Death Penalty , should this guy die ?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Couldn't agree more Less.

Nobody has the right to take somebody elses life, regardless of what the person has done. Once you have someone locked up they no longer pose a threat and should thus not be murdered.

Reading this thread shocked me. I thought we lived in a civilised society? It sounded like a bunch of savage dogs tearing a lamb to shreds.

Come on people, we're better than that.

Couldn't agree more. Whatever the crime, however horrendous, if we execute the criminal we descend to his level. The "eye for an eye" attitude ignores the more open and obvious "thou shalt not kill."

[BERNADETTE]

But he did KILL with no regard for anything or anybody but himself.

[Bonnyboy]

The Death Penalty just doesn't sit well with me at all. It seems like an admission of failure of whichever legal system passes the judgement.

Yes there's the blah blah blah if it had been my child and so on and yes I would probably feel like having the bastard done away with. In reality tho, I know I would rise above those base feelings.

I'm a believer in not asking others to do that which I cannot or am not prepared to do myself. I certainly wouldn't and couldn't take a life.

[Stanaccy]

My problem with capital punishment is 3 fold.

First if you execute the wrong person how do you say "oops sorry"? Also look at the case of Derek Bentley, you cannot control a judge who loves to impose the most severe penalty.

Second capital punishment is nothing short of state sanctioned murder. If murder is against the law (and it should be) then how with a clear moral conscience can the public and the government sanction the murder of a criminal, no matter how sick or depraved he/she is, you are then pandering to the whims of vengeance rather than justice. Yes there has to be a deterrent and life imprisonment should mean that, when imposed.

Third, where is the deterrent if they have already killed to prevent them killing again and again, the old saying "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" somes it up well.

Also as an aside apart from my moral objections, why is the murder rate so high in the US if capital punishment is such a wonderful deterrent?

[BERNADETTE]

Let us get all the fact's together, we have a "man" who has already served time for violent related crime. He does his time then goes on to commit these other crimes which he is called to court for. He thinks this girls mother is dead so decides to drop the child amongest some alligators and leaves her to die. Forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy but did he give the child or her mother any? I would imagine the answer is no, so why does he deserve our sympathy? I can't think of a single reason why the death penalty should not prevail in this instance.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by Stanaccy

Also as an aside apart from my moral objections, why is the murder rate so high in the US if capital punishment is such a wonderful deterrent?

its not a deterrent , thats the whole point ......its a punishment , a punishment for being such an evil creature that has no hope of redemption or rehablitation, that you have lost/thrown away rights you had in a civilized society .

re. the U.S. I can only speak of conditions in my own State (California) here we have over 600 people on death row , people who have been found guilty of murder by jurors of their peers ,the same jurors who have to meet again in a separate mini-trial to decide on the sentance (if the death penalty should be applied or not) why so many ? .....because of a lack of Political and Judical will to carry out the juries decision, a system that panders to the electorate about being tough on crime and then refuses to carry out the will of the people by allowing multiple frivolous appeals by sleezeball lawyers who are paid for at taxpayer expense, e.g. there is nowhere in the execution chamber to sterilize the needle before a lethal injection......DOH..

[Eric]

Originally Posted by steeljack

its not a deterrent , thats the whole point ......its a punishment , a punishment for being such an evil creature that has no hope of redemption or rehablitation, that you have lost/thrown away rights you had in a civilized society .

re. the U.S. I can only speak of conditions in my own State (California) here we have over 600 people on death row , people who have been found guilty of murder by jurors of their peers ,the same jurors who have to meet again in a separate mini-trial to decide on the sentance (if the death penalty should be applied or not) why so many ? .....because of a lack of Political and Judical will to carry out the juries decision, a system that panders to the electorate about being tough on crime and then refuses to carry out the will of the people by allowing multiple frivolous appeals by sleezeball lawyers who are paid for at taxpayer expense, e.g. there is nowhere in the execution chamber to sterilize the needle before a lethal injection......DOH..

However, it is touted as a deterrent as are most other forms of punishment. And I can not agree with "frivolous appeals"; surely one of the great strengths of America is its judicial system with all that goes along with the ideal of innocent until proven guilty. I hope that no one would seriously consider tinkering with, say, the Bill of Rights just so that one complete waste of skin should fry.

In any society, whatever the law, there will always be those who will commit horrendous crimes. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent this. Even if a convicted murderer were hanged, drawn, and quartered on CNN, the only result would be a demand from the public for more of this form of entertainment. The sickos would still crop up now and again to indulge in their fav form of mayhem, and the media and the public would revel in the sensationalism.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Couldn't agree more Less.

Nobody has the right to take somebody elses life, regardless of what the person has done. Once you have someone locked up they no longer pose a threat and should thus not be murdered.

Reading this thread shocked me. I thought we lived in a civilised society? It sounded like a bunch of savage dogs tearing a lamb to shreds.

Come on people, we're better than that.

It shocked me too Cyfr, to see the way some people would seem to take pleasure in the thought of making this man suffer as much as possible. That actually makes us worse than him. As far as I'm aware from the reports he didn't gloat over the way the child was killed or take any pleasure in the thought of her suffering. He was simply disposing of what was to him a burden, a problem. If we dispose of him in the same way - get rid of the problem, by the death penalty, then that would put us on a par with him, yet I can see where people feel that would be justifiable, but to actually dream up ways of making him suffer as much as possible, for the sole purpose of making him suffer as much as possible, drags us down below his level and shows that we are no better underneath the surface.

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Let us get all the fact's together, we have a "man" who has already served time for violent related crime. He does his time then goes on to commit these other crimes which he is called to court for. He thinks this girls mother is dead so decides to drop the child amongest some alligators and leaves her to die. Forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy but did he give the child or her mother any? I would imagine the answer is no, so why does he deserve our sympathy? I can't think of a single reason why the death penalty should not prevail in this instance.

No, I don't feel any sympathy for him either and it's not about that. It's about justice. It's about dealing with him in a civilised manner, not for his sake but for ours. I don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever but neither do I want to descend to his level and advocate torturing him to death. Why should I let him turn me into a monster? Why should what he did make it right for others to do the same or worse to him? Doesn't that make us as bad or worse than him if we get some kind of perverse pleasure out of the thought of him suffering? Yes lock him away for life and make sure he can never do anything like that again, but don't take him as your example of correct behaviour. Don't learn from him and emulate him. That would make us far worse than he is.

[entwisi]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Couldn't agree more Less.

Nobody has the right to take somebody elses life, regardless of what the person has done. Once you have someone locked up they no longer pose a threat and should thus not be murdered.

Reading this thread shocked me. I thought we lived in a civilised society? It sounded like a bunch of savage dogs tearing a lamb to shreds.

Come on people, we're better than that.

I think if you re-read Less's post carefully you will find that its a usual Less type post and written in such a style that it comes across as one thing but says something different. e.g.

This man should be shown sympathy and mercy, just like he showed to the child

Err he showed teh child no sympathy or mercy whatsoever.

No-one has the right to take the life of another, unless of course he is a coward that not only attacks the mother but also murders an innocent child.

As these read unless I'm mistaken, Less is firmly on the eye for an eye bus.

[panther]

all child killers should not be allowed to roam this earth,they should be removed immediatly!! if it was your kid would you feel the same??....I DONT THINK SO!!!

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by entwisi

I think if you re-read Less's post carefully you will find that its a usual Less type post and written in such a style that it comes across as one thing but says something different. e.g.

Err he showed teh child no sympathy or mercy whatsoever.



As these read unless I'm mistaken, Less is firmly on the eye for an eye bus.

Yeah you're right.

Ah well. My argument still stands

[Stanaccy]

Originally Posted by panther

all child killers should not be allowed to roam this earth,they should be removed immediatly!! if it was your kid would you feel the same??....I DONT THINK SO!!!

Panther this is precisely why the death penalty should not be applied. Because people want vengeance and not justice. You say child killers should be "removed immediately" who next? murderers of pensioners? paedophiles? murderer rapists? killers of people indangerous driving incidents?

They have all ruined lives but vengeance solves nothing, it's a return to the witchunt, lynch mob mentality, maybe if the criminal justice system actually imposed sentences that were stuck to (which they already have the facility to do so) then maybe this incessant clamour for blood would cease.

Oh and Steeljack are you saying thr American justice system IS based on vengeance then rather than justice and deterrence? Figures. That's why it still puts to death minors.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by panther

if it was your kid would you feel the same??....I DONT THINK SO!!!

If it was my child I don't think I can begin to describe how I would feel - ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MY CHILD - but I sincerely hope that I wouldn't want to turn into a monster myself because of it. I would be hurt and angry beyond belief but if I wanted to torture the murderer I would then be horrified and disgusted by my own actions. How do two wrongs make a right? Will torturing him bring the child back? Why does inflicting harm to make you feel better make you any better of a person than him?

[Less]

Originally Posted by Less

How cruel you all are? This man should be shown sympathy and mercy, just like he showed to the child. I am fed up with the eye for an eye brigade, it should be live and let live forgive those that trespass against us, turn the other cheek.

No-one has the right to take the life of another, unless of course he is a coward that not only attacks the mother but also murders an innocent child. He as should all rapists and child molesters be forgiven and given the chance to repent their ways, thus proving themselves once more to be of use to civilised society.

Civilised? what is civilised about a society that allows someone that causes suffering of this kind to others to live, if a dog attacks it's put down, anyone that murders has given up the right to live.

It would appear that I have not been plain enough for a few of you.

My first paragraph was written as it was with plenty of sarcasm that obviously has been misleading.

I am not against the death penalty I am all for it and can't think of a more fitting end to such a cowardly beast as this 'man'!

My second paragraph, was a failing attempt to say as soon as we commit such a crime we forfeit the rights to continue our own lives.

The final paragraph was trying to put forward that a 'civilised' society should be brave enough to give these monsters the punishment they deserve.

I humbly apologise to all, both the pro-Capital punishment and the anti-brigade, I will in future threads make it very clear that I am a member of the Hang 'em high brigade!

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Stanaccy

My problem with capital punishment is 3 fold.

First if you execute the wrong person how do you say "oops sorry"? Also look at the case of Derek Bentley, you cannot control a judge who loves to impose the most severe penalty.

Second capital punishment is nothing short of state sanctioned murder. If murder is against the law (and it should be) then how with a clear moral conscience can the public and the government sanction the murder of a criminal, no matter how sick or depraved he/she is, you are then pandering to the whims of vengeance rather than justice. Yes there has to be a deterrent and life imprisonment should mean that, when imposed.

Third, where is the deterrent if they have already killed to prevent them killing again and again, the old saying "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" somes it up well.

Also as an aside apart from my moral objections, why is the murder rate so high in the US if capital punishment is such a wonderful deterrent?

I don’t have a problem with capital punishment for premeditated murder, regardless who the victim is. You take a life you forfeit your own. But with just one caveat. The sentence is not carried out until a suitable period of time after the sentence is passed. This is to give the defence an opportunity to bring forward new evidence and to take advantage of any new developments in forensic science. What is a suitable period of time? I would suggest a minimum of five years.

The Derek Bentley case is always brought up in such discussions, usually by people who weren’t even alive at the time or even bothered to do any research. Why not bring up the case of Ruth Ellis? http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/ruth.html

Bentley 19 and Craig 16 carrying a revolver broke into a warehouse on 2nd November 1952 with intent to rob. The result was that Craig shot and wounded one policeman and killed another. There is no dispute about those facts.

Bentley was an accessory to a crime that resulted in murder. Even though he didn’t actually pull the trigger, in the eyes of the law of the day he was just as guilty as the Craig who did. The law at the time decreed that murder was punishable by hanging.

Craig, being under the age of 18, could not be sentenced to hang so his sentence was to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Bentley who was over 18 was sentenced to hang and the sentence was duly carried out in accordance with the law of the day.

The fact that Bentley was poorly represented by his defence council is not a fault of the law.

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm

Murder – according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another.
• verb 1 kill unlawfully and with premeditation.

In days gone by the state decreed that a convicted murderer would be hung. Thus making the action lawful. Thus the state could not be accused of murder only lawful killing. Whether the state should have that power is open to another debate but in the 1950’s it was the will of the people.

The “I may as well get hung for a sheep as for a lamb” argument applies to a very tiny majority of people – the hardened criminals who care nothing for others.

A question to all.

Why do you not commit murder, robbery, burglary, mugging, assault and battery, fraud etc?

Is it because it is against the law?

Or is it because of the fear of getting caught and punished?

I suspect that most people will reply both but with more emphases on the latter.

Many motorists break the laws on speed limits, secure in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are slim. I doubt if any of those same motorists would commit a ‘serious’ crime because they know that the chances of getting caught are high.

So in the main I would suggest that the majority of people do not go around committing crimes because of the fear of being caught and punished. Or in other words being caught and punished IS A DETERRENT. Thus the certainty of capital punishment if caught is a deterrent, except for a few who have scant regard for the law or other people.

There would be no law breaking IF it was CERTAIN that all law breakers would be caught and punished.