Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 8:37:30 GMT -6
What if it was your brother Steve, my father or my son. No innocent person should be executed. period. It shouldnt happen. Thats why in my heart i wouldnt support its reintroduction into the Uk, the last guy to be executed here was innocent. Nope, not one life is worth it. If it can be proved with out doubt, 100% failsafe thats its a slamdunk then no way hozay. Who are you talking about? Timothey Evans? That case was no reason to abolish the dp in England. The idiot brought it on himself by going into a police station and confessing to murder. He most probably did kill his wife anyway, then Christie bumped off baby geraldine.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 17, 2009 9:28:19 GMT -6
What if it was your brother Steve, my father or my son. No innocent person should be executed. period. It shouldnt happen. Thats why in my heart i wouldnt support its reintroduction into the Uk, the last guy to be executed here was innocent. Nope, not one life is worth it. If it can be proved with out doubt, 100% failsafe thats its a slamdunk then no way hozay. Who are you talking about? Timothey Evans? That case was no reason to abolish the dp in England. The idiot brought it on himself by going into a police station and confessing to murder. He most probably did kill his wife anyway, then Christie bumped off baby geraldine. Your psot and its content alone illustrates why you and folk like you should never be in a position to influence a decision of life or death on anybody. You'd clearly do it on the basis of what was proboble, and if not that then if your frustrations kicked in.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Nov 17, 2009 10:07:21 GMT -6
Google robert pruett. He murdered a corrections officer in Texas while serving a 99 year for murder. Tell me again that life w/o parole changes people please. Well with the appeals process the way it is they have approx 12 years on death row to murder a corrections officer. Why not? They are facing death anyway so may aswell take a few guards with them. Executions need to be carried out quicker. They should be quicker but don't you think your comment about 'taking a few guards with them' was quite horrible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 10:51:51 GMT -6
Yes quite horrible i agree. But we are not talking about church going samaritans are we.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 10:53:15 GMT -6
Who are you talking about? Timothey Evans? That case was no reason to abolish the dp in England. The idiot brought it on himself by going into a police station and confessing to murder. He most probably did kill his wife anyway, then Christie bumped off baby geraldine. Your psot and its content alone illustrates why you and folk like you should never be in a position to influence a decision of life or death on anybody. You'd clearly do it on the basis of what was proboble, and if not that then if your frustrations kicked in. Most people are executed on what is probable. Very few cases are watertight.
|
|
|
Post by belsogno on Nov 17, 2009 17:13:42 GMT -6
I don't think there is "dei delitti e delle pene" translated in english. But Noone should blame these cowboys to be so far from this social goal. We first saw tribunals, lawyers, judges, jurors ages ago and had to wait a couple of milleniums before Beccaria first evidenced the infamy of capital punishment. U.S.A. were born yesterday and have just started this journey, I only hope it will be quicker than ours. Death Penalty is on its way out, but it won't happen next year
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Nov 17, 2009 18:03:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 18, 2009 13:32:32 GMT -6
"Well with the appeals process the way it is they have approx 12 years on death row to murder a corrections officer. Why not? They are facing death anyway so may aswell take a few guards with them. Executions need to be carried out quicker."
Yes!
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 18, 2009 13:50:29 GMT -6
Also the comment about the guards was a little over the top. But that is probably what they think or the guards did something wrong in the killers mind and they killed them for it. Explain to me, i do not see anything wrong with getting rid of killers and evil people. What "harm" would it do... they killed innocent people and they get to live a full life unlike their victims? To Kelly, when you think of someone being mutilated and eaten, you think that person should stay alive and just live in a prison? If so that just blows my mind....
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 18, 2009 20:13:22 GMT -6
Murderers should not get the luxury of living when they took that luxury from an innocent person.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Nov 19, 2009 12:51:47 GMT -6
To Kelly, when you think of someone being mutilated and eaten, you think that person should stay alive and just live in a prison? If so that just blows my mind.... welcome to the dellusional world of the anti ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Nov 27, 2009 18:40:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 4, 2010 14:53:54 GMT -6
For crying out loud, what are these claims that 'the last person executed in the UK' was innocent? If you don't know the facts don't try to con people into thinking you do. The last 2 people hanged in the UK (13th August 1964 at 8 a.m in Liverpool and Manchester simultaneously) had left so much evidence at the scene they might as well have put a sign over their hoses 'murderer lives here'. One of them had even left a piece of property with a name tag in it! And if you were thinking of James Hanratty (hanged 5th April 1962) whose supporters were so convinced of his innocence because he (a petty criminal who'd made a living out of lying and dishonesty!) said he was innocent and therefore must have been telling the truth, and got him exhumed to prove conclusively that he was innocent ... then you haven't been keeping up ... DNA testing proved exactly the opposite
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 4, 2010 15:16:48 GMT -6
For crying out loud, what are these claims that 'the last person executed in the UK' was innocent? If you don't know the facts don't try to con people into thinking you do. The last 2 people hanged in the UK (13th August 1964 at 8 a.m in Liverpool and Manchester simultaneously) had left so much evidence at the scene they might as well have put a sign over their hoses 'murderer lives here'. One of them had even left a piece of property with a name tag in it! And if you were thinking of James Hanratty (hanged 5th April 1962) whose supporters were so convinced of his innocence because he (a petty criminal who'd made a living out of lying and dishonesty!) said he was innocent and therefore must have been telling the truth, and got him exhumed to prove conclusively that he was innocent ... then you haven't been keeping up ... DNA testing proved exactly the opposite Boy, as to the last two - were you ever right. As to Hanratty - they are still trying to claim that he was innocent by saying there was DNA contamination. They had semen from the rape victim's underwear and mucous from a handkerchief that was matched by dna collected from the exhumation to Hanratty. Cross contamination my ass!
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 4, 2010 16:25:46 GMT -6
For crying out loud, what are these claims that 'the last person executed in the UK' was innocent? If you don't know the facts don't try to con people into thinking you do. The last 2 people hanged in the UK (13th August 1964 at 8 a.m in Liverpool and Manchester simultaneously) had left so much evidence at the scene they might as well have put a sign over their hoses 'murderer lives here'. One of them had even left a piece of property with a name tag in it! And if you were thinking of James Hanratty (hanged 5th April 1962) whose supporters were so convinced of his innocence because he (a petty criminal who'd made a living out of lying and dishonesty!) said he was innocent and therefore must have been telling the truth, and got him exhumed to prove conclusively that he was innocent ... then you haven't been keeping up ... DNA testing proved exactly the opposite Boy, as to the last two - were you ever right. As to Hanratty - they are still trying to claim that he was innocent by saying there was DNA contamination. They had semen from the rape victim's underwear and mucous from a handkerchief that was matched by dna collected from the exhumation to Hanratty. Cross contamination my ass! How did Hanrattys dna get contaminated by *your rear*?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jan 5, 2010 16:55:35 GMT -6
evo, am i missing something here, whether the guy confessed or not , the fact remains he was innocent. Fact. So that justifies his execution. Any twat who decides to confess a crime he didn't commit says to me they need help not executing, get real.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 15:56:54 GMT -6
Exactly. It's too stupid to comprehend. You'd have to be a first class spastic to confess to a murder you didn't do when hanging is the prize, but this guy wasn't. Granted, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box but he wasn't mad either. He was convicted and executed and rightly so in my opinion.
|
|