Capital punishment

[FoxesDeb]

12 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

1 so would life imprisonment without parole, which is cheaper, more of a punishment and less costly monetary wise to society, without making us into murderers too

 

2 Who decides this, and what gives them the right? 

 

3 So why choose capital punishment if it's not civilised? 

 

4 See point 1

 

The DP is not a deterrent, Google the current numbers of people on death row in the US 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

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

Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the whole point of the criminal justice system was to apply the law in a fair and above all unemotive fashion?

[the fox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

 

 

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.

But how can you stop the rape and killing ? You can't just yell "hey, stop that!". Sadly some people don't understand words and they need a visual representation.

 

If everyone can say "that's not conclusive enough'. It's not like everyone has a surveillance camera attached to them. from what i can see, the people "for" the death penalty will loosen as standered as much as posible. (which i'm totally against). And people who are "against" that will ask for unrealistic amount of evidence.

[the fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the whole point of the criminal justice system was to apply the law in a fair and above all unemotive fashion?

it wasn't meant for you, mac  i already replied to your comment

[leicsmac]

Just now, the fox said:

But how can you stop the rape and killing ? You can't just yell "hey, stop that!". Sadly some people don't understand words and they need a visual representation.

 

If everyone can say "that's not conclusive enough'. It's not like everyone has a surveillance camera attached to them. from what i can see, the people "for" the death penalty will loosen as standered as much as posible. (which i'm totally against). And people who are "against" that will ask for unrealistic amount of evidence.

Agree with the first paragraph, but again - there's no evidence that it serves as a more effective deterrent than other methods.

 

And yeah, the very idea of proof is subjective and as long as that's the case tbh it's always going to be tricky applying punishments that you can't reverse IMO.

 

1 minute ago, the fox said:

it wasn't meant for you, mac  i already replied to your comment

Nae problemo.

[leicsmac]

Additionally (and I don't want to threadjack but thought it was a talking point along a similar theme), along with the death penalty another thing that the US like to do in their justice system is plea bargaining.

 

What do folks think about that?

 

It's not an option in the UK and I'm rather glad about that because personally, I'm not a fan.

[Nick]

Fyodor Dostoyevsky rules on this for me.

[David Guiza]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

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.

True, but I meant as it stands the act of administering the death penalty fits the required mens rea and actus reus of murder. Were the law to be reversed then that would change of course. I just couldn't begin to imagine being the one that has that job anyway. Some argue that a family member of the deceased could easily do it, but that's hardly practical. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

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

Your argument is flawed in the fact that serious crime is still as rife if not more so in countries that have capital punishment. If one is not deterred by the prospect of a prison system that has witnessed a record high suicide rate in the past year or so then one is also not going to be deterred by the prospect of the death penalty either. 

 

You seem to suggest that by not having the death penalty our streets are more riddled with serious criminals than a county who operates capital punishment, because they are not deterred by their potential fate but the evidence simply doesn't back that up.

 

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

1 so would life imprisonment without parole, which is cheaper, more of a punishment and less costly monetary wise to society, without making us into murderers too

 

2 Who decides this, and what gives them the right? 

 

3 So why choose capital punishment if it's not civilised? 

 

4 See point 1

 

The DP is not a deterrent, Google the current numbers of people on death row in the US 

1- For many, doing what they want in exchange for life in prison if more than a fair deal. and i see your point. but for me, there are people who are beyond saving and living another day is a pleasure that they do not deserve....see my next point.

 

2-Speaking for myself, murders in the heat of the moment (and revenge killing) plus wrongful killing should not be punished with death. child killer, rapist/ a murder with intent should.

 

.3-Is it civilised to lock a human in a cell for 40+ years? it's not but a punishment has to be delivered

[Charl91]

8 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

thankfully people who think like you are in the minority. 

While I'm against, I couldn't possibly be a meat-eater and then say it would be wrong to ever kill another being, because that would be hypocritical of me. I also accept that sometimes killing is neccessary (self-defense, wars, humane reasons). So I must therefore accept that killing is ok in some situations. 

 

Now maybe I have a different view on that sanctity of Human life than most, but I also don't believe that every Human life is equally valuable. Yes, to begin with every Human life has "value", but is the life of a mass-murderer worth the same as an average person, who just tries to get by and do the best they can? I don't believe it is. In general, I believe human life is important, but I also think there are some people whose lives hold no value whatsoever. Sometimes you get dogs that attack/kill people; do you think it's right that they should be put down? Because at least in the defence of the dog in this scenario, it doesn't know what it's doing is wrong. Imagine someone like Hitler was alive today. Does his life have more value than that dogs?

 

I pose a slightly different question. If the death penalty was infallible (in terms of miscarriages of justice, etc), would it still be morally wrong? Because I'd argue not.

 

 

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

You seem to suggest that by not having the death penalty our streets are more riddled with serious criminals than a county who operates capital punishment, because they are not deterred by their potential fate but the evidence simply doesn't back that up.

 

Yes! Ff course there are people who don't care anymore if they live or die and the death penalty isn't supposed to be a message for them. It's for the people who think that life in prison isn't that bad of a thing.

(Btw, we don't have the death penalty in my country)

[Charl91]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally (and I don't want to threadjack but thought it was a talking point along a similar theme), along with the death penalty another thing that the US like to do in their justice system is plea bargaining.

 

What do folks think about that?

 

It's not an option in the UK and I'm rather glad about that because personally, I'm not a fan.

 

Is that pleading guilty to lessen the sentence?

 

Or is it providing evidence to incriminate a "bigger fish", to lessen your sentence.

 

Can't remember which one it is, but if it's the first one, then I would say definitively not (people might wrongly plead guilty because they think they could be screwed anyway), but the second one I'm all for. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

1- For many, doing what they want in exchange for life in prison if more than a fair deal. and i see your point. but for me, there are people who are beyond saving and living another day is a pleasure that they do not deserve....see my next point.

 

2-Speaking for myself, murders in the heat of the moment (and revenge killing) plus wrongful killing should not be punished with death. child killer, rapist/ a murder with intent should.

 

.3-Is it civilised to lock a human in a cell for 40+ years? it's not but a punishment has to be delivered

I'm not sure that any but the worst sociopaths live a pleasurable life in prison, and presumably most people commit their crimes without intending to be caught, I don't think they are thinking about the possibility of either imprisonment or the death sentence, hence neither being a deterrent 

 

I will never agree that killing someone for killing someone else is the right thing to do in a civilised society, many of these people are mentally ill, and killing them serves no purpose other than serving as vengeance in a society which I expect to be above that in this day and age 

 

Locking the worst criminals away is the best thing to keep them away from the general population, surely? I wouldn't agree with sentences that long either except in the most extreme circumstances, I'm a big believer in reform, where possible obviously 

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, the fox said:

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

My best friend was followed at night on her way to the pub and was dragged down to a river bank and had her throat slit under a bridge. The killer worked at Safeway supermarket as a butcher and used one of the knives to commit the crime. His name was Ian McCartney and the murder happened in 1991 in Bedford. He got less than ten years. I think about her every day. I still cannot bring myself to visit the grave. 

 

What makes the state so pure that it has the right to take life? Look at the record of governments throughout history—so often operating with deception, cruelty and greed, so often becoming masters of the citizens they are supposed to serve. "Forbidding a man's execution," Camus said, "would amount to proclaiming publicly that society and the state are not absolute values." - it would be tantamount to acknowledging, correctly, that there are some things that even the state may not do. Capital punishment is a dark path and there is a reason that it still endures in largely undemocratic nations.

 

Respectfully, I think rather than sounding off on a football forum you should humbly reconsider David Guiza's eloquent and informative post. 

 

Edited 25 February 2018 by Line-X

[the fox]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally (and I don't want to threadjack but thought it was a talking point along a similar theme), along with the death penalty another thing that the US like to do in their justice system is plea bargaining.

 

What do folks think about that?

 

It's not an option in the UK and I'm rather glad about that because personally, I'm not a fan.

If you're talking about helping to catch another criminal then It depends. If he's just a small fry (let's say a small drug dealer) and letting him go or reduce his time to catch a bigger fish then why not.

mass murderers and child rapists? no chance unless it's reduced to life in prison in exchange of a bigger criminal

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

While I'm against, I couldn't possibly be a meat-eater and then say it would be wrong to ever kill another being, because that would be hypocritical of me. I also accept that sometimes killing is neccessary (self-defense, wars, humane reasons). So I must therefore accept that killing is ok in some situations. 

 

Now maybe I have a different view on that sanctity of Human life than most, but I also don't believe that every Human life is equally valuable. Yes, to begin with every Human life has "value", but is the life of a mass-murderer worth the same as an average person, who just tries to get by and do the best they can? I don't believe it is. In general, I believe human life is important, but I also think there are some people whose lives hold no value whatsoever. Sometimes you get dogs that attack/kill people; do you think it's right that they should be put down? Because at least in the defence of the dog in this scenario, it doesn't know what it's doing is wrong. Imagine someone like Hitler was alive today. Does his life have more value than that dogs?

 

I pose a slightly different question. If the death penalty was infallible (in terms of miscarriages of justice, etc), would it still be morally wrong? Because I'd argue not.

 

 

4

 

I would agree with that sentiment. However, we're not near such infallibility yet - will we ever get there?

 

9 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

Is that pleading guilty to lessen the sentence?

 

Or is it providing evidence to incriminate a "bigger fish", to lessen your sentence.

 

Can't remember which one it is, but if it's the first one, then I would say definitively not (people might wrongly plead guilty because they think they could be screwed anyway), but the second one I'm all for. 

 

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

If you're talking about helping to catch another criminal then It depends. If he's just a small fry (let's say a small drug dealer) and letting him go or reduce his time to catch a bigger fish then why not.

mass murderers and child rapists? no chance unless it's reduced to life in prison in exchange of a bigger criminal

I'm talking about pleading guilty to lessen a sentence rather than turning states to incriminate someone else.

[Charl91]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

 

 

What makes the state so pure that it has the right to take life? 

 

 

It does though, both directly and indirectly. When they order bombing runs on another country, we're taking lives. When they make cuts to the NHS, or mental health, or hundreds of others big decisions that could be made, then they're taking lives, albeit more indirectly. Many big decisions made by countries may end up taking someone's life, the only difference is the death penalty is doing so slightly more directly. 

[Charl91]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

I would agree with that sentiment. However, we're not near such infallibility yet - will we ever get there?

 

 

No, I don't think we are, and I don't think we ever will, and for me that's the biggest sticking there is with it, and why I'd never personally advocate it.

 

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

."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!

Sorry I missed this earlier. How is it different for the parent losing her child  to the state? Are you trying to say that the mother of the perpetrator somehow deserves her child to die? Are you really trying to tell me, as a mother, that I would deserve to feel the grief of losing my child, and that I would deserve it, because the state somehow sees it as punishment? Punishment for who, exactly? Not the criminal who has been put to death quite calmly (that's not always happening BTW, but is not relevant here) It's only a punishment for those left behind, but good grief if you really feel that's justice, I have no reply 

[the fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

I would agree with that sentiment. However, we're not near such infallibility yet - will we ever get there?

 

 

I'm talking about pleading guilty to lessen a sentence rather than turning states to incriminate someone else.

Ahm that's a sticky situation. Is he pleading for a smaller charge like petty theft instead damaging properties or is he pleading drunk driving instead of a hit and run?
For petty crimes, i'm not really against it but for big crimes like serious bodly harm and murder,absolutely not.

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

It does though, both directly and indirectly. When they order bombing runs on another country, we're taking lives. When they make cuts to the NHS, or mental health, or hundreds of others big decisions that could be made, then they're taking lives, albeit more indirectly. Many big decisions made by countries may end up taking someone's life, the only difference is the death penalty is doing so slightly more directly. 

"Slightly more directly" !!!????

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

No, I don't think we are, and I don't think we ever will, and for me that's the biggest sticking there is with it, and why I'd never personally advocate it.

 

Yep. I unequivocally agree with every word of this. Exactly the main reason I have too.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

Ahm that's a sticky situation. Is he pleading for a smaller charge like petty theft instead damaging properties or is he pleading drunk driving instead of a hit and run?
For petty crimes, i'm not really against it but for big crimes like serious bodly harm and murder,absolutely not.

Right, it is.

 

Guess my main issue with it is that prosecutors can and do use the threat of a big charge and a big sentence to browbeat an innocent party into accepting a small one rather than letting it go to court and taking the chance that the jury might get it wrong.

[the fox]

16 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Sorry I missed this earlier. How is it different for the parent losing her child  to the state? Are you trying to say that the mother of the perpetrator somehow deserves her child to die? Are you really trying to tell me, as a mother, that I would deserve to feel the grief of losing my child, and that I would deserve it, because the state somehow sees it as punishment? Punishment for who, exactly? Not the criminal who has been put to death quite calmly (that's not always happening BTW, but is not relevant here) It's only a punishment for those left behind, but good grief if you really feel that's justice, I have no reply 

No, absolutely not!  I'm not blaming the parents here and never did.

 

But what did the son do exactly? Did he kill by mistake? Did he kill in the heat of the moment? If so than i'm not calling for the death penalty.

 

It seems that for some, the moment they see people who say "yes" for the death penalty think that they want every crimenal to die.

 

My main problem (from the start mind you) is child killers and rapists. if (hypothetically speaking here) you had a son who raped and killed 2 12 year old girls, would you feel sorry for him? if so then.....

Edited 25 February 2018 by the fox

[the fox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right, it is.

 

Guess my main issue with it is that prosecutors can and do use the threat of a big charge and a big sentence to browbeat an innocent party into accepting a small one rather than letting it go to court and taking the chance that the jury might get it wrong.

Which is sad because many prosecutors will look at the man standing in front of them as a criminal no matter if he did it or not. But if pleading for a minor thing instead of taking a chance to go to court for a case that could end your career by mistake and misjudgment than i can't really say i'm against it

Edited 25 February 2018 by the fox