suhysters
Like Tommy "failed his GCSEs" Atkins in the Jury?
What about people who illegally enable/encourage people to do illegal things that lead to their death?
What about people who legally enable/encourage people to do legal things that lead to their death?
Has anyone suggested we could use guillotines yet?
Not sure nico, I'd like the op to confirm his stance on either situation
[quote=muppetWrangler ]Has anyone suggested we could use guillotines yet?
Yes, actually
(She'd also abolish golf courses)
Let me have a go at thatGolf course are a safety hazard
Old people should get exercise and walk
Gorillas are awesome
Golf courses are favoured by old people. Those old people would get better exercise if chased by a gorilla. So old people being chased to death by gorillas round a golf course it is then.
@loddrick..So if someone in your family texted whilst driving and killed someone you'd want them snuffed out (your words)?
I'm sure he's very even handed about the whole business.
So if someone in your family texted whilst driving and killed someone you'd want them snuffed out (your words)?
Where is that a death penalty level offence? In the UK it is a £30 fine and no driving for 6 months isn't it?
A better question may be if loddrick was convicted for killing someone, would he then agree to being killed himself (even if the jury was wrong, and he would know they were wrong)
Can I ask the OP how they feel about golf courses? Or bus passes? Or gorillas?
Lolz 😆
not sure there's a direct link but amusingly I was just thinking about my kids, they fight each other fairly regularly, was imagining smacking them while repeating the mantraI assume we are all cool with beating children too?
Its!
Bad!
To!
Hit!
People!
the stupidity of punishing people with their own crimes 🙄
Well it seems there are at least 3 broad groups...
1> death penalty is right, occasional killing of innocents an OK price to pay
2> death penalty is right, but can't support due to risk of killing innocents/other factors
3> death penalty is wrong
group 1 implying that you think the death penalty is the right/moral response, and that you will pay a high moral price to have it. The focus is on [i]having[/i] the death penalty.
group 2 implying you think it might be the right response but overall you're not willing to pay the price to have it. The focus is the decision of [i]not being worse[/i] than the criminal.
group 3 implying that you think it is the wrong response. the focus is on [i]not having[/i] the death penalty.
Group 2 is a curious one, because on the face of it they are kind of on the fence and pragmatic, they think the death penalty could be the right response, but it's details and specifics that stop them supporting it out of not wanting to do a bad thing themselves. It's only a small change to move to group 1, requiring only a change in levels of justification, but you can't move to group 3 without fundamentally changing your base decision.
Psychologically speaking I find it interesting, as there's not really a group 2.5 of "thinking it's wrong, but could be persuaded to support it", I'm sure such people exist but it seems to be rare, and in those cases it's a flip on the above, as the focus would be on justification to do something you think is wrong, rather than [i]not[/i] doing something to avoid being 'wronger'
There's obviously a lot of nuance here, more than I can convey in such a small amount of words and within the restrictions of language, and I'm sure as a species we will wrestle with this for many years to come.
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
You kill someone ,someone else gets uppity and kills someone else.
We need to stop the circle of violence.
Hippy dippy , airy fairy shit I know but we have to give it a go.
This includes wars.
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
I believe that was a general rule before religions grabbed hold of it 😉
I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind, overall it escalates, once upon a time Caveman Bob punched Caveman John, many years went by, now we have nuclear bombs 🙁
and I'm pretty sure given a referendum 1+large parts of 2 will outnumber 3+a few of 2, which is why I hope we never have one.Well it seems there are at least 3 broad groups...
lots of stuff shouldn't go to referendum, I've a strong suspicion that if put to referendum cycling would be outlawed
The death penalty falls slap bang into the category I call "simple answers to complex problems", the effectiveness of all of which can nearly always be disproved with the tiniest application of rational thought.
It also falls into the category of issues any sane politician would keep away from a referendum because the stupids do like a good simple answer to a complex problem. We've got too many stupids to risk that. A bit like that other issue you'd keep the public away from having a vote on at all costs........apart from, you know, we didn't.
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
Personal opinion - Except euthanasia.
I have a slight problem with "life" we as a species put an awful lot of value on it I think it's too much really when we extend incurable diseases months/years past the typical end point*. Yet conversely I will never support the death penalty because I believe as a moral decision, it's wrong.
*edited to add - despite the wishes of the patient.
I never thought of myself as being able to do the 1984 doublethink thing, but it's surprisingly simple in this case.
I have no qualms about helping people die that want to.
Pro abortion as well.
True Zippykona. Although thinking about it I'm not sure those two would be classed as "killing".
As amedius says there's a lot of nuance, and a lot of value judgements attributed to the concept of life. Although probably a lot more attributed to taking anothers life.
Peyote, I don't think you're double thinking there at all.
You're just separating 'killing' from 'allow to die' without explicitly saying so, despite the similarities in outcome I agree with you that there is a moral difference.
I have no qualms about helping people die that want to.
I was about to say I agree with this, but I realised I needed to expand on even that simple statement, as even here there is nuance and a difference between someone who is suicidal vs wishing to be euthanised and they should not be treated the same.
imagine you're on a jury, the evidence seems clear, you find the defendant guilty of murder, the sentence is death.some time after the convicted person is killed, days/weeks/years, whatever, it turns out the evidence was flawed (this does happen). how would you feel knowing that you'd effectively sent (an innocent) someone to their death?
the death penalty has consequences for all involved.
Totally agree. And also you could argue that the death penalty could actually see some murderers walk free as juries may be unwilling to risk having blood on their hands, so to speak.
"I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind"
So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?
"I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind"So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?
Is it wrong I laughed at that?!
What about "proceeds of crime" legislation for fraud and robbery too!
To be fair though, there is a difference between "retaliation" and "justice", the latter including protection of the public in the case of kidnappers et al.
"I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind"So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?
I did a little chuckle too, but come on now, you're better than that, don't try and degrade what is currently a meaningful discussion.
Peyote, I don't think you're double thinking there at all.You're just separating 'killing' from 'allow to die' without explicitly saying so, despite the similarities in outcome I agree with you that there is a moral difference.
Thank you! It's a massive grey area as evidenced by the constant legal wrangles over the right-to-die, and prochoice/prolife debates. TBH I'm not sure why as both those seem pretty clear cut to me...
Anyway, back to the eye-for-an-eye stuff.
zippykona - Member
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
You kill someone ,someone else gets uppity and kills someone else.
We need to stop the circle of violence.
Hippy dippy , airy fairy shit I know but we have to give it a go.
This includes wars.
This. Though I can imagine scenarios where it would be difficult to adhere to it, we should try.
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
Not really, it's full of holes (or a massive over-simplification of real life). For example, you have a right to self-defense, as long as the force used is proportionate. That may include killing. The trolley problem is a thought experiment that shows up another flaw.
To be fair though, there is a difference between "retaliation" and "justice", the latter including protection of the public in the case of kidnappers et al.
...but someone in favor of the death penalty can just say "The death penalty protects just as well as prison".
I did a little chuckle too, but come on now, you're better than that, don't try and degrade what is currently a meaningful discussion.
I don't think I am. For years I've used the argument "You shouldn't murder people as an example of how murder is wrong.". Today for the first time I've suddenly realized that argument has an irrefutable answer.
I think I am a 2.5. I think primarily because you undermine your moral high ground by doing the thing you say is wrong. There appears to be no logic to the death penalty, either killing is wrong or it isn't. And it is wrong for all the other reasons listed.
However if I needed to defend myself, my kids or pretty much anyone, if I had to to achieve this defence by killing then I would. And I don't think a person in prison comes under this justification, they are already out of doing harms way.
They gave their 'human rights' up when they took away their victims'.why is this the case?
Unless you believe in a supreme being who has imposed an ultimate moral code, humans have no rights. All we have is a set of moral values (invented by humans) that most humans agree to live by.
Could it not be the case that granting human rights also imposes human obligations, and in breaking those obligations one forfeits ones human rights?
"The death penalty protects just as well as prison".
That's true, but there's no chance of educating society, rehabilitation of the offender, understanding causes and motivations etc...
It's a waste on multiple levels really, never mind the moral argument.
The problem is that I don't think one person can judge when another persons rights have been removed.
"The death penalty protects just as well as prison".
Ot doesnt though does it, do I have to state why a third time?
When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.
At the IRA funeral that retard threw some hand grenades into the mourners killing some people.
They then had a funeral procession into which 2 squaddies in a car found themselves.
They were then dragged from their car and beaten to death.
That kind of wiped the smile off my face.
When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.
Another example would be bombing Japan in WW2 rather than taking Pacific Islands one by one and then finaly invading mainland Japan. Kill 50,000 completely innocent people to saves countless other people (including Japanese civilians).
Right decision?
zippykona - Member
When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.
At the IRA funeral that retard threw some hand grenades into the mourners killing some people.
They then had a funeral procession into which 2 squaddies in a car found themselves.
They were then dragged from their car and beaten to death.
That kind of wiped the smile off my face.
This is a great reason why killing is wrong, it begets more killing. I see some people state of mind as "Even if my redneck child rapist brother does "deserve" to be executed, if the state sanctions killing then why can't we kill the person that reported it, or the prison guards, or the prosecutors.."
There will often be someone else who will also kill because of the "execution."
Isnt there evidence that Japan were going to give up anyway.
Again its not a good analogy for the death penalty though as for the third time, the death penalty seems to increase murder rates or at the very least offers no detterence.
Isnt there evidence that Japan were going to give up anyway.
Digression, but no. Most historians I've read (including Beever) seem to agree that a massive bloodbath was inevitable without the Bombs, the Japanese were pretty tenacious. At 20,000 deaths every time you take an island (mostly Japanese and civilian) keeping the war going even for a short time would have cost way more than 50,000 lives even without factoring allied deaths.
Again its not a good analogy for the death penalty
..no, but it's a rather good anaology for doing something dispicable to gain a net saving of life. If you don't like it just think of another one.
though as for the third time, the death penalty seems to increase murder rates.
...and the question I'm posing is: What if it didn't, and you knew it didn't?
Just for info., that isn't what is said - it is just one version of the translation (see also 'let them eat brioche' for how difficult it is to translate something 🙂 ). The more common translation is 'you shall not murder' and there is elsewhere discussion on what constitutes murder and what constitutes justified killing (as mogrim pointed out)Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
Loads of different translations here if you care http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm
I'm fairly sure at no point is 'the drugs were about to run out' considered a good reason
I'm with the murder rate going up reason for no death penalty. If you thought that the only way to avoid being killed yourself was to kill every possible witness then you would have no reason not to stop. It might not give you the satisfaction you desire but the end result is better
rather than taking Pacific Islands one by one and then finaly invading mainland Japan. Kill 50,000 completely innocent people to saves countless other people (including Japanese civilians).Right decision?
A very difficult moral decision, tainted by many factors including needing to stamp authority on a emerging world and demonstrating the USA new weapon.
The years of war, death and suffering pushed people to places they never thought they would go. The cost of those actions is still felt today.
Wise words "It's better to make a mistake forgiving than make one condemning"
And do we want a justice system or a vengeance system?
I note that Loddrik hasn't contributed to this thread for some pages
loddrik (trolling) 1
STW (rest) 0
I think asking about his views on drug dealers probably scared him off.
has anyone posted this?
some horrendous stories even Loddrik might stop and think, maybe
https://www.innocenceproject.org/
For those concerned about the fact that there will inevitably be a number of innocent people who would be subjected to capital punishment, there's also inevitably a number of victims of reoffending by some who might have received the death penalty.
At the extreme end of the spectrum, I do struggle with the amounts we spend on perpetrators of heinous crimes who will never be released and would rather this was spent on those who haven't shown a total disregard for their fellow man.
There is a very obvious scale regarding the weight of evidence and some cases where there is zero doubt as regards guilt so the innocent person argument doesn't apply.
What about people who legally enable/encourage people to do legal things that lead to their death?
Mr Kipling would be at the top of the list.
All joking aside, I've been unfortunate enough to have known two people who were convicted of murder. Both are particularly sorry stories that I won't go in to in detail. One of the individuals is now out, lives a peaceful life and tries to be a good person whilst struggling to live with what he did. The other killed himself in prison.
I used to think the world was a pretty black and white place when it came to taking a life. Seeing first hand how circumstances can change things I now realise there are a thousand shades of grey in between.
One of the individuals was placed in a terrible situation through life choices, gullibility and the actions of others. The other was pushed, threatened and harassed until he snapped.
Both of them would deserve to be put to death according to some. What would that have gained? Certainly not justice. Both situations were sad enough without adding more deaths to the equation.
I went to school with [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-17024000 ]This delightful fellow.[/url] Where do we stand on him or his victims?
I do struggle with the amounts we spend on perpetrators of heinous crimes who will never be released
The [b]entire [/b]prison service costs less than 0.5% of total Government spending.
That's a price worth paying.
there are only 70 people doing whole life tariffs currently- ie definitely wont ever be released.
I assume some others will die in prison but the "wont ever get released "[ because the crime was so bad rather than they are so old] is a tiny number of the prison population.
mikewsmith » If you value life you value it all
Apart from wasps, mossies and horseflies, obviously.
But seriously, that's an admirable value to carry, especially if you can still hold it when the shit turns up on your own doorstep.
Rubbish troll. OP 1/10
nealglover - Member
That's a price worth paying
Let's say £40kpa for 30yrs so a total cost of say £1.5m in no real terms. That buys a lot of really good care etc for deserving cases. They're real people with families too.
Junkyard - lazarus
... the "wont ever get released "is a tiny number of the prison population.
There's many more offenders who could be considered if the death penalty was reintroduced but that's a separate discussion.
Killing people to teach people that killing people is wrong. Yay logic!
I have not read the whole thread but I want the capital punishment types to think on this the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 would all have been executed - all were innocent.
are you happy for innocent people to be hung? 'cos that is one certain outcome of capital punishment
What about if its your son who is the innocent that is stitched up?
Just read that 1 in 25 executed prisoners in the US are/were innocent.
That's a lot more than I expected
😯
People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Because we're capable of thinking beyond kneejerk, emotional reactions and looking at wider pictures?
because wher do you draw the line? Ok no one would defnd him but how are yo9u going to endsure folk like the guildford 4 are not excecuted
How about the case of timothy Evans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans An innocent man excecuted
Or stephan downing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case
because wher do you draw the line?
Paedos
because wher do you draw the line?
Paedos
The problem is, everyone has a line. There would be an awful lot of people that crossed them. If you let emotion run public policy the world would be utter chaos.
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Try reading the rest of the thread, pretty much everyone has already explained why.
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
...and if they know they're going to get the death sentence for fiddling with a child, wouldn't they just kill the kid to reduce the chances of getting caught knowing the penalty is no more?
tjagain - Member
because wher do you draw the line?
There will never be a perfect system but there are other scenarios where we have to determine an arbitrary line and do ie medical care.
With a well implemented system the errors would be minimised. Whether any error is acceptable is a judgement call. We have people killed by reoffenders but we don't refuse to in release anyone to save every life.
tjagain - Member
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
Ironically came home tonight and she's watching a programme about Ian Huntley and the Soham girls, it's on now, I have got to say he's a candidate for the gas chamber if ever there were.
Edit, he's even tried to commit suicide, why not let him? But no, I dare say we'll finance his gender re assignment request and transference to a womens prison such is the way of the PC world these days..
For those concerned about the fact that there will inevitably be a number of innocent people who would be subjected to capital punishment, there's also inevitably a number of victims of reoffending by some who might have received the death penalty.
Again, 1 in 25 put on death row = innocent. Murder rates higher in States with the death penalty and murder rates went up in states where it was reintroduced. How do you manage to square that logically and morally with support for the death penalty?
I get the feeling, that maybe, just maybe - that the lack of value for life shown by the State encourages people to think that killing is a justifiable way of solving differences. What's the point of killing an offender to protect the public from his/her re-offence if the public then murders each other at a higher rate anyway?
It's like giving a drug to 100 fat people, because it will save 2 of them from a heart attack but kill 4 of them through side effects. Pointless.
This thread reminds me that we're a species that is always about a hair trigger away from a loss of rationalism and civility - and Walking Dead style violence.
Ironically came home tonight and she's watching a programme about Ian Huntley and the Soham girls, it's on now, I have got to say he's a candidate for the gas chamber if ever there were.
Edit, he's even tried to commit suicide, why not let him? But no, I dare say we'll finance his gender re assignment request and transference to a womens prison such is the way of the PC world these days..
Your grasp of irony is akin to that of Alanis Morissette.
@Tom_W1987 - Member
The US system is hardly an exemplar for many reasons. Using the death penalty only for the more extreme cases would undoubtedly reduce the risk of error whilst freeing up resources to help others etc.
How do you logically/morally square the victims of reoffenders and those not afforded life saving medical care because we're spending £40kpa keeping multiple murderers locked up?
Why give the death penalty to the perpetrators? Let's kill the potential trigger points/instigators e.g. alcohol sellers, gun manufacturers, politicians creating uneuqal societies that lead to murders and so forth. Yep, let's clean up this planet with some good killing. 😀
Oh no, hang on. Isn't murder wrong? So why would the law/moral enforcers do to others what they're saying is wrong in the first place?
It's too confusing my head hurts. I best go get my gun to let off steam.. 🙄
How do you logically/morally square the victims of reoffenders and those not afforded life saving medical care because we're spending £40kpa keeping multiple murderers locked up?
The murder rate with the death penalty is higher.
How many reoffenders of murder are there? What's your breakdown of costs, how many that are released are committing a further murder?
How far would that saving go given the length of time many of these prisoners spend on death row what is the actual saving?
There are many reasons countries are not spending enough n health care, can you logically and morally square Trident or the Olympics with people not getting treatment? What about the M6 Toll road or the BBC?
deepreddave - Member - Block User - Quote
@Tom_W1987 - Member
The US system is hardly an exemplar for many reasons. Using the death penalty only for the more extreme cases would undoubtedly reduce the risk of error whilst freeing up resources to help others etc.
How, exactly?
No problem with the death penalty myself, where there is no doubt at all about the person being guilty - ofc that means a lot of people wouldn't be executed despite being guilty and would probably lead to less confessions/longer trials so not exactly an ideal solution. I don't really see the appeal of life imprisonment either, I'd much rather be executed personally. Not sure how keeping someone in a cage for the rest of their life isn't barbaric whereas lethal injection is?
@mikewsmith - The murder rate with the death penalty is higher.
What's your source, adjusting for all other factors?
There are many reasons why murder rates increase so the causal link between murder rates and the abolition/introduction of capital punishment is complex to say the least. I recall reading that c80% of the states with the highest murder rates had the death penalty but so did 40% of the lowest. Maybe the death penalty was introduced in response to higher crime rates?
I don't know if we should or shouldn't have it but I do think it's a wider discussion than all killing is bad, the system won't be perfect or some stats about the US suggests it doesn't work.
Mike/Tom et al who are anti capital punishment - do you hold your view with experience of serious offenders being released into your community? I don't but recognise that it's not ok to suggest they be released somewhere but NIMBY.
It seems to me that universal access to guns has more to do with murder rates than any of the social engineering around crime management.
@codybrennan - Member
The greater the proof, the lesser the risk, the greater the savings?
Do you have any evidence to suggest life imprisonment is the most cost effective option?
"Explain to me one more time
How when they kill it's a crime
But when you kill then it's 'Justice'".
From the first page
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Methodology in link
[img] 
[/img]
Mike/Tom et al who are anti capital punishment - do you hold your view with experience of serious offenders being released into your community? I don't but recognise that it's not ok to suggest they be released somewhere but NIMBY.
Rehabilitation is one of the parts of a sentence, there are and should be strict guidelines for release and there are also life without parole type sentences. I don't have the murder reoffending rates here, do you?
I don't personally know serious offenders who have been released but for some people the person they were before 30 years behind bars is not the one that emerges.
Explain to me one more time
How when they kill it's a crime
But when you kill then it's 'Justice
You explain how when they kidnap it's a crime, but when the state kidnaps and imprisons it's not a crime.
You lot should all be forced to watch the Green Mile on repeat until you agree to stop fantasising about killing people with ropes and firing squads and electric chairs.
Usual stw hand wringers wring hands.
Pump em full of out of date death drugs, hopefully it will be more painful.