For
Against
I seen that you were for the death sentence in cases where there is no doubt, admittedly I was still reading through the thread when I last replied, my badOriginally Posted by floppybootstomp
However, if I'm not completely wrong here, you're still saying that we're supposed to be a civilised society, yet you advocate revenge killing when proven without a doubt, yes?
Again, if I'm not wrong in that assumption, then my reply is that killing is not civilised, no matter the circumstances.
Good grief.I seen that you were for the death sentence in cases where there is no doubt, admittedly I was still reading through the thread when I last replied, my bad
However, if I'm not completely wrong here, you're still saying that we're supposed to be a civilised society, yet you advocate revenge killing when proven without a doubt, yes?
Again, if I'm not wrong in that assumption, then my reply is that killing is not civilised, no matter the circumstances.
Civilised? Supposedly, but mass graves in eastern Europe several years ago at the hands of Croatians, Serbs et al might suggest that there is a very thin veneer between so-called civilisation and pure animal instinct.
Let's not kid ourselves, we're mostly primitive, imo.
Revenge killing? Hmm, not sure. Gut instinct is yes, so I'll stick with that.
If somebody has taken out a loved one of mine and then I killed them, I would not so much feel good as relieved. truth to tell, I'd feel bad, but I'd feel worse if they lived.
Just telling the truth here.
You say 'Killing is not civilised'. On first assumption I'd agree with that.
But it depends on one's view of the meaning of 'civilised'.
Let's put it this way. I deplore violence, murder, even straight-up 'ol animosity. yet if somebody killed one of mine, I'd kill them, no qualms, no quarter, no remorse.
This is because I'm human, with all human quirks, faults and passion.
It's you who is saying we're supposed to be civilised, make up your mind.Civilised? Supposedly, but mass graves in eastern Europe several years ago at the hands of Croatians, Serbs et al might suggest that there is a very thin veneer between so-called civilisation and pure animal instinct.
Knee jerk reactions are never a good thing, we've learned to overcome basic instincts so that we can forge a better life for ourselves and future generations, and I am of the belief that killing those who have wronged you is a basic instinct which should be forgotten. We are not mostly primitive, if we were, everyone would simply take what they wanted, without consideration of anything other than immediate spouses.Let's not kid ourselves, we're mostly primitive, imo.
Revenge killing? Hmm, not sure. Gut instinct is yes, so I'll stick with that.
That's fine, everyone can feel what they want to feel, but because you feel bad over losing someone you loved shouldn't be grounds for killing someone else and by extension making their loved ones feel bad. It's a cycle. Should we execute the people who execute prisoners? There's no shadow of a doubt as to their guilt, and in a lot of cases family members are even there to see their loved one be executed.If somebody has taken out a loved one of mine and then I killed them, I would not so much feel good as relieved. truth to tell, I'd feel bad, but I'd feel worse if they lived.
Just telling the truth here.
Again, I believe that if we are to build a better world, people must drop the default human overreaction to everything. The world should not be an eye for an eye.You say 'Killing is not civilised'. On first assumption I'd agree with that.
But it depends on one's view of the meaning of 'civilised'.
Let's put it this way. I deplore violence, murder, even straight-up 'ol animosity. yet if somebody killed one of mine, I'd kill them, no qualms, no quarter, no remorse.
This is because I'm human, with all human quirks, faults and passion.
But we're all entitled to our opinions.
No death penalty. Seriously, it costs more to execute someone than to put them up in a nice cell with TV and pillow-top mattress for life (60 years)... I would much rather just remove them from society than from life. Maybe use them as human test tubes for "modern medicine" since their lives are essentially the states at that point. (We do it to soldiers, why not prisoners).
Does it really? I've always been told that it was the other way round but I have no figures to prove that. Do you, or does anyone else, know how much it costs to kill someone vs keeping them alive for 60 years? Logically, I reckon it's more expensive to feed and water them for 60 years, as well as space consuming in our prisons.
Work out the cost of killing someone and work out the cost of keeping someone alive for a year in jail. Then do the sums...Does it really? I've always been told that it was the other way round but I have no figures to prove that. Do you, or does anyone else, know how much it costs to kill someone vs keeping them alive for 60 years? Logically, I reckon it's more expensive to feed and water them for 60 years, as well as space consuming in our prisons.
So... according to various sites, it's 35K-40K/year
Presuming 60 years, we're talking about 2-2.5 million. Some sites suggest up to 50K/year minimum, so maybe even 2-3 million.
Once again, the cost for actually executing someone varies. In Arizona, the seven death row inmates (including all appeals and lawyers stringing them out over 10-12 years) came to $200 million (about £150 million I think)
Without the 12 years of appeals, it's about 2 million.
I can't prove any of the statistics. There aren't enough death row cases for a conclusive study to made into the costs.
It's ever so slightly cheaper to kill someone than to let them spend 60 years in jail. This help?
Against, look at all the people that have won appeals in the past few decades against murder convictions, killing them would of been murder in itself.
Claiming that it costs less to execute someone than keep them in prison is wrong I believe, death row's in America cost a hell of a lot of money.
In the internets, no one can hear you sarcasm.
Frankly I think the idea of deciding a person's fate on financial grounds is sickening.
I'm anti death penalty anyway but the idea of killing someone because it might be cheaper to do so is just disgusting!
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Note the use of the word 'supposed'
As I've stated before there's a very thin veneer between 'civilised' and primitive.
And in some cases not even their immediate spouses.
That's your belief and my belief is to disagree with you. Mankind has existed thousands of years under one form of civilisation or another and I believe that most human beings are basically good and often only react in a hostile way when they're wronged. Many will disagree with me on that but that's how I feel. We always read bad stuff, rarely do we read about the overwhelming amount of good stuff.
You're twistings things somewhat imo. I think somebody killing a person close to you is perfect grounds for killing them. And an executioner is not guilty of any crime at all as far as I'm concerned, it's just a job they're paid to do.
And it doesn't take much effort to push a button/enter a code/turn a key to administer a lethal injection.
And to reiterate my point - I am only in favour of the death sentence where there is no shadow of a doubt as to the accused's guilt, which pretty much makes me anti death sentence I suppose.
True, I have my opinion and you have yours. I'm broadly with you on most things actually, but my view has clauses
I could list murder cases that evoke hostile feelings and most people's gut reaction would be to shout 'Kill them' (Sowham for instance) but that's a cheap shot and I won't go down that road.
As for finance, that's the American legal system for you I suppose. But as stated elsewhere here, it's almost obscene to talk cost where a life is concerned.
The prison system is part of our society and our society - broadly speaking - works.
Just following orders?
Guns don't kill people - people kill people?
Overall I can think of many cases where it appears to be 100% clear-cut that the person is guilty and hence the death penalty would be justified (mass murder, paedophiles, etc) but I can't condone it on the basis of innocent people being sent to their death. And like everyone else I would be far more in favour of the death penalty if any of my loved ones were victims. As that thankfully hasn't happened I find it easier to take the detached view of what I believe is in the best interests of society rather than simply what is in my best interests. I'm not sure how well rehablitation works on an individual basis but I do think most crime is related to social factors - poverty, education and so on - that there's a strong link there. In fact (though it's off topic) I wonder which is cheaper and preferable - the welfare state we have now or an (assumed, on my part) higher crime rate if the welfare state were to be seriously eroded?
That cuts both ways though.
Just as you could say that it's wrong to support the death penalty because it's cheaper, you can also say that it's wrong to support life imprisonment because it's cheaper, especially as some people say they prefer life imprisonment because it punishes the offender more than the DP, and that the DP lets them off too lightly.
But in any event, even if cost was a factor we wouldn't be deciding a given person's fate on the basis of cost. We'd be using cost as ONE factor in determining whether the system used the DP.
Personally, I don't find that sickening at all. There are a number of people serving life sentences, and that will probably never be able to be safely released (in the UK) for crimes where I find what they did to their victims thoroughly sickening, and if the DP was used to terminate their miserable existence, I certainly wouldn't find it sickening. I wouldn't lose an instant's sleep over their demise.
So, if we spend a fortune housing and feeding those individuals, when that same money could be spent to fund the NHS, or better educate kids, or build a hospital ward, buy an MRI scanner, fund a drug rehab program, provide apprenticeship training in deprived areas, put back some school playing fields in schools that had them sold off, and so on, well, wasting it on some of the people we have locked up for life, that's sickening. There's any number of ways that money could be spent that would actually achieve far more benefit for society than housing some of the people that don't deserve a place on this planet.
Erm, no. Seriously, it doesn't. The US legal system might, but the death penalty itself certainly does not.
Noting your location, the legal system used in the US may result in the DP being very expensive, and more so than life in prison, but that's a feature of the legal system you use, and especially the extent to which the appeals process is used specially to delay execution, not the actual DP itself. If we're going to argue about costs, then you have to set any argument in the context of the legal jurisdiction in which it's implemented. Saddam Hussein's 9mm method would be at (or very near) one end of the spectrum, and the US legal system would be at the other.
Most people on this forum, however, aren't US-based, so even if that statistic is true in the US, it's not necessarily true outside the US. It's also, in my opinion, a good argument for taking a long, hard look at the US system.
Oh, and you have to be very careful how you assess those costs, too. Because a good proportion of the money spend in calculating the cost of the DP is on those appeals, but those with long custodial sentences get a good amount of that money spent on appeals too.
But then, there's a cadre of lawyers that spend their time merely trying to use any legal trick available to delay the DP. It doesn't seem to be about guilt or innocence with those lawyers, but about a fundamental objection to the DP, and to trying to frustrate the will of the people, as expressed by legislators, in founding laws. I find this especially perverse, because those same lawyers don't seem to be as interested in trying all those obscure legal avenues for those imprisoned for life, just those facing the DP.
That element of the cost, therefore, isn't about the implementation of the DP at all. It's about those fighting to either change, or usually, merely frustrate the system. If they turned their attentions to other forms of punishment, costs there would rise too. It isn't, therefore, a cost of the DP but a cost of putting up with campaigning groups legal manoeuvrings. Or, alternatively, change the system to allow a proper system of appeals but to preclude the delaying tactics of the campaigners. Again, that way, not only do the costs of the DP system drop, but you get a more balanced comparison between alternatives.
But what about for cases,in which there is clear cut evidence, for example Josef Fritzl or Tim Kretschmer (had he been caught and not done suicide)?
I dont think I would lose sleep if they were hanged.
I don't think I would either, but even when Saddam was hung it somehow left a nasty feeling in me, hanging is the ultimate vengeance really and its that way of thinking about it that somehow makes me against it every time.
Something I compare it to is the rules that govern police fire arms use, if someone has shot and killed someone in front of them but is no longer presenting a danger then they can not shoot them still, as that would be classed as murder, they can only shoot them if they are still a threat. When someone is sent down for life for murder they are no longer a threat either, so by killing them you are not preventing them from killing again, that has already happened, you are just avenging there crime.
I do think life should mean life though, lock murderers up forever. Then there no longer a threat to the public and if they are found not guilty later due to appeal then at least they have had there chance to see justice done.
In the internets, no one can hear you sarcasm.
I was expecting that comment tbh as the same thing went through my mind as I wrote it.
The role of an executioner is different from those who herded people into gas chambers in WW2, it really is.
And FWIW I believe guns kill people, I'm anti-gun and I favour the UK law as it is now.
It was and is a bit of a cheapshot yes; I won't argue with the fact that executing someone fairly tried for a crime is very different to what happened in WW2. I still don't understand how anyone could work as an executioner though - I imagine they either really don't care about what they do (sociopaths or psychopaths?) or they have an unshakeable faith that they are always doing the right thing.
They're two very different situations though.
Armed police are using essentially the same basic criteria that you or I are allowed to use, which is that we can use "reasonable force" to defend ourselves, other or our property. And that force can be deadly force, if given the circumstances, deadly force is reasonable. Whether that involves a firearm, a knife or a baseball bat doesn't affect the fundamental principle, which is whether the force used was reasonable. The situation is a bit more tricky with armed police, partly because they have authority the man in the street doesn't, that being statutory powers of arrest in certain situations, and partly because they are armed, with the guidelines that that entails.
But in any event, a policeman, armed or not, is using powers conferred on him to do his job, whether that power be one of force to effect an arrest, or conduct a search, or use a firearm, but he's doing it on someone that has not been through the rigors of due process, has not been judged in a courtroom and has not been found guilty of anything, and the exercise of "reasonable force" is to prevent an imminent serious breach of law.
The death penalty, on the other hand, is about applying a judicial penalty to someone that has been tried, convicted and found guilty, and as such, as with any court sentence, it's about punishment for crimes committed, and/or rehabilitation, and/or protecting the public. So is a term in prison, whether it's for life or not.
It's certainly hard, with the DP, to see how there's much of a rehabilitation element to it, but then, if you've got the class of prisoner that most of us agree might be candidates for the DP, then they're in the4 "throw away the key" category of prisoners that probably should never be released, so rehabilitation doesn't seem to apply to a life behind bars either.
Therefore, either permanent incarceration or the DP are about either/or punishment or protecting the public.
If you have someone that has committed a particularly heinous form of murder, such a serial sadist murderers, are they EVER going to be completely safe to release again? If you've got a repeat rapist/murderer with a long string of victims, can they ever be released? Many, probably most of us would argue that they can't. What is sure is that if they are released, there's a RISK they'll do it again, and no matter how many doctors or social reformers say they've changed, reformed or found Jesus (or some other deity), they can't be sure they won't kill again.
And if you get that wrong, and such an individual is released, the likelihood is that some other perfectly innocent member of society is going to pay for that mistake with their life. If you give such an individual a life sentence, then that possibility of release remains. It might be via a change in law, or a breakout, or a parole board decision. Or perhaps something else. But the possibility remains.
If, on the other hand, you've executed that individual, then you can be absolutely sure they won't gain any more victims.
So on the one hand, part of the risk of the DP is that you execute an innocent person. But by the same token, part of the risk of not using the DP is that other innocent people will die because you didn't.
I say you can conduct this DP debate on two levels. One is whether, in principle you execute people guilty of certain categories of especially obnoxious crime. If we're talking about the principle of it, we we can assume absolute certainty of guilt, and the execution of an innocent person is not a factor on that. If you know, for an absolute certainty, that the convicted party is truly guilty, is the DP acceptable? There will be people that will say it isn't, perhaps on religious grounds. Fair enough, that's a viewpoint. At least we know where the objection to the DP comes from, and for those individuals, arguments about executing innocent people are irrelevant because they wouldn't agree to the DP either way.
Then there's the real world, rather than the principle. In that case, the questions would include what types of offense should carry the DP, because many that would support the DP for some murders would not support it for all types.
Bear in mind that "murder" is a legal concept, and the line between murder, manslaughter and even self-defense, can be a fine one, and subject to how a court interprets evidence, which isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of what actually happened but rather, what the evidence seems to suggest happened, or more accurately, what the evidence the jury get to see suggests happened.
Even those that support the DP in principle may well vary considerably on when it should apply, to what types of offenses and with what standard of certainty of guilt. But it is quite conceivable to have a case where the offense is nasty enough to justify the DP, where there is little chance of the offender ever being safe to release back into the community and where the evidence is so overwhelming as to leave no risk of error. In that case, I would personally be quite willing to sit on a jury that voted to convict and, if my assessment of the case met my criteria, vote for the DP knowing full well that the result might be that that sentence was carried out. I wouldn't be happy about it, but if that were the penalty society laid down for a given offense and that individual was guilty of it, then so be it.
It's all academic though, at least as far as the UK is concerned, because I can't see any way it can conceivably be re-introduced, at least in the foreseeable future or unless something very radical changes not just in the UK, but in the EU.
So yes, there's people I wouldn't shed a tear or lose a wink of sleep over if they were executed, and in principle, I certainly support that ..... but at least in this country, it just isn't going to happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
