This is like brexit all over again.
Its a simple question with a binary answer, which leads to a vast series of interlinked implications that no-one can be arsed working out in advance.
Personally I wouldn't mourn a variety of people (many mentioned in this thread) if they were to die. But thats not the core of the question. I guess almost anyone can think of someone the world could do without.
For a referendum question I would propose a 2 or 3 parter:
a) Do you support the police and criminal justice system being given sufficient funding to reduce and endeavour to eliminate unsafe convictions?
b) Do you support the funding of prison education and rehabilitation efforts to reduce the rate of reoffending?
c) Do you want a return of the death penalty?
A negative answer to the first or second question disallows your answer to the third (and shows you up as the big poopy head you undoubtedly are).
Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.
Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.
Can you define the moral justification?
Morally the death penalty can be justified
I don't believe it can.
At the risk of being terribly simplistic, for me it boils down to a simple question: Is it wrong to kill?
- If the answer is Yes, then no-one should do it, including the state (unless we're happy for our legislators to live by the "do as I say, not as I do" maxim)
- If the answer is No, then what exactly will be capital crimes?
For that reason I would be against it, even if there was some magical guarantee that all convictions were sound.
What would be the sentence for a repeat murderer at the moment?
You already know the answer to that don't you, just as well as I do.
"Can you define the moral justification"
Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?
I think I know that answer for me, so I'll happily (perhaps even enthusiastically) apply that to others.
Having said that I am dead against the death penalty for the reasons expressed above.
Some people (some on here) seem to think that killing another person for any reason under any circumstances is morally equivalent to murder.
These people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.
This people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.
Either way, a fair number of them will end up on jury duty and will be less likely to convict knowing there's a death sentence involved. That would mean murderers being set free.
“Can you define the moral justification”
Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?
Imprisonment and mental health assessments with rehabilitation, all things that were a lot tougher to do 2-3000 years ago which is why we shouldn't really be basing modern laws on,
You already know the answer to that don’t you, just as well as I do.
Actually no I don't. That's why I asked.
scotroutes, mikewsmith
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
But I I'm against the death penalty for practical reasons, given above (which I believe are insurmountable).
For clarity, I have equal disrespect for people who think that introducing the death penalty would do anything positive (without even considering the state of the criminal justice system) AND those who say that all killing is murder.
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
And we can make an assessment of it, I'd say it's paper thin
I’m against for both moral and practical reasons. But a thought just occurred to me, that may give heart to people who (understandably) feel the need for revenge against the perpetrators of some horrendous crimes.
The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death. So, revenge, ✅?
The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death.
You been in prison lately?
I don't have any factual evidence to hand but in my experience of prisoners at risk of self harm, most of those at risk of committing suicide are those who are pissed off with themselves for being a shithead in the 1st place.
Prime recent example....a pal of mine still in the service told me of a guy who'd killed himself a couple of months ago at the the jail I was at. Transpires he'd been a bastard to his wife/partner & kids so social services had taken away his access rights. He was of course, annoyed by this & said he was going to kill himself. Staff believed he was at high risk of suicide so placed him on constant watch (that's basically a designated officer watching him....err..constantly) this is extremely draining on staff resources (cos there aren't enough) & eventually the risk was assessed & reduced to 'four an hour', this doesn't mean someone checks on him every 15 mins it means four 'intermittent' checks an hour but staff need to be sensible & not do four checks five mins apart for instance. Also it's not down to one staff member being designated to do it at this point. Consequently he wasn't checked for a while within an hour & he strung himself up, dying later in hospital.
Now before anyone blames staff for not doing their job right, I suggest having a go at being a screw & trying to cope with the extreme pressures that staff have to deal with on a multi-daily basis. (Youv'e got Grayling to thank for that, the Prick.) On that particular wing there were 3 staff coping with 60 odd prisoners. It only takes 1 or 2 more cons to kick off about absolutely anything & other important things get overlooked.
HMPS is still woefully understaffed but prisons are by far, better, safer & more decent places than they used to be.
Anyway.....back to the death penalty...
scotroutes, mikewsmith
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
Not by me. I was only trying to point out that some folk would have mail objections that would reduce the chance that all murderers were convicted.
I'm still waiting to find out how many innocent people it's acceptable to kill just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, were the wrong colour or just spoke with the wrong accent.
The moral question seems to require a legitimate debate but it honestly doesn't
We condemn murder as a terrible act, and in order to demonstrate to the community how terrible it is and much we abhor it: We the state, will commit another murder...
It makes no sense
mikewsmith
And we can make an assessment of it, I’d say it’s paper thin
Yes, I see it all clearly now.
The thickness, softness and width of your rebuttal is like 21st century toilet paper.
Your counterargument has defeated me with its clarity and paper based references.
I bow to your superior skills.
I'm assuming all this of course, as you made no actual argument of any kind. But I'm sure your certainty that such an argument exists is all the proof I need to change my mind.
Thanks for your input I guess. 🙂
I have massive respect for those that work in the Prison Service.
A thankless task, I can not think of one that’s pretty much in the same league.
I get the impression that interacting with inmates, some of whom want to inflict violent harm against you just for wearing a uniform and walking upright.
How you control yourself in a situation like that, every bloody day, is frankly astonishing.
Whilst your moral compass may be for the social good, counter that with sometimes you must wish both physical harm and castration be bestowed upon some inmates.
Tough Job Man.
I’m assuming all this of course, as you made no actual argument of any kind. But I’m sure your certainty that such an argument exists is all the proof I need to change my mind.
I've made a number of points about the evidence, effectiveness and more throughout this thread, you are welcome to read them. However it's in the bible is a great and obvious moral argument.
he’d been a bastard to his wife/partner & kids so social services had taken away his access rights. He was of course, annoyed by this & said he was going to kill himself.
let him, I say. His choice, doesn't sound mentally unstable. Waste of resources checking on him...
Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?
Are you suggesting that this supersedes "Thou shalt not kill?". If so, that would be a spectacular bit of cherry picking.
@nickc has it, and really that should be an end of the discussion. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill, and killing people to show them how wrong it is makes absolutely no sense.
I think we should put it to a referendum. That seemed to go well last time. The death sentence is one of the strongest arguments for constitutional democracy. Just wish they’d have stuck to that last time, rather than expect MP’s to vote overwhelmingly against their consciences.
And for the record, I’d do everything I could to oppose it. Of course the notion that we would execute innocents would be just cast aside as “project fear”.
Assuming that the execution of innocent citizens is itself murder, who would we execute for their deaths? The executioner, the judiciary, the MPs who supported the legislation or the folk that voted for it in a referendum?
Mikewsnith
You've made many points (pretty much all of which I would agree with) but none about the morality of the death penalty.
I'm not arguing for it being useful, advisable, effective, a deterrent to others. I'm just saying it can be justified morally.
That idea (the golden rule) is not based on the bible (which I would consider a poor and self contradictory resource for any point of view, except obviously when it comes to banning the eating of shellfish). Thats just (probably) the most familiar example for people in 21C UK. See wikipedia.
It might not be a moral argument that you like or respect, but it is a moral argument that exists.
Unlike yours.
onewheelgood
Are you suggesting that this supersedes “Thou shalt not kill?”. If so, that would be a spectacular bit of cherry picking.
I'm not defending the bible and its innocent slaughtering and virgin raping propensities in any way shape or form, but in this case that particular bit translates better as "Thou shalt not murder" (which is different from "killing").
It would be a hard argument for Jeebus himself to make that it literally meant "Thou shalt not kill" bearing in mind what the israelites did to the people who inhabited the promised land shortly (ish) after reading it for the first time (see reference above to slaughter and rape of virgins).
2-3000 years ago which is why we shouldn’t really be basing modern laws o
Plus quite a few of the ancient laws were fairly flexible. If you coughed up some cash most of the time that was enough. Or if the criminal wasnt available then punishing one of their families was fine.
Interesting link here http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-death-penalty-moral
Interesting in that the voting is 51%/49% - spookily close to a certain referendum in UK.
The vast majority of those countries that still have the death penalty are backward holes ruled by fascists and inbreds, why would we want to associate with them?
Oh...
I have massive respect for those that work in the Prison Service.
A thankless task, I can not think of one that’s pretty much in the same league.
I get the impression that interacting with inmates, some of whom want to inflict violent harm against you just for wearing a uniform and walking upright.
Yeah but member when the papers told us they are holiday camps! Job must be a doddle as all the inmates have Playstations to keep them quiet, don't they?
Would love to see Dacre and his mates swapping Tuscany for Wormwood Scrubs. Wonder if they would still call it a holiday camp after getting a real taste. What about the food review, the slop du jour was enhanced by a flem jus dispensed by a laughing inmate.
However it’s in the bible is a great and obvious moral argument.
Is it?
Just seen this post shared on facebook :
Update it is great sadness that my auntie who was attacked on Saturday has now died. Thank you for all the support from everyone.
URGENT APPEALDid anyone see <span class="text_exposed_show">a young male acting suspiciously in a white car last night in or near LOOP ROAD OLD WOKING at around 6PM. We don't have anymore description at this time. He went to my aunties house who's in her late 80s asking for a drink of water then attacked her taking her hand bag. She was rushed to A&E with a lot of facial damage. I know it's a long shot. Any info phone the police</span>
There's one death sentence I would sanction...
@Bikebouy. It IS a tough job pal, mentally draining & physically demanding. I'm fortunately now out of it but I'd rather be still in it if it could change my wife's circumstances. (bowel cancer episode) Hey Ho.
Anyway.....
Yeah but member when the papers told us they are holiday camps! Job must be a doddle as all the inmates have Playstations to keep them quiet, don’t they?
Would love to see Dacre and his mates swapping Tuscany for Wormwood Scrubs. Wonder if they would still call it a holiday camp after getting a real taste. What about the food review, the slop du jour was enhanced by a flem jus dispensed by a laughing inmate.
Only prisoners on 'enhanced incentive earned privelages' can have Playstations, & only PS 2's cos 3's have a USB port.
Gobbing in food does happen very very occasionally but is punishable by letting other cons know who did it. It's called 'self policing'.
Again, back to the death penalty....
@ esselgruntfuttock - Pffftt, details ain't nobody got time for that 😉
@Chester, yep I know, people only want facts, not the truth.
So, I'm still a 'yes' voter on the death penalty.
People want binary answers and single sentence explanations. **** the truth.
Its really simple
In society we have set of rules which are there to keep us safe.
To particiapte in this society members must abide by those rules.
If I choose to ignore societies rules then I forfiet my right to live in that society.
So capital punishment does have a place where guilt can not be in doubt.
ON th flip side it costs £45K per year to keep people locked up - so cages are a great idea.
Prison is not a deterrent - its a criminal/Islamist university or terror and crime.
Prison is not a deterrent – its a criminal/Islamist university or terror and crime.
Not much is a deterrent, though I'd question why you want to bring Islamist and terror into this - got some facts to back that up?
Perhaps you might be coming around to working out that we need to look hard at the causes of crime and the ways we rehabilitate and help people lead a more productive life once they have gone wrong
ON th flip side it costs £45K per year to keep people locked up – so cages are a great idea.
Prison is not a deterrent – its a criminal/Islamist university or terror and crime.
Maybe we should make them take out a student loan to pay for it.
Turnerguy. Are you advocating the death penalty based on a couple of sentences on Facebook by the relative of a deceased victim. This is an appeal for witnesses, no suspect in custody as of yet, no real FACTS of the crime, and no trial??!! Any sensible person would need to have a lot more information at their disposal to make any reasoned judgement.
Oh well, when the death sentence is back, there'll be no trial by jury. Social media has it covered.
Wrong thread
They're not going to be hung are they?
Gah, it's gone.
I've just caught up with this thread, and I'd like to respond to a comment from a couple of pages back.
[quote=mattsccm]
Woohoo. Usual crap spouted. Notice how many of those who feel that they have the kind, considerate liberal attitude are the ones being nasty?
Calling people idiots, suggesting that a democratic vote would be wrong etc.
This surprised me a little, so I checked back. Precisely one person has used the word "idiot" in the entire thread (other than matt just there). That was me, and I was referring to society as a whole (and I was not being nasty, it's true - society demonstrably has a fair share of idiots).
A people's vote would be wrong because, as per the above, there are too many idiots. And in any case, it's not the public's decision to make, as I said before. An actual democratic vote - ie, by MPs in parliament, as opposed to the brexit "democracy" of mob rule - would be an entirely different argument. Not immediately seeing how this is being "nasty" either.
As you were, carry on.
Only prisoners on ‘enhanced incentive earned privelages’ can have Playstations, & only PS 2’s cos 3’s have a USB port.
What's the issue with having a USB port, out of interest? People smuggling in pendrives for, what, secret messages? Grot?
This is an appeal for witnesses, no suspect in custody as of yet, no real FACTS of the crime, and no trial??!!
no facts of the crime, so you are suggesting that this elderly lady attacked the young man and got the facial injuries out of self-defence?
but if it was shown that the young man callously beat the old lady, then I fail to see what justification there is for keeping someone with that mentality around.
, then I fail to see what justification there is for keeping someone with that mentality around.
You have an opinion. Good for you.What is his mentality?
What does killing him do?
"where guilt can not be in doubt."
so we are back to Derek Bentley then