Charl91 Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 I agree, but for me that's exactly where the death penalty lives and dies, if you pardon the pun. It's more about revenge than justice. How is it? I see this quote all the time, and it makes no sense at all. In what way is the arbitrary punishment of locking someone up any more "just" than the death penalty? Give me a logical reason why this is so, other than disliking the death penalty. Because from a logical point of view, capital punishment for the crime of murder is about as "just" as you can get.
leicsmac Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 How is it? I see this quote all the time, and it makes no sense at all. In what way is the arbitrary punishment of locking someone up any more "just" than the death penalty? Give me a logical reason why this is so, other than disliking the death penalty. Because from a logical point of view, capital punishment for the crime of murder is about as "just" as you can get. Because life imprisonment, harsh as it is, is not an absolute punishment. Execution is. As I said earlier in this thread, you can let a man out of jail; you can't bring him back to life. That doesn't seem 'fair or reasonable' (the dictionary definition of justice) to me. But, of course that's subjective. Until our justice system is absolute, our punishments of any kind shouldn't be. I actually agree with you on the death penalty being carried out in certain, very specific cases where the burden of proof is total and absolute, there is no possibility for rehabilitation, and the killer is so driven by ideology that they are showing and will continue to show no remorse for their actions.
Guest MattP Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 How is it? I see this quote all the time, and it makes no sense at all. In what way is the arbitrary punishment of locking someone up any more "just" than the death penalty? Give me a logical reason why this is so, other than disliking the death penalty. Because from a logical point of view, capital punishment for the crime of murder is about as "just" as you can get. Spot on. I've never understood the 'just' arguments, even more so when it's usually accompanied by the fact they claim life in prison is more barbaric to the prisoner.
David Guiza Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Just my opinions. I think the death penalty should be closer to the Japanese system, where only about 5 people are killed per year, with almost all of them being people who have committed multiple murders. I think there's also a big difference between murder in the heat of the moment (which I wouldn't suggest the death penalty for), and pre-meditated murder. 1. Use the Japanese system where 3 people press a button at the same time, so no-one knows who actually did it. 2. How can you preach that imprisoning someone against their will is wrong if the punishment is imprisoning them against their will? The logic is no different, it's an invalid argument. 3. If their father has committed multiple murders, then honestly, I don't think they'd want to visit him anyway. Children of the accused are going to suffer anyway, having that burden over them for the rest of their lives. 4. No. You make the assumption that under the death penalty, every killing would be the death penalty, but it doesn't work like that. I'd argue that only a miniscule amount would actually deserve it. 5. The death penalty should only be on the table with 100% certainty (well, as close as you can realistically get). I still argue that imprisoning people against their will for their entire lives is more inhumane, and that is done all the time without 100% certainty. I don't know whether being killed is less cruel then being imprisoned your entire life while knowing that you're innocent. I'm always torn on the issue about whether I would like to see the death penalty back or not. I can see both sides of the argument. If it was reserved for a few monsters (eg. the Anders Breivik kind) where there is no shred of doubt who has done it, then that's fine by me. It still makes me laugh that people are alright with the Army going into other countries and bombing "terrorists", but a legalised and regulated Death Penalty against people who have commited atrocities which are just as bad, on our home soil? No, that's barbaric. 1. What a ridiculous method that is. May as well have the person lined up agianst the wall and have 3 people fire bullets. 2. Because thousands of people a year get locked up for false imprisonment, right? A state simply cannot enshrine a fundamental law, like the law against killing, if the punishment is murder. Whoever has the unfortunate task of murdering the criminal is guilty himself, is he not? It's barbaric. Certain fundamental freedoms have to be balanced against the rights of others when a serious crime has been comitted - but I don't think the right to life ever should be one of them. If the death penalty is such a revolutionary method of punishment, why is it barely used in any first world countries? 3. Firstly, when did this become about multiple murders? And secondly - I disagree. I don't even think murder is the worst crime a person can committ. I think given the correct/incorrect set of circumstances anybody can kill a person. 4. But, we don't even have degrees of murder in this country for starters. People make it like it's the states, it is not. A man who ends his terminally ill wife's life is barely considered any different to the man who shoots someone in the head for no reason whatsoever in terms of the law. 5. How can you ever be 100% certain? If there is 1% of doubt that is too much to take someones life - I don't see how you cannot see that? The difference is you can free an impisoned man. You cannot simply resurect the dead when new evidence is found. How is it? I see this quote all the time, and it makes no sense at all. In what way is the arbitrary punishment of locking someone up any more "just" than the death penalty? Give me a logical reason why this is so, other than disliking the death penalty. Because from a logical point of view, capital punishment for the crime of murder is about as "just" as you can get. Because a prison sentence is used to educate, to rehabilitate and to punish. Many people have found a new life after prison, many haven't also. The death penalty is simply to punish - "An eye for an eye results in the whole world going blind". I understand that there are some horrific people in this world that will never change, but there are also many that made a mistake. The US states that authorise the death penalty have hardly became crime free as a result, have they? And i'm sure the kind of person who plans to kill hundreds of people doesn't even care if they get killed in the long run anyway - it's no greater detterant than prison IMO.
Koke Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 So none of you pro capital punishment advocates are worried about executing the wrong people? There have been cases after cases in the US where death row inmates have been exonerated after wrongful convictions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29039964 Putting morality aside, the death penalty is impractical and have major flaws in it.
Charl91 Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 1. What a ridiculous method that is. May as well have the person lined up agianst the wall and have 3 people fire bullets.2. Because thousands of people a year get locked up for false imprisonment, right? A state simply cannot enshrine a fundamental law, like the law against killing, if the punishment is murder. Whoever has the unfortunate task of murdering the criminal is guilty himself, is he not? It's barbaric. Certain fundamental freedoms have to be balanced against the rights of others when a serious crime has been comitted - but I don't think the right to life ever should be one of them. If the death penalty is such a revolutionary method of punishment, why is it barely used in any first world countries? 3. Firstly, when did this become about multiple murders? And secondly - I disagree. I don't even think murder is the worst crime a person can committ. I think given the correct/incorrect set of circumstances anybody can kill a person. 4. But, we don't even have degrees of murder in this country for starters. People make it like it's the states, it is not. A man who ends his terminally ill wife's life is barely considered any different to the man who shoots someone in the head for no reason whatsoever in terms of the law. 5. How can you ever be 100% certain? If there is 1% of doubt that is too much to take someones life - I don't see how you cannot see that? The difference is you can free an impisoned man. You cannot simply resurect the dead when new evidence is found 1. Actually they used to do it with firing squads too - some of the guns would have blanks in them. Why is it ridiculous? It protects the people who have to do the execution, so they can believe that it wasn't them who "pulled the trigger". Seems quite sensible to me. 2. Your original argument was basically "The state can't have something as a crime if it uses that to punish the crime". It can, and it does - as I said before, if you hold someone captive then you would be put in prison. Whether this happens regularly or not is irrelevant, it's still using the thing the criminal was guilty of committing as a punishment. The person who carries the execution isn't a murderer; the very definition of murder is that it's unlawful - it's not "committing a crime" if it's legally enforced. For example, Euthasia is legal in Switzerland, but not here. If they did that here, then it would be "murder". You haven't given any logical reason to why you oppose it, other than "you feel life is sacred". That's fine, but it's an opinion, not a rational argument. I personally don't find the life of someone who commits appalling inhumane crimes to be sacred at all. The EU bans the death penalty, which is why most of what you consider to be "3rd world" countries don't have it, though Japan and the USA, two major world powers, both allow the death penalty. 3. I'm just stating on what grounds I think the death penalty would be acceptable. If it was decided that it should implemented on anyone that killed somebody else, then yes, I would agree with you. In my opinion, it should be used on people who are A) guilty of committing multiple serious offences B) Have no chance of rehabilitation and C) Show absolutely no remorse for their actions. 4. I agree that the judicial system would need to be overhauled in order to implement the death penalty, and honestly, I'm not sure if we could ever implement it correctly. That would be one of my doubts about the system. 5. Freeing an imprisoned man isn't much consolation to them if they've spent the past 40 years in jail. I'm sure many wrongly imprisoned men never get freed. Because a prison sentence is used to educate, to rehabilitate and to punish. Many people have found a new life after prison, many haven't also. The death penalty is simply to punish - "An eye for an eye results in the whole world going blind I understand that there are some horrific people in this world that will never change, but there are also many that made a mistake. The US states that authorise the death penalty have hardly became crime free as a result, have they? And i'm sure the kind of person who plans to kill hundreds of people doesn't even care if they get killed in the long run anyway - it's no greater detterant than prison IMO. Don't kid yourself that prison is about rehabilitation for everyone. For someone that commits the type of crimes to which I'm alluding to, then they're never going to be released from prison. Inside, they're either going to be kept in solitary confinement, which for an entire lifetime is very inhumane, or they're going to be a danger to the officers and the other inmates who work/live there. As I said, in my opinion, the death penalty should be reserved for a select few who commit unspeakable crimes. The kind of person who "may have made a mistake" isn't the kind of person that I'm talking about here.
Charl91 Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Because life imprisonment, harsh as it is, is not an absolute punishment. Execution is. As I said earlier in this thread, you can let a man out of jail; you can't bring him back to life. That doesn't seem 'fair or reasonable' (the dictionary definition of justice) to me. But, of course that's subjective. Until our justice system is absolute, our punishments of any kind shouldn't be. I actually agree with you on the death penalty being carried out in certain, very specific cases where the burden of proof is total and absolute, there is no possibility for rehabilitation, and the killer is so driven by ideology that they are showing and will continue to show no remorse for their actions. So none of you pro capital punishment advocates are worried about executing the wrong people? There have been cases after cases in the US where death row inmates have been exonerated after wrongful convictions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29039964 Putting morality aside, the death penalty is impractical and have major flaws in it. I agree with both of you. Having thought about it, If there was a vote about implementing the Death Penalty, I'm probably leaning more towards the "nope" side. From an ethical/logical perspective, I am in favour of capital punishment (if used very selectively). However, from a practical standpoint, I worry that we would end up convicting people without enough evidence. I also don't have much faith that future Governments wouldn't lower the bar on the requirements to be seen fit for TDP, or even just abuse the power completely.
David Guiza Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 1. Actually they used to do it with firing squads too - some of the guns would have blanks in them. Why is it ridiculous? It protects the people who have to do the execution, so they can believe that it wasn't them who "pulled the trigger". Seems quite sensible to me. You seriously believe that a firing squad execution is 'quite sensible'? Nobody who is anti death penalty claims to know the answer as to how best to achieve justice for killings/rape etc, but I and many others just don't think that simply killing them is the answer for a variety of reasons, as I'm sure you understand. I agree that a prison sentence is often ineffective etc, and that a whole life sentence in itself can be quite barbaric, hence why it has been challenged in recent times. But, I think it's very much the lesser of two evils.
Rincewind Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 It takes a lot of skill to hang someone right. Although that is not a good reason for it. Did anyone see the doc/film about Pierpoint? He carried out some of the executions at the Nirenberg trials. He refused to carry out some because the gallows were not set up right and death would not be instant. I believe he suffered with memories about hangings in his later life. There is no perfect execution the electrocution method can take ages. The French spent years trying to perfect the guillotine then went onto garrotting which was no better. There are many in the USA who have been on death row for years. In a way that is a custodial sentence. Those waiting know they will die at some point, either at the hands of the state or natually so 15-20 years in moderate comfort is not too bad. The only bad thing is that they could be doing something mundane like reading a book when the guards come into the cell and whisk them away without allowing them to finish the final page of the book. Humans have devoted a lot of time over the centuries trying to find the perfect way to kill people in the name of justice with various levels of failure. They could give the prisoner a cyanide pill and say take it when you are ready.
Guest MattP Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Why do people always use the death penalty in the USA as a comparison and case in point that it's not a deterrant? Why not use Japan or Saudi Arabia where the facts to it being quite the opposite? Personally I wouldn't want to see it reintroduced widely however I would happily take on the views of Charl who would use it for certain cases where there is no chance of rehabilitation. I do have to say though, whilst preferring life imprisionment to the death penalty, I'd prefer the death penalty to some of the pisspoor sentences we do see handed down for murder these days, I find some of the 10-15 spells people are giving for the most horrific crimes far more barbaric and uncivilised than the death penalty ever could be.
Buce Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 It takes a lot of skill to hang someone right. Although that is not a good reason for it. Did anyone see the doc/film about Pierpoint? He carried out some of the executions at the Nirenberg trials. He refused to carry out some because the gallows were not set up right and death would not be instant. I believe he suffered with memories about hangings in his later life. There is no perfect execution the electrocution method can take ages. The French spent years trying to perfect the guillotine then went onto garrotting which was no better. There are many in the USA who have been on death row for years. In a way that is a custodial sentence. Those waiting know they will die at some point, either at the hands of the state or natually so 15-20 years in moderate comfort is not too bad. The only bad thing is that they could be doing something mundane like reading a book when the guards come into the cell and whisk them away without allowing them to finish the final page of the book. Humans have devoted a lot of time over the centuries trying to find the perfect way to kill people in the name of justice with various levels of failure. They could give the prisoner a cyanide pill and say take it when you are ready. Oh, Ken, you never fail to make me smile.
David Guiza Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Why do people always use the death penalty in the USA as a comparison and case in point that it's not a deterrant? Why not use Japan or Saudi Arabia where the facts to it being quite the opposite? Personally I wouldn't want to see it reintroduced widely however I would happily take on the views of Charl who would use it for certain cases where there is no chance of rehabilitation. I do have to say though, whilst preferring life imprisionment to the death penalty, I'd prefer the death penalty to some of the pisspoor sentences we do see handed down for murder these days, I find some of the 10-15 spells people are giving for the most horrific crimes far more barbaric and uncivilised than the death penalty ever could be. Japan is an interesting one, I agree. And they do have a reasoned list used during possible execution. But, Japan also has the 7th highest suicide rate in the world (Lithuania at number 1, which is strangely interesting). Many of which are cases where parents kill their children, which is then classed as suicide, that's not exactly the kind of laws and morals I would wish to follow. Saudi Arabia speaks for itself 1) The families of someone murdered can choose between demanding the death penalty or granting clemency in return for a payment (bloody money) 2) You can be sentenced simply by 2 male whitnesses saying you committed the crime 3) You can face capital punishment for the following - Adultery (Unmarried adulterers can be sentenced to 100 lashes, married ones can be sentenced to stoning.) Apostasy (Apostates are sentenced to beheading but are usually given three days to repent and return to Islam.) Armed robbery Blasphemy Burglary Carjacking Aircraft hijacking Drug smuggling Fornication Home invasion Sodomy, homosexuality, or lesbianism (If a man or woman is sodomized by their own consent, then they will also be sentenced to death along with the sodomizer) Idolatry Murder Rape Sedition Sexual misconduct Sorcery Terrorism Theft (fourth conviction) Treason Waging war on God Witchcraft If that was the case in the UK, i'd imagine crime would go down. A little extreme though .
Rincewind Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Oh, Ken, you never fail to make me smile. Thank you. The post was getting too serious son I injected (sorry for the pun) a little satire into it.
fuchsntf Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Logic, rationalise, Humane. Good christian, Good muslim, Good 'any religion' values Strange words for our World. To protect my kind, I would call for capital punishment for my kind.Who take another life in criminal sex or any criminal activities. #Not on any verdicts or procedures in todays court. #WITH better court procedures and with far better evidence and witness issues (too long to discuss here) # Guilt is really without doubt, at present caught/seen in the act, colaborated from more than one witness, without any questionable or doubtfull mitigating circumstances. #Todays methods of 'without doubt' is still too open to a none conclusive proof of that 'without doubt' # Multiple Convicted rapists, with or without causing death # multiple convicted paedophiles. Who would carry out the punishment...Hardened Convicted criminals. Why this reason of process. #non other than keeping these habital criminals from committing it again #Protect our future, our children, our loved ones. # stop me feeling the need for revenge. #I have no need to prove I am a good human being by sparing these proven Vermin.I am only Human and have no ambitions or anxious to prove I can reach a better spiritual level. # There IS evil carried out by evil people, who know no limits. # There are people who are not evil, but are disinterested without consequence of causing death, in criminal acts. # leniency, foregiveness, caring is in my make up. # We are all not perfect, but I believe in deterents, not that they will always work, one cannot erradicate all viruses, but less murderers, to me means a slightly better chance to protect the innocent.
Fox96 Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 It's a bloody sight more expensive though, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year for prisoners. Absolute fallacy Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.
Kitchandro Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 It's no doubt been said countless times in this thread. But, 1) Who carries out said hanging? I for one couldn't live with myself if that was my job 2) How do you preach to the state that murder is wrong, if the punishment is murder? 3) Why should the children of the accused suffer? Visiting their father/mother in prison is one thing compared to losing then for their entire life. 4) Does the man who smothers his terminally ill wife because she's under severe physical and mental pain face the death penalty? 5) Can you ever be 100% certain that the defendant committed the murder? Take the Jill Dando case for example I could go on.. I'm with this tbh. I never will feel it's right for the state, and people who were removed from the original crime, to make a clinical decision about whether someone should live or die. You can't just say 'murderers should be killed'. Murder is such a loose term. Another one I'd add to the list above is what if the person who was killed was an absolute w*nker and brought it on themselves? Sorry, but not everyone is equal. Some people just get what's coming to them. And some are just harshly judged. And some are just plain good and innocent. You can't just tar everyone with the same brush and say they should all die or a crime against this person means the perpetrator should die. Being locked up for life (and I mean life, not 25 years) should be enough to a) prevent them killing again & b) show others that you will be swiftly dealt with if you kill someone in cold blood. If you want any more than that, it's probably more to do with your desire for revenge. And hey, I get that, totally. But you can't then turn around and expect the legal system to do it for you - do it yourself.
AdamN Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 3) You can face capital punishment for the following - Adultery (Unmarried adulterers can be sentenced to 100 lashes, married ones can be sentenced to stoning.) Apostasy (Apostates are sentenced to beheading but are usually given three days to repent and return to Islam.) Armed robbery Blasphemy Burglary Carjacking Aircraft hijacking Drug smuggling Fornication Home invasion Sodomy, homosexuality, or lesbianism (If a man or woman is sodomized by their own consent, then they will also be sentenced to death along with the sodomizer) Idolatry Murder Rape Sedition Sexual misconduct Sorcery Terrorism Theft (fourth conviction) Treason Waging war on God Witchcraft If that was the case in the UK, i'd imagine crime would go down. A little extreme though . Damn, I was practicing witchcraft just this morning!
Kitchandro Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Because life imprisonment, harsh as it is, is not an absolute punishment. Execution is. As I said earlier in this thread, you can let a man out of jail; you can't bring him back to life. That doesn't seem 'fair or reasonable' (the dictionary definition of justice) to me. But, of course that's subjective. Until our justice system is absolute, our punishments of any kind shouldn't be. I actually agree with you on the death penalty being carried out in certain, very specific cases where the burden of proof is total and absolute, there is no possibility for rehabilitation, and the killer is so driven by ideology that they are showing and will continue to show no remorse for their actions. Good post. Interesting last point, tbf. On the other hand, what's the difference to everyone else if he's locked up forever instead?
DennisNedry Posted 18 September 2014 Posted 18 September 2014 Best thing about capital punishment is that the re-offending rate is 0% Unless we have compulsory whole-life sentences for the most dangerous offenders then capital punishment is the only way to protect the public, because time and again prison and psychiatric help fails to rehabilitate criminals, and they go on to rape/kill again. An example of this may well be Alice Gross in London and that Latvian builder. Here's hoping it's not but it looks likely.
leicsmac Posted 19 September 2014 Posted 19 September 2014 Good post. Interesting last point, tbf. On the other hand, what's the difference to everyone else if he's locked up forever instead? Thanks. That's true. If we had true life sentences for such cases it would probably eliminate the need for the death penalty altogether, especially if it can be proven that it costs less to do so than to execute, that one being one of the main pro arguments.
The Quick Brown Fox Posted 19 September 2014 Posted 19 September 2014 I am against the death penalty, I would rather make prison a nasty place to be, one meal a day and no time to socialise or exercise. Alot of people go to prison and all they do is play computer games and use the gym, coming out of prison stronger than when they went in, so when they recommit they are stronger and can do more damage. I would also like to see people like the Lee Rigby killers have their hands and feet amputated and locked up for life. A decent movie to watch on the death penalty is the life of David Gale.
David Guiza Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip-explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html - Holding back an execution because of concerns of a drug that is used to administer death would be laughable it wasn't such a tragic case. Yet another bizzare and backward move by the States to even sanction the death penalty, will it ever change?
ramboacdc Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip-explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html - Holding back an execution because of concerns of a drug that is used to administer death would be laughable it wasn't such a tragic case. Yet another bizzare and backward move by the States to even sanction the death penalty, will it ever change? he had his stay of execution overruled by the supreme court and then the Governor put it in place. the man who first said he should. thankfully he has had a change of heart.
DEMANN Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 I'd like to see gladiatorial events staged, where prisoners who have been convicted of the most serious crimes, fight to the death.
Wymsey Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 I'd like to see gladiatorial events staged, where prisoners who have been convicted of the most serious crimes, fight to the death. But it'd breach Human Rights.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.