egafd.com

Some balloon wrote into The Scum the other day saying now that DNA evidence is so advanced, and proved that Stefan Kiszko was innocent all along of the Lesley Molseed killing and found the right guy, that it's safe to bring back capital punishment because they can no longer get the wrong man (or woman).

As Wazza might say, and has said elsewhere, tell that to Barry George.

Capital punishment certainly wouldn't have stopped this guy



who managed to remain under the radar having allegedly been responsible for two deaths and having been convicted this year of another.

Mistakes are made. Vindictive detectives without conscience exist, as Stefan Kiszko could testify if were still with us.

I think if its a cast iron case with DNA to assist and certain crimes, then lets string the bastards up!

I'm all for angry revenge meted out in the most violentest way psible if someone did something bad to someone I love but as for the state dishing out capital punishment?

There is something very wrong about that. It just doesnt feel right. Call me double standards (who isnt?) but for a government to do this would suggest it was being very civilised in itself.

Every time I watch those movies with public executions, no matter how ceremonious they try to make these things look it just makes you think there is some barbarity behind its thinking.

Though I can understand this level of thinking from those who have been hurt losing a loved one.

Then again I think parking fines are barbaric these days. Those guys who dish the tickets are just hawks.

As Socrates asked: "What is Justice?"

If someone commits an unjust act he becomes unjust. If you want someone to sow your seeds on your land, do you hire a farmer or a banker? The Farmer of course. If you wanted someone to look after your horse, would you ask the stablehand or the seamstress? The stablehand of course.

So what to do when you want justice? Justice is a just act; something positive, or good, and just men do just acts. A punishment is a negative, or bad act (albeit regrettable), and so is an unjust act. Just because the punished man is unjust in himself, and has committed unjust acts on others, you cannot punish him for his actions with a just act as that would be something good, or pleasurable.

Therefore, an unjust act must be punished by a further unjust act. The unjust man has done something unjust -say 'stealing'- and so an unjust act must be done unto him (say denying him freedom). Back to the farmer and stablehand: You picked them because they were the best people for the job you wanted done. The stablehand is better at keeping horses than the seamstress, and the farmer is better at sowing seeds than the banker.
You want to commit an unjust act on an unjust man as punishment for his unjust acts, so who's the best man for the job?

Would it be right to say a just man is better at doing just deeds (justice), and the unjust man better at doing unjust deeds (injustice)? That seems to be the case, and so to punish an unjust man with an unjust act, you would need a fellow unjust man to punish him. Getting a just man to commit an unjust act, even in punishment, makes the just man more unjust, does it not?

So when people scream for justice, they're actually screaming for retaliatory unjust acts - injustice. So then, there really is no justice dealt out where crime and punishment is involved, only retaliation and more injustice.

To have a completely just society, we'd have to commit just and good acts on unjust people. Maybe take a rapist into your home and give him a bed and 3 meals a day? That would be a just act, but no one would think of such a thing, and rightly so!

I think the biggest unjust act is to kill someone who hasn't the means to kill you, or anyone else. If a murderer has been caught, and imprisoned, the imprisoning is less unjust, than to kill him, while keeping him from doing more unjust acts on other just people.

Imprisonment is enough, and the act of killing is only reasonable if you, or someone else is in immediate danger.

Socrates put it better, but you get the idea.

Most advocates of capital punishment see it as the just act to punish particularly heinous crimes, or rather: to take appropriate revenge. This is an emotionalism I do not subscribe to.

As a deterrent capital punishment for the likely convicts has little effect: the Shipmans, Huntleys and Tobins of this world bet on not being caught; once they are caught, they truly are in the dock for life anyway. Even if you make the method of execution to be eaten alive by African driver ants would make no difference.

Personally, I could only see a sense of bringing captial punishment back to (i) reduce cost of imprisonment by reducing numbers (which also means that a Death Row system as in the US would be counterproductive), and (ii) as a deterrent for a wider range of criminal offences (i.e. not just murder), (iii) depopulating the criminal underworld.

That would require a subsequent willingness to execute a fairly large number of convicts - perhaps as much as 5000 a year.

I would include amongst the capital offences serious fraud - e.g. applying it to the kind of fraud we recently saw with Southern Water.

Oh well, it's not going to happen...

it's a myth to say DNA evidence is infallable, it only gives a probability, and probabilities are very dodgy ground - just ask Sally Clark.

The Stefan case is a classic, where so called scientific evidence was used by the police to frame the guy. They said the semen was blood group A, the same as Stefan which in turn turned out to be impossible.
There have already been cases which police have been found to have framed a suspect with DNA as it is so easy to transfer, i'm pretty sure this would happen again if we had the death penalty

also, all cases which are found guilty should be cast iron, would you say that if it was a death sentence case the burden of proof needs to be higher. What do you say to the prisoner/family 'oh we find him guilty, but not guilty enough to kill him'

I think being hung is preferable to thirty years in prison
Keith

[quote]I think being hung is preferable to thirty years in prison[/quote]

Preferable to whom?