Death penalty

[MM]

Yes I suspect I would, and i'd probably spout a similar load of macho ********, Indeed i'm sure i have done down the pub on numerous occasions but that doesn't make it right. Fortunately the government will debate it and then kick it into the long grass for another 20 years where it belongs.

 

 

There is a supreme arrogance in assuming that you as another human should have the right over another person's life. This arrogance is sickening enough when seen in the murderer of another, but to be supported by the state as 'punishment' is without moral justification ever. Having a the perpatrator behind bars is all is ever required of justice, the only reason want execution is to fulfil the basic and grubby desire for retribution. As for people who want limbs cut off, beatings etc., go and live somewhere else where that sort of thing happens, it has no place here.

 

 

 

sense at last

[Pushkin]

Kes, I miss a lot etc. please do not think that I would have no feeling towards someone who I thought had done any of these things to mine - that would be wrong of you. My anger would be just as rife as anyone else on here - however, the fact in my earlier post still remains the same. It is the inability of the Police in general to get substantive evidence to prove that the person they have is the person who did the crime. The Police are under great pressure to get a "RESULT".

 

An example of how easy it is for this Nation's Government (never mind the Police)to get it wrong is the case of Baby P. The last Government made such a cock up in their haste to do something because the moral conscience of the public pushed them to "be seen to do something retributive" there and then, they sacked the women who was in charge of the department. Yesterday the final court decision was made. They did not have the jurisprudence to do what they did and they failed to follow the processes involved. As a result, the lady has now won her case and her lawyers are now counting up how much compensation the new Government will have to pay her for the previous Government's rush to be seen to do something - immediately. Most folks felt they had done the right thing at the time - but they hadn't. That is why the death sentence in this country is a parlous route to go down when even the Nations Government cannot get it right.

 

As the person in charge of that department; she had responsibility to ensure staff were working up to the exacting standards she should have instilled in them - and then monitored the work they undertook to ensure this case could never have happened. However, the Government at that time wanted something tokenistic for the people at large to say - yes - sorted!

 

Now I think that woman should have been held accountable - along with the staff concerned and have been penalised either through losing their careers and hence their source of income and possibly even crimianl charges due to their negligence which ultimately, caused a child to die. Had the Governmemt instructed the employing authorities to follow due process and ensure that all the Ts were crossed and the I's dotted - there would have been a succesful ending to this case and hopefully prevented other miscarriages of justice from happening in the future. In my opinion, the outgoing Government were equally as guilty as the woman and the staff involved for being in dereliction of their own duty to ensure the proper result was made.

 

Police get hell for bungling cases. But keep in mind it is the structure of the Police that generates the methods and the manner in which investigations are done. They are under great pressure and many of them (unfortunately) will use any means to get higher up the career ladder than they are really fit to be. Why should we believe they have got the right person for the crime?

 

I've enjoyed reading over this thread and I'm really glad that it has lasted so long

 

Pushkin B)

[Vince Green]

The real problem with the Baby P case was that Ed Balls announced on prime time TV that the woman was going to be sacked taking everybody by suprise. The man is an Idiot, he only said it that way to get his face on the six oclock news. He didn't have the power to sack her, he wasn't her employer, even if he was he couldn't do it like that. The man behaved like a complete **** and killed off any proper resolution to the issue.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vince Green

[bignoel]

it will be debated it will cost a fortune and it will be out dated again costing £££££ to the tax payer again :yp:

[JR1960]

If I thought the Yanks wrong for implementing the death penalty, I'd call them misguided, the Taliban are truly uncivilised - hence my question.

As for the arrogance of taking another persons life for the purpose of revenge or perhaps prevention, if proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why not?

Or do you actually think that someone who is beyond civilising has a place in a civilised society, even behind bars for the rest of their lives.

Ok you pay for it and feel warm inside. I'd go for the opposite where the crime is sufficient and guilt confirmed.

"the Taliban are truly uncivilised.." Finally we agree on something! :o

 

As for "why not?" there are many arguments.....

 

First and foremost I suppose would be, how can you be certain of guilt? There is ample evidence that mistakes are possible - in the USA, 116 people sentenced to death have been found innocent since 1973 and released. The average time on death row before these exonerations was 9 years. Especially knowing the deficiencies of the American judicial system doesn't that make you wonder how many more innocent people were actually executed?

 

Secondly, however you dress it up retribution is morally flawed. It is only one step up from the lynch mob. It is immoral in that it is just a sanitised form of vengeance; which remains the major ingredient in the public popularity of capital punishment. You cannot argue that killing is wrong by killing those who kill, it simply doesn't make sense.

 

As for prevention, it just doesn't work, otherwise why are all these people on death row? It can be argued that deterrence is a morally flawed concept in any case, even if it did act as a deterrent, is it acceptable for someone to pay for the predicted future crimes of others?

 

"Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent. These calculations are based on figures from the FBI. There is evidence to suggest that disturbed individuals are angered by executions and thus more likely to commit murder, hence the significant rise in the murder of Police Officers."

And finally, and this is where the civilised bit comes in, civilised societies do not tolerate torture, even if it can be shown that torture may deter, or produce other good effects. (We're back with the USA again!) The death penalty is likewise inappropriate for a modern civilised society to respond to even the most dreadful crimes. It is what distinguishes us from the likes of the Taliban!!

Edited August 5, 2011 by JR1960

[shotgun sam]

thats it got the drop charts where do i apply for the job of hangman?

[Dr W]

Surely a life of hard labour and misery would be a better punishment than a quick death.

 

People should stop voting for these ideas that will never be returned and think about getting us out of Europe and the Human Rights bill etc

[Kes]

Chaps,

I enjoyed the 'chat' we had last night, just re-read it.

Many thanks to Pushkin for his thoughtful response and, to JR1960 for so ably defending his point of view.

 

I understand the flaws with the death penalty and the process to get you to a verdict; and have tried to deal with these.

One final thought;

 

If someone kills (e.g. a child) in cold blood and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, hasn't that person sacrificed their right to life?

 

Remember also all the victims, there are many more alive than dead, the relatives and friends; and for me, at least, I can live with the ultimate retribution.

Cheers all,

Kes

[JR1960]

Chaps,

I enjoyed the 'chat' we had last night, just re-read it.

Many thanks to Pushkin for his thoughtful response and, to JR1960 for so ably defending his point of view.

 

I understand the flaws with the death penalty and the process to get you to a verdict; and have tried to deal with these.

One final thought;

 

 

Remember also all the victims, there are many more alive than dead, the relatives and friends; and for me, at least, I can live with the ultimate retribution.

Cheers all,

Kes

Yeah, it's been fun!

 

"If someone kills (e.g. a child) in cold blood and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, hasn't that person sacrificed their right to life?" Every emotion i have says yes, but intellectually i cannot justify it. And there's that niggling little phrase "beyond reasonable doubt......"

 

Anyway, nice debate without the mudslinging i was expecting, well done all!!

[MM]

"Do not murder"

 

Murdering a human being is a capital sin.[

 

You shall not kill/murder†

 

You shall not murder.

 

You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo ti-rəṣoḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17

 

Don't commit murder (Exodus 20:13)

 

Exile an accidental murderer (Numbers 35:25)

 

Don't stand idly by when you can save a life (Leviticus 19:16)

 

get my point. there are some of us who believe in God, so if you do have a read. Even if you have a slight belief that there is something up there, nobody can judge except the big fella. Murder is murder. If you call it justice, do that make it ok? I didnt think so.

[JR1960]

Hmmmmm, at the risk of seemingly attacking my own morals, i seem to remember the phrase "an eye for an eye........." is in there somewhere as well.

[Canis]

Surely we are all missing the point :

 

option a keep a deviant child molester/murderer/rapist/car thief in HMP holidaycamp for the next 50 years giving him access to tv, bread and water and pay him to do an open university degree

at a cost of "many" million Quid to the taxpayer per scrote

 

or

 

Put the deviant scrote down permanently for £0.07(22lr to the back of the head)

 

 

can we afford to be "guardian-reader" about Justice ?

[northeastshooter]

i say it should be for child killers/rapist, terrorist, murders of 2 people or more.

but i beleive the whole punishment system should be sorted out prison should me prison not a holiday camp try and re-educate the offeneds rather than give them tv's, game stations, laptops, food should be basic tasteless **** make them work while there in there making uniforms for public sector workers something like that make them not want to go back rather than getting more benifits inside than they do out side

[shaun4860]

Surely we are all missing the point :

 

option a keep a deviant child molester/murderer/rapist/car thief in HMP holidaycamp for the next 50 years giving him access to tv, bread and water and pay him to do an open university degree

at a cost of "many" million Quid to the taxpayer per scrote

 

or

 

Put the deviant scrote down permanently for £0.07(22lr to the back of the head)

 

 

can we afford to be "guardian-reader" about Justice ?

 

 

you would never get it as a quarry on your certificate

 

shaun

[Raja Clavata]

Hmmmmm, at the risk of seemingly attacking my own morals, i seem to remember the phrase "an eye for an eye........." is in there somewhere as well.

 

I wouldn't moralise on that for too long - there are plenty of instances in the Old Testament where the death penlaty was deemed appropriate for acts which are considered trivial today. Interesting how significantly the "big fellas" morals evolved from his first book to second one

[cant hit rabbits 123]

I think all those who other posters have put forward for the death penalty should infact be kept in seperate prisons, and made to build roads, dig ditches, lay railways and do various other manual labour jobs that the government/local authority needs doing. All without pay of course, as they are already accomodated and fed etc. Think about it, instead of a foriegn company building new high speed rail links and the like, the British government can provide the labour, and British engineers can do the design work. Money saved by the government, and work returned to British workers. Of course a regulatory body would have to be appointed to make sure the seperate prisons were simply not turned into concerntration camps and basic rights to food, shelter, hygine etc were upheld. The prisoners too old for the manual work can partake in this regualation and do other minor admin jobs for the projects undertaken by the rest of the prisoners.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited August 5, 2011 by cant hit rabbits 123

[JR1960]

I think all those who other posters have put forward for the death penalty should infact be kept in seperate prisons, and made to build roads, dig ditches, lay railways and do various other manual labour jobs that the government/local authority needs doing. All without pay of course, as they are already accomodated and fed etc. Think about it, instead of a foriegn company building new high speed rail links and the like, the British government can provide the labour, and British engineers can do the design work. Money saved by the government, and work returned to British workers. Of course a regulatory body would have to be appointed to make sure the seperate prisons were simply not turned into concerntration camps and basic rights to food, shelter, hygine etc were upheld. The prisoners too old for the manual work can partake in this regualation and do other minor admin jobs for the projects undertaken by the rest of the prisoners.

 

Any thoughts?

Go for it. My argument is and always has been that capitol punishment harms society as much as the individual, however i don't have an issue with making convicted serious offenders lives worthwhile by making them put something back into the community.........sort of Community Service Order on steroids..

[Canis]

I think all those who other posters have put forward for the death penalty should infact be kept in seperate prisons, and made to build roads, dig ditches, lay railways and do various other manual labour jobs that the government/local authority needs doing. All without pay of course, as they are already accomodated and fed etc. Think about it, instead of a foriegn company building new high speed rail links and the like, the British government can provide the labour, and British engineers can do the design work. Money saved by the government, and work returned to British workers. Of course a regulatory body would have to be appointed to make sure the seperate prisons were simply not turned into concerntration camps and basic rights to food, shelter, hygine etc were upheld. The prisoners too old for the manual work can partake in this regualation and do other minor admin jobs for the projects undertaken by the rest of the prisoners.

 

Any thoughts?

No -the jobs you are suggesting the death row prisoners should do are the jobs we should be training the workshy to do rather than being on benefits.

 

i'd be perfectly happy with the idea of the entire prison population being put on treadmills attached to generators to produce electrical power though- hows that for a right wing eco-project

[Imperfection]

Im amazed this has gone on for 7 pages with people still saying it should be brought back even though they know it never will.

 

Thankfully capital punishment was relegated to the history books over 40 years ago and will never used again.

[FalconFN]

Chaps,

I understand the flaws with the death penalty and the process to get you to a verdict; and have tried to deal with these.

One final thought;

 

If someone kills (e.g. a child) in cold blood and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, hasn't that person sacrificed their right to life?

Here's an interesting case study to think about:

 

There's a court case going on at the moment, here is Sussex, where a person admitted murdering 2 young children in a seemingly pre-meditated action and with the idea of framing someone else for the murders. Should they have the death penalty?

 

 

 

 

If so, would you change your mind if I told you that the murderer was the victims mother?

 

She also attempted suicide after the murders so by allowing the death penalty she would be getting her wish to die.

[Dr W]

No and if she failed the first time , help her on her way.

 

Actually might be better to put her in solitary surrounded by pictures of her children and be constantly played the sounds of them playing over and over until she end it with her own hands.

 

Bit harsh, no I don't think so

Edited August 5, 2011 by Dr W

[mossy835]

we live in a nanny state,we are to soft with our law.they get what they want in jail.

[imissalot]

Yes I suspect I would, and i'd probably spout a similar load of macho ********, Indeed i'm sure i have done down the pub on numerous occasions but that doesn't make it right. Fortunately the government will debate it and then kick it into the long grass for another 20 years where it belongs.

im not spouting macho ******** im being honest, not a big head or an arrogant person thats the way i see it

[harry flashman]

I suspect even if parliament wanted to they couldn't as would be blocked by european court of human rights. So need to repeal the human rights act first. That is more achieveable and would be a very good thing to look at. I believe there is some talk in parliament already. Fight battles you can win first.

 

I am not particularrly keen on capital punishment though tbh, i'm not sure you can ever be without some doubt and the small number of cases where it is applicable makes it not that relevant from a cost point of view if that is your arguement.

 

I am VERY up for ditching the human right act though.

[utectok]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind