should the death penalty be brought back?

Flukey

Gabhain7, to say that no one that has been executed is innocent, which is almost what you are saying is ridiculous as you are then saying that all our legal system is basically infallible, which is of course not true. The majority that do get executed are of course guilty of the crime committed, but no matter how good our system is, there will always be people wrongfully convicted and even if there cases are reviewed before final execution, it is not guaranteed that that error will show up. If someone has framed them or lied in court or whatever, that won't necessarily be seen in reviewing the evidence. Some will get through the loop, so inevitably an innocent person is going to be executed at some point and that is one too many.

How can taking a life be re-affirming its sanctity? The State does not have the power to take life and anyway doing so does not necessarily ensure justice. Quite the opposite in some cases as we have seen.

AngelofFire

gabhain7 wrote:

Opponents of the death penalty have said, innocent people must have been executed. There is no proved case of an innocent person being executed in the U.S. since the restoration of capital punishment. .

What about Donald Marshall?, executed but later found out to be innocent

Flukey

I don't have a list, but I am sure there have been plenty of other Donald Marshalls, ones known about and ones not known about, except maybe by the real perpatrators of the crime and those that framed them.

dermot_sheehan

Donald Marshall was sentenced to life imprisonment, but later found to be innocent.

My point is we seem to accept errors for people being sentenced to life imprisonment, we don't seem to accept them for capital punishment, yet we say life imprisonment is equal to execution in its harshness and deterrence effect.

dermot_sheehan

regarding the sanctity of life,


currently the intentional and illegal taking of a human life with aforethought and malice, is equal in our justice system to 12-20 years imprisonment.

Re: the state not having the right to take a life. The state is the expression of popular soverignty. Thus it has the power to do many things that would be illegal for a private citizen. It can thus imprison convicts without being a kidnapper. Collect taxes without being an extortionist. etc etc

PBC_1966

Flukey wrote:

If someone has framed them or lied in court or whatever, that won't necessarily be seen in reviewing the evidence.

I believe that California law allows for a death sentence on someone who purgers himself in court if his false testimony leads to the execution of an innocent man.

sliabh

PBC_1966 wrote:

I believe that California law allows for a death sentence on someone who purgers himself in court if his false testimony leads to the execution of an innocent man.

What a wonderful country. They have gone from the death sentance for serial killers to threatening to hand it out for liars

Flukey

My point is we seem to accept errors for people being sentenced to life imprisonment, we don't seem to accept them for capital punishment, yet we say life imprisonment is equal to execution in its harshness and deterrence effect.

No, we don't accept the error for those imprisoned for life, but at least something can be done to rectify the situation. Neither do we say life imprisonment is equal to execution, but that it should be used instead of it. That is not saying it is equal to it! As to deterrents, neither execution or life imprisonment deters murder. Justice is there to punish people or rehabilitate people, prevent them from re-offending and to try to deter people from committing crimes. Some of those things do succeed, to an extent, but none of them 100%. Even the ultimate price, your own life, does not deter all potential murderers, many of whom are fully aware of the consequences. That is not to say the justice system is pointless, but we can never expect it to give us a 100% crime-free society. There are lots of other things that have to be done to prevent crime. You have to start at the basics, tackling the root-causes of crime. Doing that will do more to reduce crime - which is the best we can ever hope for - than sentencing. We have to stop people getting into crime in the first instance. That can be done for a lot of crimes, which are down to factors that can be controlled to a certain extent.

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

We have to stop people getting into crime in the first instance. That can be done for a lot of crimes, which are down to factors that can be controlled to a certain extent.

Fair enough, but in the next two hundred years before this happens what do you propose that we deal with to part of society that continues to commit these crimes. What you're describing is damn close to a Utopian Society, and we are nowhere near that yet.

Prevention of crime is a wonderful concept, but there neither exists the mindset nor the technology to do so at this time, to do so effectively enough.

That is not to say the justice system is pointless, but we can never expect it to give us a 100% crime-free society

I expect the nearest we'll (Human Society) ever see of 100% even 70% crime free society, would be a society similiar to the film "Equilibrium", but then again that opens another can of worms.

At the moment, Society exists with crime. Thats not going to change in our lifetime, and so in the meantime, whats the best answer to deal with crime, recurrent convictions, and serial killers? For me, its the death penalty. Not widespread use, but selective use would highlight it to potential crinimals. (It won't stop murderers, but it will remove them properly. But then again nothing stops these murderers erxcept the eventual capturing by police forces)

whosurpaddy

gabhain7 wrote:

Some have said execution is murder. That is wrong. Murder is the illegal taking of the life of another. An executioner who carries out a court order is no more guilty of a murder, then a person who kills in self defence, or a soldier shooting the enemy on the battlefield.

thats exactly the arguement i put to flukey several days ago and he had no answer for it.

seamus

gabhain7 wrote:

Donald Marshall was sentenced to life imprisonment, but later found to be innocent.

My point is we seem to accept errors for people being sentenced to life imprisonment, we don't seem to accept them for capital punishment, yet we say life imprisonment is equal to execution in its harshness and deterrence effect.

You really don't see the difference. If you kill someone, they're gone. No second chances, no chance of redemption, they're gone. Life imprisonment isn't nice, and a "Geez, sorry mister" doesn't really cut it much when they're found innocent, but at least they have a life to pick up. Their family has someone to take back. If you kill them, and then find out they're innocent, their is absolutely nothing that you can do to even begin making reparations for a serious ****-up.
We accept errors as being inherent in the justice system. The ideal of the system is that everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and all people are treated equally before the law. Unfortunately, its freedom is also its weakness. The rules are easily bent by those with knowledge and money. So we accept mistakes as occuring. No justice system is perfect. Which is why no punishment can be final, and non-reversable. You can't give someone back years of their life, but at least they still have a life to take back.

Re: the state not having the right to take a life. The state is the expression of popular soverignty. Thus it has the power to do many things that would be illegal for a private citizen. It can thus imprison convicts without being a kidnapper. Collect taxes without being an extortionist. etc etc

It's all a question of morality. It's accepted as morally wrong for one person to imprison another, but as necessary for the State to do it, after a trial, in order to protect everyone else, and discourage others from committing the same crime. Income tax and extortion don't even fall in the same category. Tax is people giving money to the country in order to contribute to its upkeep and development. Extortion is the extraction of money, property, etc by coercion or intimidation.
The question we need to ask ourselves is - Does it suddenly make it right to kill someone because it's been made legal? The US has executed a lot of innocent people. Is this ok, because it was legal?

seamus

seamus wrote:

If you kill someone, they're gone. No second chances, no chance of redemption, they're gone. Life imprisonment isn't nice, and "Geez, sorry mister" doesn't really cut it much when they're found innocent, but at least they have a life to pick up. Their family has someone to take back. If you kill them, and then find out they're innocent, their is absolutely nothing that you can do to even begin making reparations for a serious ****-up.

And the point that I'm making is that the Death sentence is there to remove the crinimals that shouldn't be allowed to return to society. There are crinimals that spend the majority of their adult life from recurrent crimes, that rehabilitation has failed utterly. These people refuse to live within Society's rules, and therefore, should be expelled from society. If we kill them, we're removing them from society, and destroying the chance that they will continue to commit crimes, or harm another human being. If they're innocent, we have made a mistake, but, I prefer the odd mistake, to allowing a murderer loose that may kill 2, 3, 5, 10 more people until they are caught again.

It is not up to us to comfort the family of the convicted. It is up to the justice system and society, to remove those individuals from society,
and life imprisonment is failing to do so.

We accept errors as being inherent in the justice system. The ideal of the system is that everyone has the right to defend themselves,
everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and all people are treated equally before the law. Unfortunately, its freedom is also its weakness.
The rules are easily bent by those with knowledge and money. So we accept mistakes as occuring. No justice system is perfect. Which is
why no punishment can be final, and non-reversable.

Punishment to fit the crime. Sure, there is corruption. Sure, people will be incarcerated due to political agenda's. Sure, mistakes happen. But you're looking at a relative small number compared to the numbers that have been judged correctly. So, for the few that are innocent, you would prefer those murderers set loose to kill again. I don't. Kill them. Execute them. Finish their existence. Reduce the chance that someone else will die by their actions.

Punishment should be non-reversable. Its punishment. They have been judged by their peers and found to be guilty. They have broken the laws of
the society that they chose to live in.

can't give someone back years of their life, but at least they still have a life to take back.It's all a question of morality

Morality is all very well and all, but when you're dealing with individuals that have no respect whatsoever for the life of another person, that morality has to be sacrificed. We don't live in a perfect world, and until, humans find a way to live completely in peace, and without crime, morality is a dream. One that has to be backed up with the punishment that forces all members of society to obey the law.

It's all a question of morality. It's accepted as morally wrong for one person to imprison another, but as necessary for the State to do it, after a trial, in order to protect everyone else, and discourage others from committing the same crime. Income tax and extortion don't even fall in the same category. Tax is people giving money to the country in order to contribute to its upkeep and development. Extortion is the extraction of money, property, etc by coercion or intimidation.

No. Its all a question of the law. You see, the law tells me that cohersion is illegal. It tells me that I can't imprison someone against their will. Its the law that tells me this. And I choose to obey the law or face the consequences. Its not a matter of morality. For me, I fear the consequences of the action.

The question we need to ask ourselves is - Does it suddenly make it right to kill someone because it's been made legal? The US has executed
a lot of innocent people. Is this ok, because it was legal?

Under a legitimate court of Law approved by International Standards, yes it is. And from the searches I've made over the last few days in regards to this post, i've yet to find any reference to a person being killed by the death sentence and then being proved innocent. Sure people on death row, but none actually killed.

But tell me is it ok to go out kill 14 people, claim insanity, get life imprisonment, serve 7 years, with a suspended sentence of another 7 years, and kill again?

Flukey

They have been judged by their peers and found to be guilty. They have broken the laws of the society that they chose to live in.

Klaz, lots of people are judged by their peers and found to be guilty, but they may still be innocent so they have not necessarily broken any laws. The death penalty may be there to remove criminals that should not be allowed to society, but it most definitely isn't there to remove people who are innocent, which is what it can do. Imprisoning them will prevent the criminals from returning to society but also give us the opportunity to restore people to society, should that be necessary.

All your arguments are fine, on the basis that everyone found guilty is guilty, but that is not the case. You can't say that it is OK to kill a few people that are innocent as long as we get all the guilty ones! That is not justice. Getting the guilty person and executing them might be some comfort to their victims families, but what about the family of an innocent person that is executed? They will not get any justice for their loss as no one will be brought to book for it, even when the error is found. So what you are saying that it is OK if the family of an innocent victim killed by a murderer to get some comfort by justice but the family of an innocent victim killed by the state should get none? What sort of a society or justice is that?

As to tackling crime, I am not describing a Utopian society when I ay it can be tackled. It can be reduced, but not necessarily by much, but it can be reduced. That is all I am saying. A bit of expenditure and early intervention by the state, will save them a fortune in the long run. If you saw that Prime Time programme on young criminals, you might remember that it was costing something like €750,000 per annum per individual, to detain some of these kids and not for serious crimes like murder. Now if just €750,000 of that money had been put into the community where those kids come from a lot of them would never have turned to crime in the first instance. As well as detaining them they cause a lot of other expenditure to the state as well as private citizens.

So while some people would tell you its a waste of time spending money in deprived areas and on some of those kids(or a plethora of other names given to them when they turn to crime), done properly it could save huge amounts in the long run. It won't solve crime, but it is worth spending money on some of these kids and prevent some of them becoming the scum of the earth that many will grow up to be, at everyones expense. That is not Utopia, but it is a start. Tackling the causes of crime will do far more to reduce it than tackling the perpatrators. It is far better to prevent them from causing the crime in the first instance. The perpatrators have to be dealt with as well, but things can be done to reduce the amount of them that we will have to deal with and for a fraction of the cost that it will take to deal with them if they do turn to crime. I am not advocating Utopia, but at least a better situation than we have! Do you have a problem with that?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

If they're innocent, we have made a mistake, but, I prefer the odd mistake, to allowing a murderer loose that may kill 2, 3, 5, 10 more people until they are caught again.

For every innocent person you kill you are not only committing murder against someone who hasn't done anything, but you are also allowing the actual murder away with it. It very very unlikely that the innocents will be proven of a man already executed (why bother) so to get away with murder all you have to do is frame someone, what until they are murdered by the state, and then you are home free to kill again.

Deleted User wrote:

It is not up to us to comfort the family of the convicted. It is up to the justice system and society, to remove those individuals from society,
and life imprisonment is failing to do so.

So why are you calling for executions? Why not just increase sentencing. What does killing someone actually achieve?

Deleted User wrote:

Sure, mistakes happen. But you're looking at a relative small number compared to the numbers that have been judged correctly. So, for the few that are innocent, you would prefer those murderers set loose to kill again.

What is the diffence between someone being released from prision after 20 years who kills again, and the state killing an innocent man.

I would be very interested to see the statistics for the number of suspected innocent people killed in say Texas vs the number of murders who killed again in a similar area that does have execution.

If the state kills more innocent people than released murders, then what is the point?

Deleted User wrote:

One that has to be backed up with the punishment that forces all members of society to obey the law.

It has been shown time and time and time and time and time again that executions are not a deterent for violent crime. Does this have to be said every single time :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

But tell me is it ok to go out kill 14 people, claim insanity, get life imprisonment, serve 7 years, with a suspended sentence of another 7 years, and kill again?

a) when has that ever happened?

b) you want to put in place a system that, by your own obmission, will lead to the deaths of innocent people. So what exactly is the difference? What is the difference between a released psycho killing someone and the state executing an innocent person?

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

Klaz, lots of people are judged by their peers and found to be guilty, but they may still be innocent so they have not necessarily broken any laws. The death penalty may be there to remove criminals that should not be allowed to society, but it most definitely isn't there to remove people who are innocent, which is what it can do. Imprisoning them will prevent the criminals from returning to society but also give us the opportunity to restore people to society, should that be necessary.

Until that person is found to be innocent by a court, over-ruling the previous decision, that person has still been charged for a crime. They are not innocent until proven innocent. Imprisonment might save some of the innocent from the Gallows, but, who's to say that their innocence would ever come out. Regardless, If they have been proved and judged by a court of law, then they are due the sentence accorded to them.

All your arguments are fine, on the basis that everyone found guilty is guilty, but that is not the case. You can't say that it is OK to kill a few people that are innocent as long as we get all the guilty ones! That is not justice. Getting the guilty person and executing them might be some comfort to their victims families, but what about the family of an innocent person that is executed? They will not get any justice for their loss as no one will be brought to book for it, even when the error is found. So what you are saying that it is OK if the family of an innocent victim killed by a murderer to get some comfort by justice but the family of an innocent victim killed by the state should get none? What sort of a society or justice is that?

A couple of points which I'll separate:
Re: Innocence: During the court they have to prove their innocence, or rather the prosecution has to prove their guilt. Either way they were found guilty. Reform the court/justice system, not the punishments involved.
Re: Executed persons family: The law nor society has any debt or obligation to a crinimals family. Sure, if an innocent is executed, there may be some debt, however, I have still yet to hear of an innocent person being executed by a western establishment.

As to tackling crime, I am not describing a Utopian society when I ay it can be tackled. It can be reduced, but not necessarily by much, but it can be reduced. That is all I am saying. A bit of expenditure and early intervention by the state, will save them a fortune in the long run. If you saw that Prime Time programme on young criminals, you might remember that it was costing something like ?750,000 per annum per individual, to detain some of these kids and not for serious crimes like murder. Now if just ?750,000 of that money had been put into the community where those kids come from a lot of them would never have turned to crime in the first instance. As well as detaining them they cause a lot of other expenditure to the state as well as private citizens.

Fair enough, but I don't believe that investing such money would make much difference. I believe its the presence of those individuals who repeat crimes, & get released from prison, greatly influence younger generations towards crime. Regardless, we're trying to deal with todays crime, not the futures. Perhaps another thread to discuss what should be applied to reduce crime?

So while some people would tell you its a waste of time spending money in deprived areas and on some of those kids(or a plethora of other names given to them when they turn to crime), done properly it could save huge amounts in the long run. It won't solve crime, but it is worth spending money on some of these kids and prevent some of them becoming the scum of the earth that many will grow up to be, at everyones expense. That is not Utopia, but it is a start. Tackling the causes of crime will do far more to reduce it than tackling the perpatrators. It is far better to prevent them from causing the crime in the first instance. The perpatrators have to be dealt with as well, but things can be done to reduce the amount of them that we will have to deal with and for a fraction of the cost that it will take to deal with them if they do turn to crime. I am not advicating Utopia, but a better situation than we have! Do you have a problem with that?
/QUOTE]

Do I have a problem with that? No. But I'd rather see both options introduced. The carrot and the whip.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Until that person is found to be innocent by a court, over-ruling the previous decision, that person has still been charged for a crime. They are not innocent until proven innocent. Imprisonment might save some of the innocent from the Gallows, but, who's to say that their innocence would ever come out.

So if they were innocent, but we never found out, that's fine?

Regardless, If they have been proved and judged by a court of law, then they are due the sentence accorded to them.

No arguments here, that's not at issue here.

Re: Innocence: During the court they have to prove their innocence, or rather the prosecution has to prove their guilt. Either way they were found guilty. Reform the court/justice system, not the punishments involved.

But does justice reform by definition, not mean that punishments must be reconsidered? Would the application of an actual life imprisonment not be sufficient?

Re: Executed persons family: The law nor society has any debt or obligation to a crinimals family. Sure, if an innocent is executed, there may be some debt, however, I have still yet to hear of an innocent person being executed by a western establishment.

I refer you to the case of U.S. v. Quinones.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa070102b.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/quinones.pdf

sceptre

Deleted User wrote:

however, I have still yet to hear of an innocent person being executed by a western establishment.

How about George Kelly? Hanged in Liverpool in 1950. His conviction was overturned last October. Timothy Evans, again hanged in 1950, received an official royal pardon in 1966 after overwhelming evidence indicated that his conviction was unsafe. Mahmood Mattan, hanged in 1952, conviction quashed in 1998. Derek Bentley, hanged in 1953, granted a pardon in 1998 when conviction was judged to be unsafe.

Want any more?

I need hardly point out that had the death penalty been available in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, the likes of the Guilford Four, Birmingham Six, Judith Ward, John Kamara, Patrick Nicholls, Stefan Kiszko, Andrew Evans and the Bridgewater Four would all most likely have been hanged. Given that there's less of an impetus to open cases where there's no-one in prison protesting their innocence, their convictions might never have been quashed either. And that's just (some of) the British ones. We could do a US list as well if you like.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

I prefer the odd mistake, to allowing a murderer loose that may kill 2, 3, 5, 10 more people until they are caught again.

And therein lies the major issue. The general concepts upon which much of our legal system (and others) is built revolves around the opposite - that the worst thing a legal system can do is to punish the innocent. Hence "beyond reasonable doubt" and other concepts.

Indeed, you may remember the furore here when the US first announced the Gitmo trials (if they ever should start) would be military in nature which has a lesser burden of proof. This was for the same reason - people were concerned about the innocent being found guilty.

It is not up to us to comfort the family of the convicted.

While they remain convicted, yes.

However, were we - as a nation - find someone guilty and later say "oh, they were innocent", then it most certainly is our nation's responsibility to apologise at the very least and to make what reparations it can. An innocent man can be given the remainder of his life back as long as he is still alive. With the death penalty, that cannot happen.

You may be perfectly happy with a few innocents dying in the name of the greater good, but have you considered what your reaction would be if it was a parent? A partner? A child of yours? Would you be so sanguine then, especially if you knew they were innocent but the jury simply didn't believe you?

Would you still be happy if - a few years later - you could prove to the State that your dead loved one was indeed innocent? Would you accept then that it was because of people with a like mind to yourself that the state had executed an innocent loved one of yours?

If so, then good for you, but accept that others will never be willing to support such a scenario.

So, for the few that are innocent, you would prefer those murderers set loose to kill again.

Yes, because these are the only two choices we have, aren't they. Kill them, or set them free to kill others. Not a single other possibility exists.

No. Wait. There are other possibilities. No shortage of them. Some - such as (real) life imprisonment - have even been suggested here.

Kill them. Execute them. Finish their existence.

Cause its cheaper and easier than the other options and all we (most likely) have to pay is someone else's innocent loved ones getting wrongly executed. After all, I'm sure the chances of it affecting any individual are less than the chance of being struck by lightning, so it must be ok.

Reduce the chance that someone else will die by their actions.

If you're gonna off them, you do more than reduce the chance.

Punishment should be non-reversable.

So if you get 10 years in prison, and a month later you're found to be innocent....you expect the government to keep you locked up for another 9 years 11 months?

Wow...you really have no sympathy for anyone who falls foul of the system, do you.

They have been judged by their peers and found to be guilty. They have broken the laws of the society that they chose to live in.

NO. They have been adjudged to have broken them. Whether or not tehy did break them is a seperate issue - the entire one that the whole wrongful convictions thing is about, yeah?

but when you're dealing with individuals that have no respect whatsoever for the life of another person, that morality has to be sacrificed.

When you're dealing with said people.....it doesn't have to be sacrificed.

Lock them up. For good.

And that way, if you made a mistake and dealt with someone you believed to be evil incarnate but who turned out to just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.....you haven't killed an innocent person.

I can't see how this doesn't give the best of both worlds. The only possible issue is that it may be more expensive....and thats basically saying that saving money is preferable to protecting the innocent. It matters nothing to the guilty - they are still removed from society forever.....

So....exactly how much money do we need to cut costs by before life imprisonment of the guilty is worth an innocent man's life?

We don't live in a perfect world, and until, humans find a way to live completely in peace, and without crime, morality is a dream. One that has to be backed up with the punishment that forces all members of society to obey the law.

So? You still haven't explained why your approach is the only solution. Why they need to be killed, and not locked away.

Dreams are something we should aspire to, not shun. So what if they are unattainable - the closer we try to get, and the closer we do get, the better we are.

You seem to be taking the opposite tack - its a dream, we can't achieve it, so fukkit lets do this other thing instead and forget the rest.

Its not a matter of morality. For me, I fear the consequences of the action.

Well, maybe thats where the key difference stems from. By and large, I obey the law because I respect the law, not because I fear it.

Increasing the threat of punishment for a crime has no bearing on me other than whether or not it is a fitting punishment, and whether it puts the convicted innocent through avoidable suffering. It sure as sh1t has nothing to do in the decision factor.

I don't kill because I believe its wrong, not because I'm afraid what will happen if I'm caught.

But tell me is it ok to go out kill 14 people, claim insanity, get life imprisonment, serve 7 years, with a suspended sentence of another 7 years, and kill again?

I will, just as soon as you explain why this is the only alternate option to killing the murderer.

jc

Flukey

So Klaz, your attitude is that the law needs to be changed, but in the meantime let's keep killing innocents.

Regardless, we're trying to deal with todays crime, not the futures.

So you are saying we should worry about todays crime not the futures? Well that is an argument for having no punishments whatsoever. If locking them up or executing them is to stop them committing crimes again - which has been one of the main points of your argument - but you are not worried about crimes of the future, why punish them at all? After all, we needn't worry today if they go out and kill someone tomorrow or next year, seeing as those are crimes of the future! Society has to tackle crimes of the past and present, and do what it can to stop crimes of the future, so we most certainly need to worry about them. We can't do much about crimes already committed, but we certainly can do as much as we can to prevent crimes of the future, through prevention and punishment, but without the state committing a crime of its own. The state makes the law and enforces it, but it is not above it.

Bonkey

Bonkey wrote:

Indeed, you may remember the furore here when the US first announced the Gitmo trials (if they ever should start) would be military in nature which has a lesser burden of proof. This was for the same reason - people were concerned about the innocent being found guilty.

And people were concerned that they were military trials. If it was held under a civil court, I wouldn't have been as concerned. But then thats just me.

You may be perfectly happy with a few innocents dying in the name of the greater good, but have you considered what your reaction would be if it was a parent? A partner? A child of yours? Would you be so sanguine then, especially if you knew they were innocent but the jury simply didn't believe you?

Bonkey, I already answered saying that I'd trust the court if I was sentenced to death. I believe in the system, and I still do not believe that Society has any obligation to comfort those families whose members have broken the law. If you wish to provide sympathy towards them, thats your choice, but it is not societies burden.

Would you still be happy if - a few years later - you could prove to the State that your dead loved one was indeed innocent? Would you accept then that it was because of people with a like mind to yourself that the state had executed an innocent loved one of yours?

Happy, no. Do I still believe after reading your post my original thoughts? Yes. Would I continue to think the same, if it happened to me? I don't know. Does this change my opinion. No.

If so, then good for you, but accept that others will never be willing to support such a scenario.

Fair enough, as long as you accept that there are people who will support such a scenario.

Cause its cheaper and easier than the other options and all we (most likely) have to pay is someone else's innocent loved ones getting wrongly executed. After all, I'm sure the chances of it affecting any individual are less than the chance of being struck by lightning, so it must be ok

Innocent? Bonkey, what if they are guilty? You're all so hung up on the few innocents. What about the hundreds and thousands that are guilty?

No. Wait. There are other possibilities. No shortage of them. Some - such as (real) life imprisonment - have even been suggested here.

Just as we've said that Life imprisonment is not working.

Wow...you really have no sympathy for anyone who falls foul of the system, do you.

Oh I do. But we are talking about Capital Crimes, not the whole system.

So? You still haven't explained why your approach is the only solution. Why they need to be killed, and not locked away.

Bonkey, I never said that this is the only way. I've said often enough that I'd like to see it as an option.

BuffyBot

I already answered saying that I'd trust the court if I was sentenced to death

I love how easily that trips off peoples tongues.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Bonkey, I already answered saying that I'd trust the court if I was sentenced to death. I believe in the system, and I still do not believe that Society has any obligation to comfort those families whose members have broken the law. If you wish to provide sympathy towards them, thats your choice, but it is not societies burden.

Of course.But the point being made is that a person found guilty by a court hasn't necessarily committed any crime. We are talking about comfort for the families of those who are found innocent - being able to give that person back to them is infinitely better than saying, "Oh jeez, sorry about that...".

I already answered saying that I'd trust the court if I was sentenced to death

Even if you knew you were innocent? You'd be happy to die just so actual guilty people can die?

Innocent? Bonkey, what if they are guilty? You're all so hung up on the few innocents. What about the hundreds and thousands that are guilty?

Yes, we are hung up on the few innocents. As bonkey said, that's the whole point - our system is primarily there to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty. A few mistakes whereby that protection not only fails, but people are executed by the very system in place to protect them, is a complete failure of everything that system stands for.

Just as we've said that Life imprisonment is not working.

No, your issue was that people were being freed to go out and kill again. You still haven't answered the question - what if it was possible to lock people up permanently with no chance of parole or release?

daggeredge

Not in favour of the death penalty @ all

But Life should mean Life
(without opportunity for parole)

the above should have the opportunity for appeal as it is a severe punishment

also reserved only for the most heinous of crimes / constant repeaters of terrible crimes

(Yes I know it would be difficult to gauge what would fall in these categories... but its altogether better than killing them and finding later there innocent)

whosurpaddy

bonkey wrote:

You may be perfectly happy with a few innocents dying in the name of the greater good, but have you considered what your reaction would be if it was a parent? A partner? A child of yours? Would you be so sanguine then, especially if you knew they were innocent but the jury simply didn't believe you?

Would you still be happy if - a few years later - you could prove to the State that your dead loved one was indeed innocent? Would you accept then that it was because of people with a like mind to yourself that the state had executed an innocent loved one of yours?

this emotive "what if it was one of your own" arguement keeps popping up, but no one seems to consider it the other way around. would you be equally happy if it was a parent? A partner? A child of yours? who was murdered only for the killer to be freed 10 years later and kill again.

tbh i am starting to come around to the life meaning life arguement. if that option were available and enforced there would definitely be less need (as i see it) for a death penalty. i still think it should be available for the few horrific repeat offenders.


btw if lemming pops up with another "lets nuke the planet" post again without making any contribution to the thread im gonna scream, is he above a rap on the knuckles from the mods as he's a mod himself?

Beruthiel

Sh!t!!
I accidentally voted yes when I meant NO!
I suppose this is a very good example of why there should be no death penalty, accidents happen, innocent people can and have been put to death (I’m thinking of America here, where this has happened – a lot!)

I would have voted NO - but life should mean life and a proven murderer should not be let out again unless it has been proven some time down the line that in fact, s/he did not do it

you cannot say 'ooop made a mistake' to a wo/man who has been put to death
I read a long time ago, can't remember where, but that over 100 people had been put to death in America only to find out after they were dead, that in fact they had been innocent.

tba

Beruthiel wrote:

Sh!t!!
I accidentally voted yes when I meant NO!

sure ya did...

KILLER!

naitkris

death penalty is just wrong. period. life imprisonment is a much better punishment - let the person reflect on and learn from what he/she has done and become a new & better person - rather than not have to do that at all by getting the death penalty - sortof the easy way out for the criminal (assuming he/she is guilty in the first place considering the number of people wrongly given the death penalty in the USA for example who later turn out to be inncoent based on new evidence etc.). the death penalty also shows that society is no better than the criminal in allowing death to take place like that.

ionapaul

Beruthiel wrote:

you cannot say 'ooop made a mistake' to a wo/man who has been put to death

A lot of posters have mentioned this, but I think this is just a subjective argument in many cases, certainly as it is being used here. Why not argue 'you cannot properly say sorry, we made a mistake, to a wo/man who has been locked up in jail for 10 or 20 years'? Posters say, 'well, at least they are still alive', but the fact is the system failed them, no amount of money/saying sorry will get those years back. Whether you lose 1 month of your life, or your life, the mistake (not outcome) is exactly the same (you were innocent and the government punished you unjustly). Does that make sense to anyone - I know it does in my head

I am willing to risk the mistakes in our criminal system - if we argue that the mistakes as described (innocents suffering) invalidate the system, then we must agree that they invalidate the current (non-death penalty)system AS WELL as the proposed one.*

P.S. If none of the above makes sense, please excuse me

*again, not saying that being locked up for 10 years is as bad as being killed, BUT isn't it just a subjective call on our parts that should not be factored into this argument?

Bonkey

Bonkey wrote:

Well, maybe thats where the key difference stems from. By and large, I obey the law because I respect the law, not because I fear it.

Oh come on. The reason we obey the law is that most normal citizens don't want to go to court. To receive a crinimal record. To serve a period in prison etc.

I don't fear the law. I fear the consequences of breaking the law.

Increasing the threat of punishment for a crime has no bearing on me other than whether or not it is a fitting punishment, and whether it puts the convicted innocent through avoidable suffering. It sure as sh1t has nothing to do in the decision factor

Fair enough. But i've been talking about punishment for a crime. But if you're talking abt crime prevention due to the punishment, then, I agree people won't think of the consequences prior to a capital crime. At least the majority won't.

I don't kill because I believe its wrong, not because I'm afraid what will happen if I'm caught.

Understandable. I on the other hand, don't kill because I don't want to go to prison.

Flukey wrote:

So Klaz, your attitude is that the law needs to be changed, but in the meantime let's keep killing innocents

No. My attitude is that I believe that the death sentence should be applied as an option for Capital Offenses, alongside with life imprisonment. I'm not saying execute every crinimal out there. Should the person be innocent let them prove it.

You on the other hand seem to be afraid to pass sentence on anyone for fear that they might be innocent.

Of course.But the point being made is that a person found guilty by a court hasn't necessarily committed any crime. We are talking about comfort for the families of those who are found innocent - being able to give that person back to them is infinitely better than saying, "Oh jeez, sorry about that...".

No. If the court declares that they've found the person guilty of commiting a crime, they've commited that crime in the eyes of the law. They're not innocent until proven innocent.

Rather than oppose the punishments why don't you seek reform of the court system, and the process by which a person is sentenced?

As for innocence, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Yes, we are hung up on the few innocents. As bonkey said, that's the whole point - our system is primarily there to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty. A few mistakes whereby that protection not only fails, but people are executed by the very system in place to protect them, is a complete failure of everything that system stands for.

I could be wrong in this, but is the law not there to protect the innocents from the guilty? Protect Society from those who would break the laws of that society?

And if you believe that the justice system has failed because a number of innocents have been executed, shouldn't you be calling for more investigations into those found guilty for crimes? Again I say, that if the court finds the person guilty of a crime, that person needs to prove tehir innocence.

No, your issue was that people were being freed to go out and kill again. You still haven't answered the question - what if it was possible to lock people up permanently with no chance of parole or release?

Actually I did answer it before. I said i would support life imprisonment if it was indeed life. But it isn't is it? What with parole hearings and such, those crinimals can still be released within 12-20 years of sentencing.

naitkris

naitkris wrote:

death penalty is just wrong. period.

No. Its just your opinion.

the death penalty also shows that society is no better than the criminal in allowing death to take place like that.

Ok. So if your dog went rabid, you wouldn't arrange for it to be killed?

assuming he/she is guilty in the first place considering the number of people wrongly given the death penalty in the USA for example who later turn out to be inncoent based on new evidence etc

Can we assume that he/she is actually guilty? Just for my sake. We've already covered Innocence in its multi-posts, however, are you all still against the death penalty, if the person is guilty of a capital crime?