i'm sure you didn't. i mean people who bang on about the tories screwing the poor then vote labour after they abolished the 10p tax rate which screwed the poor. people like that are oafs.

Didn't labour bring it in in the first place and at the time the ordinary rate was 22p (reduced to 20p). I am sure that even after the 10p rate went, the overall tax paid was less than before. I am fortunate not to have to claim any tax credits or benefits, but have friends and relatives who have and they all say that life under Labour was better than before 1997 and certainly better than under Cameron, where low paid workers are taking a hammering.

As a 55 year old I remember my grandparents being hospitalised (and dying) during the 80's and to be honest the state of the hospitals was a bloody disgrace, with leaking buildings and poor heating due to lack of investment (similar to schools at the time), but whether you liked Labour under Blair or not, they did invest heavily in new schools and hospitals (a friend died from cancer a couple of years ago and he was treated in the new cancer wing at Castle Hill Hospital near Hull and it was like being in a private hospital) which has to be a good thing. I don't mind paying more tax to see better education and health services, I am not that desperate for a few more quid in my wages (unlike the multi millionaire mates of Cameron).

Labour did a lot wrong during their time in office, but the low paid, sick and elderly will be battered a lot more under Cameron than they would under any other colour of government.

As for voting, I rarely have anyone stand in my area that I am happy with, in fact you could stick a blue rosette on a corpse in this area and it would get voted in.

You've avoided the question, again.

Oh and FYI I haven't voted Labour in a long time, shame it doesn't fit in with your idiotic argument.

We have seen plenty of cases where people were convicted of appalling crimes – and then, many years later, it was proved that they were innocent. But originally, on their convictions, there were no doubts, were there?



Which does not address the point I made about the ethics.



I don't think it's okay to "murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan". Do you?

Do you also believe that two wrongs make a right?

my age is irrelevant. but like i said, old enough to remember it. or is there an optimum age when you can only have an opinion?

how is it idiotic? perhaps you can explain to me how whining like a stuck pig about the actions of 1 government while voting for another who not only did the same thing, but did it first, isn't the action of an idiot.

My grandparents died in the 70's and I wasn't all that impressed by the state of the hospitals at the time.

You cannot compare the two - there was no chance for a miscarriage in the cases I suggested, I am not sure your examples even count as murder - more likely manslaughter?

I fully understand the points you are making - execution should only be used where the crime is so hiddeous and the proof is certain - e.g Brady, Sutcliffe, West etc.

Personally I would re-introduce the death penalty because I think some crimes are so disgusting that they need treating with the ultimate sanction. On that we will obvious disagree.

As for war - there will always be - sadly - collateral damage, are you suggesting we should disband the armed forces? If not when do suggest state ordered killing - which is what war is - is OK

What part of 'every case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt' don't you understand? Every single murder trial in this country carries [uexactly the same[/u burden of proof. Anyone found guilty of murder has been shown in a court of law to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, sometimes we get it wrong.



Eh? Come again?

A mother kills her own child, then, on a separate occasion, she kills another of her children and you don't think that would count as murder? Exactly where is this 'real world' you inhabit?

Fair enough.

The only point I would make is that all murder is horrific (I use murder explicitly as different from manslaughter). To say that some murders are worse than others is ultimately always going to be subjective. And also creates a sort of class system of the value of life.

So, for instance, if someone believes that the murderers of children should be executed, then they're saying that a child's life is worth more than that of someone (presumably) who is murdered just an hour after whatever age the law decides they're an adult. The same sort of thing would apply if someone suggested that capital punishment should be used for killers of the elderly. At what age does a life become, in effect, more valuable?

Similarly, for those who claim that murderers of police officers should be executed: why is the life of a policeman or woman worth more than that of a non-policeman/woman? Would the same thing apply to civilian members of the police force – forensics officers, for instance?

It would always be subjective and illogical, and effectively ignores the generally horrific nature of murder.



I'd personally prefer to see the armed forces only used for defence.

The proof is 'certain' in every single murder case. Every one.

I wouldn't want Huntley to be killed, but you have to admit it would be a service to the gene pool to exterminate juror no. 12.

This is something that proponents of the death penalty are simply incapable of comprehending.

To what purpose, exactly?

Baffling, isn't it? Whatever your view on the ethics of the death penalty in principle, that fact that if it were to be reintroduced, it would only be a matter of time before an innocent person was put to death by the state should be enough to see that it is never brought back as a sentencing option.

OTOH Jane Nicklinson has been granted leave to continue her late husband’s challenge to the existing law on murder and assisted suicide.

The Court of Appeal has today ruled that she can continue to appeal, on the basis that current law was incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If you are against the death penalty, are you for legalising assisted suicide? Is this a form of killing of a human that we should allow? If so, what's the difference? Would it set the precedent that yes, in at least one circumstance, it IS right to allow one human to kill another?

I agree re subjectivity - but our current sentencing in our judicial system is all based on the subjectivity of the judge.

With regards to children, they are largely defenceless and at the mercy of an adult - and as such the punishment should in some way reflect this.

On the police they are charged by us as citizens to protect us and as such they are exposed to situations that put themselves in danger that we as non police would have a choice as to our involvement. As such the punishment should once again reflect that.

On the armed forces do you think they should only deployed when someone invades?

No its not - the jury decide on the evidence provided whether they think the balance of probability suggests a murder or not. That is not certain in my eyes.

That is different from the likes of Sutcliffe who confessed and described each killing and West where several bodies were found within the boundries of the house?

What part of 'beyond reasonable doubt' are you finding difficult? Jurors have to be 100% certain of the defendant's guilt before they convict. That's 100% sure, beyond any reasonable doubt - [unot[/u on a balance of probabilities (the standard of proof in (most) civil cases).



The woman I mentioned had the bodies found within the house as well. Should she have been killed? Or should we only reintroduce the death penalty for those who confess to their crimes? If so, can you see the obvious flaw in that scenario?

How do you determine the difference between murder and manslaughter?

Sometimes we get it wrong - seldom, what % of murders have had the original decision overturned? We don't live in a perfect world sometimes we have accept that errors will be made.

I maybe have got this wrong but will a judge not accept a majority verdict say 10 to 2 - that is hardly 100%?

We could round in circles for ever - you either believe the likes of Ian Brady should be executed or you don't - so let's turn this on its head - why should Ian Brady not be executed? lack of evidence?

That's fine then.
We can absolve topping the odd innocent as long as we hope to get the majority correct?

Just don't get it, do you?

I don't, the law does.

[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/Here.[/url

Intent is the main difference. The woman I mentioned was found guilty of killing (and intending to kill) one child, then, later, another. But she didn't kill either. And under your rules she would now be dead.



It doesn't matter how many times we get it wrong. Even if it's less than 0.1%. For just one innocent person to die at the hands of the state is intolerable. How would you feel if a relative of your was put to death and then later found to be innocent? Presumably you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, "Ah well, mistakes happen."

It's not. There are mandatory sentences, sentencing guidelines and case law precedents. In serious cases most defendants get a pre-sentencing report, which is prepared by the probation services and, amongst other things, details their probability of reoffending and danger to society.

Unduly harsh / lenient sentences can be appealed.

In some instances they might, though a jury will always be directed to reach a unanimous verdict to begin with. Either way, you can't have the situation where only unanimous convictions are suitable for the death penalty, and even if you did, there is still the potential for all 12 of the jurors to get it wrong.



You can't just pick and choose. If you're reintroducing the death penalty for murder cases, it has to be a sentencing option in all instances. You can't just say, "Oh, well, we're really [ireally[/i sure this guy did it, so we'll execute him, but we're only really sure this guy did it, so he gets to live."