This story about a dreadful miscarriage of justice is all over the news right now and rightly so. This poor man spent 38 years in a British prison for a murder he didn't commit and has just been freed now that new technology has proved that it couldn't have been him. Sounds like a movie plot, but it's real.
Now, if the UK had the death sentence, he'd be dead now and there would be no way to right this terrible wrong, terrible miscarriage of justice. As it is, he's lost an awful lot, his life will never be normal again and he can't get the 38 years back, but at least, at 68, he can now live his remaining years as a free man.
So, do you think there should be a death sentence for murderers? Please vote in the poll. Here's my take on it and why I think we should have a compromise.
In principle, yes, if someone commits murder I think they should be put down for it, after all their innocent victims weren't given a choice, were they? They were summarily executed for no good reason: this is justice. However, as we can see, miscarriages do happen for one reason or another, sometimes for corrupt and / or racist reasons like killing black people more than white people as happens in America when they get stitched up for crimes that they didn't commit, for example. I think this is totally unacceptable and anyone can become a victim of something like this, so I think a life sentence without parole is the best compromise. At least there's the hope that some time down the line the miscarriage can be corrected. If they eventually die in prison, then of course, it's too late.
Just to be clear, if it could be guaranteed that the conviction was safe every time, then I'd be 100% for the death sentence, but unfortunately, this isn't the case, so I think we need the above compromise.
There are people who argue that the death sentence is inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment etc. Yes, it could be, but then that's what the murderer meted out to their innocent victims, so why do we have to be "fair" to them? Let them suffer the same way, or even worse.
Now, let's say that the murderer is caught on video committing the crime, then surely that's a 100% safe conviction, right? Alas, not necessarily nowadays due to relatively new deepfake technology over the last decade or so, hence the court would have to be 100% sure that the video wasn't faked, something that can be harder to prove than you might think. Perhaps it's possible to be 100% sure sometimes, so this can be decided on a case by case basis, but the bar has to be really, really high. Bit of a grey area and I think the default should be life without parole.
To clarify, when I say a life sentence, I don't mean the British joke of 25 years and then they're out. No, I mean the whole life order version that means until they die of old age or other reasons. Put another way, the only way they're getting out is in a box. Also, I'm not limiting this view to just the UK, but any country or international waters, as the punishment shouldn't change depending on location.
www.bbc.co.uk
Now, if the UK had the death sentence, he'd be dead now and there would be no way to right this terrible wrong, terrible miscarriage of justice. As it is, he's lost an awful lot, his life will never be normal again and he can't get the 38 years back, but at least, at 68, he can now live his remaining years as a free man.
So, do you think there should be a death sentence for murderers? Please vote in the poll. Here's my take on it and why I think we should have a compromise.
In principle, yes, if someone commits murder I think they should be put down for it, after all their innocent victims weren't given a choice, were they? They were summarily executed for no good reason: this is justice. However, as we can see, miscarriages do happen for one reason or another, sometimes for corrupt and / or racist reasons like killing black people more than white people as happens in America when they get stitched up for crimes that they didn't commit, for example. I think this is totally unacceptable and anyone can become a victim of something like this, so I think a life sentence without parole is the best compromise. At least there's the hope that some time down the line the miscarriage can be corrected. If they eventually die in prison, then of course, it's too late.
Just to be clear, if it could be guaranteed that the conviction was safe every time, then I'd be 100% for the death sentence, but unfortunately, this isn't the case, so I think we need the above compromise.
There are people who argue that the death sentence is inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment etc. Yes, it could be, but then that's what the murderer meted out to their innocent victims, so why do we have to be "fair" to them? Let them suffer the same way, or even worse.
Now, let's say that the murderer is caught on video committing the crime, then surely that's a 100% safe conviction, right? Alas, not necessarily nowadays due to relatively new deepfake technology over the last decade or so, hence the court would have to be 100% sure that the video wasn't faked, something that can be harder to prove than you might think. Perhaps it's possible to be 100% sure sometimes, so this can be decided on a case by case basis, but the bar has to be really, really high. Bit of a grey area and I think the default should be life without parole.
To clarify, when I say a life sentence, I don't mean the British joke of 25 years and then they're out. No, I mean the whole life order version that means until they die of old age or other reasons. Put another way, the only way they're getting out is in a box. Also, I'm not limiting this view to just the UK, but any country or international waters, as the punishment shouldn't change depending on location.
Peter Sullivan: Man jailed for 1986 murder has conviction quashed
Peter Sullivan, 68, says he is "not bitter" after one of the UK's biggest miscarriages of justice.
www.bbc.co.uk
