this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
23 points (84.8% liked)
Ask UK
1251 readers
1 users here now
Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the UK.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No.
You can never be 100% certain that a conviction is correct. There have been more than enough examples in the past of wrongful convictions being overturned years later.
You can't compensate someone who has been executed though.
Never say never, there absolutely are cases of terror actions where the psycho is caught alive.
There's a detailed mental health assessment if ever I saw one.
What they did, what their mental state was at the time and what treatment might be possible are very different things. You can never be 100% certain.
Unless you want to drag the meaning of certainty into the absurdity of Last Thursdayism, I'd argue you can. Anders Breivik knew what he was doing, he wasn't having "an episode".
Cases have been reviewed decades after the event and found to be defective.
I only know what the media has shown me about Brevik - and I expect that you know no more.
From what I have seen and read, it seems clear cut and indefensible of course, but then it so often does - until it doesn't.
His primary goal during the trial was to prove he was medically sane and could stand trial. He spent 5 years preparing for the attack.
I can understand being opposed to capital punishment by principle, I'm opposed to it myself, but acting like there are no cut and dry cases is just being disingenuous. Some cases you know for certain who did what, and that it wasn't "just" a manic episode.
No it isn't.
The political environment in which cases occur can always have an effect. Political views change, and there are no absolutes in politics.
Legal systems change and vary from place to place as do standards of evidence.
Psychological assessments are always open to interpretation at the time and reassessment as understanding and scientific models change.
There are too many moving parts to ever be 100% certain. 99.999999999... yes. 100% no.
Determining guilt absolutely can be a cut and dry case. And if your mind is capable of performing a history book noteworthy crime, some psychologist absolutely will make up an diagnose for you. That doesn't lessen the impact on what you did, nor does it absolve responsibility.
Please let's not get into Last Thursdayism level of absurdity about 100% certainty, this isn't 8th grade physics class. You perfectly understand the intent behind the phrase.
I think the problem is defining "100% certain" in law. People are only supposed to be found guilty when it's beyond all reasonable doubt that they did it. So how do you make a distinction between that and what would warrant the death penalty?
I'm not petitioning for the introduction of capital punishment mind you, even if I do believe there are cut and dry cases where society would benefit from just ending the person's life and move on. Breivik is still making noise in the media as he feels isolated and lonely in his prison cell, pointlessly tearing up old wounds for many reading the news and causing debates.
If someone is arrested while committing the crime, they admit to doing it, and you can find dozens of evidence supporting it, that's as close to 100% certain you can get without going "uhm actually" about the phrase "100% certainty".
That line would be left to society to decide. Murdering 77 children, being in charge of a nazi death camp, christchurch mosque shooting, etc... would be some examples.
Again, I will reiterate, I do not believe capital punishment should be introduced just to accommodate crimes like those, even if I believe such actions would perfectly warrant such punishment.
That's the thing though, I know exactly what you mean but how do you write that down in a way that ensures that it's only used in those circumstances. The only alternative I can think of is leaving it up to the judges, which would get around the issue if the definition but would probably result in public pressure to use it in circumstances where someone is convicted of a crime which causes a lot of emotional response from the general public. I'm with you in that there are definitely cases where it's a waste of time to keep them alive, but I thing the implementation is impossible.
Sounds like we more or less completely agree then
If the judge and the defendant and the prosecutor all agree that the defendant is guilty and everyone wants the death penalty that’s ok
Oh yeah, because courts have never made a mistake, new evidence never comes to light, and we don't even have a word for "miscarriage of justice".
The defendant saying that they did it doesn't mean that they did. That could be helping the real guilty party get off.
Not just that. I've been convicted of a crime before. If I could plead guilty to something that would get me executed I would. Because at various times I've been suicidal.
Not just that but I plead guilty to charges I wasn't even sure I committed simply out of shame and a lack of self preservation.
It was complicated and I won't get into it but suffice to say: my experience made me realise criminality isn't black and white.