Capital punishment

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

If we had a real problem with murder and capital punishment was proven to be an effective way of dealing with that problem then maybe.

 

As it stands I don’t think either of those things are true, so what’s the point? Killing someone doesn’t reverse the harm they caused.

I wonder what would happen if you gave the choice to the family of the victims?

 

I'm always amazed at how some religious families can bring themselves to forgive straight away but some families would clearly be quite happy to administer the lethal injection themselves.

[FoxesDeb]

Definitely not. It's not a punishment, and it only causes the same loss and sadness to the criminal's family and loved ones as they caused to their victims. There is no winner, it costs less to keep them imprisoned, and prison is more of a punishment. You can never be 100% certain, and as a civilised society why would we choose to murder people, regardless of what they've done? 

No way, never. 

[Sir Shep]

No for me, but I’ve no idea how I’d feel if it was my wife or family murdered by an unrepentant psychopath. 

 

Ive often felt that no person should have the right to decide whether some one should live or not regardless of the evidence against them, then I remind myself that in the theatre of war quite often people have to make that decision to take a life so it’s not so black and white either. 

 

But as things stand the guilty should stay in prison and either rehabilitate or rot. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You're right Mac, it is a difficult one. 

 

I guess I'm talking about extreme and rare circumstances. If something like what that nutter Brevik did in Norway happened here for example (or the latest cvnt in Florida with the school shootings), it's obvious to everyone they were running around with guns killing people. I can't see how you could have a false conviction in these cases and for me the death penalty should be an option to a judge here.

 

Yeah, that's fair - with those you can be as close to certain as is possible in an uncertain world (though bear in mind all we personally have to go on for those crimes is the word of the media so again it's secondhand).

 

It's certainly an interesting debate and there have been some good contributions so far - I think a lot of it comes down to how close justice and retribution/balancing the scales are in the mind of the individual.

[FoxesDeb]

52 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

My argument for it was mostly around cost to the taxpayer for keeping lifers in prison. For someone like Huntley for example it could cost around £1.5m if he serves his 40 years behind bars.

 

On further reading, there is an argument that the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment. I found this difficult to believe but apparently the long drawn out appeals process and extra legal costs (in the USA anyway) can apparently end up costing more than keeping the person in prison for the rest of their days.

 

I get the bit about wrongful imprisonment/Birmingham six etc, but I really struggle when certain murderers show no remorse and clearly take pride in what they've done. I can't see the benefit to anyone in keeping these animals alive.

You're right that in the US it definitely costs more to pursue the DP than life imprisonment. 

 

I don't believe that there needs to be a benefit to keeping people alive, I don't think any civilised society has the right to make the choice to end someone's life though. 

[bovril]

18 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Definitely not. It's not a punishment, and it only causes the same loss and sadness to the criminal's family and loved ones as they caused to their victims. There is no winner, it costs less to keep them imprisoned, and prison is more of a punishment. You can never be 100% certain, and as a civilised society why would we choose to murder people, regardless of what they've done? 

No way, never. 

Exactly. Doesn't achieve anything. Also I don't like the idea of the state having the right to execute people. I also think life imprisonment is probably a worse punishment. 

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Definitely not. It's not a punishment, and it only causes the same loss and sadness to the criminal's family and loved ones as they caused to their victims. There is no winner, it costs less to keep them imprisoned, and prison is more of a punishment. You can never be 100% certain, and as a civilised society why would we choose to murder people, regardless of what they've done? 

No way, never. 

 

Thanks for saying in 2 lines what took me about 12 lines. 

[Milo]

I just replied along the lines that 'killing is wrong. End of'...

 

...then realised that I actually support assisted suicide and the right to die, so was disagreeing with myself.

 

Anyway, the natural percentage of wrongful convictions that occur mean that innocent people will be wrongly killed, so no - the death penalty is not a good thing. 

 

 

Prisons are a bit of an oddity to me - are they a place of punishment or a place of reform? They can't be both, because punishment and reform require different approaches.

 

And there is no point in reforming lifers. 

 

 

 

 

[the fox]

23 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Definitely not. It's not a punishment, and it only causes the same loss and sadness to the criminal's family and loved ones as they caused to their victims. There is no winner, it costs less to keep them imprisoned, and prison is more of a punishment. You can never be 100% certain, and as a civilised society why would we choose to murder people, regardless of what they've done? 

No way, never. 

."I'm sorry to inform you that your son was sentenced to death. Yeah, the same son who raped and killed a 12 year old boy. You may feel the same kind of pain of losing a child as the other family, even though your son, that human piece of filth stalked, kidnaped, raped and killed a 12 year old kid. but hey, it's the same thing, right?"

 

What a hunk of shit!

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

You're right that in the US it definitely costs more to pursue the DP than life imprisonment. 

 

I don't believe that there needs to be a benefit to keeping people alive, I don't think any civilised society has the right to make the choice to end someone's life though. 

Not a pop at you at all Deb, but I just had a thought about us engaging in war/liberation type scenarios.

 

I guess as a civilised society we do choose the right to end someones life when we bomb the crap out of them (and often claim innocent civilian lives in the process)

 

I know it's a different subject and I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems we can justify the right to end someones life in the likes of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or wherever is flavor of the month.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I just replied along the lines that 'killing is wrong. End of'...

 

...then realised that I actually support assisted suicide and the right to die, so was disagreeing with myself.

 

Anyway, the natural percentage of wrongful convictions that occur mean that innocent people will be wrongly killed, so no - the death penalty is not a good thing. 

 

 

Prisons are a bit of an oddity to me - are they a place of punishment or a place of reform? They can't be both, because punishment and reform require different approaches.

 

And there is no point in reforming lifers. 

 

 

 

 

From what I understand, that varies greatly between nations. The US seems to be mostly about punishment, but here in the UK I think it's more about reform, where possible. How much restriction monetary constraints place on that I have no idea, but it must have an impact. 

[the fox]

12 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

You're right that in the US it definitely costs more to pursue the DP than life imprisonment. 

 

I don't believe that there needs to be a benefit to keeping people alive, I don't think any civilised society has the right to make the choice to end someone's life though. 

Tell that to the guy who choose to kill first.

[lifted*fox]

Just now, the fox said:

Tell that to the guy who choose to kill first.

 

it's a classic example of two wrongs don't make a right.

 

just because someone loses the plot and murders someone doesn't mean we should then seek to punish by murdering them too.

 

it's not a civilised way to behave. 

 

mind you, it seems a large percentage of the world is currently trying to drag us back to the dark ages so it doesn't surprise me people with these sorts of opinions exist. 

 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Not a pop at you at all Deb, but I just had a thought about us engaging in war/liberation type scenarios.

 

I guess as a civilised society we do choose the right to end someones life when we bomb the crap out of them (and often claim innocent civilian lives in the process)

 

I know it's a different subject and I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems we can justify the right to end someones life in the likes of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or wherever is flavor of the month.

No it's interesting, and I understand that argument. From a very simplistic point of view I would say that they are two incredibly different set of circumstances, and for very different reasons. But ultimately I would not agree that just because we view it as acceptable in a war scenario, doesn't justify trying to call it justice in our judicial system, to me it's vengeance and nothing more. 

[David Guiza]

As somebody who has studied Human Rights Law fairly extensively and also have a friend whom lectures in this exact subject, including visits to American death row inmates, my answer is and always will be absolutely not. The death penalty serves as sadistic revenge and nothing more. Yes there are some substantial arguments in favour, but the arguments against simply outweigh them twice over for me:-

 

1. It is not a deterrent. If it was then countries that permit capital punishment would see a reduced rate in serious crime - they, generally, do not.

2. Where do you draw the line as to what satisfies the conditions of a capital punishment crime? Murder is barely ever cut and dry. The cases like Shipman, Huntley etc are once in a blue moon (thankfully!), the vast majority are a sudden and temporary loss of control. As there is currently no euthanasia in the UK then that would fall under murder also, as would an example like the police killing of Charles De Menezes (spelling) during the London terror attacks.

3. How can you proclaim, as a society, that murder is wrong when the punishment is murder?

4. Often time you cannot be 100% certain, even in extreme circumstances. One example being Barry George, the man wrongly accused of killing Jill Dando could well have been long gone by the time he was declared innocent. 

5. The Law generally is as much about rehabilitation as it punishment. Again, scum like Huntley, the Wests, Shipman etc are beyond saving, but I would imagine that they represent less than 1% of murderers.

6. The cost. It is an extremely expensive procedure.

7. We still live an age whereby you can only be 12 idiots away from prison. Yes they do not pass sentence, but they can be all that stands between an innocent and guilty verdict. Yes it is somewhat undemocratic but a bigger argument for me would be the removal of juries from the legal system.

8. In every county that currently operates Capital Punishment there are mentally ill people whom are executed by the state. Around 1 in every 10 in America. 

9. Why on earth would we want to join the likes of Iraq, Iran and China in having it? Over 110 counties have repealed it. FOR A REASON.

10. Who administers the lethal injection (or whatever it may be)? I certainly could not live with myself after doing so. 

 

Edited 25 February 2018 by David Guiza

[FoxesDeb]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

Tell that to the guy who choose to kill first.

But what if he hadn't, and been wrongly convicted, and we'd executed him? 

[Nick]

44 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Definitely not. It's not a punishment, and it only causes the same loss and sadness to the criminal's family and loved ones as they caused to their victims. There is no winner, it costs less to keep them imprisoned, and prison is more of a punishment. You can never be 100% certain, and as a civilised society why would we choose to murder people, regardless of what they've done? 

No way, never. 

Brilliant post.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As somebody who has studied Human Rights Law fairly extensively and also have a friend whom lectures in this exact subject, including visits to American death row inmates, my answer is and always will be absolutely not. The death penalty serves as sadistic revenge and nothing more. Yes there are some substantial arguments in favour, but the arguments against simply outweigh them twice over for me:-

 

1. It is not a deterrent. If it was then countries that permit capital punishment would see a reduced rate in serious crime - they, generally, do not.

2. Where do you draw the line as to what satisfies the conditions of a capital punishment crime? Murder is barely ever cut and dry. The cases like Shipman, Huntley etc are once in a blue moon (thankfully!), the vast majority are a sudden and temporary loss of control. As there is currently no euthanasia in the UK then that would fall under murder also, as would an example like the police killing of Charles De Menezes (spelling) during the London terror attacks.

3. How can you proclaim, as a society, that murder is wrong when the punishment is murder?

4. Often time you cannot be 100% certain, even in extreme circumstances. One example being Barry George, the man wrongly accused of killing Jill Dando could well have been long gone by the time he was declared innocent. 

5. The Law generally is as much about rehabilitation as it punishment. Again, scum like Huntley, the Wests, Shipman etc are beyond saving, but I would imagine that they represent less than 1% of murderers.

6. The cost. It is an extremely expensive procedure.

7. We still live an age whereby you can only be 12 idiots away from prison. Yes they do not pass sentence, but they can be all that stands between an innocent and guilty verdict. Yes it is somewhat undemocratic but a bigger argument for me would be the removal of juries from the legal system.

8. In every county that currently operates Capital Punishment there are mentally ill people whom are executed by the state. Around 1 in every 10 in America. 

9. Why on earth would we want to join the likes of Iraq, Iran and China in having it? Over 110 counties have repealed it. FOR A REASON.

10. Who administers the lethal injection (or whatever it may be)? I certainly could not live with myself after doing so. 

 

10

 

Probably more about semantics than any disagreement, DG, but since the definition of murder is 'unlawful killing', the legal application of the death penalty couldn't be described as such.

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

1-it's a classic example of two wrongs don't make a right.

 

2-just because someone loses the plot and murders someone doesn't mean we should then seek to punish by murdering them too.

 

3-it's not a civilised way to behave. 

 

4-mind you, it seems a large percentage of the world is currently trying to drag us back to the dark ages so it doesn't surprise me people with these sorts of opinions exist. 

 

1-The second "wrong" will make sure that the first wrong won't happen again (at least for said individual). if you're ready to play with pigs, make sure you're comfortable handling shit.

 

2-I said in my previous post that not all killers deserve the death penalty.

 

3-Raping and killing isn't a civilised way to behave.

 

4-And there are a certain group of people who are so against the death penalty but cry those alligator tears when a guy kills and rapes for the second time. Some have to do the dirty work so others can live their "ideal" life. Kill those low lifes so the next time anyone gets any sideway thoughts, he will remember what is waiting for him.

 if a psycho had the chance to kill and rape 2-3 people and not lose his life, how many psychos would do it?

 

it's like having a rat problem but feeling guilty about killing them so you let them live. And then what happens? more rats breed/flock and infest the house and the neighborhood

[the fox]

15 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

But what if he hadn't, and been wrongly convicted, and we'd executed him? 

I never said that we should be trigger-happy and kill every suspect. there should be evidence of course. But many seem to not agree on what is "evidence". that's a really slippery slope.

[lifted*fox]

thankfully people who think like you are in the minority. 

[Charl91]

I'm surprisingly undecided. I would maybe lean towards against, based on cost (the Death Penalty is more expensive), and also the fact that I'm not sure how much I trust the state. However, there are a few views which I still never quite understand.

 

Quote

You can compensate a man if he has been wrongly imprisoned

No you can't, not really. Not in most situations. You can't give them that time back. Maybe if it had been a year of my life, then an extortionate amount of money would suffice, but if it were 10 years? 20 years? There's nothing on earth that would adequately compensate for that.

 

Quote

View A) The death penalty is far too cruel.

View B) They shouldn't get off with it that easily, they should be made to suffer by having to live with what they've done

 It's amazing how often people seem to hold both of these contradictory views at the same time.

 

Quote

But killing people is wrong

So is imprisoning people. Both are things that, if done unlawfully, are a crime.

 

The Death Penalty is something I've always thought initially abhorrent, but having put some thought into it, I actually don't think the death penalty is particularly unjust (in theory, at least). If a court/jury were 100% infallible and incorruptible,  and evidence was 100% iron cast, then I'd probably be all for it. Sadly, that'll never be the case.

Edited 25 February 2018 by Charl91

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, the fox said:

1-The second "wrong" will make sure that the first wrong won't happen again (at least for said individual). if you're ready to play with pigs, make sure you're comfortable handling shit.

 

2-I said in my previous post that not all killers deserve the death penalty.

 

3-Raping and killing isn't a civilised way to behave.

 

4-And there are a certain group of people who are so against the death penalty but cry those alligator tears when a guy kills and rapes for the second time. Some have to do the dirty work so others can live their "ideal" life. Kill those low lifes so the next time anyone gets any sideway thoughts, he will remember what is waiting for him.

 if a psycho had the chance to kill and rape 2-3 people and not lose his life, how many psychos would do it?

 

it's like having a rat problem but feeling guilty about killing them so you let them live. And then what happens? more rats breed/flock and infest the house and the neighborhood

It certainly acts as a deterrent to the individual involved...but as DG points out above, it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent in wider society so the rat analogy doesn't really work in this case IMO.

 

 

2 minutes ago, the fox said:

I never said that we should be trigger-happy and kill every suspect. there should be evidence of course. But many seem to not agree on what is "evidence". that's a really slippery slope.

 

That's right...and as people's definition of cast-iron evidence differs, it becomes tricky to apply that to something as absolute as death.

[the fox]

Oh, the holier-than-thou act again i wonder how will people act if the victim is a family member/someone they know?

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, the fox said:

1-The second "wrong" will make sure that the first wrong won't happen again (at least for said individual). if you're ready to play with pigs, make sure you're comfortable handling shit.

 

2-I said in my previous post that not all killers deserve the death penalty.

 

3-Raping and killing isn't a civilised way to behave.

 

4-And there are a certain group of people who are so against the death penalty but cry those alligator tears when a guy kills and rapes for the second time. Some have to do the dirty work so others can live their "ideal" life. Kill those low lifes so the next time anyone gets any sideway thoughts, he will remember what is waiting for him.

 if a psycho had the chance to kill and rape 2-3 people and not lose his life, how many psychos would do it?

 

it's like having a rat problem but feeling guilty about killing them so you let them live. And then what happens? more rats breed/flock and infest the house and the neighborhood

All of this assumes that capital punishment is effective as a deterrent. There’s actually no evidence that it is.