Hang ‘em High

LOL! Your own linked article says that Pierrepoint didn't believe that the death penalty would prevent a single murder:


'The death penalty was scrapped in Britain in 1965 and in his 1974 autobiography Pierrepoint said he did not think it was a deterrent. He said: 'It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time.



'If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers.



'I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for.



'All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.''

Not with DNA they can't.....

You cannot convict anyone on just DNA evidence alone, it can put a person at the scene of a crime if that persons DNA is already in the Databank they can identify a suspect that way, in the case of murder the suspects DNA may be on the body if contact has been made with the attacker.

As for Mens Rea as old as the hills that is why it is in Latin , which simply means the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused:

When it comes to Murder or serious injury the Crown has to prove " Intent" to kill or intent to cause serious injury

You see, the thing is, i know that an hour or maybe two before the crime was committed someone other than the defendant was in the property. I know where the victim was and what she was doing at that time (a fact disclosed at the trial) and what her so called loving boyfriend was doing and who with (matters ignored by both prosecution and defence)

The defence seemed singularly uninterested in these matters, and i never quite understood why. Maybe the fact a drug addled twat was about to get a cushy early retirement instead of a long drop off a short rope influenced their choice of how to throw reasonable doubt in the matter.

I rather suspect that all i would have needed to do to stop the twat going to the gallows was to do the defence barristers job for them by having a quiet word with an Argus Reporter pointing out that neither prosecution or defence barristers showed the slightest interest in the issues of which i was aware and had told the police.

You tell me if they would have printed that and what would have occurred had i done so

The twat in question who has a bit of history chose to put himself where he is by attempting to plot to have the prosecution witnesses done away with. At that point given my daughter was one i lost interest in helping him avoid his free holiday away from ever having to work or pay council tax until Starmer frees him so he can vote Labour.

And for the record, i sleep at night just fine. And will continue to do so for a few years. A Labour government hell bent on releasing murderers and worse into society will of course alter that.

What! Monte, are you saying we may not mention other forums, on this forum? If so, when was this diktat issued?

I am not so much concerned about this particular case as about your general obsession with executions. It's ghoulish. And, if executions were reintroduced, that would lead to the death of innocent people.

Looks like Darling is inventing a claim that JOG is obsessed by capital punishment to be used  as an ad hom. 
As Darling seems to like using fallacies as a debate tool , I will post the definition of an ad hom fallacy ….

“(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.