Justice is finally served

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
glojo

glojo

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
14,652
Location
Torquay
Car
S211 Sprinter 213CDI, & the new T-class
At long last the murderer of Lesley Molseed has finally been sentenced.

Ronald CASTREE Has finally been found guilty, but who here can remember the pitiful sight of Stefan Kiszko shuffling out of the prison gates in his poorly fiiting suit and plymsols?

Those that bay for the death sentence will glibly say this would never happen in this day and age, but how can they be sure? I am very right wing regarding crime, and those that commit it, but to hang an innocent man is one step too far, and being found innocent on appeal is plainly unacceptable.

John
 
I am in favour of re-establihing the death penalty, but ONLY for certain crimes, and only for crimes where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person who is found guilty IS the perpetrator of the crime. In other words either by incontraversial DNA proof, at least 3 independant witnesses or clear video evidence.
I do believe it is a valuable tool which should be available in certain cases.
If someone is prepared to take a life, then they should expect to be dealt a punishment befitting the crime.
I would like to see a referendum on this issue, but its never likely to happen because I think everyone has a good idea what the likely outcome would be.
 
verytalldave said:
I am in favour of re-establihing the death penalty, but ONLY for certain crimes, and only for crimes where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person who is found guilty IS the perpetrator of the crime. In other words either by incontraversial DNA proof, at least 3 independant witnesses or clear video evidence.
I do believe it is a valuable tool which should be available in certain cases.
If someone is prepared to take a life, then they should expect to be dealt a punishment befitting the crime.
I would like to see a referendum on this issue, but its never likely to happen because I think everyone has a good idea what the likely outcome would be.
Click to expand...
I understand what your saying and totally agree with your point about a referendum. I am positive that if we had one tomorrow then there would be an overwhelming Hanging vote.

If however we look at your stipulations they are the ideal circumstance that wil very rarely happen and if we read the news today there is an ongoing appeal for a convicted murderer. If we had capital punishment I would assume the appeals would esculate.

What about an evil man that stalks nurses and policewomen. This person shoots his victims from a distance and always destroys his clothing. No DNA, and no weapon is ever found. The evil person gives himself up and confesses the crimes giving the exact times, dates etc. Are we going to say no to hanging this person? If we say hang them, then how will we know they are not another Stefan Kiszko? I am not a goody, goody soft left wing pacifist, life imprisonment should mean life and prison should mean punishment but perhaps reform for first and maybe second time offenders.

John
 
I guessed a reply along those lines, and yes, I agree its not an easy question. I would not like to be the one who has to draw a line and be says what will and and what will not be subject to the death sentence.
Again, I agree with you and life should mean life. Not 20, 30 or even 50 years. Life. You die in prison.
I think that option would apease many who would otherwise automatically support the death penalty, maybe even me if I thought about it enough.
 
I don't think a referendum is likely to result in a yes vote for the death penalty - I just don't think the general public have an appetite.

Personally I don't agree with it - but only because I think it's too easy. My preference would be that a life sentence should mean just that (for certain crimes) - no parole and I really wish we could bring in hard labour too.
 
Why stop at hanging, some of the really evil devils should be

HUNG DRAWN and QUARTERED in my opinion.:devil: :devil:

Why should we support them for the rest of their life, when they have taken some poor devil's life for normally the sheer fun of it.:devil: :devil:

I have to agree though that it should be only when there is no shadow of a doubt who did it and especially those that brag about it.
 
In the USA it is usually the poor, illiterate, coloured, minority classes that get the death penalty as they have little resources to good quality legal representation.

I personally would never vote for the death penalty -- but I would vote to make LIFE a true Life sentence for the whole of their life.
 
verytalldave said:
I am in favour of re-establihing the death penalty, but ONLY for certain crimes, and only for crimes where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person who is found guilty IS the perpetrator of the crime.
Click to expand...

By the standards of the time, there was no doubt Stefan Kiszko was guilty. But he wasn't.

I suspect you may be right, that if you asked the opinion of the population, there might be a majority in favour of the death penalty.

Until there was a single mis-carriage and then the taste would disappear (rather like the killing of a Brazillian on the underground plenty of support for tough action, until the going gets tough...).

There are folks out there willing to confess to killing JFK, being the real Yorkshire Ripper and pretty much every other crime you can think of. Some will even prep evidence to support their case.

They shouldn't be convicted though.

"3-strikes" is fine, but when you are cornered and about to get locked up for your third house burglary, why not kill the cop who wants to bring you in (and anyone else who might get in your way) - the penalty will be no worse.

(Actually I support "3 Strikes", but there are wider implications for a more violent society).

I believe one of the signs of a civilised society is that we don't kill people. We deal with them in other ways.

:eek:
 
Death is irreversible (currently). DNA is absolute proof (currently). But what if the latter changes before the former? Imagine being arrested for something you didn't do because someone faked your DNA? Or worse, someone collected your DNA and used it to leave trace samples at a crime scene? Until death is reversible, we should not punish by killing.

Part of me wants to punish certain crimes by death. But even one miscarriage of justice would be too much.

-simon
 
I was tempted to have a poll about bringing back the death penalty but gave up on the wording. No matter how it would be worded it would be open to amendment and perhaps be deemed unfair?

The example I gave would have no witnesses, no DNA, and no weapon, but could the crime be any worse? Yes, but if we don't pass the death sentence on my example, then why have it and how would the pro lobby suggest a poll be worded?

I have always been against the death sentence and always will be, but whenever I have been out in the pub and this topic is raised, I have always been in the minority and by a big margin. :eek:

At the press interview after the trial I was disappointed by the smiles shown by the police. They seem to forget the history to the case and a bit of humble pie might have been a better dish. Times move on and interview techniques 'improve' :eek: ;) but an innocent man was convicted and I dread to think of the treatment he might have received during his incarceration. Prisoners tend to express their disapproval of animals that rape and murder young children and this disapproval might not be a pleasant experience? To be innocent and undergo this punishment is more than a mistake and the police should realise this.

John
 
i am in total support of the death penalty, for absolute certainty crimes
if someone rushes into a crowded train station and opens fire killing 50. seen by 200 people and 50cctv cameras and armed police charge in and order him to drop his weapon and he does and surrenders, then no life jail for that guy.
or some smart lawyer with some insanity pleas.
now with uncertain cases, no way will i support that.
with DNA backed cases i will not support that either as there can be cross contamination of evidence.

i can give you some cases.
if the bomber in glasgow airport had gone off killing airport workers ttheen he ran out of his SUV and was caught by smeaton and the police. clear certainty, he did it.

Harold shipman, i will not support death penalty. not 100%clear.
 
Last edited:
verytalldave said:
I am in favour of re-establihing the death penalty, but ONLY for certain crimes, and only for crimes where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person who is found guilty IS the perpetrator of the crime.
Click to expand...


You can never be totally certain of guilt, even if the accused confesses. Indeed, as most policemen will tell you, the guilty tend not to confess, so a confession is often just a sign of a kook who was not involved but wants his 15 minutes of fame. The requirement for a conviction leading to anything up to life imprisonment is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not certainty.

So what you say sounds OK in theory, but in practice we would either end up hanging innocent people, or hanging no-one at all.

Personally, I believe that a far better deterrent to criminals would be to increase the chance of their being caught. I was horrified to hear this week that overall, the number of reported crimes that result in a conviction is just over 5.6%. So 94.4% of miscreants are either never caught, or not charged, or not convicted.

If you increased the 5.6% clear-up rate, even to say 25%, this would be far more of a deterrent to criminals.
 
recycled said:
i am in total support of the death penalty, for absolute certainty crimes.
Click to expand...
So how would you word the crime that warrants the death penalty, are we looking at a lesser type of murder that is witnessed for capital punishment, but the evil, sick crime that is not witnessed be treated less severely?

John
 
exactly.The cost of a mistake is too real if not 100% certain
 
glojo said:
At the press interview after the trial I was disappointed by the smiles shown by the police. They seem to forget the history to the case and a bit of humble pie might have been a better dish. Times move on and interview techniques 'improve' :eek: ;) but an innocent man was convicted and I dread to think of the treatment he might have received during his incarceration. Prisoners tend to express their disapproval of animals that rape and murder young children and this disapproval might not be a pleasant experience? To be innocent and undergo this punishment is more than a mistake and the police should realise this.

John
Click to expand...


I,ve been reading this thread with great interest, and I'm in agreement with you

However...

There have already been investigations as to why mistakes were made
in the origional conviction. This was a terrible miscarriage of justice, make no mistake. But, this was not the fault of the officers there today. These days, bringing a succesful murder case to court demands immense work, skill and recources. They were rightly pleased to have removed this low life scum from our society.

Thanks again for a very interesting thread.

Jay:)
 
just read the thread what a sad case for the family of Lesely Molseed and also the family of Stefan Kiszco thinking the right man was sentanced years before for him to be found innocent on appeal and the take another 15 years to get the right killer...agree about bringing back hanging if the person is 100 % guilty with dna and other evidence..why should we have to pay for them to be kept in prison...(thats just my opinion)
 
Here's another thought for those that want to bring back capital punishment.

I have heard the next of kin of the victims saying how death for the accused would be too easy, let them be locked up for life.

Regards
John
 
I wish that the CID officers end up in hell for what they did to Lesely Molseed.

A man who at the time of the murder was putting flowers on his fathers grave
 
I'm sorry but I don't agree with the death penalty.

I have read this thread and there is mention of absolute proof, what exactly can that be?
Witnessing it maybe, so what happens when someone witness' a murder and goes to an ID and say's YES it was him/her and is later found that him/her has an identical twin. What then?

Oh and sorry, I see there no mention in this story of the police getting done for what they did?

That poor man's LIFE was ruined.

Alex.
P.S. LIFE imprisonment should mean EXACTLY that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom