Death Penalty. Yes or No

[Saracen]

Atleast one reply not ignoring that will be posted here to attempt to counter your points.

Yes, probably. But that was a rather exceptional situation, compounded, it seems, by several layers of cockup and incompetence. But it isn't representative of general armed police training or response.

Nobody pretends that having armed police shooting people is a perfect situation, or that it wouldn't be better if we didn't have to do it. But incidents with armed police actually opening fire are relatively few, and certainly few in relation to even those situations where armed police respond. Far, far more often, the presence of armed police is enough to cause a serious brown-trouser moment and defuse a potentially dangerous situation rapidly.

So yeah, the de Menezes situation is a serious issue, but it's a completely different issue and isn't at all the point I was making.

[Splash]

Without going in depth to all your questions (because I need to leave work soon!)

The examples you give are, as you say extreme. And I don't have the answer for you - it's interesting though that you mentioned the de Menezes case though, as it rather proves that there's always the risk of you killing an innocent.

As for your point about possibly saving lives - who's to say that the guy you're executing isn't the guy who was going to cure cancer?

And finally... If a known and convicted murderer is EVER allowed into a situation where they kill again etc I'd say you're right, but the same goes (in my eyes) for an innocent being put to death for a crime he might not have committed.

And on that note... hometime!

[Splash]

Atleast one reply not ignoring that will be posted here to attempt to counter your points.

That was a very well thought out and constructed post. My thoughts are pretty close to that except that I would not have managed it quite so eloquently.

Sadly it's part and parcel of the civilisation we live in, and I would argue that it is entirely relevany to this thread.

Ok, now it's REALLY hometime.

[Salazaar]

There is a massive gulf of difference though between a police officer having to make a split second decision to kill someone in order to save one innocent live and a state making the considered decision to take someone's life as punishment.

If a terrorist puts himself in a position to threaten the lives of others directly it's fair to assume that he will follow it through and the enforcing officers must act. To kill a prisoner in order to prevent some hypothetical crimes he 'might' commit in the future is totally unjust, and only a few steps away from, say, killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Commies because they're bad for society...

[pauldarkside]

I'm against the death penalty for the simple reason that there have been, and probably will be many more miscarriages of justice; you can release an innocent person from prison but you can't bring them back from the dead.

[Destroyer^]

pedophilies, rapists and terrorists should be shot.. end off tbh

[Splash]

pedophilies, rapists and terrorists should be shot.. end off tbh

And if/when new evidence comes to light and it turns out that they're not guilty? Violence begets violence I'm afraid.

[Sinizter]

Splash, as you are evidently back home with ample spare time, please answer post 64.

[Splash]

Splash,

If a gunman was holding your family hostage and fully intended to kill them, the only way to save them was to kill the gunman, I assume you would just watch it from a distance be smug in the knowledge that killing is abhorrent and that you did not kill ? Or would you kill the gunman and be happy that your family is safe?

Your wish is my command Sinizter.

Frankly, I don't know what I'd do, and I'd hazard a guess that most people are the same. It's VERY difficult to predict how you, or any person would react under such high pressure circumstances, dontcha think? How would you know that the only way to save them would be to kill the theoretical gunman? I'd like to think that there would be some way to disable or neutralise the threat posed by the gunman, but as I say it's a situation I've as yet been lucky enough to avoid and as such I couldn't give you a 100% honest answer.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear (or maybe it is, I dunno) but it's the best I can give you I'm afraid. Out of interest how would you kill this gunman? I'm assuming that would be your intention.

[Sinizter]

An honest answer is all I wanted. This is a discussion after all.

[Lucio]

That is NOT, in my view, an argument for executing all murderers. It's more complex than that. But it might be an argument for executing those for whom there is no likelihood of rehabilitation, where they'll be an on-going risk.

I'm not convinced that you can sanction the killing of one person, through the due process of law, for any reason. Yes, you provide some compelling scenarios for acting in the heat of the moment, but to talk about ending someone's life after the fact, how is that any different from the first murder?

Ultimately killing someone can be justified in many scenarios, but I just cannot see how you can say that a society can condone putting someone to death after a long, careful thought out process. There isn't a single person I'd trust with that power, nor I imagine, any sensible person would want it.

[JK Ferret]

Not having read the entire thread, bear with me if I repeat some views... these are mine

I don't think we should reintroduce it, there is just too much that could go wrong with the evidence. Ok, if there's twenty separate eyewitness accounts, then that's fair enough, but most of the time there's a chance you'll nail an innocent person. If this person was put to death, then new evidence came to light, then there would be huge protests and the Government would come out of it all looking like a right bunch of dippos.


Given extreme situations, I would rather give my life to stop loved ones getting hurt than see them harmed at all... but that's what I think now, if it really came to it, who knows? It's not an easy situation, having to kill the one to save the other.

[directhex]

the death penalty is state-sponsored revenge. not punishment, but revenge. it's "an eye for an eye" at its simplest

there's an enormous gulf between killing for defense, killing by mistake, killing for fun, or killing for vengeance. the idea of people sitting around a table and saying "well, frankly, we just think he's a bad man. he's been naughty, and everyone will feel better if we end his existence" is abhorrent. why give one group that right? who makes the rules?

as Saracen points out, murder is a legal definition. who writes the laws? is the death penalty okay for terrorists and rapists? how about people who are the wrong religion? how about people who smoke dope? that'll get you killed in some countries whose laws *we* feel are 'barbaric'

why stop at capital punishment? why not reintroduce public flogging, to replace fines? after all, people moan that speed cameras are for revenue generation. how about a public flogging instead? 30 lashes sound fair?

it's not even the idea that the wrong man might be killed - it's that if we expect society to move past primitive instinct, we need to behave *better* than those we disagree with, not on their level

[Betty_Swallocks]

I think those of you who expect society to behave "better" and think that civilisation is something that comes naturally are quite frankly deluded.

Civilisation is just a thin veneer of laws and customs that cloaks our underlying savagery.

You only have to put a group of people into an extreme situation to find out how quickly they revert. I guarantee that if you put half a dozen people onto a desert island with absolutely no food at all and went back for them a few months later you would find the strongest one of the group and a pile of clean bones.

You only have to look at some of the more repulsive regimes in the world to see what humanity is capable of. The death squads in Columbia. The Janjaweed in Sudan raping and murdering women and children. Need I go on? Or do you think that somehow westerners are "more civilised" than them.

The death penalty serves a purpose. No, it's not a deterrent. No, it's not a punishment.
It's a safeguard. It stops that person from doing anything similatr again and thereby protects the rest of us.

There are many grieving families in this country today whose loved ones would still be with them if they hadn't been stolen from them by someone who previously proved by their actions that they should not have the right to walk the face of the planet.

As for the "innocent man" argument. Have you ever stopped to think that if the penalty for the offence was death the police might be forced to take rather more care over their investigations rather than picking a likely candidate and fitting them up?

[Splash]

I think those of you who expect society to behave "better" and think that civilisation is something that comes naturally are quite frankly deluded.

You have your point of view, I have mine. I'd like to think that my acceptance of this is at least part of living in a more civil society.

Civilisation is just a thin veneer of laws and customs that cloaks our underlying savagery.

Oh, I fully agree. But then skin is just a thin veneer that covers and protects your internal organs and it doesn't make it any less important.

You only have to put a group of people into an extreme situation to find out how quickly they revert. I guarantee that if you put half a dozen people onto a desert island with absolutely no food at all and went back for them a few months later you would find the strongest one of the group and a pile of clean bones.

Survival of the fittest then? I'd like to think as a species that we have evolved beyond cannibalism in most cases, but... Actually, I'm not even sure where this fits into the discussion.

You only have to look at some of the more repulsive regimes in the world to see what humanity is capable of. The death squads in Columbia. The Janjaweed in Sudan raping and murdering women and children. Need I go on? Or do you think that somehow westerners are "more civilised" than them.

Yep, and I'm pretty certain that the cultures you're describing all impose the death penalty for one thing or another. Would you rather live in a culture of violence like this?

The death penalty serves a purpose. No, it's not a deterrent. No, it's not a punishment.
It's a safeguard. It stops that person from doing anything similatr again and thereby protects the rest of us.

In which case why not just apply it across the board for all crimes? Perhaps a "3 strikes and you're out" philosophy to make sure you're only doing repeat offenders in? It'd certainly sort those nasty file-sharers out...

There are many grieving families in this country today whose loved ones would still be with them if they hadn't been stolen from them by someone who previously proved by their actions that they should not have the right to walk the face of the planet.

I was with you all the way up until that last bit. As was mentioned earlier - what if the alleged murderer would be the person to go on to cure cancer? It's unlikely, but possible. It's also felt by some that seeing someone show remorse for their actions (and I know, not everyone shows remorse) may help aid the grieving process.

As for the "innocent man" argument. Have you ever stopped to think that if the penalty for the offence was death the police might be forced to take rather more care over their investigations rather than picking a likely candidate and fitting them up?

Erm... should they not be taking the same care with their investigations regardless of the crime? Is shoddy investigation and prosecution of rape more excusable than that of murder? I'm fairly certain that innocent people have been put to death for crimes it's been later discovered they did not commit. Would you be prepared to pay the ultimate price for the system you propose to bring back?

[Salazaar]

The death penalty serves a purpose. No, it's not a deterrent. No, it's not a punishment.
It's a safeguard. It stops that person from doing anything similatr again and thereby protects the rest of us.

Of all the arguments in favour of the death penalty, that's the worst!

As I said earlier, by executing someone in order to prevent them from doing something they haven't yet done you're prejudging them for uncommited crime, you might as well just go round executing everyone you think 'might' do something in the future!

To kill a prisoner in order to prevent some hypothetical crimes he 'might' commit in the future is totally unjust, and only a few steps away from, say, killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Commies because they're bad for society...