Capital punishment/whole life terms

[Voll Blau]

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Well it's no great surprise, generally left leaning see issues like crime as an issue of the bigger society and right leaning tend to see issues of one of personal responsibility. Which reflects opinions on fiscal and political ideals. It is interesting how this one core belief of personal vs societal responsibility reflects out to so many aspects of life.

 

The thing that gets me is that by executing someone, you're putting an arbitrary and irreversible form of justice in the hands of the state. By having murderers live out their days in prison and potentially much more time to revisit the consequences of their crimes, you're actually advocating for them to take far greater personal responsibility for their actions.

[nnfox]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

3. Society is able to accept rehabilitated criminals. This is as key to changing behaviour. 

 

I don't know how much Colin Pitchfork or any other prisoner is aware of life on the outside, but seeing how Jamie Bulger's killers are routinely outed and hounded, amongst others, what value trying to reform to fit in to a society that will never accept them.

 

I do sometimes wonder if a rehabilitation colony on an island is the right way to go, away from normal society but able to live with other rehabilitated prisoners in a semblance of civilised society.

 

But it all sounds a bit dystopian.

This is a good point and kind of links back to my second point in that rehabilitation is HARD for the individual and so many won't do it, not because they don't want to, but because it is very difficult to achieve. 

 

Society can generally take the stance that it is a good idea to rehabilitate offenders and give them a chance.  The headline is that a person did a bad thing, he now sees the error of his ways and wants to contribute to society.  I don't think many people would oppose that except in the most serious cases (like child killers).

 

Society says it's OK.  The 'system' encourages it.  The offender goes through a process of rehabilitation where they are in an environment where they are positive about the future.  Then reality hits.  It isn't just about 'people' outing them and hounding them although that does play a part.  It's the little things...

 

Offenders are often released into the same environment that they were in before.   Same or similar home, same people around them who all contributed to the situation in the first place.  They leave a prison environment with structure and routine and three meals a day, to something much more chaotic.  They try to get a job, but struggle to hold on to it because their 'friends' keep them up all night drinking and smoking weed and they don't show up.

 

Those that do make it through to having something of a normal life still have struggles.  Limited access to credit, high insurance costs and so on.

 

It's HARD work for the offender.  Rehab projects and initiatives can only support.  It's the offender that has to do the work and they have to work at it 24/7.  The easy option is to return to what they know and lots do, unfortunately.

[Innovindil]

47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

My view is that capital punishment is wrong even when/if there is absolute proof of guilt.

 

1 hour ago, Blarmy said:

Capital punishment no - I believe no person has the right to kill another.  

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

 

I don't think the two things are comparable.

 

In the instance you describe there was an immenent and ongoing danger to the general public, so lethal force was necessary; that is not true of an incarcerated offender.

Edited 8 June 2021 by Buce

[Blarmy]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

Basically what @Buce said. Dealing with a situation as it happens, where there is a current threat to members of the public and the police,  is very different to killing someone who is already locked up and poses no threat.

 

Also, for the former scenario, the assailants can decide to surrender and therefore not die if they so wish. 

[Captain...]

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

Do you support the killing Jean Charles De Menezes? 

[lee7]

In my opinion if you take a life intentionally then you should face the death penalty. 

Then for other serious crimes hand out full life terms especially when it comes to things like sex offenders

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

 

Buce has replied more succinctly than I could.

 

If a violent criminal can be taken alive, then that's better. But there'll be some cases - like the one you mention, insofar as I remember it - where that won't be possible and public safety will require 'shoot-to-kill'.

[nnfox]

38 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Question to the both of you, when armed police rocked up and shot dead those 3 (I think?) terrorists going around London stabbing people, do you support that? Or purely take-them-alive-at-all-costs? 

Two completely different motives.

 

One situation is to kill someone in order to punish them for something they did probably a year or more previously (which I am against).

 

The other is to kill someone in order to protect the lives of others there and then (which I am for).

[Fox92]

I don't understand the cut off point for capital punishment? One person gets executed but another doesn't. Which crime justified?

Or is it the idea that all murderers just get executed?

 

Murderers should face whole life punishments. Die in prison. It's a joke people like Pitchfork can get let back into society.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You post so much good stuff, Mac, but I fundamentally disagree with your suggestion that proof of guilt is "the only argument that matters". It's an important but secondary argument to me.

To me, the question of whether it's right for the state (or anyone else) to enact justice by cold-bloodedly killing people takes precedence over whether the state is killing people who are proven guilty or who might be innocent.

 

If proven guilt is the only argument that matters, that begs the question: what is your view if - and when - there is absolute proof of guilt in a case?

My view is that capital punishment is wrong even when/if there is absolute proof of guilt.

 

Unless you set the bar of proof ridiculously high (is there absolute proof that the world is round or that I exist?), there are some cases where there is absolute proof.

Pitchfork was linked to his crimes by DNA. One of the killers of Lee Rigby was videoed immediately afterwards, holding a bloody knife and announcing why he'd done it.

There seems no doubt as to their guilt, but execution would still be wrong, in my view. If proof of guilt were the only argument that mattered, it would be possible to have a higher standard of proof in capital cases so as to only execute those absolutely proven guilty...

I can see where you're coming from, Alf. Allow me to clarify.

 

The argument you raise about the responsibility of the state is a good one but I think it is one that someone can raise a counterargument to (as indeed, they have). Whereas the argument concerning wrongful execution is, as far as I can tell, copper-bottomed; there's no rebuttal to it that doesn't involve admitting the death of innocent people at the hands of the state as collateral damage is acceptable. (If I'm missing something however, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.) That's why I tend to view it as the argument I would rely on when it comes to this matter.

 

With respect to the rest of the post, there is no such thing as absolute proof with what we have right now IMO, not without first hand witnessing of the event yourself. Video evidence can be faked, witnesses can be coerced, a confession can be a boastful fantasy or made under duress. These are not likely, but they are still possible, and that's why we have to use "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than absolute proof as our burden. And that's why I'll never be on board with the idea as long as we don't have it.

[Carl the Llama]

Killing people is wrong, as a society we can address that by... killing people. 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think the two things are comparable.

 

In the instance you describe there was an immenent and ongoing danger to the general public, so lethal force was necessary; that is not true of an incarcerated offender.

I think the two situations are comparable tbh. We're talking about accepting killing a person under different but similar circumstances. As I've expressed before, to me the death penalty isn't there for punishment, it's there as a solution to be rid of dangerous people. How many dangerous criminals have we incarcerated who have then gone on to hurt other inmates or guards or have gotten out and then gone on to hurt others. To you, it may be acceptable for guards to be put at risk, it is their job after all, or for other inmates who may in fact be redeemable to be put at risk, they put themselves there after all, but to me it isn't. 

[Stoopid]

What gets slightly lost here is the devastating effect Pitchfork's release will have on the families of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann. 

On top of the unceasing anguish they've been subject to for 30-odd years is added the hideous refinement that the perpetrator is now able to walk free in the world. Every day from now on will be tainted by this realisation. 

I have no answer to this (in general I oppose capital punishment), but feel desperately sad for those families. 

[Guest Cujek]

19 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

No to both. But think crime prevention is more important than how you deal with a tiny minority of "monsters". 

How would you prevent say for example, a raging lunatic, attacking someone out of the blue, with no motive, with no reason and no justifcation.

 

how can you prevent random acts? you cant.

 

if you were to prevent all crime, then you have to have a law enforcement officer on every street corner ready to pounce on any wrong doer.

 

Im sure you are a really nice fella and i dont mean this personally.

 

but your post is why liberals in this country make me so angry, most would rather sit around smiling at criminals trying to engage them, and buying them flowers to apologies for them being arrested by the mean police.

 

where are have the balls in this country gone? where is the steel nowadays? we used to be tough on the worst offenders, now i see child abusers getting suspended sentences, like what the actual F, you have basically ruined a child's life and perhaps their entire family as well, what right does someone that does that have to be in society, none thats what.

 

violent offenders that attack people without provocation, again, get in a hole, if youve done it once you will do it again and it might be worse next time, just get rid.

 

Victims of these crimes, do not have a second chance, why should the vile scum who do it have a second chance?

[KrefelderFox666]

22 minutes ago, Cujek said:

How would you prevent say for example, a raging lunatic, attacking someone out of the blue, with no motive, with no reason and no justifcation.

 

how can you prevent random acts? you cant.

 

if you were to prevent all crime, then you have to have a law enforcement officer on every street corner ready to pounce on any wrong doer.

 

Im sure you are a really nice fella and i dont mean this personally.

 

but your post is why liberals in this country make me so angry, most would rather sit around smiling at criminals trying to engage them, and buying them flowers to apologies for them being arrested by the mean police.

 

where are have the balls in this country gone? where is the steel nowadays? we used to be tough on the worst offenders, now i see child abusers getting suspended sentences, like what the actual F, you have basically ruined a child's life and perhaps their entire family as well, what right does someone that does that have to be in society, none thats what.

 

violent offenders that attack people without provocation, again, get in a hole, if youve done it once you will do it again and it might be worse next time, just get rid.

 

Victims of these crimes, do not have a second chance, why should the vile scum who do it have a second chance?

Have you never seen Minority Report?

[KrefelderFox666]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I don't understand the cut off point for capital punishment? One person gets executed but another doesn't. Which crime justified?

Or is it the idea that all murderers just get executed?

 

Murderers should face whole life punishments. Die in prison. It's a joke people like Pitchfork can get let back into society.

And this is one of the biggest problems I think, where do you draw the line? For example, we have two murderers, both killed only one person:

 

1. Murderer 1 planned the murder and knew who and how they were going to murder.

2. Murderer 2 did not go out to intend to kill (e.g. armed robbery/other theft etc.). However, in the heat of the moment they pull the trigger or swing a weapon resulting in death of a person.

 

You could argue that Murderer 1 knew what they were doing and should be punished by death. Whereas Murderer 2 accidentally/unintentionally killed and therefore should be punished with life in prison.

 

However, it is not always easy like this and there are lots of grey areas and drawing the line might well be difficult.

 

Watching some of these murder programs really give you a bit of an insight into these people and how they can seem to change. Sometimes they are even accepted by the victim's families (some of which are really strange to see).

 

As this thread shows, a really good topic for debate as views differ and there are lots of opinions.

[Guest Cujek]

15 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Have you never seen Minority Report?

Yes, this is what the lefties want!

[Koke]

Anybody who supports the death penalty with the full knowledge of the grave injustices that has  occurred over the centuries is barbaric. Countless of innocent people have been executed. 

Edited 8 June 2021 by Koke

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

Yes, this is what the lefties want!

You need to sit down and think about what it is that upsets you because you're coming at this from polar opposite angles.  First you say the left are too soft, lacking in balls to do anything, now you're saying 'the lefties' want to punish people before they've even done something.  This is the problem with hate for hate sake, eventually you tie yourself up in unreconcilable logical knots attacking a nebulous 'other' which exists solely in your imagination and isn't based on real people you've met and talked with.

[SpacedX]

Put this in the Pitchfork thread by accident and it was meant for here...

 

As the longest serving female inmate in California's 'correctional system', the case of Patricia Krenwinkle is particularly interesting. Having been sentenced to death in 1971, a year later the California death penalty was ruled unconstitutional and her sentence was commuted to life. Now 73 years old, she has been in a women’s prison in Riverside County for 47 years, longer than any other woman in the state. From memory she has had 14 appearances before a parole board who have recognised her exemplary behaviour, commended her for a clean disciplinary record, her study for a bachelor’s degree and her work training service dogs and counseling fellow inmates. Krenwinkel has two key factors working in her favor both revolving around age. Because she was 21 at the time of the Manson murders, she is considered a youthful offender under a law that came into effect in 2016. Also, commissioners must recognise the elderly have a lower risk of future violence.

 

Although the severity of the crime is justifiably and duly taken into account, it does not predict her future risk to public safety. That’s why some argue the law requires her release. To me, it's one of the best examples of the way in which public outcry can completely eviscerate and override someone’s constitutional rights. In spite of the severity if the crime and the contention that in the case of something so utterly heinous you forfeit your right to fair treatment - but that’s not how the law works. It's precisely the same for Van Houten and Davis (the Tex Watson situation is arguably far more serious). The infamy and horror of the Manson Family killings were permanently and indelibly etched upon American society and sentiment which is why when she becomes eligible for yet another parole hearing next year, she is likely to remain incarcerated. 

 

Last year Van Houten, now 71, qualified last July for release from a state prison, but California law gives the governor final say over whether an inmate is suitable for parole. She was not present at the Tate murders but participated in the La Bianca homicide. There are many many killers that have committed far graver acts but have served far shorter sentences (such as Pitchfork) - and have been released. Van Houten is being judged on the stigma of her Manson association and the high profile crimes which have become cultural lore - as opposed to her individual role and actions within that. Gov. Gavin Newsom, has twice overruled the parole board’s decision, characterizing Van Houten as a “danger” where there is no evidence to support that reversal. Very simply, he fears the attention that this attracts and the public outrage and backlash and does not want to be associated with it. Decisions concerning less publicised cases go unnoticed. Ultimately though, to the relatives of the victims, they don't - irrespective of the case - and they are all consigned to their own personal torment. If I was impacted by the Manson crimes, I would understandably never want the perpetrators to see the light of day...but the law does not - or should not - work like that. 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can see where you're coming from, Alf. Allow me to clarify.

 

The argument you raise about the responsibility of the state is a good one but I think it is one that someone can raise a counterargument to (as indeed, they have). Whereas the argument concerning wrongful execution is, as far as I can tell, copper-bottomed; there's no rebuttal to it that doesn't involve admitting the death of innocent people at the hands of the state as collateral damage is acceptable. (If I'm missing something however, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.) That's why I tend to view it as the argument I would rely on when it comes to this matter.

 

With respect to the rest of the post, there is no such thing as absolute proof with what we have right now IMO, not without first hand witnessing of the event yourself. Video evidence can be faked, witnesses can be coerced, a confession can be a boastful fantasy or made under duress. These are not likely, but they are still possible, and that's why we have to use "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than absolute proof as our burden. And that's why I'll never be on board with the idea as long as we don't have it.

 

Surely, you only have a "copper-bottomed argument" if:

a) You assume that because absolute proof is impossible in some cases, it is impossible in every case; or

b) If absolute proof is possible, you'd be prepared to consider state executions as justice or justifiable?

 

Take the real case of the killing of Lee Rigby. From memory, a number of people on a bus saw the attack and some even filmed it. The convicted murderers stayed at the scene with bloodied weapons. People in the street approached, tried to help the prone victim and the perpetrators spoke to them and told them why they'd done it. One of them was videoed (possibly by himself) saying why they had killed Rigby. When the police arrived, the perpetrators attacked them with guns and knives. There could conceivably have been grounds for "diminished responsibility" (though there weren't) but surely there was absolute proof that they committed the killing.....insofar as there's absolute proof of anything (cue Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" is the only proven fact! ).

 

Take a hypothetical case: if an anti-VAR fanatic runs onto the pitch during the FA Cup Final and massacres the ref in front of 22 players, 90,000 fans and millions of TV viewers, is that not as close to absolute proof as you're ever going to get?

Of course, some people will always doubt anything - the moon landings, man-made climate change, the earth existing for billions of years. Do you accept the hypothetical possibility of absolute proof? Because if you do, then you inevitably have to face the other question - whether it's acceptable for the state to carry out "justice killings" on our behalf - don't you?

 

I'm not downplaying the risk of miscarriages of justice. I'm well aware of multiple miscarriages of justice in the 70s & 80s - multiple people who'd have been wrongly executed, if we'd had capital punishment. Indeed, if we'd had capital punishment, it's possible that the first suspect in the Pitchfork case might have been wrongly executed - a young lad with learning difficulties wrongly confessed to one of Pitchfork's murders at police interview, initially. But for me that argument about wrongful convictions is secondary as I wouldn't want the state to kill people as "justice" even if/when there was absolute proof of guilt of awful crimes.

[FoxesDeb]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I find it interesting how views on Capital punishment are divided along political lines; I had a private bet with myself about which posters would favour it and which posters wouldn't, and it panned out pretty much as I expected.

 

 

I hope I was one of the exceptions to your bet, I may vote in the opposite way to you, but I'm not a barbarian otherwise 

[Fightforever]

I mean from a financial perspective if we had them shot by firing squad immediately after being given the sentence it would save a ton of money and I am already not happy about the taxpayer spending £40k on each prisoner.

So I am open to the idea.

Edited 8 June 2021 by Fightforever

[Paninistickers]

9 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I find it interesting how views on Capital punishment are divided along political lines; I had a private bet with myself about which posters would favour it and which posters wouldn't, and it panned out pretty much as I expected.

 

 

Hmmm, yeah..

 

I've always found that pro choice are generally anti capital punishment....yet anti abortion campaigners tend towards being supportive of the death penalty 

 

Surely you are either fully pro life or fully.pro death?