Two lives destroyed by Ronald Castree
A man who murdered an 11-year-old girl more than 30 years ago has finally been jailed — after police traced a DNA sample he had provided for a separate investigation back to the case.
Lesley Molseed was killed in a “frenzied attack” while running an errand for her mother in 1975.
Ronald Castree, a 54-year-old comic book dealer from Oldham, northern England, was found guilty of murdering Lesley Molseed in 1975, the UK’s Press Association reported.
Let me get one emotional response out of the way. This is an instance where I’d support the death penalty.
Castree was jailed for life with a recommendation that he serve at least 30 years behind bars. An innocent man, Stefan Kiszko, wrongly served 16 years in prison for the murder until his release in 1992. Kiszko died as a result of a heart condition the following year.
“You kept quiet whilst an entirely innocent man was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for this murder,” the judge told Castree. “He served fully 16 years before his conviction was fully set aside, living only a couple of years after his release before he died.”
I don’t doubt we have divergent opinions. There’s a conflict between individual liberty and effectively high standards for justice. I guess that conflict flows logically from a distrust of politicians and bureaucrats. They are what our culture has made them or allows them to be.
I trust the capabilities of sound science to provide the means of advancing the species – which includes criminal justice as in this case. But, I require diligent public oversight to keep the clowns in charge from abusing information derived from the technology.
But, if you support the death penalty, wouldn’t the innocent man be long dead now?
Besides, watching your a-hole grow during your time in prison is much worse than just ending up dead.
>>But, if you support the death penalty, wouldn’t the innocent
>>man be long dead now?
Exactly. Can’t take THAT back. Woopsie!
And any argument that “DNA evidence is irrefutable” as an excuse to execute the guy is bogus. Wait until it turns out that the lab stuffed up the sample labeling, or samples weren’t handled properly, or some cop or lab tech with an axe to grind doctored the results…
A civilized society doesn’t go around slaughtering people. One that does is no better than the animals they’re seeking to exterminate.
#2 – I see you put a new battery in your crystal ball. Let us know when you feel like discussing reality instead of nutball delusions .
Well, what this shows is that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not well understood or legislated.
Death penalty should be allowed for the worst cases, pretty much as now except for the death penalty rule, WHEN there is hard evidence and circumstantial evidence to back it up?==no one persons word against anothers?
M Mustard, that, along with admission of guilt and/or no alibi ought to approach zero error.
Now, please go ahead and respond to half of what I posted.
>>M Mustard, that, along with admission of guilt and/or no alibi ought to
>>approach zero error. Now, please go ahead and respond to half of
>>what I posted.
Which half would you like me to respond to, Boboli? Either half is easily debunked.
And even if the accused IS guilty as charged, what benefit does society gain from government-sponsored executions? It’s cheaper and easier to just give the criminal LWOP. Not to mention taking the moral high ground, and allowing for the possibility of saying “woops, we were wrong!” when it turns out the confession was coerced from an innocent person, and the evidence was doctored.
When the death penalty is accepted by the majority, we will truly have turned into a society of Republican-inspired savages.
Actually, it is a moral argument that supports the death penalty. Some people really don’t deserve to live–even in jail.
In fact, I have a whole thesis on the subject. We should use remedial training much more than jail, jail only for those that need that kind of wake up call or for whom remediation is not the issue (eg white collar crime) and death for them that deserve it.
You see MM–“death” is not the worst thing we do to people, but it is often cheaper. So–we should jail less, spend less, kill more. Just a ruthlessly pragmatic approach.
Chapter two is about eugenics, so hold on.
The strength of any penalty is in its prevention.
When potential murderers know they’ll die too if caught, many of them simply don’t take the risk.
>>You see MM–”death” is not the worst thing we do to people,
>>but it is often cheaper.
Surely you jest, Boboli. I have NEVER seen an argument for the death penalty that included financial gains as one of its tenets. NOBODY thinks the death penalty is cheaper than LWOP.
A study done by the LA Times showed that CA spends and average of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS per execution (for example, see http://tinyurl.com/8jnfa ).
If you’re trying to make a financial argument for government-sponsored killing, you’ve got an uphill battle.
Next?
#8 geee i wonder why does it cost $250M per execution?
Isnt it because those sentenced to death are on a ‘death row’ for like… 20 years (or so) until they are finally exectuted in USA?
I expect the numbers of innocent people executed to just about equal the numbers of innocent people killed by escaped murderers.
Use the money that supports killers in their Liberal-sponsored prison lifestyles to pay for more technology to catch the killers and torturers of children.
RBG
>>Isnt it because those sentenced to death are on a ‘death row’
>>for like… 20 years (or so) until they are finally exectuted in USA?
Uh, no.
Read the link, Einstein. It’s because of the years-long Constitutionally-mandated appeals process in capital cases. The financial costs of executing people is OVER AND ABOVE what it costs to just keep them in jail until they die.
>>expect the numbers of innocent people executed to just
>>about equal the numbers of innocent people killed by
>>escaped murderers.
wtf kind of drugs are you on?? Please cite a reference to a couple of “murderers” who have escaped from maximum-security lockup?
Or are you suggesting that no innocent people have ever been executed? If so, your drug abuse would seem to have caused irreversible brain damage.
#11 gee, genius, perhaps your contitution is not always right, did it never occured to you?
Looks like US Constitution = The Bible for all the non-religious freaks in USA lol
The only argument against Capital Punishment is this… What if somebody got it wrong?
A couple of years ago, here in the UK, plenty of people were freed on bogus charges due to the police mishandling evidence, or planting evidence, or even beating confessions out of innocent people.
They would all be dead now, and all innocent.
Sometimes, yes, I believe in the death penalty, just look at Ian Huntley, but there is always the nagging doubt, “what if”. But in case’s like his, even I would make an exception.
Mustard, you are one of the dumbest morons that ever post on dvorak.
“Or are you suggesting that no innocent people have ever been executed? If so, your drug abuse would seem to have caused irreversible brain damage.”
Either you believe your own justice system in your country, thus you don’t doubt the sentenced given in the court of laws, or you don’t – and thats the first step to anarchy.
Why stop being against the death penalty only because the law may not be right once in the blue moon? What about all other sentences given for lesser crimes, there sure must be many innocent people sentenced for small crimes they didn’t commit, so why don’t you abolish any courts and any penalties at all, you idiot?
>>Mustard, you are one of the dumbest morons that
>>ever post on dvorak.
Maybe once upon a time, Brainiac, but not since you showed up.
Sure, innocent people are sent to jail all the time. The difference between them and those killed by the government is that when the error is discovered, we can say “woopsie, sorry about that” to the jailbirds. The dead will remain dead.
And even if they’re guilty, why is it that you get off so much on having people put to death. That’s kind of creepy. You might want to see somebody about that.
>>Looks like US Constitution = The Bible for all the non-religious
>>freaks in USA lol
Why don’t you go get Moose and Squirrel, comrade? Your drunken rambling is starting to get embarrassing.
#15 I don’t “get off” on that, it never came to my mind – but obviously you do, since “getting off” is what came to your mind on the subject of death penalty.
You are not only dumb moron, but youre twisted psycho moron too.
ALL those liberal idiots who were against death penalty quickly changed their mind as soon as someone close to them was raped or killed, maybe 1 in a 1000 didn’t. You wouldn’t be any different, its just a matter of luck (or bad luck) to happen to you.
>>#15 I don’t “get off” on that, it never came to my mind – but
>>obviously you do, since “getting off” is what came to your
>>mind on the subject of death penalty.
Lay off the vodka, Yakoff. You were embarrassingly nonsensical even before you started drinking.
The gibberish you’re spewing now is just awful.
OK. You enjoy the thought of vicariously killing someone. We get that. Now crawl back into your bottle.
Mustard, our village idiot… its beyond your possibility to comprehend, don’t bother thinking or you may damage that single brain cell thats still working inside your skull.
I never drink vodka nor any alcohol, Im not even Russian, so keep dreaming. Anyways I guess your dead brain couldn’t even imagine a Russian – if I were one – not drinking alcohol lol
Go ahead, wank off more on the thought of innocent murderers put down by that stupid government of yours. Life’s tough in your area, huh? 😉
>>Go ahead, wank off more on the thought of innocent murderers
>>put down by that stupid government of yours.
Jesus. You stopped making sense a looooooong time ago, Dude. And what’s with the sexual fixation? And all the pent-up anger? You are one troubled dude, dude.
And if you’re not a Russian, what’s with the Russian syntax? Or are you just illiterate?
Next.
Every day that goes by, the ability to accurately determine the guilt of someone advances towards 100%. It’s not stagnant. Analyzing the mistakes of 50 or 100 years ago have led to better technology to help avoid those same mistakes. It is a mistake in itself to use old data to justify modern, and improved processes and decisions.
The predominate roadblocks to avoiding mistakes are “human rights” that get in the way of moral justice. It’s a 2 edged sword that should have specific exceptions under certain conditions.
I’ve been reading here for about a month, and I thought I’d gotten a feel for many of the respondents.
So…what’s going on?
I have mostly looked forward to bobbo posting a simple, thoughtful, reasoned post asking questions that need to be asked, and poking holes in the inane ramblings of most of the other posters….such as Mr. Mustard, who always has given me great amusement with his knee-jerk responses to any post suggesting all religions might be hogwash. Making me make my first post in agreement with Mr. Mustard and suggesting that possibly bobbo has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick on this one is unfair.
I understand that the people affected by violent crime want vengeance…I certainly would, but I would also like to be sure that it was the right guy getting the shaft, not leaving the real, likely to commit it again killer out there. Given the amount of DNA evidence that is cropping up to show that someone didn’t do what they were convicted of…I see nothing close to 100% accuracy in convictions, and as far as accepting things like admissions of guilt as a slam dunk, maybe a quick review of now commonly known police techniques in interrogation should be consulted, since I’m pretty sure most of the aforementioned questioning processes would have most of you admitting to kidnapping the Lindberg baby, no offense.
As for comrade….turn off that computer and get to bed this instant young man….don’t make me come up there!!!
>>Every day that goes by, the ability to accurately determine the
>>guilt of someone advances towards 100%.
Well, not really; not unless they leave some biological fluids behind for DNA testing.
Other than that, the same foibles that led to wrongful convictions 50 (or 500) years ago still make the possibility of putting someone in jail for something that they didn’t quite likely.
If they put the innocent party in jail, they can always say “woopsie” if exculpatory evidence comes out. One they’re dead, they’re dead. No amount of woopsie can rescind the state-sponsored murder.
MM, I said “ability” I didn’t say they were using it. I said that human rights interfere with the justice system in negative ways.
For instance if every citizen were to submit DNA, and/or every child born was entered into a dna database, accurate conviction would be greatly enhanced.
The “foibles” of 50 years ago would become improbable, if not impossible.
>>For instance if every citizen were to submit DNA, and/or every
>>child born was entered into a dna database, accurate conviction
>>would be greatly enhanced.
You’re missing the point, JimBo. You’ve been watching too much CSI. Not every crime (in fact, very few of them) rely on DNA evidence to convict or acquit.
All the other falsely convicted individuals will remain falsely convicted. Then after they get the Hot Needle and exculpatory evidence comes to light, what? “Gee, sorry we murdered your husband even though he didn’t commit the crime, ma’am, but shit happens”?
Cheaper (MUCH cheaper), reversible, humane, non-barbarian; quashing the state-sponsored murder of convicted criminals is a win-win proposition, all the way around.
25. We’ll mark that one right below Children Who Don’t Deserve To Die On Highways Because Someone Used The Road Divider Fund To Keep Killers Alive In Prison. It’s tough out there.
RBG
You are missing the point MM. DNA is only ONE tool. Nowhere did I say that they were to rely on only DNA.
Brain scans show significant differences in cranial activity when a person is lying compared to telling the truth.
Photo surveillance, fingerprints, and other biometric techniques are also underutilized because of irrational human rights complaints.
#27. Oh, it is not “human rights” that stand in the way of acquitting the innocent, it is the only thing that stands in the way of keeping the authorities from convicting them.
how – in fact – would DNA profiling or fingerprinting the entire populace prevent the innocent from being convicted? someone who is accused can be profiled and if they don’t match a sample, it doesn’t matter whether someone else does match.
>>Photo surveillance, fingerprints, and other biometric techniques
>>are also underutilized because of irrational human rights
>>complaints.
Fuck yeah, man. Let’s put microchips in everybody’s brain, and track them from the cradle to the grave. Who gives a shit about outmoded concepts like “liberty” and “freedom”. Commie pinko fags. Sheeple, worshiping at the altar of that goddamned piece of paper, the Constitution.
Since we don’t really knows what happens in the afterlife, killing the murderer could actually mean sending him to terrorize that poor girl again in the afterlife. Better to keep him here far from his victim.