death penalty - yes or no

[przyk]

The real problem w\ being against the death penalty is that many are UNTILL the crime effects them.

So you'd pay more attention to someone blinded by rage and demanding revenge than you would to someone less biased?

 

[Quagmire]

Why not let the women stone them. Or crucify them on top of the local hill. :bugeye:

no not sharks, mutated sea bass only.

 

[Quagmire]

There's always the danger of killing someone innocent isn't it? And once one becomes a murderer, one becomes a murderer, right? A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer. If a person who has murdered is on death row and actually has changed, and kknows with himself that he won't kill again, then is it right to kill him?

put the violins away please, i am more bothered about how the murderers victim suffered and the lifetime of grief caused to the victims family than i am with some supposed reformed murderer.

it seems like the absolute proof is a subtopic i will have to face in a few posts time, so i will get to that then.

As for "A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer."

thats utter tosh, "a justice system executiong murderers and paedophiles is providing a useful service to society - cutting out the cancer of violent criminality"

"as for no better than the murderer" thats utter tosh as well, the murderer ran the gauntlet of possible penalty when they murdered someone or someones. the justice system would be executing violent criminals found guilty in courts of law - to be as bad as the murderer would be a case of indescriminate killing.

please re read what you post in future - you post and the points it made are somewhat disgusting.

 

[Quagmire]

In short: The death penalty accomplishes nothing that life imprisonment doesn't, with the disadvantage of being irreversible. Also agree with Pete: imprisonment = justice, execution = revenge.

The thing I will never understand about executions is the mandatory health checkups that preceed them.

execution means they absolutely never offend again
imprisonment for life ( for life - thats a good joke ) means them being looked after by the state - guards, cells, food, cooks, cleaners, doctors.
whilst in prison crimes can still be commit - like murder and rape, and other violent acts.

 

[Quagmire]

No I Do Not Support Death Penalty.

Justification: Humans Are Not Gods To Decide Who Is To Live And Who Is To Die

Those who kill are sinners and their act cannot be justified.

seems like you missed the point here

the murderer isnt a god, but still killed, and so decided who was to die - it is these murderers who are the sinners, and it is their acts you ought to cast your judgement upon, instead of joining in after the CRIME has been commit.

 

[Quagmire]

I voted no
its irreversible (you'd be surprised how many mistakes the legal system makes)
and regardelss. killing a murderer makes you no better then they

i dispute that, brady, hindley, west, the ripper - if the state were to execute them - would make the state as bad as them?

dont think so!

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not comfortable with giving my government the power to kill me. Under certain circumstances, I can understand exceptions, like with the police having guns to protect themselves and others, but as soon as someone is in custody, the emergency stops. A prisoner cannot commit their crimes again, unless we let them, so I'm against the death penalty.

Why not study the criminal in order to understand them and help prevent the circumstances that made them one?

As a society, we should not be in the revenge business. If someone doesn't like the fact that a murderer of their loved one continues to live in confinement, that's their problem.

 

[Quagmire]

Yep. I disagree with the killing of anyone that isn't an immediate threat and is unable to defend themself.

like their victims? only the victims are innocent - a murderer is not.

 

[Quagmire]

That's what prison is for. Who are you to decide what is and isn't "unforgivable" anyway?

lets ask the victims... oh wait - some are dead, some cannot face the vile act FORCED upon them by the criminal.

to compare the malicious acts of a criminal to the justice handed out by the state is spurious.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not comfortable with giving my government the power to kill me. Under certain circumstances, I can understand exceptions, like with the police having guns to protect themselves and others, but as soon as someone is in custody, the emergency stops. A prisoner cannot commit their crimes again, unless we let them, so I'm against the death penalty.

Why not study the criminal in order to understand them and help prevent the circumstances that made them one?

As a society, we should not be in the revenge business. If someone doesn't like the fact that a murderer of their loved one continues to live in confinement, that's their problem.

Its cost, life doesnt mean life, and if it did, prisoners would die in prisons, the state would have to pay for their extended retirement, yet currently in britain there is a time-bomb ticking with regards the NHS, poverty in the community, a pensions crisis.

so please, undertsand me when i dont feel that keeping murderers rapists paedophiles and thieves in a state of perpetual comfort is the correct thing to do.

there are other more needy elements of society - and they deserve our help before the criminals do.

 

[spidergoat]

If cost is the issue, think of the legal costs relating to death row inmates. They would be less likely to appeal if it was only life in prison. Paying for those who don't follow the rules is just part of living in a society. The death penalty doesn't save any significant amounts of money.

Even in the army, you can't shoot a POW.

If it's a matter of a life sentance not really lasting a lifetime, in the US you can give someone multiple life sentances with no room for early parole.

Sometimes, a conviction is overturned based on new evidence like DNA.

Prison is not comfortable.

 

[Quagmire]

if we have to callously take even one innocent person with them - that's just immoral and the entire society has his blood on their hands. When the death penalty fails, we all become murderers.

Penn & Teller recently did an episode of Bullshit! (Their program on the Show Time network, where they take social and political issues and go about proving them to be a bunch of BS in one way or another through well reasoned arguments, and a good dose of entertaining humor, and the occasional magic trick) did an episode about the death penalty just recently – they had an interview with a man who was put on death row for a murder that he could not have committed.

He was fingered by two witnesses, tried, and sentenced, and sat on death row for two years. The real kicker? He was already in jail when the murder took place! The witnesses who fingered him turned out to be the murderers, and the prosecutors in his trial knew that he was in jail at the time, and withheld that information. The death penalty is a horribly flawed system of “punishment”.

What really gets me is that most people who support the death penalty don’t even trust the government to put up street signs or license and register vehicles – but they’ll trust them with the supreme power over who lives and who dies. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

Here it is, the guilty innocent idea.

So we are aware that at times some people will BARE FALSE WITNESS in order to manipulate the justice system.

solution - when it is found that these people have lied in court - they are to be subjected to the punishment that their victim received.

in the case you mentioned, they 2 actual murderers should have been charged with perjury as well as the murder as well as the attempted conviction of an innocent with regards the obstruction of justice.

top that off with a helping of them both being the murderers in this case and we have 2 individuals that are prime candidates for execution.

The lawyers involved that wilfully withheld evidence that would have cleared the innocent should have been sentenced to some prison time and never allowed to practice law or be involved in employment related to law/security for the rest of their lives.

And now to my favourite part, the underlined part

"if we have to callously take even one innocent person with them - that's just immoral and the entire society has his blood on their hands. When the death penalty fails, we all become murderers"

When society fails to properly deal with malignant elements such as paedophiles, murderers, rapists then the blood of these criminals victims is on societies hands.

Its a case of responsibility, roy whiting, a convicted paedophile was released from prison, he then commit the following atrocity

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/18/newsid_2514000/2514769.stm

i wanted him dead first time round, i certainly want him dead now.

you accept 8 year old sarahs blood on your hands, if we did it my way, she would be alive now.

the following link should give heart to all those disgusted by the creature that commit this most heinous crime

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3826657.stm

what a shame prisons have hospitals and doctors on standby (payed for by the tax payer) if he had bled to death would anyone have shed a tear.

 

[Quagmire]

If cost is the issue, think of the legal costs relating to death row inmates. They would be less likely to appeal if it was only life in prison. Paying for those who don't follow the rules is just part of living in a society. The death penalty doesn't save any significant amounts of money.

Even in the army, you can't shoot a POW.

If it's a matter of a life sentance not really lasting a lifetime, in the US you can give someone multiple life sentances with no room for early parole.

Sometimes, a conviction is overturned based on new evidence like DNA.

Prison is not comfortable.

cost is a major issue, nuts to death row inmates, if they wanted rights they should have abided by the laws of the land.

no appeal, no legal aid, straight to justice and deterrent.

sentances are also a major issue, in britain life sentances do not mean life, and those that feel they have been wrongly sentanced can appeal - hindleys case got to europe - they tried to tell the british sovereign justice system that she had been in prison longer than she should have been

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=651&id=587472002

disgusting isnt it. criminals...murderers... with more rights than their victims.

 

[Quagmire]

pardon me, as for DNA getting people off convictions - fine, DNA can put people in the executioners noose then.

as for prison not being comfortable - criminals are still alive - unlike their victims.

 

[Quagmire]

sustained child abusers should be put to death...but there are also so many different kinds of murder, do you think it is acceptable when the child is being abused to turn around and stab him. that i think is the problem with the death penalty, apart from the fact that sometimes you may put an innocent man to death there are so many grey areas in the law system. however if there is ABSOLUTE proof and the crime is heinous enough then the perpurtrator should be put to death.

"do you think it is acceptable when the child is being abused to turn around and stab him."

absolutely - it is self defence, completely justifyable, and understandable.

there are cases where excessive force being used is a crime, like battering the handbag snatcher THEN kicking him round the floor, that is excessive.

if someone pulls a knife on you and attacks, i honestly believe you can kill the criminal and get away with it, attack with a deadly weapon should always be punished by death.

lets stop this culture of knife carrying before it becomes the plague the epidemic is threatening.

 

[Quagmire]

im tired for now, i will continue to reply to those that make adequate points, and do so retrospectively also.

hard day today, plenty for you to get your teeth into.

 

[Ophiolite]

No: I would not entertain it for other than murder, and would reject it for that crime for these reasons.
Innocent people get killed.
It lowers us to level of the killer.
It seems like action, yet fails to address the underlying causes of the murder.
It is uncivilised.
It favours revenge over reconciliation, punishment over rehabilitation.

 

[Ophiolite]

And while we are at it Quagmire, what about the rights of those who have been wrongly imprisoned?

 

[alain]

"i dispute that, brady, hindley, west, the ripper - if the state were to execute them - would make the state as bad as them?"

Never heard of any of them except Jack the Ripper, but, yes, The State's who killed them are as bad.

Jack the Ripper killed numerous people, who were helpless compared to him.

The state killed Jack (and would have kileld more peopel if there were more to kill) and Jack was helpless comapred to the might of the British Empire.

The state can claim that it has reason; Protecting society, It being too expensive to give him the help he needed, Laziness. I'm sure Jack had equally flimsy reasons for killing people.

 

[Athelwulf]

Oh good, I'm not the only one against capital punishment.