Otis
Well-Known Member
How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?
Just asking the question and not making a statement.
How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?It's simple, if theres 100% proof it was them then just drown them.
What survey was that?According to a survey in 2017, 1 in 3 people in the States own guns.
Can you imagine that over here? Doesn't bear thinking about.
People would be shooting each other for pushing in at the bar or queue jumping at Sainsbury's.
Most wrongful convictions I've heard about were either pre-DNA testing or based on unreliable eye-witness testimony.How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?
Just asking the question and not making a statement.
Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?
Just asking the question and not making a statement.
It's a difficult one, as I say I've changed my mind a few times on this but don't see it as a punishment but simply an elimination from society of absolute scum.Good question.
That is the main reason, for sure, but I do think humanity has to be bigger and better than that. It's a question been debated through the ages.
Just think in the 21st century we shouldn't still be killing each other as punishment.
I AM all for hard labour though. Prison should be tough and prisoners should be made to work.
Exactly, caught in the act where there's no question just get rid of them.Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.
Westminster terror attack, Jo Coxs killer, finsbury park fella, London bridge attack.
All these cases are all recent events and we can say, for sure, 100% we know who committed these murders.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Exactly, caught in the act where there's no question just get rid of them.
Never understood 'beyond reasonable doubt' - if this is a verdict why do jurors take so long to reach it?
I'd have no issue with it if somebody hurt or was going to hurt my family.It's a difficult one, as I say I've changed my mind a few times on this but don't see it as a punishment but simply an elimination from society of absolute scum.
A little thought experiment for you:
If your family were under imminent threat from great violence - death, rape in your home and you had the means to stop it by killing the intruder, would you do it?
If you came home to find you family murdered and the killer still present and mutilating the bodies, would you kill if you had the means?
The difference between the two is only one of time and I'm sure you can see the point I'm making.
The argument against this, of course, is that we shouldn't let raw emotion and revenge rule our justice system but I say there are cases where it should. I think my idealistic view of human nature has taken too much of a battering as I've got older.
That's exactly my point! The fact that you argued for ages must always mean reasonable doubt. I'm always going to think of you as the Henry Fonda of this thread from now on.because you have two sides of the story put to you by two highly qualified professionals whose job it is to convince you that there version of events and the evidence they provided to support it is correct.
You've also got 12 people in the jury room which could include people of an awkward disposition who would argue anything!
I did jury service years ago, I argued for ages to get a lad not guilty, to this day I think he may not of been but the police failed to provide an important bit of evidence which could have shed a lot more light on the case and I couldn't find it in me to find him guilty.
It started off about 6 guilty, 6 not guilty but the not guilty side managed to persuade the others.
That's exactly my point! The fact that you argued for ages must always mean reasonable doubt. I'm always going to think of you as the Henry Fonda of this thread from now on.
Should have pointed them to a thread on here "do you want to end up like these twats? Sort it out".I see the point you're making about reasonable doubt, never looked at it like that before.
So you just can't have the death penalty for terrorists then.Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.
Westminster terror attack, Jo Coxs killer, finsbury park fella, London bridge attack.
All these cases are all recent events and we can say, for sure, 100% we know who committed these murders.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
There were two. One said 40 percent and the other a third, but this was just people who said there were guns in the household.What survey was that?
I suspect they divided the number of people by the number of guns to get that figure.
Some people 'collect' guns and have dozens.
Most people have none.
Well no, they were PLOTTING terrorism. They never killed anyone. Had they of got to their end game and actually carried out the act and killed people, then yes, the death penalty (as long as it was certain it was them).So you just can't have the death penalty for terrorists then.
You saying we can only have it for those that are clearly caught on camera or admit it?
It wasn't you, it was Rob, but he says death penalty for terrorists. All terrorists?
There was a case recently with a mother and daughter plotting terrorism. They were caught and have recently been put in jail.
Thing is, when you read the back story, the mum became radicalised and she tried to convert her two daughters but they resisted. The one that ended up in jail was only 12 at the time.
Anyway, over the years this poor girl WAS radicalised by her persistent mother.
Should both receive the death penalty there?
It's not just black and white unfortunately. So much grey area.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?