arguments seem quite simple, but when drafting and publishing Rules of Law and Acts of Parliament, the language used is always difficult to set down, and inevitably subject to judicial interpretation reflected in the post-trial assessment of test cases. Perhaps you could introduce a new class of crime, 'Depraved Murder', a bit like the 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction used in the States. But then you are risking ending up with the same sort of plea bargaining that they they get; plead guilty to the non-lethal crime to save the cost & trauma of a trial, and thereby escape the noose. There is, sadly, no simple answer.

From what I've heard, I would think there are some MALE lawyers who would claim discrimination that they don't also get a lingerie allowance

I the thought the increase in national debt was generated by the Government bailing out the failed Casino Capitalists in the international banks :cool:

No, it does, however, have some members who are capable of independent thought, who refuse to act like a posse of redneck vigilantes. The definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', coupled with the investigative and evidential powers of the Police, the prosecuting capabilities of the CPS, and the direction of the trial judges, have been demonstrated to be fallable in too many cases; cases that at the time had been proven to the complete satisfaction of the jury, the press, public opinion, and quite often the Government of the day. Cases where the appeal system had to be taken to the third or even fourth iteration before the truth was revealed. Any system involving human judgement is capable of failure or error, and therefore, the problem is how is it ever possible to totally, 100% guarantee, EVERY TIME, completely without any chance of error, that the case has ZERO DOUBT whatsoever. By all means lock the b@stards up and throw away the key; 23 hours a day solitary confinement, etc, etc. Let them suffer for the rest of their lives, the longer the better in my opinion. But we can never allow the State to take lives in this manner.

Aren't you a Government employee TDD ?

Of course I understand. The issue for me is that today's 'overwhelming evidence' can become tomorrow's disproved theory. I can see the argument as regards Huntley or the Wests, they are / were monsters, I have no problem in stating that. But as I have said before on this thread, where do you draw the line ? How flexible can the 'Death Judges' be in their assessment ? Who controls or verifies their decisions ? Do you allow a right of appeal against them ? Do you allow the Minister of Justice to sway their considerations ? What is the influence of the 'popular' press ? Such a system will prove almost impossible to define, let alone control to the extent you can guarantee it is always 100% correct.

So, if I kill somebody, and put their head in your fridge ?.........

But what if the person on trial for the crime had not done it ?

Because, at the time each of the cases I quote were viewed as being 'beyond doubt'. The point is how to define something as being such a certainty that you can be willing to kill somebody.

What if part of the prosecution case is a confession ? Does that remove doubt ? Sean Hodgson had a mental condition which led him to confess to a murder he could not have carried out, yet it took 27 years to clear him. What about cases where scientific advances come about years later, which cast 'incontrovertible' evidence in a new light ?

Bring two !!!

Stephan Kisko, Anne Maguire, Paul Hill........ It becomes a circular argument. If somebody can be in jail for 27 years before being cleared of a murder they never, in fact, committed, can we afford a cut-off point for determining that their 'guilt' is actually not in doubt and it is safe to assume they can be disposed of ?

Is that not the over-riding principle in ALL criminal cases anyway ? Who, in your opinion, decides whether the guilt is actually 'beyond doubt' if it is not the Jury at the trial ? The Police ? The presiding Judge ? The CPS ? The appeal Courts ? The House of Lords ? The European Court of Justice ? Or maybe we should just leave it to the baying, rabid, tabloid press, or we could have a Big Brother style telephone vote after having some 'B' list celeb presenting edited highlights of the trial on prime-time TV ?

Would the allegations against Kisko qualify ? The abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an 11 year old girl.

At the time the Maguires, etc were found guilty of being IRA bombers, blowing their innocent victims to pieces without warning. I think the problem with trying to draw a defining line in such circumstances is that it is only ever drawn in sand, it can never be legally and morally fixed.

Regarding the 'only when there is overwhelming evidence' line... The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, and the Birmingham Six, along with individuals such as Stephan Kisko and Sean Hodgson, all had jury trials, were convicted according to the laws of the land of pre-meditated murder 'beyond a reasonable doubt', ( in Kisko's case the rape & murder of a young girl ), and after many, many, years in jail, were proved entirely blameless. Add to these Sally Clark, Sheila Bowler, Patrick Nichols, and Kevin Callan, who were all convicted of murders when in fact the deaths of the 'victims' were natural or accidental. The Police and prosecutors can make mistakes, or can even deliberately slew the system. Legalised murder is never the answer.

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19 (King James Version)

Who is the commanding officer at Pippin Fort ? Which Russian President was played by Bob Hoskins in "Enemy at the Gates" ? Which of the following film and TV actors was born in Australia ? Leo McKern, Nicole Kidman, Russel Crowe, Mel Gibson, Olivia Newton-John ; ( born respectively in Sydney, Honolulu, Wellington, New York, Cambridge ) Who played the murderer in Columbo most times ?

Or for people who have been bullied and pushed so far by robbing capitalist barstewards that they feel they have no alternative.

Surely you mean ( before we had ) automatic chokes ? But if you want to add that, you could also list disc brakes all round, radial tyres on all cars, rear seat belts, in-car radios as standard, etc. "Memories, like the corners of my mind. Misty, watercolour memories, of the way we were."

Not wanting to p1ss on anybody's parade, but we have spent the last 6 matches bemoaning the lack of pre-season & match practice in the squad, yet as far as I can see all the selections above include Jaidi & Waigo- just remind me how much first team action either has seen in the last 6 months ? In my opinion Jaidi might well start, but how long will he last, and how sharp is he likely to be ? And I think Papa will be on the bench as an 'impact substitute'.

As things stand, it is going to be at least 8 games to have reached 0 anyway, ( at least 9 if we don't win at The Valley ), and a minimum of 9 before we catch any other team, assuming all other results go our way. This was always going to be a long haul, and the most realistic expectation has always been survival in L1 this term, promotion push next season.