death penalty? - Page 4

andrewb · 16-02-2008, 02:48

I am against the death penalty.

Those of you for it, lets say your a judge or law maker. Could you really honestly live with yourself if someone who was wrongfully accused got murdered by the state? Currently if someone is wrongly convicted they might have lost 10 years of their lives in jail, but they can carry on living the rest of them.

I don't buy the argument that says "Why should we pay for murderers in jail". You can't put a price on life. I don't care what the individual has done, why should we stoop to their level and kill? State sanctioned murder is leading down a path I really don't want to follow.

At the end of the day I'm quite happy to have greater punishments and more money pumped into rehabilitation. My problem is that if JUST ONE person gets murdered and is later proved innocent, the whole argument of the death penalty crashes down on itself. It's sick, its brutal, we're not animals, and its a long time since we were cavemen, so lets not introduce barbaric murder into British society.

steeljack · 16-02-2008, 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

. My problem is that if JUST ONE person gets murdered and is later proved innocent, .

Sorry Cyfr. but one thing is wrong with your equation ......murder is the unlawfull killing of someone , execution is the state sanctioned (ergo..lawfull) killing of someone .
question ...in your opinion were the sentences at the Nuremberg trials justified ? are the perpetrators of the Liberia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur genocides any less guilty than those executed in 46 and 47

or is it "ok" to execute war criminals responsible for multiple deaths but wrong execute the Yorkshire ripper ?......where do you draw the line ?

I'm sure both the Black Panther's and Adolf Eichman's mothers both thought they were both good boys as much as Tony Blair's and George Bush's mothers think of theirs.

Margaret Pilkington · 16-02-2008, 13:19

Blazey,having compassion for someone is to have pity on them, to grant them forgiveness......so the phrase you used did not seem to make any sense at all, because if you had compassion for someone you would have pity on them and forgive them of their sins.

Margaret Pilkington · 16-02-2008, 13:22

And if you have compassion for someone it is unlikely that you would seek a vengeful justice.

andrewb · 16-02-2008, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Sorry Cyfr. but one thing is wrong with your equation ......murder is the unlawfull killing of someone , execution is the state sanctioned (ergo..lawfull) killing of someone .
question ...in your opinion were the sentences at the Nuremberg trials justified ? are the perpetrators of the Liberia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur genocides any less guilty than those executed in 46 and 47

or is it "ok" to execute war criminals responsible for multiple deaths but wrong execute the Yorkshire ripper ?......where do you draw the line ?

I'm sure both the Black Panther's and Adolf Eichman's mothers both thought they were both good boys as much as Tony Blair's and George Bush's mothers think of theirs.

It would be unlawful for the state to kill somebody at the moment, hence my wording, but lets not argue semantics.

No the sentences at the Nuremberg trials are not justified. I simply don't believe taking another persons life is right. We have no more right to kill somebody than they had to persecute the Jews. We're just as bad as them if we PLAN to kill somebody, its not an act of last resort defence, its planned taking of somebody's life. They should have got life in jail, life meaning life.

panther · 16-02-2008, 18:22

With all the DNA and stuff we have today, then i doubt they would have the wrong person for murder, cuz evidence never lies.
If they do have DNA evidence etc... and that evidence places them at the scene then yes i do agree with the death penalty, but if they dont have that kind of evidence then they wont be convicted anyway

andrewb · 16-02-2008, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by panther

With all the DNA and stuff we have today, then i doubt they would have the wrong person for murder, cuz evidence never lies.
If they do have DNA evidence etc... and that evidence places them at the scene then yes i do agree with the death penalty, but if they dont have that kind of evidence then they wont be convicted anyway

DNA evidence only proves a connection to a person, it doesn't prove the person was at the scene. It's easy to frame somebody by planting DNA because it's so easy to attain.

It's usable as supportive evidence to convict somebody, but the wrong person can still end up being jailed, or in the case of the death penalty, killed. If it was later proved the person was innocent, you can't bring dead people back.

MikeSz · 16-02-2008, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by panther

With all the DNA and stuff we have today, then i doubt they would have the wrong person for murder, cuz evidence never lies.
If they do have DNA evidence etc... and that evidence places them at the scene then yes i do agree with the death penalty, but if they dont have that kind of evidence then they wont be convicted anyway

First of all, evidence can lie all the time - like a picture, it is how it is presented. The talent of barrister's to manipulate evidence is underestimated at your peril. The moment one innocent is killed is the moment that all other arguments lose any credibility they may have had. And no-one can guarantee that wont happen.

Secondly, what does it achieve?? What is the virtue of the death penalty - why is it good? What benefit does it provide that alternatives will not - or those yet to be suggested?

MikeSz · 16-02-2008, 20:18

If the response is an emotional one (and folly the state which rules it's citizens by a charter of emotion), or one of deterrent, consider the words of Cesare Beccaria :

"Ah! those cruel formalities of justice are a cloak of tyranny, they are a secret language, a solemn veil, intended to conceal the sword by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of despotism. Murder, which they represent to us as an horrible crime, we see practiced by them without repugnance or remorse. Let us follow their example. A violent death appeared terrible in their descriptions, but we see that it is the affair of the moment. It will be less terrible to him, who is not expecting it, [since he] escapes almost all the pain"

"Perpetual slavery, then, has in it all that is necessary to deter the most hardened and determined, as much as the punishment of death. I say it has more. There are many who look upon death with intrepidity and firmness; some through fanaticism, and others through vanity, which attends us even to the grave; others from a desperate resolution, either to get rid of their misery or cease to live; but fanaticism and vanity forsake the criminal in slavery, in chains and fetters, in an iron cage; and despair seems rather the beginning than the end of their misery."

In other words, perhaps the fault is not with the sentences that are passed down, rather the range and effectiveness of those punishments available.

cashman · 17-02-2008, 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSz

In other words, perhaps the fault is not with the sentences that are passed down, rather the range and effectiveness of those punishments available.

i reckon if the punishments available reflected the crime, many who want the "Death Penalty" would change their view, but they dont reflect n probably never will.

Eric · 17-02-2008, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

i reckon if the punishments available reflected the crime, many who want the "Death Penalty" would change their view, but they dont reflect n probably never will.

Punishments do not only reflect the crime; they also reflect the values of the society that sanctions the punishments ... not the individual members of society, but society as a whole.

It seems that it is only with the death penalty that people say "He took a life; so we will take his" ... or something like that ... a direct retributive thing. What do you do with a car thief ... steal his car? Or a rapist? Hold him down and f**k him against his will (I can see some saying: "Hey, this wouldn't be a bad idea).

And then there is the "eye for an eye" thing .... the Biblical sanction ... somehow we are following the injunction of the almighty ... but, isn't there a commandment somewhere about not killing ... not a metaphor but a direct "thou shalt not"?

By the way, I was driving thro' the north end of the city, and noticed that there is a Cashman St. ... you may just be getting famous

blazey · 17-02-2008, 23:02

Compassion is an understanding of the emotional state of another or oneself. Not to be confused with empathy, compassion is often combined with a desire to alleviate or reduce the suffering of another or to show special kindness to those who suffer. However, compassion may lead an individual to feel empathy with another person.
Source here is wikipedia.

S: (n) compassion, compassionateness (a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering)
S: (n) compassion, pity (the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it)
This one is from wordnet.

Whilst I pity the victim, I am not showing any compassion towards an offender by saying I dont agree with the death penalty Margaret, and I am in no way suggesting anyone show compassion for a murderer, rapist etc.

Whilst I respect that you are trying to teach me something with your posts, I know exactly what I feel about the issue, I think my choice of wording is apt for what I've said and I don't require your guidance on my use of vocabulary. There is no 'forgiveness of sins' involved in the definition of compassion as far as I've ever been taught, at least not on a general level. Yes some people can show compassion to those who are in need of forgiveness, one could say the job of a priest at confession is to show compassion I guess, so in that respect yes, it does involve pity and forgiveness, but compassion certainly does not require the need for something that needs forgiving in the first place.

You can show compassion by shooting dead an irreversibly injured animal, as I have already given for an example, a bird with a broke wing. Some people take their terminally ill loved ones to Switzerland to be euthanised, that would require compassion. Its in no way exclusively given to those who are in need of forgiveness though, and what you are suggesting to me almosts makes it sound like you think I am suggesting showing compassion to a criminal by simply forgiving them.

Death is not punishment if you don't believe in afterlife, it's a way out of paying for the crime. It also creates martyrs in some situations.

I feel like i've said all this before

blazey · 18-02-2008, 21:30

Anyone ever stolen a pen from argos? I think if you want the death penalty then you should have to serve the crime for theft as well. You deprive someone of their property then you should be deprived of the hand that took it.

Still ok with eye for an eye?

Stupid biblical ideology if you ask me. Then again, a lot of people in accy act like neanderthals and the likes. Hardly a surprise that the death penalty is favoured on here.

keetah992000 · 18-02-2008, 22:16

i know it is going off the track a little but here is a link to the "Confessions of a "GAS MAN" from the Dog Pound"
News: Confessions of a "GAS MAN" from the Dog Pound

i warn you you will cry but i think if you believe in the death penalty (or not) - you should read it if only to get the view of somebody who is doing the final act. yes i know these dogs have commited no crime and i know they are animals but basically at the end of the day this is somebody who has to takes lives for their job - could you really encourage a system that puts that on somebodies shoulders?

MikeSz · 18-02-2008, 22:49

It seems to me that the evolution of humankind obviously has some way to go if we still have people supporting this archaic, vengeful and purposeless mechanism of punishment - the only product of which is primitive, mindless gratification at the sense that someone has paid the ultimate price.

To me, this not only reduces those arguing in favour of it to the same level but also misses the point of not only the idea of punishment (and the state exercising its obligation to protect its citizens from harm - and my that I mean protecting people from crime) but also the role of the state on arbitrating conflict. It must do this in a neutral and objective fashion and abstain from emotional retort.

Political theorists from Hobbes to Foucault will offer their varying arguments on legitimacy of the state and its right to exercise its will over a country's populace. Included in those considerations are the ways in which the state has the power to mediate conflicts and carry out its judicial functions. Surely, a virtuous argument is one that offers a solution that satisfies the requirements of fair justice and does so in a humane fashion and maintaining a moral zenith - as an example to its citizens.

Some will undoubtedly call this approach naive, but I for one would like our governments to be ambitious, to set an example worth following and to deliver a justice system which everyone can believe in. Thats not a reality yet, but its worth working towards and we should resist at every juncture the desire to regress however frightful those crimes of others may seem. Its the only way forward and anything else is surrender to a lesser cause.

And if you're still in doubt - let he who is without sin cast the first stone.