A bit heavy for a Friday I know.
So the case of Teresa Lewis has brought this debate back to the fore, personally I am opposed to capital punishment and it has nothing to do with the accused being female or not too bright.
There are plenty of practical reasons why the death sentence is a bad idea, look at the number of high profile miscarriages of justice, it's pretty hard to appeal an execution.
Morally, what does it say about the value a society places on life when the state murders its own citizens. State sanctioned murder is violence of the state against its citizenry and as a result these countries tend to be on the whole much more violent.
Personally I am glad we don't have it in the UK
I think its a bit harsh for riding your bike, myself.
Sorry should have been in the chat forum...
...glad we don't have the death penalty on STW
Personally I am glad we don't have it in the UK
Me too, yet plenty on here disagree.
Corporal and capital punishments are symptoms of a violent society, not a cure.
There are some truly evil people out there that kill other people .
so a tiger runs amok and kills someone what happens to the tiger , it is killed .
a dog kills or badly hurts someone and it is killed
the death penalty exists for naughty animals .why not piss evil humans
If they're six feet under, they're unlikely to re-offend.
if capital punishment worked it would have worked by now
Sorry , if it can be proved beyond all doubt (DNA ect) that pre-meditated murder has taken place then I'm for it , IMO you forfeit your human rights the moment you intentionally take a life.
[devils advocate]
if jail time worked, it would have worked by now
[/devils advocate]
[i]if jail time worked, it would have worked by now[/i]
Nelson Mandella hasn't re-offended, so it must work 😉
you forfeit your human rights the moment you intentionally take a life.
correct, and therefore society cannot justify state sanctioned murder; therefore we choose life imprisonment not capital punishment.
not altogether familiar with the case. I am assuming that if they caught the woman for taking a contract out on her family, then they have also exectuted the, errr, 'contractor'?
carlosg - are you goiing to redifine guilt? At the momnet its beyond reaonable doubt" IIRC. are you going to have a special category?
Look at the Guilford 4, Birmingham 6, Stefan Kisko, Steven downing cases
All proven beyond reasonable doubt, all would have been hung, all innocent.
The only think I respect Michael Howard for was he used to be a supporter of the death penalty until the Guildford 4 - when he changed his mind.
There will always be miscarriages of justice. Are you prepared for innocent people to be hung? How about your son?
The 2 (male) contract killers got life imprisonment. Odd distinction there.
You can't really say that taking a life is, by definition, immoral as we as a nation do it all the time during wars etc. The problem with capital punishment as a sanction is it devalues the society that performs it. There are many arguments pro and con that can be applied but ultimately it boils down to this - You've killed someone with premeditation, we find this unacceptable and therefore we are going to kill you. Looks like pretty clear cut hypocrisy to me. Either killing someone is wrong or it isn't.
Just googled it a bit. The 'contractors' recieved life sentences. How can they justify executing her then?
[url= http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stefankiszko/index.html ]Stefan Kiszko[/url]
[url= http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stephendowning/index.html ]Stephen Downing[/url]
Both these cases there were signed confessions.
The problem with capital punishment as a sanction is it devalues the society that performs it.
Not sure I agree with that one - trying to claim a moral high ground when you're talking about executing murderers is in no way automatic. To my mind the main problem is the one that's been outlined above: the miscarriage of justice.
Capital punishment doesnt work as a deterrent, so Its really about revenge. Not in my name.
An IQ of 72 would suggest an inability to actually plan a contract killing (As on of the gunmen later said)
I still believe that it all comes down to the simple question. Is killing someone right or wrong? If it's wrong capital punishment can't stand, if it's not wrong why the need for capital punishment.
thisisnotaspoon - Memberif jail time worked, it would have worked by now
It does indeed need sorted out but folks like you wouldn't pay for it.
IMO you forfeit your human rights the moment you intentionally take a life.
so when the judge sentences the person to death do we immediately sentence the judge? and then that judge.
As other says murder is either right or wrong whether it is done by an individual or a state is not really the point.
IIRC correctly due to the appeals and the separate incarceration it is actually very expensive to do and does not actually save any money
A poll of 500 police chiefs found the death penalty ranked last among their priorities for reducing violent crime.[more coppers was highest]
At 678, California has the nation's largest death row population, yet the state has not executed anyone in four years.
The Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Increased costs include higher security needs and guaranteed access to an often lengthy pardon and appellate proces
It is about $90,000 more per year than a life sentence.Perhaps we could use big society to do the trials and the prisons and the executions?
I think the right or wrong is a nil arguement, life with out parole, solitary if offend inside, is the way to go.
Which would you rather do? a short sharp shock and good night venna or the rest of your natural born days inside?
Perhaps we could use big society to do the trials and the prisons and the executions?
worryingly i don't think there would be a shortage of volunteers!
Life without parole? Do you not believe in rehabilitation and redemption?
There is a chap called [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_James ]Erwin James[/url] who was convicted fairly of murder, spent 20 years inside and is now a useful member of society doing good charity work.
he is more use now outside of prison working for a charity than inside costing money
"u forfeit your human rights the moment you intentionally take a life."
How about taking a life through incompetence or negligence? How does that work then if you are the executioner? At what point do you differentiate between a state sanctioned murder being right/legal and a vigilante killer murdering somebody for exactly the same crime being right/legal?
How about if you drink drive or speed? that has the potential to take a life through negligence, should speeders forfeit their human rights? or if you cause a death through negligence does that not count? How about executing or gaoling drink drivers/speeders and anybody who endangers the life of another as attempted murder?
Life without parole? Do you not believe in rehabilitation and redemption? Yeap for the worst/coldest of killers. The woman inquest, had her husband and son killed for the insurance money. Thats pretty cold. Shes not ill or sick, god didn't tell her to do it. It wasn't a fit of anger or rage.
It was cold blooded murder. Life with out parole sounds good to me.
Redemption, how? What could she do to redeam her self for murdering her own son for money?
should speeders forfeit their human rights?
I don’t know, may be a few speeders hanging, from lamp posts might finally get the message across, that speeding is anti social. 😉
"I don’t know, may be a few speeders hanging, from lamp posts might finally get the message across, that speeding is anti social."
I'm actually with you there, I was just hoping somone else would say it first 🙂
I take your poin about rehabilitationt TJ, but I do believe that some people need to be kept away from the rest of us. Sometimes it goes so far that you cant take a chance.
In those situations IMO we should be able to incarcerate people for life to protect society. Once thats done im not too worried about punishing them.
The answer is actually sticking to prison sentences. Life should mean life, and if you've taken more than one life, or you've done really horrible things then make the life in prison harder by removing some of the "comforts" in prison, or solitary.
To make room for the people that'll be in prison for longer give people that aren't a threat to themselves or the public and haven't already re-offended, community service and re-habilitation.
We can and do incarcerate people for life - the ones who should never be let out again. There are a few of them in UK jails. Brady for one
My point simply was that some murderers are capable of rehabilitation and redemption and can contribute positivily to society after their sentence
"Redemption, how? What could she do to redeam her self for murdering her own son for money? "
No answer then TJ, well not since your U turn on life with out parole:-)
No U turn from me. I believe there are some for whom life without parole is merited - but some who can be rehabilitated
In this particular case the women is educationally subnormal - seriously so. I do not know her so I have no idea if rehabilitation or redemption is possible. I know I sdo not know enough about this case to make a simplistic answer.
I know executing a person of that limited intelligence stinks - especially when the people who actually did the killings are not being executed.
"Life without parole? Do you not believe in rehabilitation and redemption?"
Which U turned in too
"We can and do incarcerate people for life - the ones who should never be let out again. There are a few of them in UK jails. Brady for one"
You're slipping.
I think Gandalf said it best:
“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. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”