The Death Penalty
Chyros 27 Jan 2011
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:
Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.
For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
CJ 27 Jan 2011
Ion Cannon! 27 Jan 2011
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:
Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.
For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
Sgt. Rho 27 Jan 2011
Edited by Sgt. Rho, 27 January 2011 - 18:05.
Chyros 27 Jan 2011
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:04, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:
Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.
For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.
Ion Cannon! 27 Jan 2011
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 18:16, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:04, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:
Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.
For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.
While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
Wizard 27 Jan 2011
CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:
Just because I do not agree that the death penalty is a suitable punishment for a crime, it does not mean that I live with rose tinted spectacles. I do, however, question the logic that evil should be punished with evil.
Chyros 27 Jan 2011
Quote
Quote
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:19, said:
Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.
While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
TheDR 27 Jan 2011
Chyros 27 Jan 2011
TheDR, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:30, said:
Ion Cannon! 27 Jan 2011
Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 18:28, said:
Quote
Quote
Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:19, said:
Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.
While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
There are minute % chances in most things we do which are negative, but that doesn't stop us doing them. This should be no different.
Libains 27 Jan 2011
Note, evil exists. Some people do the foulest, most horrific things to others, or even to themselves. That is also a part of our humanity - the ability to be quintessentially cruel. But torture, or murder, of people at the hands of government is something that cannot be condoned. The death penalty is seen as revenge, justice, or whatever else you want to call it. It is also stripping people of the single most valuable thing that they will ever possess. There is no way on Earth that you could convince me that somebody ought to die because of their actions. As Golan rightly says, you can't deter people with the death penalty because nobody knows what death truly is. For all we know, by ending their lives we could be pushing their next life forwards, in a place such as Heaven, if it were to exist. My grandmother once told me when I was very young that "Two wrongs don't make a right", and I stand by that to this day.
Further, suggestions that it could be used in the most extreme cases are totally baseless in law. Define 'overwhelming evidence' to the point of where a judge & lawyers could put forward that a person met those criteria. And then, I ask you, what happens to all of those cases that don't have overwhelming evidence? Suddenly, as the evidence is not 'overwhelming', their trials can be questioned, the judgements overruled, etc. By creating a new 'gold standard', you in turn devalue every other conviction. The legal system works because everyone is treated fairly, and there are criteria into which all wrongs can be placed, each of which has defined punishments. You cannot simply create a new criteria, simply to deal with people who are slightly 'worse' than others. Who defines that one? The law-making process would fall into the hands of the judges, and that is a scenario that the English legal system has avoided for about 700 years. Long may it stay that way. Further, in the United States, when asking for the death penalty, you must have committed murder-one (better known these days as first degree murder). But the thing is, there are no guidelines as to what you actually get - life imprisonment or death. It's up to the judge or the jury to decide on the matter, and frankly, asking twelve laymen to hold the life of a person in their hands is a pretty hideous crime in its own right. At the end of the day, what decides it is whether it's enough of a scandal, how much of a deal the press make of it, and what sort of people you get on the jury. The law has no say by leaving it open-ended. If you cannot specifically state what constitutes the death penalty, there is no way that it can be implemented without losing control of the punishment. That is not law.
CJ, your perspective is understandable, considering where you live, compared to the majority of us here from the Western World. But at the end of the day, just as you see the death penalty as the right way, because of the attitude of the world around you, we don't see it as justifiable even slightly, because of the attitude around us. The US is obviously one great big exception, but even there the death penalty is being phased out. One thing you have to remember is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not every nation has embraced this, but these days, most have. Article 3 states that
Quote
There is also the issue of getting something wrong. Roughly, the payout by the government for a unlawfully killed relative is £1m. It'll cost a little less than that to keep them in prison, and then if you get it wrong, the payout is far less as they're not bloody well dead. If somebody is executed, there is little chance of reprieve. But if they're still alive, well, at least they still have some of their life left to go. Say you were in a situation where it looked an awful lot like you'd killed someone, and you hadn't. Are you telling me you want to be looked on as scum and executed, even when wrongly convicted, or do you want the chance to fight your conviction? I know which I'd rather prefer.
In short: Everyone has the unquestionable right to life, the possibility of reserving the death penalty for a select few is incompatible with most legal systems, and just because you are used to something, doesn't make it right. Prison is where murderers belong, not shallow graves.
Dauth 27 Jan 2011
If you're religious (and I know a lot of people here are) then I'm sure your good book has a chapter or two on destruction by the superior being and then some other things on stoning for being a prostitute, in debt, female or just the wrong skin colour. These bits are generally penned while someone is at war (check your history and the times when these books are made. Guess what, while they are not under fire (from some equally unpleasant people) the books say, treat your neighbour well, turn the other cheek, forgive each others sins. I know religion puts the blinkers on but FFS try reading the bile you're quoting.
Right now they're all offended time to move onto the atheists/agnostics/non-religions/hippies etc
For all any of you know, this is the one chance we have to have a life. Do you think you have the right to end someone else's chance? What if you're wrong and kill an innocent?
Destiny 28 Jan 2011
Jok3r 28 Jan 2011
Alias 28 Jan 2011
I think him seeing the utter failures of his system and his life is far more of a punishment than death.
Whitey 28 Jan 2011
First, a more streamlined death row. The argument that putting a person to death is more costly than keeping them in prison for life, however absurd it sounds, is completely valid. But that doesn't mean it cannot be fixed.
Some of you probably read that and said to yourselves "This is barbaric". Is it really though? Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself? Are they really so different that one can be labeled inhumane and the other humane? Absolutely not. The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate. But what about the victim's loved ones? Some of you, against the death penalty, have agreed that the death penalty is more gratifying to the victim's side. Life in prison may be a more prolonged carrying-out of the same punishment, but the gratification, assuming the victim's side can be gratified, is going to be the same be it tomorrow or in fifty years - at least to a point that a difference is relatively negligible.
At this point, the punishment, between life in prison and death row, is the same to the victim and to the inmate.
This leaves the cost and the potential of proving innocence after the execution. To the first, this is where my comment on streamlining comes in. If we could accept the death penalty as a reasonable means of punishment, perhaps we could move on to other related topics such as how to make it more efficient. If that is an impossibility, and I do not believe it is, then my argument ends here.
Speaking to the possibility of belated proof of innocence, advances in forensic analysis are continuing to reduce instances of wrongful convictions. Besides that, I have no reasonable argument against that point.
Just my view.
Wizard 28 Jan 2011
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:
Chyros 28 Jan 2011
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 6:51, said:
Quote
Whitey 28 Jan 2011
Wizard, on 28 Jan 2011, 2:43, said:
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:
To argue this properly, what do you define as worse then? A normal lifetime of solitary confinement? Or an untimely death? I am working on the assumption that most would rather perish early than face a torturously repetitive and lonely existence for an extended period of time. As you seem to disagree, then it is at least fair to say that you are at odds with those that agree with me that a life sentence is more grueling than a death sentence. (Just trying to sift through the various dissents here)
In the event that I have pegged your view properly, then I can only say that I disagree for my previously stated reasons. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then shouldn't the death penalty serve as a bigger deterrent? Or perhaps as somebody said before, with such serious crimes, the penalty is irrelevant to the offender. To which I can return to my argument that the death penalty is justified even despite inmate protest.
Chyros, on 28 Jan 2011, 2:50, said:
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 6:51, said:
Quote
As for the first part: No, they are not. But in either case, your life is ruined, and then it ends. Neither is exclusive to either a life sentence or the death penalty.
As for the second: You've missed my point in taking that out of context. As you don't seem to have read, I argued against the potential benefits to the victim's party in suggesting that it is gratification today or gratification tomorrow. The same goes for the offender's party except substitute gratification for dismay. That the offense occurred means that the offender's party is going to face dismay just as the victim's party is going to face gratification. I simply meant that it is only down to a matter of WHEN that is experienced. Though I did not mention the offender's party, I figured that it was implied.
Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 09:25.
Wizard 28 Jan 2011
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 9:20, said:
Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 9:20, said:
Edited by Wizard, 28 January 2011 - 09:36.
Whitey 28 Jan 2011
So they don't really value life all that much.
"Career criminals make a choice, probably expecting to wind up dead before they reach jail anyway"
So they too don't really value life all that much.
"And for those crimes that would attract the death penalty that are "heat of the moment" actions, I doubt there is any consideration as to the consequnces anyway."
And so during the crime, these people, too, completely disregard their existence in favor of something more pressing.
If a man values his life over all else, he won't jeopardize it with his actions because those actions are, of course, less valuable to him than his life. In committing said action - murder, etc - with the understanding of the consequence, he is, necessarily, putting the value of that action in a higher priority than his life. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am not, then your argument contradicts itself.
Unless of course you want to suggest that priorities change between committing the crime and sitting in court. To which I ask: Would it then be humane for the offender to be killed immediately upon completion of the crime?.When that action IS valued above life itself? And if so, am I the only one that finds that completely absurd? That THAT is fair and the death penalty itself is not?
Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 09:56.
Golan 28 Jan 2011
If you had an executioner following every single person, then the death penalty could work as a deterrent - it would elevate it from an abstract, future possibility to a certainty. Frankly, I'd consider this to be even crueler, waiting for someone to commit a crime, letting it happen, then executing him. It's also quite impossible to enforce such a thing, unless you wish for Mr. Stalone running around in a tight spandex with plastic armor, shouting The LAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!! whenever the script requires it.
Furthermore, it wouldn't make it any more humane - the act of killing is what is considered making it inhumane, not the circumstances.
Whitey 28 Jan 2011
Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 11:31.
Golan 28 Jan 2011
Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 11:37.