Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology3 mins ago
Sutcliffe Is Dead
He has finally got his wish
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barry1010. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sutcliffe is dead and it has been touted on the media (Globals News. LBC) that the taxpayer will pay for its disposal. For Christ sake. If that is true he is costing us when alive and dead. He must be having the last laugh and it hurts.
If this murdering excuse for mankind was hung from the word go he would of been chucked into unconsecrated ground with the rest of the scum. Would only have cost Mr Pierrepoint's expenses and the pit could of been dug free by a lag. Grrr
If this murdering excuse for mankind was hung from the word go he would of been chucked into unconsecrated ground with the rest of the scum. Would only have cost Mr Pierrepoint's expenses and the pit could of been dug free by a lag. Grrr
well - if the people so keen on hanging made sure the people they were gonna hang had actually done it ....
then there may be more appetite for it
they didnt - there isnt. Irish terrorism ( again - revisited but hey lets do it again) a judge regretted in one case that capital punishment wasnt available - and then and then - when it was found they cdnt have done it - a 'brother' judge ( Peter Taylor) shrugged and said "it is nothing to do with him if the police chose to lie to him"
well that's OK then isnt it
then there may be more appetite for it
they didnt - there isnt. Irish terrorism ( again - revisited but hey lets do it again) a judge regretted in one case that capital punishment wasnt available - and then and then - when it was found they cdnt have done it - a 'brother' judge ( Peter Taylor) shrugged and said "it is nothing to do with him if the police chose to lie to him"
well that's OK then isnt it
Ag, I meant more people we "know" are innocent... rather than just cases where we aren't sure of "guilt".
Is the case that we can't trust the British justice system to get the right answer, so we should minimise punishment, in case? Bearing in mind, the way it is weighted, we are far far more likely to acquit a guilty person, than wrongly convict an innocent person. Wouldn't it be better to get it right in the first place? I don't imagine anyone is suggesting we should execute innocent people... but surely there are some times, that we "know"?
I don't know the answer here, so it is a genuine question... when was the last year we convicted someone, that might have got the death penalty... where we absolutely know we were wrong? (Rather than just revoking).
Is the case that we can't trust the British justice system to get the right answer, so we should minimise punishment, in case? Bearing in mind, the way it is weighted, we are far far more likely to acquit a guilty person, than wrongly convict an innocent person. Wouldn't it be better to get it right in the first place? I don't imagine anyone is suggesting we should execute innocent people... but surely there are some times, that we "know"?
I don't know the answer here, so it is a genuine question... when was the last year we convicted someone, that might have got the death penalty... where we absolutely know we were wrong? (Rather than just revoking).
Good point Pix.I get wot u mean.
If it was up to me I wud change the age old system.Like,not as adversarial and have a more inquisitorial system.
Wot abt no juries but a panel including legal,mental health folk but keep a judge.
I also dont like the current jury set up.Should be 6 each men and women.
If it was up to me I wud change the age old system.Like,not as adversarial and have a more inquisitorial system.
Wot abt no juries but a panel including legal,mental health folk but keep a judge.
I also dont like the current jury set up.Should be 6 each men and women.
I sometimes here that CP shud be brort in for cases where it is 100% sure a person is proven guilty.
To me,there is no such case bcos these days there will always be disagreements among psychiatrists,forensic experts,etc.
Ive just spoken to me grandad and he has mentioned Lord Haw Haw (1946?) hanged for treason.Appeals rejected by courts but he had no allegiance to Britain,no British passport etc.Shudntve been hung??
To me,there is no such case bcos these days there will always be disagreements among psychiatrists,forensic experts,etc.
Ive just spoken to me grandad and he has mentioned Lord Haw Haw (1946?) hanged for treason.Appeals rejected by courts but he had no allegiance to Britain,no British passport etc.Shudntve been hung??
Jack (I googled it)
"During the processing of the charges Joyce's American nationality came to light, and it seemed that he would have to be acquitted, based upon a lack of jurisdiction; he could not be convicted of betraying a country that was not his own. He was acquitted of the first and second charges.[citation needed] However, the Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, successfully argued that Joyce's possession of a British passport, even though he had misstated his nationality to get it, entitled him until it expired to British diplomatic protection in Germany, and therefore he owed allegiance to the King at the time he commenced working for the Germans."
"During the processing of the charges Joyce's American nationality came to light, and it seemed that he would have to be acquitted, based upon a lack of jurisdiction; he could not be convicted of betraying a country that was not his own. He was acquitted of the first and second charges.[citation needed] However, the Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, successfully argued that Joyce's possession of a British passport, even though he had misstated his nationality to get it, entitled him until it expired to British diplomatic protection in Germany, and therefore he owed allegiance to the King at the time he commenced working for the Germans."
