h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Two Bit (and also Tibley Bobley, a bit):

I agree, there ARE cases where there is no doubt - I listed a few above. But my point is that we already have a situation where we don't put people in prison unless their guilt is proven "beyond reasonable doubt" - and innocent people still go to jail.

The trouble is, if you take your brief point to its logical conclusion, you end up with THREE possible verdicts in a court trying a potentially capital case - not guilty, probably guilty, and REALLY, DEFINITELY guilty.

Not guilty - you go free.

REALLY, DEFINITELY guilty - you fry. (And personally I'd like to see the sentence carried out right there and then in the courtroom with a bullet to the head. That'd give the jury something to think about, if they're going to go home with bloodstains on their shirts...)

Probably guilty - what? 20 years in prison? 30? If the state can't prove you're guilty, the jury can't be CERTAIN you're guilty, certain enough to KILL you, have they the right to punish you at all?

How do you draft a law or build a justice system which can distinguish with any reliability between the cases we're all familiar with where there is no doubt, and the cases where defendants' rights have been ignored, or the defence lawyers are incompetent, or the police or prosecution are corrupt, or the defendant is innocent but mentally incapable?

Until you can distinguish between those situations with 100% reliability, I'm still standing outside the polling booth waiting for your answers to questions 1 & 2 with a loaded gun in my hand.

H.

Oh, one more thing:

"if Stefan Kisko didn't commit the crime then there must have been room for doubt - at least for those willing to see it."

Kisko was being tried for a particularly nasty murder. The jury would have been under no illusions about the fact that if convicted, he would be put away for life. They would therefore have been carefully instructed that they must return a guilty verdict only if they felt that the case had been proven "beyond reasonable doubt" - that is the standard for British justice. They found him guilty by that standard. They therefore MUST have believed, on the evidence presented to them, that there was NOT room for reasonable doubt. There is also no reason to think that the case would have been conducted any differently if the potential penalty was death.

(trivial side note: Kisko's original defence barrister David Waddington was later Home Secretary (senior ministerial post in charge of the justice system) in John Major's government. Irony?)

H.

This post has been removed.

And my alternative to the death penalty, wich might be possible someday, would be to put those sentanced to death in suspended animation of some sort. If there was eividence they weren't guilty, they wcould be woken up. If they were really guilty, they wuld be in suspendded animation forever, which would basicly be the same as being dead.

I think it is okay to kill someone when it is in your best interests to do so. Don’t get me wrong I don’t mean kill someone cause they have a nice car and you want it that’s what laws are there for if you do that you go to jail or whatever the local laws are so it is not in your best interests if someone is going to kill you or do you severe bodily harm that is not in your interests so kill them. Also if someone rips you off there are better ways of dealing with that shooting him in the face it may work but as before it will get you jailed at the very least I think its when your or those close to you safety is in jeopardy then you can kill them. If someone else starts something you have the right to finish it and them.

Two Bit:

"I think your survey question is f**king stupid, so I haven't responded to it."

All it does is expect the respondent to take immediate, personal responsibility for their choice of response. I don't see what's so f**king stupid about expecting people to have the courage of their convictions.

Saying "yes" to the death penalty but declining to be its first innocent victim is like protesting about a lack of state spending on health and education, then voting to cut taxes. It's saying that you want the benefits without the downside. It's saying that having bad stuff happen to *someone* is OK, so long as that person is not you. It's hypocritical. Isn't it?

Like you say, however, this is not a thread about capital punishment, at least, not just about that, so for this thread at least I'm going to drop this.

H.

We are but simple creatures. How dare life be so complicated? I'm not wedded to capital punishment. I just want to see better justice. And *sensible* justice, if that's not too much to ask (and it probably is). We sometimes seem to be mired in a stupid, ill-considered, irrational mess that makes potential victims of us all. I don't think the questionnaire is stupid. It asks the essential question that needs to be answered if you want to tack the death penalty onto the justice system we currently have. So I won't give in to temptation and say yes to both but I'm leaving by the back door to avoid Hoovooloo's instant, deadly justice.

If we weren't stuck with the uncertainty of having recognised monsters released into the community after serving their sentences, the death penalty probably wouldn't even be worth discussing. But people are always going to be calling for it as long as serious crimes such as murder, rape and child abuse are carried out by people who have already been locked up for similar crimes and then released to repeat those crimes. These recidivists are even *expected* to commit similar crimes when they're released but the prison authorities have no power to detain them after their sentence is served, provided they've behaved themselves.

The 3 possible verdicts you mention highlight a bit of nonsense about the law. There are times when there's absolutely no doubt at all that a person did a crime. Then there's the pretence that there is no doubt whatsoever about a person's guilt because a court has decided they are guilty .... probably. The person has to be locked up because, in all likelihood they did the crime and the authorities feel that they must pretend that it's a 100% certainty that they have the right person because they would be embarrassed(?) to admit they were locking a person up who had perhaps a 5% chance of being innocent. What if they just dropped the pretence and admitted that there's a difference? It comes back to haunt them when they're wrong anyway, so why not just be honest. Or am I being naive, expecting honesty from the law?

I am so saddened by some of the opinions voiced in this thread, which seem to agree that

a) some lives are more important than others
b) saving money is a valid argument for the death penalty

My personal views are - no I don't think it's ever right to kill someone, and no I don't believe in the death penalty.

But then I don't know how I would react in circumstances where my life was in danger, so that's my cool-headed rational side speaking, as it were. And I dont expect everyone to agree with me either, because we're all entitled to our own opinions and they'll all be different.

>a) some lives are more important than others

>My personal views are - no I don't think it's ever right to kill someone, ...

So if someone was trying to kill you where you couldn't flee, would you waste time considering whose life was more important, yours or his? Would you reach for an improvised weapon of some sort to defend yourself irrespective of the attacker's right to life?

What if he were attacking your children, whose life is more important, his or the child's?

Just curious.

As I did say, I've never been in that position, so I don't know how I'd react. But I dare say instinct would prompt some sort of self-defence.

I don't routinely carry a weapon, though, so if someone was intent on killing me they'd probably succeed. That fact isnt going to make me start carrying a weapon or justify killing, however.

I don't know that everyone should be armed. I'm proficient and willing to use it.

I think people should acknowledge that force may be something that they have to employ. I think it's wise to have some clue about what to do if you are attacked. The more people who prepare to defend themselves, the harder it will be for predators to find victims.

I agree. Not everyone should be armed. Only those citizens who are properly trained and have accepted the responsibilities inherent in firearms should be armed. I would be one, if my state hadn't taken the choice from me. It means that, rather than intervening when I see a crime in progress, all I can do is report it and get out of the way. I lack the means to protect myself from the consequences of intervention, and my duty to protect myself is greater than my duty to protect some random person.

If my state had sensible laws on the books, I might be Lawful. As is, I assess myself as Chaotic Good.

Regarding not guilty, guilty, and really, definitely guilty: We already have this. In a trial by jury for a capital crime, the jury delivers two decisions. The first is guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the jury then determines whether the death penalty should be applied. If the defendant cannot be found abso-f*****g-lutely guilty, the jury has the option to choose life.

However, juries are made up of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. There have been some reforms to jury selection (at least in my state), and things are somewhat better, but it's still a slow work in progress.

"If the defendant cannot be found abso-f*****g-lutely guilty, the jury has the option to choose life."

You mean 'we're not sure if you're really guilty, so we're going to lock you in a tiny little room until you die just in case'? Cool!

Well, you're supposed to know they're really guilty, or you're not supposed to turn in a guilty verdict. However, there is a difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a guilty verdict, and no doubt at all, which I would require to turn in a death sentence.

Take the Manson case as an example. If I served on that jury, I would hand in a guilty verdict, as I don't believe there is a reasonable doubt that he was not at the very least involved in the killings. However, as there is no uncontrovertible physical evidence or testimony that places him at either of the murder scenes, I don't think I'd recommend the death sentence.

I admit I haven't had time to catch up on this entire thread, so I'm sorry if I'm going over old ground:

I'm not sure what "ok" means in this context. People are animals. I mean that in both the good and bad sense. We can be sociable and vicious. Which is better?

It's never ok for someone to kill me. That's my principal tenent. Therefore, in order to maintain that principal I have to support some sort of filter on social behavior. That doesn't really mean anything about what is and is not OK.

And why is it ok to kill other mammals and not people? Is life only sacred if you don't believe in DNA (the other DNA) but in souls? If life is so miraculous that killing is never (or almost never, even) OK, then the life of a dog or a cow certainly qualifies for miracle status.

We cannot rely upon the legal system to provide Justice because the legal system is about finding tricks such that your guilty client can get off, or dis-crediting the evidence that proves your client guilty. This is called the adversarial legal system. Thus Justice is blind - though nowadays they also want to plug her ears, and gag her.

What is this thing called justice?

'Justice' was once a lovely, inspirational lass that the lawyers got ahold of, raped, plundered, and drove to near extinction in order to 'practice law'.

Humph.

A little of the "rose-tinted spectacles" there.

I strongly suspect that justice was just as abused before the lawyers came along in force.

Its an ideal, no more. Ideals don't usually work out quite as people hope.