Death Penalty...for or against?

[Oresai]

what do folks here think of the death penalty?
i am for a return of it. yes, i know that innocent people might die in among the guilty, and did in the past.
but i look around at the system that stands today and see it blatantly not working. here in scotland one can commit murder, admit it, and be out of jail in less than five years with good behaviour. truth.
there are obviously no deterrants for many young folks who go off the rails and run riot. i see pensioner-bashing, rape and theft where someone who breaks into an elderly persons home and steals, if accosted, can actually petition the system for trauma and compensation and WIN...i cannot be the only one who sees the injustice in that?

for any against the death penalty, can they say why please, and offer alternatives that may actually work?
thoughts, anyone...? :)

[Skandi]

I'm for it, there would be a list of crimes that carried that penalty and it would be well publicised, but I would also bring back many forms of capital punnishment and punishment by social ridicule. So the first thing to go in my world is the human rights act!

[Oisín]

Personally I'm against it. The government is there to set an example to the people, criminals are societies problem and I don't think killing them is the answer. Is there any proof it actually acts as a deterrent? Look at the amount of people who commit murders in the USA where the death penalty is legal. If there's no proof it acts as a deterrent then what's the point?
I think there needs to be way tougher sentences and I think the prison system needs to be completely overhauled. Out with Playstations, TVs, drugs and drama classes. Let them serve out their sentences in silence and isolation in single man concrete cells where there's no place to hide anything. If they want entertainment they can read a book. Drugs are in every prison these days and you often hear Irish prison officers quoted in the papers saying that if half the inmates weren't whacked out of their brains the whole time they'd all be rioting. Instead of tolerating drug use to keep violent thugs pacified their should just be a rule that if you misbehave you don't get let out of your cell. Prison needs to be made an unbearable place to be. I don't mean torture or anything but bad enough for you to never want to go back.

[Oresai]

maybe it isn`t a deterrent, but isnt there something to be said for the fact that especially for serious crimes, those committing them would not be freed to commit them again?
it is a recurring and tragic theme in the uk now, that many rapists and murderers are set free to reoffend.

[Oresai]

meant to add, yes, i do agree that prison needs overhauling. :) i knew a young lad who glassed a man`s throat in a pub brawl and bragged about prison..he went to an `open` prison and was let out to do community gardening...an excuse to pub crawl and shop!

[Skandi]

whether it is a deterrant or not it certainly stops all possibilities of re offending

[Oisín]

maybe it isn`t a deterrent, but isnt there something to be said for the fact that especially for serious crimes, those committing them would not be freed to commit them again?
it is a recurring and tragic theme in the uk now, that many rapists and murderers are set free to reoffend.
Same over here. As it is a life sentence means nothing of the sort and that needs to be addressed. The same with sex offenders. Without wanting to sound like a bleeding heart we're all products of our society in a way and the situation we have at the present time is caused by a complete moral vacuum, governments past and present have to take their share of the responsibility for that. If some 18/19 year old young lad has had a crap upbringing and has turned into a thug and ends up getting in a fight and knifing someone does he deserve a second chance after serving say 25 years, let him out with really strict conditions, first whiff of trouble and he's back in for the rest of his life, or should he just be done away with?

[Oresai]

objectively, i can agree with your viewpoint...especially as, in minor ways, haven`t most of us been given second chances at one time or another in life? :)
but.....there`s the `harsh woman` in me that says, once someone has killed, does that make them more inclined to do so again? even if they originally killed in defense? and so would not that make them more dangerous on the whole?
simplistic, i know, but still....;)
i`ve been on the receiving end of violent crime so KNOW that colours my viewpoint, in making me more inclined to be unforgiving. perhaps that is why i support the death penalty, who knows...
i do think that for convicted killers, (myra hindley types, etc), death is the best solution...

[Oisín]

objectively, i can agree with your viewpoint...especially as, in minor ways, haven`t most of us been given second chances at one time or another in life? :)
True.

but.....there`s the `harsh woman` in me that says, once someone has killed, does that make them more inclined to do so again? even if they originally killed in defense? and so would not that make them more dangerous on the whole?
simplistic, i know, but still....;)
I suppose it depends on the person in question. I mean there's psychopaths out there who just kill people for fun and they're going to do it whether there's a death penalty or not. I think anyone convicted of pre-meditated murder should be banged up for life and never again be allowed walk the streets. But sometimes things happen in the heat of the moment and non-violent people do things they wouldn't normally dream about. In cases such as these I think if they admit their guilt, co-operate with the police and show genuine remorse then after a lengthy sentence they should be given another chance.

i`ve been on the receiving end of violent crime so KNOW that colours my viewpoint, in making me more inclined to be unforgiving. perhaps that is why i support the death penalty, who knows...
I think everything that happens to us in life colours our viewpoint so that's completely understandable. Our house was burgled last year while we were out and I know that when I came home I was more angry than I've ever been in my life and I think that had I walked in while it was happening then I probably would have had no problem in smashing their faces in with a hammer, that's what I mean about things that happen in the heat of the moment.

i do think that for convicted killers, (myra hindley types, etc), death is the best solution...
Genuine psychopaths like Hindley or the Wests are beyond all rehabilitation so I can see the merits of the argument there.

[Æmeric]

Is there any proof it actually acts as a deterrent? Look at the amount of people who commit murders in the USA where the death penalty is legal. If there's no proof it acts as a deterrent then what's the point?

The US has not had an effective death penalty for nearly 50-years. It use to be an excellent deterrent. But then there started to be countless court challenges to the dealth penalty for all sorts of frivolous reasons. If someone is given the dealth penalty you can count of endless appeals that will take years to work their ways through the courts. In reality the appeals have nothing to do with guilt or innocence but are simply attacks on the death penalty, the same appeals process would not take place in cases of life-without-parole.

The majority of murder victims in the US are of persons-of-color, usually committed by the same. Many of these cases are simply not solved because there are no witnesses or witnesses will not come forward.

I am in favor of the death penalty for murder, treason & certain cases of rape & child rape.

[Oisín]

The US has not had an effective death penalty for nearly 50-years. It use to be an excellent deterrent. But then there started to be countless court challenges to the dealth penalty for all sorts of frivolous reasons. If someone is given the dealth penalty you can count of endless appeals that will take years to work their ways through the courts. In reality the appeals have nothing to do with guilt or innocence but are simply attacks on the death penalty, the same appeals process would not take place in cases of life-without-parole.
Yeah I read the whole process can take years over there and when it does finally get to the time there's last minute appeals for clemency and all that.

The majority of murder victims in the US are of persons-of-color, usually committed by the same. Many of these cases are simply not solved because there are no witnesses or witnesses will not come forward.

It's the same over here, the majority of murders are related to gangland crime and they're hardly ever solved because people are afraid to come forward.

I am in favor of the death penalty for murder, treason & certain cases of rape & child rape.
I probably should have added earlier on that I have no problem with people being hanged for treason because that is a crime against the nation and the entire population.

[The Dragonslayer]

Whether the death penalty is a detterent or not, it gets rid of scum. I would expand it beyond just capital murder. I would also have it for rape and child molestation. It would also be done in the most harsh way possible. I wouldn't do any of this lethal injection crap. It would also be done swiftly. It's ridiculous that it takes over a decade for death row prisoners to finally get executed.

[Alison]

I am pro the death penalty. I know it's not a deterrent, but at least the perp can't hurt anyone else.

In south Africa, we have people released early to commit some heinous crime THE SAME DAY!

[Arrow Cross]

For it.

1, It does decrease crime at least slightly, there are people who do them because they know that not much will happen to them if they get caught.

2, As said before, the dead won't kill anyone else after getting outta jail.

3, It would take less funds from the state. No need to feed them, no need for so many guards to keep them in, etc.

However, judgements for capital punishment should not be rushed by all means, not every kind of murder is the same, for example.

[Johnny Bravo]

Absolutely against it, unless you want to give the government (i.e. plutocrats) more power.

What else do we have lynchings for?

[Loki]

I am also against it. I don't think it should be up to the government to decide whether to take someone's life or not. The thought of it horrifies me, it is barbaric.

[Alison]

The thought doesn't horrify me at all. We appoint a government because they fit what we think they will do for the will of the people.

The fact remains that people who abuse and rape tiny babies and children are released because of a lack of evidence, sometimes sentenced, despite positive DNA etc. Crooked cops, crooked and inept PPs. and the people walk to commit the same crimes again.

There are people out there who have commited the worst crimes and are walking free, doing it over and over again.

I understand your fears about governments, but what would we do without them? Without a judiciary; a police force?

I know that I'd be a vigilante because I'd get away with it, and string the perps up as quickly as possible. Then again, I am coming at this from a mother side. I hate anyone who hurts children. I would target them.

NO. Hang the bastards! Get rid of society's rubbish.

[Loki]

Alison, I have sympathy for that point of view in the South African context -- where violent crime is totally out of control, and strong measures have to be taken. Europe is a different matter though.

[Alison]

Loki, yes, I am coming at the issue from a SAn POV, because it is scary here. Sometimes I just want to switch off; not read newspapers, listen to the TV, hear the news on radio, because it is VERY brutal.

I was one of the first to say we must get rid of the death penalty in SA. I hated it because it was mostly political. However, it's not like that now.

I can't describe the fear and frustration and pain ordinary citizens feel who are targeted all the time.

That woman (Indian) who was beaten for an hour, an HOUR, the other day; pools of blood, her being raped; screams and begging for mercy. I still feel sickened. They had a spade and a panga. A spade and a panga to attack a helpless woman.

No, they do not deserve to live.

It's different if it's a burglary and they are surprised and run from the scene. Nope, they made sure she was in the house BEFORE they broke in so they could inflict as much pain and injury as possible. Sadistic bastards. they MUST die.

[Vulpix]

I think we should distinguish between the death penalty as a government institution, and violent death as fitting punishment for horrible crimes.

While I find the former to be horrendous, I'm in favour of the latter.

I trust no government with the ability to decide who to put to death. However, I would support, for example, the right of parents of pedophiles' victims to go after the monsters and kill them.

[Alison]

I think we should distinguish between the death penalty as a government institution, and violent death as fitting punishment for horrible crimes.

While I find the former to be horrendous, I'm in favour of the latter.

I trust no government with the ability to decide who to put to death. However, I would support, for example, the right of parents of pedophiles' victims to go after the monsters and kill them.

Should we not be dividing the government from the judiciary? Should they not be separate bodies? That would be the ideal, and for those I know who are chief mag's and judges, the very idea they would be crooked or swayed is horrific to them.

I do agree with parental justice. Then again, I simply do not know what I would do anyone who hurt my child. I would go mad.

[Oisín]

1, It does decrease crime at least slightly, there are people who do them because they know that not much will happen to them if they get caught.
Have you got any proof that the death penalty lowers the crime rate? Post a link or something.

[Arrow Cross]

Have you got any proof that the death penalty lowers the crime rate? Post a link or something.
It's not 'proof', it's common sense. Are you equally likely to steal the neighbour's chicken when you have to pay its price when caught, and when you get one of your arms cut?

[Oisín]

It's not 'proof', it's common sense.
So the answer to my question is no you don't have any proof.

Are you equally likely to steal the neighbour's chicken when you have to pay its price when caught, and when you get one of your arms cut?
You think people who steal chickens should have their arms cut off? There is a massive difference between people who commit murder being given the death penalty and chicken thieves, I don't know why you would try and compare the two.
There is zero proof whatsoever that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
The Death Penalty is NOT a Deterrent (http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-death-penalty-is-not-a-deterrent)
The Death Penalty Deterrence Myth: No Solid Evidence That Killing Stops The Killing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassy-stubbs/the-death-penalty-deterre_b_52622.html)
Death penalty no deterrent to murder (http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2007/07/19/death-penalty-no-deterrent-to-murder/)
The death penalty fails to deter crime. (http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82)

[Arrow Cross]

Opinions of Internet bloggers aren't proving anything either. And no, I don't advocate that, it was an example in which I made a quite clear point about why capital punishment does deter certain people from committing crimes. I'm not saying the difference would be earth-shattering, as obviously certain people don't care, or have to do it, but the threat of death above one's head is certainly a persuasive force. If you can't see that, we have nothing to talk about on this topic.

By the way, my example was a law of Saint Stephan, first king of Hungary, whose absolutely drastic new laws upon the state-founding dramatically decreased crime ratings, making order in a fresh state torn by chaos.
Because violence does solve issues.

[Oresai]

I have to agree with Arrow Cross in that it does deter. This is based on remembered conversations with my grandparents, both born in the late 1800s, who grew up when the death penalty in Britain was still in place. People did fear and respect it. In fact, given that in the past here, sentences in general were stiffer and actually given, then I think overall the more severe the sentence, the more people would attempt to avoid it by thinking twice about crimes liable to get them such a sentence.
Of course there will always be deviants who don`t care what happens to them or, more likely, refuse to believe it`ll happen to them, but then surely those are the very ones such sentences are meant for?
Given their mentality, it appears that no matter what the sentence is, they`ll offend anyway. Surely better to take them out totally than be lenient and allow them the freedom to go on offending? :confused:

[Oisín]

Opinions of Internet bloggers aren't proving anything either.
So when the facts don't suit your argument you just ignore them?
Those links I posted are not opinions they are facts. I've given you four studies proving it doesn't lower the crime rate. You said the death penalty lowers the crime rate, prove it. There is zero evidence to show the death penalty prevents murder or any other crime, to say otherwise is to lie.

And no, I don't advocate that, it was an example in which I made a quite clear point about why capital punishment does deter certain people from committing crimes.
You didn't make any point as far as I can tell.

I'm not saying the difference would be earth-shattering, as obviously certain people don't care, or have to do it, but the threat of death above one's head is certainly a persuasive force.
Even though all studies show that it is not a persuasive force?

If you can't see that, we have nothing to talk about on this topic.
If you want me to see the merits of your argument then show some evidence that backs it up. I'm not going to accept something as the truth just because you say it is so. You're entitled to your opinion and to support the death penalty and I have no problem with that, my problem is that you're trying to present your own personal opinion as fact even though it's not.
There are plenty of arguments for and against the death penalty but saying it lowers the crime rate is false, it's an outright lie and telling lies doesn't do your argument any favour.

By the way, my example was a law of Saint Stephan, first king of Hungary, whose absolutely drastic new laws upon the state-founding dramatically decreased crime ratings, making order in a fresh state torn by chaos.
Source?

Because violence does solve issues.
:coffee:

[Loyalist]

Arrow Cross's common sense view on this matter is valid. If a potential offender knows they will be put to death as opposed to receiving a pathetic prison sentence for committing various crimes, of course a number, regardless of how small, will think twice. The issue of deterrence aside, the death penalty is also a fitting punishment. I see no reason why murderers, rapists, paedophiles and so on, should be allowed a relatively comfortable existence in prison, particularly considering that many will have a chance at parole.

[Oisín]

I have to agree with Arrow Cross in that it does deter. This is based on remembered conversations with my grandparents, both born in the late 1800s, who grew up when the death penalty in Britain was still in place. People did fear and respect it. In fact, given that in the past here, sentences in general were stiffer and actually given, then I think overall the more severe the sentence, the more people would attempt to avoid it by thinking twice about crimes liable to get them such a sentence.
Of course there will always be deviants who don`t care what happens to them or, more likely, refuse to believe it`ll happen to them, but then surely those are the very ones such sentences are meant for?
Given their mentality, it appears that no matter what the sentence is, they`ll offend anyway. Surely better to take them out totally than be lenient and allow them the freedom to go on offending? :confused:
I've yet to see any evidence that it does deter. My grandparents were alive when there was a death penalty and there was a much lower murder rate, that wasn't because everyone secretly wanted to murder people but were deterred by the possibility of getting caught, it was because society was a hell of a lot different back then. There weren't any drugs around, people were religious, they were hard-working, there was a sense of community and people had values and respect for each other. Re-introducing the death penalty for murderers will certainly mean that if caught they wont kill again but it will do nothing to remedy the problems of society that have caused us to have such out of control crime in the first place.

[Oisín]

Arrow Cross's common sense view on this matter is valid. If a potential offender knows they will be put to death as opposed to receiving a pathetic prison sentence for committing various crimes, of course a number, regardless of how small, will think twice. The issue of deterrence aside, the death penalty is also a fitting punishment. I see no reason why murderers, rapists, paedophiles and so on, should be allowed a relatively comfortable existence in prison, particularly considering that many will have a chance at parole.
The argument that it is a fitting punishment is valid. The argument that it is a deterrent is not.

[Loyalist]

The argument that it is a fitting punishment is valid. The argument that it is a deterrent is not.

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.

[Revenant]

I am pro death penalty, but, there is a need to ensure very sound and solid evidence gathering procedures are used before the death penalty is applied.

The most overriding aim for the use of the death penalty is to protect society from a severe danger. If some kills someone and still represents a danger to society then that danger needs to be eliminated. But if someone kills someone and doesn't represent a continued danger to society, then we need to think very hard about what we're doing.

With people such as terrorists or serial killers we know they'll go out and kill again if they can, so they must be eliminated and with as little publicity and fanfare as possible. But where someone kills a specific individual for a specific reason, we need to closely examine if theyll kill others.

The injustice of a future release of the people who have comitted murder should be considered too, like somebody who murders in Australia when they are seventeen wont be tried as a adult and could be paroled in their late thirties, giving them a second chance they more than likely don't deserve.

If a lands lawful institutions won't eliminate known clear and present dangers to the lives of members of society, what's the point of having any laws or judicial system?.

[Arundel]

Yes, I firmly believe in the death penalty. I believe in a life for a life. It is always amazing how far a criminal will go to save his life, when he didn't give a hoot about his victim's life. I don't care how underprivileged they have been, many humans have been underprivileged, but they don't kill other people. I think the appeal system is disgusting. It usually takes a long time to find the criminal, then an even longer time to prosecute him legally, and actually get him in jail, and then he appeals and appeals, and may grow old on death row. In the mean time we tax payers are paying for his food, medicine, etc.

[Arundel]

I have been reading a book with a setting in medieval England. When they found a person guilty (without a doubt), as soon as the trial was over, they took them out and hung them, either man or woman.
I have also read in New England where they did the same. I doubt very much that any of them were not guilty, except of course, the poor witches. That is another example of regligious frenzy gone awry.
In my local county in the 1800's there was a man who went around murdering people. He was found guilty of one of the murders, and sent to the state penitentiary. He was a very beguiling man and soon started gardening for the governor. The governor became fond of him, and paroled him. Not long after he returned home, an entire farm family was murdered, father, two sons, and two daughters. It was a robbery, the father had a great deal of school tax money. But the law was not able to prove this man guilty, as everyone was afraid to testify against him, so they turned him loose again. He was warned not to return home, he arrogantly ignored the warnings. A large group of horsemen had gathered at his home, and when he arrived they hung him. I think that was good old fashioned justice. After that there were no more murders committed in the area.

[Arundel]

I wish someone would explain to me the term "for good behavior." I can't imagine what idiot thought that up, and put it in our penal system. When a criminal is finally caught, legally prosecuted, and locked up, there should be no question about his behaving 'good.'
If he does not behave he should receive a severe penalty, such as solitaire, or more time added to his term. Where on earth did anyone get the idea that they should reward him for behaving himself. Many dangerous criminals are paroled under the guise of 'good behavior.'

[Arrow Cross]

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.
That's it in a nutshell. The same anti-logical rhetorics is used when speaking for anti-gun laws, eg: you won't be safer if you can have guns, because many big bad evil people will buy them too and shoot with them on the streets.

And sorry that I'm not fanatical enough on the topic to dig up various links of opinions for you, but I elaborated my stance twice here, and everyone else seemed to understand. Not that it matters at all. There will be no death penalty while the EU stands - and since a sick, EU-slave state is my natural enemy, it's not even such a sad thing.

[Oresai]

I wish we could carry guns in Scotland. Really I do.
I`m sorry I can`t remember where, but I read not too long ago of a town in America where it`s legal to openly carry guns. Their crime rate is one of the lowest in the USA. I suspect because, if you see others openly bearing weapons that can kill, you have to assume they know how to use them. And if so, you don`t know how good, or how fast a shot they will be. So why take the chance?:)
Now that to me is a great deterrent. :) Weapons put everyone on an equal footing, so to speak. I should say, personal weapons, not bombs or bio weapons, obviously.
I collect crossbows, archery bows, knives and axes. If I could afford it and pay for the licenses I`d also collect guns, though I prefer weapons such as bows and swords (I also collect those, working versions for reenactments).
The law in Britain of course, tries constantly to outlaw such things, without accepting if a criminal is going to stab someone he can just as easily do so with a plain old kitchen knife (which many of them do in fact use)
and very few of them use crossbows....;)

[Loki]

I wish we could carry guns in Scotland. Really I do.
I`m sorry I can`t remember where, but I read not too long ago of a town in America where it`s legal to openly carry guns.

I used to carry a nice 9mm with me in SA, loaded with hollowpoint bullets for maximum stopping power. :thumb001:

[Oisín]

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.
Lol. Very easy to just ignore the facts when they don't suit your argument isn't it. There are plenty of sources other than AI that prove the death penalty doesn't lower the crime rate. Surely if the death penalty does lower the crime rate there is proof of this, why don't you post up a link?

[Oisín]

That's it in a nutshell. The same anti-logical rhetorics is used when speaking for anti-gun laws, eg: you won't be safer if you can have guns, because many big bad evil people will buy them too and shoot with them on the streets.

And sorry that I'm not fanatical enough on the topic to dig up various links of opinions for you, but I elaborated my stance twice here, and everyone else seemed to understand. Not that it matters at all. There will be no death penalty while the EU stands - and since a sick, EU-slave state is my natural enemy, it's not even such a sad thing.
You can't dig up any links to prove your point because they don't exist.

[Absinthe]

For, for cases where the person is judged to be beyond 'repair' (e.g. antisocial personality disorder) such as a serial killer, a repeated sex offender, a child molestor, etc.

I know it's not a very 'humanitarian' thing to do, especially for 'advanced' societies.

But I'd rather risk killing an innocent than putting the lives of many innocents at risk by letting a maniac loose.

In such cases (such as the aforementioned antisocial personality disorder), the offender is fully aware of the nature and the consequencees of his/her actions, and s/he cannot feel remorse or guilt, and does not exhibit empathy for other living beings.

Such people are especially dangerous and, by their own admittance, will continue doing what they're doing as long for as they're alive, so unless they're put in isolation and held under maximum security, they constitute a very real and serious public threat.

And then...why spent taxpayer money to keep those of naturally malevolent nature, alive & well? What good are they good for, except for case studies? Perhaps sentencing them to death is best for everyone.

[HawkR]

Since there wasn't a poll on the last on, I though I should just make one.:wink

Here's also the link to the former topic on it so that you lazy people can easier go and copy-paste:phttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446

[Eldritch]

For.

I must admit that there are a lot of people in this country whom I fantasise about dropping into the sea from airplanes, Argentina style.

[Absinthe]

I don't need to go back and paste, I'm for it, for those with antisocial personality disorder and related sociopathic psychopathology (conduct disorder, etc).

Those people cannot be rehabilitated. It's a biological default for them, sadistic tendencies and lack of empathy and guilt.

Just like the people you mentioned that kidnapped and tortured the teenager. :mad:

[HawkR]

Ooh... I forgot to say my opinion about the case, but you know, I'm for. But I'm also for public hanging and such, not to scare people, but to imberasse the hanged, you know, you soil yourself at the time of death.

[Arrow Cross]

Did you willingly make this poll anonym? :p

Public should really be the default option. It's half the fun of polls to begin with! And we'd also get to know each other better on the long run.

[HawkR]

Hehe, well, I didn't actually know what to choose, so for the sace of those not brave enough to stand for their meenings, I placed it anonym:p

[Eldritch]

Public should really be the default option. It's half the fun of polls to begin with! And we'd also get to know each other better on the long run.

Exactly.

[Arrow Cross]

Hehe, well, I didn't actually know what to choose, so for the sace of those not brave enough to stand for their meenings, I placed it anonym:p
Always choose wisely, for thanks to TardBulletin, even Uncle Arrow can't change it for you later.

[Loki]

Ooh... I forgot to say my opinion about the case, but you know, I'm for. But I'm also for public hanging and such, not to scare people, but to imberasse the hanged, you know, you soil yourself at the time of death.

What if you were erroneously convicted for a crime you didn't commit, and are yourself publicly humiliated at the time of your death? Doesn't sound like fun to me. :p

I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand, there are those who I'd personally like to strangle with my own two hands. On the other hand, I kinda feel awkward wishing for the death of another human being, as if I have the right over life and death. I don't think I have, nor do I want to have.

[HawkR]

Well, there are those who want, but they might not be qualified for it. If I was falsly convicted, which happen alot this times, I would at least done whatever I could to break free. But I would also keep away from such things and such people that might drag me into something that could have such a consequence.

[Absinthe]

^ Been watching 'Prison Break', haven't we? :D

[Arrow Cross]

Death penalty should not be issued without definate and clear proof... but when there is, and the crime commited was disturbing enough, then let the heads fly.

[HawkR]

^ Been watching 'Prison Break', haven't we? :D


If yee're talkin' to me, I hast not seen even one full episode of PB.

[SwordoftheVistula]

1000% for. I favor using this in the 'three strikes law', 3 strikes and you are out for good. If they are never going to be rehabilitated into normal society, I don't see a point in warding over them in prison until they die of natural causes.

[Oisín]

Against, for the reasons I outlined in the other thread. Unless it acts as a deterrent what's the point? All studies show it doesn't act as a deterrent so the only other reason for it would be that it gives satisfaction to the family of the victim. The government murdering for revenge doesn't set a good example to the people. I don't trust the government and I certainly don't trust the police, they're not above framing people and telling out right lies in court to secure a conviction.
I don't object to the odd bit of vigilantism though, in the occupied 6 counties in the north east of Ireland the British police are not trusted by the Nationalist population so before the Provisional IRA gave up its weapons it was the responsibility of the IRA to police their own communities, punishment beatings, public humiliation, kneecapping etc. The R-IRA do the same these days, rapists drug dealers and the like are ordered to leave the country, if they don't do so they get a few good beatings and maybe a couple of bullets in the knees, this usually changes their mind and they clear off somewhere else.

[Æmeric]

Since there wasn't a poll on the last on, I though I should just make one.:wink

Here's also the link to the former topic on it so that you lazy people can easier go and copy-paste:phttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446

:)


The US has not had an effective death penalty for nearly 50-years. It use to be an excellent deterrent. But then there started to be countless court challenges to the dealth penalty for all sorts of frivolous reasons. If someone is given the dealth penalty you can count of endless appeals that will take years to work their ways through the courts. In reality the appeals have nothing to do with guilt or innocence but are simply attacks on the death penalty, the same appeals process would not take place in cases of life-without-parole.

The majority of murder victims in the US are of persons-of-color, usually committed by the same. Many of these cases are simply not solved because there are no witnesses or witnesses will not come forward.

I am in favor of the death penalty for murder, treason & certain cases of rape & child rape.


1000% for. I favor using this in the 'three strikes law', 3 strikes and you are out for good. If they are never going to be rehabilitated into normal society, I don't see a point in warding over them in prison until they die of natural causes. On three strikes it would depend on the type of crimes before I would support the death penalty. But serial offenders should be treated differently, I'd support a penal colony in some godforsaken part of the World, Darfur or Rwanda for example.

[Arrow Cross]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45832

[Psychonaut]

When it comes to murder, violent rape, child molestation, etc. I'm almost always in favor of execution. In cases which are based solely on circumstantial evidence, imprisonment is probably a safer option in case definitive evidence of innocence arises. However, in cases where the culprit is caught 'red handed,' there should be nothing short of a quick trial and summary execution. In the words of the ancient Teutons:

Throw 'em in the bog!

[Lady L]

Whats your view on capital punishment..? Right or Wrong..? Does it depend on the situation..? And, what execution method is acceptable..?

I will answer later. :)

[Psychonaut]

I support capital punishment for serious crimes (i.e. murder, violent rape, etc.) with a few caveats. I don't think it's a good idea at all for someone to be sentenced to death on the basis of evidence that is purely or even largely circumstantial, regardless of how convincing that might be. In the absence of physical proof, I think that life in prison is a constitutionally safer option. However, in the case of those who are caught red handed, there should really be no other option than a quick, cheap death (I think we should bring back the gallows). I am also not opposed at all to executing the mentally ill. If a person is so crazy that they can't help but rape and murder others, they have no business remaining among the living.

[Loki]

We have an older thread (with poll) on the death penalty (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=870) also.

[Lady L]

We have an older thread (with poll) on the death penalty (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=870) also.

Aww! Sorry didn't see any...:)

[Loki]

Threads merged.

Mrs. Lyfing's thread intention is current, perhaps a good way of reviving this debate. :)

[woody]

An eye for an eye sounds good to me. Sometimes, an eye, arm, and leg for an eye.

If someone shot someone else, or killed the person quickly, then a quick death. If it was a long drawn out torture, rape, child molestation, or something severe, make it a long, drawn out torture with death being inevitable. Putting someone in a gas chamber, or lethal injection is an easy way to go. Dying probably isn't pleasant when you aren't sick. Just the "knowing" that you are being killed is enough. But, not really.

As for circumstantial evidence, yeah, imprisonment is probably best. I'd hate to know that I was to blame for an innocent death.

[Jägerstaffel]

I'm for the death penalty. I think we should even have the death penalty for less severe crimes than we have now. And we should televise it to keep others from making such mistakes.

Death or exile. Keep the criminals out in my opinion.

But the justice system is too far gone to fix and there are too many people to govern.

[Lady L]

I think I have yet to decide on this one. Or maybe I'm just " depends " ...normally, I would say yes, all for it. But, like the other day I was watching a story on a young man who was narcissistic and plotted to kill his mother and father, he carried out the killing his mother part and they were interviewing him and his dad...he was on death row in Texas ( I think ) ...and I put myself in his father's shoes and thought for a moment. I even considered " he killed his mother, my wife " ...but it still seemed unimaginable for the " law " to kill my son. It didn't seem morally right to me. It didn't seem right for that to be their decision. But, there have also been times I yell out " fry that sucker " so...for me, it depends.

[Jägerstaffel]

I heard in the news the other day about a guy who stopped his car on a bridge and threw one of his 3 kids (the other two were in the car) off the bridge and drove off. I say we string that guy up by his genitals until he rots.

[Loddfafner]

I am against the death penalty. The State should not have the right to kill. That right should be reserved for people like me to use as we see fit. More seriously, I am not opposed to some severe community-based sanctions that would have the culprits wishing for the electric chair instead.

[Ulf]

I am against the death penalty. The State should not have the right to kill.

Does declaring war fall under that? Though this might call for another thread.

[Hulda.Kin]

What would our ancestors have done? Would they have allowed people who had committed heinous crimes to continue to live and be kept with good food and beds in a nice warm jail cell? I don't think so...

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't know. Under normal circumstances would the death penalty be something horrendous: what if you hang the wrong person ? Something like that is irreversible but so are long-term prison sentences. They too can cause damage which is perhaps even more cruel then the death penalty since they mess up a person's psyche for life.

But then again.. we live in days where we import (wholesale) believes and ideas that are not just alien to us.. but (face it) downright barbaric. Having a liberal judicial climate and equally liberal laws in such times is not just idiotic.. it is dangerous. It is like punishing a caveman by locking him up. An idea that is itself alien to him thus cannot be deterrent nor serve as a punishment. No it is worse: having served time in prison has become a badge of honor for those we have imported. While they in their own countries had entirely different ideas about punishment. Stealing something ? Off goes the guilty hand. Murder ? Off goes your head.

I think that we will have to learn that not one size fits all and that as long as we continue to see cultures not in terms of being developed or barbaric and see them as equal but different and as long as we let the scum rule the streets we will continue to have the most horrendous crimes lining the headlines of our newspapers. My idea is that we should impose the death penalty on those that have come here and commit horrible crimes and keep a liberal system for the real citizens. After all- the latter understand the meaning of having to serve a couple of months or years.


I think that the most "gruesome" punishment that we should employ against people should be exile (preferably to a non-western country). Kicking them out of our country (and denying them our kinship and our citizenship)- separating them from their soil and their kin. The death penalty itself should only be used in times of war (when one cannot be exiled).
Exile can be horrible enough and was practiced by many nations in the past. For instance by the British that used to send their criminals to Australia- by the shipload.

[Silverfern]

I am for...no dead criminal ever re offends.

[Barreldriver]

Definitely for the death penalty

[Beorn]

I have never been comfortable with the idea of the death penalty, although I can see the desire for it to be in effect in some cases.


TVMho2cP1NE

-8068091823725414405

[Ulf]

Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of. -HL Mencken

[Atlas]

The title says it all... :) after a thread from Wat Tyler on a "british" woman accused of drug-smuggling and sentenced to the death penalty, we both agreed on the fact that The Apricity needed a death penalty poll and thread. Take your arguments, debate, you're free to do so now. :)

[Äike]

Death penalty is a good thing. Over here, holding criminals in jail doesn't work. They serve their time and start doing crimes again...

There's a saying here: "If you want to kill someone, then use a car. You'll get 6 months of probation." Like this 1 guy, he killed 4 people with a car, by accident. Got his license removed and 8 months of probation.

Strict laws for criminals is the answer.

Using the death penalty in Estonia, would significally decrease the Russian population here. As the Estonian jails are full of Russians. That's a good thing, because Estonians make ONLY 68% of the population in Estonia.

[The Lawspeaker]

There is already a thread (and poll) about the death penalty (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=870&highlight=death+penalty).

[Atlas]

My bad, I suggest we merge them, Loki ?

[Loki]

Threads merged. Hmm ... that seems to have messed up the old thread's votes. You'll have to vote again I'm afraid.

[The Lawspeaker]

I gave it another thought and I am favor now (but only under the most heinous of circumstances like war)

Under military law in peace time (when my country would become a Republic this should be under federal law):



espionage: hanging
murder or attempted murder on a comrade, civilian or senior officer: hanging

During war time (under military law or state of emergency): any action that may harm the reputation of the Armed Forces- thus any kind of war crimes, which would include crimes like:



looting or "unlawful commandeering" of civilian or military property: hanging
any assault (including murder) on a civilian- friendly or hostile: hanging
rape: hanging
the use of torture on civilians or enemy POW's (let alone friendly troops): hanging
incitement to murdering civilians: hanging
cowardliness in the face of the enemy: firing squad by his/ and in front of his regiment after flogging
desertion: firing squad by his/ and in front of his regiment after flogging
high treason/ espionage (both for civilians and military personnel): hanging
genocide (any role played in making it happen): hanging


Also an attempt that should be punishable by death should be piracy: hanging

[Óttar]

In order for the death penalty to work, it would have to be swift, and for cases where the evidence is beyond any doubt. The death penalty costs tax payers too much, but I'm not really for life imprisonment either. Being from the US, a nation with the most backwards prison system in the first world (We have an 19th century prison system), I say prison's first priority should be rehabilitation, not punishment. Prisoners should be able to meditate, learn skills and especially read books. In cases where rehabilitation is not possible, I propose an island (or better yet the unclaimed Mauritanian desert) where prisoners, both male and female, can go and duke it out, or form gangs etc. They cannot cross into another sovereign territory for any reason whatever, and visits from family and a select group of brave friends should be relegated by special passports issued by an entity to be determined.

[ClassicGoddess]

i am totally for it! i think it's not something that is used enough...people need to answer for their crimes & if the crime is of a particularly heinous nature (involving women, children, the "weak" as it were), they need to be put down like the dogs they are...

[Beorn]

I say prison's first priority should be rehabilitation, not punishment. Prisoners should be able to meditate, learn skills and especially read books.

I agree. I think the prison service should be the very last chance that a man or woman receives in life. No other chances. No excuses.

I also think that whilst detained in prison, the inmates should be made to give their time in some sector of the low skilled industries, like minor line assembly work, or the such.

I could envisage whole prisons catering towards a certain industry and benefiting the chosen industry all the while serving time, gaining a skill and hopefully being successfully rehabilitated back into society.


In cases where rehabilitation is not possible, I propose an island (or better yet the unclaimed Mauritanian desert) where prisoners, both male and female, can go and duke it out, or form gangs etc. They cannot cross into another sovereign territory for any reason whatever, and visits from family and a select group of brave friends should be relegated by special passports issued by an entity to be determined.

I've thought along these lines often enough, but can never get it to sit comfortably with me.

What type of prisoners would you imagine being incarcerated there?

[Brynhild]

For the arseholes who raped and murdered Anita Cobby (http://www.thecrimeweb.com/murder_of_anita_cobby.htm), I wouldn't bat an eyelid. They are in jail, never to be released, and they are a financial burden.

While I voted for, I would also bear in mind that it has to be beyond reasonable doubt that somebody has committed a heinous crime. I am also mindful about wrongful executions, such as the last hanging in Australia of Ronald Ryan (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22958005-421,00.html?from=public_rss), and he was nothing more than a petty crook.

Paedophiles and psychopaths can't be rehabilitated, they will never blend into mainstream society, so why pay for them to rot in jail?

[The Lawspeaker]

Brynhild has a point: why should we as a society waste good tax money on absolute psycho's that cannot be rehabilitated when the cheap solution is a noose that be used (at least) twice ?

But we should still be mindful of what and who we are executing. But I would prefer to leave the right to have a death penalty to the individual provinces here.

[Rainraven]

I voted for.

In the case of psychopaths who carry out particularly violent and/or sadistic crimes and also premeditated murder. If a person has taken the time to go about planning and trying to appear innocent for a murder then there is no reason why they should not expect the consequences.

For petty crimes rehabilitation should be the aim, if it will be possible for them to then be integrated back into society. Prisons should also take steps towards being self sufficient with working gangs and farms to lessen their burden on society :thumbs up

[SwordoftheVistula]

The death penalty costs tax payers too much, but I'm not really for life imprisonment either.

The court system in general costs too much, but it usually only gets tallied up on a per-prisoner basis in death penalty cases. Definitely some sort of reform is needed here especially in death penalty cases to limit the number of appeals available and speed up the process. No way should it take more than a year or so from time of sentencing to time of execution.


I say prison's first priority should be rehabilitation, not punishment. Prisoners should be able to meditate, learn skills and especially read books.

There should be a triage of sorts. A lot of things people are in prison for shouldn't even be illegal (drugs) or shouldn't be imprisonable offenses, at least not for the first offense. Some people just need a kick in the ass (rehabilitatable ones), a lot of these people could be given the option to join the military instead like they used to do.


In cases where rehabilitation is not possible, I propose an island (or better yet the unclaimed Mauritanian desert) where prisoners, both male and female, can go and duke it out, or form gangs etc. They cannot cross into another sovereign territory for any reason whatever, and visits from family and a select group of brave friends should be relegated by special passports issued by an entity to be determined.

Yeah, maybe it's time to bring back the concepts of penal colonies. We could either consign them all to an island and have them grow crops or whatever, or move them someplace entirely different like Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Ooh... I forgot to say my opinion about the case, but you know, I'm for. But I'm also for public hanging and such, not to scare people, but to imberasse the hanged, you know, you soil yourself at the time of death.
Not really ,they put a cork up your ass:D

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Brynhild has a point: why should we as a society waste good tax money on absolute psycho's that cannot be rehabilitated when the cheap solution is a noose that be used (at least) twice ?

But we should still be mindful of what and who we are executing. But I would prefer to leave the right to have a death penalty to the individual provinces here.
And forget not,that Hanging is in more ways than one more expensive
Starting off with appeal after appeal after appeal.
See Ted Bundy's case.
Do it the Botswana way.
If the court finds you guilty then hanging is within 30 days.
Zambia too.
I asked Sir Seretse Khama ones about hanging:"It is a necessarily evil,but very effective,even if we ones or twice make a mistake in the 10000.
It is better than let them live for 30 years or so in prison.
Best of all they can not repeat the crime.
Democracy, the British way is for softies and liberals.

[Bloodeagle]

Well, if hanging was good enough for Odin then it should be good enough for them!:thumb001:
I voted for the death penalty.
I feel that the death penalty could and should be used on, for example Sex Offenders and Murderers.

I also like the firing squad. It seems to be a very economical method of execution. No scaffolding or gallows to build and no special rope! Just invite the local hunting clubs and have a raffle to find the shooters.
http://www.rfc-rnas-raf-register.org.uk/FiringSquad.jpg:D

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that the firing squad is a honorable way of dying (suitable for a soldier) and it is not good enough for your neighborhood rapist or murderer- those deserve the noose as the noose was also good enough for the murderous peasant or stealing citizen during the Middle Ages.

Getting hanged is a dishonorable death.

[Bloodeagle]

Good point, Lawspeaker about this honorable execution!

Perhaps, we could do as our ancestors did and place them in the bogs.:D


Many bog bodies show signs of being killed, stabbed, bludgeoned, hanged and strangled, or a combination of these methods. The nipples of Old Croghan Man were sliced almost through. The corpses were sometimes decapitated, then deliberately buried in the bog, staked down with stakes or twisted willow or hazel withies. Interpretations of the forensic examinations vary; it is debated whether they were ritually slain and placed in the bog as an execution for a crime, or as a human sacrifice. Some bog bodies, such as Tollund Man from Denmark, have been found with the rope used to strangle them still around their necks. Some, such as the Yde Girl in the Netherlands and bog bodies in Ireland, had the hair on one side of their heads closely cropped, although this could be due to the one side of their head being exposed to oxygen for a longer period of time than the other. The bog bodies seem consistently to have been members of the upper class: their fingernails are manicured and tests on hair protein routinely record good nutrition. Strabo records that the Celts practiced auguries on the entrails of human victims: on some bog bodies, such as one of the Weerdinge Men found in southern Netherlands, the entrails have been partly drawn out through incisions.

However, in light of a recent National Geographic article, it may be possible that these injuries were not always inflicted by other people as a means of torture, but rather the weight of the bog.[citation needed] This would explain instances of smashed bones and the like.

The unity of the details of violent ritual slaughter over such a wide swathe of Northern Europe is a testament to a broadly unified culture, one which corroborates the breadth of material culture found in Celtic Iron Age archaeological sites of the La Tène type.

[Tabiti]

For and agaist for two main reasons:
1) Death penalty is not the most severe punishment. In some cases it even appears as mercy
2) Guess who is feeding, dressing and securing the criminals decent living in prisons. Civilians...

[The Lawspeaker]

For and agaist for two main reasons:
1) Death penalty is not the most severe punishment. In some cases it even appears as mercy
"Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of." - H.L Mencken



2) Guess who is feeding, dressing and securing the criminals decent living in prisons. Civilians...
Hence a good reason to let them swing.

[Elveon]

I am for the death penalty by hanging, especially for murderers or torturers of children or aged persons, rapists and other sex offenders,drug dealers (who kill our youth), pedophiles and finally islamist terrorists who kill Whites-Europeans to the name of their dirty "holy war".

[Lulletje Rozewater]

BRAZEN BULL

The brazen bull is an execution device designed in ancient Greece.

Perillos of Athens, a brass-founder, proposed to Phalaris, Tyrant of Agrigentum, the invention of a new means for executing criminals; accordingly, he cast a brazen bull, made totally of brass, hollow, with a door in the side. The victim was shut up in the bull and a fire was set under it, heating the metal until it became "red hot" and causing the victim inside to slowly roast to death. So that nothing unseemly might spoil his feasting, Phalaris commanded that the bull be designed in such a way that its smoke rose in spicy clouds of incense. The head of the ox was supplied by a complex system of tubes and stops so that the prisoner's screams were converted into sounds not unlike the bellowing of an infuriated ox. It is also said that when the bull was reopened, the victims' scorched bones shone like jewels and were made into bracelets.

Or
Quartering and ask Picasso to stitch the pieces any which way.:D

[SwordoftheVistula]

Quartering and ask Picasso to stitch the pieces any which way.:D

Picassombies! That would make a great horror movie :thumb001:

[Euroblood]

I am against it.

For one thing the current death penalty system is a joke. Let's take Lethal injection for example; today it has become such a humane (to an extreme) way to put someone out. "Sit down, make yourself comfortable someone will be with you shortly" type deal and I think criminals who have committed crimes that would be worthy of death do not have to be treated as if they are guests in someone’s home.

The Death penalty to me is illogical because it is an absolute, yet we are not absolutely sure about all the facts. If we screw up then we can't undo the mistake because the death of that individual is permanent.

In addition, suppose we take a life because they took life. We bump into the problem when they took more than one life. If I killed 50 people I can only die once and so how do the other 49 get justice. It just doesn't work.

And then we have those who might not fear death or even want to die, like say someone who would be a suicide bomber or something. They were going to die anyway as far as they were concerned so you haven't deterred or stopped anything.

[SwordoftheVistula]

For one thing the current death penalty system is a joke. Let's take Lethal injection for example; today it has become such a humane (to an extreme) way to put someone out. "Sit down, make yourself comfortable someone will be with you shortly" type deal and I think criminals who have committed crimes that would be worthy of death do not have to be treated as if they are guests in someone’s home.

Easy solution, just bring back more painful methods of execution.


The Death penalty to me is illogical because it is an absolute, yet we are not absolutely sure about all the facts. If we screw up then we can't undo the mistake because the death of that individual is permanent.

We can be close enough-someone has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' of committing a crime to be convicted in the first place.



In addition, suppose we take a life because they took life. We bump into the problem when they took more than one life. If I killed 50 people I can only die once and so how do the other 49 get justice. It just doesn't work.

1>0



And then we have those who might not fear death or even want to die, like say someone who would be a suicide bomber or something. They were going to die anyway as far as they were concerned so you haven't deterred or stopped anything.

Oh, well. At least we're rid of them.

[The Lawspeaker]

Perhaps one day when we have liberated our countries from those people that have brought us into this mess we will be faced with a lot of prisoners.. A lot of them influential people. What are your ideas ? Should some be lined up?

[Wyn]

Perhaps one day when we have liberated our countries from those people that have brought us into this mess we will be faced with a lot of prisoners.. A lot of them influential people. What are your ideas ? Should some be lined up?

Not that I necessarily believe we will one day have liberated our countries, though I would like it to be so, but there are definitely politicians that are gravely guilty and in an ideal world would be answering to the authorities. Tony Blair for example is responsible for many deaths. I don't know whether I would support the death penalty, though. Probably not.

[Crossbow]

I don't mind if those who have created this multicultural mess among other things, would disappear forever.

[Piparskeggr]

I am in favor of slaying those whose crimes are deserving of such as determined by my community's standards.

I am also in favor of setting up a special Federal level appeals court here in the US of A just to handle Capital cases; broad powers of investigation, solid forensic tools and the authority to say yeah or nay, with final review by our Supreme Court.

I think this would reduce the number of systemic errors and speed the process for the peace of mind of the victims and/or their families.

Yes, errors will creep in, but I'm not in the "let 100 evil men go if there is the chance that 1 innocent will die" camp.

[Grumpy Cat]

I don't mind if those who have created this multicultural mess among other things, would disappear forever.

Yeah too bad the people responsible for that in Canada are already dead.

But one of their faces is on the $5 bill. Screw that, I'll get my $5 bills exchanged for 2 twoonies and a loonie... I'd rather stare at two polar bears and a duck than his ugly mug.

[Cato]

Aye.

[blan]

please explain , do they drop people from planes in argentina



For.

I must admit that there are a lot of people in this country whom I fantasise about dropping into the sea from airplanes, Argentina style.

[blan]

things are rarely black and white, sometimes people need to be executed but i think it should be treated as a delicate matter and it should never be used in a liberal fashion

[The Lawspeaker]

please explain , do they drop people from planes in argentina
They used to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights)

[Germanicus]

I believe that the relatives of the murdered victim have the final say whether the murderer has capital punishment or a life sentence.
Islamic countries have this: If the murderer makes a benefitial financial offer to the relatives, they have the choice.

[Ibericus]

Why kill when you can have labour for free ?

With death you are not punishing somebody, they are not gonna regret and suffer. Death is a stupid solution. Plus, there are mistakes, and some innocent people are gonna die.

[The Lawspeaker]

Why kill when you can have hard labour for free ?
Because those bastards have to be fed, clothed and housed at the expense of the tax payer.

[Liffrea]

It’s an interesting subject that covers not just the need for law in order to sustain order but also moral justification.

In the case of murder I think intent needs to be taken into account but where an individual sets out with the intention of murdering someone it is pretty hard not to see execution as valid. As I say intent is the key, there is a difference between setting out to kill a paedophile who has been abusing your child and killing someone to take their possessions, both are premeditated but the situation is different.

As for treason this is tricky, on face value a politician who actively works against the public body is culpable, yet what about a man who actively works against his government because he believes it is in the interest of his country? This, legally, is still treason. Those of us, for example, who live in the EU live under EU legislation, and increasingly direct control, whether we choose to acknowledge the authority of the EU or not. The UK government is my government even though I consider the state of the United Kingdom to be actively harmful to the interests of the nations that comprise it.

Perhaps it is a case, as the old saying goes, that treason is dependent on what you can actually get away with. It’s all down to who writes the laws, Tony Blair was in a position to influence that, he actually re-wrote the laws on treason, hence he managed to get away with actions that many would consider treasonable. For average Joe’s like myself I’m under the legal authority of people who may write laws I may disagree with.

A fascinating and complex subject.

[nisse]

No institution should ever have the power to kill a person. The power of life and death is a great responsibility, not to be diluted by mindless (they all are) bureaucracy.

When someone kills someone else in your name, you've commited a murder - I don't want blood on my hands, unless I want it enough to do it myself. I think it is unacceptable for a government to make me, and all its citizens, murderers.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Not that I necessarily believe we will one day have liberated our countries, though I would like it to be so, but there are definitely politicians that are gravely guilty and in an ideal world would be answering to the authorities. Tony Blair for example is responsible for many deaths. I don't know whether I would support the death penalty, though. Probably not.

That is why I like the Genghis Khan way. Nothing left to chance.
Tony Blair is by all standards a British Blair Witch project.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/%7Epa639/the_blair_witch_project.jpg

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Why kill when you can have labour for free ?



With death you are not punishing somebody, they are not gonna regret and suffer. Death is a stupid solution. Plus, there are mistakes, and some innocent people are gonna die.

Iberia, I have a private tape of a hanging in Zambia-compliments of my dad.
Only 3 minutes :eek:
The sound did put me off and his last remark...'shit'
The revulsion of the tape would imo put anyone off to commit a heinous crime.
I am all for a televised hanging,not lethal injection-to lame.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No institution should ever have the power to kill a person. The power of life and death is a great responsibility, not to be diluted by mindless (they all are) bureaucracy.

When someone kills someone else in your name, you've commited a murder - I don't want blood on my hands, unless I want it enough to do it myself. I think it is unacceptable for a government to make me, and all its citizens, murderers.

Interesting thought.
The government does it for you as a citizen and not murder.

[Austin]

The U.S. prison gang shot-callers in solitary confinement order hits on the street all the time, blackmailing poorly paid prison guards by finding where their families reside.

They can do this because they are in states that do not have the death penalty, and are in prison for life to begin with. The FBI did a grand case on these shot-callers once and took them all to court then realized it was pointless as they just received multiple life convictions in solitary confinement....exactly where they ordered the killings in the first place....

I'd say the death penalty is the only real form of justice in respect for many who will otherwise continue to function in many cases worse than before.

8acs-xu5dSI

[blan]

here we agree, Its simply a case of self deffense in many cases,
you have insane convicts that will attack other inmates, guards, and will attempt murder in any way they can,
,like th american serial killer ted bundy, broke out of jail and went on a killing spree, these cases is purely self deffense when yo udeal with people who kill in such a cold blooded manner.



I'd say the death penalty is the only real form of justice in respect for many who will otherwise continue to function in many cases worse than before.

8acs-xu5dSI

[blan]

mind you one of the killers in this video showed some good character the one that turned in the aryan borther hood who had famlies killed,
Thats why the death penalty should be used with carefully.
I dont think all killers should be put to death for instance a gang member killing a rival gang member, i dont see the point of giving them the death penalty but if they kill women, children, and people who have nothing to do with there affairs then i say lynch them.

8acs-xu5dSI[/QUOTE]

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by nisse
No institution should ever have the power to kill a person. The power of life and death is a great responsibility, not to be diluted by mindless (they all are) bureaucracy.

So who does this responsibility devolve to? Personally I’m more inclined to see that responsibility invested within a body that should be impartial and logical in its acts. If we allow the power of life and death to be handed to parties directly involved in a case then I am sure you can see the potential for impartiality to be compromised.


When someone kills someone else in your name, you've commited a murder –

Your view then would have to extend to labelling soldiers murderers. After all their vocation is to, ostensibly, engage and kill the enemies of the state you live within. The state acts in your name, whether you acknowledge it or not, (I know of no state of any ideological constitution that doesn’t claim to be acting in the name of the people).

[nisse]

So who does this responsibility devolve to? Personally I’m more inclined to see that responsibility invested within a body that should be impartial and logical in its acts. If we allow the power of life and death to be handed to parties directly involved in a case then I am sure you can see the potential for impartiality to be compromised.
First off, I don't believe anyone can be entirely objective. Secondly, I'm not for impartiality in such matters. Death is not a logical matter, it's a highly emotional one. Those that commit murder (primary or as punishment) must suffer with the guilt of what they've done, not feel justified by some logic.


Your view then would have to extend to labelling soldiers murderers. After all their vocation is to, ostensibly, engage and kill the enemies of the state you live within. The state acts in your name, whether you acknowledge it or not, (I know of no state of any ideological constitution that doesn’t claim to be acting in the name of the people).
They are murderers and I have no pity for those dying in Afganistan in my name. I feel pity for the civilians, and even a bit for the Taliban (they are defending their land afterall).

If my country was under a *real* threat, I would be willing to join the army and commit murder myself.

[Psychonaut]

They are murderers and I have no pity for those dying in Afganistan in my name. I feel pity for the civilians, and even a bit for the Taliban (they are defending their land afterall).

Such pacifist views are completely untenable outside of the safe-zone created and secured by the very violence that those such as yourself detest. And those who wish harm upon their nation's troops are, in my opinion, traitors of the highest order.

[The Lawspeaker]

They are murderers and I have no pity for those dying in Afganistan in my name. I feel pity for the civilians, and even a bit for the Taliban (they are defending their land afterall).

Whistles in disgust !:eek::rolleyes:

[nisse]

Such pacifist views are completely untenable outside of the safe-zone created and secured by the very violence that those such as yourself detest. And those who wish harm upon their nation's troops are, in my opinion, traitors of the highest order.

ROFL...my nations' troops? My nation has as much interest in Afghanistan as there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. :thumb001:...If the Taliban is oh-so-dangerous to the West, why was the US arming them when they were fighting with the USSR?

These "soldiers" are hired guns, one step above mercenaries. They can fall down wells all they like, they are not getting a hero's welcome from anyone with an ounce of common sense. In fact, I want my money back. :mad:

[Psychonaut]

ROFL...my nations' troops? My nation has as much interest in Afghanistan as there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. :thumb001:...If the Taliban is oh-so-dangerous to the West, why was the US arming them when they were fighting with the USSR?

Disagreeing with foreign policy is a far different beast than wishing death upon your nation's soldiers. Those who would conflate the two seem to always be loony lefties or Christians of the most idiotic stripe; the one thing both groups share in common is a propensity for making association fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).


These "soldiers" are hired guns, one step above mercenaries. They can fall down wells all they like, they are not getting a hero's welcome from anyone with an ounce of common sense.

You have no idea motivates us to do what we do.

[nisse]

Disagreeing with foreign policy is a far different beast than wishing death upon your nation's soldiers. Those who would conflate the two seem to always be loony lefties or Christians of the most idiotic stripe; the one thing both groups share in common is a propensity for making association fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).
I don't wish death on them, because I don't believe in the death penalty and don't care enough about what happens there to bother..plus, my understanding is that not all of them have been involved in situations where someone was killed.

When it comes to right and wrong, I don't care whether they live or die (well, I don't want the taxpayer to have to pay their widows benefits) - I just want them out of there. Better if they get out alive and not kill anyone in the meantime (i.e. former invaders but at least not murderers).

As for that association fallacy, to me someone who carries out an unlawful order is just as guilty as the person who gave it. We all have free will.


You have no idea motivates us to do what we do.
I don't care what motivates you (I hope its the money, otherwise you're at best irrational)...but you are hired guns, since you get paid for what you do.

[Psychonaut]

I don't wish death on them, because I don't believe in the death penalty and don't care enough about what happens there to bother..plus, my understanding is that not all of them have been involved in situations where someone was killed.

When it comes to right and wrong, I don't care whether they live or die (well, I don't want the taxpayer to have to pay their widows benefits) - I just want them out of there. Better if they get out alive and not kill anyone in the meantime (i.e. former invaders but at least not murderers).

I suppose apathy is a shade better than treachery.


As for that association fallacy, to me someone who carries out an unlawful order is just as guilty as the person who gave it.

Guilty in what way? Not morally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Law_%28fallacy%29), and only legally if the current judicial body under whose jurisdiction the soldier falls deems the order illegal. Folks with no power to back up their opinions are free to consider the Iraq and Afghanistan wars illegal, but their opinions have as much meaning as if they were to consider eating broccoli to be illegal.


We all have free will.

Offtopic, but I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism) could (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism) not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_determinism) disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_determinism) more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism) with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_determinism) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd). ;)


I don't care what motivates you

Nor do I care to share that with someone who has no regard for the lives of those who are sworn to defend her.


(I hope its the money, otherwise you're at best irrational)

Of course; because patriotism and service towards ones country are obviously irrational. :rolleyes2:


...but you are hired guns, since you get paid for what you do.

The fact that one gets paid for an action does not necessarily determine the mode in which nor the reasons for which that action is performed. There was a nasty old man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) who disagreed with my position, but most students of human nature admit extra-economic sources of influence.

[nisse]

Guilty in what way? Not morally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Law_%28fallacy%29), and only legally if the current judicial body under whose jurisdiction the soldier falls deems the order illegal. Folks with no power to back up their opinions are free to consider the Iraq and Afghanistan wars illegal, but their opinions have as much meaning as if they were to consider eating broccoli to be illegal.
"Illegal" was inaccurate, pardon. I'm not a fan of written law in principle. It's mostly good for finding loopholes and court theatrics. Immoral would be better. Both those wars were immoral (IMO). There was no convincing evidence of a threat and to me the actions of the government (or its agents - soldiers) are not justified.


Offtopic, but I could not disagree more with you.
...right, blame it on conditioning...I don't disagree, but I think great men can overcome such things, and overcoming them is what makes them great.


Nor do I care to share that with someone who has no regard for the lives of those who are sworn to defend her.
..nor did I ask you to share.
The army is not defending me, the police are not defending me. They are defending the people that sign their paychecks and couldn't care less about those that actually earn the cash so that those checks don't bounce. We recently had more proof of that at the G20 in Toronto.


Of course; because patriotism and service towards ones country are obviously irrational. :rolleyes2:
How does occupation of Afghanistan serve my country (or yours, for that matter)? As far as I am concerned, eating broccolli in Halifax is a lot more patriotic than eating it in Afghanistan.


The fact that one gets paid for an action does not necessarily determine the mode in which nor the reasons for which that action is performed. There was a nasty old man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) who disagreed with my position, but most students of human nature admit extra-economic sources of influence.
not necessarily =/= necessarily not...I doubt the US (or Canadian) army would be as numerous were they all volunteers getting room and board only.

...and to reiterate, I don't care about the motives of those that serve. I don't want to be paying for their services, but am. I don't want them to be occupying countries in my name, but they are. I care about the fact that I am getting screwed and they are playing an active role in it.

[Psychonaut]

"Illegal" was inaccurate...Immoral would be better. Both those wars were immoral (IMO). There was no convincing evidence of a threat and to me the actions of the government (or its agents - soldiers) are not justified.

This would only be so if the ethical paradigm within which you work only permits for retaliative or defensive war. The history of man points to the fact that more ethical systems than not permit for offensive and expeditionary war as well.


...right, blame it on conditioning...I don't disagree, but I think great men can overcome such things, and overcoming them is what makes them great.

I'm not blaming anything on anything, nor am I positing any kind of defeatist fatalism; I was merely alluding my own belief in (weak if not strong) determinism.


The army is not defending me

Correction: the Army is not, to your knowledge, defending you. Only a handful of people within any nation know the full scope of their armed force's actions. Militaries cannot function effectively in a transparent manner.


the police are not defending me. They are defending the people that sign their paychecks and couldn't care less about those that actually earn the cash so that those checks don't bounce. We recently had more proof of that at the G20 in Toronto.

I think you're making a hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) here. Your perception of the motivations of the police (you say you don't care about motivation, but it is implicit in your statement here) in this incident is not "proof" that they do not care about protecting those they are sworn to protect.


How does occupation of Afghanistan serve my country (or yours, for that matter)?

Never did I say that it did or didn't. As I understand it and experience it, patriotic service relies more on the mode in which service is performed and less on the tangible benefit achieved.


not necessarily =/= necessarily not...I doubt the US (or Canadian) army would be as numerous were they all volunteers getting room and board only.

Some certainly do join for the meager pay (my unit's manpower studies showed that the average soldier in our unit [based on pay and time worked] made less than minimum wage), but many do it for reasons of family tradition and patriotism.

[nisse]

Correction: the Army is not, to your knowledge, defending you. Only a handful of people within any nation know the full scope of their armed force's actions. Militaries cannot function effectively in a transparent manner.
Which is why they shouldn't exist. I'm not into buying a cat in a bag. God save me from my friends - I can protect myself from my enemies.


I think you're making a hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) here. Your perception of the motivations of the police (you say you don't care about motivation, but it is implicit in your statement here) in this incident is not "proof" that they do not care about protecting those they are sworn to protect.
Not my perception of their motivations, my observations of their actions and the excuses given. Observations I've made time and time again both here, in Ukraine, and as evidenced by media and eye witness reports from abroad. This generalization is anything but hasty.

Favourite line: "We are following orders." - orders given by thoe that sign their checks. Orders that often are in contradiction to what taxpayers want.


Never did I say that it did or didn't. As I understand it and experience it, patriotic service relies more on the mode in which service is performed and less on the tangible benefit achieved.
Well, I just hope no one starts to "patriotically" shoot people on the street...although I doubt anyone would care whether they were getting shot patriotically or not.

IMO: We live in a capitalist society (or so they say). Here you get paid for results. Not for trying hard.


Some certainly do join for the meager pay (my unit's manpower studies showed that the average soldier in our unit [based on pay and time worked] made less than minimum wage), but many do it for reasons of family tradition and patriotism.
I know that some do it for those reasons...I also know a few that did it for the free education. Bottom line: I don't think my tax money should be going to pay any of them, no matter what their reasons. May be they'll start a new family tradition and become doctors.

[Psychonaut]

Which is why they shouldn't exist. I'm not into buying a cat in a bag. God save me from my friends - I can protect myself from my enemies.

Seriously? You know as well as I that no nation can exist without a military. Our whole discussion really revolves around this one point. While you may not like what the military is used for or the people who comprise it, it's very existence is what prevents your country from being invaded.


"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."
—George Orwell


IMO: We live in a capitalist society (or so they say). Here you get paid for results. Not for trying hard.

Why must everything (particularly an emotive phenomenon such as patriotism) be determined by some sort of pay out? The reduction of human behavior and ideas to crass economics is a hallmark of dialectic materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), which, IMO, has shown itself to be one of the most destructive philosophies I can think of.

[The Lawspeaker]

Seriously? You know as well as I that no nation can exist without a military. Our whole discussion really revolves around this one point. While you may not like what the military is used for or the people who comprise it, it's very existence is what prevents your country from being invaded.

What about Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica) ? It hasn't had an army since 1948 and is still around.
But then again.. that country has no enemies whatsoever except for poverty.

[Psychonaut]

What about Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica) ? It hasn't had an army since 1948 and is still around.
But then again.. that country has no enemies whatsoever except for poverty.

Countries without armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces) seem to have one of two things in common: either they're not worth the trouble of taking over, or they're beholden to a nation/international-organization with a military.

[nisse]

Seriously? You know as well as I that no nation can exist without a military. Our whole discussion really revolves around this one point. While you may not like what the military is used for or the people who comprise it, it's very existence is what prevents your country from being invaded.
I don't know that. I believe in a militia but no paid army....and for both countries in which I've lived (Canada and Ukraine) having an army would do no good if their neighbours were to attack. ;)

Modern warfare isn't about the army anyway, it's about insurgency ;).


Why must everything (particularly an emotive phenomenon such as patriotism) be determined by some sort of pay out? The reduction of human behavior and ideas to crass economics is a hallmark of dialectic materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), which, IMO, has shown itself to be one of the most destructive philosophies I can think of.
Because there is no way for others to know what you really feel, but everyone can see what you do. Esp. in this society where community no longer exists and shared values are not a safe assumption, what can you rely on other than actions?

[RoyBatty]

Any country with anything worth having needs an army and as many nukes as they can get their hands on. Without a military including nuclear weapons countries like the USA, UK, France and whoever else one can think of will either be:

- bombing you senseless to bring you their ideas of "democracy" (meaning they get to control who controls your country)

or

- if you are more compliant, they'll move their corporations and politicians (countrymen / women of yours who do their bidding) into place to control your country on their behalf.

Without an army, a nationalist leadership which remains fairly uncorrupted and an economy that remains reasonably untainted by "foreign investment" (the West's euphemism for economic servitude to it) a country may as well forget about it's so-called independence.

Regarding soldiering / aka playing mercenary in some far off land under the guise of patriotism, that's a fallacy. Hiding behind legal arguments (it's lawful because our courts said so and our politicians ordered it blah blah) doesn't alter the fact that when corrupt politicians and courts order corrupt wars for profit that those who participate in the killfest are at best ignorant and at worst complicit in corrupt / dishonest and dishonourable behaviour.

There's nothing honourable about leaving one's home country to murder people around the world for profit and lies. It's a different matter if one were defending one's country but when "Our National Interests" start taking on a meaning of "All The World = Our National Interests" and "All the World's Resources = Our National Resources & Interests" then well.... the answer is pretty obvious. It's the ultimate expression of a Darwinistic dog-eat-dog mentality.

Regarding the point about having free will, that free will becomes severely constrained once one enters the military system. Generally speaking "free will" doesn't apply there and with good reason. The reason being that one can't have a situation where everybody and his / her dog wants to do things differently or do things their way or simply don't want to do anything. It'll be chaos. Chaos + guns = bad combination.

The dilemma one faces in this profession is whether one can morally justify one's actions once wars kick off. (Assuming you weren't a psychopath in the first place in which case this question is irrelevant).

If war means defending one's homeland because there is no other choice then imo there is a case to be made for participation in it being morally justifiable. If war means going out to have a little fun shooting up the natives and earning billions $$$ for the corporations, politicians and elites (and potentially a tidy little slice for yourself if you happened to be working for a "contractor") then participation becomes questionable.

Once it gets to this stage decisions need to be made whether one will be staying or leaving the military system. Even if one decided to leave it may not be easy because the system is designed to penalise one for leaving unexpectedly or at short notice. The potential moral dilemma about military service in countries with track records of foreign adventurism is that a person will be required to participate in such adventures.

If it is a personal moral issue then it makes no sense to join up with such an organisation in the first place.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Disagreeing with foreign policy is a far different beast than wishing death upon your nation's soldiers. Those who would conflate the two seem to always be loony lefties or Christians of the most idiotic stripe; the one thing both groups share in common is a propensity for making association fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).



You have no idea motivates us to do what we do.

Let me understand you correctly.
Premise A is a BPremise A is also a CConclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Association_fallacy_argument_map.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Association_fallacy_argument_map.png) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Association_fallacy_argument_map.png)
Fig. 1





The fallacy in the argument can best be illustrated through the use of a Venn diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg/150px-Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg)
Fig. 2



"A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but one can clearly see that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".

Osama satisfies the requirement that it is a part of both sets Al-Qaeda and Twin Towers, but one can clearly see that it is possible that part of Twin Towers is not part of Afghanistan,refuting the conclusion that Twin Towers is a declaration of war by Afghanistan

Surely foreign policy is twisted here,and the soldiers dead or dying are a waste.??????

[Piparskeggr]

If I may?

I am a veteran of service to the USA...as is my wife and very many folk in our family lines going back to the "American Revolution" and before...

I have no qualms about destroying those I perceive as threats to the "American Way of Life."

I would (as I am personally a peaceful sort) not use violent means to effect such, IF I COULD.

However, to those who wrongly think of American Soldiers as Mercenaries, my pay as a soldier and combat engineer, my wife's pay as a test, development and project engineer, were way below what the civilian market would pay for the same skill set.

Men and Women who serve their counties do not do it for wealth or glory...we do it for a rag on a pole and for our comrades.

Those who think otherwise...FUCK you...though I do not begrudge the blood, sweat and tears I and my comrades have shed protecting you...no more than a dog regrets protecting the sheep of the flock.

[Piparskeggr]

A quote I first saw back in the early 1970's. It was attributed to an anonymous author who scrawled the words across the wall of a hooch in Viet Nam...

"For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know."

[Svipdag]

Capital punishment must be restricted to those who knowingly, voluntarily,premeditatedly, and with malice aforethought take a human life.
In my opinion, the actions of a soldier who is acting on the orders of his superiors which he must carry out or suffer punishment, cannot be considered to be voluntary, even though he may have placed himself in this situation voluntarily.

Rather, it is he (or she) who acts without coercion or compulsion from without, out of his/her own will who intentionally takes a human life who has forfeited his/her own right to life by that action.

It has been claimed that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide. I must beg to differ. At least one potential killer is deterred, for there is no recidivism among the dead.

[nisse]

I have no qualms about destroying those I perceive as threats to the "American Way of Life."
You percieve or your commanding officer percieves? Or do the two always match up?


However, to those who wrongly think of American Soldiers as Mercenaries, my pay as a soldier and combat engineer, my wife's pay as a test, development and project engineer, were way below what the civilian market would pay for the same skill set.
In Canada they get good pay (~80k, which is a mid-level civilian engineer), but they are not trained at civilian universities.


Those who think otherwise...FUCK you...though I do not begrudge the blood, sweat and tears I and my comrades have shed protecting you...no more than a dog regrets protecting the sheep of the flock.

What an excellent comparison!

Why, it highlights the fact that the military is unjustly lifted above the rest of the populace, that they commonly manhandle the populace that pays the entire farm's bills, and that they are tools of oppression handled by some "shepard" who only wants to enrich himself and is not elected by those he supposedly leads and protects...in fact he views them as their property, fleeces them and kills them when they are no longer useful...all aided by his loyal dogs that help steer the populace by keeping it in constant fear and quelling dissent.

...oh, and those in the military have a holier-than-thou attitude towards civilians.

[Piparskeggr]

You percieve or your commanding officer percieves? Or do the two always match up?

My own perceptions, actually. I have been a civilian again for almost 18 years. The only commanders I have are my wife and my cats.

My forebears chose to come to this land and the Founders of our Constitutional Republic (though I think they erred) extended the franchise to all citizens in good standing (as properly modified over time).

Being an "Old Stock" New Englander along some lines of descent and having grown up in a fairly conservative (17th - 19th Century sense) area, I believe that those who have no stake in the overall community by either dint of service or real property ownership should be disenfranchised and have no say in governance.


In Canada they get good pay (~80k, which is a mid-level civilian engineer), but they are not trained at civilian universities.

Unfortunately, in the US, we are not willing to extend equal pay for equal work between the civilian and military sectors.


What an excellent comparison!

Why, it highlights the fact that the military is unjustly lifted above the rest of the populace, that they commonly manhandle the populace that pays the entire farm's bills, and that they are tools of oppression handled by some "shepard" who only wants to enrich himself and is not elected by those he supposedly leads and protects...in fact he views them as their property, fleeces them and kills them when they are no longer useful...all aided by his loyal dogs that help steer the populace by keeping it in constant fear and quelling dissent.

All of the above tells me you have no understanding of the civilian control and mistrust of a standing military, which is part and parcel of the "American" reason d'etre.


...oh, and those in the military have a holier-than-thou attitude towards civilians.

Absolutely; the dichotomy between those who are willing to pay the price of a free society and those who suck upon the efforts.

[nisse]

Absolutely; the dichotomy between those who are willing to pay the price of a free society and those who suck upon the efforts.
ROFL. Enjoy the fruits of your labours. The free society you live in today (especially if it's Detroit) is justly deserved.

This discussion is not about "America" or 17th century ideals that have been abandoned by your government or citizenship or your civilian life, so I don't see the relevance of most of your reply.

It is about the legitimacy of foreign invasions that are not justified to or supported by the general population....like US being in Afghanistan. Please explain that with reference to civilian control of the military.

[Curtis24]

The only purpose the death penalty serves is to provide psychological relief to the relatives of victims. I guess a secondary purpose may be to provide psychological relief to society at large, but I don't consider this a moral reason to have the death penalty. It does not decrease crime nor does it make society safer to kill criminals already behind bars for life.

[The Lawspeaker]

The only purpose the death penalty serves is to provide psychological relief to the relatives of victims. I guess a secondary purpose may be to provide psychological relief to society at large, but I don't consider this a moral reason to have the death penalty. It does not decrease crime nor does it make society safer to kill criminals already behind bars for life.

"Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of." - H.L Mencken

[SwordoftheVistula]

It does not decrease crime nor does it make society safer to kill criminals already behind bars for life.

Some criminals with life sentences escape back into society...but never any ones who have received the death penalty

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Nisse
Death is not a logical matter, it's a highly emotional one.

Hmmm I would imagine death can be dealt with by the science of reason, one is either dead or not dead, a course of deduction that is necessary for under takers, forensic scientists, priests, doctors, or indeed hang men, in fact anyone with need to ascertain the state of a living, or formerly living as the case may be, object.:D

I would argue that in legal matters, whilst the emotional state of a victim (or if you live in the UK the accused) is taken into account it should be secondary to what the evidence actually shows and what you can reasonably i.e. logically infer.

[nisse]

Hmmm I would imagine death can be dealt with by the science of reason, one is either dead or not dead, a course of deduction that is necessary for under takers, forensic scientists, priests, doctors, or indeed hang men, in fact anyone with need to ascertain the state of a living, or formerly living as the case may be, object.:D
There you go - death has the least to do with the person who died after they are dead. It's those that are left behind and their *emotions* that matter.


I would argue that in legal matters, whilst the emotional state of a victim (or if you live in the UK the accused) is taken into account it should be secondary to what the evidence actually shows and what you can reasonably i.e. logically infer.
It isn't about whether the person did it or not. It's about what punishment is appropriate. Some people call for the death penatly for serial rapists/child molesters - how do you "logically" assign a fitting punishment to a crime like that?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by nisse
There you go - death has the least to do with the person who died after they are dead. It's those that are left behind and their *emotions* that matter.

But the circumstances in which one becomes dead, particularly if it involved being stabbed, shot, run down, hit over the head with a bat etc, are rather interesting from the point of view of establishing who was on the other end of the bat, gun, knife, behind the wheel of the car etc, yes? Also establishing if the incident was responsible for death, for example there was a case not long back of a man who was hit over the head and died, after autopsy it turned out the man had an undiagnosed brain tumour and that it was plausible that he would have survived the assault if not for the tumour, hence his assailant was charged with man slaughter, I believe, instead of murder.


It isn't about whether the person did it or not.

I think it is, unless you believe you are guilty merely by accusation? In the UK the court, or rather the prosecutor, has to prove guilt.


Some people call for the death penatly for serial rapists/child molesters - how do you "logically" assign a fitting punishment to a crime like that?

Logically you would have a good deal less serial rapists and child molesters with a death sentence imposed, I thought it reasonably obvious myself. Particularly since the UK abolished the death sentence murder rates have risen considerably. One can logically infer that the imposition of a death sentence on any crime will lead to a lot less of it!

Of course whilst logic is useful in establishing guilt, I don't recall stating it is necessary for the application of sentence, though it can have a place. Laws reflect society and are shaped by them, at least that is the theory.....

[Psychonaut]

Death is not a logical matter, it's a highly emotional one. Hmmm I would imagine death can be dealt with...There you go - death has the least to do with the person who died after they are dead. It's those that are left behind and their *emotions* that matter.

It is a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) to state that death is either logical or emotional. Both categories are a posteriori interpretations of the event, not a priori facets. It is, like all events, a brute fact that is given meaning through the lens of man.

[nisse]

But the circumstances in which one becomes dead, particularly if it involved being stabbed, shot, run down, hit over the head with a bat etc, are rather interesting from the point of view of establishing who was on the other end of the bat, gun, knife, behind the wheel of the car etc, yes? Also establishing if the incident was responsible for death, for example there was a case not long back of a man who was hit over the head and died, after autopsy it turned out the man had an undiagnosed brain tumour and that it was plausible that he would have survived the assault if not for the tumour, hence his assailant was charged with man slaughter, I believe, instead of murder.
Meh...there are much more interesting puzzles out there.


I think it is, unless you believe you are guilty merely by accusation? In the UK the court, or rather the prosecutor, has to prove guilt.
That is always an issue no matter what the penalty or crime. Same logic for a minor theft, same logic for a rape, same logic for a murder. The difference is in assigning the penalty.


Logically you would have a good deal less serial rapists and child molesters with a death sentence imposed, I thought it reasonably obvious myself. Particularly since the UK abolished the death sentence murder rates have risen considerably.
Apparently this is not nocessarily true. I think someone has posted something on the matter earlier on in this thread.


One can logically infer that the imposition of a death sentence on any crime will lead to a lot less of it!
Should there be a death penalty for "theft under $500"? The punishment must fit the crime.


Of course whilst logic is useful in establishing guilt, I don't recall stating it is necessary for the application of sentence, though it can have a place. Laws reflect society and are shaped by them, at least that is the theory.....
Laws are generalizations. Societies are not homogeneous and no two crimes are exactly the same.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by nisse
Apparently this is not nocessarily true.

Really?


The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure for homicides in 2007 was 734.


Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995.


Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence.

Of course, as the website goes onto say:


Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html

Which is a point, I’m not sure how reasonable it is, there would seem to be an obvious correlation between increased rates of murder and the abolition of capital punishment. Were murder rates already rising, falling or static prior to the abolition (technically in 1969)?


Should there be a death penalty for "theft under $500"?

I think you missed the point. Logic can establish valid conclusions (though not necessarilly sound conclusions) from premises. It can help you shape your outlook, the Stoics used it in abundance, but it is not necessarilly a good idea. It's applicability comes into use when we want to see things in a none human context as it were with the implied irrationality there of.


Laws are generalizations.

They are not; laws are often very black and white. This in itself is an issue given that humans have a conceptual problem with processes and often deal in absolutes.

[nisse]

Really?
May be I should have checked sources on that post...but I'm not too concerned about the effects of removing the death penalty on crime rates. I think other factor play a much greater role - increasing urbanization and fragmentation of society, for example.


I think you missed the point. Logic can establish valid conclusions (though not necessarilly sound conclusions) from premises. It can help you shape your outlook, the Stoics used it in abundance, but it is not necessarilly a good idea. It's applicability comes into use when we want to see things in a none human context as it were with the implied irrationality there of.
I think you missed the point. I wasn't looking for a formal lecture on logic or philosophy (which both you and Psychonaut keep trying to reduce this down to). My point was that imo it's inappropriate to take things out of the human context when people's lives are at stake. If you disagree, good for you.

Not only humans, everything is irrational and has stochasticity as its base. Dealing with anything remotely important through a system of simplifications when most of the time we don't even understand the scope of the complexity of the system is not the best move, imo. In industry you model randomness with randomness - i.e. you put in uncontrollable factors on purpose because you know they are present.


They are not; laws are often very black and white. This in itself is an issue given that humans have a conceptual problem with processes and often deal in absolutes.
How's reducings things to black and white not a generalization, well, 2 generalizations?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by nisse
I think other factor play a much greater role - increasing urbanization and fragmentation of society, for example.

I agree that those factors are important.


I think you missed the point. I wasn't looking for a formal lecture on logic or philosophy (which both you and Psychonaut keep trying to reduce this down to). My point was that imo it's inappropriate to take things out of the human context when people's lives are at stake. If you disagree, good for you.

I’m not lecturing you on anything, I don’t believe Psychonaut is either he tends to show rather than tell in my experience. Personally I don’t have the qualifications nor the inclination, I am interested in establishing plausible points of view and opinions, which can arise often through debate.


Not only humans, everything is irrational and has stochasticity as its base.

Hmmm…..


Dealing with anything remotely important through a system of simplifications when most of the time we don't even understand the scope of the complexity of the system is not the best move, imo. In industry you model randomness with randomness - i.e. you put in uncontrollable factors on purpose because you know they are present.

It counts for practically everything you care to think of, as I posted above humans have a problem with processes and things becoming, we require clearly defined categories and precise ideas. Take abortion as an example, there is no definable point between fertilisation and birth when an embryo suddenly becomes a human being, yet people often argue that there is both for and against without understanding that there is a process of change.


How's reducings things to black and white not a generalization

Because it deals in absolutes, what constitutes murder is (in legal terms) reasonably clear, this isn’t a general statement of well it might be, or maybe, supposing, it is precise.

[Piparskeggr]

ROFL. Enjoy the fruits of your labours. The free society you live in today (especially if it's Detroit) is justly deserved.

Closest I've ever been to Detroit is the airport there as a stopover.

If you refer to the car industry and the bailout, then, actually we agree. The arrogance of the "Big 3" and the complacency of the American consumer...


This discussion is not about "America" or 17th century ideals that have been abandoned by your government or citizenship or your civilian life, so I don't see the relevance of most of your reply.

It is unfortunate that we have forgotten, or grown too ill-informed, to keep to the founding principles of our republic.

{QUOTE}It is about the legitimacy of foreign invasions that are not justified to or supported by the general population....like US being in Afghanistan. Please explain that with reference to civilian control of the military.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I thought the discussion was about the death penalty and then the point was brought in that soldiers are murderers for following orders.

As for civilian control...we (in the US of A) as voters have grown too used to "big gubmint" being there to "help." We as a society have grown fat, dumb, and happy...politically ill-informed, functionally illiterate in civics, and intellectually lazy. We "feel" about issues rather than think about them. We have what we deserve in our "leadership," and the whole world suffers as a result.

I've no illusions there.

I am, however, in many ways still an idealist, and try and live many of those 17th century principles in my own life; hoping some of that will rub off on those around me...

[antonio]

I oppose the unconditional ban on death penalty instaurated on UE countries. But USA way seem for me very unproportionated and clearly abusive. For example, the innocent executions percentage was revealed by DNA as untolerably high. Even on culpability, I think there's still too much death condems at USA.

Ps. I agree with Eldritch. While I've always disliked the horrible Argentinian torture system, I consider their death flies into the sea a really moving and Romantical way of taking life from a man (previusly sedated).

[nisse]

I’m not lecturing you on anything, I don’t believe Psychonaut is either he tends to show rather than tell in my experience. Personally I don’t have the qualifications nor the inclination, I am interested in establishing plausible points of view and opinions, which can arise often through debate.
I must have misunderstood. I found myself reading more definitions than arguments at a point.


Hmmm…..
It's true! Very exciting stuff! If I weren't into biology I'd be doing quantum physics for the cool factor :cool:.


It counts for practically everything you care to think of, as I posted above humans have a problem with processes and things becoming, we require clearly defined categories and precise ideas. Take abortion as an example, there is no definable point between fertilisation and birth when an embryo suddenly becomes a human being, yet people often argue that there is both for and against without understanding that there is a process of change.
It's just a question of defining the right tests/criteria which don't require (or require minimal) artificial simplification. In my discussions of abortion I define "human" when the baby can survive without the mother. It's a functional test, not tied to any arbitrary time post-implantation, which will have varied outcomes for various individuals depending both their physical fitness and medical facilities available. IMO this is objective without being artificially simplified.


Because it deals in absolutes, what constitutes murder is (in legal terms) reasonably clear, this isn’t a general statement of well it might be, or maybe, supposing, it is precise.
I mean generalization as in:
Generalization: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=generalization) abstraction: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances.
Law defines your "standard murder", without taking into account the nuances of individual cases.


I am, however, in many ways still an idealist, and try and live many of those 17th century principles in my own life; hoping some of that will rub off on those around me...
That is a dangerous approach, because people will always try to use you, and most don't have ideals to stop them. Politicians are among the most unscrupulous (IMO) which is why I think the power of governments should be as limited as possible, and they should not be given ready access to guns (in the form as a professional military).

[SwordoftheVistula]

I oppose the unconditional ban on death penalty instaurated on UE countries. But USA way seem for me very unproportionated and clearly abusive. For example, the innocent executions percentage was revealed by DNA as untolerably high. Even on culpability, I think there's still too much death condems at USA.

Got any links to these studies, or actual people executed and later absolved by DNA?


Politicians are among the most unscrupulous (IMO) which is why I think the power of governments should be as limited as possible, and they should not be given ready access to guns (in the form as a professional military).

What if a band of citizens catches a criminal and executes him?

[nisse]

What if a band of citizens catches a criminal and executes him?

In that case a band of citizens would have caught a criminal and executed him.

[Austin]

I oppose the unconditional ban on death penalty instaurated on UE countries. But USA way seem for me very unproportionated and clearly abusive. For example, the innocent executions percentage was revealed by DNA as untolerably high. Even on culpability, I think there's still too much death condems at USA.

Ps. I agree with Eldritch. While I've always disliked the horrible Argentinian torture system, I consider their death flies into the sea a really moving and Romantical way of taking life from a man (previusly sedated).

Most of those wrongly executed were blacks.

[The Lawspeaker]

Most of those wrongly executed were blacks.
Wrongly executed is wrongly executed.

[blan]

Most of those wrongly executed were blacks.

man i dont want to get into another debate on morality, theology, or any other subject except justice.
your sense of justice is strange to me.
You feel angered at insane blacks causing trouble for whites but your comments can be equally angering logic dictates that if we dont want unjust things happening to us then we should not do it to others.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

"Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of." - H.L Mencken And stops his genes from future generations

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Arguments for the death penalty.Incapacitation of the criminal.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it.
Cost.
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.
Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and only one appeal was permitted.
Retribution.
Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty according to my survey results.
Deterrence.
Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.
Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading. Let us examine the situation in three countries.
Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure for homicides in 2007 was 734. The principal causes of homicide are fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further crime. These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm. The same document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997 served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.

Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries. Careful analysis of the situation in Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders, i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently. For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms.
America.
In most states, other than Texas, the number of executions as compared to death sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Of the 1099 executions carried out in the whole of the USA from 1977 to the end of 2007, Texas accounts for 406 or 37%.
Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) - during a period of increased use of the death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600.
America still had five times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in 1997 whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain. How can one account for this? There are obvious cultural differences between the three countries although all are modern and prosperous.
It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the reduction of homicides in the US. There has been a general trend to a more punitive society, (e.g. the "three strikes and your out" law) over this period and cities such as New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, there has been political and economic stability over the period and no obvious social changes. Improvements in medical techniques have also saved many potential deaths. Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
Texas.
As stated above, Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2007 it executed 404 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas
In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.
In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week), but in 2001 only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from 40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death sentence for every 40 murders.
Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.
Arguments against the death penalty.
There are a number of incontrovertible arguments against the death penalty.
The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice. There is also another significant but much less realised danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the skill of the prosecution and defence lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for murder or for manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter. Have a look at the cases of James McNicol (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/mcnicol.html) and Edith Thompson (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/edith.html) and see what you think.
A second reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends of criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution. It is often very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved one could be guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even more difficult to come to terms with their death in this form. One cannot and should not deny the suffering of the victim's family in a murder case but the suffering of the murderer's family is surely valid too.
There must always be the concern that the state can administer the death penalty justly, most countries have a very poor record on this. In America, a prisoner can be on death row for many years awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals, some of which are fatuous and filed at the last minute in order to obtain a stay of execution. Although racism is claimed in the administration of the death penalty in America, statistics show that white prisoners are more liable to be sentenced to death on conviction for first degree murder and are also less likely to have their sentences commuted than black defendants.
It must be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the capacity to feel pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones, and all the other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. It is easier to put this thought on one side when discussing the most awful multiple murderers but less so when discussing, say, an 18 year old girl convicted of drug trafficking. (Singapore hanged two girls for this crime in 1995 who were both only 18 at the time of their offences and China shot an 18 year old girl for the same offence in 1998.)
There is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of what the state may claim (see later). Every form of execution causes the prisoner suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being executed is a terrifying ordeal for the criminal. What is also often overlooked is the mental suffering that the criminal suffers in the time leading up to the execution. How would you feel knowing that you were going to die tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m.?
There may be a brutalising effect upon society by carrying out executions - this was apparent in this country during the 17th and 18th centuries when people turned out to enjoy the spectacle of public hanging. They still do today in those countries where executions are carried out in public. It is hard to prove this one way or the other - people stop and look at car crashes but it doesn't make them go and have an accident to see what it is like. It would seem that there is a natural voyeurism in most people.
The death penalty is the bluntest of "blunt instruments," it removes the individual's humanity and with it any chance of rehabilitation and their giving something back to society. In the case of the worst criminals, this may be acceptable but is more questionable in the case of less awful crimes.
Will Britain restore capital punishment in the future?
Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly declining although it is supported by many young people who were not born when we still had it. In the short term (say the next 10 years), there is no realistic chance of reinstatement, however, despite majority public support for such a move. Reintroduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new.
Successive free votes on the issue in the House of Commons during the 1980’s failed to get anywhere near a majority for restoration. Politically it would be impossible now, given our membership of the EU and our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which totally prohibit capital punishment. The EU contains no member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically allowed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are also against reintroduction. There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong anti-death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of its return should it ever become likely.
There is concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism.
Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime despite what the government tells us.
Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to reduce crime and redress the balance? Or do they see the return of capital punishment as a return to barbarity?
Should capital punishment be re-introduced in Britain?
There are very real issues of human rights that will effect us all if it were to be reintroduced.
Will the government introduce laws that are just and contain sufficient safeguards and will the judiciary administer them properly?
We are all potentially capable of murder (a lot of domestic murders, where one partner murders the other during a row, are first time crimes) and, therefore, we must each consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.
Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously.
Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases? Would you like to have to make the decision as to whether the person in the dock should live or die?
Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every excuse for not doing so, thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behaviour (sometimes taking their own lives immediately after the crime, as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres) Certain criminals, e.g. drug traffickers, may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but would the person who has a violent argument with their partner give a second thought to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the carving knife?
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction, e.g. intimidation of witnesses. So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed. Thus a modern day Ruth Ellis (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/ruth.html) might also hang because she was sane, whilst Beverley Allitt, who murdered 4 small children, would be reprieved because she has Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or so she and certain psychiatrists claim.
Can these scenarios ever be seen as justice?
Should we only execute people for the most awful multiple murders as a form of compulsory euthanasia rather than as a punishment or should we execute all murderers irrespective of the degree of guilt purely as a retributive punishment for taking another person's life and in the hope of deterring others?
What about crimes such as violent rape, terrorism and drug trafficking - are these as bad as murder? How should we punish such offences?
Should executions be carried out in such a way as to punish the criminal and have maximum deterrent effect on the rest of us, (e.g. televised hangings). Would this be a deterrent or merely become a morbid show for the voyeuristic?
Or should they be little more than a form of euthanasia carried out in such a way as to remove from the criminal all physical and as much emotional suffering as possible?
Does it make any sense to imprison someone for the rest of their life or is it really more cruel than executing them, particularly if they are young?
If we do not keep them in prison for life, will they be released to commit other dreadful crimes? A small but significant number do.
What is the cost to society of keeping people in prison? (£700.00 per week at present for an ordinary prisoner which is around £550,000 for a typical life sentence for murder with a minimum tariff of 15 years).
These questions need to be thought about carefully and a balanced opinion arrived at. How do you feel about them? If you wish to share your thoughts with me send me an email (richardclark32@insightbb.com) (Please include your name and age)
If the general conclusion is that capital punishment is desirable, then the first step toward restoration is for the government to present a fully thought out set of proposals that can be put to the people in a referendum stating precisely what offences should carry the death penalty, how it should be carried out, etc., and what effect on crime is expected to follow from reintroduction.
If such a referendum produced a clear yes vote, the government would have a genuine mandate to proceed upon and could claim the support of the people, thus substantially reducing the influence of the anti-capital punishment lobby. There should be another referendum about 5 years later so that the effects of reintroduction could be reviewed and voted on again. Referenda have the advantage of involving the public in the decision making process and raising awareness through the media of the issues for and against the proposed changes.
The alternatives.
What are the realistic alternatives to the death penalty?
Any punishment must be fair, just, adequate and most of all, enforceable. Society still views murder as a particularly heinous crime which should be met with the most severe punishment. Whole life imprisonment could fit the bill for the worst murders with suitable gradations for less awful murders. Some 44 people are currently serving whole life tariffs in the UK.
I am personally against the mandatory life sentence for murder as it fails, in my view, to distinguish between really dreadful crimes and those crimes which, whilst still homicide, are much more understandable to the rest of us. Therefore, it is clearly necessary to give juries the option of finding the prisoner guilty but in a lower degree of murder, and to give judges the ability to pass sensible, determinate sentences based upon the facts of the crime as presented to the court.
Imprisonment, whilst expensive and largely pointless, except as means of removing criminals from society for a given period, is at least enforceable upon anyone who commits murder (over the age of 10 years). However, it appears to many people to be a soft option and this perception needs to be corrected.
In modern times, we repeatedly see murderers being able to "get off" on the grounds of diminished responsibility and their alleged psychiatric disorders or by using devices such as plea bargaining. This tends to remove peoples' faith in justice which is very dangerous.
Are there any other real, socially acceptable, options for dealing with murderers? One possible solution (that would enrage the civil liberties groups) would be to have everyone's DNA profile data-based at birth (not beyond the wit of modern computer systems), thus making detection of many murders and sex crimes much easier. If this was done and generally accepted as the main plank of evidence against an accused person and a suitable, determinate sentence of imprisonment passed, involving a sensible regime combining both punishment and treatment, it would I am sure, considerably reduce the incidence of the most serious and most feared crimes. The reason for this is that for most people, being caught is a far greater deterrent than some possible, probably misunderstood punishment, e.g. "life imprisonment." Surely this has to be better than the arbitrary taking of the lives of a tiny minority of offenders (as happens in most countries that retain the death penalty) with all the unwanted side effects that this has on their families and on the rest of society. It is clear that certainty of being caught is a very good deterrent - just look at how people observe speed limits when they see signs for speed cameras and yet break the speed limit as soon as the risk is passed.
"Life without parole" versus the death penalty.
Many opponents of capital punishment put forward life in prison without parole as a viable alternative to execution for the worst offenders, and surveys in America have shown that life without parole (LWOP) enjoys considerable support amongst those who would otherwise favour the death penalty.
However, there are drawbacks to this:
It is argued by some that LWOP is in fact a far more cruel punishment that death. This proposition was put forward in a UK parliamentary debate by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. It is interesting to note that no less than 311 prisoners serving life sentences in Italy petitioned their government in 2007 for the right to be executed. They cited LWOP as a living death where they died a little every day. In the USA, as of January 2008, there are over 2,200 people serving whole life sentences who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime, as US law no longer permits the execution of minors. One might be forgiven for asking what is the point of locking a person up to the day they die and one might wonder if it is indeed a far worse punishment than death.
Death clearly permanently incapacitates the criminal and prevents them committing any other offence. LWOP cannot prevent or deter offenders from killing prison staff or other inmates or taking hostages to further an escape bid - they have nothing further to lose by doing so and there are instances of it happening in the USA.
However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to escape and occasionally will be successful. If you have endless time to plan an escape and everything to gain from doing so, it is a very strong incentive.
We have no guarantee that future governments will not release offenders, who were imprisoned years previously, on the recommendations of various professional "do-gooders" who are against any punishment in the first place. Twenty or thirty years on it is very difficult to remember the awfulness of an individual's crime and easy to claim that they have reformed.
Myra Hindley is a prime example of this phenomenon - whilst I am willing to believe that she changed as a person during her 37 years in prison and probably did not present any serious risk of re-offending, one has absolutely no guarantee of this and it does not obviate her responsibility for her crimes. Fortunately, she died of natural causes before she could obtain the parole which I am sure she would have eventually been granted.
The Numbers Game "death versus deterrence".
If we are, however, really serious in our desire to reduce crime through harsher punishments alone, we must be prepared to execute every criminal who commits a capital crime irrespective of their sex, age (above the legal minimum) alleged mental state or background. Defences to capital charges must be limited by statute to those which are reasonable. Appeals must be similarly limited and there can be no reprieves. We must carry out executions without delay and with sufficient publicity to get the message across to other similarly minded people. This is similar to the situation which obtains in China and would, if applied in Britain, undoubtedly lead to a large number of executions to begin with until the message got through. I would estimate at least 2,000 or so in the first year if it were applied for murder, aggravated rape and drug trafficking. This amounts to more than 7 executions every day of the year Monday through Friday.
Are we, as a modern western society, willing to do this or would we shy away from it and return to just carrying out the occasional execution to show that we still can without any regard for natural justice? These events will be seized upon by the media and turned into a morbid soap opera enjoyed by a (large?) proportion of the population. (Note the popularity in the American media of capital murder trials there.) It is doubtful whether executions carried out on this basis will deter others from committing crimes.
For capital punishment to really reduce crime, everyone of us must realise that we will personally and without doubt be put to death if we commit particular crimes and that there can be absolutely no hope of reprieve.
One wonders if as many people would be willing to vote for this scenario in a referendum when they realised the full consequences of their action.
I have no doubt that if we were to declare war on criminals in this fashion, we would see a rapid decline in serious crime but at what cost in human terms? There will be a lot of innocent victims - principally the families of those executed.
"Mad or Bad".
Are criminals (particularly murderers as we are discussing capital punishment) evil or sick? This is another very important issue as it would seem hardly reasonable to punish people who are genuinely mentally ill but more reasonable to use effective punishment against those who are intentionally evil. As usual, as a society, we have very confused views on this issue - there are those, notably some social workers and psychiatrists, who seem to believe that there is no such thing as evil whilst the majority of us do not accept that every accused person should be let off, (i.e. excused any responsibility for their actions) due to some alleged mental or emotional condition. Will advances in mapping the human genome over the next couple of decades allow us to predict those people who are prone to committing violent and murderous crimes and so prevent them before they happen?
It would seem that whilst legally and technically "sane" many criminals are in some way abnormal and their thought processes are not like those of the rest of us. Ruth Ellis was, in my view, a perfect case in point. She lived at a time when the death penalty was mandatory for murder and was known to be in favour of it herself. She had two small children and yet neither factor stopped her committing a murder which she made no attempt to escape from or deny responsibility for, and for which she knew that she would probably be hanged. We can only conjecture why she did murder David Blakely, the man she loved at all, and particularly in the way she did which was much more likely to result in her execution. Home Office psychiatrists who examined her in the condemned cell found her to be sane according to their definition, and I have no doubt that we would also have considered her to be sane if we had interviewed her - but she was obviously not "normal." For a detailed account of her case and subsequent appeal Click here (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/ruth.html).
In America the judicial system seems, on the whole, less concerned about the mental state of condemned prisoners and are willing to execute them. Child killer, Westley Alan Dodd, is a case in point – reading his diary it is clear that he was very abnormal. There are many other cases to choose from where the defendant's deeds are not those of a normal person. The typical psychopath is often a person of above average intelligence but is presently incurable and will continue to present a severe risk to society.
Will we ever find an answer to the "mad or bad" question and be able to find effective treatment for those who turn out to be "mad?" Should we worry about the alleged mental state of our worst criminals? These are the people who are least likely to benefit from imprisonment or care in institutions (or worse still the community) and are most likely to re-offend. It could, therefore, be argued that killing these people would be a very good thing.
Capital punishment and the media.
Three hundred years ago there was no media. Newspapers first started in England around 1725 and were expensive and of very limited circulation. In any case few people could read at that time. So public executions were vital to show that justice had been done and provide a deterrent to others. In particularly heinous cases of murder the execution could be carried out near the scene of the crime so that the local people could see the murderer punished, or the criminal could be gibbeted near the scene to remind people of the punishment. By 1800 newspapers were more widespread and public execution was abolished in England, Scotland and Wales in 1868. Reporters were still allowed to witness some executions for some years afterwards, but by the 20th century, typically newspapers would merely state that so and so was executed yesterday for the murder of … at such and such prison. No details of the execution were made available and so the story would be two paragraphs unless there was some special feature such as a protest outside the prison. Radio and later television news would also carry a similar brief report.
In the USA reporters are always permitted to attend executions and they receive a lot of coverage at state level. However the media's attitude to executions varies widely depending on the age and sex of the criminal, the type of crime and method of execution.
Middle aged men being executed by lethal injection in say Texas for "ordinary" murders hardly rate a paragraph in the press of other states, nowadays and do not get a mention in the U.K. media at all. But, a woman convicted of double murder and being injected on the same gurney gets tremendous worldwide media attention at all levels (Karla Faye Tucker (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/karla.html)). Equally, a man being hanged in Washington or Delaware or shot by a Utah firing squad makes international news (Westley Allan Dodd, Billy Bailey and John Taylor). And yet (non white) women being hanged in Jordan and Singapore, the large number of people publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia and men and women executed by the hundred in China make very little news. However, when a white woman is hanged in Africa, (Mariette Bosch (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/bosch.html) in Botswana) this is considered newsworthy by the British press. The UK broadsheets ran large articles with photos of her.
Why is this? Is it a form of racism or do we not care if the execution takes place in a Middle Eastern or Far Eastern Country? Are their criminals somehow perceived as lesser people with less rights? The media obviously does not judge many of these stories to be newsworthy although they are aware of them through the news wires from those countries (which is how I know about them).
During the late 70's and early 80's when executions were rare in America, every execution by whatever means, attracted a great deal of media interest and yet now they are more frequent (normally averaging over one per week), the authorities sometimes have difficulty in finding sufficient official witnesses. They also used to attract pro and anti-capital punishment protesters in large numbers, but these seem to have dwindled down to just a few in most cases.
I tend to think that if executions were televised, they would soon reach the same level of dis-interest amongst the general public unless it fitted into a "special category," i.e. a first by this or that method or a particularly interesting criminal.
In Kuwait criminals have been hanged in the yard of Nayef Palace in recent years and once the prisoners were suspended the press and the public were allowed in to view the hanging bodies. Photography was also allowed and photographs of the executions appeared in the Kuwaiti media. One wonders what the deterrent effect of this. Have a look at the article on Kuwait (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/kuwait.html) to learn more.
Is media coverage of executions just a morbid sideshow for some people, who deprived of public hangings, etc., lap up every detail the media has to offer whilst the majority ignore the not very interesting criminals who are executed by lethal injection?
Lethal injection, as my own survey has shown, is perceived by most respondents as the least cruel method - probably because it is the least gruesome method. The less the public interest, the easier the process becomes - a state of affairs that suits governments of many countries and states in America very well.
Probably the majority of people don't much care either way and would rather watch football! They may vaguely support capital punishment but do not wish to be or feel involved.
The Future.
I wonder if in another hundred years we will, as a world still have capital punishment at all or for that matter prisons, or whether we will have evolved technological means of detecting and correcting potential criminals before they can actually commit any crime. It seems to me that we must first find this technology and then educate public opinion away from its present obsession with punishment by demonstrating that the new methods work, pointing out the futility and waste of present penal methods, especially imprisonment and execution.
Punishment will remain popular with the general public (and therefore politicians) as long as there are no viable alternatives and as long as crime continues its present inexorable rise. Logically, however, punishment (of any sort) cannot be the future - we must progress and therefore we will.
Until this utopian point is reached, which I believe it ultimately will be, I think that we will see the use of the death penalty continuing and its reintroduction in countries that had previously abolished it. Most of the Caribbean countries are trying to get it re-introduced.
It is clear that in strict penal societies such as Singapore, that the crime rate is much lower than in effectively non-penal societies such as Britain. It is, therefore, logical to assume that Singaporean style policies are likely to be adopted by more countries as their crime rates reach unacceptable proportions.
I do not believe that the majority of people who support capital punishment or other severe punishments, do so for sadistic reasons but rather out of a feeling of desperation that they and their families are being overwhelmed by the rising tide of crime which they perceive the government is doing too little to protect them from. I think there would, in the long term, be sufficient support for non-penal methods of dealing with criminals if these were proved to be effective.
A particular danger in our society is that we continue to do little or nothing effective about persistent juvenile offenders. If the death penalty were re introduced, we may be consigning many of these to their death at the age of 18, having never previously given them any discipline whatsoever. Surely execution should not be both the first and last taste of discipline a person gets and yet as we allow so many youngsters to run wild and commit ever more serious crimes unpunished, public opinion and thus political expediency makes it more and more likely. Nicholas Ingram (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/ingram.html), who went to the electric chair in the American state of Georgia in 1995, is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
We should start by introducing stricter discipline from "the bottom up," i.e. start with unruly children at school and on the streets and progress through young thugs and older thugs before we think about restoring capital punishment. This way, we might bring up a generation or two of disciplined people who might not need the threat of execution to deter them from committing the most serious crimes.
It is noticeable that whilst Singapore retains and uses the death penalty, it also has severe punishments for all other offences, including caning for many offences committed by young men who are usually the most crime prone group. Thus, Singapore provides discipline at all levels in its society and has the sort of crime figures that most countries can only dream of.
Pain and suffering – is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment?
The Eighth Amendment to the American Constitution prohibits the imposition of "cruel and unusual punishments" and the "infliction of unnecessary pain in the execution of the death sentence". Whilst this would seem reasonable it never intended this amendment to guarantee a pain free death. When the Constitution was written execution by hanging was specified and at the time this meant the short or no drop method as the concept of a measured drop hadn't been invented. In the Supreme Court case of Rees v Baze in 2007, Ralph Baze challenged the lethal injection procedure in the state of Kentucky which was found to be constitutional by the court because it did not intentionally cause pain.
Obviously one cannot be inside the brain of a person as they are being out to death to know what, if any, pain they are feeling. All we can do is to observe their reaction to the process and carry out an autopsy afterwards. If for instance in a measured drop hanging, there is no obvious struggling or movement after the drop and the autopsy finds that the neck has been broken and the spinal cord severed then it is reasonable to conclude that the person died a pain free death. In lethal injection if the person appears to lapse into unconsciousness within seconds of the commencement of the injection of the fast acting barbiturate that is normally the first chemical injected in the US we conclude the same.
It is equally clear that when any form of execution is bungled the prisoner often exhibits signs of great suffering.
The time taken in the actual preparations prior to the execution, (e.g. insertion of the catheters or the shaving of the head and legs for electrocution), must also cause great emotional suffering which again may far outweigh the physical pain of the actual moment of death which at least has an end. Remember that in 20th century Britain, it took typically around 15 seconds to carry out a hanging, whereas it can take 20 to 45 minutes when all goes well to carry out a lethal injection. It sometimes takes much longer when a vein cannot be found. Hanging may cause a degree of physical pain, but surely being executed over a period of half an hour or more must cause acute mental agony.
We have looked at the pain caused by execution but what of the suffering?
One issue rarely addressed is the length of time prisoners spend in the condemned cell or on death row in tiny cells in virtual solitary confinement prior to execution and the uncertainty of eventual execution as various stays are granted and then overturned (particularly in America, where it is an average of over 12 years in 2006, the last year for which statistics are available but can sometimes be over twenty years, as is the case in California).
In Britain when we had the death penalty, three clear Sundays had to elapse between sentence and execution, although this period could increase somewhat if the prisoner appealed. In the US the person will have their execution date set often three months in advance and have to deal with the approach of it. In Japan they are informed within the last hour or so of their life so that they never know when they will be taken to the gallows. In my view, the mental anguish caused by this part of the process is a far greater cause of suffering both to them and their families than that caused by the physical pain produced by the eventual execution. This view was shared by the British Privy Council which is still the final appeal body for many of the Caribbean countries and who ruled that if executions had not been carried out within five years after the death sentence then the person must be reprieved.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html#pro

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/01/arizona.prison.escapees/index.html?section=cnn_latest

One of three convicted killers who escaped from an Arizona prison was captured in Rifle, Colorado, authorities said Sunday.

Arizona Department of Corrections spokesman Barrett Marson confirmed Daniel Renwick has been captured. He was serving 22 years for second-degree murder.

Renwick is one of three convicted murderers who broke out of a Kingman, Arizona, prison Friday night, authorities said.

The three were described as armed and dangerous and were thought to be out of state or on their way to Mexico, a corrections official told CNN Saturday.

The Arizona Department of Corrections and the Flagstaff police said Saturday that the three disappeared from the medium-security Arizona State Prison-Kingman.

The men were discovered missing after the 9:45 p.m. count Friday at the privately-operated facility. The escapees cut a hole in the fence, authorities said. A helicopter and dogs began a search.

Two of the inmates and the accomplice later abducted two truck drivers on Interstate 40 outside of Kingman and hijacked their 18-wheeler, according to the Mohave County Sheriff's Department in Kingman. They released them and the rig five hours later in Flagstaff, about 135 miles to the east.

"We have to take every eventuality into consideration unless we have a definitive trail," said Charles Flanagan, deputy director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. "We know they have a vehicle."

Flanagan told CNN that authorities are making contact with the inmates' families.

The two remaining escaped inmates are: Tracy Province, a 42-year-old white man who is 6 feet 1 inches tall and weighs 184 pounds with brown hair and blue eyes; and John McCluskey, a 45-year-old white man who is 6 feet 1 inches tall and weighs 160 pounds with brown hair and blue eyes. Province is serving a life sentence for murder and armed robbery and McCluskey is serving 15 years for second-degree murder and other charges.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Update on the above story, the escaped murderers have now murdered two more people while on the run:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_us/us_inmate_escape

The search for two men who escaped from a private Arizona prison and their suspected accomplice has turned to the vast Yellowstone National Park area after one of the inmates was linked to a double homicide in New Mexico and efforts to find them intensified.

The U.S. Marshals Service said Sunday information developed within the past two days indicates Tracy Province, John McCluskey and Casslyn Welch may be hiding in portions of the park that span Montana and Wyoming. The agency also said investigators believe Province has separated from McCluskey and Welch.

It doesn't appear any of the three are expert campers or have wilderness survival skills, said Thomas Henman, supervisory deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in Phoenix.

"From the start, we believed these individuals would be staying at campgrounds and truck stops and other places like that. This keeps to that pattern," Henman said. He added authorities believe the three might be sticking to back roads and smaller state highways.

Federal investigators in Montana and Wyoming and law enforcement authorities with the National Park Service are working with investigators from Arizona to follow leads in the Yellowstone area.

The manhunt for the three intensified Saturday after forensic evidence linked at least one of the inmates to the killings of an Oklahoma couple who was traveling through eastern New Mexico earlier this week.

The badly burned skeletal remains of Linda and Gary Haas — both 61 and from Tecumseh, Okla. — were found in a charred camper Wednesday morning on a remote ranch in Santa Rosa. The couple's pickup truck was found that afternoon 100 miles west in Albuquerque.

Henman and New Mexico State Police spokesman Peter Olson both called the search for the two inmates an urgent situation given the double-homicide in New Mexico.

"They are very dangerous individuals, very desperate individuals, and the longer they're out there, the more desperate they become and the more dangerous they become," Henman said Sunday.

Province, McCluskey and Daniel Renwick escaped from the medium-security Arizona State Prison near Kingman on July 30 after authorities say the 44-year-old Welch of Mesa threw wire cutters over the perimeter fence. Welch is McCluskey's fiancee and cousin.

The three later kidnapped two semi-truck drivers at gunpoint and used the big rig to get away, authorities said. The group left the drivers unharmed in the truck at a stop just off Interstate 40 in Flagstaff and then fled.

Renwick was arrested Aug. 1 in Colorado.

Province was serving a life sentence for murder and robbery out of Pima County, Ariz. McCluskey was serving a 15-year prison term for attempted second-degree murder, aggravated assault and discharge of a firearm out of Maricopa County, Ariz. Renwick had been serving a 22-year sentence for second-degree murder.

Authorities said the movements of the two inmates and their accomplice have been unpredictable so they will continue with the nationwide manhunt until all three are arrested. Publicizing their photographs in newspapers and on television, including a segment Saturday night on "America's Most Wanted," has helped generate tips, investigators said.

A series of billboards featuring the three are also planned.

[The Lawspeaker]

Right. I still gave it a good thought and under present circumstances I believe that article 114 of the Constitution should be changed:

Article 114 of the Dutch Constitution:

Capital punishment may not be imposed.

Crimes which should be punishable by death during peacetime under civilian law.


High treason and espionage



Murder:



in the course or furtherance of theft;
while resisting arrest or during an escape;
the second of two murders committed on different occasions (if both done in the Kingdom of the Netherlands - including overseas territories);
if committed on a minor, particularly if combined with sexual molestation of said minor;
if the case of escaping the scene after a traffic accident - particularly if alcohol or drugs were playing a part -- even if the person survives it should be classed as premeditated murder;
in the case of knowingly transmitting a communicable disease during for instance sexual molestation with the intent to maim or murder.





Abduction:



in the course or furtherance of human trafficking;
if done in order to remove a minor from the parental jurisdiction and/or from the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

if done with the intent of selling a minor/handicapped person into (sexual) slavery.



(Armed) robbery:



if combined with torture, molestation and/or murder of the victim(s) and/or the intent to abduct the victim(s) --- including the act of piracy.




For this the country should be subdivided into 4 zones with it's own prison (should be upgraded to maximum security) where executions take place.



West (North Holland, South Holland, Sealand, Utrecht, Flevoland): PI Haaglanden (The Hague).
East (North-Brabant, Limburg, Guelders): PI Vught (Vught).
North (Overijssel, Drenthe, Groningen, Frisia): PI Ter Apel (Ter Apel).
Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint-Eustatius): JI Caribisch Nederland (Kralendijk).



Executioners (to be refered to as scherprechters) are to be appointed by the Crown -- co-signed by the Minister of Justice and are to be paid set wages following the old British model. Also therapy and pensions will be provided in case the scherprechter feels the need to quit the job.

The kind of people one should be looking for are mentally stable people, male, strong-build, good in calculations which should be trained in the "art" -- with no previous criminal records and/or psychological issues.

For the executions the British model as Aces of High described (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=560999&postcount=18) should be used. So that means calculating tables, trapdoors, slipknot noose: no messy affair - short shrift.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=16543&d=1319001890

A condemned prisoner will continue to have the right of appeal and will be granted a galgenmaal - a last meal the evening before his execution.


"...en moge God uw ziel genadig zijn."

[Foxy]

Against but I would re-establish slavery.

[rhiannon]

For.

I must admit that there are a lot of people in this country whom I fantasise about dropping into the sea from airplanes, Argentina style.

My husband agrees with you. He thinks the best way to go about it is to take the scumbag up in an aircraft and push them out the door....this will give them approximately 3 mins or so to contemplate exactly what they've done....

I'm inclined to agree, also.

[SaxonCeorl]

I'm for it, if it can be made less expensive than life imprisonment. I think some people might prefer to die than spend the rest of their lives in confinement anyway.

I'd also bring back firing squads. The lethal injection and gas chamber method is borderline cruel and unusual. Just shoot them in the head; they won't feel a thing.

[The Lawspeaker]

I am asking for this thread to be moved to Law & Concepts and be sticked there as the death penalty is a subject that should be taken seriously.

[Gamera]

For.

I must admit that there are a lot of people in this country whom I fantasise about dropping into the sea from airplanes, Argentina style.

A better option might be dropping them into the jungle from a helicopter by cutting the rope from their feet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpFBCPGOuY0&t=1m24s), Peru style.

[Beorn]

A lot of potential money towards the economy is being squandered by the eradication of an under-valued and dedicated workforce.

[2DREZQ]

I am marginally in favor of the ultimate penalty being imposed on a narrow set of offenders.

On a related note; I have occasionally been surprised by two types of people:

1.)Those in favor of the death penalty, but who would NEVER use deadly force in self-defence and don't want me to have that option. They don't mind if some poor cop or executioner gets blood on HIS hands on their behalf, but won't sully their own spotless white gloves.

2.)Those opposed to the death penalty, who are frequently heard to casually say they would "kill" for something, or "I'll kill him!", or some other violent appellation, tossed off as naturally as can be.

[Phil75231]

Post is about my general view to the death penalty.

Inspired to post here by the March 2012 French shootings thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44400)

I'm against it in the ovewhelmingly vast majority of circumstances - unless guilt is absolutely beyond any doubt (meaning the semi-miracle of the heinous-enough crime taking place in front of dozens of witnesses, in front of the highest quality CCTV, fingerprints, shoe prints, etc. everywhere, the victim present, etc. - along with the perpetrator him or herself, of course).

Otherwise, there's ALWAYS the possibility of executing the wrong prisoner. As John Adams (I believe it was) who represented the British soldiers in the 1770 Boston Massacre is to have said "It is more important to protect the innocent than it is to punish the guilty", which I firmly agree with.

Even in cases where the guilt is not as air-tightly established as described above but still established "beyond reasonable doubt" (to use US legal parlance), I'm still against it - because it sets a bad precedent that encourages hasty executions, especially if the legal standards of "beyond reasonable doubt" inadequately reflect reality.

Don't get me wrong. There's a part of me that would LOVE to see the worst, most heinous, most willfully cruel criminals die in agonizing pain at the hands of the state. At the same time, I can't let my emotions to overrule the fact that wrongful executions and wrongful convictions are not only possible, but occur with depressing frequency in the USA. If this can happen in the USA, then why not every other nation? Accordingly, I must shove my emotions aside in order for true justice to have a chance, part of which is preventing miscarriages of justice.

[The Lawspeaker]

Right. I still gave it a good thought and under present circumstances I believe that article 114 of the Constitution should be changed:

Article 114 of the Dutch Constitution:


Crimes which should be punishable by death during peacetime under civilian law.


High treason and espionage



Murder:



in the course or furtherance of theft;
while resisting arrest or during an escape;
the second of two murders committed on different occasions (if both done in the Kingdom of the Netherlands - including overseas territories);
if committed on a minor, particularly if combined with sexual molestation of said minor;
if the case of escaping the scene after a traffic accident - particularly if alcohol or drugs were playing a part -- even if the person survives it should be classed as premeditated murder;
in the case of knowingly transmitting a communicable disease during for instance sexual molestation with the intent to maim or murder.





Abduction:



in the course or furtherance of human trafficking;
if done in order to remove a minor from the parental jurisdiction and/or from the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

if done with the intent of selling a minor/handicapped person into (sexual) slavery.



(Armed) robbery:



if combined with torture, molestation and/or murder of the victim(s) and/or the intent to abduct the victim(s) --- including the act of piracy.



For this the country should be subdivided into 4 zones with it's own prison (should be upgraded to maximum security) where executions take place.



West (North Holland, South Holland, Sealand, Utrecht, Flevoland): PI Haaglanden (The Hague).
East (North-Brabant, Limburg, Guelders): PI Vught (Vught).
North (Overijssel, Drenthe, Groningen, Frisia): PI Ter Apel (Ter Apel).
Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint-Eustatius): JI Caribisch Nederland (Kralendijk).




Executioners (to be refered to as scherprechters) are to be appointed by the Crown -- co-signed by the Minister of Justice and are to be paid set wages following the old British model. Also therapy and pensions will be provided in case the scherprechter feels the need to quit the job.

The kind of people one should be looking for are mentally stable people, male, strong-build, good in calculations which should be trained in the "art" -- with no previous criminal records and/or psychological issues.

For the executions the British model as Aces of High described (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=560999&postcount=18) should be used. So that means calculating tables, trapdoors, slipknot noose: no messy affair - short shrift.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=16543&d=1319001890

A condemned prisoner will continue to have the right of appeal and will be granted a galgenmaal - a last meal the evening before his execution.


"...en moge God uw ziel genadig zijn."
Still stands. Let the bastards swing. :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

Post is about my general view to the death penalty.

Inspired to post here by the March 2012 French shootings thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44400)

I'm against it in the ovewhelmingly vast majority of circumstances - unless guilt is absolutely beyond any doubt (meaning the semi-miracle of the heinous-enough crime taking place in front of dozens of witnesses, in front of the highest quality CCTV, fingerprints, shoe prints, etc. everywhere, the victim present, etc. - along with the perpetrator him or herself, of course).

Otherwise, there's ALWAYS the possibility of executing the wrong prisoner. As John Adams (I believe it was) who represented the British soldiers in the 1770 Boston Massacre is to have said "It is more important to protect the innocent than it is to punish the guilty", which I firmly agree with.

Even in cases where the guilt is not as air-tightly established as described above but still established "beyond reasonable doubt" (to use US legal parlance), I'm still against it - because it sets a bad precedent that encourages hasty executions, especially if the legal standards of "beyond reasonable doubt" inadequately reflect reality.

Don't get me wrong. There's a part of me that would LOVE to see the worst, most heinous, most willfully cruel criminals die in agonizing pain at the hands of the state. At the same time, I can't let my emotions to overrule the fact that wrongful executions and wrongful convictions are not only possible, but occur with depressing frequency in the USA. If this can happen in the USA, then why not every other nation? Accordingly, I must shove my emotions aside in order for true justice to have a chance, part of which is preventing miscarriages of justice.

This all sounds cool but I think you're giving the US judicial system too little credit. To date there's no proof anyone has been wrongly put to death in this country.

[The Lawspeaker]

This all sounds cool but I think you're giving the US judicial system too little credit. To date there's no proof anyone has been wrongly put to death in this country.
LOL. (http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html) It never happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution).

[rhiannon]

This all sounds cool but I think you're giving the US judicial system too little credit. To date there's no proof anyone has been wrongly put to death in this country.

Perhaps not....but DNA analysis has exonerated several death row inmates in recent years:)

[GeistFaust]

I am against it, unless a person appears to be beyond repair, and if they have committed some nasty crimes many times. I would say the quality of the crime would warrant someone the death penalty over quantity, because all it takes to warrant it is one murder. I think though that the death penalty should be enforced on someone in accordance with the wishes and desires of the family pertaining to the family.


I could understand why a family would want to zap the individual who killed one of their loved ones. I think that if a family pushes it to see it through that a person receive the death penalty, under the jurisdiction and regulations of the law, then they should most probably get their desire. I think personally that the death penalty should be reserved specially for some sick and twisted individuals, and should be used sparingly.


I would prefer if we started making torture devices worse for certain mid-range and high-range criminals. I think these people need to be reminded of the pain they caused another person in some literal and direct manner.

[Joe McCarthy]

LOL. (http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html) It never happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution).

I'm familiar with those cases. You should read the materials more carefully. Those involve convicts being exonerated before being executed, i.e., the judicial system working, or evidence of 'possible inocence' after execution. Even death penalty opponents will grudgingly concede there are no proven cases of wrongful execution.

[Anarch]

I am opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that it strips society of its responsibility and sense of justice while reinforcing the illusion that the government has the right to dispose of its subjects. Instead, I advocate outlawry - that the protection of the state should be withdrawn from those demonstrably unfit to live in a civilised society. Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, psychopaths, cannibals, etc. A pedophile being publicly executed by the father of a victim, televised live outside a court immediately after being outlawed, would do infinitely more to deter child molesters than being locked up for ten years or quietly being on the recieving end of a lethal injection.

If the father doesn't feel up to it, he still has no right to object if some bikies want to clean him up, or if the pedophile gets snatched by a medical company for involuntary organ donation. The fact is that some people are simply unfit to live in any society.

I do however, advocate the death penalty for high treason, if only because that is most definitely an offence against the state.

[2Cool]

I'm against because the justice system is not perfect and it's possible that an innocent gets convicted. Also it costs less money to simply give a person a life sentence than to give him the death penalty.

[Anarch]

I'm against because the justice system is not perfect and it's possible that an innocent gets convicted.

But is this truly a good enough reason to force taxpayers in general - and victims in particular - to feed, clothe and shelter the degenerate, hateful, destructive and anti-social dregs of humanity?


Also it costs less money to simply give a person a life sentence than to give him the death penalty.

At its cheapest, the death penalty can cost as much as a length of rope, which is also reusable. If you'd prefer a single serving option, a 5.56x45mm NATO round costs approximately 27 cents. A life sentance costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of taxpayers dollars. Your sentance makes no sense.

[The Lawspeaker]

For this the country should be subdivided into 4 zones with it's own prison (should be upgraded to maximum security) where executions take place.



West (North Holland, South Holland, Sealand, Utrecht, Flevoland): PI Haaglanden (The Hague).
East (North-Brabant, Limburg, Guelders): PI Vught (Vught).
North (Overijssel, Drenthe, Groningen, Frisia): PI Ter Apel (Ter Apel).
Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint-Eustatius): JI Caribisch Nederland (Kralendijk).

Executioners (to be refered to as scherprechters) are to be appointed by the Crown -- co-signed by the Minister of Justice and are to be paid set wages following the old British model. Also therapy and pensions will be provided in case the scherprechter feels the need to quit the job.


It's not like we have to hang people everyday so it can be done much, much cheaper:

Zone 1: European Netherlands.: PI Haaglanden (The Hague).
Zone 2: Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint-Eustatius): JI Caribisch Nederland (Kralendijk).

So.. we would need a cost-benefit analyses: would we employ two national executioners or would we ask a random army officer to volunteer his services ?

Should we use the rope or a quick and effective 5.56x45mm NATO round ?


Also this could be done much cheaper and much more effective:





Should become life imprisonment during peacetime.



Crimes which should be punishable by death during peacetime under civilian law.


High treason and espionage

Should become life imprisonment during peacetime.





Murder:




the second of two murders committed on different occasions (if both done in the Kingdom of the Netherlands - including overseas territories);
if committed on a minor, particularly if combined with sexual molestation of said minor;
if the case of escaping the scene after a traffic accident - particularly if alcohol or drugs were playing a part -- it should be classed as premeditated murder;

in the case of knowingly transmitting a communicable disease during for instance sexual molestation with the intent to murder.


If the victim of a traffic accident where the driver escaped from the scene survives then the perpetrator should face life imprisonment.

If the intent is to maim then it would be life imprisonment. If a rapist gives someone for instance HIV-AIDS then that murderer deserves the noose.




Abduction:


Abduction crimes could be solved by life imprisonment.





(Armed) robbery:



if combined with murder of the victim(s).



The other previous crimes could be changed to life imprisonment. That leaves 6 capital offences during peacetime and a whole lot more during war time.

In the meanwhile those that are imprisoned.. even for life should be sentenced to hard labour. Those that are to be hanged should also be working to pay off their debts until they will be hanged - in the meantime they should have their own cells on death row where they will also work (they should be kept separate from other prisoners).

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

[Caismeachd]

I'm against it. The state/country, shouldn't have the right to kill any of it's citizens. The legal system in places like the United States are so backwards corrupt and inefficient they shouldn't have any right to kill anyone. More corruption/more backwards country = more death penalties.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_Chi na#Rates_of_execution

(China is much higher but they don't value life as much there).


According to a US Department of Justice report published in 2006, over 7.2 million people were at that time in prison, on probation, or on parole. That means roughly 1 in every 32 Americans are held by the justice system.[4][5] According to the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) at King's College London, of that 7.2 million, 2.3 million were in prison. The People's Republic of China comes in second place with 1.6 million, despite its population being over four times that of the United States.[6]


Land of the free my ass.

[The Lawspeaker]

I agree with your criticism of the American legal system but with the death penalty itself is nothing wrong.

[Anarch]

I'm against it. The state/country, shouldn't have the right to kill any of it's citizens. The legal system in places like the United States are so backwards corrupt and inefficient they shouldn't have any right to kill anyone. More corruption/more backwards country = more death penalties.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_Chi na#Rates_of_execution

(China is much higher but they don't value life as much there).

According to a US Department of Justice report published in 2006, over 7.2 million people were at that time in prison, on probation, or on parole. That means roughly 1 in every 32 Americans are held by the justice system.[4][5] According to the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) at King's College London, of that 7.2 million, 2.3 million were in prison. The People's Republic of China comes in second place with 1.6 million, despite its population being over four times that of the United States.[6]

Land of the free my ass.

I wonder what imprisonment rates would look like if one discounted minority criminals and those locked up on drug smuggling and drug trafficking charges.

[Coriolanus]

It's a difficult question because I consider myself strongly pro-life and would feel a hypocrite if I supported the death penalty, yet the great Emperor Saints of Byzantium and other Christian governments prescribed it.

I regard all killing as wrong, though sometimes a lesser evil has to be used to prevent greater evil (such as in war), in light of this I view the death penalty as a historical anachronism that was once necessary but not today, perhaps except for truly exceptional crimes against humanity such as war crimes or genocide.

[Sikeliot]

For. Some criminals are beyond rehabilitation or hope and I do not want my tax dollars wasted on keeping them alive.

[The Lawspeaker]

Question for those that are for the death penalty. What methods do you think should be used ?

I believe that in peacetime (under civilian law) the British style eyelet noose should be used (in combination with an updated version of the Official Table of Drops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops)). And during war time (under martial law) the firing squad.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/wands%20noose.jpg
It would look like this:

Pr0WR7oCp10

Executions should be as quick and humane as possible. The condemned prisoner may not deserve it but what good does it do to society when a person is tortured to death ? It costs man hours and thus money. Money that should be spend somewhere else. So it's important to finish the job quickly and efficiently.

[rhiannon]

Question for those that are for the death penalty. What methods do you think should be used ?

I believe that in peacetime (under civilian law) the British style eyelet noose should be used (in combination with an updated version of the Official Table of Drops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops)). And during war time (under martial law) the firing squad.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/wands%20noose.jpg
It would look like this:

Pr0WR7oCp10

Execution should be as quick and humane as possible. The condemned prisoner may not deserve it but what good does it do to society when a person is tortured to death ? It costs man hours and thus money. Money that should be spend somewhere else.

Punishment should fit the crime:thumb001:

[The Lawspeaker]

That usually costs time and money and the bill would then have to be footed on society which also happens including the victims of the crime (the next-of-kin).

[Osprey]

For it.
Some never learn.

[The Lawspeaker]

For it.
Some never learn.
Hmm in some cases there could be a " three strikes you're out !"- law for sexual predators or extremely violent people. It keeps the hangman busy, the graves fed and society safe.

[Osprey]

Hmm in some cases there could be a " three strikes you're out !"- law for sexual predators or extremely violent people. It keeps the hangman busy, the graves fed and society safe.

Pedophiles.
Gangsters.
Corrupt Politicians.
Come to Mind.

[The Lawspeaker]

How would you get rid of them ?

[Osprey]

How would you get rid of them ?

Electric Chair
To make them mend their ways, one last time.
If Not
Then
Guillotine.

[arcticwolf]

I have mixed feeling about that. Some minds are so fucked up that there is little chance of straightening them. They are probably better off dead than they are alive, as they would not be able to make things worse for themselves in the long run. On the other hand I don't want the rest of us be like them, if we need to kill them dispose of them in the most humane way possible under the circumstances. No revenge or public killing. So I guess I am for it, but I am even more for making ABSOLUTELY sure the right man is held responsible. Innocent people being executed for crimes they have not committed is the worst injustice there is. So yes if 100% sure, but not if it's a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

[hurensohn]

No one has the right to kill someone. Mind that: If you take the right to take someones life, you will lose yourself the right to live. Therefore I appeal to lifelong torture instead of the death penalty.

[2DREZQ]

No one has the right to kill someone. Mind that: If you take the right to take someones life, you will lose yourself the right to live. Therefore I appeal to lifelong torture instead of the death penalty.

Pity you aren't around to have the short-circuits in this explained to you.

[The Lawspeaker]

qDO6HV6xTmI

[The Lawspeaker]

87fdhBIbehk
How to kill a human being - BBC Horizon

Former Conservative MP Michael Portillo pushes his body to the brink of death in an investigation into the science of execution. As the American Supreme Court examines whether the lethal injection is causing prisoners to die in unnecessary pain, Michael sets out to find a solution which is fundamentally humane. Armed with startling new evidence, Michael considers a completely new approach. Will it be the answer? There is only one way to find out - to experience it himself.

[Behemot]

No use of a dead men.
They took something from the society ,and they should pay for it,and get them very clear that bed,water and 3 meals a day should be earned !
:coffee:

[The Lawspeaker]

No use of a dead men.
They took something from the society ,and they should pay for it,and get them very clear that bed,water and 3 meals a day should be earned !
:coffee:

You mean hard labour ? Hmm we don't have much use for hard labour anymore but maybe we should strike a deal with Surinam and dump our prisoners in their jungle as a form of development aid and make them build a railway with their bare hands. Bridge over the River Kwai-style. :thumb001:

[Behemot]

We have
That was the practice in time of Marshal Tito,and now in this quasi-democracy,we need railways to be fixed,tunnels to be dug and proper highway yet to be made.......we also have lots of coal mines and all sorts of heavy laboring necessities. There are proper use for every last one of them !

[Quorra]

I'm opposed to the death penalty(not strongly) because death is so final.

[Osprey]

I'm opposed to the death penalty(not strongly) because death is so final.

And so unpredictable.
No pain, No vengenance.

[Mago]

In the wise words of Michael Savage some people forfeit their right to life when they commit atrocious crimes. It costs the system thousands of dollars a year to keep a prisoner, it is more cost effective to give them capital punishment. I do agree that is an easy way out but ultimately the best solution.

[Siegfried]

I should mention that capital punishment also has a better effect on getting people to act by the law. If I'm told that I will be put in prison for five years for whatever reason, though it still won't be a fun experience in most countries, I know that I will eventually come out and will think that the relevance of the law isn't that high. However, if I'm told that as soon as I'm found, a rope will be tied around my neck, I'm certain I'll behave better than if this was not to happen.

Of course, that is just my reaction to it and there are always exceptions.

[Anarch]

In the wise words of Michael Savage some people forfeit their right to life when they commit atrocious crimes. It costs the system thousands of dollars a year to keep a prisoner, it is more cost effective to give them capital punishment. I do agree that is an easy way out but ultimately the best solution.

"Some [but not all] forfeit their right to life when they commit atrocious crimes"? What of the rest? Incidentally, who decides, and on what basis? Feeding, housing and guarding a prisoner does cost tens of thousands of dollars a year - a burden which should not be foisted upon society, true. But why does this principle - that the criminal negates his own rights in violating those of his victims - require a centralised disciplinariary mechanism?

[Mago]

"Some [but not all] forfeit their right to life when they commit atrocious crimes"? What of the rest? Incidentally, who decides, and on what basis? Feeding, housing and guarding a prisoner does cost tens of thousands of dollars a year - a burden which should not be foisted upon society, true. But why does this principle - that the criminal negates his own rights in violating those of his victims - require a centralised disciplinariary mechanism?

Some as in someone who commits premeditated murder deserves capital punishment, someone who kills another person in for example in the heat of the moment such as in a fight should not get death but time in prison because the murder wasn’t premeditated. You see the line is thin and death penalty can only be given in a case by case basis after all the evidence clearly shows absolutely and irrevocably guiltiness. Ultimately a Judge dictates the final sentence taking in consideration the gravity, severity and causes of the murder or murders.

[Anarch]

Some as in someone who commits premeditated murder deserves capital punishment, someone who kills another person in for example in the heat of the moment such as in a fight should not get death but time in prison because the murder wasn’t premeditated. You see the line is thin and death penalty can only be given in a case by case basis after all the evidence clearly shows absolutely and irrevocably guiltiness. Ultimately a Judge dictates the final sentence taking in consideration the gravity, severity and causes of the murder or murders.

I understand the mechanics of it as it currently works, but that need not necessarily be the case. For example, a hot-blooded murderer could be ordered to 20 years indentured servitude to the next-of-kin of the victim. A cold-blooded murderer could be outlawed, leaving his fate entirely to the whims of society without recourse to the protection of the law.

So, again - leaving aside the whole realm of anarchist and anarcho-capitalist justice - why should the state monopolise the role of executioner?

[Arthas]

I am for the death penalty only in the case of aggressive murder with absolute proof.

By aggressive murder, I mean it was an intentional killing of someone that was not done in any form of self defence. By intentional, I mean you intended to either kill them or seriously injure them, for example if you got angry and punched someone in the face and they died, that wouldn't be intentional murder, but if you got angry and repeatedly hit someone in the face with a baseball bat and they died, that would be intentional murder because you were fully aware that your actions could kill him and at the very least would seriously injure him.

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

I'm against the death penalty it is cruel and not necessary to kill for any reason really.

[Kemalisté]

Yes, but only on the occasions of treason, child abuse, mass murder, harsh violence toward children and women.

[Arthas]

child abuse
harsh violence toward children and women.

These are indeed awful crimes, but why do you think they deserve the death penalty?

[Quorra]

Yes, but only on the occasions of treason, child abuse, mass murder, harsh violence toward children and women.

It's not about what the crime is. Of course some people deserve death.

It's about the justice system not being perfect. Sometimes innocent people are put to death.

That's the dilemma, not whether people deserve it or not. Of course they deserve it. If I could tear myself away from TA for half an hour I'd be down in the mall with a machine gun right this minute.

[The Lawspeaker]

We need less idle chatter and more hangings. Idle chatter doesn't get rid of criminals. Nooses do.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm against it. I understand the positions of its proponents and supporters, though. I see both sides of the issue. Murderers should be imprisoned for life. They should never be released. That said, capital punishment seems barbaric in these enlightened times. It seems like a relic from the era when torture was acceptable around the world. One could say that it's cruel and unusual in this day and age.

[TheNepenthe]

Yesterday I understood that I am and always will be for death penalty for human trafficking and keeping people in slavery. And that I could carry out the sentence with my own hands.

[Heart of Oak]

People who get caught red handed so to speak, should of coarse be exicuted, hanging no namby pamby injections, if theres a shortidge of exicuteiners, Im ready to pull the leaver myself, anyone that can ruin a childs life, deserves no less...

[Bobcat Fraser]

People who get caught red handed so to speak, should of coarse be exicuted, hanging no namby pamby injections, if theres a shortidge of exicuteiners, Im ready to pull the leaver myself, anyone that can ruin a childs life, deserves no less...

You're right, Sinbad. It's hard to argue against that.

[Kemalisté]

These are indeed awful crimes, but why do you think they deserve the death penalty?

They just deserve.

[Wonder]

I used to be for it, but I've changed my views on the matter.

"The State is not God. It has no right to take away that which it cannot give back, if it should so desire."
- The Bet, Chekhov

The first written laws of Russia, the Russkaya Pravda, lacked the death penalty and it, as well as other cruel punishments, was rare among the Norse too.

[thetank]

theoretically I am for it however in my country it is has no deterrent effect and if anything increases more crime and it is also more expensive to execute an individual... I ultimately care about my taxes so if it was cheaper to kill the criminals then I will be for it even more but in this case then no I am against it

[Chinup]

"The law was invented to transcend revenge." `Spiral

How can one respect a justice system that has no respect for human lives ..

fear =/= respect .. revenge =/= justice ..

http://i.imgbox.com/add7ug6y.jpg

Capital punishment wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)

[Pontios]

For.

We cannot let child molesters, serial killers, terrorists, ect. live on the same earth we live and have our taxes support them to continue living in jail. Why waste our taxes on people who harm your nation? Besides that it brings fear into people. If the US started executing all the people who have tried to place explosives in cars and houses, I wonder how many would still try that. Now they are held in jail, eating, drinking, with loads of Islamic texts that they read in those jails, and then they are released in the end to continue doing what they did. All of that on the money of the people they tried to hurt.

[SILNI]

Against.

Taking human life is justifiable only in self defence and not by this barbaric death penalties when one is tied up for a chair or bed , lying helpless. There is no humanism in it.

[Aunt Hilda]

Against.

sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.


besides, It is my belief that the legal system is supposed to rehabilitate the criminals(so that they latter could be part of society again), not just punish them

[alfieb]

Against. And it's legal here.

Life in prison in solitary confinement, without parole, is the worst punishment imaginable from a civilized government without descending into barbarity.

[Linet]

In general i am against :thumb down ....but in some cases, like child molestors....death penalty doesnt even sound enough to me :icon_no:

[SILNI]

It's not about weight of crimes but about principle.
Death penalty just isn't human.

[Žołnir]

I guess in Slovenia it would work very well but i am more contra than pro altho generally neutral. I think it should be decided on referendum.

[Chinup]

For.

We cannot let child molesters, serial killers, terrorists, ect. live on the same earth we live and have our taxes support them to continue living in jail. Why waste our taxes on people who harm your nation? Besides that it brings fear into people. If the US started executing all the people who have tried to place explosives in cars and houses, I wonder how many would still try that. Now they are held in jail, eating, drinking, with loads of Islamic texts that they read in those jails, and then they are released in the end to continue doing what they did. All of that on the money of the people they tried to hurt. You realise the reasons you give for killing people are the same given by murderers right ? Do you know why killing people is wrong ?

[Linet]

The guy you raped, tortured and killed his 6 years old girl....are you telling me is not human to kill him? :eusa_eh:
...Well yes, is not human to kill him :flynch: ....just torture him every day http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/negative/s0919.gif for the rest of his pathetic life...

[alfieb]

The guy you raped, tortured and killed his 6 years old girl....are you telling me is not human to kill him? :eusa_eh:
...Well yes, is not human to kill him :flynch: ....just torture him every day http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/negative/s0919.gif for the rest of his pathetic life...

Killing is too easy. Life in jail is worse.

[SILNI]

I guess in Slovenia it would work very well but i am more contra than pro altho generally neutral. I think it should be decided on referendum.
Slovenia have a death penalty?
I didn't know that.
In fact I believe it's against EU regulations.

[Chinup]

The guy you raped, tortured and killed his 6 years old girl....are you telling me is not human to kill him? :eusa_eh:
...Well yes, is not human to kill him :flynch: ....just torture him every day http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/negative/s0919.gif for the rest of his pathetic life... Revenge is not justice .. i wonder if you understand why it was wrong for this person to do these things if you think harming them is a solution.

[Hoca]

I'm only for it in special circumstances, such as mass-murder, pedophilia, terrorist, high treason crimes should be able to be punished with death penality. For example that Brevik guy shouldn't be living in a three star hotel prison. You only make it appealing for them to do such things.

[Žołnir]

Slovenia have a death penalty?
I didn't know that.
In fact I believe it's against EU regulations.

No that is why i said; would work well Anyway yeah i didn't knew its against EU. In that case we can't do anything bout it. However generally i think we don't really need death penalty its not severe so far. I would definetly make penalties for some psychos like killers, rapists, etc. way higher.

[SILNI]

No that is why i said; would work well Anyway yeah i didn't knew its against EU. In that case we can't do anything bout it. However generally i think we don't really need death penalty its not severe so far. I would definetly make penalties for some psychos like killers, rapists, etc. way higher.
Slovenia is peaceful country anyway , I think it's a country with the lowest crime rates in the region.

[Linet]

To me, these people have to be punished.... the only thing do agree, is that killing them is just not enough, plus that you get to their level.... But yes....i do not want them to be in just a jail, but to really feel a taste of what they have done....and this guy had a nice life and a privilaged position and yet he killed his baby girl in the most horrible way...

[SILNI]

I'm only for it in special circumstances, such as mass-murder, pedophilia, terrorist, high treason crimes should be able to be punished with death penality. For example that Brevik guy shouldn't be living in a three star hotel prison. You only make it appealing for them to do such things.
I am sure you would make a "party" in turkey regarding that offence if you had some power :tongue

[Aunt Hilda]

I'm only for it in special circumstances, such as mass-murder, pedophilia, terrorist, high treason crimes should be able to be punished with death penality. For example that Brevik guy shouldn't be living in a three star hotel prison. You only make it appealing for them to do such things.

he's not thats just something the media decided to sensationalise to make some headlines


To me, these people have to be punished.... the only thing do agree, is that killing them is just not enough, plus that you get to their level.... But yes....i do not want them to be in just a jail, but to really feel a taste of what they have done....and this guy had a nice life and a privilaged position and yet he killed his baby girl in the most horrible way...
thats just wrong, you can never know for certain he did it. Life in prison is a much better alternative

[SILNI]

that Brevik guy shouldn't be living in a three star hotel prison
Almost every day some lunatic in middle east kill same amount of people as breivik did by suicide bombings.

[Chinup]

I'm only for it in special circumstances, such as mass-murder, pedophilia, terrorist, high treason crimes should be able to be punished with death penality. For example that Brevik guy shouldn't be living in a three star hotel prison. You only make it appealing for them to do such things. Wanting to kill people is a sickness .. no amount of luxury is worth the loss of liberty ..

[Linet]

thats just wrong, you can never know for certain he did it. Life in prison is a much better alternative

No, i talk abotu certain cases.....and mostly about tha thread about the muslim guy who killed his daughter...i am spesific...and yes we know he did it....and we know he will pay money to the mother of the girl....wow....he was punished....

[Žołnir]

Slovenia is peaceful country anyway , I think it's a country with the lowest crime rates in the region.

Could be i dunno but yeah i think we don't need death penalty atm.