the death penalty... is it an effective way of deterring criminals

theymademedoit

its not right, no one deserves to die, be it the victim or the murderer.

how can a government decide wether someone should live or die?

no one should ever have governance over someone elses life.

the death penalty is nothing but murder, pure and simple.

tibilt

indeed it is. and since nothing can justify murder, the only thing we are doing by carrying it out is encouraging the notion that murder can be justyfied, which needlessly undermines law itself.

theymademedoit

more proof, if ever it was needed, that the system doesnt work.

Havelock

When the case of someone depriving an innocent of their life is brought to trail the punishment sould meet the crime, the criminal should be deprived of their life. Incarsiration does not deprive life, just limits it and is costly to the state. Unless you want to lock the criminal in a cave so the providence of the gods is responcable for them their is no other way than to punish them in a fitting manner than death.

The law should not be of legalities, but of justice. -Alex Chavanne

tibilt

nobody has the right to stop existence, innocent or otherwise. the law is about justice for all, alex chavanne. the death penalty is not a punishment, it is murder. and if no one has the right to commit murder, then why should the law?

Spenguin

Well if you know that the death penalty is the punishment for the crime you are about to commit and you do it anyway, you're asking for it. Its going to be a horrible crime that would have to be your fault e.g. rape and mass murder. You don't do these by accident so you have to be willing to accept the consequences. I for one think there's nothing wrong with removing the filthy people from our world. Unless of course they are not in their right state of mind, they have some sort of revenge reason and the person they killed killed their family or they did it by accident. Hmm... well, I think that the death penalty should be there, but only for the most extreme cases unless they change the life sentence to a sentence that lasts all your life.

tibilt

but what gives you the right to decide someone deserves to die, spenguin?what gives anyone the right?

Spenguin

Hmm, i see your point. Well, I suppose they should let the people that they did the crime to decide, as they have been effected by it most, or in the case of murder, a family member of whoever died should decide. if they can forgive them they do not get the death penalty. if not they do. That could make things a bit complicated though...

tibilt

there is a problem with that. a faimliy that has just lost one of its own is going to want revenge, not justice. there simply is no valid reason for murder, by state or by crime.no one has the right to decide.

vikki

suppose we did allow family members to decide the criminals sentence would they not want the harshest punishment possible imposed?
i should think yes they would.
however if this was limited as in if someone steals your tv you shouldnt be allowed give them the death penalty... obviously as that is unreasonable
if family could choose between life or the death penalty
i think that if when given life it meant life (not 12 years etc) then there is no need for the death penalty but by letting criminals out for good behaviour is ridiculous if they were well behaved they would not have been in jail in the first place... i dont think anybody can argue with that! the death penalty is effective to a certain extent...
i still think they have the right idea in saudi arabia and the like because if you steal you get your hand cut off... and if you didnt know... the crime rate is practically nothing... so maybe we should do that... after all it works... although it isnt a nice idea... the point is that after a little while people will realise that it isnt worth stealing and will no longer do it... rather than the idea that for all eternity people will be losing their hands for robbery:p

Vikki*

tibilt

so it's worth doing wrong to stop others doing wrong?

Awayindahils

Its more like its impossible to stop or punish 'wrong' without doing more 'wrong'.Its a really nasty catch 22.

tibilt

well the line between right and wrong is hazy at best, certainly, but this thread is about the death penalty.and the death penalty is murder.and surely murder is a...level? of wrong that is not worth attaining?

Awayindahils

Yeah im not disaging im oppossed to the death penalty but usually for the death sentence to be handed down a muder if nott several have been commited so if u think about it even though im am against it ur already at the level of murder and by killing some1 through lethal injection r watever u sorta obtain a parrleness as in ur no worse than the murderer and also ur victim definetly wasnt innocent.This probably dosnt make much sense but it made sense in my head.

tibilt

so muder can only be assuaged by more murder?and if the crime is murder, then murder is warranted?that just doesnt seem right

Awayindahils

i know it dosnt seem right but its another way of looking at it. its a way people involved could clear their conioncous. It works on the eye for an eye thing they cancel each other and a twisted equilibrium is reached.

tibilt

a world of vicious cycles. why does virtue have to be such a minefield?

article6

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi or Martin Luther King. I can't remember now.


Virtue is a minefield because we do not have ultimate knowledge of every person's qualities and vices. Therefore pure justice is impossible - in this world at least.

My problem with the death penalty is that the "eye for an eye" dictum is too decisive - that which is taken cannot be given back.

Take the case of a society without capital punishment. If a man is wrongly accused of murder, and fifteen years later the judgement is reversed, he can be released. He has lost fifteen years of freedom, but nevertheless. (I'm thinking of the Birmigham Six or Guildford Four here.) Perhaps he can be compensated. In any case, his liberty is returned to him.

In a country where murder is punishable by death, that man has probably been dead for years when the reversal comes and the only compensation possible is an apology to the family. His life, sadly, cannot be returned.

"[Gollum] deserves death!" - Frodo
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." - Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1

tibilt

why must you quote the views of others? you beliefs are strong enough on their own. i was using rhetoric when i spoke of virtue, i know of societies flaws. but is the death penalty really efeective in deterring others?isnt that the question this thread is about?

Crash

Tibilt your ideas are the ultimate in justice. however they're not the ultimate in applicable justice. simple fact is democracy or republic etc. all governments exist in a state of compromise - which is the better to do? pay the jail fees for the rest of the murderers life and leave the family wanting revenge or go for the zero tolerance policy. and it all depends on what the people of said country want.

here we're against it (though personally i have a very firm idea that jails are much too cushy on jail conditions, as for prison to be effective it is not denial of rights but minimum of rights, which is not carried out here).

But the question is tibilt that if there was a case in the papers tomorrow of a mother who killed the person who broke into their house and killed her son/husband/daughter upon breaking in, would you be all for her getting a life sentence?

even more interesting, if you were put in the position, would you do the same?

perspective is grand in minor cases but cant be applied to governments though, so ignore that

tibilt

im not talking about justice crash. im talking about the basic fundamentals of life. no one has the right to extinguish life. nobody deserves to die unnaturally. its just wrong. killing is wrong. no goverment has the right to do it, no matter what the people want. i know there are justifications and that these are the basis of our legal system, but irregardless of the implications of mitigating factors, murder is wrong.it just is.

Crash

yes but my point is that in a perfect world/ governmental system that works. unfortunately, in this world, it doesnt. while i agree with our system and the lack of use of the current statute, i was just pointing out that government is compromise - as to which downside is worse.

I do actually agree with you. personally i would see leaving a murderer in solitary for the rest of their life as justice.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by vikki
suppose we did allow family members to decide the criminals sentence would they not want the harshest punishment possible imposed?
i should think yes they would.
Vikki*

Many years ago in Saudi a Pakastani workman fell off some scaffolding about four or five floors up and survived. The Saudi overseer he landed on didn't. So it went to court and the family demand that he be killed since he killed thier relative. The judge pointed out it was an accident but they inisisted on thier rights under islamic law. The judge had no choice but to agree to it.

However, he did point out that under islamic law the Pakastani would have to be killed in the same way. One of them would have to jump off the scaffolding, strangely enough they declined.
Shortly afterwards the workman left the country.

tibilt

your point? or were you just showing off your wide scope of useless information? we are trying to establish a morally justifyable basis for killing someone. vikki raised the point of extenuating circumstances due to a connection of partiallity.so you bring up a singular and extremely unlikely circumstance on the whole - possibly a darwin award winner - in the hopes of what? of course the family would want him dead. but the family may not in fact want to kill someone, they just want retribution. and perhaps some cultures legal systems allow for that, but in context of vikki' point, yours makes no sense.

Crash

Quit flaming danny. Cap'n Midnight made an interesting point on certain foibles of the law. and atm i'm much mroe inclined to edit your posts that his as you seem to be actively jumping down peoples throats who disagree with you rather than debating a point. i dont mind opinions but dont have a go at someone over a harmless post.

Got it?

Neil.

tibilt

i was merely pointing out his post made no sense in context of the quote he made, neil. but i got it.

vikki

ok capt'n midnight look in the case you stated the death was caused by accident therefore it is not just to kill the person who fell from the scaffolding and killed another that is hardly premeditated murder or the like is it??? What a great plan... i think i'll jump off scaffolding in order to kill someone... not realistic!!! Put it in this perspective... someone kills a family member of yours on purpose... would you not want them to be killed, not even a little... i know i certainly would... maybe that sounds crazy or that i am a horrible person with no heart... i dont know but im sure i would feel that way... so turn the argument on its head if a family member of yours killed someone how would you feel... me being the seemingly heartless person i am would probably feel that they deserved to die, horrible as that may seem i am sure i would think that way! Maybe i just think differently than everyone else i dont know!

in addition to that tilbit has stated numerous times that we dont have the right to kill anyone... why do we not have the right... by that im not saying that i support the death penalty other than in some extreme cases but i would like to know what makes people think we do not have the right to take aomeones life... after all murderers kill every day???

Im not looking for an argument of any kind here i would just be interested to know!!!

Vikki*:p

tibilt

just because murderers kill people doesnt mean they have a right to. surely there has to be some fundamental line - beyond law, beyone morality, beyond all things beuaracratic. something pure and untainted, that just tells us it is wrong?that tells us we have no right?i mean, its life. who are we to mess with life? surely you can see this? there just cant be justification for taking life. i dont mean to be arrogant or overbearing, and i know im being a blowhard and snapping at people, but surely there is just something isside us all that tells us killing is wrong, no matter what the circumstance?i know anger can blind us sometimes, but im sure anyone who would have someone killed in retribution would regret it. because not all killers are lone wolfs, you could be depriving another family of their mother or father or brother or sister. there just has to be a line, doesnt there? why isnt murder wrong?

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by tibilt
.. trying to establish a morally justifyable basis for killing someone...

Wouldn't that be pre-meditated taking of life.. ie. murder...

Capt'n Midnight

The letter of the law does not always match the spirit of the law. There are many examples in history where a law is passed and then gets used for other purposes.*

Maybe you could execute lifers to free up space... At present in the US three resedential burgluries means a life sentence.

Even if you feel it is right to kill murderers, and you ignore the whole miscarraige of justice thing then you still have the problem of a violent society. Look at the numbers of people who turn up at dawn outside the prisions. I remember a documentary about a serial killer and the psychologist was more worried about the executioner, he seemed to enjoy his work a little too much... - perhaps you could use adversion therapy give them a shock each time they execute someone.... There is too much desensitisation.

Do they still televise live beheadings In Saudi ?

Have a look at US Cop series from the 70's and 80's if there is a bad guy who turns good at the end (thus causing a moral dilema) he will be killed by the bad guy (with enough time to repent etc.) who will then be taken away to prison.. Remember all those murder she wrote stories - no mention that Mrs Lanesbury keeps notes on if the culprit was fried, choked, gassed or put down.

Look at the big picture - if the US abolished execution then the West would be in a much better position to force the likes of China to ban it too. Overall lots more lives would be saved perhaps..

A lot of murders fit into two categories - impulse killings, eg a domestic row - and killings by young males already involved in crime. The first category wouldn't deserve the death penalty since there would be little chance of a repeat killing after a proper life sentence (not the 10 years you get here). The Second category especially in the states occurs in people who live with death already (Leading cause of death of Urban American Black males is Murder , up to 10% of the youth population is in prison...)

Yes in England back in the 50's criminals used to frisk each other before going on a job - but they were career criminals not drugged up 17 year olds from Liverpool fighting a gang war ...

*If you remember section 4, it was introduced as a way to get essential construction going. Some councils spent up to 40% of their time discussing section 4's later on - personally I would like to have every section 4 investigated for brown envelopes...