Death Penalty Poll

[Spiderman]

OK, simple one here since it comes up on a few occasions and i'm interested in peoples opinions on this.

Do you agree with the death penalty?

Options are fairly obvious but let me expand on the last one... Exceptional circumstances, beyond ANY doubt.
By this i mean for example, person A cold bloodedly kills person B in the street and is tackled by passers by as he runs for it. Held till cops arrive and he admits his guilt.
Or any other situation like the above where guilt is not dependant simply on evidence of any type like fingerprints, DNA etc.

And it doesn't have to just be murder btw, the crime can be rape, torture, child molestation etc.

All i wanna know is if you agree or disagree with the principle of the state and law taking the life of a criminal.

TBH i'd also like for there to be little or no discussion on this thread unless you feel its vital or i've missed a poll option that should be included.

Also its a private vote so no-one gonna hate you for your opinion.

[Biker Biggles]

OK so theres no chit chat,but theres no poll either!??????

[Spiderman]

poll was on the way, its there now :)

[Wideboy]

i said yes under circumstances, i think the chopping off of hands/fingers ect of thief's would also be a good thing

[Biker Biggles]

AAAH Cant we have the chit chat instead?:rolleyes::smt080

[Spiderman]

You can chit chat all you like mate, you know me - never one to censor peoples opinions or their right to say what they need to.

I just dont want it to descend into a circular argument about how "i'm right, you're wrong" cos that gets boring to read ;)

[Biker Biggles]

OK---Death penalty always wrong IMO.
Nothing but a sop to the baying mob to satiate them and keep them from asking awkward questions of the ruling class.
As an alternative example from China---They killed a middle ranking distributor in their poisoned baby milk scandle last year.Nice sop to the angry public,but they never even procecuted the big boys involved.

[Spiderman]

I see your point BB....BUT...isnt it also a huge waste of govt resources to keep crims who never intend to change their ways clothed and fed for years and years for them to die in a jail?

[Biker Biggles]

Yes,but so is keeping badly disabled people alive and looked after,but we do it because it is right.Other things we dont do(or shouldnt)because it is wrong.

[speedplay]

isnt it also a huge waste of govt resources to keep crims who never intend to change their ways clothed and fed for years and years for them to die in a jail?

Aside from the death penalty (apart for red pointy owners;) ) something that would cause less of a drain on tax payers would be to deport and ban anyone not a british national found guilty of any crime according to british law.

[MattCollins]

Isn't killing the killer lowering ourselves to their level?

My main objection to capital punishment is that historically there have been too many people put to death for crimes that they did not or may not have committed. I do not believe that any sort of "for the better good" argument is justification in these circumstances. What if it was you or your own? The system has too many flaws as it is.

I do however believe in a zero tolerance system.

[ethariel]

Death Penalty Yes

BUT, only where there is no doubt of guilt (thats beyond the reasonable doubt of conviction) such as 'Caught on TV/Camera/many witnesses.

For Whom?

Premeditated Murder, Child Molestation, Terrorism also perhaps also for 'Attempted/Failed Act of Terrorism' no second chances to let them try again.

[Biker Biggles]

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and so was Ben Gurion.
So were the Birmingham bombers(conclusive scientific proof of guilt),and that child molester who just got released after donkeys years inside when they proved someone else did it.
When you let the ruling class decide who lives and who dies you unleash a genie that is truely evil.We got past that stage fourty years ago and should never go back to it.

[Spiderman]

Yeh lets not get into who or what a terrorist is now cos as the old saying goes...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and i think that really sums up the whole argument very well.

[MattCollins]

The word "terrorist" a modern word and is what it is through conditioning (brain washing) by politicians and media. It is all FUD to erode your civil liberties.

[Spiderman]

The word "terrorist" a modern word and is what it is through conditioning (brain washing) by politicians and media. It is all FUD to erode your civil liberties.

Well said that man.

[fizzwheel]

I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

When my friend was killed by a drunk driver in 2006, many of my friends in their greif said the driver should be executed an eye for an eye and all that.

Personally in those circumstances, I never understood what use or purpose executing the driver of the car would have solved. It wouldnt have brought Pete back and at that time all of us who knew him would have given anything to have him back again.

Theres been to many screw ups with innocent people being found guilty for me to think that the death sentenance is a suitable punishment, one innocent person put to death is to many, so it would have to be a 100% guilty conviction with no doubt, but even then I'm not sure it actually fixes anything.

So I'm not sure...

[Spiderman]

Some very well thought out arguments there Lyn, only issue i have is this...

So do we kill them or house them until they die? Again to me the morally right, just thing to do which makes us better than them and keeps us in that position is to incarcerate them for life.


...who says it more morally right to lock someone up in an institution for life, give them all the comforts of home but deprive them of any chance to ever see the outside world again?

What if they try multiple times, as some prisoners do, to take their own life? Do we let them or enforce our "moral" stance that they must live in a cage forever?

Its a very difficult argument this whole thing.

[Bri w]

lynw, spot on and an educated point from experience.

Spidey, morally wrong to lock them up for life.?

I disagree with the death penalty, as may have been read from previous posts. But to protect our society they have to be locked up. And as previous murderers have been released only to go on and murder again, then lock them up for life.

[Ed]

When you let the ruling class decide who lives and who dies you unleash a genie that is truely evil.We got past that stage fourty years ago and should never go back to it.

Absolutely. Spot on.

Never, not under any circumstances.

[MattCollins]

But a government like China... now that is a different matter.

Lyn,

I was waiting for that comment, but I am kinda surprised that you are the one to come out with it. Elsewhere in this forum ("Chinese Execution" I think) the Chinese "regime" was described as "corrupt" and "evil" for their human rights record, yet we (Au and UK) have endorsed through our participation and/or silence in many human rights abuses by the US and probably quite a few of our own in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan - wars which were probably on very shaky legal ground - and the endorsement of hundreds of thousands deaths by our leaders for what was more about economic and strategic (plus raiding a couple of treasuries) gains than any WOT.
It is hypocritical (us not you) to play the high and mighty and criticise other nations for their behaviour when our own house(s) is not in order.

EDIT: Whoops! I hadn't read the last 20 or so posts in the thread mentioned above - thought it was gone. That same point was well made.

[ethariel]

Absolutely. Spot on.

Never, not under any circumstances.


Never?

Thats a rash and wild statement

[Ed]

Never?

Yes, never.

Thats a rash and wild statement

No it isn't. It means what it says on the tin. Never.

[beabert]

Yep, christian principle of forgiveness, cant forgive if they are dead.

[Spiderman]

But if you believe the law about not killing applies to all, in my eyes that also has to apply to the state.

This then leads into another argument which I wont dwell on too much in this thread as it will derail it from a good discussion, but is prison there to rehabilitate as much as punish? I know some people can never be rehabilitated, but equally I dont believe it is justice for the state to kill them.


I many ways i agree with you Lyn, but if a person has decided to take a life and thus not play along with the rule of law then should the law not have the power to dish out the same as a consequence?

Again i mean this only in circumstances where the crim took a life for no good reason, ie a burglar who breaks in and steals and just for "fun" rapes the woman and then kills the her and her kids. Shows no remorse and says he will actively continue in this way should he ever get out, break out if needs be.
Should the law not be able to deter this type of person?

And again, is it ever a deterrent even? Or will it simply mean more rapists for example will kill their victims to ensure they dont get caught an thus put to death.

ANd as you rightly say, does prison rehabilitate? And if it does then why attempt to do that for someone who its already been decided they should stay away from society until they die naturally?

What of they continue to kill at every opportunity while in jail? Should the law still turn a blind eye to their life taking and simply say "we wont stoop so low" but we will shackle and bind them and only feed them intravenously as they as such a threat to everyone who they come into contact with?
Is that any more "right" than ending a pointless life?

As always Lyn, you know i'm not picking on you at all, just that you post some of the best thought but arguments that always give me plenty of food for thought.

[Ed]

Yep, christian principle of forgiveness, cant forgive if they are dead.

**** off

[Spiderman]

:lol:

Dont let it get under your skin Ed.

[anna]

I also think that there should be no death penalty.

Punishment on this level is nothing short of vengence for things that can not be undone, mended or fixed. There can be no good come from killing anyone I know it is a contraversal statement, but I dont think that it helps victims in any way shape or form.

Society changes and moves forwards (one hopes) and so we learn to better rehabilitate offenders, or how to be able to use their skills to better use. I firmly believe that all people are able to contribute something to this society. Ok I know I am going to be accused of being naive, and I choose to be this way.

I understand that some people are not able to be rehabilitated however, I dont see that it is our decision to take life. Yes it costs money to keep them and a drain on society, but what about the moral well being of society when did that suddenly get measured in monetry terms?

[5hort5]

:smt066 Kill a few crims, less carbon foot print ;-) Save the world in the process - that got to be religious in some way, green peace world love it :flower:

[instigator]

I'd be content with the death sentence for those that really are guilty of horrific crimes. However, never should the 'state' be given that much power. You can bet your bottom dollar, they'd abuse it.

[thulfi]

I think pretty much almost any human being can be pushed to a point where they see or endure something where they would be prepared to kill the other party (not in an act of self defence) but justice in the eye of the beholder in the form of vengeance.

Before my head gets bitten off, can everyone safely say if they saw somebody with their own eyes torture/rape/murder people in their own family (or if you can think of something even worse) and then handed over a gun would not kill that person. If they would (which I reckon most people would), it immediately means they are willing to kill as retaliation, thus undermining their 'opposition' to capital punishment in the first place.

As virtually noone here has been pushed to such limits (i hope), and lets hope nobody does, then those who say they oppose capital punishment might find out something very different about themselves if the worst was to happen.

Dying is too good a punishment for some people.

[MattCollins]

Death Penalty Yes

BUT, only where there is no doubt of guilt (thats beyond the reasonable doubt of conviction) such as 'Caught on TV/Camera/many witnesses.

Missed this one earlier...

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is probably fairly easily defined in the legal system. The problem is how to define "absolute certainty" in legal terms. I certainly would not trust a jury, who in all likelihood are made up of part of the general mob and therefore easily swayed to make the right decision. The general populace is only one step up the evolutionary scale from sheep. Likewise I would not want a panel of judges who are more concerned with upholding the legal system (which empowers them) than getting down to the absolute truth.

The reality is that the legal system is seriously flawed. It is all about who can get up and tell the biggest lies or twist things the most to their own end and get away with it. The truth barely enters into it.

[MattCollins]

Before my head gets bitten off, can everyone safely say if they saw somebody with their own eyes torture/rape/murder people in their own family (or if you can think of something even worse) and then handed over a gun would not kill that person. If they would (which I reckon most people would), it immediately means they are willing to kill as retaliation, thus undermining their 'opposition' to capital punishment in the first place.




In that scenario, I would not be waiting around to be handed a gun. I know how I would react because I have used (non lethal) force against armed intruders - that is the fight or flight instinct kicking in. The difference though is that I would be acting in the the moment, not in the cool premeditated fashion of an execution.

What I would find interesting to know is whether or not someone pulled in from the street (not directly involved) who had been baying for blood and 1/ could flip the switch at an execution and 2/ live with it in clear conscience.

EDIT: I would be very concerned about having someone walking the streets if they could meet the above criteria without professional training, counselling and guidance.

[Spiderman]

I watched an interesting documentary about a guy who was an executioner for the govt in one of the middle east countries. He did the beheadings and stuff for public executions and he took great pride in the work he did and how it was a noble thing to make sure he did the cut just right etc and how he was such a respected member of hs community and everyone who knew him knew what he did for a living.

As for someone off the street tho, i think most right minded people would at least hesitate if not simply realise they cant do it and walk away.

[skeetly]

Not ever.
While it's obviously fair to take the life of a murderer; you can't make any kind of amends to an innocent man, his family and friends when he is dead.
It doesn't work either. Those countries with the death penalty don't seem to be able to stop people doing things that earn them the sentence.
I think it's a sop to an angry public. I'd be disappointed to a live in a country that thinks it's OK to play a gambling game where the stakes include the state killing an innocent person.
Thats before we start talking about any abuse by the state itself......

[thulfi]

In that scenario, I would not be waiting around to be handed a gun. I know how I would react because I have used (non lethal) force against armed intruders - that is the fight or flight instinct kicking in. The difference though is that I would be acting in the the moment, not in the cool premeditated fashion of an execution.

I meant a scenario in which you couldn't stop it. Lets say you were handcuffed down or something, then you witnessed some horrific acts to your family. Then lets even say few days elapse, and the opportunity arose to kill the person. Would most people here not take it?

Flight or fight fine for ones own survival. But if you're willing to extract your own vengeance and justice to the person who did this to your family, then thats as good as capital punishment. And my point being that as no one here has been in that situation, those saying they are opposed capital punishment may not feel the same way if stuff got ugly - all I was saying really. Nothing to do with self defense or anything.

[Spiderman]

Not ever.
While it's obviously fair to take the life of a murderer;

D'oh! thats a pretty quick contradiction you got going on there aint it?

Also, please read back to my original post, i say ONLY where guilt is in no doubt so it kinda removes the ability for the state to abuse the power.

[MattCollins]

I meant a scenario in which you couldn't stop it. Lets say you were handcuffed down or something, then you witnessed some horrific acts to your family. Then lets even say few days elapse, and the opportunity arose to kill the person. Would most people here not take it?

Flight or fight fine for ones own survival. But if you're willing to extract your own vengeance and justice to the person who did this to your family, then thats as good as capital punishment. And my point being that as no one here has been in that situation, those saying they are opposed capital punishment may not feel the same way if stuff got ugly - all I was saying really. Nothing to do with self defense or anything.

In that scenario I believe that anyone that could do it would not be in their right mind. They would be under severe emotional distress or not right to start with. Again it is very different from the cool premeditation of an execution.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Hmm, I am completely unsure where I stand on this one.

I have made the same point a few times in child abuse threads about how we all jump on the vigilante bandwagon and shout for the paedophile to be shot/stabbed/beaten to death etc etc etc. If a mandatory death sentence was brought in for something like this, perhaps the victims would feel that the abuser was getting off lightly. A victim of a horrific crime will live with it for the rest of their lives, think about it probably every day - is the death sentence for the person that left them with this an easy way out??

Then on the other hand, a lot of the horrendous crimes such as rape, child abuse and murder are committed by the type of person who would do it again if given the chance. So, that being the case, do we then bring in the death penalty in order to prevent them re-offending and killing/ruining another life?

Spidey also made a good point regarding people going to greater extremes to cover their crimes, possibly resulting in more people dying, in an attempt to avoid detection. If someone commits a crime punishable by death, say child abuse, and the only witness to the crime is the child then it is highly likely they will kill the child in order to prevent being convicted and subsequently executed.

[barwel1992]

Hmm, I am completely unsure where I stand on this one.

I have made the same point a few times in child abuse threads about how we all jump on the vigilante bandwagon and shout for the paedophile to be shot/stabbed/beaten to death etc etc etc. If a mandatory death sentence was brought in for something like this, perhaps the victims would feel that the abuser was getting off lightly. A victim of a horrific crime will live with it for the rest of their lives, think about it probably every day - is the death sentence for the person that left them with this an easy way out??
.

no one sead it had to be a quick death ... maybe accelerated ageing is the answer (so they die faster)

[MattCollins]

no one sead it had to be a quick death ... maybe accelerated ageing is the answer (so they die faster)

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is the phrase that springs to mind.

[Milky Bar Kid]

no one sead it had to be a quick death ... maybe accelerated ageing is the answer (so they die faster)

WHAT!!! What a ridiculous suggestion! If we have a death penalty it cannot be done in an inhuman manner!

[barwel1992]

^ they reap what they sew

the death penalty is already inhumane just depends how far you want to go

[Ablazze]

No never.

Jas...

p.s now that discussion has been completed :P
the real debate is prison & the lack of it been a ****ty place to be , it seems logical to make prison a terrible place ( & by terrible i really do mean it ) No TVs no phones nothing to make there lives more bearable , manual labour 12 hrs a day 7 days a week & no payment for it, i would make prison the last place on earth anyone would want to be, then lets see how many repeat offenders we have.

[barwel1992]

^ yup i agree with that

(apart from i want the death penalty for SOME)

[BanannaMan]

Hmmm ....Looks I'm not going to be the popular kid in this thread.



I am btw the only person here who lives in a state where there really is a death penalty. :eek:
And yes, we executed 2 in November. 1 by lethal injection and one in the electric chair.

However the death penalty is only for those convicted of murder and then only the worst/sickest of those.
Mostly (but not limited too) those who have tortured, raped, etc. their victims, or a terrorist act or those who have killed a policeman (or woman).
Even then there are many "court appeals" along the way to try to overturn the verdict.
DNA and fingerprints are quite credible evidence here and I do support that 100%. An eyewitness is not always required to determain guilt.
But those who get the death penalty are not people who might be innocent. Again there are many appeals and the death penalty is not something given out in every homocide case.

The sick bastwerds that are put to death in Virginia all deserve to die IMHO.
I have no problem with it at all. :reaper:







I'll get my coat now.....

[maff]

Yes

You take a life you lose your life, simples

Rapists and peadeos can go on that list too

It should be incorprated in the lotto. 49 people convicted of the worst crimes are on plinths with a noose around their neck. six numbers and the bonus ball comes up and the other 42 end up swaying

Think of the ratings

[instigator]

D'oh! thats a pretty quick contradiction you got going on there aint it?

Also, please read back to my original post, i say ONLY where guilt is in no doubt so it kinda removes the ability for the state to abuse the power.

Why? When evidence can quite easily be fabricated...I'm sure if they took a disliking to your political stance (or whatever for that reason), you could be framed for a crime you didn't commit but 99% of the population would believe you were guilty. Conspiracy theorist? I just see myself not being naive.

[skeetly]

D'oh! thats a pretty quick contradiction you got going on there aint it?

Also, please read back to my original post, i say ONLY where guilt is in no doubt so it kinda removes the ability for the state to abuse the power.

Fair comment. You said not much chat though; this makes it difficult to write it all down so I went for the shortest version I felt I could get away with :) It was late too.

**IF**:

1. There is no doubt with regards to guilt.
2. There was no 'noble' cause for doing it.
3. Murderer wasn't mentally imbalanced

Then it would seem to be be fair enough.
But thats the problem isn't it? It gets too complicated.
If you decide later it was wrong then you can't say sorry.

Nope, I still think we shouldn't have it :)

edit:snipped an emotive bit within a few minutes of posting so sorry if you have already responded :)

[Biker Biggles]

I think pretty much almost any human being can be pushed to a point where they see or endure something where they would be prepared to kill the other party (not in an act of self defence) but justice in the eye of the beholder in the form of vengeance.

Before my head gets bitten off, can everyone safely say if they saw somebody with their own eyes torture/rape/murder people in their own family (or if you can think of something even worse) and then handed over a gun would not kill that person. If they would (which I reckon most people would), it immediately means they are willing to kill as retaliation, thus undermining their 'opposition' to capital punishment in the first place.

As virtually noone here has been pushed to such limits (i hope), and lets hope nobody does, then those who say they oppose capital punishment might find out something very different about themselves if the worst was to happen.

Dying is too good a punishment for some people.

This is exactly why we are meant to have a dispassionate justice system which takes a step back from all that and decides what to do.I should say that there is a world of difference between an agrieved individual or family wanting to kill the criminal (totally understandable and not at all wrong IMO)and the state doing it as amatter of policy.As an opponent of judicial capital punishment I would be more than happy to kill the criminal personally in the scenario you show above,but that would be an emotional response which has no place in state punishment.

[Ward_650]

tbh i think the death penalty is good idea.

it will hopefully scare the majority of people to not do very bad crimes, and they will pay the ultimate consequence if they do. But only if there is hard evidence against that person :)

[stewie]

For me its simple, certain people dont deserve the right to walk amongst us, child molestors for instance have forfeited their right to live in a civilised society, it may not make people less inclined to rape children but at least it,ll take them out of the gene pool.

[timwilky]

I know 4 people who have been convicted of murder.

The first I worked with and was always a tad strange. He packed in his job, went to live in London and the next his name was all over the papers for killing his tgirlfriend and nastier stuff. The bells put him in Broadmoor.

The next was my next door neighbour, he started to suffer MS. He killed his wife in frustration at her behaviour towards him. The Prison system could not cope with him and he was released on licence next door to me. Nice chap.

The next was again a guy I worked with, he came home to find his wife in bed with another guy and the inevitable happened. He was released after about 8 years on licence.

The last is my mates bro. He shot back at a guy who shot at him. Missed but killed him with the ricochet, but had already publicly stated he was going to put him in a box. Serving life with a minimum of 21 years and the proceeds of crime are after a couple of million from him.

All the above would still have killed even if there was a death sentence. To argue it is a deterrent is plainly wrong. 2 above would never kill again. The other two are where they need to be.

[Rai86]

I know 4 people who have been convicted of murder.

The first I worked with and was always a tad strange. He packed in his job, went to live in London and the next his name was all over the papers for killing his tgirlfriend and nastier stuff. The bells put him in Broadmoor.

The next was my next door neighbour, he started to suffer MS. He killed his wife in frustration at her behaviour towards him. The Prison system could not cope with him and he was released on licence next door to me. Nice chap.

The next was again a guy I worked with, he came home to find his wife in bed with another guy and the inevitable happened. He was released after about 8 years on licence.

The last is my mates bro. He shot back at a guy who shot at him. Missed but killed him with the ricochet, but had already publicly stated he was going to put him in a box. Serving life with a minimum of 21 years and the proceeds of crime are after a couple of million from him.

All the above would still have killed even if there was a death sentence. To argue it is a deterrent is plainly wrong. 2 above would never kill again. The other two are where they need to be.

Flipping eck 4 people?!

The worst person i know is a guy who nicked a waffle maker from debenhams!

+1 to what your saying. The death penalty is not needed. It would make no difference to the crime rate IMO. It would only serve to show that we dont have a society that is capable to actually deal with people insead of just putting them to death

[The Basket]

I would always say yes.

But our legal system is so severely flawed that all we end up doing is killing stupid poor people.

[stewie]

I would always say yes.

But our legal system is so severely flawed that all we end up doing is killing stupid poor people.
There will always be victims, but if it protects one extra child then its worth it I beleive.

[Bibio]

this is better than arguing about politics/religion. superb keep it up folks i'm loving it.

[Bri w]

this is better than arguing about politics/religion. superb keep it up folks i'm loving it.

Can't we turn this poll into a "let's hang the Scots, the Welsh and the Maltese?" ;););) go on, chase me chase me :smt016:smt016:smt016

[Bibio]

Can't we turn this poll into a "let's hang the Scots, the Welsh and the Maltese?" ;););) go on, chase me chase me :smt016:smt016:smt016

you forgot the bog leapers again m8. :smt005

[anna]

Eye for an eye and we all go blind.

So many times has this been quoted and still ignored. How many people would you choose to kill in order to give the illusion of being safe and secure? You will never be able to get rid of all "bad" people.

thulfi, I almost feel insulted by your post, you are insinuating that because I would not pull the trigger in your scenario that there is something wrong with me. Everyone reacts differently in any given situation and as has been said the above is merely an emotive response and so not applicable in law.

However, I have sat on a few jury panels and I have hated every single occasion. Reasonable doubt means that you don´t put someone in jail if there is "reasonable doubt" that they did not commit the crime. However, it´s a bit of a double edged sword because it means that whilst common sense tells you what has happened if there isn´t sufficient proof of DNA or other evidence then it isn´t enough to convict. However, not all juries see it in this way, and if a panel convicting on the death penalty was made up on the same basis then to be honest it would be flawed in the same ways.

[Biker Biggles]

There will always be victims, but if it protects one extra child then its worth it I beleive.

And if juries were made up of people with this opinion :rolleyes:

[stewie]

And if juries were made up of people with this opinion :rolleyes:
Might not have put that as I intended, basically in order to further protect children from attacks by peadoephiles when they are realeaed, and they will be released, it might be easier to sort them out in the courts, thats what I should have said, you know, so they dont come after my children or your children or anyone elses.

[Biker Biggles]

I get it.I thought you meant it doesnt matter if we top one or two innocent people if it saves a child.

[bris]

I used to be against it for a long time but lets be honest who would'nt want to put this man down http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/16/peter-tobin-profile-wild-child-killer if this is the exceptional circumstances which is refered to then yes for me.

Also any one who says no never, I would like to know if they still thought that if it was your daughter, sister, etc who was the victim, makes you think eh.

[Milky Bar Kid]

I used to be against it for a long time but lets be honest who would'nt want to put this man down http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/16/peter-tobin-profile-wild-child-killer if this is the exceptional circumstances which is refered to then yes for me.

Also any one who says no never, I would like to know if they still thought that if it was your daughter, sister, etc who was the victim, makes you think eh.

I cannot stand it when people presume they know how the victims of these crimes feel. Folks, unless you have been in the position of thses victims then you cannot for a second understand their thoughts or emotions. You do not know what way you would react.

[dizzyblonde]

If they do sick bad things, and smuggle drugs so many suffer...

http://img.listal.com/image/543397/400full.jpg

OFF with their heads!

[seedy100]

Long Post Alert – it sort of grew

Voted no – not under any circumstances

That was my first reaction but reading through I have rerun the arguments that led to that opinion and on balance decided that I was absolutely right.

The overwhelming arguments are in my opinion is the three pronged
a) Is it ever possible to eliminate all risk of error
b) Is it easy way out for the guilty
c) Is execution a power that the state should ever have

I know that the original premise is that the perpetrator is guilty beyond all doubt so lets forget the first objection and concentrate on the other two.

Power of the state

For me this is a “Catch 22” argument
If the state believes that it has the need or the right to inflict the death penalty then it is not sufficiently well developed to be allowed the power.
If the state believes that it does need, or have, the right to inflict the death penalty then it is sufficiently well developed to be allowed to use it.

Under both scenarios the death penalty is not used.

“The easy way out”

I can only view this from a personal perspective.
Assuming that I was convicted of a capital crime would I prefer execution or incarceration for life?

a) If I was guilty.
There is very next to no prospect of getting out so (from this comfortable distance) I think I would prefer to end it all as soon as possible
b) If I was innocent
Then the possibility of justice and eventual release is real and I think I would prefer to keep the hope (and myself) alive.

Under both scenarios the death penalty is not the right option.

There are also the economic, punishment and protection arguments, which though less compelling in my view deserve consideration.

Punishment

This reprises the argument about “the easy way out”, but to my mind develops it as follows: At some point the cost to society of incarceration becomes greater than we are prepared to pay to punish the perpetrator.
At this point there are two options;
a) If they of no further risk – release them
b) If they continue to pose a risk – keep them locked up but the cost now falls under the heading protecting society, not punishing the perpetrator

Protection

Should we as a society be prepared to pay to protect ourselves from dangerous individuals? This is the question that I find most difficult to answer, at the limit its easy – Mass child killing terrorists, keep them locked up for our protection. At the other end of the scale, well, where is the other end of the scale?

Economic

As above when we get to the point where the punishment element has been satisfied and we are paying only to protect ourselves from the individual then I make my most controversial proposal.
The perpetrator having served the punishment portion of the sentence should have option to take assisted suicide as a way out.

Blue touch paper is lit and I am running for cover!

[carternd]

No, never - For many of the reasons plus this: It will degrade the executioner. I can't see how anyone, no matter how moral, stable or well-trained wouldn't be irreparably damaged by carrying out a death sentence.

[MattCollins]

It is all moot. EU citizens are protected by at least two different human rights agreements which abolish the death penalty. AU is a member of one of those. It is interesting that there is only one of the so called "civilised" western countries that still uses the death penalty.

[Bri w]

Can you pull the trigger. it's one thing voting yes, in excetional circumstances. But can you really pull the trigger? And could you speak to the convicts family and say I pulled the trigger becauce of... Could you look the children of the accused and say I killed your father/mother because of...

I know its a U-rated site, and i know we tread around the edges of some very controversial subjects, but do you really think you could pull the trigger on another human being???

So he's raped your sister!!??(1984) So another has sexually assault your wife!!??(2006)...

Do you want to wake up in the morning thinking I killed the barsteward who.... Or do you want to wake up thinking the barsteward daren't go into the showers for the next x years??

Each to their own but i'll tell you one thing. The higher moral ground when you've been wronged, as opposed to living at their level, is a nicer place to be...

[BanannaMan]

Can you pull the trigger. it's one thing voting yes, in excetional circumstances. But can you really pull the trigger? And could you speak to the convicts family and say I pulled the trigger becauce of... Could you look the children of the accused and say I killed your father/mother because of...

I know its a U-rated site, and i know we tread around the edges of some very controversial subjects, but do you really think you could pull the trigger on another human being???

So he's raped your sister!!??(1984) So another has sexually assault your wife!!??(2006)...

Do you want to wake up in the morning thinking I killed the barsteward who.... Or do you want to wake up thinking the barsteward daren't go into the showers for the next x years??

Each to their own but i'll tell you one thing. The higher moral ground when you've been wronged, as opposed to living at their level, is a nicer place to be...




:notworthy: RESPECT :notworthy:

You have been through quite a lot , more than most could take, and still managed to take on the high road . Well done indeed.
As a Christian I should be able to say the same thing but I'm afraid I fail here.

If someone broke into my house tonight...:smt068
I'd shoot them in an instant with no remorse or regret.
If they wanted me to throw the switch on the electric chair for a rapist, pedophile, or killer....ZAP!

Maybe it's because I grew up on a farm and had to put animals down on occasion.
And possibly it's because I come from a family most noted for being famous outlaws in these parts not quite a hundred years ago. LOL (it's true!)
But I agree with others, some people don't deserve to live.


I agree that you are right.
I'm just not to that level of forgiveness with those who have harmed someone I know.

[-Ralph-]

Yep, christian principle of forgiveness, cant forgive if they are dead.

Under Christian belief the spirit does not die in death, so yes, a dead person can be "forgiven" under the Christian sense of the word.

**** off

:lol:

Dont let it get under your skin Ed.

That post seemed innocent enough to me if Beabert holds religious beliefs. What did the rest of us miss?

I struggle to see how the State can dictate killing is wrong then go and do it?

That assumes the state is correct to dictate that killing is wrong. If they change that stance, then could they change the stance on the death penalty?

My grandmother died recently a couple of weeks after moving into a permanent geriatric ward where she was in pain and desperately unhappy not to be able to live in her own home. She said several times that it was time for her to move on now. Now whilst of course I was very upset to loose her, I know she is OK and at peace and she's moved onto the next leg of her journey, and that maybe one day our paths will cross again. I'm happy that she died when she did and wasn't forced to live under circumstances where in her eyes she had little quality of life.

I don't want to turn it into a thread on euthanasia, etc. The point I am trying to make relevant to the death penalty is that the state treats death as a bad thing under EVERY circumstance.

I know this is going to make me sound like a suicide bomber :p, but take it more as a person who believes in life after death. If like me you believe that habitation of your body and living this life is just one leg on your journey as a soul and spirit, and you are not afraid of death particularly, then the death of a person is not necessarily a bad thing.

I understand and to a certain extent agree with your argument about moral standing and how incarceration keeps us on a higher moral ground than the criminal, but if you can put death into the above perspective (many won't be able to) then you take away 50% of the argument which is "it's wrong to kill people".

Was mother Mother Theresa an executed criminal in a past life?

[Biker Biggles]

No one expects---Oh bu&&er

[yorkie_chris]

or those who have killed a policeman (or woman).

This I disagree with, I don't see a policemans life is worth any more than another one.
In an abstract way it is the state protecting itself through fear, a fair state would not need that... (same thing with offence here of assaulting a police officer)

There will always be victims, but if it protects one extra child then its worth it I beleive.

I disagree. Then the casualty is not one child but everyone's confidence in justice. Would you like to live in the old days in Russia with the KGB's pistol pointed at your head?

Better a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent man convicted and all that.

[thulfi]

Better a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent man convicted and all that.

But really though? Better for whom? If you have 101 people in a cell of which 100 are child molesters and rapists, but there is no way of finding out which one is innocent...would you really let all 101 of 'em walk??

[yorkie_chris]

I'd probably have a look at them all and shoot any of them who looked a bit funny or their eyes were too close together or something. Though I do accept this wouldn't really be the best thing for the country :-P

[Biker Biggles]

But really though? Better for whom? If you have 101 people in a cell of which 100 are child molesters and rapists, but there is no way of finding out which one is innocent...would you really let all 101 of 'em walk??


Suppose suspect number 101 was you?And the penalty was death.
Puts a slightly different perspective on it

[thulfi]

If suspect number 101 was me, I'd disagree with the decision of executing

A. Because their child molesters and I don't believe that merits a death penalty
B. The scenario I put was that the authorites knew one was innocent, just not which one? Therefore they are acknowledgingly killing an innocent person.

I was simply responding to Better a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent man convicted and all that..

If you were innocent, and 100 rapists were set to be released because they didn't know it was you that was innocent, would you not feel bad?...Not perhaps better to take one for the greater good, etc. Yeh you'd feel lousy and hard done by, but you'd see where their coming from in making that decision.

In blunt terms, the benefit one innocent person will have to society is most likely no where near the cost that will be faced of releasing 100 rapists.

[stewie]

I think I may have given a wrong impression of victims in one of my posts, I didnt mean someone who is wrongly accused of a crime and then executed, I mean the victims of crime, whether its a rape victim, murder victim etc, I didnt mean to suggest that innocent people should be thrown away just to make sure we get all the bad ones, I mean lets face it have any of you ever heard of a miscarriage of justice in this country anyway ? it all depends what you class as justice, cos ultimately the only people who seem to benefit from our criminal justice system are the criminals we are all to soft on imho.

[thulfi]

Agree with ya there Lynw.

How about if we take error out of the equation completely. Lets say in Dunblane, police managed to wound the shooter. He recovers in hospital, then stands trial.

I don't believe 'errors' in a justice system is reason against capital punishment, because a government can easily adopt a system of not executing unless they were 100% sure, and I mean 100% not 99.99%...and there will be cases where there is no doubt. Very few, but their will be.

Errors in the justice system are tragic, capital punishment or not. An innocent man who spends his life from 20 yrs old to 80 and then dies in a prison cell will probably have as much if not more sympathy from me than the also tragic scenario of a wrongly executed person.

I believe, if there is 0.001% chance of someone being innocent, then there is no discussion to be had about capital punishment or not. Simply because the person may be found innocent x years down the line. The discussion is only to be had if we know the person to be guilty (ie Dublane example above).

In reality though, governments get it wrong. If just one person is wrongly executed, then that country needs to seriously re-think their system, and question wether or not they should be dishing out the death penalty when they aren't 100% sure!

[-Ralph-]

Well yes, if the State does away with murder and manslaughter and says its ok to kill, then yes that would then make the State able to execute without hypocrisy. To me that steps us straight back into the middle ages and inquisitions - burn the heretics because then God will deal with them or their soul will carry on...

I think you are replying to your interpretation of my post, not what I actually wrote. Did I suggest the state should do away with murder and manslaughter? Or did I suggest that the state could recognise that death is not always necessarily a bad thing and loose this ridiculous "life must be preserved at all costs" outlook?

Who said anything about God? I only countered a post that suggested dead people couldn't be forgiven under a Christian religion. I didn't say God or the Christian religion had anything to do with my beliefs.

I can see your perspective clearly. But to me, to justify a death - or even say it contributes to 50% of why its right

Neither did I say anything about justifying use of the death penalty.

Take justification and the death penalty out of the equation for a moment and I'm simply introducing some counter argument to those suggesting that it's wrong to take any human life regardless of the circumstances. Lets imagine I am derailing a bit and this is a new thread called "is it wrong to take human life?"

If you take the 'killing is wrong full stop' stance, then there are many more murderers in the world! Every policeman or solider who has ever shot a person to death in the line of duty?

The UK state are hypocrites already, it's only us public, doctors & nurses, police, etc who have to preserve life at all costs, but when it comes to the state, it's OK for them to kill when it suits them!

So, derail over and back to the death penalty. It's not always wrong to kill somebody IMO, at that's why I think those that try to argue against a death penalty, purely on that basis are a bit blinkered. That's what I mean when I say it takes away 50% of the argument.

What is really the difference between a high ranking army official, or police officer, sitting in his/her office and ordering and action which they know will result in casualties, and a high court judge in a courtroom, ordering an execution? I'm not saying there is no difference, just asking people to think about that concept.

based on beliefs which no-one can prove, strikes me as a huge step backwards for a societys civilised outlook.

This is only your opinion, based upon your experiences in life. Don't confuse that with hard fact. It may be true that no-one can fully explain life after death, but to say "no-one can prove" that a persons spirit continues to exists after death, would raise an argument from many people, based upon their own experiences in life.

[-Ralph-]

Options are fairly obvious but let me expand on the last one... Exceptional circumstances, beyond ANY doubt.
By this i mean for example, person A cold bloodedly kills person B in the street and is tackled by passers by as he runs for it. Held till cops arrive and he admits his guilt.
Or any other situation like the above where guilt is not dependant simply on evidence of any type like fingerprints, DNA etc.

Just quoting this to remind people of the proviso set by the OP. So discussion around miscarriages of justice is less relevant. The OP is not asking if we should introduce a death penalty using the same justice system as those already known to be getting it wrong. Whether a perfect justice system could be created and written down in law in an infallible manner is another argument.

[Ed]

Lyn - your statistics are shocking, and whilst I knew that integrity of convictions was generally not very good, I didn't know it was that bad.

[littleperson]

Yes,but so is keeping badly disabled people alive and looked after,but we do it because it is right.Other things we dont do(or shouldnt)because it is wrong.

Is this right?????????
We treat our animals with greater respcect than we do our own kind at times.
How do we know it is ridht for them??
In both cases someone makes that decisive decision on the basis of what "we" think is humane not what the person concerned things or those that it affects all their lives

[Biker Biggles]

Fair comment.I rephrase the point----We dont routinely kill off the disabled like the Nazis because we agree it would be wrong.

[yorkie_chris]

Is this right?????????
We treat our animals with greater respcect than we do our own kind at times.


rightly so, my dog's lovely. People tend to annoy me :-P

[Balky001]

The next was again a guy I worked with, he came home to find his wife in bed with another guy and the inevitable happened.
.

Tough area mate if all adulterers are routinely murdered. :)

It's the exceptions that prevents the death penalty (or any justice system)working but it's debatable whether it should be ruled by exceptional cases or we should go with the mass (which isn't always wrong!).

Given the OP scenario then I don't have a moral issue with the death penalty i.e a cast iron case (although reading Lynw's posts a cast iron case is not always what it seems). Of course where there is doubt or abuse by officials then any punishment is not fair.

[Messie]

So many excellent points made, there's little I can add.

Except to say that, for me, and state sanctioned killing of another human, for any crime they may have committed, is morally wrong. In my view, it really does bring us down to their level and as Lyn and others have said, we are, we have to be, morally superior to those who commit crimes, especially the horrendous ones.
Perhaps we should see people who commit the horrific crimes as ill rather than bad. We therefore perhaps have a moral duty to protect them from themselves, as well us sociaty from them. The prison system should have the aim of rehabilitation as well as punishment in an ideal world. Surely we all want a safe society ( I know this isn't going to happen in the real world, but high ideals is not a bad way to go)

And in answer to a previous post I don't think I could ever go back and kill someone who I've witnessed doing dreadful things to me loved one. I KNOW that is wrong, and would make me as bad as them. Punishment yes, but not death, not by my hands or in my name

[yorkie_chris]

If a dog was rabid, I would have no hesitation in shooting it. I struggle to see much difference between a rabid dog and for example a 'man' who abuses children.

[Messie]

Rabies is infectious

[yorkie_chris]

So's child abuse.

[Messie]

Really? Is it an infection or bacteria? Airborne or fluid exchange?

Peodophilia may be caused by something exogenous (being abused themselves or neglected) or it may be a brain disease ( you know like a disease of any other organ)

But infectious it is not.

[Milky Bar Kid]

So's child abuse.

Normally, although we often disagree, your arguments are well thought out however that was a ridiculous statement.

Child abuse is not catching. Like Messie said, there may be contributory factors, such as a person having been the victim of sexual abuse as a child and then going on to become the abuser. However, to make a comment that it is infectious was just a tad ignorant.

[Viney]

Ok digging this one up out of the archives as this story has broken today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14400246

[Quedos]

I like this

anonymity for rape defendants and limiting jail food to bread and water

[slark01]

Really? Is it an infection or bacteria? Airborne or fluid exchange?

Peodophilia may be caused by something exogenous (being abused themselves or neglected) or it may be a brain disease ( you know like a disease of any other organ)

But infectious it is not.

Normally, although we often disagree, your arguments are well thought out however that was a ridiculous statement.

Child abuse is not catching. Like Messie said, there may be contributory factors, such as a person having been the victim of sexual abuse as a child and then going on to become the abuser. However, to make a comment that it is infectious was just a tad ignorant.
Totally agree.
When I was at college ( many years ago :smt104 ), I had to do a 5000 word essay on all forms of child abuse. 6 months of investigating led me to the conclusion that abuse has always been with us and that there are many reasons for abuse. There are environmental, physical, emotional, psychological factors that need to be addressed in each case of abuse.
This means that one form of punishment is not going to be ideal for each case and will certainly not stop the problem.

As for the death penalty, i'm all for it, if it fits the crime.

Ste.

[Bibio]

hhhmmm difficult one this.

i would say yes for horrendous pre meditated murder and serial killings. but no for accidental like fights and such. then you have passion killings where partners get caught in bed with someone else.

but on the other hand is it not better to imprison and let them serve a life sentence till they die as sometimes death is to quick a punishment.

anyone can be made a killer given the right circumstances. for instance a child gets run over and dies, the offender gets off lightly so the parents seek retribution and kill the offender. this makes the murder pre meditated so the parents get the death penalty.

[phi-dan]

I like this

anonymity for rape defendants and limiting jail food to bread and water

I'd go for anonymity for all defendants. If they're found guilty - go ahead and name them.

I'll admit to being biased on this - a relative was accused of a heinous crime and the resulting media attention took not only his ability to work and his reputation, but ultimately his life. The media were panned at the inquest, but in the long run it means that the truth of the accusations, and any subsequent guilt / innocence will never be known. We should have trial by judge and jury, not media and public perception.

[garynortheast]

No. There's no return from a state killing in the event of a wrongful conviction. Ask Timothy Evans relatives what they think of the death penalty.

[MisterTommyH]

There are too many mis-carriages of justice to even consider bringing the death penalty. It's the one sentence that is irreversible.


And IMHO even one mis-carriage that leads to the death penalty is too many. Thats why we got rid of it.