US Execution

[GuidoLS]

Not sure if you're aware of it, but in some areas, the Scottish legal system is utterly independent of the rest of the UK. By which I mean, one law operates in Scotland and an entirely different piece of legislation in the rest of the UK. They're two separate jurisdictions, and Scotland guards such perogatives very carefully. The "UK" system has about as much say in such matters as your North Carolina governor does in a state jurisdiction legal matter in Texas. Right or wrong (and wrong, IMHO) al-Magrahi was released by Scottish politicians, not the UK ones.

I was not aware of that fact. I think it's safe to infer that the OP was not aware of the fact that there is no single death penalty in the US - that, in fact, 19 of the 50 states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico have all outlawed capital punishment. I guess that makes pretty much all of this cross-fussing at each other even more ironic.

The biggest part of the headline that keeps hitting me is that this is the first woman executed in Georgia in more than 70 years. While it happens, executing females here is a very rare circumstance. That's why when it does happen, it makes headlines, and it makes it pretty clear that the crime, or the circumstances surrounding the crime, had to be pretty heinous.

And I honestly don't think I need to do a search on your opinion on the death penalty. For some reason, I think it pretty much echoes mine.

[Saracen]

It's long been a strange quirk that in the "United" Kingdom, Scottish laws have a very long traditiion of being a bit different. Some laws are nation-wide, but many are not, although even where the Act itself is separate, the contents are often very similar. But the court process, and enforcement process, is different too. And just like US states guard against Federal encroachment in what they, often correctly, see as their jurisdiction, so does Scotland.

And of course with increasing devolution, increasing areas of public policy and political competencies are moving to those separate "national" Parliaments ..... and woe betide the Westminster "UK" politician daft enough or sufficiently incautious as to step on the toes of one of those devolved bodies.

It was, IIRC, the Scottish Justice Secretary that authorised that release, much to the irritation of the Westminster government. I must admit, I've long suspected that, perhaps subconsciously (though perhaps not) it was at least in part because it would irritate Westminster. In other words, a sort of political statement that is definitely was a Scottish decision, and it would be made by Scotland regardless of whether London liked it or not.

[opel80uk]

How does this system work??

As with most systems that use the death penalty, it doesn't.

[Saracen]

As with most systems that use the death penalty, it doesn't.

At the risk of kicking it off again, that depends on your criteria. Execution generally stops that individual re-offending.

[opel80uk]

At the risk of kicking it off again, that depends on your criteria. Execution generally stops that individual re-offending.

Given the limitations of virtually all justice systems, and the almost universally accepted acknowledgment that mistakes are made, all we know is certain is that the individual accused and sentanced won't offend in the future. What we're not always sure of, and indeed know in many cases now not to be not the case, is whether the individual accused ever committed the crime in the first place. So in numerous known cases, you have an innocent man executed, and the actual perpetrator still free to re-offend, with the death penalty often acting as a decentive to reexamine the case. Cant be too many better examples of a lose/lose IMO.

So yes, it's true that it stops an individual offending again, just as hitting a walnut with a sledgehammer will undisputedly get a nut out of its shell. Both methods used are quite unnecessary, and indeed counter productive on many occasions, to achieve their overall aim.

[Saracen]

Given the limitations of virtually all justice systems, and the almost universally accepted acknowledgment that mistakes are made, all we know is certain is that the individual accused and sentanced won't offend in the future. What we're not always sure of, and indeed know in many cases now not to be not the case, is whether the individual accused ever committed the crime in the first place. So in numerous known cases, you have an innocent man executed, and the actual perpetrator still free to re-offend, with the death penalty often acting as a decentive to reexamine the case. Cant be too many better examples of a lose/lose IMO.

So yes, it's true that it stops an individual offending again, just as hitting a walnut with a sledgehammer will undisputedly get a nut out of its shell. Both methods used are quite unnecessary, and indeed counter productive on many occasions, to achieve their overall aim.

Whether it's unnecessary, or indeed counter-productive, again depends on your criteria. And what the "overall aim" was.

As for executing innocent people, you will notice I said earlier "in the right circumstances". I did not say I supported the DP as implemented in specific countries, or in all cases in which it is used.

But one reason I got bored with DP debates is that there are several arguments those against the usually use to make their case. One is "it's more expensive", and then proceed to quote costs based on the US system. Since those costs only apply to the US system, in the US, they are not evidence of comparative costs anywhere else, where the system is or would be different.

Another is "innocent people".

But when you drill down on it, nearly always those against are against because "it's just wrong", even if the person to be executed is absolutely, categorically and indisputably guilty beyond any shadow of doubt, and guilty of extremely heinous acts too.

Maybe you fall into that category, maybe not. I don't know, and if we've argued it before, I certainly don't remember.

So, back to my "right circumstances" .... suppose a particular individual is without any doubt guilty. Maybe they acted in front of numerous witnesses, maybe it was recorded on High-def video, maybe they're proud of what they did and happy to plead guilty. Maybe all these and more.

Then, each of us can decide if we would or would not support the DP, whether we have a problem with it, or we don't, without either cost or innocence being an issue. If you still don't, then either cost or questionable guilt are deflections, because they make no difference to your objection to it, if you object anyway. So why argue about those? If you would support the DP under those circumstances, then we're back to what I said earlier, which was "in the right circumstances", in which case, there's no argument about the DP but merely about what circumstances are right.

In any event, having had this argument a number of times, over something approaching 50 years, I've yet to come across an argument that's changed my mind, and I doubt it'll happen here. It certainly didn't the last few times. Nor do I hold out much expectation of changing anyone else's view, especially if "it's just wrong".

Which would suggest the whole exercise is an exercise in futility.

[opel80uk]

Whether it's unnecessary, or indeed counter-productive, again depends on your criteria. And what the "overall aim" was.

As for executing innocent people, you will notice I said earlier "in the right circumstances". I did not say I supported the DP as implemented in specific countries, or in all cases in which it is used.

But one reason I got bored with DP debates is that there are several arguments those against the usually use to make their case. One is "it's more expensive", and then proceed to quote costs based on the US system. Since those costs only apply to the US system, in the US, they are not evidence of comparative costs anywhere else, where the system is or would be different.

Another is "innocent people".

But when you drill down on it, nearly always those against are against because "it's just wrong", even if the person to be executed is absolutely, categorically and indisputably guilty beyond any shadow of doubt, and guilty of extremely heinous acts too.

Maybe you fall into that category, maybe not. I don't know, and if we've argued it before, I certainly don't remember.

So, back to my "right circumstances" .... suppose a particular individual is without any doubt guilty. Maybe they acted in front of numerous witnesses, maybe it was recorded on High-def video, maybe they're proud of what they did and happy to plead guilty. Maybe all these and more.

Then, each of us can decide if we would or would not support the DP, whether we have a problem with it, or we don't, without either cost or innocence being an issue. If you still don't, then either cost or questionable guilt are deflections, because they make no difference to your objection to it, if you object anyway. So why argue about those? If you would support the DP under those circumstances, then we're back to what I said earlier, which was "in the right circumstances", in which case, there's no argument about the DP but merely about what circumstances are right.

In any event, having had this argument a number of times, over something approaching 50 years, I've yet to come across an argument that's changed my mind, and I doubt it'll happen here. It certainly didn't the last few times. Nor do I hold out much expectation of changing anyone else's view, especially if "it's just wrong".

Which would suggest the whole exercise is an exercise in futility.

Actually, my comment was after you replied to my original posting that, as with the systems that currently use the DP penalty, it doesn't work - if by work we mean that only the person who committed the crime being the person who is executed, given the number of miscarriages of justice that we know about. Of course, that's my interpretation of the system 'working', you may have another one, but it was the systems that we currently have that I was referring to. In the systems we actually have, the 'right circumstances' have very often, in time, become miscarriages of justice.

And for what it's worth, if there was some utopian justice system that meant we always knew the guilt of those found guilty in all cases, then whilst possibly not supportive of the DP, I would certainly be indifferent to it. What i find is that when proponents of the DP use the caveat of the right circumstances, it usually narrows the criteria so much that it almost makes the issue moot; how many criminals in the UK, for example, would actually meet the criteria of these right circumstances for these proponents, given the known limitations of our justice system? So few for most people that I'd argue it would make the whole exercise irrelevant. When Miliband wanted to go after the Non-Doms, iirc you argued that the money involved would be so small that it made the issue inconsequential, regardless of any moral argument to be made. I don't see any difference here to be honest.

[Millennium]

Quite simply, IMHO, this punishment is barbaric and needs to leave the shores of the US, which is our dearest neighbour.
Once they solve this, and solve the gun control issue, they will be sweet. Seriously, happy for ever after.

Just had to post that.

[Saracen]

Actually, my comment was after you replied to my original posting that, as with the systems that currently use the DP penalty, it doesn't work - if by work we mean that only the person who committed the crime being the person who is executed, given the number of miscarriages of justice that we know about. Of course, that's my interpretation of the system 'working', you may have another one, but it was the systems that we currently have that I was referring to. In the systems we actually have, the 'right circumstances' have very often, in time, become miscarriages of justice.

Which is why I said it depends on the criteria.

....

What i find is that when proponents of the DP use the caveat of the right circumstances, it usually narrows the criteria so much that it almost makes the issue moot; how many criminals in the UK, for example, would actually meet the criteria of these right circumstances, given the known limits of our justice system?

....

The question asked is often "do you support the death penalty?"

If you say yes, what immediately gets thrown at you is an expectation to morally justify each and every case, usually in the US, current and historical. So, I say I do, "in the right circumstances" because I'm not a supporter or advocate for the US system, and I'm certainly not familiar with each and every use, or abuse, of it, worldwide.

So, I have no problem with the DP "in the right circumstances".

But a lot of DP advocates are against it, absolutely and in utterly any circumstances, on principle. Or, often, on religious grounds. One common argument is "thou shalt not kill". Which then develops into an argument over whether that's an accurate translation, or whether it more accurately should be "thou shalt not commit murder" which, by definition, a legally authorised state-sanctioned execution isn't. Though some believe it should be.

For clarity, I have no objection, in principle, to executing certain types of individual, in the right circumstances. Whether those right circumstances can be, or have been, implemented in an actual system is a moot point because I have no say at all anywhere other than in this country and any chance of the DP coming back here any time soon seems highly implausible, at best.

So, arguing about what those right circumstances might be, yet again, seems pointless to me. In principle, I am entirely indifferent to some barbarians being shuffled off ahead of natural causes, and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. In practise, if it ever looks like happening here, maybe it's worth arguing about. But otherwise, it's another go around a Mulberry bush I've been around too many times to count, already.

[Lucio]

The biggest issue with the death penalty is that it is a black/white scenario that doesn't align well with the shades of grey morality that the majority of people follow.

For example, you might argue that child sex offenders deserve to be executed, but what happens when you catch an 18 year old with their 17 year old girlfriend? Technically they've commited the same legal offence as a 35 year old and a 17 year old, but we would likely view the two cases very differently.

[Saracen]

And taking Lucio's example a step further, what if the child is 17 years, 365 dsys and 55 minutes old at the time if the offence? Five minutes later, it isn't an offence.

Or, if the age limit is different, adjust the cut-off accordingly. It's a problem with arbitrary limits. But that kind of issue is not beyond the wit of a legal system to get around, even assuming such offences were DP offences, which I am not suggesting, by the way.