Sorry but I am not going to continue this.
From no.5 I have been consistent.

Others have brought in what they thought was ‘eyewitness accounts.
you still won’t accept either of the two cases I have put forward as examples of what I am talking about.

If you actually bother to read those aaid cases that Mel brought up have a guess from what age they were?
Times have changed and for the better

I guess what you’re trying to say is that seeing someone murder isn’t that clear cut.

I’m not going to talk to a barrister, because I feel that the burden of proof lies with the person making the ludicrous statement which was offered with no evidence. And even if you found a barrister who thought that he was an infallible lie detector, all what you would have demonstrated was that barrister’s can be deluded.

go talk to a barrister who practices.

These days of forensics is entirely different to yesteryear.

Even in eyewitness evidence it has to be verified by forensic evidence.

I still note you do not quibble with my examples of eyewitness defence which I might say are cases where there is NO doubt not cases of beyond reasonable doubt.

In the real world, innocent people have spent time of death row having been convicted, in part, because of the word of a witness who lied.

as I said talk to any competent barrister.

I am not claiming a significant minority for all cases.

You don’t get it inded you do not even understand the argument that was made way back at no. 5

It is rather easy for a lawyer to show a eyewitness is lying. Just ask any practising barrister.

WTF? Are you serious?

I have given two examples of eyewitness evidence which you have completely ignored.

You don’t get it. Nobody is claiming that all eyewitness testimony is wrong. Just that a significant minority is.

It is rather easy for a lawyer to show a eyewitness is lying. Just ask any practising barrister.

Mel,
I have given two examples of eyewitness evidence which you have completely ignored.
I do believe we actually agree on when people should not be given capital punishment unless you believe eyewitnesses to the Oswald murder was unreliable!

If the defendant has not representation then capital punishment would or should be automatically negated.

“You cannot be an eyewitness in poor lighting for example.”

It isn’t only the lighting that’s none too bright on this thread :)

AS per my link, cross race eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable irrespective of other factors.

Lee Harvey Oswald would NOT have been sentenced to death as evidence was circumstantial.
Jack Ruby would have.
Martin Bryant would have whereas Lindy Chamberlain would not have.

I take it there’s not much of troll moderation policy at Club Troppo then…

Sorry old son but that isn’t eyewitnesses.

You cannot be an eyewitness in poor lighting for example.

Perhaps you need to read through the link.
I failed to see any clearcut evidence provided in it to convict a person.

“Seeing someone murder is pretty clear cut”

No it isn’t. In fact incorrect eyewitness accounts are the leading cause of wrongful convictions.

“Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Now stop making absurd and clearly false claims Mr Paxton.

If anything circumstantial evidence is more reliable.

Mel,

Seeing someone murder is pretty clear cut

I’m willing to bet that Saddam is still a hero to many, and will be for some time. If he had been thrown in jail cell and “left to rot” as it were, it seems more likely that previous supporters would soon come to see him as little more than a pathetic failure (even if they never acknowledge his actual status as a brutal tyrant with minimal respect for human rights).

Secondly, the particular crime of mass killing is one particularly unsuited to the death penalty (not that I think ANYTHING is suited to the death penalty). Amok arose in Malaysia. Once life becomes unlivable you take your weapon and kill until you are cut down, regaining you honor in the process. The British stopped it within a few years by the judicious use of lunatic asylums. No honor in being declared insane, you see. Easiest way to avoid further amok? Keep them alive and make the humiliation public. Now, if someone can just explain that to the US…

you cannot possibly use it if there is.”

Except, say, all those times when you can and do. Even with a guilty plea there can be doubt. Then there’s doubt about things other than guilt – mitigating factors etc. If you were to be rigorous and consistent in applying your “only when there’s NO doubt” clause, you’d find yourself arguing for a theoretical death penalty which will NEVER be carried out. Fine by me, but I’m happier with the shortcut.

Most people, though I note at least one, would regard the Bryant case as incontrovertible. We had eyewitnesses seeing him murder people.

Indirect evidence is not incontrovertible.

You use the death penalty when there is NO doubt.

you cannot possibly use it if there is.