Could you be a hangman?

[jake-the-peg]

On last nights program on homelessness the actor Bruce Jones, in a rather emotional state, offered to be the nations executioner for all the paedophiles and murderers.

But the difference between an executioner and a vigilante is that an executioner doesn't get to choose who he kills.

So could you do it? even if you didn't think that person deserved it.

A battered wife that killed her husband?
A pensioner that shot a burglar?
A man who killed his daughters rapist?
Someone you thought was innocent?

And if you could , what is the ethical difference between you and a soldier committing genocide on the orders of his superiors?

[paraffin]

I'll bet Geezer could?

[Barmaid]

No I couldn't do it. And the reason is that I fundamentally disagree with the death penalty (and before I get attacked by all those people who say "how would you like it if your parents were murdered..." - Yes I would feel hatred and yes in the heat of the moment, I would want my pound of flesh, but I couldn't actually do it).

I do not believe in the death penalty for one very simple reason - we only need to get it wrong once (and it has happened in the past and it could well happen again). I for one would rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man die.

[B00]

I'm with Barmaid.

No way no how could I do something like that, no matter what that person may have done.

Like Barmaid, I may also want my 'pound of flesh' but I really think i'd have to let someone else do it for me.

[paraffin]

No, seriously, you're putting forward some very fanciful and hypothetical instances which are fantastic in the extreme.

Besides, a hangman's motto would be much the same as the misrepresented squaddies you mention, i.e.

"Ours is not to reason why."

You're trying to equate two extreme professions to mundane ones like, and no offence meant, a bank clerk, a shop assistant, a bus driver etc etc.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes as a hangman or a squaddie under fire if you decided to stop and have an ideological conflab about why you should be doing what you are.

You'd simply be drummed out and replaced by anyone willing to do the job properly.

[theonlyone]

As DNA is now 99.99 % sure cold blooded murderers
and rapists , kiddie fiddlers should be bumped
off rather than have a life of luxury ...as the victims
won't have one . If a government was brave enough
to have a referendum on capital punishment , the vote
would be YES ...my friends son was killed by a yob ..
the yob got 14 years ..my friend has a life sentance of
grief ..

[beejay1124]

yes

[sara3]

I couldn't do it and I don't believe 2 wrongs make a right.

I do believe that a life sentence should mean life though, and it should be tough.

[Barmaid]

DNA can only prove presence at the crime scene - it can NEVER prove guilt.

Possible scenario:- woman gets drunk has consensual sex with a man. Hours later is murdered on her way home by someone else. The first man's DNA will be all over her - he has no alibi, he is drunk too and can't remember a thing. What do you think the jury are going to do?!

As for other scientific tests - look at the case of Bulsara.

[sqad617]

Yes, if the price was right.

The jury would judge guilt ....not me.

Price? �20,000/ execution.

[Barmaid]

Can't disagree with you on that Sara.

I think the popular press are much to blame for the idea that prison is a walkover. OK, so the open prisons are (but then it tends to be white collar crime which is sent there). But some of the Cat B's I have been to are horrific. Chilled me to the bone. That is exactly how it should be. All I am saying is it is not the holiday camp that the Sun would have us believe.

[whifffey]

Hanging is a messy and upsetting business (not least for the victim). Witnesses often vomited, chaplains were reduced to tears. A frightened person - google Edith Thompson for an extreme example - is going to drop about 6ft to eternity. There is an audible CRACK as the neck breaks, and the hangman and assistant have to stay around to cut the body down after an hour. Often there will have been priapism and involuntary release of bodily fluids and solids. I couldn't do it. Albert Pierrepoint saw himself as a servant of the state who took a pride in his work, and "helped" (ye gods) the prisoner by doing the job as quickly and mercifully as possible, usually mere seconds between entering the condemned cell and the prisoner hanging dead.

Hanging will never return though, unless radical Islam takes over, and then there will be no measured drop, it will rather be a halter at the end of a crane for strangling 14yo homosexuals.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think it's fancifull

Someone like Tony Martin could easilly have been given the death penalty.

And soldiers don't commit attrocities under fire.

But parafin does at least get the underlying question

How much are you willing to let someone else take responsibility for your actions - and is that an excuse

Is it an excuse for Srebrenitsa? I was just following orders

If it's not an excuse for soldiers - why is it an excuse for a hangman?

Theonlyone totally misses the point (deliberately I suspect) and substitutes his vengence fantasy.

Beejay doesn't address the moral question

[Barmaid]

Sqad! Is there anything you won't do for money?!!!!!!!!

[yogi.bear]

He's a hustler at snooker, barmaid.........makes out he cant play it!!..........................sly, lovable old fox!

:0)

[Barmaid]

Sorry I didn't get the point at all Jake. Your last question:- "and if you could", well I couldn't so I just ignored it!!!!!

But isn't that the same with any job? We are all instructed to do things on a daily basis with which we fundamentally disagree. Some people have the courage of their convictions and walk out. I can't do that, I HAVE NO CHOICE but to represent anyone who instructs me to the best of my abilities. I might not like it and I might not agree with it, but I do it. But then I chose to do the job - that is where my choice lay. I could have just as easily chosen to work in Tescos. The point I suppose I am badly making (its Friday, I hit the Pinot early) is that if you don't want to have a idealogical argument about what you are instructed to do, do a different job!!!!

[sara3]

↑ she rests her case ;o)

[sqad617]

Barmaid...good point, but what about MOTIVE?

You set out to murder this woman, or you just meet her in a club, both go back to have consensual sex both of you are drunk and sonewhere amonst all the scenario you murder her. His DNA is in his sperm inside her vagina.

Now, he MAY have done it and he MAY NOT. The evidence of conviction would surely not lie just on the DNA.

[sqad617]

Barmaid........I can't think of anything at the moment.

[Barmaid]

That's the problem Sqad! You can never be 100% sure. He may have done it, he may not. He can't remember where he was, he has a history of violence towards women. Motive is generally pretty hard to prove. All the Prosecution are going to do is present a case that states that X had sex with the murdered woman (although he can't remember it) and then she was found dead half a mile from his flat. Can we hang someone on that basis?!

The case of Steve Wright (the Ipswich murderer) rested largely on DNA. Although with that case there were links between him/his house/the murdered women with cross contamination between the victims. The case was almost entirely based on DNA. In that case there was a wealth of evidence - albeit largely circumstantial - and I have no doubt the jury got it right. However, in other cases, DNA and scientific evidence have led to incorrect convictions. Think particularly of the now discredited evidence of the paedetrician in cases such as Sally Clarke. His evidence helped put lots of people behind bars (some of whom would have hanged), and has subsequently been found to be not credible.

[Barmaid]

lol - so what would you do for fifty quid?!