NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.

Execution is the coward's way out -- life in solitary without parole is clearly worse.

That, and there's no way to unexecute someone.

No.

For those that are not aware of the story you can read it here but I warn you that it is heartbreaking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7708398.stm

Yes, but only for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In general, the death penalty should hold the head of state accountable for his or her foreign policy during office. Furthermore, it is easier to establish conclusive guilt in the case of the head of state, because foreign policy is well-known whereas in individual cases, guilt is sometimes less clear.

Execution is the coward's way out -- life in solitary without parole is clearly worse.

Agreed.

I believe if the evidence is there, for the right sort of crime. Then yes, their should be.

E.G, I believe a man whom killed 6 people, mostly elderly, then dissolved their bodies in acid. Or the man (Neison I think) Who boiled down corpse's and disposed of them down drains. Deserve to die. If the guilt is proved.

I do not believe that a single mother who hits a burglar around the head with a frying pan should get the same treatment. Whether she meant to kill him or not.

It is a very very fiddly subject, and if capital punishment were to be introduced, then the legislation involved will have to be pretty damn airtight.

Voted yes. I used to be against the death penalty, but years ago I realized that there are some people in this world who are so broken that they honestly don't care about the crimes they've committed. Best to keep the option available for those beyond rehabilitation.

Still, it should probably be used sparingly.

no because we are civilized people with a justice system that isn't run on bloodlust

seriously what is the point in killing someone?

Execution is the coward's way out -- life in solitary without parole is clearly worse.

That, and there's no way to unexecute someone.

Hard labor beats death penalty and basic solitary. The convict needs to earn his food. Why the hell should I be taxed to pay for the room and board for a criminal?

Absolutely not.

In extreme cases like this, the prison term will be so long, surrounded by fellow prisoners who hate you for what you've done, I think that it is demonstrably more of a hardship than an almost instantaneous death. So I voted "no". I think conditions in prisons should be tougher to make this doubly so, which is why I support forced unpaid labour for prisoners, with beatings if they refuse. Good luck getting that (or the death penalty) past the European Court of Human Rights, though.

...but I warn you that it is heartbreaking.
Exactly why we shouldn't propose new legislation, and shouldn't call for a reform to brutal, outmoded forms of punishment. Emotive issues are not ones we should be promoting when discussing change to criminal legislation.

no because we are civilized people with a justice system that isn't run on bloodlust

seriously what is the point in killing someone?

Because they no longer deserve to live.

What is the point in keeping them banged up for the rest of their lives?

Execute them and be done with.

Because they no longer deserve to live.

What is the point in keeping them banged up for the rest of their lives?

Execute them and be done with.

Why don't they deserve to live? Atleast, why do you think that?

Because they no longer deserve to live.
Their life should be ended because they ended life?

Sounds dubious to me.

What is the point in keeping them banged up for the rest of their lives?
Punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation.

Exactly why we shouldn't propose new legislation, and shouldn't call for a reform to brutal, outmoded forms of punishment. Emotive issues are not ones we should be promoting when discussing change to criminal legislation.

Ok, I admit to being extremely angry and upset about this case and agree that these things should be discussed with a cool head.

But I am pretty confident I will wake up in a few days time and feel the same way.

It should be an option for serious crimes like this.

Because they no longer deserve to live.

With an attitude like this, what, exactly, separates you from them?

Their life should be ended because they ended life?

Sounds dubious to me.

Oh, and this^

A fast death is a poor substitute for a lifetime in a cage.

It should be an option for serious crimes like this.

No it shouldn't, for the very reasons as said here. You don't get to wake up 2 days after you execute someone and realize you acted out of emotion and change it.

Best to keep the option available for those beyond rehabilitation.

yes because if we can't cure someone we should just kill them (that could probably save a few bob in the psychiatric system)

Hard labor beats death penalty.

unfortunately we discovered in the 1800's that it doesn't work

odd how enlightened the human race used to be

no because we are civilized people with a justice system that isn't run on bloodlust

seriously what is the point in killing someone?
To send the message that the head of state is bounded by the same laws against murder as everyone else. With any luck, this recognition will make a more peaceful world.

Their life should be ended because they ended life?

Sounds dubious to me.

They systematically abused this baby over a period of time BEFORE taking his life.


Punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation?

What right do these people have to be rehabilitated?

Punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation.

What about the crazed psychopaths that can't be rehabilitated? Rehab doesn't work for everyone.

They systematically abused this baby over a period of time BEFORE taking his life.




Rehabilitation?

What right do these people have to be rehabilitated?

What right does the state have to kill them?

I am against the death penalty. I think it's wrong to kill people. Period.

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.


Because decent human beings are better than these sorts of scumbags. Why should we stoop to their level? How does killing them actually do anyone any good?

It should be an option for serious crimes like this.
No it shouldn't.

It should be an option for really obviously atrocious crimes like those committed by Pinochet, Mugabe or George W. Bush.

No, thanks.

They systematically abused this baby over a period of time BEFORE taking his life.
A terrible thing, to be sure. But no amount of emotive language will convince me that the death penalty is a viable option.

Can you give a reason, apart from 'they did terrible crime x', for reintroducing the death penalty?

Rehabilitation?

What right do these people have to be rehabilitated?
As much 'right' as any person does when they do any bad action.

Luckily, we live in a system where dehumanisation of criminals is relatively minimum (though, unfortunately, still existent).

Won't vote since it's pertaining to UK.

For those that are not aware of the story you can read it here but I warn you that it is heartbreaking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7708398.stm
That was very heartbreaking. :(

Execution is the coward's way out -- life in solitary without parole is clearly worse.

That, and there's no way to unexecute someone.
sorry, but even "without parole" there is a chance for release due to 'Good Behavior'

and how does one return the time spent in jail?


In extreme cases like this, the prison term will be so long, surrounded by fellow prisoners who hate you for what you've done, I think that it is demonstrably more of a hardship than an almost instantaneous death.except you force the guards to protect them from their fellow inmates. and should the violence continue and/or the person(s) die, wouldn't that open the prision guards to lawsuits from the prisoner's family?

So I voted "no". I think conditions in prisons should be tougher to make this doubly so, which is why I support forced unpaid labour for prisoners, with beatings if they refuse. Good luck getting that (or the death penalty) past the European Court of Human Rights, though.
but we can all dream right? :tongue:

What right does the state have to kill them?

I am against the death penalty. I think it's wrong to kill people. Period.

Depending on the nature of the crime then in my opinion they have every right.

No it shouldn't.

It should be an option for really obviously atrocious crimes like those committed by Pinochet, Mugabe or George W. Bush.

So this kind of thing is not a 'really obviously atrocious crime' in your opinon?

Good grief.

yes, capital punishment is compleatly exceptable in such cases, because to us humans, this is an act of evil. murder, violence against minors, hate crimes all should be punishable by death

How does killing them actually do anyone any good?


The big selling point for the death penalty is its effectiveness in preventing the convict from repeating the offense once the punishment has been carried out. The big drawback is the difficulty in reversing a bad conviction after it has been carried out.

A terrible thing, to be sure.

But no amount of emotive language will convince me that the death penalty is a viable option. Can you give a reason, apart from 'they did terrible crime x', for reintroducing the death penalty?




I don't think I need any other reason to be quite honest.

It's quite simple to me. They tortued and murdered a baby boy, therefore they no longer deserve the right to live let alone the chance of rehabilitation.

Just my opinion.

yes, capital punishment is compleatly exceptable in such cases, because to us humans, this is an act of evil. murder, violence against minors, hate crimes all should be punishable by death
Are you suggesting that those of us who are unswervingly against capital punishment are not human?

So this kind of thing is not a 'really obviously atrocious crime' in your opinon?

Good grief.
No, frankly it's not. What Pinochet did was way worse than what this person did, and yet Pinochet was never executed for what he did. Also, executing Pinochet would have made the world a better place; executing your person in question does fuck all.

murder, violence against minors, hate crimes all should be punishable by death
So, would you say that a jilted wife killing her husband, a parent smacking their child, and/or a teenager drawing a swastika on a synagogue should all be killed?

Depending on the nature of the crime then in my opinion they have every right.

I do not agree with the state having the right to kill people. Killing people is wrong.

What is the point in keeping them banged up for the rest of their lives?

to keep them and society safe from harm

now you give me an answer that involves a logical reason why society would benefit from killing prisoners

A fast death is a poor substitute for a lifetime in a cage.

your going to have them work in accounts :confused:

To send the message that the head of state is bounded by the same laws against murder as everyone else. With any luck, this recognition will make a more peaceful world.

...huh?

What right do these people have to be rehabilitated?

because people are not themselves anymore evil than a bullet

no, i mearly stated that humans generaly percive cold-blooded killers as evil, and are you saying that Himler should have lived?

I don't think I need any other reason to be quite honest.

It's quite simple to me. They tortued and murdered a baby boy, therefore they no longer deserve the right to live let alone the chance of rehabilitation.

Just my opinion.

That kind of argument doesn't hold much weight here. You need to provide a rational reason, besides "oh they are horrible people!"

The big selling point for the death penalty is its effectiveness in preventing the convict from repeating the offense once the punishment has been carried out. The big drawback is the difficulty in reversing a bad conviction after it has been carried out.

Indeed. The thing is, though, being locked up in prison for the rest of your life does just as good a job of keeping one from repeating one's crimes, and is a heck of a lot easier at least partially to undo.

I do not agree with the state having the right to kill people.

Agreed.


Killing people is wrong.

Not in all cases. In the case of self-defense, for example, lethal force can be justified. I would also argue that in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity, executing government officials and military leaders can be justified.

no, i mearly stated that humans generaly percive cold-blooded killers as evil, and are you saying that Himler should have lived?

You said "hate crime." Hate crimes are very broad, and can be anything from starting a fight to mass murder. You need to be more specific.

Perhaps Himmler should have lived. In a cage.

to keep them and society safe from harm

now you give me an answer that involves a logical reason why society would benefit from killing prisoners



Because it is a waste of time and money keeping them banged up, feeding them and watering them.

Plus as I have repeatedly stated, in my opinion they no longer deserve to live.

Not in all cases. In the case of self-defense, for example, lethal force can be justified. I would also argue that in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity, executing government officials and military leaders can be justified.

Killing in self-defense I would see more as a necessary evil. Wrong, but far less wrong than allowing something worse to happen.

No, frankly it's not.

Honestly, I have nothing further to say to you.

That kind of argument doesn't hold much weight here. You need to provide a rational reason, besides "oh they are horrible people!" ok then say you have a baby reletive/ child reletive, do you really think you would still argue against capital punishment if they where tortured and killed? no you would not. that is fact proven by pycology. you would advocate death of the murderer

I don't think I need any other reason to be quite honest.

It's quite simple to me. They tortued and murdered a baby boy, therefore they no longer deserve the right to live let alone the chance of rehabilitation.
I'm afraid it's not that simple.

You've given no real reason as to why a murderer of a baby does not have (a) the right to live, and/or (b) the right to rehabilitation. The only one I can infer from what you've posted is if you believe that a wrong should always be responded to in kind; so that a bully should be bullied, a fraudster defrauded, a murderer murdered, and so on.



Also, executing Pinochet would have made the world a better place; executing your person in question does fuck all.
Why do you believe executing Pinochet (presumably after the fact; we're not discussing assassination here) make the world a better place if you also believe that killing a murderer is unwarranted?

Is it simply a question of aggregate?

Because it is a waste of time and money keeping them banged up, feeding them and watering them.

Plus as I have repeatedly stated, in my opinion they no longer deserve to live.

Actually the death penalty is more expensive.

Also, some n00b on an internet forum thinking someone "no longer deserves to live" is not a good justification for the state to kill them.

ok then say you have a baby reletive/ child reletive, do you really think you would still argue against capital punishment if they where tortured and killed? no you would not. that is fact proven by pycology. you would advocate death of the murderer

The legal system of a nation should not be based on my personal hunger for vengeance.

If I want revenge I'll carry it out myself. The state need not, and should not, carry out my retribution for me.

Actually the death penalty is more expensive.

Also, some n00b on an internet forum thinking someone "no longer deserves to live" is not a good justification for the state to kill them.
not if its a shooting squad or a hanging, then it is hugely less expensive than keeping a prisoner for life

No. Killing is wrong.

First of all, there is absolutly no way to be 100% certain that someone commited the crime, and we have far too many cases of wrongful imprisonment/death penalties.

Second, from a cost perspective, it is more expensive to pay for the death penalty and appeals process than it is to pay for a life in prison. The only way to save money is to cut back the appeals process, which would lead to more wrongful deaths.

Thirdly, it does nothing but fuel bloodlust and revenge killing. Even if it is done by the state, it is still in the tradition of the brutal family wars of historical Western Europe and modern nations like Albania.

Finally, there should always be an attempt made at rehabilitation. No, it won't work for every criminal...in which case, there are far worse punishments like solitary confinement and manual labor (the latter of which, the state can profit from).

Because it is a waste of time and money keeping them banged up, feeding them and watering them.

Waste of whose time? The criminal's? Why on earth would you care if their time is wasted?

It is also, in fact, more expensive to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. Unless you want to entirely scrap the appeals system, too? Then we could kill lots of innocent folks...

Plus as I have repeatedly stated, in my opinion they no longer deserve to live.

Pardon my French, but who the hell are you to decide who does and does not deserve to live? Are you Jesus or something, now, to bring the deserving back from the dead and replace them with people you deem unworthy?

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

You've given no real reason as to why a murderer of a baby does not have (a) the right to live, and/or (b) the right to rehabilitation. The only one I can infer from what you've posted is if you believe that a wrong should always be responded to in kind; so that a bully should be bullied, a fraudster defrauded, a murderer murdered, and so on.



Yes it IS quite simple in my mind.

Depending on the seriousness of the crime and in this thread I am specifically talking about the case of Baby P, the murdering scum deserve to die.

They beat, tortured and murdered a baby.

That is reason enough for me.

no because we are civilized people with a justice system that isn't run on bloodlust

seriously what is the point in killing someone?

indeed. this isn't mob rule here (Plato did have some good points...). lets not go down 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'

much as i may be a socialist and, considered by some, pro-"big government," the state murdering citizens is a step too far, by quite a long way. the should not have the power to countermand a persons' right to life, no matter how seriously they have broken any social contract or laws. other rights can be - and are - made more or less important and/or protected over time and the changing political winds, but i do feel the right to life is too fundamental for an ethical society. i don't want the state - or anybody - deciding whether or not i should live, especially not in a moment of emotional outburst mob-rule.

that's not to say horrible crimes should go unpunished. to me, anyway, as a person with a concience, life in prison to dwell on my actions and my hurt would be a far more difficult and punishing life than death. but then, many of the people who commit the most terrible crimes may not, indeed, have any personal ethics or morals anyway...

ok then say you have a baby reletive/ child reletive, do you really think you would still argue against capital punishment if they where tortured and killed? no you would not. that is fact proven by pycology. you would advocate death of the murderer
I really don't know. Possibly, but possibly (probably?) not. But that's kind of the point that some rational voices are making here... that legislation shouldn't be based on the raw emotions of the victims.

again, should Himmler been aloud to live, provided he did not kill himself?

ok then say you have a baby reletive/ child reletive, do you really think you would still argue against capital punishment if they where tortured and killed? no you would not. that is fact proven by pycology. you would advocate death of the murderer

You have no idea what people here have experienced, and fighting strawmen is a waste of everyone's time. Please keep your ridiculous faux-"pycology" (the study of pycs?) to yourself.

Killing in self-defense I would see more as a necessary evil. Wrong, but far less wrong than allowing something worse to happen.
I take serious exception with your view. It's not within a person's right to aggress against someone else. If you do so with the easily construable intent of causing death or serious injury, others have a right to repel you with deadly force if necessary. That's what having a right to life means: it means the right to protect oneself. That doesn't mean that people should be happy about killing in self-defense or that taking another human life is not a very grave decision to make.

Honestly, I have nothing further to say to you.
Suit yourself. My point is that if you're going to advocate a return of the death penalty, you better advocate that heads of state can be executed too, since what they do is often much much worse than even the most vicious and evil people do on a small scale, as you have very importantly noted. If you don't, I would argue that you're being ideological and/or hypocritical.

Yes it IS quite simple in my mind.

Depending on the seriousness of the crime and in this thread I am specifically talking about the case of Baby P, the murdering scum deserve to die.

They beat, tortured and murdered a baby.

That is reason enough for me.

What makes this killing acceptable? Isn't killing still wrong?

You are not providing any rational basis for what you think the law should be. As far as I can tell, your own bloodlust is the only basis you're suggesting.

except you force the guards to protect them from their fellow inmates. and should the violence continue and/or the person(s) die, wouldn't that open the prision guards to lawsuits from the prisoner's family?

I meant more in the sense of being surrounded by people who hate you so much that you need guards to protect you is going to be a shitty life for anyone. Of course, to maintain the fear, the guards could "accidentally" fail to stop a group of inmates from giving them a mild beating occasionally, if they happen to fail to do the work expected of them. No reason anyone outside need find out.

but we can all dream right? :tongue:
You see, this is why we withdraw from the EU, so we're not subject to to such silly rules.

Or, more practicallly, those who refuse to work could just be tied up in the corner in solitary confinement every day, with only just enough food and water to survive and a TV on the other side of the room playing the entire Barney the Dinosaur series on a loop all day and all night.

Pardon my French, but who the hell are you to decide who does and does not deserve to live? Are you Jesus or something, now, to bring the deserving back from the dead and replace them with people you deem unworthy?


Well luckily for those in question the decision is not mine, or they would no longer be here.

ok then say you have a baby reletive/ child reletive, do you really think you would still argue against capital punishment if they where tortured and killed? no you would not. that is fact proven by pycology.
Och, don't talk such nonsense.

It is in no way a 'fact of psychology' that parents of murdered children are always in favour of capital punishment

See, for example, here (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23519455-details/I+forgive+my+boy%27s+killers+but+I+will+never+forget,+says+mother/article.do) or here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4471440.stm).

not if its a shooting squad or a hanging, then it is hugely less expensive than keeping a prisoner for life

Nope. Most of the money is spent on the appeals process..not the actual form of execution.

Also, there is then the issue of cruel and unusual punishment when the hanging doesn't kill the person immediatly. Either the person is cut down (which brings in the issue of double jeapordy), or they are left there untill they suffocate.

Firing squad can be hugely cruel if the first bullet (or any of the bullets) do not kill the person. Even with 7 marksmen shooting, there is still a chance of the person surviving, and a slightly better chance of the first bullets not killing them.

I take serious exception with your view. It's not within a person's right to aggress against someone else. If you do so with the easily construable intent of causing death or serious injury, others have a right to repel you with deadly force if necessary. That's what having a right to life means: it means the right to protect oneself. That doesn't mean that people should be happy about killing in self-defense or that taking another human life is not a very grave decision to make.

Oh, self defense is certainly a right. It's just my personal belief that killing people is wrong. It doesn't mean I think anyone should be prosecuted or anything. Just that even if someone was attacking you, you shouldn't feel all peachy and wonderful about killing them.

evil, i again state, it is evil to take life, but if you let these people go, they will most probably commit more evil. so the logical (as well as the emmotional) course of action is to kill them.

again, should Himmler been aloud to live, provided he did not kill himself?

Sure. I would be perfectly happy to lock Himmler up in a dirty little cage for the rest of his life. Maybe we could even let Jews, gypsies, the mentally ill, and so forth come in and spit on him now and then. I don't see how society was any better off for him being dead than it would have been with him securely locked away.

Yes it IS quite simple in my mind.
Then you need to evaluate your position.

We can go round and round in circles here, but if you cannot think of any further reason than an appeal to emotion, then you don't have an argument at all.

No, also we can't, because there's a moritorium on it in the EU.

evil, i again state, it is evil to take life, but if you let these people go, they will most probably commit more evil. so the logical (as well as the emmotional) course of action is to kill them.
So it's "evil to take life", but killing them is the best course of action?

Also, who said anything about letting them go?

Because it is a waste of time and money keeping them banged up, feeding them and watering them.

society provides these things because it has taken away the prisoners ability to provide for itself it is not part of the punishment and thus null to the point (unless of course you advocate society forgoing its obligations?)

Plus as I have repeatedly stated, in my opinion they no longer deserve to live.

so you think that blood lust is an acceptable thing to have?

evil, i again state, it is evil to take life, but if you let these people go, they will most probably commit more evil. so the logical (as well as the emmotional) course of action is to kill them.

You contradict yourself.

And no one is advocating just letting them go. Lack of death penalty does not equal lack of penalty.

Nope. Most of the money is spent on the appeals process..not the actual form of execution.

Also, there is then the issue of cruel and unusual punishment when the hanging doesn't kill the person immediatly. Either the person is cut down (which brings in the issue of double jeapordy), or they are left there untill they suffocate.

Firing squad can be hugely cruel if the first bullet (or any of the bullets) do not kill the person. Even with 7 marksmen shooting, there is still a chance of the person surviving, and a slightly better chance of the first bullets not killing them.

And then there is the issue of executing an innocent person. If that happens, the state has just committed murder. The state is representative of the people. Hence, the people have just committed murder.

Yes it IS quite simple in my mind.
That's because you're exceptionally simple-minded.

An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind.....

Punishment is not as simple as perpetrating the same crime against the criminal, nor should it be just a way to satisfy society's mob mentality and bloodlust disguised as righteous indignation.

Why do you believe executing Pinochet (presumably after the fact; we're not discussing assassination here) make the world a better place if you also believe that killing a murderer is unwarranted?

Is it simply a question of aggregate?

What do you mean by a question of aggregate?

seven marksmen from 10 yards are not likely to miss, the court of appeals cannot possibly suck up as much money in a year as it takes to feed, and staff all the prisons for a year

evil, i again state, it is evil to take life, but if you let these people go, they will most probably commit more evil. so the logical (as well as the emmotional) course of action is to kill them.

You don't see how this is inconsistent? If it is evil to take life, pure and simple, then how is it not evil for the state to do so?

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.

In certain circumstances, where the evidence is sufficiently good, and the crime is sufficiently bad, yes - I am in favour of a death penalty.

The right to exist within our society relies on honouring those rights in others. The point at which a person sets out to compromise those rights on another, is the point at which they should compromise their own.

And what do you do when you have an infection? Try to make it play nice? No - you excise the corrupt tissue, surgically and dispassionately.

evil, i again state, it is evil to take life, but if you let these people go, they will most probably commit more evil. so the logical (as well as the emmotional) course of action is to kill them.

which is an 'evil' act.

i like the goal, but is doing what you have already said is evil a suitable means to achieve this goal? i would argue no, the end does not justify the means... or, at least, the means are unjustifiable

What do you mean by a question of aggregate?
Is it simply because Pinochet caused a greater number of deaths/greater amount of suffering?

That's because you're exceptionally simple-minded.

Or able to see something clearly, that you cannot.

Ad hominem attacks are not your friend.

seven marksmen from 10 yards are not likely to miss, the court of appeals cannot possibly suck up as much money in a year as it takes to feed, and staff all the prisons for a year

False equation.

The appeals process for one convict takes up more money that it does to house that same convict.

your going to have them work in accounts :confused:

Too cruel?

Exactly why we shouldn't propose new legislation, and shouldn't call for a reform to brutal, outmoded forms of punishment. Emotive issues are not ones we should be promoting when discussing change to criminal legislation.
Right on!!

again, should Himmler been aloud to live, provided he did not kill himself?
Yes. Why would it matter if he was alive or dead? He was out of power, and would have been incarcerated.
Plus as I have repeatedly stated, in my opinion they no longer deserve to live.

Who are you to make that call? Or anyone else for that matter?

They thought this child no longer deserved to live. You think these people no longer deserve to live. I think the obnoxious family I had at my table today no longer deserve to live.

Why are you to deem case two to be okay, but not case one or three?

You don't see how this is inconsistent? If it is evil to take life, pure and simple, then how is it not evil for the state to do so?

Because a person that has already delivered evil onto an undeserving person, has already offset the evil that the state would do.

Who are you to make that call? Or anyone else for that matter?

They thought this child no longer deserved to live. You think these people no longer deserve to live. I think the obnoxious family I had at my table today no longer deserve to live.

Why are you to deem case two to be okay, but not case one or three?

i like your style bud :-)

Because a person that has already delivered evil onto an undeserving person, has already offset the evil that the state would do.

what? "they started it"?

They thought this child no longer deserved to live. You think these people no longer deserve to live. I think the obnoxious family I had at my table today no longer deserve to live.


Are you honestly arguing that the three decisions would be equal?

Or able to see something clearly, that you cannot.
Like what?

"oh man, aye, mob justice is ace" - we are better than that in the UK.

what? "they started it"?

No.

Like what?

"oh man, aye, mob justice is ace" - we are better than that in the UK.

If you read the story, I'm sure you're aware 'we' aren't better than that, at all. Most of us? Some of us? Clearly not all.

No.

that's what it sounded like. 'they performed an immoral act first, so now we can perform an immoral act back to them'

or am i oversimplifying it?

If you read the story, I'm sure you're aware 'we' aren't better than that, at all. Most of us? Some of us? Clearly not all.
Those with lawmaking power ought to be better than that. And they are, in the UK. And so it should remain.

seven marksmen from 10 yards are not likely to miss, the court of appeals cannot possibly suck up as much money in a year as it takes to feed, and staff all the prisons for a year
not likely is not the same as definite.

And no, actually, they can. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084

Because a person that has already delivered evil onto an undeserving person, has already offset the evil that the state would do.This isn't a Shakespearian tragedy in which a new order must be restored before the world can continue on as it had. There is no balance of "good" and "evil".

You cut me off. I speed up and cut you off. We're both jackasses and dangerous drivers.

Or, but in very trite terms, two wrongs do not make a right.

i like your style bud :-)
:fluffle:

And what do you do when you have an infection? Try to make it play nice? No - you excise the corrupt tissue, surgically and dispassionately.
A person with a will, who has committed a morally bad act, has very little in common with an inanimate lump of cancerous tissue.

Are you honestly arguing that the three decisions would be equal?
Who are you to say they aren't? Who am I to say that they are?

Knowing little of this case, quite a bit about my table today, and quite a bit about the death penalty, I could give an opinion. But would it matter? What gives my opinion any credance?

As I said, who am I to say who should live and who should die?

And actually, I would say yes. All three decisions are equal. None are killing for self-preservation, which is the only instance that killing may be acceptable.

What benefit comes from killing these men?

Too cruel?

its the start of a slippery slope towards a mortgage!

Those with lawmaking power ought to be better than that. And they are, in the UK. And so it should remain.

this is the internet and as such is no place for silly things like reality :p

In certain circumstances, where the evidence is sufficiently good, and the crime is sufficiently bad, yes - I am in favour of a death penalty.

The right to exist within our society relies on honouring those rights in others. The point at which a person sets out to compromise those rights on another, is the point at which they should compromise their own.

And what do you do when you have an infection? Try to make it play nice? No - you excise the corrupt tissue, surgically and dispassionately.

The justice system is never infallible. Even DNA evidence isn't 100%. And trial by Jury is 12 ordinary people's opinion on 2 people arguing, and nothing to do with the truth of the matter. If it kills one innocent person that's one too much.

Rights can be compromised without killing, why is death is the right punishment? It's the easy answer, because we like the idea of balance, not because the idea of an eye for an eye is right.

I'm pretty far right, but, as revealed in a thread awhile ago, I am against the death penalty because it gives a dangerous and easily misused power to the state. Not because it's "Giving up on a citizen" or "You just shouldn't kill people".

Thus, in cases like this, I believe, philisophically, that the perpetrators, in taking a life, deserve their own taken. If they were executed, I wouldn't protest. It sounds cruel and inhumane, but that's how I feel.

No, because they're obviously insane and need drugs/rehabilitation for life. If they were sane, then they wouldn't want to go around torturing people to death, right?
War crimes (where they just tell other people to kill) gets iffy. As long as there's a fair trial, I dunno, maybe. But for the sake of argument, I'm voting no.

The justice system is never infallible. Even DNA evidence isn't 100%. And trial by Jury is 12 ordinary people's opinion on 2 people arguing, and nothing to do with the truth of the matter. If it kills one innocent person that's one too much.

Not to mention what the arguing is: melodrama. The entire point of a trial by jury is to sway a group of 12 people (which is selected from a larger body in which each lawyer can pick out the people who would harm the outcome they want...which would usually include anyone who is an expert in a specific relevant field). While facts and evidence are presented, it is the argument that is focused upon: who better sways 12 random people?

Can a trial be won on fact and evidence alone? Sure. Can a trial also be won almost entirely on presentation alone? You bet ya. Doubly so in a death penalty case where emotions could easily run high.

Is it simply because Pinochet caused a greater number of deaths/greater amount of suffering?
That, the fact that he did it in the name of political and economic order that should never be allowed to exist, and the fact that everybody knows with a shadow of a doubt that he caused all of those things to happen with a sureness that we can hardly expect of normal civilian capital cases. So in this sense, my argument turns not only on the aggregate, but also the general incontrovertibility of the facts.

In certain circumstances, where the evidence is sufficiently good, and the crime is sufficiently bad, yes - I am in favour of a death penalty.

The right to exist within our society relies on honouring those rights in others. The point at which a person sets out to compromise those rights on another, is the point at which they should compromise their own.
Criminals generally don't exist within society. Hence the use of prisons: entire facilities that exist specifically to remove a segment of people from society. Without killing them.
And what do you do when you have an infection? Try to make it play nice? No - you excise the corrupt tissue, surgically and dispassionately.

A tumor, virus, bacterium, or prion is not a person. Additionally, the loss of any of these provides an immediate benefit to the host. The loss of a person after they have commit a crime provides no such benefit.

It would be more akin to burning a tumor after it has been removed from the body than the actual removal (which would be more akin to inprisonment)

its the start of a slippery slope towards a sub-prime mortgage!
Fixed. :tongue:

The death penalty is really only bad if you see death as the (EDIT) end (/EDIT).

Anyway, religious thoughts aside, it should be allowed, at least as an option, for monsters like these. However, such cases where the death penalty would be applied for a verdict of "guilty" should be handled extremely delicately (as should all cases, of course, but here moreso). Good luck getting it to happen up there, though.

The death penalty is really only bad if you see death as the immediate end of a person.
It is.

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.


I know how you feel, regardless, it's still an inefficient and immoral system.

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.

Killing is wrong, full stop. By extension, execution is wrong. Whether you want to see them hanged or not is irrelevant.

Because they no longer deserve to live.

What is the point in keeping them banged up for the rest of their lives?

Execute them and be done with.

A waste of life and potential resources. Far better to make use of them as hard labor convicts until their debt to society is paid, or until they are of no possible further value to society, of which then they can be disposed of.

that's what it sounded like. 'they performed an immoral act first, so now we can perform an immoral act back to them'

or am i oversimplifying it?

I don't think you are, that's what it sounded like to me, too.

So in this sense, my argument turns not only on the aggregate, but also the general incontrovertibility of the facts.
So in your view, would 'general incontrovertibly' of the guilt of a one-time murderer (if such a thing could be established) warrant capital punishment?

The death penalty is really only bad if you see death as the (EDIT) end (/EDIT).
On that line of thought, could you not say that 'murder is really only bad if you see death as The End'?

that's what it sounded like. 'they performed an immoral act first, so now we can perform an immoral act back to them'

or am i oversimplifying it?

Not 'oversimplifying'. I didn't say that... simply or otherwise.

I'm saying that the right to EXIST within our societies is earned by virtue of existing WITHIN our society. Once you choose not to exist WITHIN our society, you forfeit your right to EXIST within our society.

A person who has killed someone (who didn't deserve it - I can see arguments for things like self-defence) - has surrendered that right. They have sold their entitlement.

Those with lawmaking power ought to be better than that. And they are, in the UK. And so it should remain.

Rather depends on your definition of 'better'.

A culture that surrenders it's weak to the mercies of the strong is not 'better' than a culture that protects those that are weak. And that's what the UK has done - it has said that their is a reasonable exchange - the rights of the criminal trump the rights of the victim.

This isn't a Shakespearian tragedy in which a new order must be restored before the world can continue on as it had. There is no balance of "good" and "evil".


Pretty rhetoric, but not substantiated.

If a man kills, and you kill him for it, he doesn't kill again. The laws of the universe suggests that there is, then, just such a balance.


Or, but in very trite terms, two wrongs do not make a right.


They don't have to. But a lesser wrong can stop a greater wrong.

A person with a will, who has committed a morally bad act, has very little in common with an inanimate lump of cancerous tissue.

A cute sentiment.

I'm not interested in the 'morality' of the issue, though.

And, examined pragmatically, from the overview of the culture... you're wrong. That person IS an inanimate lump of cancerous tissue.

Who are you to say they aren't? Who am I to say that they are?

Knowing little of this case, quite a bit about my table today, and quite a bit about the death penalty, I could give an opinion. But would it matter? What gives my opinion any credance?

As I said, who am I to say who should live and who should die?

And actually, I would say yes. All three decisions are equal. None are killing for self-preservation, which is the only instance that killing may be acceptable.

What benefit comes from killing these men?

Your argument is that a person who rapes children... and someone who you find unpleasant dinner company... are equally deserving of death?

I think you're being flippant.

The justice system is never infallible.


Then your problem is the justice system, not the punishment.


Even DNA evidence isn't 100%. And trial by Jury is 12 ordinary people's opinion on 2 people arguing, and nothing to do with the truth of the matter. If it kills one innocent person that's one too much.


Too much? Curious wording.

We are talking - for example - about people who have killed innocent persons. Surely their actions were 'too much'?


Rights can be compromised without killing, why is death is the right punishment?


Why compromise their rights?


It's the easy answer, because we like the idea of balance, not because the idea of an eye for an eye is right.

The reason that killing killers has been historically so popular isn't because it's 'right', although moral codes have evolved to JUSTIFY it in those terms.

The reason that killing killers has been so popular, is that it stops them killing people. It's not because it's 'right', it's because it's 'true'.

If I have a perpetrator on video raping and killing someone, and I have the DNA evidence showing they committed the rape, and a roomful of witnesses who swear to it, I fail to see how there can be any doubt at all.

Yes, in some cases, there's doubt. But in some cases, there is no doubt.

Criminals generally don't exist within society. Hence the use of prisons: entire facilities that exist specifically to remove a segment of people from society. Without killing them.


Not even true. People in prison still have access to society - they often even get 'rights' to enter back into society, under certain circumstances. Most can still have access to the benefits of society (media, visitation, etc) even though they are absolved of the responsibilities of society.


A tumor, virus, bacterium, or prion is not a person.


A human body that tortures an infant to death is not a person.


Additionally, the loss of any of these provides an immediate benefit to the host. The loss of a person after they have commit a crime provides no such benefit.


On the contrary, it provides the same immediate benefit as the excision of infectious tissue - it stops the harm from increasing.


It would be more akin to burning a tumor after it has been removed from the body than the actual removal (which would be more akin to inprisonment)

Only if you are arguing that a tumor might be removed from the body, and then placed back within it at a later date.

Killing is wrong, full stop.


A nice assumption, but not logical, nor reliable.

Killing in self-defence is not wrong.


By extension, execution is wrong.


Since your fundamental assumption was incorrect, logically, by extension, this is incorrect, too.

A nice assumption, but not logical, nor reliable.

Killing in self-defence is not wrong.



Since your fundamental assumption was incorrect, logically, by extension, this is incorrect, too.

I'm betting that a lot of people in here believe that killing in self-defense is wrong, too.

It's idiotic to assert that killing in self-defense is wrong. Sometimes there is no other option.

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.


Thank you for implicitly calling me an indecent human being.

Btw, c'mon UK, resume death sentences. So you'll have to leave the EU. We continentals will spare a lot of money. :D

Btw, c'mon UK, resume death sentences. So you'll have to leave the EU.

I wonder do people realise this?

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.
Our criminal justice system should be run by reason, not emotion. Furthermore, why should an innocent woman by hanged? Capital punishment is one thing, but vigilante justice is quite another.

Why would we take a step backwards?

I wonder do people realise this?
I doubt most of the people who support the death penalty would want to pass up on leaving the EU anyway. But that's just gut feeling.

Why would we take a step backwards?

Sometimes a step 'backwards' is the right step.

As anyone debating their choices at the top of a cliff will probably be willing to agree.

Then your problem is the justice system, not the punishment.

If the punishment is entangled with the justice system, then I have a problem with the punishment too, no?

Voted 'No' - I've never been of the thought that killing someone for something serves justice at all, it does however stop them from doing whatever they did again though but I really don't feel that 'an eye for an eye' or some such way of thinking does any good or sets the kind of example I wish my government to set.

The reason that killing killers has been so popular, is that it stops them killing people. It's not because it's 'right', it's because it's 'true'.

So does throwing them in a cell for the rest of their life which

a) a lot worse a punishment then death for a lot of killers
b) is actually cheaper
c) they can be taken out of prison if it's found that they are innocent after all, you can't take people out of death.

If the punishment is entangled with the justice system, then I have a problem with the punishment too, no?

No.

The question isn't 'is the justice system right?'. We know it's broken - but that is true no matter WHAT the penalty is.

If you had more faith in the justice system, would you be okay with the 'punishment'?

So does throwing them in a cell for the rest of their life which


Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'life' imprisonment doesn't always equate to actually being imprisoned for the rest of your life... its still not true. I'm pretty sure you're going to have to concede that people get raped and/or killed even IN prisons, yes?


a) a lot worse a punishment then death for a lot of killers


I'm not interested in 'worse'. I'm not trying to inflict suffering.


b) is actually cheaper


Not even close. The actual cost of the death penalty is tiny.


c) they can be taken out of prison if it's found that they are innocent after all, you can't take people out of death.

Irrelevant. The idea here, is that we're talking about people that aren't going to later be found innocent.

No.

The question isn't 'is the justice system right?'. We know it's broken - but that is true no matter WHAT the penalty is.
Taking it that the justice system is broken (and in that I mean 'not 100% accurate 100% of the time'), and that punishment is entangled with the 'broken' justice system, does it therefore not follow that the punishment aspect is also 'broken'?

If you had more faith in the justice system, would you be okay with the 'punishment'?

No, but for a separate and unrelated reason.

Sure!

As long as the people dispensing death penalty, should the person be found innocent, are given the option of either raising the person back from the dead, or dying themselves to convey the state's apology to the soul of the innocent.

Next question.

I'd go with no, because our justice system is flawed in many ways, we aren't advanced enough to sentence people to death.

I'd go with no, because our justice system is flawed in many ways, we aren't advanced enough to sentence people to death.

That "advancement" will come right after people develop a way to bring others back from the dead.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'life' imprisonment doesn't always equate to actually being imprisoned for the rest of your life... its still not true. I'm pretty sure you're going to have to concede that people get raped and/or killed even IN prisons, yes?


Yes that happens sometimes, but that's not an argument in the slightest.


I'm not interested in 'worse'. I'm not trying to inflict suffering.


Seriously, then what's the point in the death penalty?


Not even close. The actual cost of the death penalty is tiny.


Not according to everything I've read.


Irrelevant. The idea here, is that we're talking about people that aren't going to later be found innocent.

And in the real world you could never possibly know the guiltiness of 99.999999999999999% of convicted killers.

Taking it that the justice system is broken (and in that I mean 'not 100% accurate 100% of the time'), and that punishment is entangled with the 'broken' justice system, does it therefore not follow that the punishment aspect is also 'broken'?


No.

If you're going to follow that logic, then ANY punishment is wrong... imprisonment... a fine. Hell, even a guilty verdict is unfair if the person is innocent.

That's why we discuss 'punishment' separately from the legal process.


No, but for a separate and unrelated reason.

Which is?

Does anyone here actually have any evidence, citeable evidence, that the death penatly is more/less expensive than life in prison? It's come up again and again as I've been reading this, but nearly all people don't actually seem to have any sources for or against this. It just appears to be stated as fact each and every time.

Personally, I'm kind of border-line on the death penatly. The are times when it is certainly "easier" to do than to keep these people banged up for life. It'd be nice to have people like Harold Shipman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman) or Fred West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West) swing from a rope, especially since these people killed themselves as an ultimate statement of defiance to the state and the people over their crimes, crimes which were proven and particularly repugnant.

But then that's what it is, the easy thing to do.

I think it'd be a massive step backward for the UK, especially since there have been too many times when people have been executed for rather dubious reasons, such as Derek Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley)

No.

If you're going to follow that logic, then ANY punishment is wrong... imprisonment... a fine.
Yet imprisonment or a fine can be rectified. A person can be released and live the rest of their life. A fine can be reimbursed.

A death cannot be reversed. In a broken system (which you admit it is) that should be the most unsettling factor, and as such, should not be allowed.

Hell, even a guilty verdict is unfair if the person is innocent.
Er, well.... yeh.


Which is?

It serves no practical purpose other than emotive vengeance. Referring back to the OP, emotions cloud judgments, and in such circumstances no 'just' decision can ultimately be taken in an emotive and charged atmosphere.

Now, I'm not talking about self defence, war or any other such 'right to life' related issue - purely about the legal process and a court handing down a death penalty.

Yes that happens sometimes, but that's not an argument in the slightest.


Of course it is. You argued that the goals of stopping killing (etc) could be equally well accomplished by imprisonment, as by execution.

The fact that you have to concede that people are murdered (etc) IN jail, is evidence that your argument is false.


Seriously, then what's the point in the death penalty?


Excision.


Not according to everything I've read.


Then what you've read is wrong.

How much does a bullet cost?


And in the real world you could never possibly know their guiltiness 99.999999999999999% of convicted killers.

Which is irrelevant. We're assuming guilt. You're talking about whether execution is fair for innocent people.... NO punishment is fair for innocent people.

How much does a bullet cost?
Not that much, but then it isn't just a question of a bullet, unless that bullet spontaneously fires itself at the convicted criminal.

Yet imprisonment or a fine can be rectified. A person can be released and live the rest of their life. A fine can be reimbursed.


Releasing someone from prison doesn't undo the punishment, it just corrects their wrongful imprisonment.

If I spend twenty years in jail for a murder I didn't commit (with all the 'joys' of prison living), you can't make that right.


A death cannot be reversed. In a broken system (which you admit it is) that should be the most unsettling factor, and as such, should not be allowed.


'Should not be allowed'? Imprisonment cannot be reversed. A guilty verdict cannot be reversed. (You can be cleared of charges, but if you are once known as the guy who... killed babies, for example... that's going to stick with you, even if you ARE cleared. Hell - even the ARREST on those charges has marked you for life.

I agree that we should try to be as sure as we can of the guilt of the 'guilty' parties. But that's not actually an argument against any sentence.


Er, well.... yeh.


Which means that the arguments of 'but what if you're innocent' are irrelevant.


It serves no practical purpose other than emotive vengeance.

Absolutely untrue. It serves the absolute practical purpose of removing the threat of that criminal offending again.

Of course it is. You argued that the goals of stopping killing (etc) could be equally well accomplished by imprisonment, as by execution.

The fact that you have to concede that people are murdered (etc) IN jail, is evidence that your argument is false.


As you say, that's just a problem with the current prison system, not the punishment itself. Also, the killings that are committed in prison are usually by gangsters, the sort of killers you're talking about barely get a chance to see other people in prison.


Excision.


No, that is the activity, what is the point?


Then what you've read is wrong.

How much does a bullet cost?


Right, so you're not going to even think of other costs involved. Are you seriously envisioning a system where as soon as someone is found guilty of murder, they are shot? Because that horrifies me.


Which is irrelevant. We're assuming guilt. You're talking about whether execution is fair for innocent people.... NO punishment is fair for innocent people.

Why should I go along with your hypothetical, where you actually have some people you objectively know are guilty? That has no application in the real world.

Not that much, but then it isn't just a question of a bullet, unless that bullet spontaneously fires itself at the convicted criminal.
And, more to the point, goes through the long and complex court proceedings that most juristictions require for those about to face the death penalty.

Releasing someone from prison doesn't undo the punishment, it just corrects their wrongful imprisonment.


Are you just trying to ignore the whole point? Because the whole point is that you can't correct wrongful killing of a convicted person. It has nothing to do with trying to justify their wrongful imprisonment.

Not that much, but then it isn't just a question of a bullet, unless that bullet spontaneously fires itself at the convicted criminal.

Okay. Cost of a gun - what, a few hundred pounds? Shall we say 500?

The cost of the ammunition is negligible.

Wages of the shooter? Let's be generous and pay him 25 pounds an hour, forty hour week, two weeks holiday.

We'll assume that one shooter on permanent retainer should be more than adequate to dispense all the justice needed, given the more-than-usually rigourous proof of guilt that would be demanded.

Cost of the death penalty:

Fifty thousand, five hundred pounds per annum.

In 2007, the estimate of imprisonment of just ONE prisoner in the UK, was 37,500 pounds to 49,200 pounds, according to researchers at King's College.

Just two executions a year, and you'd make a saving.

Are you just trying to ignore the whole point? Because the whole point is that you can't correct wrongful killing of a convicted person. It has nothing to do with trying to justify their wrongful imprisonment.

You can't correct the wrongful imprisonment, either. No matter if you release me, you already imprisoned me for twenty years.

'Not-being-reversible' isn't an argument... especially since you don't NEED to reverse 'punishments' if you give them (only) to the right people.

Pardon me if someone has already mentioned this, but bringing the Death Penalty back into UK law is practically impossible anyway.

Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights restricts state parties, (All European Council Member States, bar Russia) from implementing the Death Penalty except in times of war.

You can't correct the wrongful imprisonment, either. No matter if you release me, you already imprisoned me for twenty years.

'Not-being-reversible' isn't an argument... especially since you don't NEED to reverse 'punishments' if you give them (only) to the right people.

You're just being insanely pedantic now. The fact of the matter is, someone being put in prison for 20 years for something he didn't commit, but then being released after being found innocent, is infinitely better than someone being killed for something they did not commit, and after being found innocent after all, there is fuck all you can do (which happens a disturbingly high number of times).

Hell no, the British legal system is built around reforming prisoners not deterring or outright killing. Its the way Britain is. The death penalty may be cheap, but a woman became pregnant before and went to a back street abortionist, he killed her. The husband got the blame, as they took him to the noose he screamed his innocence. He was killed. That is quite a big reason why we don't use the death penalty.

Releasing someone from prison doesn't undo the punishment, it just corrects their wrongful imprisonment.
I agree. Which is better than attempting to correct a wrongful execution.

If I spend twenty years in jail for a murder I didn't commit (with all the 'joys' of prison living), you can't make that right.
You're right and I agree. However despite being wronged by the broken system, you have a life to lead after this.

You realise that in the Rivonia Trial, the original sentence was going to be the death penalty.

'Should not be allowed'? Imprisonment cannot be reversed.
The finality of such a decision like death in a broken system should not be allowed - no.

A guilty verdict cannot be reversed. (You can be cleared of charges, but if you are once known as the guy who... killed babies, for example... that's going to stick with you, even if you ARE cleared. Hell - even the ARREST on those charges has marked you for life.
Your records can be expunged.

Which means that the arguments of 'but what if you're innocent' are irrelevant.
There is a marked difference in being wrongfully convicted of littering, and being fined - and being wrongfully convicted of murder, and being executed.

Absolutely untrue. It serves the absolute practical purpose of removing the threat of that criminal offending again.
If the only goal of the death is to remove the threat of that criminal offending again, then place them in prison for the remainder of their natural life.

Hell no, the British legal system is built around reforming prisoners not deterring or outright killing. Its the way Britain is. The death penalty may be cheap, but a woman became pregnant before and went to a back street abortionist, he killed her. The husband got the blame, as they took him to the noose he screamed his innocence. He was killed. That is quite a big reason why we don't use the death penalty.

Now, now, let's give the pro-death-penalty people some credit.

They DID find a way to raise that man from the dead, right?

Riiiiiiiiight?

As you say, that's just a problem with the current prison system,


So, we shouldn't send people to prison, then?

That's the argument you're using against the death penalty - 'there's a problem, so don't do it'.


not the punishment itself. Also, the killings that are committed in prison are usually by gangsters, the sort of killers you're talking about barely get a chance to see other people in prison.


Irrelevant. People get killed and raped in prison - thus, your argument was wrong.


No, that is the activity, what is the point?


No, that IS the point. Excision means zero re-offence.

It's the only way to be 100% sure.


Right, so you're not going to even think of other costs involved. Are you seriously envisioning a system where as soon as someone is found guilty of murder, they are shot? Because that horrifies me.


Horrifying you is an appeal to emotion. I'm not interested in emotional responses, and I'm surprised you'd use one to attack the death penalty, giving all the attacks against execution claiming that IT is based on emotion.


Why should I go along with your hypothetical, where you actually have some people you objectively know are guilty? That has no application in the real world.

Neither does your apparent assertion that everyone is innocent.

You're just being insanely pedantic now. The fact of the matter is, someone being put in prison for 20 years for something he didn't commit, but then being released after being found innocent, is infinitely better than someone being killed for something they did not commit, and after being found innocent after all, there is fuck all you can do (which happens a disturbingly high number of times).

I'm being insanely pedantic... because your own argument works against you at every level?

No - the simple fact is that linking the penalty to the judicial process, as an attack on the PENALTY, is illogical.

I don't think they should. One of the only things I like about the UK is the fact the state cannot leagally murder anyone (they do at times but that is besides the point).

It would be in my mind hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone else.

SInce the rest of this has been addressed in other, I'll just skip to the last point.


If the only goal of the death is to remove the threat of that criminal offending again, then place them in prison for the remainder of their natural life.

Which doesn't remove the threat.

People kill IN prison. People get released from prison. People escape from prisons.

Look, after reading such inane sentences like "people get killed and raped in prison - thus, your argument was wrong" really just stresses me out, and I'm not sure if I want to debate with you. I think I'll just start again one more time:

The only thing you seem to care about is 'excision':
This can be achieved by solitary confinement for the rest of the persons life
a) without the massive social/political cost
b) without the actual monetary cost (because no country is going to implement a system like you suggest, we have to talk in practical terms here)
c) allows for people to be released if found not guilty after all, which is much better then not being able to be released (or brought back from the dead) after being found not guilty.

Given all of this, why on earth would you prefer the death penalty over permanent solitary confinement? Also remember that saying "nuh uh, people can kill others in prison" is, as you say, only a fault with the current system, and not a fault with the punishment itself, thus such an argument by your terms is invalid.

SInce the rest of this has been addressed in other, I'll just skip to the last point.

Grand, this does tend to become rather inflated.

Which doesn't remove the threat.
Thats an issue for the prison service, not the law regarding the practically of using the death penalty.

People kill IN prison. People get released from prison. People escape from prisons.
Again, not an issue for the courts in deciding the death penalty.

Edit: Actually G_n_I I do love these conversations (not sarcastic) but I have some work to attend to so by the time I come back here the thread will have moved on.

Then what you've read is wrong.

How much does a bullet cost?



Are you seriously arguing in favor of abolishing the appeals system? Do you realize how many innocent people the state would kill that way?

Fuck no.

Execution is the coward's way out -- life in solitary without parole is clearly worse.

That, and there's no way to unexecute someone.

Long term imprisonment is expensive too though.
As long as they're imprisoned in some way, there's the hope that they can be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society.

When a criminal is clearly a major detrement to society, then it is societies job to eliminate that criminal from that society.
But if that means banishment (hard to enforce these days) or long term imprisonment or execution... that's up to that society to decide.
I'm not so in favor of the long term or permanant imprisonment in those cases, that's expensive & usually more humanitarian than the criminal deserves.
I think it should be considered a final alternative though. So imprisonment & banishment leaves the possibility of a future return to that society. If the crimes were that serious, such a potential repreve shouldn't be allowable.

that's expensive

Not as expensive as the death penalty, at least in the states: http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084


& usually more humanitarian than the criminal deserves.

Many criminals would rather die then spend the rest of their life in solitary confinement.

As an American who watches the death penalty here being abused every day, I think any nation which has outlawed it should count their blessings and leave it outlawed. There's nothing wrong with imprisoning someone for life without parole, which is our other option for heinous crimes here. The problem is that the death penalty is introduced with the notion of only applying it when people are certain who the perpetrator is--but sometimes people think they are certain and they're not. I would rather not deliberately introduce human error into the question of whether someone will live or die. If it were up to me we'd ban the death penalty here.

And I'm a mom, by the way. You know something, if someone did that to my daughter and I caught them doing it, I'd kill them myself. That's not the death penalty, though. That's me seeing a wrong being done and avenging it immediately. But I would expect to be put in prison for it because you know, I'd be the only one who knew what happened.

Oh, and with life in prison with no parole, to me that's not about rehabilitation. That's about keeping them out of society so they can't harm anyone in it ever again. They might manage a prison guard or two but that's the best they'll ever do. Rehab is for people who've done far lesser crimes. These guys are incapable of it.

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.
Why hang them? Wouldn't it be more practical to do scientific experiments on them?

Why hang them? Wouldn't it be more practical to do scientific experiments on them?

The Chinese usually dissect them for organ donation.

The death penalty for all of those who suggest bringing back the death penalty. Hang on, I just myself proposed bringing it back *wanders off to find a rope*

The Chinese usually dissect them for organ donation.
Yeah, why can't we? After all, wouldn't that be a more practical application of cruel and unusual punishment than the death penalty and therefore a more rational approach?

o.o How do I change my vote, I voted no but I want to change to unsure since I wouldn't want to rule it out...

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.

Imagine: Endless (expensive and often petty) appeals, protests by well-meaning moralists that go on for days, accusations of institutional racism, and giving a whole new platform to the UK's most left-leaning parties. Imagine divisive arguments and possibly worse, imagine Britain being condemned by the rest of the European community (maybe except for Turkey), imagine getting even MORE criticism than you get for participating in U.S. sponsored interventions in the middle east.

Imagine candle-light vigils outside the prison for the Convict who's about to be put down-no matter what kind of monster he is, and imagine U.N. condemnation for putting the scumbag down.

All this can be yours, Great Britain, if you do this. You will be condemned as barbarians and shunned at the french cocktail parties.

SInce the rest of this has been addressed in other, I'll just skip to the last point.



Which doesn't remove the threat.

People kill IN prison. People get released from prison. People escape from prisons.
Well, what if the criminals were given individual cages instead? Wouldn't it be easier to prevent people from killing in prison or escaping, and leave it only to release, which has to be actively decided?

Well, what if the criminals were given individual cages instead? Wouldn't it be easier to prevent people from killing in prison or escaping, and leave it only to release, which has to be actively decided?
Why not put everyone in individual cages? That way there would be no murder or anything to begin with.

:p

Why not put everyone in individual cages? That way there would be no murder or anything to begin with.

:p
Irrelevant. In our society, people have the right to freedom until they take away others' rights.

Though for what it's worth, I'd like to think our society could find better ways to catch murderers before they kill...

stop being so barbaric and execute some people.

Then your problem is the justice system, not the punishment.

.........<SNIP>.......... - Hydesland has answered all of this to *my* satisfaction at least

The reason that killing killers has been historically so popular isn't because it's 'right', although moral codes have evolved to JUSTIFY it in those terms.

The reason that killing killers has been so popular, is that it stops them killing people. It's not because it's 'right', it's because it's 'true'.

But I thought it worth commenting on your first phrase, as it was exactly your argument about why imprisonment is not effective (people get killed, they escape etc).

So which is it to be? Practical considerations (in which case innocent people are killed due to an imperfect legal system) or hypothetical perfection (in which case prisons can keep killers out of society and prevent them from harming others without a problem, so why kill them)?

As to your last comment:
True as opposed to Right? Well then it's not a very good moral argument is it? It's a statement of (apparent) fact. So then the moral argument rests on what... Efficiency? Utilitarianism? Then surely we are back to practicalities and not 'ideal worlds'

Look, after reading such inane sentences like "people get killed and raped in prison - thus, your argument was wrong" really just stresses me out,


It's true, though. Your argument was invalidated. If that streeses you out, I'm sorry, but I can't change the reality.


...and I'm not sure if I want to debate with you.


Which is reasonable. It's a big issue, and - let's face it - for the most part it is ignored as a matter of policy by most people.

I'll not hold it against you if you decide to opt out.


The only thing you seem to care about is 'excision':


This is true.


This can be achieved by solitary confinement for the rest of the persons life


It can't though. As long as the person is held, they can be un-held.


a) without the massive social/political cost


I'm not sure what these costs are supposed to be?


b) without the actual monetary cost (because no country is going to implement a system like you suggest, we have to talk in practical terms here)


I don't particularly find the financial side an especially good argument - which is why it's only a secondary matter, far behind the 'excision' factor. The only reason I've even mentioned the minimal cost of (the actual) execution (itself) is that the issue of deaath penalties being expensive was raised.


c) allows for people to be released if found not guilty after all, which is much better then not being able to be released (or brought back from the dead) after being found not guilty.


Actually, I've yet to read a single account of anyone complaining, after they were executed, about their mistreatment.

The 'victim' of an erroneous execution doesn't care if you subsequently find him innocent.


Given all of this, why on earth would you prefer the death penalty over permanent solitary confinement? Also remember that saying "nuh uh, people can kill others in prison" is, as you say, only a fault with the current system, and not a fault with the punishment itself, thus such an argument by your terms is invalid.

As long as the person is still alive, they can reoffend. Either in prison, or on release. In Texas just a year or so ago, a multiple murderer (and apparently, very charming man) managed to walk out of his prison, and was located some time later, something like three states away.

Imprisonment is better than nothing, but it makes no guarantees. Execution stops the question ever coming up again.

Edit: Actually G_n_I I do love these conversations (not sarcastic) but I have some work to attend to so by the time I come back here the thread will have moved on.

Agreed. I enjoy it, too. If we cross paths on it again later, we can continue, but until then, ciao. :)

Are you seriously arguing in favor of abolishing the appeals system? Do you realize how many innocent people the state would kill that way?

I'm saying that the appeals procedure isn't part of the death penalty.

To say it costs more to execute than to imprison is plain wrong. If we're going to argue, we should at least do so on logical terms.

Not as expensive as the death penalty, at least in the states: http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084


If you read the source you posted, it explains that most of the costs they cite have mnothing to do with the penalty - and, indeed, the majority of the costs they include occur BEFORE the end of the TRIAL.


Many criminals would rather die then spend the rest of their life in solitary confinement.

Which is irrelevant.

The Chinese usually dissect them for organ donation.

I don't suppose you have a source for that?

Should we bring back the death penalty in the UK?

Try. See how hard the ECHR bitchslaps you.

The death penalty...... *wanders off to find a rope*

While I appreciate the joke, you might want to amend this, in case one of the Mods finds you threatening to kill people.

So which is it to be? Practical considerations (in which case innocent people are killed due to an imperfect legal system)


Which is, admittedly, a risk.


...or hypothetical perfection (in which case prisons can keep killers out of society and prevent them from harming others without a problem, so why kill them)?


Because, even in a hypothetically perfect situation where we have somehow managed to stop prisoners escaping, or harming one another - the situation can change.

A new government can come in and empty the jails. Just for example.


As to your last comment:
True as opposed to Right? Well then it's not a very good moral argument is it?


It's not intended to be a moral argument. I haven't made any 'moral' arguments.


It's a statement of (apparent) fact. So then the moral argument rests on what... Efficiency? Utilitarianism? Then surely we are back to practicalities and not 'ideal worlds'

I don't care about the moral arguments. I'm arguing practicality.

Should we bring back the death penalty in the UK?

Try. See how hard the ECHR bitchslaps you.

Or doesn't. It's a threat, but does it have substance?

Which is, admittedly, a risk.



Because, even in a hypothetically perfect situation where we have somehow managed to stop prisoners escaping, or harming one another - the situation can change.

A new government can come in and empty the jails. Just for example.



It's not intended to be a moral argument. I haven't made any 'moral' arguments.



I don't care about the moral arguments. I'm arguing practicality.
If you care more about practicality than morality, why haven't you adressed my "do scientific experiments on them instead of killing them" point?

Which is, admittedly, a risk.

Because, even in a hypothetically perfect situation where we have somehow managed to stop prisoners escaping, or harming one another - the situation can change.

A new government can come in and empty the jails. Just for example.

Well then that's not a hypothetically perfect situation is it? Sorry to be a pedant. It's either perfect or real life. And in real life there is this admitted risk of killing innocent people.



It's not intended to be a moral argument. I haven't made any 'moral' arguments.

I don't care about the moral arguments. I'm arguing practicality.

It's the morality of practicality above all else. It's specifically about the morality of being willing to sacrifice innocents (based on risk of error) outweighing the benefits of being 100% sure people would not re-offend (and that's only a risk of re-offending and not a certainty).

A cute sentiment.

I'm not interested in the 'morality' of the issue, though.
Instead you're interested in... what?

And, examined pragmatically, from the overview of the culture... you're wrong. That person IS an inanimate lump of cancerous tissue.
What on Earth does that mean?

Even if one where to attempt to draw a (rather foolish) analogy between cancerous tissue and a criminal, it's plain that the two aren't comparable. For a start, cancerous tissue cannot, of its own accord, grow back in to healthy tissue, as a criminal can, of their on accord, become fully rehabilitated and truly sorry for their crimes.

If you care more about practicality than morality, why haven't you adressed my "do scientific experiments on them instead of killing them" point?

I didn't realise I had to answer everyone's points, on everything, regardless of whom they were responses to.

But, okay. It's a different question, that's why. I'm not unwilling to debate that issue... but we're talking about death penalties, aren't we?

Well then that's not a hypothetically perfect situation is it?


I don't really know. It seems like you're comparing a feasible situation where we could be pretty damn sure someone did something they're accused of... with a utopian (distopian?) vision of a society without change for all eternity?


Sorry to be a pedant. It's either perfect or real life.


100% certainty is real-life-possible. For a limited number of cases.

Your scenario is a fantasy... and I'm not quite sure how you want me to equate them.


And in real life there is this admitted risk of killing innocent people.


And, of course, that risk is higher when you have people-that-kill-people in society.


It's the morality of practicality


I don't even know what that means.


...above all else. It's specifically about the morality of being willing to sacrifice innocents (based on risk of error) outweighing the benefits of being 100% sure people would not re-offend (and that's only a risk of re-offending and not a certainty).

It's 100% certain that executing those that have already offended, won't re-offend, though... isn't it?

I didn't realise I had to answer everyone's points, on everything, regardless of whom they were responses to.

But, okay. It's a different question, that's why. I'm not unwilling to debate that issue... but we're talking about death penalties, aren't we?
Sorry if I just got the impression from you answering others' points and not answering mine that you were ignoring my points.

Also, did you see my earlier suggestion about having criminals in individual cages instead of killing them?

Instead you're interested in... what?


...in the practicality of excising the threat.


What on Earth does that mean?

Even if one where to attempt to draw a (rather foolish) analogy


You think it a foolish analogy (or you were just being insulting, whichever), but I don't think so. I think 'foolish' is allowing people that are predatory on other people to continue to play some part in our societies when they are incapable of abiding by some of the least unreasonable restrictions inherent in that society.

Is 'do not murder and do not rape' REALLY such a great burden?


...between cancerous tissue and a criminal, it's plain that the two aren't comparable. For a start, cancerous tissue cannot, of its own accord, grow back in to healthy tissue, as a criminal can, of their on accord, become fully rehabilitated and truly sorry for their crimes.

I don't believe it, and I don't want to risk it and... to be entirely honest... I don't care. I think basing your punitive actions towards the worst offenders, on the potential that they might be remorseful at a later date - is weak, illogical (even a logical fallacy - an appeal to emotion), and wishful thinking. I also think it's nonsensical purely in terms of the fact that someone can feel remorse and STILL re-offend.

Sorry if I just got the impression from you answering others' points and not answering mine that you were ignoring my points.


No, I wasn't ignoring you, I just think it's off-topic.


Also, did you see my earlier suggestion about having criminals in individual cages instead of killing them?

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. A prison is a big cage. Each block is a cage within it. Each cell a cage within that. We're talking about layers of cages-within-cages, and I'm not sure that there's not a diminishing return factor at work.

Also, I tend to think that it might not be realistically possible to amke it work, in sheer terms of practicality. From simple concerns like... well, bathroom facilities, to what do you do with sick of injured caged inmates?

Not 'oversimplifying'. I didn't say that... simply or otherwise.

I'm saying that the right to EXIST within our societies is earned by virtue of existing WITHIN our society. Once you choose not to exist WITHIN our society, you forfeit your right to EXIST within our society.

A person who has killed someone (who didn't deserve it - I can see arguments for things like self-defence) - has surrendered that right. They have sold their entitlement.

aha, so by breaking the ethical rules of society, a criminal with a serious enough breach of ethics is no longer entitled to the same ethical protections they have broken? they broke the social contract that entitles them to protection and a right to life, and could be considered amorally outside of society? or something like that

i don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, but i do understand where you're coming from now (i think), thanks http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2226/smileis1.gif




Edit: Actually G_n_I I do love these conversations (not sarcastic) but I have some work to attend to so by the time I come back here the thread will have moved on.

heh, i disappeared from this thread last night due to an excessive need for bed, and i shaln't be long tonight... conference is over for another year, woo!! *can finally de-stress* or, at least, get back to normal levels of stress ;)

fuck, i'm tired :(

You think it a foolish analogy (or you were just being insulting, whichever), but I don't think so. I think 'foolish' is allowing people that are predatory on other people to continue to play some part in our societies when they are incapable of abiding by some of the least unreasonable restrictions inherent in that society.
And the only viable option is thus death?

Many people, including some severely mentally ill persons, "are incapable of abiding by some of the least unreasonable restrictions inherent in that society". Should they too be executed?

What is indeed foolish is a refusal to even engage with rehabilitory methods; you've obviously made up your mind that certain people are 'lost souls'.

to be entirely honest... I don't care.
Then you should have little to say on capital punishment. Leave it to those of us who wish to engage with the issues.

I think basing your punitive actions towards the worst offenders, on the potential that they might be remorseful at a later date - is weak, illogical
Remorsefulness is not an ultimate goal.

Moreover, if we are unable to countenance the possibility of rehabilitation for the worst crimes, why even bother with rehabilitation for lesser actions? If you feel people should be executed because they were unable to prevent themselves from acting on murderous impulses, I fear your solution to us weak-willed souls who cannot prevent ourselves from committing minor infractions.

Kill me; I was unable to prevent myself from stealing a cookie.

No, I wasn't ignoring you, I just think it's off-topic.



I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. A prison is a big cage. Each block is a cage within it. Each cell a cage within that. We're talking about layers of cages-within-cages, and I'm not sure that there's not a diminishing return factor at work.

Also, I tend to think that it might not be realistically possible to amke it work, in sheer terms of practicality. From simple concerns like... well, bathroom facilities, to what do you do with sick of injured caged inmates?
I'm not sure myself, maybe handcuff their hands to one side of the cage while a prison doctor (or whoever deals with inmate sickness, I'm not sure) examines them so as to protect the prison doctor maybe... I'm not sure what exact infrastructure changes should be made, but what I'm saying is, if your concern with using life imprisonment instead of execution is that the inmates might escape, shouldn't the real change be in prison structure?

I don't really know. It seems like you're comparing a feasible situation where we could be pretty damn sure someone did something they're accused of... with a utopian (distopian?) vision of a society without change for all eternity?

100% certainty is real-life-possible. For a limited number of cases.

Your scenario is a fantasy... and I'm not quite sure how you want me to equate them.


It's fantasy to believe you can ever be sure. Witnesses can be bribed. Evidence can be faked. Experts can be coerced. Plus human error means anyone can be mistaken.

"I'm pretty damn sure" doesn't sound like 100% to me.


And, of course, that risk is higher when you have people-that-kill-people in society.


Regardless of how impossible it is to measure how many people might offend again or how many guilty people might have been innocent (because you comparing unknowns as the basis for legally killing someone ) - is it down to pure numbers then?


I don't even know what that means.

that's because it's in the same sentence as the next three words, why did you artificially separate them?!


It's 100% certain that executing those that have already offended, won't re-offend, though... isn't it?
It's also 100% certain that no-one would ever kill anyone again, and all human suffering would end if I killed the entire human race. But on a less flippant note, it would seem that we are both wanting to minimize the suffering of innocents. So is it just a numbers game?

aha, so by breaking the ethical rules of society, a criminal with a serious enough breach of ethics is no longer entitled to the same ethical protections they have broken? they broke the social contract that entitles them to protection and a right to life, and could be considered amorally outside of society? or something like that

i don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, but i do understand where you're coming from now (i think), thanks http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2226/smileis1.gif


Pretty much.

I don't expect to see eye-to-eye with everyone on it. In fact, I expect to see eye-to-eye with very few, especially in the UK. And I think a lot of that, is because we're raised in a culture that has become accustomed to not even having to ask the question.

I'm not talking about every case, as you seem to have fully understood. I'm talking about cases that are more certain and more 'serious' than most. An accidental killing, or a death from self-defence? Shouldn't even be considered. I'm talking about multiple rapists, serial murderers.. those who prey on children. People that have taken the trust given to them by society, and clearly and flagrantly abused it.

Removing them from society could mean exile... if exile could mean no possibility of return, AND no possibility of inflicting your criminality on other innocents.

Which leaves the only absolutely practical AND responsible option... as euthanasia.

Rather depends on your definition of 'better'.
Yes, it does.
A culture that surrenders it's weak to the mercies of the strong is not 'better' than a culture that protects those that are weak. And that's what the UK has done - it has said that their is a reasonable exchange - the rights of the criminal trump the rights of the victim.
And what is a man but weaker than the state?

And the only viable option is thus death?


No.


Many people, including some severely mentally ill persons, "are incapable of abiding by some of the least unreasonable restrictions inherent in that society". Should they too be executed?


If they are raping and murdering people, sure?


What is indeed foolish is a refusal to even engage with rehabilitory methods; you've obviously made up your mind that certain people are 'lost souls'.


That's not foolish. Seeing no reason to accept the position means I'm unwilling to accept the position, not that I'm a fool.


Then you should have little to say on capital punishment. Leave it to those of us who wish to engage with the issues.


Intellectually dishonest? I said I didn't care about their remorse. I didn't say I don't care about the issues.

As - I suspect - well you know.


Remorsefulness is not an ultimate goal.


Then why cite it as an alternative?


Moreover, if we are unable to countenance the possibility of rehabilitation for the worst crimes, why even bother with rehabilitation for lesser actions?


I don't necessarily accept that concept, either.

If someone steals bread because they are starving, should they be rehabilitated? No - they should be fed. If that person is starving again, and incapable of obtaining food legally, I fully expect them to steal bread again.


If you feel people should be executed because they were unable to prevent themselves from acting on murderous impulses, I fear your solution to us weak-willed souls who cannot prevent ourselves from committing minor infractions.


'...unable to prevent themselves from acting on murderous impulses...'?

Like... they are VICTIMS? They are the victims here?


Kill me; I was unable to prevent myself from stealing a cookie.

I think you were aiming for reductio ad absurdum... but I think you got two-parts strawman, and one part appeal to ridicule.

I'm not sure myself, maybe handcuff their hands to one side of the cage while a prison doctor (or whoever deals with inmate sickness, I'm not sure) examines them so as to protect the prison doctor maybe... I'm not sure what exact infrastructure changes should be made, but what I'm saying is, if your concern with using life imprisonment instead of execution is that the inmates might escape, shouldn't the real change be in prison structure?

It's an option.

I think - the worst offenders - maybe it's more effort than it's worth.

And what is a man but weaker than the state?

A state is nothing but many men (and women, obviously).

It's fantasy to believe you can ever be sure. Witnesses can be bribed. Evidence can be faked. Experts can be coerced. Plus human error means anyone can be mistaken.


If there are only two people in securely contained space, and one of them can be proved to have been violently killed in such a way as to have been impossible to have been self-inflicted...

...human error, witnesses, experts... can all be irrelevent.


that's because it's in the same sentence as the next three words, why did you artificially separate them?!


Because 'the morality of practicality' is the part I don't understand. There's nothing artifical about saying 'hey, I don't understand this phrase'.

Phrase it that way or 'the morality of practicality above all else'... and it's equally nonsensical. It's not a 'moral' question.


It's also 100% certain that no-one would ever kill anyone again, and all human suffering would end if I killed the entire human race. But on a less flippant note, it would seem that we are both wanting to minimize the suffering of innocents. So is it just a numbers game?

I can't guarantee to minimise the numbers... and that isn't really what I'mt alking about. I'm talking about how we deal with identified hazards. I think it's irresponsible to leave clear and present danger where it can be unwittingly encountered.

Or doesn't. It's a threat, but does it have substance?

The ECHR's rulings are binding. There is no derogation from the death penalty ban possible under The Convention. Not to conform to an ECHR ruling (which has been very clear on the death penalty being a no-no) would have... serious consequences for not only a founding member of the Council of Europe, but also an EU nation such as Britain.

A state is nothing but many men (and women, obviously).
Aye but organised in its own defence. It can't be broken except by the efforts of many others - anyway, quite besides the point, you're wrong, and we can't have the death penalty in the UK.

The ECHR's rulings are binding. There is no derogation from the death penalty ban possible under The Convention. Not to conform to an ECHR ruling (which has been very clear on the death penalty being a no-no) would have... serious consequences for not only a founding member of the Council of Europe, but also an EU nation such as Britain.

The best kind of death penalty is one that involves self-defense.

If you have a legal ability to shoot your attacker dead, it saves the court system all the time and trouble of appeals, etc. You might be investigated and go through a court to determine if it was a valid killing, but that's still far cheaper and simpler.

While restricted as to conditions, which vary by country, it is far simpler than waiting for the government to get around to doing something.

You call 911 when you see the situation going bad, shoot the attacker, and then wait around for the oh so useful police to show up and write their reports.

I bet some surprise parties have gone seriously awry at your house.....

The best kind of death penalty is one that involves self-defense.
We're above this in the UK. Happy days.

The best kind of death penalty is one that involves self-defense.

That is not what a death penalty is. While your opinions are perverse, kindly do not pervert language in expressing them or answer my posts with something that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

It's an option.

I think - the worst offenders - maybe it's more effort than it's worth.
I'm just saying that if the argument is practicality, they should do experiments on the criminals instead, and if the concern is that they might escape, try finding a better prison structure.

If there are only two people in securely contained space, and one of them can be proved to have been violently killed in such a way as to have been impossible to have been self-inflicted...

...human error, witnesses, experts... can all be irrelevent.


And when is that EVER going to happen? That's as theoretical as say... Building a prison that nobody escapes from and no-one dangerous is let out of.


Because 'the morality of practicality' is the part I don't understand. There's nothing artifical about saying 'hey, I don't understand this phrase'.

Phrase it that way or 'the morality of practicality above all else'... and it's equally nonsensical. It's not a 'moral' question.

I can't guarantee to minimise the numbers... and that isn't really what I'mt alking about. I'm talking about how we deal with identified hazards. I think it's irresponsible to leave clear and present danger where it can be unwittingly encountered.

You are deciding killing is justified because of a particular reason. I would say that you consider it a 'good' reason, something that is the 'best' option. Your reason is it removes danger from society, prevents harm being inflicted on people. That is part of a 'moral code'. The question we are discussing is one of applied ethics. The norms from which your moral code springs are those of utility.

When I said 'practicality above all else' I meant that practicality seemed the primary source of your proposed action, which is a moral judgement, because you consider it 'wrong' to allow these people to offend again.

I think it's impractical because of the margin for error and abuse. Killing should be a last resort, not a 'just in case'. You are killing someone for something they have yet to do, not something they have done, unless you believe killing them is justified for some other reason apart from re-offending.

The ECHR's rulings are binding. There is no derogation from the death penalty ban possible under The Convention.
Sorry Fass.

Not true.

Article 2 (2) has derogations.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

You might be thinking of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which isn't binding but has that non-derogation in it's Article 2 (2)

The ECHR's rulings are binding. There is no derogation from the death penalty ban possible under The Convention. Not to conform to an ECHR ruling (which has been very clear on the death penalty being a no-no) would have... serious consequences for not only a founding member of the Council of Europe, but also an EU nation such as Britain.

Did you write John McCain's debate speeches?

This has the same degree of to-the-point specific assurance as "I know how to find bin Ladin"...

... besides the point, you're wrong, and we can't have the death penalty in the UK.

Oh, well, that's a clinching argument...

You are deciding killing is justified because of a particular reason. I would say that you consider it a 'good' reason, something that is the 'best' option. Your reason is it removes danger from society, prevents harm being inflicted on people. That is part of a 'moral code'. The question we are discussing is one of applied ethics. The norms from which your moral code springs are those of utility.

When I said 'practicality above all else' I meant that practicality seemed the primary source of your proposed action, which is a moral judgement, because you consider it 'wrong' to allow these people to offend again.


Strawman argument. You are attributing these values of 'good' and 'moral' to my arguments.

It's not a 'moral' code. Perhaps you could argue it as a code of ethics? Pragmatism might be arguable in those terms. I don't see how you can argue pragmatism as 'moral' judgement, though.

It isn't about being 'wrong' to offend again, it is about it being an avoidable risk.


I think it's impractical because of the margin for error and abuse. Killing should be a last resort,


But, we're talking, here, about situations where it is a FIRST resort...


not a 'just in case'. You are killing someone for something they have yet to do, not something they have done, unless you believe killing them is justified for some other reason apart from re-offending.

No, not really. I haven't advocated the execution of - for example - someone who has killed one other person. I'm not really talking about abberations from your norm, here - I'm talking about people who have demonstrated a characteristic as a rapist or murderer. Execution of such a person is merely breaking an established pattern... which, it seems to me, would be better than NOT breaking such a pattern.

Strawman argument. You are attributing these values of 'good' and 'moral' to my arguments.

It's not a 'moral' code. Perhaps you could argue it as a code of ethics? Pragmatism might be arguable in those terms. I don't see how you can argue pragmatism as 'moral' judgement, though.

It isn't about being 'wrong' to offend again, it is about it being an avoidable risk.


It would be a strawman if I were going to then use it to undermine you. That's not my intention, just my opinion that there were moral considerations in there, hidden beneath pure pragmatism.

Your last sentence suggests that not avoiding avoidable risk is wrong, it is irresponsible. If it's a matter of right and wrong, having a code of which you judge things right or wrong is morality. But this is something of a digression, and another pedantic one at that.


But, we're talking, here, about situations where it is a FIRST resort...

No, not really. I haven't advocated the execution of - for example - someone who has killed one other person. I'm not really talking about abberations from your norm, here - I'm talking about people who have demonstrated a characteristic as a rapist or murderer. Execution of such a person is merely breaking an established pattern... which, it seems to me, would be better than NOT breaking such a pattern.

I still think that this is an argument for more secure confinement than the death penalty. If it's a tiny number of cases as you say, I'm sure it would be easy to build an inescapable prison. You could sink something in concrete with just airholes, plumbing and small hatches for food to be dropped through.

I do not have confidence in the state sufficient to assign to it the power to take life. I do not believe that personal or indeed communal vengeance provides an adequate foundation for a fair system of 21st century justice. Life is sacred, whether or not you kill an innocent.

Executions, whether secret or public, are deeply traumatic events for the whole of a society (witness Ruth Ellis), and the last thing we need in UK is a even more brutalised society than that which we have now. MPs have consistently taken the view that the death penalty for murder is a 'matter of conscience' and on (?three?) free votes they have conscientously voted to abolish, and keep abolished, the death penalty. I suspect that this post first arose after the American owned Sun newspaper (the largest selling UK tabloid) remounted its long yet hopelessly unsuccessful campaign to resume executions - one imagines shown live on Fox News - as it aggressively promotes its views. Why? It argues mainly on economic grounds ("Why should taxpayers pay for the likes of Wright and Dixie to live in prison?"). The simple answer is, of course, why not? But the attempt to simplify the question into cash terms has failed to convince MPs, and looking at the poll has failed to convince most contributors here.

I still think that this is an argument for more secure confinement than the death penalty. If it's a tiny number of cases as you say, I'm sure it would be easy to build an inescapable prison. You could sink something in concrete with just airholes, plumbing and small hatches for food to be dropped through.

That might be workable. Although even concrete can crack...

That said, I think the odds of getting a prison like that beyond the drawing board are about the same as the UK overturning the death penalty decision...

First time I've actually seen the unbreakable prison response, though. I applaud your thinking. I might still prefer a more absolute solution, but you have a strong alternative.

Life is sacred...

It's a nice thought.

But that sounds more like a theological argument than an actually logical one.

I can see no possible advantage in introducing an expensive and irreversible method of punishment.

I can see no possible advantage in introducing an expensive and irreversible method of punishment.

Well, considering it a 'punishment' is probably half the problem.

'Punishment' suggests you're going to learn from it. A lesson that you don't survive probably isn't a very good learning opportunity, no?

And, it really doesn't have to be all that expensive...

Well, considering it a 'punishment' is probably half the problem.

'Punishment' suggests you're going to learn from it. A lesson that you don't survive probably isn't a very good learning opportunity, no?

Since when does the word 'punishment' mean that you have to learn from it? All it implies is that it is an act of retribution, as in 'capital punishment'.

And, it really doesn't have to be all that expensive...

Reducing costs when it comes to capital punishment tends to lead to an increased likelihood of getting it wrong or someone else getting hurt or killed, given the expense of appeals and security. That's money well spent.

That's money well spent...

...but it isn't the cost of the capital punishment.

That might be workable. Although even concrete can crack...

That said, I think the odds of getting a prison like that beyond the drawing board are about the same as the UK overturning the death penalty decision...

First time I've actually seen the unbreakable prison response, though. I applaud your thinking. I might still prefer a more absolute solution, but you have a strong alternative.
That's kinda what my idea was. o.o

...but it isn't the cost of the capital punishment.

No, its the cost of a safe and responsible capital punishment. Perhaps you prefer a reckless, irresponsible and cheap judicial system, but I'd rather shell out for a good one.

That's kinda what my idea was. o.o

I was reading it as another layer of 'cages' in a 'cages' system, which I don't think would substantially change the lot of the average prisoner in realterms, all that much. Unless I totally missed the point. In which case - I applaud your concept, similarly.

No, its the cost of a safe and responsible capital punishment. Perhaps you prefer a reckless, irresponsible and cheap judicial system, but I'd rather shell out for a good one.

If I offer to sell you an apple, we contract for it, and when the time comes, I charge you four grand for it, because it's in my car...

If I offer to sell you an apple, we contract for it, and when the time comes, I charge you four grand for it, because it's in my car...

I don't even know what this has to do with my post, but I probably wouldn't buy your apple if there were other apples just as good available for a cheaper price.

I don't even know what this has to do with my post, but I probably wouldn't buy your apple if there were other apples just as good available for a cheaper price.

I guess I misunderestimated my audience.


I'm saying I'd charge you for the car, because the apple was in it.

You're telling me the price of your 'car', when all we were talking about was your 'apple'.

I voted yes,some people just need to be put down,some people are just mad dog crazy,so danerous even to the prison guards,only in death,will the populous at a whole,will be safe..

I guess I misunderestimated my audience.


I'm saying I'd charge you for the car, because the apple was in it.

You're telling me the price of your 'car', when all we were talking about was your 'apple'.

Presumably the car and the apple are separable. However, the period of incarceration, appeals process and high level of security are not separable from capital punishment unless you make that capital punishment unsafe or irresponsible by refusing appeal or weakening security.

I was reading it as another layer of 'cages' in a 'cages' system, which I don't think would substantially change the lot of the average prisoner in realterms, all that much. Unless I totally missed the point. In which case - I applaud your concept, similarly.
The general idea was to focus on changing prison structure. I just didn't know the specifics of what about it to change.

Presumably the car and the apple are separable. However, the period of incarceration, appeals process and high level of security are not separable from capital punishment unless you make that capital punishment unsafe or irresponsible by refusing appeal or weakening security.

The 'unless' means that the absolute ('not separable') isn't an absolute, and thus, the statement is untrue.

The general idea was to focus on changing prison structure. I just didn't know the specifics of what about it to change.

It wouldn't be incarceration 'as we know it'.

I think that, in order to get a system that was near as 'good' as capital punishment, you'd have to construct a prison that most people opposing execution... would oppose.

The 'unless' means that the absolute ('not separable') isn't an absolute, and thus, the statement is untrue.

It would make the statement 'capital punishment is expensive' untrue. It does not make the statement, 'safe and responsible capital punishment is expensive' untrue. A point you have failed to refute.

It would make the statement 'capital punishment is expensive' untrue. It does not make the statement, 'safe and responsible capital punishment is expensive' untrue. A point you have failed to refute.

That's because it's a point that is irrelevant.

Yes, but only for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that the right to life is a human right, wouldn't killing someone be in itself a crime against humanity?

It is also my understanding that the death penalty does not work as anymore efficient a deterrent against horrible acts of violence than any other punishment.

And isn't it quite dubious to kill someone for killing others? Should the one killing the killer then be killed? And hir killer? Or if you say we should use capital punishment but only kill people who have done something really horrible, like killed several people, where do we draw the line: Only three murders and you're locked up for life, but four and you're as good as dead?

What about those who were executed but later found not quilty? Do you open their grave and slip some cash and a sorry note into the coffin?

I personally do not believe that wrongs can be righted with other wrongs. I do feel the urge to hurt and punish those I feel have done terrible and unforgivable things but I do not see what good it would do. In fact, I do not see what good does it do punish someone with a jail sentence. If they are not locked up to keep other people safe from the violence others fear they would suffer in the convicts hands and given counselling, prison term is just collective violent vengeance on those the judical systems and possible the common opinion deem to be hated individuals.

Wow...I'm really far behind here. I think I got all your responses to me, GnI...I'll try to go back and read the rest before I go crash.
Pretty rhetoric, but not substantiated.Thanks. I thought it was quite nice myself.

If a man kills, and you kill him for it, he doesn't kill again. The laws of the universe suggests that there is, then, just such a balance.
If you lock him in a cell and he doesn't get out, he also doesn't kill again.
Sounds like alot of qualifiers, and yes, I know you're going to call me on this. However, your argument is against things as they stand...the ability to get out on good behavior and the like, where "life sentence" is usually anything but (according to the source I posted earlier, "life" was an average of [I think] 14 years). That is an argument against my point, but not an argument for yours.


They don't have to. But a lesser wrong can stop a greater wrong.I don't disagree. And I won't resort to arguing "lesser", "greater" and "wrong", as that would just be more pretty prose and rhetoric. However, there are other ways to prevent the greater wrong that are less costly to the state, and potentially more beneficial, than the execution process.

Your argument is that a person who rapes children... and someone who you find unpleasant dinner company... are equally deserving of death?

I think you're being flippant.
Not really. I don't believe that either are deserving of death.

Not even true. People in prison still have access to society - they often even get 'rights' to enter back into society, under certain circumstances. Most can still have access to the benefits of society (media, visitation, etc) even though they are absolved of the responsibilities of society.Having access to society is not the same thing as being a part of society. Being a part implies two-way, consistant interaction. Having access is generally one way, and fairly on-and-off (prisoners can lose access to any of these at any time at the discression of a warden).



A human body that tortures an infant to death is not a person.I see we're both good with the rhetoric.



On the contrary, it provides the same immediate benefit as the excision of infectious tissue - it stops the harm from increasing.
Which can be accomplished in several ways.

In the case of a tumor, we have chemo, radiation, or surgery. In the case of a criminal, we have rehab, imprisonment, or execution.

And before it is said, no, execution and surgery are not analogous.


Only if you are arguing that a tumor might be removed from the body, and then placed back within it at a later date.
Not what I intended to imply, but, while not "placed back" per se, they do sometimes reappear. But that's not really the point, and quite tangental.

A tumor will never be productive. A rehabilitated criminal might be released back into society and become a productive member. Do all? No. Should all who are released be released? No. Is that an argument against my concept? Not really...it is an argument against the state of things currently...which should be changed.

Moreover, a criminal can be forced into labor within the prison, thereby benefitting society without being a member of it.

And, of course, there is the issue when they accidentally cut out the spleen instead of the tumor.

That might be workable. Although even concrete can crack...

That said, I think the odds of getting a prison like that beyond the drawing board are about the same as the UK overturning the death penalty decision...

First time I've actually seen the unbreakable prison response, though. I applaud your thinking. I might still prefer a more absolute solution, but you have a strong alternative.

Lack of personal ingenuity is a poor excuse to kill someone for! Necessity is the mother of invention, so if we get a psychopathic crime wave any time soon I'm sure it will happen.

Ideally what you're after is Australia. . . . . . . . In Space.

Is there any proof as which is more expensive out of capital punishment and the death penalty. I have never seen any evidence either way so could someone please provide a link to an actual study rather than a pro or anti death penalty site

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.


*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.


Nope no way, it's a barbaric act, not fit for any enligthend person to contemplate.

Is there any proof as which is more expensive out of capital punishment and the death penalty. I have never seen any evidence either way so could someone please provide a link to an actual study rather than a pro or anti death penalty site

Is justice just about the cost?

Is justice just about the cost?

No fo course it is not, heh and I wonder how many of those people that use that line thing justice is about revenge?

That's because it's a point that is irrelevant.

I don't know about that. The money wasted on executing violent criminals, rather than just locking them up - and yes it is cheaper just to lock them up, even until they die, as the US has kindly showed - you could spend the money on say, better policing. You know, focus on actually preventing or catching murderers rather than trying to kill them.

I don't know about that. The money wasted on executing violent criminals, rather than just locking them up - and yes it is cheaper just to lock them up, even until they die,


No, it isn't.

I challenge you to show me figures that even come close to suggesting it.


...as the US has kindly showed - you could spend the money on say, better policing. You know, focus on actually preventing or catching murderers rather than trying to kill them.

1) What is the point in 'catching murderers' if you're just going to give them a slap on the wrist?

2) No one is saying there can't be better policing. But - there's no one actually STOPPING the policing being better even WITH a death penalty. That's an excuse.

3) Since the UK already has no death penalty... shouldn't they ALREADY be 'catching murderers'?

4) As an aside (because your figures or pretty hokey) cheaper isn't automatically better.

Nope no way, it's a barbaric act, not fit for any enligthend person to contemplate.

Curiously, I feel the same way about people that allow the worst criminals to have (possible) access to society.

Lack of personal ingenuity is a poor excuse to kill someone for!


Not really. We;re talking about people that have committed horrendous crimes, already. I say keep it humane, but I'm not too worried about whether the same rules are applied to them as to others, any more.

Necessity is the mother of invention, so if we get a psychopathic crime wave any time soon I'm sure it will happen.

Ideally what you're after is Australia. . . . . . . . In Space.

No, it's an alternative, but it's still not a guarantee. No matter where you 'transport' your criminal elements, there's still always going to be the chance they'll make their way back.