ahh but over here we are a better class of scum. anyway if your imperial forces hadn't occupied said country the taigs (and prods) wouldn't have bleated on about being political prisoners. they didn't see themselves as the murdering scum that they were, but as the long suffering guerilla soldiers fighting to free their country.

 

I think any one who takes the life of another (to a point excluding people who may not have deliberately done it, or were in a moment of insanity) is a bit wrong in the head. That is not to say they all have some mental illness, it could be a real case of not knowing right from wrong/lack of a moral compass.

For me, I don't see the point in the death penalty, as I don't think it would deter the person from committing the crime, as I don't think they give any thought to the consequences of their actions. If that is the case, and I think for the most part it is, the death penalty serves no purpose as a deterrent. It then simply becomes a punishment, and although I can see why some people think that is a good thing, it defeats the supposed aim of it, and I don't feel it would be a positive step for a modern society to bring back legalised murder.

 

The law is not black and white, because the nature of life is not black and white. You have to understand there are varying degrees of something.

If someone causes damage to another person's property, all sorts of things are taken into account. It's not just a matter of reparation for the damage caused. As people with functioning brains, we have to take into account why the damage has been caused and whether a reasonable person would have caused it in similar circumstances. In the case of someone being killed, the same principle is applied in the seeking of 'justice', and self defence is not the only circumstance in which we see the degree of 'moral wrongness' reduced. Between self defence (a completely legitimate reason for killing someone) and something like the cold-blooded murder of a passer by are a multitude of circumstances with varying degrees of what is essentially the same thing, i.e. ending a life.

I think you would have us living in some super strict authoritarian state for the sake of something you see as being black and white or 'wrong'. In actual fact, even by the law of the jungle, justice would be delivered by varying degrees and these circumstances I'm talking about would be taken into account.

If someone kills an immediate family member as a random act for gratification, that would naturally provoke, in most people, the strongest emotional and moral response. If that same person had been harassed for years by the same immediate family member, or said family member had first subjected them to a gross injustice, most people would not feel as strong a natural emotional or moral response, and some may even sympathise with the murderer. The fact is that the desire to punish, or the perceived need for 'justice', in those cases is lesser by degree than it is with murder as a random act for gratification.

The question that is always asked is whether any 'reasonable person' would have done the same thing in similar circumstances. With that in mind, I think you greatly overestimate your own infallibility. Would you be happy with a legal system by which you could quite easily be labelled mentally ill and put to death after intentionally killing someone, regardless of ANY circumstances? This would not be the same as sitting on the internet after being stirred up by some news story; people, acting on behalf of something called 'society', would physically come and take you away to kill you while your loved ones looked on in horror.

Personally I don't care much about 'giving the world a message'.

 

People have all sorts of opinions about what to do with them. Maybe you should ask yourself where your desire to punish people comes from. Is it not a little bit like revenge? But revenge cannot be justified?

 

My grammar was poor but please re-read the whole sentence

... but a father who kills his wife's lover or the guy who rapes his kid should be treated with some leniency

Meaning
Leniency for the father who kills the guy that rapes his kid


david

 

there you go with the racist comments again. you and I know the law is different for tinted chaps

 

ahh Lisa but think of the money we would save not having to keep these people for 25 years at HMP.

 

Ironically enough, the people on this thread who want the death penalty will probably also want it for rapists and paedophiles. Yet if ANYONE intentionally kills a rapist or a paedophile, they themselves would be subject to the death penalty for killing someone. You couldn't make it up.

Certainly, if a person murders a murderer, they will be liable under these rules to the death penalty for intentionally killing someone, yet the state, acting on behalf of the very people who cannot, in any circumstances, intentionally kill anyone, can do it with impunity as it is the official, 'morally correct' course of action.

 

... now that's a subject for a whole different thread. I think that would turn into a 30 pager! It would end up being nothing to do with the original post, mind you, but a 30 pager for sure.

Jews, muslims... get ready for a brawl. That could be the title.

 

Well I don't have figures to give you, but how much cost would be involved if it was brought back?

The initial cost for 'the killing machine', the cost in pay for those who would carry out the execution, then killers would still potentially be kept in prison for quite some time to allow for appeals. All in all, I'm not sure how much would be saved, and I'm not convinced cost is a good enough reason to kill people.

How about just save some money keeping these people, cut down on the luxuries, and Gordon's programme at the moment is another bit of food for thought so to speak, make them work producing goods to raise some money, and in turn it gives them something constructive to do with their time.

 

ahh but the russian gulag method of prison would infinge their Human Rights. Too many namby pamby rules. when you have prisoners in the dock asking to be sent to prison because they can have 3 meals a days, tv, dvd, video games, drugs, women etc etc. its like living at home. no worries, no commitments. do their bird, get a PhD if they are so inclined. forced labour is what we need. Roads kept clean like on chain gangs, swamps dug out a la "cool hand luke".

 

I think death penalty is a favour to the crim, if he/she has conscience. Imagine living with the feelng that you killed someone in rage, when you lost your rag, when you were too drunk, or when you just couldn't help yourself? Living with such guilt is a bigger punishment than dying. The nasty ones with pre-meditated motives and desire to run from the blame should be hurt on daily basis. The ones with no conscience can be killed as they won't worry about dying, anyway. They don't feel much. Moreso, no conscience psychopath can attack again, so its better to get rid of that sort. I agree that anyone who kills someone goes mentally retarted for the period one is performing the act of killing. Hence its no excuse. Saying that, I didn't smack my son's Staffy when he deliriously chased my cat yesterday, because I understand his tendency to slaughter the cats. I should have made sure that Staffy didn't encounter my cat, so I smacked myself. So if someone is a declared Schizophrenic, and the voices told him/her to do so, I don't know what I would like to be done such killer. I need to have a think. Institutionalise them and treat them, I suppose.

 

But surely this empathy with the murderer and consequent lower sentence tries to justify an unjustable crime somewhat? At the end of the day if someone is killed the consequences for the victim are all the same so why shouldn't they be for the murderer?

 

Ever thought that if the punishment was strong enough for rapists and paedophiles then maybe victims/families of victims would be happy in knowing what's going to happen to them and not feel the need to take revenge into their own hands?

The law needs to be tough and people need to have faith in it.

 

but then the moralistic brigrade with their "two wrongs don't make a right" kick in. A thorny subject I am sure you will all agree. But do you all feel we have gone too far the other way now. More rights for the person who commits the crime than for the victims.

i would like to see a much tougher penal regime but what is it going to take for the UK to wake up and see the laughing stock it's penal system is to the rest of the world.

 

I agree with the above.

 

A quick google shows that in 2006 there were over 6400 prisoners serving life sentences in UK prisons, obviously this number will have likely risen. It costs around on average £40k per year per prisoner. That's a lot of money spent on lifers!!

 

Do you realize that you just made the perfect case for not having the death penalty?

 

If they are a danger to society then they should remian locked up indefinitely

 

Hmm I think you'll find that a lot of that cost is actually fixed. So if you suddenly did away with the 6400, we would still end up with the same number of prisons and prison officers.

Ironically the cost per prisoner for the remain population would go up

 

Just look at what you're saying. You call all circumstances in which a person is intentionally killed the same crime of murder which should be treated in the same manner. We have established that. It is a crime.

But then you say that if someone is a murderer, the just thing to do is to sentence them to death; to intentionally kill them. So the state, a controlling power, has a divine right to do something which is otherwise a heinous crime. Have we also established that? Can we also say that in this day and age the state acts on behalf of, and solely on behalf of, the people among which intentionally killing someone is a heinous crime?

There is a massive error of logic in the above. I'm surprised you cannot see it. The most unjust thing about it is that, acting on feelings of revenge, a person could be sentenced to death for doing exactly what the state would have a legitimate right to do, and would have done, just a matter of weeks or months later in pursuit of 'justice'.

Pursuing justice and getting revenge are two sides of the same coin. They are both done with the aim of 'evening things up': an injustice is done and we feel the need to redress the balance.

Faith in what exactly? The capacity for revenge to be carried out in such a way as to be acceptable? Hypocrisy and double standards here once again.

 

If we did away with 6400, there would be more capacity in an already overstretch and overcrowded prison service and we wouldn't have to build more prisons and maybe for the judicial system to hand out lenient sentences due to lack of capacity, eg. tagging and Asbos instead of custodial sentences.

 

advocates of the death penalty seem to have a confused view of the sentencing system

they seem to label people “really” guilty e.g. Ian Huntley and then presumably just plain old guilty for people like Barry George who subsequently are found to be totally innocent

I think they do this mental trick to convince themselves that the state will not make mistakes and kill/murder totally innocent people

but the Law has no concept of “really” guilty – just plain old guilty

in reality the state would continue to makes mistakes just like it did in the past

 

Its a matter of degree of course. However, the real point is, it is correctly illegal to deliberately kill someone but as ever, there is the opportunity to vary a sentence according to the severity of the committed offence.

My point is, if someone commits a murder, ie during a burglary if they were discovered in the act in an effort to avoid detection,then the offender should be in no doubt that he is risking the "long drop" if he is so stupid as to kill his victim, or for that matter, a copper who is attempting to arrest him. Regardless of what has been said, the risk of being given the death penalty will certainly concentrate the mind of the likely murderer.

The cases you quoted above are still a capital offence because what the criminals did do not justify the victims killing them in the eyes of the law. The judge should have the authority to vary the sentence as he thinks fit having seen the evidence etc.

Les

 

Are you saying that we should kill 6,400 people?

 

I'm just quoting what you said.

 

The state sets the laws that we must follow and these laws must have punishments that deter people from committing the crime in the first place.
Regarding the punishment then i'm a big believer of 'do unto others...' and all that.

 

The state sets the laws on our behalf. The House of Commons is chief in the law making hierarchy of the UK. We elect the people there. We don't just blindly follow what the state tells us to do in the sense of it having a divine power over us, nor is the state any form of moral authority except as an instrument through which we apply ours.

I don't think the difference on the mindset of a would-be murderer is really that great between the prospect of death or the prospect of 15 years inside. Their effects will be similar - i.e. 'life ending' - in the mind of someone who, in all honesty, doesn't intend to be caught. If the person is not in the mindset while committing the act to give much thought to being caught at all, I don't think either matter, and I don't think that kind of murder can be eradicated with legislation.

So, with that in mind, the act of ending the murderer's life after the event is really superfluous, a formality with far from virtuous motives.

 

I bet after the event and once in court they would be feeling a lot different if in a state with the death penalty compared to one without!

 

I bet you're right. But what has that prevented or deterred?