death penalty?

[panther]

I think it would be best to put the murderers in jail, not kill them, then they can have their own cell, watch tv, play pool and also have a good time with the rest of the inmates, while the vctims familys can suffer for the rest of there lives!....yes that would be better!!!!

what was I thinking

[MikeSz]

Originally Posted by panther

I think it would be best to put the murderers in jail, not kill them, then they can have their own cell, watch tv, play pool and also have a good time with the rest of the inmates, while the vctims familys can suffer for the rest of there lives!....yes that would be better!!!!

what was I thinking

With respect, you've missed the point. Your (rather unproductively sarcastic) point is not an argument in favour of the death penalty, rather, its an argument against the way our prison system treats its inmates.

You can always make prison a genuinely harsh place - and that means that the judicial system needs to re-assert the notion that should you be convicted of a serious crime that warrants your removal from society, that also means you lose your rights as well - including human rights. The next question, which is just as murky is how far you take that.

[Madhatter]

While I agree with one to a cell on safety grounds, I do not think prisoners should have all the rights and comforts of being out here. That is the problem, you want a harsh sentence for murders and see prison as being to soft. People on here even think that prisoners should have the right to vote in elections fgs. What's the point in sending em to jail, may as well just send them back home in time for tea.

[andrewb]

They should have the right to vote! If they were locked up for something unjust they should have the right to protest against it!

[blazey]

Originally Posted by MikeSz

With respect, you've missed the point. Your (rather unproductively sarcastic) point is not an argument in favour of the death penalty, rather, its an argument against the way our prison system treats its inmates.

You can always make prison a genuinely harsh place - and that means that the judicial system needs to re-assert the notion that should you be convicted of a serious crime that warrants your removal from society, that also means you lose your rights as well - including human rights. The next question, which is just as murky is how far you take that.

The judiciary aren't the one who put forward the proposals for the conditions inside prisons, so whilst I agree with what you are saying I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong person there. The judiciary can only send people to prison, they cant dictate how they are treated once they're in there.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by blazey

The judiciary aren't the one who put forward the proposals for the conditions inside prisons, so whilst I agree with what you are saying I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong person there. The judiciary can only send people to prison, they cant dictate how they are treated once they're in there.

Of course they can dictate prison conditions. At least in Canada they can and I can't see England beiing that different. At the basic level, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that no prisoner shall suffer "cruel and unusual punishment." That's like reading some of your posts.

[MikeSz]

Originally Posted by blazey

The judiciary aren't the one who put forward the proposals for the conditions inside prisons, so whilst I agree with what you are saying I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong person there. The judiciary can only send people to prison, they cant dictate how they are treated once they're in there.

Ok, better put "our judicial system" be that controlled by the executive/legislature or influenced by the judiciary. And as you study law, you will be perfectly aware of just how much influence the judiciary has on the executive/legislature. And you knew what I meant

[blazey]

Whilst the judiciary has influence, it certainly does not have the final say, and so I think it's wrong that the judiciary take so much blame for the prison system. And it IS different from Canada.

Frankly I feel that there in nobody to blame because I am a fan of the current prison system. I would hate to spend one year of my life in prison, and after 14yrs which seems a typical-ish type of sentence for a murderer, although its hard to put a figure on something like that, it seems unbearable to me to think about it, and I cant imagine after that amount of time you'd think about killing someone else again just to get thrown back in and do the time again.

I think whilst many people DO reoffend, it is most likely the more minor crimes which are repeated, not catagory A offenders. I think prison is an effective method but there can probably more done to cut down on costs. Whilst £39,000 is spent per year per criminal, i think a lot of that figure goes towards salaries, equipment to aid the officers etc, not the actual criminal themself.

I would never wish death upon someone, and if I did, and the death penalty was one of my options for the person who had hurt me, then I would also wish to serve the same sentence for their death at my hands, because I was brought up being told 'thou shal not kill' and there are no double standards in that teaching, and I wouldn't change my mind on that now. Murder is murder, there is no justification for it, no matter what the circumstances are. Taking a life, whether innocent or guilty is wrong.

[Eric]

We have come a long way since "l'etat c'est moi." Now we all ... or most of us ... agree that the state is us. If we have capital punishment then we are complicit in the death of those who we execute. Some obviously welcome that ... but what about the large number, the millions, who do not wish this. Punsihment is not vengence. If someone killed my daughter I would no doubt wish them dead, and if given the opportunity I might just kill them. This is not capital punishment, or punishment of any kind, it is revenge pure and simple and personal. The act is mine; the consequences are mine. In such a case the state does not act for me, nor do I wish it to.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by MikeSz

Lets not forget that the justice system is there to administer justice, not revenge

Administering justice is taking revenge otherwise why would we punish a proven criminal?

A citizen breaks society’s rules, is caught, arrested, tried and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt a punishment commensurate with the current laws is handed down.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Administering justice is taking revenge otherwise why would we punish a proven criminal?

A citizen breaks society’s rules, is caught, arrested, tried and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt a punishment commensurate with the current laws is handed down.

Justice is not revenge. Justice is what a state considers an appropriate punishment for a particular anti-social act at a particular time. What is considered just in one state may be considered "cruel and unusual" in another. For example, some may consider stoning an adultress or whipping her in public to be just. Others consider it barbaric. How a country treats its criminals is an indication of the values of most of its citizens. Revenge is revenge, and is a constant in humans. It's an emotion all of us feel, and some of us act on. Systems of laws are not constant. They develop along with a society. They change often. We no longer hang someone for impersonating a Chelsea pensioner. We don't transport criminals. We don't imprison for debt. Our "rules" change. So do our ideas of what is "just" and what is unjust.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by blazey

I was brought up being told 'thou shal not kill' and there are no double standards in that teaching,

Really blazey? Who laid down the 10 Commandments? It was that God feller wasn’t it?

Then how do you equate that with God allegedly parting the Red Sea waters to allow the Israelites across and then closing them on the Egyptian army and drowning them?
How about when he ‘smote’ down the Israelites for creating a false god during their exodus from Egypt?
God allegedly told Joshua to attack Jericho, Ty and other cities, slay all the inhabitants and to take the land for his tribe.
God himself exacted retribution on the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and on Lot.
Then there was the flood (created by God) that alegedly wiped out all life save for that on the Ark.

The Old Testament is full of killings by God.

There is nothing quite like doing a bit of ‘cherry picking’ to support a non-argument.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Eric

Justice is not revenge. Justice is what a state considers an appropriate punishment for a particular anti-social act at a particular time. What is considered just in one state may be considered "cruel and unusual" in another. For example, some may consider stoning an adultress or whipping her in public to be just. Others consider it barbaric. How a country treats its criminals is an indication of the values of most of its citizens. Revenge is revenge, and is a constant in humans. It's an emotion all of us feel, and some of us act on. Systems of laws are not constant. They develop along with a society. They change often. We no longer hang someone for impersonating a Chelsea pensioner. We don't transport criminals. We don't imprison for debt. Our "rules" change. So do our ideas of what is "just" and what is unjust.

You still don’t get it do you?

Administering justice and handing out a punishment is retribution or vengeance if you like. In other words exacting revenge.

What is just and not just doesn’t come into it.

[jambutty]

I’m in favour of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder but with a couple of caveats.

The case has to be proven beyond ANY DOUBT. If only proven beyond reasonable doubt the accused gets life and it should mean life.

Sentence not to be carried out for at least five years or maybe even ten, to allow for new evidence to be discovered.

The execution to be by lethal injection after the convict has been put to sleep. If an anaesthetist can render a patient unconscious in a few seconds before an operation the same can be done to a convict. Then instead of clearing the airways to administer whatever “keep the patient asleep gasses” that they use these days, the injection to stop the heart is administered.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by jambutty

. If an anaesthetist can render a patient unconscious in a few seconds before an operation the same can be done to a convict. .

the only problem with your idea is that it would be impossible to get an anaesthetist to administer the drugs , since these people are governed by the same rules as 'doctors' (golden rule of medicine ....do no harm) thats why we have to use 'trained paramedics' here in California who sometimes have problems finding a suitable vein .