Suspects on trial for murder and rape of Hannah Cornelius

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,544
I don't think you can just confess without providing details.
Confessions need to include key details that no one but the perpetrator would know (and it must be volunteered by the person confessing). It's why cops keep certain details of a crime from the public, so that some nutter doesn't confess to something he didn't do and such that cops don't beat a confession out of someone.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
29,919
If this is true, they really should stop taking the piss and calling it a life sentence.
That's their definition of life. I'm not even sure SA has no parole sentences any more. The only people who appear to have been locked up for life are the likes of that serial killer Sithole who must serve 930 years before he can be considered for parole.
 

WaxLyrical

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
19,106
i'm going to jump in here.
i too am generally against the death penalty, for two reasons:
1) too many innocent people have been put to death
2) in some instances death is too lenient a sentence

the death penalty should remain an option for judges, however imposing the death penalty should be put to rigorous test.
to this end sentencing should be referred to a separate court for review. at this point the accused should receive representation by senior counsel.
representation would be on a pro-bono basis using some form of rotational list of senior council.
Your reasons doesn't make sense. Too many innocent people getting executed is a massive stretch. Sure it's happened on occasion before but the likelihood is decreasing rapidly thanks to advances in forensic and DNA evidence.

How is death lenient, especially when you consider that these animals thrive in prison conditions. Free accommodation and food plus some other "perks" you get to enjoy with your partners in crime. We can rule out torture and making them suffer.

I say put them down, and use resources elsewhere. They are beyond rehab.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,544
Your reasons doesn't make sense. Too many innocent people getting executed is a massive stretch. Sure it's happened on occasion before but the likelihood is decreasing rapidly thanks to advances in forensic and DNA evidence.
.
Many people would say one wrongly executed person is too many, you can try and fix a mistake if someone is serving a life sentence. Depriving an innocent man of his life, especially when our system of justice is pretty hard to justify.
 

WaxLyrical

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
19,106
Many people would say one wrongly executed person is too many, you can try and fix a mistake if someone is serving a life sentence. Depriving an innocent man of his life, especially when our system of justice is pretty hard to justify.
Many people again?
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,544
Many people again?
It's a figure of speech, but I have heard that line quoted as an argument more than once by various people in different countries with regards to the death penalty. "
 
Last edited:

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,281
I just read the story from the boys perspective, these things are evil. I wonder if they even think about the people whose lives they distroyed. Pigs.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
17,516
These guys definitely appear to be real scum. It's not even like they were being particularly careful to hide their crime, so the only conclusion is that they killed her and attempted to kill Cheslin Marsh because they're cruel and sadistic.

So at which point do you draw the line.

What if these guys were smarter and left less evidence, but still did the deed.
It's also not impossible that in an environment where execution is available the police promise each of them that they can avoid it if they confess and turn on the others. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that an innocent person will confess to something they didn't do if the police have them convinced that someone is going to take the deal and everyone else is going to get killed. The police, under pressure to get someone for the crime, help them craft their confessions so their stories all match nicely. Sure their stories might show cracks in court, but that will probably depend on the quality of their legal representation.

But yes, how much evidence is enough to be considered sufficient for execution since by definition all convictions should only ever happen when the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing?

This comment from her dad makes me both sad and angry. Those 3 should never take another breath after this.

And how many other families out there are like this due to the trash we have running around?
A lot of prisons would have to be built to hold them all. And it will only get worse if the conditions creating these people persist. Even executing people wouldn't be able to keep up with the replacement rate I suspect.

Confessions need to include key details that no one but the perpetrator would know (and it must be volunteered by the person confessing). It's why cops keep certain details of a crime from the public, so that some nutter doesn't confess to something he didn't do and such that cops don't beat a confession out of someone.
But it doesn't mean the police couldn't intentionally or inadvertently provide details to suspects being questioned. We rely on police integrity and competence not to have that happen, but frankly there is no police force in the world I'd trust not to step over the line.

Your reasons doesn't make sense. Too many innocent people getting executed is a massive stretch. Sure it's happened on occasion before but the likelihood is decreasing rapidly thanks to advances in forensic and DNA evidence.

How is death lenient, especially when you consider that these animals thrive in prison conditions. Free accommodation and food plus some other "perks" you get to enjoy with your partners in crime. We can rule out torture and making them suffer.
I don't think it is necessarily getting less likely. Even if DNA were a requirement, which I don't think it is, it still has to be used correctly. There's no guarantee it will be. Much better resourced countries get it wrong, so I think the probability of it going wrong in South Africa, either due to ineptitude or simply not caring if the wrong person gets convicted is probably fairly high. And the bigger your database gets the higher the chances of a false positive. There's really nothing stopping the state trawling for matching DNA when they're keen to arrest and execute someone. Things like witnesses, human and bullet fingerprints also all have problems, never mind circumstantial evidence which amounts to whatever people can be convinced is plausible. Now throw in money making a huge difference to the quality of defence someone gets. So really you'd need some very rigorous and carefully considered rules before you consider which cases should be eligible for execution. But would the state really remain circumspect in its use when it is likely the public would be baying for blood for every murder

Depends on the sort of prison they're put into. If they're gangsters then they probably will be right at home in the general population of a typical prison. They actually should kept isolated and locked up far away.

A lot of prisoners are beyond rehabilitation and many get that way in prison, so how do we solve that?

Many people would say one wrongly executed person is too many, you can try and fix a mistake if someone is serving a life sentence. Depriving an innocent man of his life, especially when our system of justice is pretty hard to justify.
One is too many. Many people are blasé about it because they assume it will never be them or anyone important to them that gets killed by mistake.
 
Top