Lucy Letby- An example of why the death penalty is needed?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

3 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

You omitted to answer the final part of the post.

That's because I wasn't interested in answering.

There's no doubt whatsoever she's guilty. The normal bar for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt; in her case it's inconceivable that she's innocent.

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Daz Sparks 1,159]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's because I wasn't interested in answering.

Or you simply don't have a credible answer.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

4 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Or you simply don't have a credible answer.

No. Your question was emotive and irrelevant to a case where it's inconceivable she's not guilty.

I've said earlier the bar of beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough for a death sentence. This woman is why death should always be on the table for crimes like this with this degree of certainty.

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Daz Sparks 1,159]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

No. Your question was emotive and irrelevant to a case where it's inconceivable she's not guilty.

Poppycock. As I suspected, nothing of substance, merely deflection and obfuscation. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

Just now, Daz Sparks said:

Poppycock. As I suspected, nothing of substance, merely deflection and obfuscation. 

 

And what of the deaths of innocents from further offences as a result of the weak-minded puritanical outlook of people like yourself? Do you take ownership for that?

[ricardo 7,395]

17 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

There's no doubt whatsoever she's guilty. The normal bar for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt; in her case it's inconceivable that she's innocent.

Which is no longer the criterion. Beyond a reasonable  doubt no longer applies. Juries merely have to be "satisfied so that they are sure".

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Which is no longer the criterion. Beyond a reasonable  doubt no longer applies. Juries merely have to be "satisfied so that they are sure".

Absolutely. Not saying the bars of certainty shouldn't be reflected in severity of sentences. I agree if there's any conceivable doubt, it can't be on the table.

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[ricardo 7,395]

Since the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence there may always be reasonable doubt. I respect the jury who heard all the evidence and gave their verdict but they did not reach it upon the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[Daz Sparks 1,159]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And what of the deaths of innocents from further offences as a result of the weak-minded puritanical outlook of people like yourself? Do you take ownership for that?

Hypothetical deaths from hypothetical further offences, what on earth are you spouting about now. As for the first part, I am neither, and fortunately there exists enough of a majority to ensure that extremism of the like you display will not be seeing a death penalty in law anytime soon. 

Now let's leave it there shall we, you failed to answer to my valid point, and I am totally uninterested in engaging with you. I should have known better to initiate any discourse with you, as I have seen in many of your postings that you rarely debate, you simply preach and pontificate. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

23 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Hypothetical deaths from hypothetical further offences, what on earth are you spouting about now. As for the first part, I am neither, and fortunately there exists enough of a majority to ensure that extremism of the like you display will not be seeing a death penalty in law anytime soon. 

Now let's leave it there shall we, you failed to answer to my valid point, and I am totally uninterested in engaging with you. I should have known better to initiate any discourse with you, as I have seen in many of your postings that you rarely debate, you simply preach and pontificate. 

 

Murdered trying to rehabilitate a convicted terrorist for starters.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50615926

What are you doing if not preaching?

Edit: 29 convicted murderers over a decade released to kill again; 29 non-hypothetical dead innocents as a result of the state's decisions. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16638227

So now it's no longer hypothetical, let's not leave it there. Any ownership for your weak-minded puritanical outlook or just more obfuscation and deflection?

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

Deleted.

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie
formatting issue

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

3 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Why should it?  One swallow doesn’t make a summer.

Where's the evidence that women are naturally nurturers to start with?

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,138]

5 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

Why do we think death is a greater punishment than decades in prison without hope of release?  I know which I'd choose.

I agree. The only issue I have with this when talking about the worst and most abhorrent offenders is that once you get accustomed to it life in prison in this country can be pretty comfortable and I think for people like her there should be a more severe form of incarceration where amenities and entertainment are much more restricted, the cells are much more basic, outside communication is forbidden etc. I get the human rights argument against this but there has to be a point with people like her or say for example Ian Watkins where these protections are simply too good for them and the life they live in prison is too comfortable and not enough of a punishment for the crimes they committed. 

I'm not advocating for anything completely inhumane or any form or torture but I don't think the life she'll be living in prison will be a proportional punishment for the crimes she committed. Even in a category A prison there are less privileges but it's not as awful as you'd imagine, here's an interesting quote I found 

"According to a survey undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in 2014, a large proportion of category A prisoners don’t even see their sentence as a punishment. In HMP Frankland, just under two thirds of inmates said that they felt punished. The same was reported at HMP Full Sutton, and in HMP Belmarsh, one of the UK’s most notorious high-security prisons, 1 in 3 said they didn’t feel punished when incarcerated there"

I think for the vast majority of offenders rehabilitation should be the priority. But for people like her I think a different and much more punitive approach is needed, not the death penalty, but a harsher form of imprisonment. A homeless person is probably a lot worse off than she will be and would love some of the amenities that she'll be getting. 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

Life imprisonment is fine and I would argue a problem is that for premeditated murder, we don't use it enough (conversely we also jail for offences I'm not sure require jail, like pretty much all financial crimes, which really should be financially punished as a primary focus instead). I'm not convinced about the complaint about facilities etc., prisoners should still be given some semblance of dignity regardless of how heinous I find their crimes.

@Christoph Stiepermann makes the call that a homeless person is probably a lot worse off. I agree, but that's telling me we need to do more for the homeless. I'm not that comfortable with the idea of a dual standard in prisoner treatment.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not punishment in my book. It's removing the threat to others' safety and saving oxygen and resources. Think of it as helping the environment.

She deserves to die; nobody needs her. She will never be any use to anyone.

She's a serial killer. Respect of right to life of someone like that is absurd.

OTT. Would you pull the lever or press the syringe machine? Your reasoning sounds like expediency rather than a reasoned argument based on facts and reason. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

OTT. Would you pull the lever or press the syringe machine? Your reasoning sounds like expediency rather than a reasoned argument based on facts and reason. 

 

Maybe you can answer my question that Daz dodged. What of those 29 murders committed by previously convicted murderers who were later released? Why shouldn’t those deaths be regarded as on the people who advocate hand-wringing on behalf of murderers over and above actual innocent people who are their victims?

This is the problem: So long as they’re still alive, even if they’re locked up supposedly for life, there’s no guarantee that some idiot so convinced of his own virtue and good judgement isn’t going to let them out for them to do something again somewhere down the line. Even if you’re super careful and it turned out only one of those 29 murderers was really definitely guilty beyond any possible doubt and put to death, that’s one innocent life saved.

 

[Aggy 757]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe you can answer my question that Daz dodged. What of those 29 murders committed by previously convicted murderers who were later released? Why shouldn’t those deaths be regarded as on the people who advocate hand-wringing on behalf of murderers over and above actual innocent people who are their victims?

This is the problem: So long as they’re still alive, even if they’re locked up supposedly for life, there’s no guarantee that some idiot so convinced of his own virtue and good judgement isn’t going to let them out for them to do something again somewhere down the line. Even if you’re super careful and it turned out only one of those 29 murderers was really definitely guilty beyond any possible doubt and put to death, that’s one innocent life saved.

 

My guess is that if the death penalty was on the cards, the only thing it would achieve is more people getting away with serious crimes they did commit as juries refuse to convict.

Which I would guess would lead to more murderers being out and about and being able to kill again. 29 murders by reoffenders doesn’t seem like a huge amount to be completely honest given there are over 600 murders a year in England alone on average.

I would not be at all surprised if that number quite quickly came to be dwarfed by the number of murders committed by people who “got away” with it, although of course you could never prove that unless they later confessed to the crime they previously “got away” with…

 

[Naturalcynic 641]

10 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Where's the evidence that women are naturally nurturers to start with?

 I can’t give you results from peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, but really I think the evidence is all around you and is based on millennia of observational experience where it’s been overwhelmingly women who have cared for, nurtured, and raised children, or at least their own.

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

59 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

 I can’t give you results from peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, but really I think the evidence is all around you and is based on millennia of observational experience where it’s been overwhelmingly women who have cared for, nurtured, and raised children, or at least their own.

Boils down to the nature/nurture question. What has been proven is that men bond just as deeply with their offspring, as Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy demonstrated in her work.

The notion of "maternal instinct" is not supported by science.

[Fen Canary 848]

23 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

It was never a deterrent, really. But the advantage was that when we consider recidivism rates, it stopped that.

It’s also a lot cheaper 

[Fen Canary 848]

14 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

Hypothetical deaths from hypothetical further offences, what on earth are you spouting about now. As for the first part, I am neither, and fortunately there exists enough of a majority to ensure that extremism of the like you display will not be seeing a death penalty in law anytime soon. 

Now let's leave it there shall we, you failed to answer to my valid point, and I am totally uninterested in engaging with you. I should have known better to initiate any discourse with you, as I have seen in many of your postings that you rarely debate, you simply preach and pontificate. 

I wouldn’t be so sure, I’ll try and find it but I’m sure I read that in circumstances such as Letby, Huntley etc there was a slight majority in favour of the death penalty for the worst crimes, especially those against children 

[Herman 9,793]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I wouldn’t be so sure, I’ll try and find it but I’m sure I read that in circumstances such as Letby, Huntley etc there was a slight majority in favour of the death penalty for the worst crimes, especially those against children 

52/48  I reckon. 

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s also a lot cheaper 

Not necessarily.

Costs | Death Penalty Information Center

To execute or not: A question of cost? (nbcnews.com)

Wasteful & Inefficient - Equal Justice USA (ejusa.org)

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

How are people on the fact the sentencing breaches European Human Rights law, given the judge explicitly stated she must never be released?

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/new-factsheet-on-life-imprisonment-and-the-echr#:~:text=Life imprisonment is compatible with,be sufficiently clear and certain.

Edited August 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

13 hours ago, Aggy said:

My guess is that if the death penalty was on the cards, the only thing it would achieve is more people getting away with serious crimes they did commit as juries refuse to convict.

Which I would guess would lead to more murderers being out and about and being able to kill again. 29 murders by reoffenders doesn’t seem like a huge amount to be completely honest given there are over 600 murders a year in England alone on average.

I would not be at all surprised if that number quite quickly came to be dwarfed by the number of murders committed by people who “got away” with it, although of course you could never prove that unless they later confessed to the crime they previously “got away” with…

 

It also makes people more desperate when they have nothing to lose - so lethal gun fights with police etc more common and even more innocent bystanders caught up in the carnage.

Only need to look at the US.

So no. Just make sure people know they'll get caught. That's the deterrence for rational criminals.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe you can answer my question that Daz dodged. What of those 29 murders committed by previously convicted murderers who were later released? Why shouldn’t those deaths be regarded as on the people who advocate hand-wringing on behalf of murderers over and above actual innocent people who are their victims?

This is the problem: So long as they’re still alive, even if they’re locked up supposedly for life, there’s no guarantee that some idiot so convinced of his own virtue and good judgement isn’t going to let them out for them to do something again somewhere down the line. Even if you’re super careful and it turned out only one of those 29 murderers was really definitely guilty beyond any possible doubt and put to death, that’s one innocent life saved.

 

I have nothing against whole of life incarceration. There is no point in rehabilitation for her. Just punishment. She stepped outside the law so has no recourse to step back within it.

I cannot support the death penalty by the State. But I can accept corporal punishment.

[Naturalcynic 641]

8 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Boils down to the nature/nurture question. What has been proven is that men bond just as deeply with their offspring, as Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy demonstrated in her work.

The notion of "maternal instinct" is not supported by science.

Sometimes you just have to believe your own eyes and experiences rather than attempting to deny the glaringly obvious.

[TheGunnShow 5,953]

14 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Sometimes you just have to believe your own eyes and experiences rather than attempting to deny the glaringly obvious.

So there's definitely no god then.

Fact is, there is no scientific evidence for a maternal instinct, as in purely for women. 

Opinion | Maternal Instinct Is a Myth That Men Created - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Is Maternal Instinct Only for Moms? Here's the Science. (nationalgeographic.com)

Maternal Instinct: Does It Really Exist? (healthline.com)

Edited August 22, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Naturalcynic 641]

30 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

So there's definitely no god then.

Fact is, there is no scientific evidence for a maternal instinct, as in purely for women. 

Opinion | Maternal Instinct Is a Myth That Men Created - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Is Maternal Instinct Only for Moms? Here's the Science. (nationalgeographic.com)

Maternal Instinct: Does It Really Exist? (healthline.com)

The first two are behind a paywall and the third is basically an opinion piece with extremely weak evidence.  If you can show me some real peer-reviewed randomised double-blind controlled trials rather than some questionable opinions from sociologists who may or may not have a vested interest in claiming that women don’t have a nurturing instinct, then that would be good.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How are people on the fact the sentencing breaches European Human Rights law, given the judge explicitly stated she must never be released?

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/new-factsheet-on-life-imprisonment-and-the-echr#:~:text=Life imprisonment is compatible with,be sufficiently clear and certain.

Vardags whole life orders

"CAN A WHOLE-LIFE PRISONER EVER BE RELEASED?

The only mechanism by which a whole-life prisoner may ever be released is on “exceptional compassionate grounds”. By reference to the 2009 compassionate release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (convicted in Scotland, where there is no WLO), this could occur, for example, if a prisoner had terminal cancer. No whole-life prisoner has ever been released this way, and indeed several WLO prisoners have become terminally ill and died in prison. The compassionate release mechanism keeps the WLO compliant with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) per the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hutchinson v the United Kingdom [2017]."