Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?

[ads36 214]

2 hours ago, danot said:

Where' s the expensive, long drawn out  process to ensure their decision is the right one?

let me google that for you.

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/

 

weeks and weeks of reading for you.

 

summary : long procedures, that are subject to review / appeal.

 

more or less how it should be done.

 

If we're talking about the procedures that we'll need for the re-introduction of the death penalty, I want a *lot* more than just 'let the courts decide'!

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by ads36

[danot 10]

36 minutes ago, ads36 said:

let me google that for you.

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/

 

weeks and weeks of reading for you.

 

summary : long procedures, that are subject to review / appeal.

 

more or less how it should be done.

 

 

 

 

Which proves what exactly? 

 

Any ideas on why some people are having to rely on donations and fundraising to pay for the life saving treatment they urgently require?

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by danot

[ads36 214]

Er, because those drugs / procedures aren't approved yet.

 

I'm glad it's not me that has to make these decisions, but I'm also glad that an approval process is in place.

 

There are 3 choices :

 

1) fund nothing.

2) fund everything, no matter how new, unsuccessful.

3) make decisions, based on a process, and evidence.

 

It's 3 isn't it, anything else is daft.

Edited February 28, 2019 by ads36

[danot 10]

6 minutes ago, ads36 said:

Er, because those drugs / procedures aren't approved yet.

 

I'm glad it's not me that has to make these decisions, but I'm also glad that an approval process is in place.

 

There are 3 choices :

 

1) fund nothing.

2) fund everything, no matter how new, unsuccessful.

3) make decisions, based on a process, and evidence.

 

It's 3 isn't it, anything else is daft.

Hold on. If critically ill people were being denied life saving medical treatment because the drugs they require haven't been approved, forcing fundraisers to pay for the  treatment, where's the drugs come from, the black market perhaps?

 

Come on.

[ads36 214]

not black market, just new.

 

and there's a difference between 'medically approved', and 'NICE approved'

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by ads36

[danot 10]

12 minutes ago, ads36 said:

not black market, just new.

 

and there's a difference between 'medically approved', and 'NICE approved'

 

 

And there's a difference between unobtainable life saving medical treatment, and unaffordable life saving medical treatment.  Who says you cant put a price on life, apart from the judiciary system? 

[Baron99 779]

Thought long & hard on this on many occasions it has been brought up & my response is "No".

 

I've also come to this conclusion, even if it was a member of my own family that had been murdered. 

 

No matter how much I'd like to inflict pain & suffering on the perpetrator, it's not going to bring that member of my family back. Thinking on the lines of an eye for an eye, if someone nicks a few tools from your shed, would the appropriate justice be you get a half hour round their property to rob their place. 

 

However, I do believe life should mean life, which in the majority of cases where the death penalty would have previously applied, the convicted do not get such a sentence now a days, even when a judge describes the crime as abhorrent, heinous, etc.  The average UK 'Life' sentence remains 15 years. 

 

Most of those convicted are weak willed.  I'm thinking of the the likes of Ian Brady who spent a lot of his prison term DESPERATELY trying to get released or get an easy life by being committed to a mental institution.  At death's door, thankfully he still wasn't let out on compationate grounds. His & Murray Hindley's easy way out would have been the noose & we'd have soon forgot about their crimes. 

 

Rather than risk executing an 'innocent' person, (remember the Lesley Moleseed case with the wrongly convicted Stefano Kiszko, where evidence was surprised by members of the investigation team), better that life means life & if necessary we in the UK build a prison or prisons along the line of the US 'Supermax' prisons for the incarceration of the worst of the worst. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Baron99

[Ontarian1981 10]

 Just two words sum this argument up for me i.e. Timothy Evans. Just the unlikeliest, minuscule chance of a person's innocence is enough to naysay capital punishment. Imagine how the jurors, who convicted Evans must have felt, when Christie was proven to be the actual murderer.

[Baron99 779]

10 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 Just two words sum this argument up for me i.e. Timothy Evans. Just the unlikeliest, minuscule chance of a person's innocence is enough to naysay capital punishment. Imagine how the jurors, who convicted Evans must have felt, when Christie was proven to be the actual murderer. 

Following from Wikipedia:

 

"On 16 November 2004, Westlake began an application for judicial review in the High Court, challenging a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer Evans's case to the Court of Appeal to have his conviction formally quashed. She argued that Evans's pardon had not formally expunged his conviction of murdering his daughter, and although the Brabin report had concluded that Evans probably did not kill his daughter, it had not declared him innocent. The report also contained the "devastating" conclusion that Evans had probably killed his wife. 

 

The request to refer the case was dismissed on 19 November 2004, with the judges saying that the cost and resources of quashing the conviction could not be justified, although they did accept that Evans did not murder either his wife or his child."

 

Can't formally declare a man innocent of killing his wife & child on the grounds of cost? 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Baron99

[Cyclone 10]

8 hours ago, danot said:

The courts decide. My issue is with the judiciary system that's designed to preserve life regardless of circumstance or expense.  All I'm saying is, the judiciary system doesn't set restricted that cost people their lives; NICE does.  Which no one seems to have an issue with. Critically ill people are dying because NICE believe beyond all doubt that treatment for specific individuals would be both medically and financially ineffective, but whose to say they're not wrong half of the time? Where' s the expensive, long drawn out  process to ensure their decision is the right one? Is the life of an innocent critically ill person less precious than the life of a mass murderer or what?

"The courts"?  What does that mean?  A judge?  A jury?  A quango?  Who exactly?  And how can you ensure it isn't open to abuse?

 

NICE makes a decision about the use of limited resources to most effectively save lives.

We don't have an endless pot of money, if a drug costs a £1,000,000 per treatment and on average extends lifespan by 50 days (for example) compared to another one that costs £100 and extends lifespan by years, then quite clearly you fund the cheaper drug and not the more expensive one, in the case where you have limited resources.

 

You keep drawing a false equivalent, it's not going to help you make any point here about state sanctioned murder.

[danot 10]

22 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

"The courts"?  What does that mean?  A judge?  A jury?  A quango?  Who exactly?  And how can you ensure it isn't open to abuse?

 

NICE makes a decision about the use of limited resources to most effectively save lives.

We don't have an endless pot of money, if a drug costs a £1,000,000 per treatment and on average extends lifespan by 50 days (for example) compared to another one that costs £100 and extends lifespan by years, then quite clearly you fund the cheaper drug and not the more expensive one, in the case where you have limited resources.

 

You keep drawing a false equivalent, it's not going to help you make any point here about state sanctioned murder.

By "The courts", I mean a judge, or a jury, whichever you prefer.  

 

Your examples:   Limited resources is an understatement.

 

Article dated 2015 

 

Eculizumab, also known as soliris is to become the most expensive drug available on the NHS. it costs £340,000 per patient, or around £10m over the total treatment with an annual cost of £82m to the NHS. NICE approved the treatment through a separate process for ultra rare conditions that bypass the usual value for money formula.  200 patients will receive treatment extending their lives by around 25 years.  The reason Eculizumab is so expensive is because drug companies must recoup their research costs from a small number of patients, the times reported. The decision comes after it was revealed last week that 8000 cancer suffers are likely to have their lives cut short following a decision to withdraw funding for 25 treatments. More than 3000 patients a year with bowel cancer and 1700 patients with breast cancer are amongst those affected by the decision.  experts said around two thirds of those who seek NHS treatment for advanced bowel cancer are likely to face an earlier death because of the funding withdrawal.

 

Eculizumab offers people with the disease (aHUS) the possibility of avoiding end stage renal failure, dialysis, and kidney transplantation,  as well as other organ damage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This level of underfunding is taking more lives than it saves. Shameful. 

 

Anyhow, back on topic,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[phil752 10]

On 09/04/2016 at 20:37, crookedspire said:

Well should it?

tell that to the Birmingham four, who were fitted up