ChatterBank0 min ago
Could you be a hangman?
49 Answers
On last nights program on homelessness the actor Bruce Jones, in a rather emotional state, offered to be the nations executioner for all the paedophiles and murderers.
But the difference between an executioner and a vigilante is that an executioner doesn't get to choose who he kills.
So could you do it? even if you didn't think that person deserved it.
A battered wife that killed her husband?
A pensioner that shot a burglar?
A man who killed his daughters rapist?
Someone you thought was innocent?
And if you could , what is the ethical difference between you and a soldier committing genocide on the orders of his superiors?
But the difference between an executioner and a vigilante is that an executioner doesn't get to choose who he kills.
So could you do it? even if you didn't think that person deserved it.
A battered wife that killed her husband?
A pensioner that shot a burglar?
A man who killed his daughters rapist?
Someone you thought was innocent?
And if you could , what is the ethical difference between you and a soldier committing genocide on the orders of his superiors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Barmaid...you are the expert, but as well as a prosecution, there is always a defence counsel and the verdict is based on BOTH court performances and I cannot think, at the moment, a better system.
But that isn't the point.........if we had the death penalty then the sentence would have to be carried out.......by the hangman.
This is all hypothetical as we don't have the death penalty.
Youn have a strong point in which you say not to go into an occupation that would test your principles.
But that isn't the point.........if we had the death penalty then the sentence would have to be carried out.......by the hangman.
This is all hypothetical as we don't have the death penalty.
Youn have a strong point in which you say not to go into an occupation that would test your principles.
Just got back from walking the mutts: let's get stuck in!
Barmaid:
"What do you think the jury are going to do?"
Duh...acquit, that's what they'd do. Reasonable doubt and all that??? Why? Because if, as you claim the first guy's DNA "will be all over her". Fine...and the one who murdered her? Unless he was a sniper who took her out, don't you think there's just a smidgen of a chance that HIS DNA might also be "all over her" as well?
That's for starters! Bring it on!!!
Barmaid:
"What do you think the jury are going to do?"
Duh...acquit, that's what they'd do. Reasonable doubt and all that??? Why? Because if, as you claim the first guy's DNA "will be all over her". Fine...and the one who murdered her? Unless he was a sniper who took her out, don't you think there's just a smidgen of a chance that HIS DNA might also be "all over her" as well?
That's for starters! Bring it on!!!
Sqad you would not need to pay me to take me to dinner!!!
Paraffin - as for you "duh" comment, frankly I would not be so sure. I have seen juries do some absolutely bizarre things (I used to sit with a CJ as his notetaker before I came to the bar - he had MND. On one case which involved a number of charges the jury returned, quite frankly, ludicrous verdicts - the Judge and both advocates were totally perplexed as to their findings). If you have a situation where a man whose DNA is found on the body of a murdered woman (and in fairness the real murderer's DNA may not always be present, particularly if the body has been stripped and cleaned and is not found for some time), he happens to have a past which includes violence towards women and possible sexual deviancy and he was the last person to see her alive, well frankly, the Jury may feel sure. It's a hypothesis, nothing more - but I not sure that the "duh" comment is warranted. It COULD happen.
The Jury were sure on Jill Dando's case. The Jury were sure on Sally Clarke's case. The Jury have been sure on a whole load of cases since reviewed. In all those cases there was another explanation for the evidence presented to the jury on which they convicted. OK in those two cases, the scientific evidence has since been judged by the CA to be wrong.
That is why I cannot condone the death penalty.
Paraffin - as for you "duh" comment, frankly I would not be so sure. I have seen juries do some absolutely bizarre things (I used to sit with a CJ as his notetaker before I came to the bar - he had MND. On one case which involved a number of charges the jury returned, quite frankly, ludicrous verdicts - the Judge and both advocates were totally perplexed as to their findings). If you have a situation where a man whose DNA is found on the body of a murdered woman (and in fairness the real murderer's DNA may not always be present, particularly if the body has been stripped and cleaned and is not found for some time), he happens to have a past which includes violence towards women and possible sexual deviancy and he was the last person to see her alive, well frankly, the Jury may feel sure. It's a hypothesis, nothing more - but I not sure that the "duh" comment is warranted. It COULD happen.
The Jury were sure on Jill Dando's case. The Jury were sure on Sally Clarke's case. The Jury have been sure on a whole load of cases since reviewed. In all those cases there was another explanation for the evidence presented to the jury on which they convicted. OK in those two cases, the scientific evidence has since been judged by the CA to be wrong.
That is why I cannot condone the death penalty.
-- answer removed --
sara......LOL LOL
Let me get this straight....you would pay money to go on a dating agency, meet some no hoper, rather than an envelope with �500 in it and an evening with someone, I agree that you have never met, but have communicated with and developed some empathy with, an interesting dinner date?
Let me get this straight....you would pay money to go on a dating agency, meet some no hoper, rather than an envelope with �500 in it and an evening with someone, I agree that you have never met, but have communicated with and developed some empathy with, an interesting dinner date?
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Could Former Po Council Jane Mcleod Be...
News31 mins ago
Food & Drink31 mins ago
