Watching this programme about how in Arkansas they rushed a bunch executions because the drugs were about to expire…

However the thing standing out so far is the people who’s son/brother was killed saying they think no justice is served if the murderer “just” has to spend his life in prison rather than executed 😕

Really hard for me to understand how someone being killed (and they want to go watch) is going to make them feel better. One of them seems to not share this view.

I’m not watching but I can well imagine, the idea of capital punishment is just beyond the pale IMO

however the POV of ‘  no justice is served if the murderer “just” has to spend his life in prison rather than executed ‘ I can kind of see their point, if a judge has given a sentence then it should be carried out, kinda like a life prisoner in the UK that is out in x years (of course that POV is based on the assumption that rehabilitiation isn’t possible and I don’t agree with that either, but I can understand it especially from a surviving grieving victim)

There was a judge (who didn’t believe in the death penalty) who put it quite well by saying something along the lines of

“We don’t steal from theives, we don’t rape rapists, we don’t torch the house of arsonists, so why do we murder murderers”

Killing is wrong.

It can be justified for food, self-defence etc….

But killing because they killed is wrong on top of wrong.

wiggles

I think that judge’s quote sums up my view well! I’d had a couple of attempts trying to not put down a load of waffle to express it and that is it!

I think the other thing for me is judicial system foul ups.

I’d add that no legal system is perfect.  If you manage, through a miscarriage of justice, to execute someone, there is the square root of nothing you can do about it. If they’ve been in prison for 20 years then you can at least pardon them and give them the rest of their life back (and no doubt some cash).

indeed garage-dweller, with every thread on death penalty it’s right to remember Derek Bentley for that very reason

Hopefully modern police investigation, criminal proceedings, laws and implementation of them in modern courts are more sophisticated than in the 50’s

Hopefully modern police investigation, criminal proceedings, laws and implementation of them in modern courts are more sophisticated than in the 50’s

Not infallible though.

much the same as i believe in us being allowed to choose to die with dignity ourselves rather than being kept alive for the sake of it and becoming something we really didnt want to become, i probably lean to the side of the death penalty in certain cases.  not necessarily out of vengeance, just that there are people so evil in this world that itd be a better place without them and money would be better spent elsewhere.

“We don’t steal from theives, we don’t rape rapists, we don’t torch the house of arsonists, so why do we murder murderers”

flawed analogy 😉  playing devils advocate, we wouldnt be murdering them as it would be lawful.

if a dog savages a baby robins face, its put down, we dont try and rehabilitate it into being a nice friendly dog in the future do we?

would have to be 100% conclusive for me tho.

I was struck by what appeared, to me, a morbid fascination/obsession of the aggrieved to have their transgressor put to death.

How could you live your life with that being the defining motivation?

I understand that some may feel it’s the only way forward, but with a cloud like that permanently in your thoughts – for years & years – surely you’d be happier letting it go & moving forward? Every time you have to deal with your transgressor aren’t you just reliving the moment & the grief? How painful must that be & to keep reliving it for years?!

Too dark & too painful for me.

The more I understand of the USA, & I lived on the W Coast for a couple of years so consider myself reasonablely well informed, the less & less I like the country..

I’m in no rush to go back.

Killing is wrong.

It can be justified for food, self-defence etc….

Cannibalism is wrong, kids.

Don’t do it

wiggles

There was a judge (who didn’t believe in the death penalty) who put it quite well by saying something along the lines of

“We don’t steal from theives, we don’t rape rapists, we don’t torch the house of arsonists, so why do we murder murderers”

An empty platitude which imo is an oversimplification of a very complex problem. If the state decides you’re guilty it will remove all your privileges, chief among them your freedom, whether you consent or not. And while few will admit it we tacitly condone or celebrate the fact that a rapist or a child molester is being sent to a place where they can or will be violently attacked, raped or even murdered behind closed doors.

I’m against the death penalty because no legal system is infallible and mistakes would be made. Morally though, I can’t see any reason to keep someone like an Anders Brevik character alive.

flawed analogy playing devils advocate, we wouldnt be murdering them as it would be lawful.

I don’t believe it is… In my eyes killing is killing and just because you decide to do it out of revenge in a state sponsored way you are still killing someone on purpose in a premeditated way = murder. Some murders are worse than others but imo still murder

wiggles

I don’t believe it is… In my eyes killing is killing and just because you decide to do it out of revenge in a state sponsored way you are still killing someone on purpose in a premeditated way = murder.

So if a doctor turns off a a patient’s life support, thus killing them in a premeditated way = murder? Euthanasia clinics where people with terminal degenerative illnesses chose to go to die = murder ? Soldiers planning to attack an enemy location? Also murder?

just because you decide to do it out of revenge

not out of revenge (not IMO anyway), but out of consideration that this person is so evil the world is a better place without him/her being in it.

There are different levels of murder. Premeditated state execution for someone who killed in a flash of anger or during a fight, would seem that the punishment is ‘worse’ than the crime. Someone like Brevik or Lee Rigby’s killers are another level… but are clearly slightly mentally not all there, so again kind of feels wrong.

Thieves on the other hand, hang them in the town square, I’ll open the trapdoor myself, knowing I’ve made society better.

 kinda like a life prisoner in the UK that is out in x years

Its a shame in the UK, where serious crimes and their sentencing and punishment are in the news day in day out, that very few people seem to understand what a ‘Life Sentence’ is.

I have no problem with the death penalty being used for certain crimes, such as people trafficking, grooming children for sexual exploitation, etc.

Its a shame in the UK, where serious crimes and their sentencing and punishment are in the news day in day out, that very few people seem to understand what a ‘Life Sentence’ is.

Exactly. Life means life, they are only out on licence and can be recalled at any time.

There are two types of people in the world. Those who believe in “justice” and those who believe in good.

Killing someone in the name of the law does no good in a civilized society. It might do “justice”, but I do not believe “justice” has a place in a modern society.

So if a doctor turns off a a patient’s life support, thus killing them in a premeditated way = murder? Euthanasia clinics where people with terminal degenerative illnesses chose to go to die = murder ? Soldiers planning to attack an enemy location? Also murder?

First one is no because that’s stopped keeping them “alive” rather than killing them.

Euthanasia clinics make it so the patient usually has to press a button/drink something themselves to actually kill them. Also the person dying is consenting and wants it to happen so hardly comparible to cold blooded murder…

Third one it is murder through isn’t it? Running into somewhere and killing someone? However if they are going to do it to you if you don’t do it to them it makes things slightly more understandable

Euthanasia clinics where people with terminal degenerative illnesses chose to go to die

If you look at the definition of torture and then what terminally ill people are forced to go through because they are not allowed to end their own life when they want and are therefore forced to ensure pain, they are pretty close.

I was struck by what appeared, to me, a morbid fascination/obsession of the aggrieved to have their transgressor put to death.

That was my overriding thoughts – I only watched about half of it, it was putting me on a downer.

I couldn’t understand why, after so many years the victims family were so hell bent on revenge (that’s what I took it to be).

When they started on how their Governor was a ‘Good Christian’  because he believed in murdering people in revenge for crimes I gave up.

Did they kill the prisoner in the end?

Well from the family/friends of murdered victims I’m sure emotion comes into what they see as justice, obviously though that’s partly what judges are their to protect against.

I’m not against capital punishment myself (I wouldn’t say I was totally for it either), my support isn’t in terms of vengeance or sending a message but more coldly that I don’t see why tax payers should be funding the crazy amount of money it costs to keep someone in prison for life. The big problem (for me) is the vast grey area that exists been being guilty of a heinous crime and innocent or even guilty but with mitigating factors, rather than their being any moral dilemma or objection to the state killing someone. One person executed by mistake is one too many and the US system seems far from perfect in this regard.

Personally if I ever found myself sentenced for life (and with little chance of proving my innocence if I was) I’d probably opt for being executed anyway, seems far less or a tortuous ordeal than being confined to a cell for the rest of my life.

wiggles

So if a doctor turns off a a patient’s life support, thus killing them in a premeditated way = murder? Euthanasia clinics where people with terminal degenerative illnesses chose to go to die = murder ? Soldiers planning to attack an enemy location? Also murder?

First one is no because that’s stopped keeping them “alive” rather than killing them.

Euthanasia clinics make it so the patient usually has to press a button/drink something themselves to actually kill them. Also the person dying is consenting and wants it to happen so hardly comparible to cold blooded murder…

Third one it is murder through isn’t it?

You’re getting into arguing semantics and definitions of words. If you assist a suicidal person with all of the aparatus for ending their life you are partly responsible for their death. Anyway, I only wanted to push back against your statement that any premeditated killing automatically equals murder.

I’ll give you an alternative third option. Armed police are on their way to a terror attack. Two men are hacking people to death with machetes. By responding to the call and driving to the scene they are making a conscious decision that may very well result in them killing someone. If they do nothing, they will certainly not kill anyone, only allow more people to be killed. They make the decision to drive to the scene of the attack and kill the terrorists. By your definition they are now murderers. Assuming everything is above board, the state deems this killing to be lawful and society accepts it as a necessary evil for the greater good, so there are circumstances where killing is deemed better than not killing.

Consider Fred West. Is society better or worse for his suicide? If you argue worse, and that he escaped justice, you are making the judgement that life in a cage is worse than death, and you are seeking punishment, not justice.

Hopefully modern police investigation, criminal proceedings, laws and implementation of them in modern courts are more sophisticated than in the 50’s

Yeah, the Birmingham Six should totally have been executed. Them and Stephen Downing, the Cardiff Three, Guildford Four, and so on. It really is quite a long list.

Oh wait…

^ Whose job isn’t more advanced now than in the 50’s 60’s 70’s even 20 ish years ago. Technology has seen to that for nearly all job roles and job titles. Forensic Science, I would guess, is one of the biggest? Even levels of CCTV progression, technology and simply recording on society and “everyday life” – look at the acid attack conviction today. I am not making a case for the death penalty – merely stating or asking really ….. are the convictions made today not more sound than those over 20-60 plus years ago?

of course only hindsight and time might know the answer to this.

I’d still say that by definition killing someone when you mean to is murder even if you are an armed police officer… However if you killing is going to immediately stop them killing Someone else that would be justified, putting them on death row and executing them decades later isn’t going to change the events that happened and the person is already locked up so it’s not protecting/saving anyone.

As far as Fred west, he killed him self so nobody can really change that can they… I don’t think being locked up is worse than death but as a civilised society I think it is the worst punishment that is acceptable.

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” as the man in sandles once said

wiggles

I’d still say that by definition killing someone when you mean to is murder even if you are an armed police officer… However if you killing is going to immediately stop them killing Someone else that would be justified,

Well the actual definition is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” so going by that a lawful killing is not murder.

As far as Fred west, he killed him self so nobody can really change that can they

Yes he killed himself. I’m asking if society is better off because he killed himself vs how we would be had he been prevented from killing himself and still in jail. It’s slightly rhetorical, but people will say he cheated justice, the inference being that suicide is preferable to life imprisonment.

If Anders Brevik had been shot and killed rather than taken alive would Norway have been better or worse off? You’re allowed to form an opinion based on something hypothetical.

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” as the man in sandles once said

That’s just another empty platitude though. It doesn’t represent the full complexity of the argument.

That’s just another empty platitude though. It doesn’t represent the full complexity of the argument.

Really? I think it sums it up nicely.
What is complex about it? If killing is wrong, then by definition, killing someone because they have killed is also wrong. If we start to become moral relativists about it then what we really mean is killing is wrong, unless I think it isn’t, then it’s fine.

The eye for an eye comment is perfect because what it means is that no matter how “justified” the law is, there will always be someone who feels that if the state sanctions killing, then they can also kill “on behalf of” the state. Which what an awful lot of mass murders in the US are seen as by the perpetrators. Cleansing of the others.

Aside from the moral/ ethical considerations, my problem with the death penalty is that the prisoner may be implicated in many unsolved crimes, sometimes involving other potential suspects/ co-conspirators.

so once they’re gone, you’re losing a lot of ‘intel’.

Suicide in his case, but who knows how many people joseph fritzl murdered in his lifetime?

And theres probably a significant number of people who’ve gone to the gallows for the sheer auto-erotic thrill of it all.

are the convictions made today not more sound than those over 20-60 plus years ago?

Ask Oliver Mears, Isaac Itiary and Liam Allen what they think about the quality of the legal system today?

I suspect convictions are, generally, more sound as time progresses but never sound enough to impose a sentence that cannot be reversed. The big miscarriages take some time to come to light, so perhaps in 2030 we will find ourselves deliberating whether the miscarriages of 2010 and 2020 could still happen.

Never mind that, with the appeals process that the US has, the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. It does deter, it doesn’t save money, it is purely about exacting punishment.

Some of you hand wringing do gooders should try working for 16 years in the prison service, then you might get an idea.

So because I dont want to people to be killed im a “hand wringing do gooder” ?

If I knew that someone had murdered one of my loved ones, then I’d be happy to see them executed. If nothing else it would stop them claiming another victim.

But

are the convictions made today not more sound than those over 20-60 plus years ago?

No, you can’t trust convictions even today. Just look at the recent rape cases where prosecutors were deliberately withholding evidence from the defence.

^ excellent, progress. Wrong doing has been found out in a matter of months/short years. Not 20/30 years later for these individuals. Work still to do as months/ short years is still wrong but getting better.

The beeb have a programme called Murder ,Mystery and My Family in which ” Top criminal barristers Sasha Wass and Jeremy Dein reinvestigate historical cases”. Have a look.

I was on sick last week and saw a few episodes(morning telly) ,it revealed an alarmingly high percentage of unsafe convictions leading to execution.

esselgruntfuttock

Some of you hand wringing do gooders should try working for 16 years in the prison service, then you might get an idea.

Ive been working on serious organised crime and child abuse for a long long time and I’m not in favour of capital punishment- am I handwringing?  Doing good seems like a nice thing.