Death penalty juries?

[mstriumph]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing.

He must have been thrilled.

[Hitcher]

Once the money runs out, the death penalty is enacted.

It's actually cheaper for a regime of life imprisonment then it is for a death penalty. When the state of California was pondering its financial crises a few years ago it was seriously considering revoking the death penalty as a cost saving measure. I'm not sure whether that is still a live option for them, so to speak.

Also there is no evidence anywhere that a death penalty provides any useful deterrent for the crimes for which it applies as a sentencing outcome.

[Murray]

Personally I would like to see murder 1 and murder 2 verdicts - Murder 1 undisputable - fingerprints, dna eye witnesses etc etc no doubt at all and murder 2 no witnesses dna etc but probably did it eg lundy, watson even Bain - different verdict different penalty (murder 1 Death?? but certainly a longer life sentence).

Theres probably a problem with this type of system like "any doubt not guilty" so not possible to get a murder 2 verdict but hey just a thought.

[James Deuce]

Take "Eye Witness" out and you have a deal. There is no such thing as a reliable witness. Your memory is simply repeatedly recreated based mostly on how you feel right now. Human memory is the least convincing aspect of any body of evidence.

[Swoop]

If you had to show up for a trial that could result in the death penalty if found guilty, would it affect your attitude to serving on the jury?

No problem whatsoever.
ANY cop that shows up to provide "evidence" at the trial = GUILTY! Hang the piggy!

[mstriumph]

It's actually cheaper for a regime of life imprisonment then it is for a death penalty. When the state of California was pondering its financial crises a few years ago it was seriously considering revoking the death penalty as a cost saving measure. I'm not sure whether that is still a live option for them, so to speak.

That's the lead item on the link that I posted?
My suggestion was that, instead of the state being responsible for the miscreant's upkeep, it should be by donation

Also there is no evidence anywhere that a death penalty provides any useful deterrent for the crimes for which it applies as a sentencing outcome.

Mmmm - but it certainly prevents recividism

[bogan]

'Justice' is not a concept set in stone. I don't take issue with your equating the death penalty with 'revenge', although that's just your viewpoint ... however, it's a little sweeping to imply that one has to eschew execution to be considered 'civilised' (another moveable feast).

My personal opinion is that, either way, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Perhaps, were imprisonment less permissive, it would be more of a deterrent to potential offenders and less expensive (and therefore more attractive) to those paying for it.

It'd like to see a system where all costs involved in trial, appeals, imprisonment, etc were payable by an offender found guilty ... I'd like an account established for each prisoner where taxpayers can CHOOSE to have a small portion of their dues diverted if they disagree with the death penalty and where private individuals and other sponsors can contribute towards the offender's expenses.

Once the money runs out, the death penalty is enacted.

I had a little look for pros and cons on line ... the following is quite amusing http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view....stionID=001000

So, some people get more or less justice than others depending on their popularity. That's a bit perverse isn't it?

[Banditbandit]

...which neither of seem to work that well...

If we can't decide what a justice system is supposed to achieve how can we know whether it works or not ???

[jasonu]

So, some people get more or less justice than others depending on their popularity. That's a bit perverse isn't it?

You mean like rugby players and local celebrities...

[Paul in NZ]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

Justice for who? Its a punitive system applied reluctantly to discourage crime (revenge). Justice for the victims is virtually non existent.

[Ocean1]

Justice for who? Its a punitive system applied reluctantly to discourage crime (revenge). Justice for the victims is virtually non existent.

If it's function is to discourage crime then it's not revenge, is it?

The restorative justice thing has merit though. Either as well as current discouragement or apportioned as to provide same.

[Flip]

I was on a jury a few years ago. Based on my experience I have a great deal of faith in the English Jury system. If you are found guilty by a jury and you did not do it then you are really unlucky. IMHO A jury can only evaluate the evidence presented in court, nothing else. A jury does not set the sentence, the Judge does this. A jury does not make the law the goverment does this.

If I was to make one suggestion there should be a body of professional jurors. It’s a real PITA when a Juror is mentally or morally deficient.

What’s reasonable doubt? It’s higher than "on balance of probability" and lower than absolutely certain. It has to have opportunity and motive and good credible evidence that ties the crime to the defendant.

[scumdog]

In that order?

A time and a place for everything - even necrophilia...

[scumdog]

Take "Eye Witness" out and you have a deal. There is no such thing as a reliable witness. Your memory is simply repeatedly recreated based mostly on how you feel right now. Human memory is the least convincing aspect of any body of evidence.

Tell me about it...

[scumdog]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing.

sucks to be him...