Death Penalty Poll

Originally Posted by lynw

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.

Originally Posted by lynw

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.

Originally Posted by lynw

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.

Originally Posted by Spiderman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by littleperson

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

[Balky001]

Originally Posted by timwilky

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