The death penalty

[cambridgefox]

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

Especially with your boyish good looks Matt,you would be in for a torrid time!

[The Doctor]

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 ?

It was late, I meant CE, which would be 1800 years ago

[Guest MattP]

Especially with your boyish good looks Matt,you would be in for a torrid time!

Even the poofs don't fancy me these days.

[Zingari]

Even the poofs don't fancy me these days.

 

join the club !

[Charl91]

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

 

Again, I never understood that argument.

 

You'd lock someone up for imprisoning someone against their will for 20 years, right?

[Captain...]

Again, I never understood that argument.

 

You'd lock someone up for imprisoning someone against their will for 20 years, right?

 

Well the argument is that the penalty for killing someone is death, but then someone has to kill that person, so they therefore should be punished by death. This only works if you take the literal "eye for an eye" bible approach and that taking an innocent man's life is more severe than taking a guilty man's life, but then what if an innocent life is taken under the belief that they were guilty, is the man that took his life a murderer?

 

Basically I believe that all life is sacred and nobody has the right to take someone elses life from them because all people are capable of change, unless they can be proven to be genetically evil or in such an extreme case Anders Brevik who dehumanised himself so loses all right to be treated as such. I'm not sure if it is cause or effect, but in a country like the USA where the state doesn't respect the sanctity of human life they have one of the highest homicide rates. You must admit there is a certain hypocrisy in telling people that they can't kill people while doing the same thing, but then taking away someone's liberty is also illegal, yet the punishment would be the same. 

 

There will always be some contradictions when it comes to punishing someone, moral conflicts, and doubt over severity and appropriateness but most recognised punishments can always be reversed, or at least compensated, the only one that can't is death and for that reason alone it shouldn't be considered as a punishment.

[Alf Bentley]

Again, I never understood that argument.

 

You'd lock someone up for imprisoning someone against their will for 20 years, right?

 

Depends what the purpose of the sentence is. If you're arguing for an "eye for an eye", would you also order that a convicted rapist be raped? That someone guilty of GBH should get the shit kicked out of them? That a burglar should have his house broken into? That someone causing death by dangerous driving should be run over by a dangerous driver?

 

Surely imprisonment is an established sentence that serves various purposes:

- Protects the public against further crimes by dangerous/recidivist criminals

- Punishes the criminal and shows society's disapproval of their crimes

- Allows some (not enough) criminals to be rehabilitated so that they're no longer a danger on release

- With some crimes, deters some people from committing them due to the penalty they'd face

 

An imperfect sentence, but beats killing people in cold blood. Murder is the worst act that anyone can commit, whether it is an individual murderer or the state (on our behalf) that is doing the murdering

[Charl91]

Well the argument is that the penalty for killing someone is death, but then someone has to kill that person, so they therefore should be punished by death. This only works if you take the literal "eye for an eye" bible approach and that taking an innocent man's life is more severe than taking a guilty man's life, but then what if an innocent life is taken under the belief that they were guilty, is the man that took his life a murderer?

 

Basically I believe that all life is sacred and nobody has the right to take someone elses life from them because all people are capable of change, unless they can be proven to be genetically evil or in such an extreme case Anders Brevik who dehumanised himself so loses all right to be treated as such. I'm not sure if it is cause or effect, but in a country like the USA where the state doesn't respect the sanctity of human life they have one of the highest homicide rates. You must admit there is a certain hypocrisy in telling people that they can't kill people while doing the same thing, but then taking away someone's liberty is also illegal, yet the punishment would be the same. 

 

There will always be some contradictions when it comes to punishing someone, moral conflicts, and doubt over severity and appropriateness but most recognised punishments can always be reversed, or at least compensated, the only one that can't is death and for that reason alone it shouldn't be considered as a punishment.

 

 

I'm not arguing an eye for an eye here though. All I'm pointing out is that it's flawed logic when people say "how can you kill someone for killing a person" when they would happily imprison against their will for someone for imprisoning an innocent person against their will. Using that very same argument, the person who imprisoned them would have to go to prison, and so on. Doing something within the rules of the state is far different to you doing it by yourself (I'm sure everyone who uses this obtuse argument is well aware of this) otherwise we would have to arrest out soldiers for killing people.

 

Now, the argument that all life is sacred and shouldn't be taken no matter what is more credible, and I can at least see where people are coming from with that one. I would see that as a logical argument if it applied to all life. However, where I disagree is that this rule only seems to apply to human life. Why is this "sacred", but the life of an ape, a cat or a dog not? To me, the actions of a person who commits atrocities should be far less valuable then that of any animal - however, I can at least appreciate that this is very subjective, and just my personal opinion.

 

By the way, people such as Anders Brevik are the exact kind of people I would like to see the death penalty for. I don't want us to go around killing people willy-nilly, and I personally wouldn't advocate it for 99% of murder cases, but I think there are a rare few in which it is justified. 

[ADK]

Anyone watched "life and death row" on BBC? I have to say that after that it's put me off the death penalty. I think locking people up for actual life is a better punishment.

[David Guiza]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murderer-granted-right-to-euthanasia-rather-than-rot-in-belgian-prison-9736508.html

 

Interesting news article from Belgium. Personally, I've always been against the death penalty and always will be. The fact that this man believes euthanasia is an easier way out than prison says a great deal too.

[Rincewind]

Better punishment? Strange choice of words but I understand the meaning.

 

Euthanasia would be a little harsh for a motoring offence.

[Strokes]

Better punishment? Strange choice of words but I understand the meaning.

Euthanasia would be a little harsh for a motoring offence.

You wouldn't say that if you got stuck on the m6 last Monday.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Anyone watched "life and death row" on BBC? I have to say that after that it's put me off the death penalty. I think locking people up for actual life is a better punishment.

It's a bloody sight more expensive though, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year for prisoners.

 

Murderers should be hanged. If someone takes a life, then they should forfeit their own.

[David Guiza]

It's a bloody sight more expensive though, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year for prisoners.

 

Murderers should be hanged. If someone takes a life, then they should forfeit their own.

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..

[ADK]

It's a bloody sight more expensive though, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year for prisoners.

 

Murderers should be hanged. If someone takes a life, then they should forfeit their own.

 

It doesn't have to be if you make them work. Anyway it's not purely an issue of expenses but about the right way to act. The death penalty in the USA came across as pretty gross and is actually more expensive than life imprisonment for them.

[leicsmac]

It's a bloody sight more expensive though, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds per year for prisoners.

 

Murderers should be hanged. If someone takes a life, then they should forfeit their own.

 

I do wish I saw life in such a rich black and white tapestry as you.

 

In fact...sorry, no, I don't.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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 accept point number 4, as I would self defence, but none of the others, and surely point number 3, is down to the mother/father to discern. 

 

I could go on, but I have gone over this so many times, that I have tired of discussing it.

 

A referendum on bringing back the death penalty, should be held, and I know what the result would be.

 

 

 

 

 

Albert Peirpoint had no qualms about hanging people for first degree murder, and neither would I. 

[Sir Fynwy]

I accept point number 4, as I would self defence, but none of the others, and surely point number 3, is down to the mother/father to discern.

I could go on, but I have gone over this so many times, that I have tired of discussing it.

A referendum on bringing back the death penalty, should be held, and I know what the result would be.

Albert Peirpoint had no qualms about hanging people for first degree murder, and neither would I.

Albert Pierpoint had no qualms about doing it, and neither would I

We can't bring back the death penalty without leaving the Council of Europe and various other international bodies so there is no need for a referendum

[ADK]

There've been polls on the death penalty many times and the results are always against.

[Buce]

It's something which I have mixed feelings about.

Intellectually, I have always been against it, yet if someone murdered a loved one of mine, they would forfeit their life to me the moment they were released from prison.

[Mark_w]

A referendum on bringing back the death penalty, should be held, and I know what the result would be.

 

Yeah, it'd be a resounding 'WTF? Of course not'.

[David Guiza]

It's something which I have mixed feelings about.

Intellectually, I have always been against it, yet if someone murdered a loved one of mine, they would forfeit their life to me the moment they were released from prison.

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.

[Koke]

Look up the shocking number of people who were put on death row in the US, but years later got exonerated. You cant legislate for human error. 

 

The death penalty is illogical and impractical. I dont want it to ever be brought back again. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Death Penalty should be brought back? Have a word.

[Charl91]

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..

 

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.