RugbyRebels

Ian Brady has kicked the bucket.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... es-aged-79

Good, its sick people like this that should be hung. As long as suspects are caught bang to rights we should have the death penalty for certain crimes, think of how much money it has cost keeping this monster alive, when a trip to the gallows could have dispatched him years ago, and was all he deserved.

I'm sure the Birmingham 6 would agree wholeheartedly.

Lord Lucan wrote:Good, its sick people like this that should be hung. As long as suspects are caught bang to rights we should have the death penalty for certain crimes, think of how much money it has cost keeping this monster alive, when a trip to the gallows could have dispatched him years ago, and was all he deserved.

People who have been exonerated that would have been dead now following your "bang to rights" criteria
Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing
There is an even longer list on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ed_Kingdom
What do you say to the families of these people and the original victims families when they are told that the real killers have got away with it?

caldeyrfc wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:Good, its sick people like this that should be hung. As long as suspects are caught bang to rights we should have the death penalty for certain crimes, think of how much money it has cost keeping this monster alive, when a trip to the gallows could have dispatched him years ago, and was all he deserved.

People who have been exonerated that would have been dead now following your "bang to rights" criteria
Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing
There is an even longer list on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ed_Kingdom
What do you say to the families of these people and the original victims families when they are told that the real killers have got away with it?

Bang to rights mean no doubt at all they are guilty you mug, the Birmingham six and Guildford four were all put away on circumstantial evidence, as anyone who knows anything about those cases will know.

Lord Lucan wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:Good, its sick people like this that should be hung. As long as suspects are caught bang to rights we should have the death penalty for certain crimes, think of how much money it has cost keeping this monster alive, when a trip to the gallows could have dispatched him years ago, and was all he deserved.

People who have been exonerated that would have been dead now following your "bang to rights" criteria
Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing
There is an even longer list on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ed_Kingdom
What do you say to the families of these people and the original victims families when they are told that the real killers have got away with it?

Bang to rights mean no doubt at all they are guilty you mug, the Birmingham six and Guildford four were all put away on circumstantial evidence, as anyone who knows anything about those cases will know.

They were convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" like everyone else. Some of them on the basis of scientific evidence. Saying that they weren't bang to rights years afterwards wouldn't be particularly helpful if you've executed them. What would be the test for "bang to rights"? The test for conviction is for the jury to be" sure", or "beyond reasonable doubt".

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote: People who have been exonerated that would have been dead now following your "bang to rights" criteria
Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing
There is an even longer list on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ed_Kingdom
What do you say to the families of these people and the original victims families when they are told that the real killers have got away with it?

Bang to rights mean no doubt at all they are guilty you mug, the Birmingham six and Guildford four were all put away on circumstantial evidence, as anyone who knows anything about those cases will know.

They were convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" like everyone else. Some of them on the basis of scientific evidence. Saying that they weren't bang to rights years afterwards wouldn't be particularly helpful if you've executed them. What would be the test for "bang to rights"? The test for conviction is for the jury to be" sure", or "beyond reasonable doubt".

It's clearly time for a new verdict:
Not Guilty
Not Proven (Scotland only)
Guilty
Bang to Rights

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote: People who have been exonerated that would have been dead now following your "bang to rights" criteria
Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing
There is an even longer list on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ed_Kingdom
What do you say to the families of these people and the original victims families when they are told that the real killers have got away with it?

Bang to rights mean no doubt at all they are guilty you mug, the Birmingham six and Guildford four were all put away on circumstantial evidence, as anyone who knows anything about those cases will know.

They were convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" like everyone else. Some of them on the basis of scientific evidence. Saying that they weren't bang to rights years afterwards wouldn't be particularly helpful if you've executed them. What would be the test for "bang to rights"? The test for conviction is for the jury to be" sure", or "beyond reasonable doubt".

In this day and age video evidence, failing that a ducking stool.

What about a polygraph?

Bang to rights and Jezza would say.

WaspInWales wrote:What about a polygraph?

Bang to rights and Jezza would say.

He mentioned the polygraph after the video evidence...

The death penalty was abolished for a reason, you fucking barbarian.

Asking a jury to distinguish between proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and proof "beyond all doubt," without being swayed by the enormity of the crime would be a fool's errand. Everyone who was convicted on the former standard but not the latter would immediately havea good basis for an appeal because you would have aconvicting court effectively saying "there is some doubt about this person's guilt but nevertheless s/he is convicted."

A system where the degree of punishment was set not to fit the crime, but to fit the strength of evidence would be deeply worryong on a number of levels.

And once you start creating varying degrees of doubt as to guilt, with associated varying degrees of punishment, where does it end? Should you have increasingly severe penalties for "just beyond reasonable doubt", "almost beyond all doubt" and "beyond all doubt"? If you do, why not lower the bar and impose smaller penalties where the proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but does establish guilt on the balance of probablilities?*


*This is the standard already generally imposed in civil litigation in common law countries

It could be rather problematic in more sensationalised cases, such as the recent Scott Guy murder down here in Kiwiland, where the accused was found not guilty, in large parts - from what I've heard from law-talking guys I know - due to a failure by the police to do their due diligence in their investigation because they assumed they had a slam dunk case, and because the prosecution's evidence didn't extend much beyond "he's a creepy bastard, of course he was the one what did it!" which was a narrative our local press gleefully played along with.

I feel that it would also, to some extent, incentivise situations akin to what was seen in the murder cases involving Arthur Allan Thomas and Brenton Butler, where it was later revealed that there were huge amounts of improper behaviour by the police - Arthur Allan Thomas was convicted on the basis of definitive proof of his guilt turning out to be falsified, and Brenton Butler was a 15 year-old kid who confessed, but only after being fed several helpings of a knuckle sandwich from the arresting officers.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:What about a polygraph?

Bang to rights and Jezza would say.

He mentioned the polygraph after the video evidence...

Lol, very good.

cashead wrote:The death penalty was abolished for a reason, you fucking barbarian.

Fuck you, retard.

Lord Lucan wrote:

cashead wrote:The death penalty was abolished for a reason, you fucking barbarian.

Fuck you, retard.

Says the flat earther.

cashead wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:

cashead wrote:The death penalty was abolished for a reason, you fucking barbarian.

Fuck you, retard.

Says the flat earther.

You've got me coming down to your level now sad act, what does a pc twat like you know about the death penalty anyway? you'd have killers locked up in cushy open prisons, with lovely cells and complete internet access, rather than see them punished.

Lord Lucan wrote:

cashead wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:
Fuck you, retard.

Says the flat earther.

You've got me coming down to your level now sad act, what does a pc twat like you know about the death penalty anyway? you'd have killers locked up in cushy open prisons, with lovely cells and complete internet access, rather than see them punished.

Oh no, not internet access!

Re: The Death Penalty

Brady wanted to die. His existence in prison became torturous (it has also been claimed that he was tortured by the Guards). Some people would argue that after inflicting misery on John Kilbride, Lesley Anne Downey, Edward Evans, Pauline Reade and Keith Bennet, and their families, his suffering in prison was justified.

Whilst there is a side of me that agrees with this (particularly after reading the transcript of Lesley Anne Downey's savage murder), I think that in this instance, we should have demonstrated how "civilised" we have become by granting him his wish. Euthanasia is legal in some countries, so why not legalise it in cases such as this?

At his trial, Peter Kurten told the courtroom that there was little point in reforming him. It would be better if for him, and society if he was executed. One must admire his honesty. The court agreed and he met the gleaming blade of the fallbeil on a summer morning in 1931.

The whole point of psychopaths is that they have no conscience. They don't feel guilt, responsibility or remorse for their actions. An incarcerated man/woman that wants to die obviously has started feeling remorse for their actions.
In which case,......they should continue to suffer for as long as possible. Welcome to the world in which the rest of us live.

I think that Lord Lucan got to the very crux of this case in the 3rd word of his original post. Brady was sick.

If we as a society chose to recognise psychopathy and schizophrenia as illnesses that are capable of so altering an individual's psyche that they are capable of committing atrocities such as those committed by Brady, then we must also chose to recognise that the full penalty of law cannot apply to them.

I have no problem with our society having kept Brady alive and incarcerated, partly because the base urge for vengeance was fueled by doing so in the face of his persistent demands to be allowed to die. But the overriding factor for me, has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the death penalty per se, but rather that I would never wish to be part of a society that thought it right to judicially kill the likes of Derek Bentley.