The death penalty

[Rincewind]

Simply cannot imagine how it would feel having 25 years of your life stolen from you.

The worse thing would be not knowing if the next day would be your last.

[DennisNedry]

All convictions are supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Who decides what 100% is? 

 

By 100% I meant cases where it is absolutely certain beyond any doubt whatsoever that the murderer is guilty, such as the murder is captured on CCTV.

[ADK]

Simply cannot imagine how it would feel having 25 years of your life stolen from you.

 

I was thinking that.

[marko]

Simply cannot imagine how it would feel having 25 years of your life stolen from you.

 

I would imagine it'd be absolutely horrendous, but thankfully he wasn't wrongly put to death. 

[David Guiza]

Sentencing isn't just about 'justice' though. It is also about rehabilitation. I just cannot see how so many people, in a modern thinking country such as our own, can justify the reinstatement of the death penalty.

Furthermore, if we are talking about 'justice' how do you teach society that killing is wrong, by justifying it with a killing?

A simple look at the countries/states that currently retain the death penalty says a lot about it's barbaric nature. Murderers such as the Lee Rigby killers and Ian Huntley will perhaps never suffer in the way that their victims and their families did/do, but the death penalty is not, and never will be, the answer in my opinion.

[Steven]

I was thinking that.

Try asking this man.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/my-sons-when-i-left-was-babies-now-they-grown-men-with-babies-us-man-glenn-ford-released-after-spending-nearly-30-years-on-death-row-for-a-crime-he-didnt-commit-9186340.html

[Guest MattP]

Simply cannot imagine how it would feel having 25 years of your life stolen from you.

 

Nope, I think I'd rather be out to death than afce 25 years inside. Horrific.

[ADK]

Hopefully he can make some money at least from the media.

 

Only going to get about £200,000 compensation which isn't much for that amount of time inside.

[Guest MattP]

Hopefully he can make some money at least from the media.

 

Only going to get about £200,000 compensation which isn't much for that amount of time inside.

 

Should have gone to fight for the Taliban and spent two years at Gitmo. Mo Begg got 1million for our government for that.

[Alf Bentley]

I don't think arguments against the death penalty should only be based on the potential for miscarriages of justice, appalling though that prospect is.

 

Other than in justified self-defence, killing another human being is the worst crime that an individual can commit - and, as a society, we shouldn't be asking the state to commit such acts on our behalf, even where it can be proved 100% that someone is guilty of the most appalling murder.

 

Take the case of the killers of Lee Rigby: It was one of the most awful murders imagineable, killing an innocent stranger in cold blood and showing complete contempt for human life. They clearly committed the crime; they even announced that they'd killed him. They have shown no remorse. There has been no suggestion that they were insane. They clearly deserve a heavy penalty, but it would debase us all to lower ourselves to their level and ask the state to kill them for us.

 

So, life-long prison sentences? In some cases, yes: e.g. if a convicted killer shows no remorse or rehabilitation and there's a real chance of them killing someone else. If Lee Rigby's killers maintain their current attitude, they'd certainly fall into that category.

 

Prison is supposed to achieve various objectives, including:

- Punishment, expressing society's disapproval of crime and offering some justice to victims

- Protection of society against further crimes that person might commit

- Rehabilitation, if possible; teaching the criminal to recognise the wrong they did and not to repeat it, if released

 

People like Lee Rigby's killers will have to serve a very long sentence, as punishment for what they did, even if they cease to be a risk and are truly repentant for their crime. If they maintain their current attitude, they should never be released as they'd not have been rehabilitated and would still be a risk. Could they ever be released? After, say, 30 years if they're genuinely remorseful and no longer a risk? The assessors would have to be very confident of their judgment, but that would have to be considered, I think. Where a killer is genuinely remorseful and understands the gravity of their offence and the damage it has done to others, some family members of victims can even find it beneficial - I remember the case of a genuinely repentant IRA terrorist who had meetings with the family of someone he'd killed.

 

It's frustrating that prison places a cost burden on society, but necessary. We can't order the state to kill killers because prison costs too much or we're lowering ourselves to their level. While in prison, prisoners could be made to do work to benefit society (or their victims), their money and property could be seized to offset costs, but murder is wrong, by individuals or the state.

[Rincewind]

The person I know who created the magazine Inside 'N' Out is a great advocate for offenders meeting their victims. He has seen a lot of success in it. He says it does not work for everyone and takes time to set up. He works with prisons and outside to help re habitation..

Most killings are domestic  or spur of the moment actions.

[Charl91]

People like Lee Rigby's killers will have to serve a very long sentence, as punishment for what they did, even if they cease to be a risk and are truly repentant for their crime. If they maintain their current attitude, they should never be released as they'd not have been rehabilitated and would still be a risk. Could they ever be released? After, say, 30 years if they're genuinely remorseful and no longer a risk? The assessors would have to be very confident of their judgment, but that would have to be considered, I think. Where a killer is genuinely remorseful and understands the gravity of their offence and the damage it has done to others, some family members of victims can even find it beneficial - I remember the case of a genuinely repentant IRA terrorist who had meetings with the family of someone he'd killed.

 

You'd really be alright with someone like that ever walking free? I can understand why people are against the death penalty (even if I don't agree), but I can't understand anyone who would let someone like that go.

 

In regards to the death penalty, in my opinion I don't see it as "lowering yourself to their level"; That's a very black and white way to look at it. I disagree, for a few reasons. Firstly, It supposes that all life is inherently valuable/of the same value. For me, anyone who is willing to commit such atrocities should not have any value attached to their life. Secondly, putting someone down in a humane way (for example, the same way that people can have assisted suicide in Switzerland) is a lot less barbaric than most cold-blooded murders.

 

I also don't advocate the Death Penalty for most murders. However there are a few cases (eg. serial killers, mass murderers) where I think it is entirely justified.

[ADK]

I don't like the presumption that victims families wishes are worthless either.

[Webbo]

I don't like the presumption that victims families wishes are worthless either.

The sentence should reflect the crime not the degree of vengeance demanded by the family of the victims.

[midland_red]

You should read this one.....a man walks out of Louisiana state penitentiary after 30 YEARS on death row for something he did not do

 

'An African American, Ford was sentenced to death by a jury that had been carefully selected by prosecutors to be exclusively white. His legal representation at trial was woefully inexperienced. The lead defence counsel was a specialist in the law relating to oil and gas exploration and had never tried a case in front of a jury; the second attorney was two years out of law school and working at the time of the trial on small automobile accident insurance cases. At the trial the state was unable to call any eyewitnesses to the crime, nor was it able to produce a murder weapon. Instead Ford was convicted largely on the testimony of a witness who was not a detached observer – she was the girlfriend of another man initially suspected of the murder.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/death-row-inmate-glenn-ford-released-30-years-after-wrongful-conviction

[Alf Bentley]

You'd really be alright with someone like that ever walking free? I can understand why people are against the death penalty (even if I don't agree), but I can't understand anyone who would let someone like that go.

 

I'd be very queasy about someone like Lee Rigby's killers ever walking free, and would be unhappy about it happening unless they'd served a substantial prison sentence and had demonstrated to experts, beyond reasonable doubt, that they truly recognised their guilt and the gravity of what they had done and were penitent - and that they were no longer a danger to others.

 

Of course, if it had been my son they'd killed, I might well want to kill them myself, but I hope that I'd somehow be able to achieve the state of mind of the woman whom I mentioned whose relative had been murdered by an IRA terrorist, who subsequently repented and was truly remorseful for his crime....hard to imagine, I know, but otherwise the alternatives are vengeance or a lifetime of bitterness. In cases (and they may be a minority) where someone is rehabilitated to that extent, wouldn't it be better for the remainder of their life (after a long prison sentence) to be put to positive use? After all, nothing will bring the victim back. 

[Finnegan]

Like I've said before, the death sentence is merciful. If life meant life and prisons were grotty enough to be hell that'd be a much more severe punishment than a quick and clinical death.

Why would you want someone dead if you knew they could be contained for life instead?

[Buzzell]

Life and Death Row - BBC3 next Monday at 9pm

Going to watch this tonight, should be a good watch.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Like I've said before, the death sentence is merciful. If life meant life and prisons were grotty enough to be hell that'd be a much more severe punishment than a quick and clinical death.

Why would you want someone dead if you knew they could be contained for life instead?

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? One person costs thousands of pounds a year. 

[purpleronnie]

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? One person costs thousands of pounds a year. 

So its better to risk killing an innocent person?

[leicsmac]

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? One person costs thousands of pounds a year. 

 

So a persons life and existence has monetary value that should be weighed and measured? That's a bit cold. Dislike the US healthcare system for the same reason actually - tries to put monetary value on something that should be beyond it.

[The Doctor]

That's the kind of mentality that made Christian vs. Lion a big hit a couple of thousand years ago. Clearly we haven't moved on as much as I'd hoped.

Christian vs lion wasn't a hit, because it never happened - there are no records of Romans putting Christians to death, it all comes from the martyr acts, written in 200CE with ridiculous symbolism it make Christians seem absolutely perfect and hated due to their superiority. Essentially the biggest victim complex in human history

However the actual point is a salient one, it's shocking how many people would be willing to kill another (and that these people they want to kill are murders and thus deserve to die is a weird line of thought

[Zingari]

Christian vs lion wasn't a hit, because it never happened - there are no records of Romans putting Christians to death, it all comes from the martyr acts, written in 200BCE with ridiculous symbolism it make Christians seem absolutely perfect and hated due to their superiority. Essentially the biggest victim complex in human history

However the actual point is a salient one, it's shocking how many people would be willing to kill another (and that these people they want to kill are murders and thus deserve to die is a weird line of thought

Is 200 BCE  the same year as 200 BC?

If so, surely there weren't any Christians in 200 BCE . Why would anyone write about them before Christ was born ?

[Captain...]

I'm not surprised Lee Rigby's killers have been brought up, but as I said in another thread, they don't deserve to fundamentally change one of our core beliefs in this country. I think there is also an argument that they were just weak willed pawns brainwashed into committing an horrific act, but that is for another thread.

If I was to advocate the death penalty for anyone it would be Anders Brevik. What he did and the way he did it, systematically training himself to be desensitized to the atrocities he was committing, so he could continue his massacre of innocent children, is beyond anything remotely resembling human. There is no way you can rehabilitate a man who chose to condition himself to be a brutal killer, or allow him to be a part of any functioning society ever again.

[DennisNedry]

I do understand a lot of the arguments against the death penalty, but the classic 'Killing as a punishment makes us as bad as the killer' doesn't make any sense to me.