death penalty?
 

In the wake of another massacre i am wondering what accywebs opinion of the death penalty is? I m a little stuck on this one since we hear so often of people being sent to prison for crimes they didnt commit..And it also seems like an easy solution and a quick release for the purpetrator, instead of rotting in jail they die, in some cases death is preferable to the lives they have.Should they not have their freedom taken from them and have to live knowing that?
I do agree that life should mean life in some cases...

Is the threat of the electric chair or hanging enough to stop the crimes being commited?

Or is death a fitting punishment for taking someones life?
Where do we draw the line?
I am thinking about Jamies Bulgers Killers, they were children themselves, now adults starting new lives... is that justice? Jamie didnt get to!

Please leave comments, I am interested in you opinions on this.



If we all took an eye for an eye, we would all be blind...........

Re: death penalty?
 

Another question.... would you go and watch a public execution???

Re: death penalty?
 

Against because it's too easy to convicted for a crime you didn't commit or mean to commit.
And no I can't even bare to watch them on utube. Apparently there's some guy called ted bundy on there, I haven't looked and wouldn't.

Re: death penalty?
 

what if it was proved beyond a doubt that the person had commited the crime?
caught on cctv for example?

Re: death penalty?
 

Voted against because there was no (in some cases) catagorie.
Some people deserve to be murdered.All cases must be judged seperately.

Re: death penalty?
 

.....The massacre were he killed himself! Death Penalty be out the question!

Re: death penalty?
 

yeah but i meant if he hadnt

Re: death penalty?
 

No emamum23 because if the crime is that bad it's too good for them. I can't think of any crime where a death penalty would be justified, but then I'm a very forgiving person. Too laid back for my own good.

Re: death penalty?
 

I beleive in payback/karma if u hurt some one expect to be hurt back....if you go as far as killing then you should be prepared to die yourself.......sorry if you don't all agree

Re: death penalty?
 

I am in agreement with Dawn................

Re: death penalty?
 

Here Here. i completely agree:D

Re: death penalty?
 

Im afraid this is one of my big issues.

There is simply no excuse for the death penalty in a civilised society. Absolutely none. In all the hours of debating this I am yet to be given a pro argument that doesnt have vengeance at its root.

"Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesnt have the right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesnt have the right to kill" (West Wing - Take this Sabbath day)

Lets not forget that the justice system is there to administer justice, not revenge and the only supporting argument for the death penalty is that it would make everyone feel better for a while. If anyone thinks it acts as a deterrent, then look at the USA, where drug kingpins and the like live their lives under the constant threat of execution, and their executions are a lot less pleasant and tend to take place without the bother and expense of due process.

One murder isnt any better than the other, and in fact, the death penalty is worse. A Murder of passion, whilst unforgivable, at least has a reason behind it - i.e. a person is unstable, acted on overwhelming emotion or pressure etc. The death penalty has none of those mitigating circumstances, its the pre-meditated ending of another human being's life - people actually sitting around in suits deciding whether to kill someone. Plainly put, state sanctioned murder.

You also lose the moral high ground. Our justice system SHOULD be tough and SHOULD set an example, it should provide genuine deterrents but it shouldnt be there to dole out vengeance and retribution.

I also dont buy this argument of "why should we pay to keep them" - the fact that our justice system is a little short sighted is no justification - there are plenty of things I could think of to do with them that will be cost neutral to the tax payer.

Re: death penalty?
 

By the way, countries that still use it to execute minors - Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China. You really want to join that club?

Re: death penalty?
 

if anything ever happened to Reece (as you probably would with Tyler) i would definately go and watch just to make sure the ******** where finished off properly

i'm neither for nor against capital punishment because it has been proved in some cases that the person who was hanged/executed for the crime, didnt actual commit it

Re: death penalty?
 

Dont mean to sound horrible but that simply proves my point.

Re: death penalty?
 

yes maybe Mike but how i see it is its an eye for an eye, everyone has differing opinions on different things in life, if we didnt the world would just be madder than it already is

Re: death penalty?
 

I am a little undecided on this issue. I can see the argument for both sides of the question and I can also see the pitfalls. If our system of justice was a little more thorough and less prone to the undue influence of the bleeding heart liberal tendency, then a sentence for "life" would mean just that; the rest of a person's natural life.

As it is at the moment, if you are canny enough to convince the parole board that you are truly contrite and remorseful and keep your nose clean while in prison you can be out and free within eight years. I can well understand why the relatives of victims of murder feel that justice has not been done. The justice system appears to be weighted too far in favour of the accused. Prison life should be unpleasant and not, as it appears to be; a state sponsored holiday camp.

As long as politicians are arrogant enough to believe that they can use the prison system as a social engineering tool there will be continued calls for the return of the death penalty.

Re: death penalty?
 

well then please enlighten me on these "plenty of things" you can think of, i myself am undecided,only for the reason,that if they convict someone "bang to rights" "without question" then top em for me, plus i think there should be "differant" degrees of murder,its a complex issue n without strict boundaries then i stay undecided.

Re: death penalty?
 

Personally, I've no moral qualms about the death penalty. If someone's killed in cold blood, then they've forfeited their right to live, in my eyes. Don't know whether it's a deterrent or not, but even if it could be proved that it isn't, it still wouldn't change my views, as I believe in retributive justice.

However, I still wouldn't be in favour of restoring the death penalty, simply because of the risk of wrongful convictions. A posthumous pardon is no use to anybody! I believe that life should mean life and I would rather keep all cold-blooded murderers in prison for the rest of their lives, with all the attendant expense, than risk one innocent person being sent to the gallows. Therefore, I would be against the death penalty.

Re: death penalty?
 

I am undecided too. However, I do believe that prison life should be such that it deters people from criminal acts.......which, I don't think is the case at present.
Not to have to worry how you are going to keep warm, or where your next meal is coming from, or how to pay the bills that are necessary, must seem like a free ride.
OK, I know these folk are not free to do as they like, so their freedom is taken away....but in some cases it isn't taken away completely.

And the justice system seems crazy sometimes with embezzlers being given tougher sentences than rapists and murderers.

If I had my way I would transport the criminals to some uninhabited island and let them fend for themselves.....they could then work out their own hierarchy of justice, they would have to hunt for food, build their own shelter etc. Best of all they would be away from the society that needs protection from them.

Re: death penalty?
 

I think hard labour should be introduced, make them earn their keep in prison, and life should mean 40+ years not 12 or 15. You'll get an heavier sentence for robbing a Post Office or bank, than you would for a callous murder.

Re: death penalty?
 

It's too easy to convict someone of a horribe crime and eliminate their existence, but for an execution to be carried out someone must commit the exact same act that the criminal is being executed for.

I believe that we CANT have the death penalty because somewhere there is a law that says not to create laws that individualise people, they should be kept aimed towards everyone.
Allowing the death penalty would make it legal to murder a certain type of person, in other words criminals, and so it would have gone against this principle.

Also the risk of wrongful convictions, pain for the criminals innocent family, stuff like that. I just think its wrong in general basically.

I dont care how many people someone has killed, even if it was my own family member I would not want death upon someone. Human compassion is dangerous and should never be given authority.

Re: death penalty?
 

Can you explain what you mean by the phrase 'Human compassion is dangerous'......I can't really see how it fits in with the rest of your post.
Maybe I am having a 'grey moment'.

Re: death penalty?
 

i think a more apt word would have been emotion.....

Re: death penalty?
 

If you believe in karma, you'll get what you give and shouldn't need a punishment, they will be paid back naturally. If you believe in giving to people what they give to you, that's flawd because the person will be dead. If you believe in giving to people what they give to others why are you still friends with people and chat to people that do wrong to others. You'll all deny it to yourselves of course, but most people are of the attitude 'as long as its not me they can get on with it' until that is something brings it to the public eye, then they get all moralistic.

Death is not a punishment, there is no loss, no pain, no suffering.
Prison or hard labour is, they lose their freedom, their rights.
As for paying for them, I'd rather pay to keep a dangerous criminal in jail to do his punishment than keep some normally law abiding citizen that got desperate and stole some money. Money that's got to pay back anyway. A car thief, no matter how many cars they've stolen, I don't see how that warrants jail, community service yes, but what good will jail do, they're not dangerous.

You see what the problem is? yes the jails aren't being used for what they're meant to be used for. You want the death sentence because you don't see our jails as a sever enough punishment, so you want something more, which you see as an eye for an eye.

Re: death penalty?
 

Thats what i was trying to say. lol

Re: death penalty?
 

I was only sixteen when the death penalty was abolished, but I do know that the death penalty was only used in cases of premeditated murder, known as first degree murder, other cases were second degree murder, with a tariff of life imprisonment, then manslaughter tariff at the judges discretion. Personally I think that people like Peter Suttcliffe Ian Huntley, Ian Bradey and Hindley were pure evil and should have been hanged. There is no chance of the death penalty being brought back because Jack Straw signed away our right on matters like this With the EU, but I doubt if ever it would have been brought back anyway because we now have to many dogooders and the bleeding heart brigade.

Re: death penalty?
 

Doogooders lol yes ok, If you go to many castles you'll see how people used to be dealt with, If they were killed they were made to suffer first, but mostly they were just made to suffer.
I'd say a doogeder is someone who wants them not to suffer.

Ok put it like this, if a horse falls and is in agony and won't recover what do we do. What do we say.
shoot it and put it of it's misery. You're being kind to it.

You want to kill people so they don't suffer, so you're being kind, therefore you're the dogooder not us

Re: death penalty?
 

sorry but killers should be executed!!

no 'buts' of 'ifs', pure and simple.

Re: death penalty?
 

Against ... for reasons I have expressed before several times. If you advance the argument that it deters murder, then all the evidence defies your argument. Look at the one western democracy that routinely executes murderers and you will see that it has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the world. If you leave out the deterrent argument you are left with positions that I personally would be ashamed to hold.

Re: death penalty?
 

Re: death penalty?
 

If they didn't put people in prison for theft there'd be space for violent offenders, not just rapists and murderers but yobs that go out on a Friday night get tanked up and beat some poor sod to near death scaring him for life. That should be a prison sentence and not a short one, instead they're given community service a fine and told, but not made to pay compensation. Any violent crime of any sort should be dealt with severely, but places are took up by petty criminals.

Re: death penalty?
 

The Jamie Bulger saga belongs in a thread of its own as you are raising two questions.

1) Do we approve of the death penalty?

2) Would we apply the death penalty to Jamie Bulger's killers?

Re: death penalty?
 

Re: death penalty?
 

I would not say apply the death penalty for the jamie bulger pair, because of thier age, but should not see light of day for 25 years, premeditated murder or multiple murder, rape, armed robbery, serious crimes against the impaired (mugging grannies, disabled etc) should carry the death penalty for over 18's and 25 years for anybody else. As said before, capital and corporal punishment etc should be brought back too, with clear guidelines for there application, as prison sentences should be, so there is no 'confusion' between judges.

Re: death penalty?
 

I agree that there is no such thing as 'petty crime'.......and calling it this somehow makes it seem like it is less valid as a crime.
All crimes have victims.....the primary victim is the person that is robbed or mugged etc, but then there are the secondary victims of crime - the parents of the criminal, the children and partner/wife of the criminal......they are all victims.

At one time, being a criminal carried great shame for a family......and while I am not exactly sure that this is the case today, there must be parents who despair of the acts of their offspring, and wonder where it all went wrong.

Re: death penalty?
 

Human compassion is what makes us seek things like revenge for those who have been hurt, its what makes us want those who have caused pain to suffer. No justice is brought by suffering, only satisfaction.

You can just destroy something you don't like in society, it's just not ethical or humane, and the death penalty means someone else has to stoop as low as someone else, and it isn't often that the ones who praise it are the actual executioners themselves.

Many people may say they could easily kill someone who has done something so terrible to another, but how truthful is that when most people probably cant even put, for example, an injured bird out of its misery?

I read the argument about human compassion in an academic article, obviously it went into a lot more depth, but the key message was that it should never be given authority.

Re: death penalty?
 

The word emotion is too vague and doesn't describe the exact emotion I am outlining. If I was to use the word emotion that would imply that ALL emotion is dangerous, and I wouldn't go as far to make such a broad statement as that. It would mean I am saying happiness and love are dangerous emotions, when they tend to be more harmless than compassion.

Re: death penalty?
 

ya lost me with that un.:confused:always understood compassion to mean a kind of sorrow?

Re: death penalty?
 

I explained what I meant but the forum messed up my post, so I cant be bothered to type it again.

Basically, yes my use of the word compassion is linked with sorrow, mainly for someone elses pain rather than your own.

I said a lot more than that but I dont think I need to explain my first post any further, if you have the same ideology as me you will have understood my post. If you dont agree with my view, maybe for a different reason against it or a view for it, it probably wont make a difference about my view anyway, as this topic is one where most people have their own set idea on it, and it takes a lot to change a view on such a controversial topic and I certainly dont have time or any need to make those changes to someone elses opinion.

I feel strongly against the death penalty but it isn't something I would ever feel the need to mae a public statement against. They're just my views and I dont need them to matter or be understood by anyone else, and I certainly dont have time to have a heated debate about this topic, but there are people who probably campaign daily about it in america and places that have the death penalty.

Re: death penalty?
 

who wants a heated debate about what is a very personal issue? i sure as hell dont.

Re: death penalty?
 

Most of the time it cant be avoided. People want to criticise your argument with their own opinion, and of course, opinion isn't something that is necessarily easy to disprove, particularly on subjects that involve feelings like this one, and you just run around in circles arguing your point.

My main point against it was the one I said based on the law, and how it should be aimed generally, rather than at individuals. It isn't an opinion-based argument really as it is a legal principle, therefore can be much easier criticised, and yet its more solid than any opinion so less likely to be knocked down.

The death penalty is almost like double standards. You can't murder but once you have, your then free to be murdered yourself. I dont like double standards, they're generally unfair to one side.

Re: death penalty?
 

Not sure how you can say there's no such thing as petty crime, saying all crimes are serious de-rates serious crime.
The sex offenders register does that, All sex offenders are lumped together on the list regardless of whether they're rapists, child molesters or a 17 yr old that got his 15 n 3/4 yr old girl friend pregnant. Lucky we're not in america I suppose or he'd be a rapist too.

You need clear labels for different types of crimes, different ways of dealing with those crimes and different levels of punishment.

They are petty compared to murder. Shoplifting certainly is. Stealing from a till is. That is NOT to say that those crimes aren't that, a crime because we all know that they are. We all know they hurt people, affect lives can mentally scar people and cause financial hardship. They are still petty though. That is what the law defines them as.

Re: death penalty?
 

I personally am against the Death Penalty.
Why should somebody who has commited Murder get the easy way out with death?
They should be jailed for life(until they die of natural causes) and be made to suffer for their crime.
The solution is stronger sentences and stop making prisons like holiday camps.

Re: death penalty?
 

I guess you can put me in the box ....if it was my child who had been murdered , I would say hang the son of a bitch , ........and if it was my son who was up on the charge I would pray mercy would be shown , but to my mind there is a problem ......I live in a State (California) which has the death penalty on the books and in recent years over 600 juries have decided after due deliberation that the person was guilty as charged and have followed the Judges/Courts directions on following sentencing guidelines and came down on the side that the person should be executed, .........now here is the problem ....we have over 600 people on death row dying of old age because sleazeball lawyers and a corrupt legal system which allows appeal after appeal ,
There is neither the judicial or political will to carry out the laws on the books , instead lip service is paid to the notion of justice , but no thought given to the 7000 odd jurors who have racked their consciences about making the difficult decision that would take someones life .

Re: death penalty?
 

I am against the death penalty.

Those of you for it, lets say your a judge or law maker. Could you really honestly live with yourself if someone who was wrongfully accused got murdered by the state? Currently if someone is wrongly convicted they might have lost 10 years of their lives in jail, but they can carry on living the rest of them.

I don't buy the argument that says "Why should we pay for murderers in jail". You can't put a price on life. I don't care what the individual has done, why should we stoop to their level and kill? State sanctioned murder is leading down a path I really don't want to follow.

At the end of the day I'm quite happy to have greater punishments and more money pumped into rehabilitation. My problem is that if JUST ONE person gets murdered and is later proved innocent, the whole argument of the death penalty crashes down on itself. It's sick, its brutal, we're not animals, and its a long time since we were cavemen, so lets not introduce barbaric murder into British society.

Re: death penalty?
 

Sorry Cyfr. but one thing is wrong with your equation ......murder is the unlawfull killing of someone , execution is the state sanctioned (ergo..lawfull) killing of someone .
question ...in your opinion were the sentences at the Nuremberg trials justified ? are the perpetrators of the Liberia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur genocides any less guilty than those executed in 46 and 47 :confused: or is it "ok" to execute war criminals responsible for multiple deaths but wrong execute the Yorkshire ripper ?......where do you draw the line ? ;) I'm sure both the Black Panther's and Adolf Eichman's mothers both thought they were both good boys as much as Tony Blair's and George Bush's mothers think of theirs.

Re: death penalty?
 

Blazey,having compassion for someone is to have pity on them, to grant them forgiveness......so the phrase you used did not seem to make any sense at all, because if you had compassion for someone you would have pity on them and forgive them of their sins.

Re: death penalty?
 

And if you have compassion for someone it is unlikely that you would seek a vengeful justice.

Re: death penalty?
 

It would be unlawful for the state to kill somebody at the moment, hence my wording, but lets not argue semantics.

No the sentences at the Nuremberg trials are not justified. I simply don't believe taking another persons life is right. We have no more right to kill somebody than they had to persecute the Jews. We're just as bad as them if we PLAN to kill somebody, its not an act of last resort defence, its planned taking of somebody's life. They should have got life in jail, life meaning life.

Re: death penalty?
 

With all the DNA and stuff we have today, then i doubt they would have the wrong person for murder, cuz evidence never lies.
If they do have DNA evidence etc... and that evidence places them at the scene then yes i do agree with the death penalty, but if they dont have that kind of evidence then they wont be convicted anyway

Re: death penalty?
 

DNA evidence only proves a connection to a person, it doesn't prove the person was at the scene. It's easy to frame somebody by planting DNA because it's so easy to attain.

It's usable as supportive evidence to convict somebody, but the wrong person can still end up being jailed, or in the case of the death penalty, killed. If it was later proved the person was innocent, you can't bring dead people back.

Re: death penalty?
 

First of all, evidence can lie all the time - like a picture, it is how it is presented. The talent of barrister's to manipulate evidence is underestimated at your peril. The moment one innocent is killed is the moment that all other arguments lose any credibility they may have had. And no-one can guarantee that wont happen.

Secondly, what does it achieve?? What is the virtue of the death penalty - why is it good? What benefit does it provide that alternatives will not - or those yet to be suggested?

Re: death penalty?
 

If the response is an emotional one (and folly the state which rules it's citizens by a charter of emotion), or one of deterrent, consider the words of Cesare Beccaria :

"Ah! those cruel formalities of justice are a cloak of tyranny, they are a secret language, a solemn veil, intended to conceal the sword by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of despotism. Murder, which they represent to us as an horrible crime, we see practiced by them without repugnance or remorse. Let us follow their example. A violent death appeared terrible in their descriptions, but we see that it is the affair of the moment. It will be less terrible to him, who is not expecting it, [since he] escapes almost all the pain"

"Perpetual slavery, then, has in it all that is necessary to deter the most hardened and determined, as much as the punishment of death. I say it has more. There are many who look upon death with intrepidity and firmness; some through fanaticism, and others through vanity, which attends us even to the grave; others from a desperate resolution, either to get rid of their misery or cease to live; but fanaticism and vanity forsake the criminal in slavery, in chains and fetters, in an iron cage; and despair seems rather the beginning than the end of their misery."

In other words, perhaps the fault is not with the sentences that are passed down, rather the range and effectiveness of those punishments available.

Re: death penalty?
 

i reckon if the punishments available reflected the crime, many who want the "Death Penalty" would change their view, but they dont reflect n probably never will.

Re: death penalty?
 

Punishments do not only reflect the crime; they also reflect the values of the society that sanctions the punishments ... not the individual members of society, but society as a whole.

It seems that it is only with the death penalty that people say "He took a life; so we will take his" ... or something like that ... a direct retributive thing. What do you do with a car thief ... steal his car? Or a rapist? Hold him down and f**k him against his will (I can see some saying: "Hey, this wouldn't be a bad idea).

And then there is the "eye for an eye" thing .... the Biblical sanction ... somehow we are following the injunction of the almighty ... but, isn't there a commandment somewhere about not killing ... not a metaphor but a direct "thou shalt not"?

By the way, I was driving thro' the north end of the city, and noticed that there is a Cashman St. ... you may just be getting famous:D

Re: death penalty?
 

Compassion is an understanding of the emotional state of another or oneself. Not to be confused with empathy, compassion is often combined with a desire to alleviate or reduce the suffering of another or to show special kindness to those who suffer. However, compassion may lead an individual to feel empathy with another person.
Source here is wikipedia.

S: (n) compassion, compassionateness (a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering)
S: (n) compassion, pity (the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it)
This one is from wordnet.

Whilst I pity the victim, I am not showing any compassion towards an offender by saying I dont agree with the death penalty Margaret, and I am in no way suggesting anyone show compassion for a murderer, rapist etc.

Whilst I respect that you are trying to teach me something with your posts, I know exactly what I feel about the issue, I think my choice of wording is apt for what I've said and I don't require your guidance on my use of vocabulary. There is no 'forgiveness of sins' involved in the definition of compassion as far as I've ever been taught, at least not on a general level. Yes some people can show compassion to those who are in need of forgiveness, one could say the job of a priest at confession is to show compassion I guess, so in that respect yes, it does involve pity and forgiveness, but compassion certainly does not require the need for something that needs forgiving in the first place.

You can show compassion by shooting dead an irreversibly injured animal, as I have already given for an example, a bird with a broke wing. Some people take their terminally ill loved ones to Switzerland to be euthanised, that would require compassion. Its in no way exclusively given to those who are in need of forgiveness though, and what you are suggesting to me almosts makes it sound like you think I am suggesting showing compassion to a criminal by simply forgiving them.

Death is not punishment if you don't believe in afterlife, it's a way out of paying for the crime. It also creates martyrs in some situations.

I feel like i've said all this before :rolleyes:

Re: death penalty?
 

Anyone ever stolen a pen from argos? I think if you want the death penalty then you should have to serve the crime for theft as well. You deprive someone of their property then you should be deprived of the hand that took it.

Still ok with eye for an eye?

Stupid biblical ideology if you ask me. Then again, a lot of people in accy act like neanderthals and the likes. Hardly a surprise that the death penalty is favoured on here.

Re: death penalty?
 

i know it is going off the track a little but here is a link to the "Confessions of a "GAS MAN" from the Dog Pound"
News: Confessions of a "GAS MAN" from the Dog Pound

i warn you you will cry but i think if you believe in the death penalty (or not) - you should read it if only to get the view of somebody who is doing the final act. yes i know these dogs have commited no crime and i know they are animals but basically at the end of the day this is somebody who has to takes lives for their job - could you really encourage a system that puts that on somebodies shoulders?

Re: death penalty?
 

It seems to me that the evolution of humankind obviously has some way to go if we still have people supporting this archaic, vengeful and purposeless mechanism of punishment - the only product of which is primitive, mindless gratification at the sense that someone has paid the ultimate price.

To me, this not only reduces those arguing in favour of it to the same level but also misses the point of not only the idea of punishment (and the state exercising its obligation to protect its citizens from harm - and my that I mean protecting people from crime) but also the role of the state on arbitrating conflict. It must do this in a neutral and objective fashion and abstain from emotional retort.

Political theorists from Hobbes to Foucault will offer their varying arguments on legitimacy of the state and its right to exercise its will over a country's populace. Included in those considerations are the ways in which the state has the power to mediate conflicts and carry out its judicial functions. Surely, a virtuous argument is one that offers a solution that satisfies the requirements of fair justice and does so in a humane fashion and maintaining a moral zenith - as an example to its citizens.

Some will undoubtedly call this approach naive, but I for one would like our governments to be ambitious, to set an example worth following and to deliver a justice system which everyone can believe in. Thats not a reality yet, but its worth working towards and we should resist at every juncture the desire to regress however frightful those crimes of others may seem. Its the only way forward and anything else is surrender to a lesser cause.

And if you're still in doubt - let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Re: death penalty?
 

I think it would be best to put the murderers in jail, not kill them, then they can have their own cell, watch tv, play pool and also have a good time with the rest of the inmates, while the vctims familys can suffer for the rest of there lives!....yes that would be better!!!!

what was I thinking:rolleyes:

Re: death penalty?
 

With respect, you've missed the point. Your (rather unproductively sarcastic) point is not an argument in favour of the death penalty, rather, its an argument against the way our prison system treats its inmates.

You can always make prison a genuinely harsh place - and that means that the judicial system needs to re-assert the notion that should you be convicted of a serious crime that warrants your removal from society, that also means you lose your rights as well - including human rights. The next question, which is just as murky is how far you take that.

Re: death penalty?
 

While I agree with one to a cell on safety grounds, I do not think prisoners should have all the rights and comforts of being out here. That is the problem, you want a harsh sentence for murders and see prison as being to soft. People on here even think that prisoners should have the right to vote in elections fgs. What's the point in sending em to jail, may as well just send them back home in time for tea.

Re: death penalty?
 

They should have the right to vote! If they were locked up for something unjust they should have the right to protest against it!

Re: death penalty?
 

The judiciary aren't the one who put forward the proposals for the conditions inside prisons, so whilst I agree with what you are saying I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong person there. The judiciary can only send people to prison, they cant dictate how they are treated once they're in there.

Re: death penalty?
 

Of course they can dictate prison conditions. At least in Canada they can and I can't see England beiing that different. At the basic level, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that no prisoner shall suffer "cruel and unusual punishment." That's like reading some of your posts.;)

Re: death penalty?
 

Ok, better put "our judicial system" be that controlled by the executive/legislature or influenced by the judiciary. And as you study law, you will be perfectly aware of just how much influence the judiciary has on the executive/legislature. And you knew what I meant :)

Re: death penalty?
 

Whilst the judiciary has influence, it certainly does not have the final say, and so I think it's wrong that the judiciary take so much blame for the prison system. And it IS different from Canada.

Frankly I feel that there in nobody to blame because I am a fan of the current prison system. I would hate to spend one year of my life in prison, and after 14yrs which seems a typical-ish type of sentence for a murderer, although its hard to put a figure on something like that, it seems unbearable to me to think about it, and I cant imagine after that amount of time you'd think about killing someone else again just to get thrown back in and do the time again.

I think whilst many people DO reoffend, it is most likely the more minor crimes which are repeated, not catagory A offenders. I think prison is an effective method but there can probably more done to cut down on costs. Whilst £39,000 is spent per year per criminal, i think a lot of that figure goes towards salaries, equipment to aid the officers etc, not the actual criminal themself.

I would never wish death upon someone, and if I did, and the death penalty was one of my options for the person who had hurt me, then I would also wish to serve the same sentence for their death at my hands, because I was brought up being told 'thou shal not kill' and there are no double standards in that teaching, and I wouldn't change my mind on that now. Murder is murder, there is no justification for it, no matter what the circumstances are. Taking a life, whether innocent or guilty is wrong.

Re: death penalty?
 

We have come a long way since "l'etat c'est moi." Now we all ... or most of us ... agree that the state is us. If we have capital punishment then we are complicit in the death of those who we execute. Some obviously welcome that ... but what about the large number, the millions, who do not wish this. Punsihment is not vengence. If someone killed my daughter I would no doubt wish them dead, and if given the opportunity I might just kill them. This is not capital punishment, or punishment of any kind, it is revenge pure and simple and personal. The act is mine; the consequences are mine. In such a case the state does not act for me, nor do I wish it to.

Re: death penalty?
 

Administering justice is taking revenge otherwise why would we punish a proven criminal?

A citizen breaks society’s rules, is caught, arrested, tried and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt a punishment commensurate with the current laws is handed down.

Re: death penalty?
 

Justice is not revenge. Justice is what a state considers an appropriate punishment for a particular anti-social act at a particular time. What is considered just in one state may be considered "cruel and unusual" in another. For example, some may consider stoning an adultress or whipping her in public to be just. Others consider it barbaric. How a country treats its criminals is an indication of the values of most of its citizens. Revenge is revenge, and is a constant in humans. It's an emotion all of us feel, and some of us act on. Systems of laws are not constant. They develop along with a society. They change often. We no longer hang someone for impersonating a Chelsea pensioner. We don't transport criminals. We don't imprison for debt. Our "rules" change. So do our ideas of what is "just" and what is unjust.

Re: death penalty?
 

Really blazey? Who laid down the 10 Commandments? It was that God feller wasn’t it?

Then how do you equate that with God allegedly parting the Red Sea waters to allow the Israelites across and then closing them on the Egyptian army and drowning them?
How about when he ‘smote’ down the Israelites for creating a false god during their exodus from Egypt?
God allegedly told Joshua to attack Jericho, Ty and other cities, slay all the inhabitants and to take the land for his tribe.
God himself exacted retribution on the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and on Lot.
Then there was the flood (created by God) that alegedly wiped out all life save for that on the Ark.

The Old Testament is full of killings by God.

There is nothing quite like doing a bit of ‘cherry picking’ to support a non-argument.

Re: death penalty?
 

You still don’t get it do you?

Administering justice and handing out a punishment is retribution or vengeance if you like. In other words exacting revenge.

What is just and not just doesn’t come into it.

Re: death penalty?
 

I’m in favour of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder but with a couple of caveats.

The case has to be proven beyond ANY DOUBT. If only proven beyond reasonable doubt the accused gets life and it should mean life.

Sentence not to be carried out for at least five years or maybe even ten, to allow for new evidence to be discovered.

The execution to be by lethal injection after the convict has been put to sleep. If an anaesthetist can render a patient unconscious in a few seconds before an operation the same can be done to a convict. Then instead of clearing the airways to administer whatever “keep the patient asleep gasses” that they use these days, the injection to stop the heart is administered.

Re: death penalty?
 

the only problem with your idea is that it would be impossible to get an anaesthetist to administer the drugs , since these people are governed by the same rules as 'doctors' (golden rule of medicine ....do no harm) thats why we have to use 'trained paramedics' here in California who sometimes have problems finding a suitable vein .

Re: death penalty?
 

i always thought that a doctor was present when we had capital punishment?:confused: to pronounce em dead, if thats so, then its ok for us to watch you top em, but we aint killin em, seems a bit odd to me.

Re: death penalty?
 

at what point would the line be drawn - when would the death penalty be given ?

i dont agree with it at all - i do agree however that punishment isnt really punishment in prison as it is now
i mean - i would love to train in a completely different field than i work in now as much as i love my job - i cant be chasing under 4's round when i am 60
i cant afford at the moment to retrain and pay mortgage etc -maybe i should comit a terrible crime serve half the time i was given and whilst doing that time do some courses and gain qualifications i would like - for free.

Re: death penalty?
 

dont agree,but understand that viewpoint,i voted dont know cos of your reasoning.

Re: death penalty?
 

think the Doctor is only present to certify death , not take part ........
on a lighter note, if the prison service had been more alert , it wouldn't have been a problem , they could have used Dr. Shipman , don't believe any of his patients suffered unduly ;) ;)

why does this thread remind me of a Roberta Flack song :confused:

Re: death penalty?
 

I am fully aware of the Hippocratic oath that doctors (and that includes anaesthetists) take but I never suggested that a doctor should administer the drugs. Do try to read and understand what has been written. But you had to try and pour cold water on a feasible suggestion as a matter of course.

Albert Pierrepoint was the ‘hangman’ of England and he wasn’t born with the skill. See http://www.pierrepoint.co.uk/ He learned it from his father and uncle. And that was much more complicated than learning how to insert a needle into the back of someone’s hand.

So there is no reason why a suitable volunteer could not learn to be the official ‘executioner’.

An anaesthetist mixes a cocktail of drugs tailored to the patient in order not to kill them but to render them unconscious. There is no such need in a public execution so a layman could be trained.

If the allegedly trained paramedics in California sometimes have trouble locating a suitable vein, then their training has left a lot to be desired. I accept that on occasion it would be difficult to locate a vein in the crook of the elbow if the arm is fat but my personal experience is that our paramedics insert the needle into the back of the hand and even in a podgy hand the vein is easily located.