The Death Penalty

[AndyM]

On 27/07/2023 at 12:30, stimpy said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7052109.stm

 

The case of Stefan Kiszko was sad enough without the death penalty and he definitely would've been condemned to death. 

That's absolutely horrendous. That surviving cop should have been dragged to court, charged and jailed. Pension gone too.

I've often wondered in the case of wrongful execution what the going rate for compensation would be to the family in this era. 10 million? 50 million? 100 million? More?  One things is for sure the public would soon lose their appetite for bloodlust once payments like that started.

[Soapy FFC]

12 minutes ago, AndyM said:

That's absolutely horrendous. That surviving cop should have been dragged to court, charged and jailed. Pension gone too.

I've often wondered in the case of wrongful execution what the going rate for compensation would be to the family in this era. 10 million? 50 million? 100 million? More?  One things is for sure the public would soon lose their appetite for bloodlust once payments like that started.

I've no doubt that in cases like that certain sections of the media would start digging up minor convictions for shop lifting in their youth etc for both the convicted and their family, and paint a picture of ' they are all bad ones anyway' and that the family don't deserve compensation.

[AndyM]

3 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

I've no doubt that in cases like that certain sections of the media would start digging up minor convictions for shop lifting in their youth etc for both the convicted and their family, and paint a picture of ' they are all bad ones anyway' and that the family don't deserve compensation.

I could only see it be brought back by some deranged right wing government. Perhaps the 2035 Tory Govt of Lee Anderson in some horrible dystopian future but no doubt he's have the Murdoch press on his side an no doubt that evil old c*nt would still be alive..

[Silvio Tattiescone]

12 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

I've no doubt that in cases like that certain sections of the media would start digging up minor convictions for shop lifting in their youth etc for both the convicted and their family, and paint a picture of ' they are all bad ones anyway' and that the family don't deserve compensation.

That's exactly how the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme works.  You could be walking along the road and someone cuts off your ear. You're entitled to £11k for that. But, if you were done for nicking a Mars bar 2 years ago the compensation will be reduced. If you shouted at the assailant as in "Hey! What are you doing with that big knife ya b*****d?", the compensation will be reduced. 

 

I've seen examples where someone was mugged, beaten up, stabbed and left for dead but they were advised not to bother applying for CIC because they had a criminal record for multiple burglaries and minor drug convictions.

[hk blues]

15 hours ago, TxRover said:

The problem is some were fighting, and the system kept refusing and stalling any actions. They fought, but the process is slow and bizarre.

I'd never heard a peep about it until he was released, though - and I lived in Manchester at the time of his conviction.  That seems strange if things were so clear then as they are now.

 

[hk blues]

15 hours ago, beefybake said:

Listening to BBC R4 in the car yesterday a bit after 1pm, not sure what programme that is......

Every man and his dog, including the defence people, knew about the DNA find after a handful of years.

Apparently , the Criminal Cases Review Commission was  underfunded, and the Appeals Court was notorously

dificult to persuade to change their mind over a conviction, plus the fact that the original conviction

was done on the basis of identification. For those reasons, the Review Commission  did a cost/perceived benefit analysis

(to themselves) and declined to act.

 

The person being interviewed , the lawyer Michael Mansfield, basically said the whole system was corrupt, in the way it has acted towards the guy. 

Police, Crown Prosecutors, the CCRC, the Appeals system...., and he very much pointed towards the weight that is put on 'identification' rather

than scientifc evidence.

 

 

Oh, and no one let on that the identifiers were petty criminals with convictions as long as your arm.

 

 

Again, with such a miscarriage of justice why weren't his campaigners able to get some of the media onside? Even 20 years ago there were media on both sides of the fence. To be fair, maybe I completely missed the media campaign but given I lived in Manchester* at the time of his conviction, it seems strange.

*Aye, it could've been me.  And no, that's not a confession!

[Derry Alli]

15 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

That's exactly how the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme works.  You could be walking along the road and someone cuts off your ear. You're entitled to £11k for that. But, if you were done for nicking a Mars bar 2 years ago the compensation will be reduced. If you shouted at the assailant as in "Hey! What are you doing with that big knife ya b*****d?", the compensation will be reduced. 

 

I've seen examples where someone was mugged, beaten up, stabbed and left for dead but they were advised not to bother applying for CIC because they had a criminal record for multiple burglaries and minor drug convictions.

That surely can't be true? 

I've a mate with drug convictions and some sort of jail lime for AWOL from the ar.y who got a pretty hefty pay out when he was beaten with one of those green poleys you see on council estates for hanging washing. E also got some form of jail time for treasonous the crown and going AWOL in his younger days.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-injuries-compensation-a-guide#:~:text=Taking account of your criminal record,-If you have&text=We may refuse or reduce,a final decision is made.

 

Quote

The Scheme is intended to compensate victims of crimes of violence. Before making a payment we have to consider if an applicant’s behaviour before, during or after the incident makes it inappropriate to make a full or reduced award. This may be where their conduct caused or contributed to the incident.

For example, we will consider if:

they were acting in an aggressive or threatening way and provoked the incident in which they were injured;

they intended to provoke an assault or fight;

there was a history of violence between them and their assailant;

what happened at the time of the incident, such as whether they willingly took part in a fight, and

whether they sought revenge against their assailant.

We will not take into account intoxication through alcohol or drugs to the extent that such intoxication made them more vulnerable to becoming a victim of a crime of violence. The use of alcohol or drugs is only a conduct issue if it played a direct role in provoking the incident that led to the assault.

Taking account of your criminal record
If you have an unspent criminal conviction, it may affect whether you are entitled to an award or the amount of any award. Under the Scheme, all convictions will be considered in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (as amended). In general, the more serious the sentence received, and the more recently it was given, the longer the conviction will take to become spent.

We may refuse or reduce an award under the Scheme if you have an unspent criminal conviction at the date of your application or are convicted of a crime before a final decision is made.

An award will not be made if you have an unspent conviction for an offence which resulted in:

(a) a sentence excluded from rehabilitation

(b) a custodial sentence

(c) a sentence of service detention

(d) removal from His Majesty’s Service

(e) a community order

(f) a youth rehabilitation order, or

(g) a sentence equivalent to a sentence under sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) imposed under the law of Northern Ireland or a member state of the European Union, or such a sentence properly imposed in a country outside the European Union.

If you have an unspent conviction which resulted in a sentence not included in the list above, an award will be withheld or reduced unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so.

 

[hk blues]

48 minutes ago, Derry Alli said:

That surely can't be true? 

I've a mate with drug convictions and some sort of jail lime for AWOL from the ar.y who got a pretty hefty pay out when he was beaten with one of those green poleys you see on council estates for hanging washing. E also got some form of jail time for treasonous the crown and going AWOL in his younger days.

 

3 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-injuries-compensation-a-guide#:~:text=Taking account of your criminal record,-If you have&text=We may refuse or reduce,a final decision is made.

 

 

It seems the key thing is if the conviction is considered spent or not.

[GordonD]

2 hours ago, Derry Alli said:

and some sort of jail lime for AWOL

As a former co-editor I know the mag rubbed some people up the wrong way but I hadn't realised we'd gone that far.

[Derry Alli]

2 minutes ago, GordonD said:

As a former co-editor I know the mag rubbed some people up the wrong way but I hadn't realised we'd gone that far.

I'm not sure if it was HMP or Army jail.

[TxRover]

8 hours ago, hk blues said:

I'd never heard a peep about it until he was released, though - and I lived in Manchester at the time of his conviction.  That seems strange if things were so clear then as they are now.

Why is it strange? The evidence of police malfeasance was concealed until recently, the comments made by the CCRC were not public until recently. The case was first widely mentioned in 2016 in a book by Bob Woffinden, which caused more people to look at it, and Appeal to pick it up in 2017. Given the timeline on producing a book, his case was public knowledge in at least 2014-2015, if not before. The biggest problem in the case was the slow trickle of evidence of deliberate actions that caused the miscarriage…but which seen as a whole now make it crystal clear. It wasn’t until the last couple of years that the facts regarding the “witness identification”, or perhaps misidentification is better, and the failures there came to light…14 years after the first suggestion in documents that the strength of that evidence meant the DNA evidence clearing him was irrelevant.

[101]

Most prolific baby killer makes a good case for the death penalty however still don't think the arguments justify it.

Sentencing to come but 7 deaths and a whole load more attempts suggests it will be a life sentence.

Do wonder if she could have been stopped sooner, in the way the police stop arming officers after they kill someone could NHS staff have a review when patients die, or do so many people die there that it would be unmanageable?

[Busta Nut]

I'd let the families kick that nurse to death. f**k her

[TxRover]

22 minutes ago, 101 said:

Do wonder if she could have been stopped sooner, in the way the police stop arming officers after they kill someone could NHS staff have a review when patients die, or do so many people die there that it would be unmanageable?

Per this study, they should be doing some of that now:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/learning-from-deaths-in-the-nhs/

[scottsdad]

Even cases like this won't change my mind about the death penalty. It is wrong. 

25 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

I'd let the families kick that nurse to death. f**k her

Here, I take my cue from my auntie. When my cousin - her daughter - was murdered, she wanted nothing more than the guy who killed her to be jailed for life. 

Sadly he's out now. But she never even so much as hinted that she wanted him executed. 

[beefybake]

11 hours ago, hk blues said:

Again, with such a miscarriage of justice why weren't his campaigners able to get some of the media onside? Even 20 years ago there were media on both sides of the fence. To be fair, maybe I completely missed the media campaign but given I lived in Manchester* at the time of his conviction, it seems strange.

*Aye, it could've been me.  And no, that's not a confession!

What campaigners .. ?  Convicted criminals saying they are innocent are two a penny.    And it's rather difficult for defence lawyers to go playing the media.

They played by the book, and the system. And the system screwed them, and their client.

Maybe just read what I said above.  Too much weight was given in the initial conviction to identification, which is notoriously unreliable.

 

[GordonD]

4 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

I'd let the families kick that nurse to death. f**k her

In that order?

[btb]

Still against the death penalty both as a general principle and also because mistakes can't be rectified.

On a practical note my recollection is one reason for the suspension of the death penalty back in the 60s was a perceived reluctance to convict in capital cases after a number of notorious cases in the previous decade.

[beefybake]

On 17/08/2023 at 13:51, AndyM said:

I could only see it be brought back by some deranged right wing government. Perhaps the 2035 Tory Govt of Lee Anderson in some horrible dystopian future but no doubt he's have the Murdoch press on his side an no doubt that evil old c*nt would still be alive..

Actually, I'm fairly liberal in my views.  Ages ago, I came up with a possible solution ( on a different forum ) to the dilemma. 

The idea was to run some sort of pilot scheme whereby hanging would be brought back.

But only for Tories.

Everyone would be happy. 

The right wing ghouls would have got their way, and everyone else would be glad it didn't apply to them.

Oddly, my suggestion didn't seem to gain much traction.

A few slightly nervous titters aside.