Execution

[ziggystardust]

Last night I watched the new episode of Horizon, How to Kill a Human Being, in which Michael Portillo (yes, the former Conservative MP) investigated a humane way of executing prisoners. The whole thing seemed rather ironic to me, considering that, regardless of how humane a method of executing is, it is still killing. So I watched the programme out of a morbid fascination.

I suppose the notion of finding a humane method of execution is noble in a way, as the current methods (lethal injection, hanging, and the electric chair) are a tad suspect in the "quick and painless" category. So I can't fault Mr. Portillo there. But he was searching for a way to kill people. (Sorry about the use of italics, but I disagree tremendously with the death penalty. It's essentially state-sanctioned murder.)

Anyway, Portillo eventually did find his humane method of execution: nitrogen gas, which deprives the brain of oxygen whilst inducing a state of euphoria. He then presented this to one of the leading individuals in America's pro-death penalty lobby. Who disagreed with it passionately. In his view, someone who "hits his victims in the side of the head with a hammer and then slits their throat" (his words, possibly paraphrased) should be given as horrible a death as they gave to their victims. Otherwise, "That's not justice."

But, here's my problem. Surely if you punish someone with as horrible a death as they gave to their victims, they then become the victim, and you the murderer? How is the executioner, or the individual who ordered the executuon, better than the murderer? Maybe I'm just a soft liberal hippy, but, in the words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye, and the whole world will soon be blind."

The other thing is: surely the main purpose of a punishment is to deter the punishee from further wrong doings? Otherwise, what's the point? Obviously if you're dead you can't commit further crimes, but I can't help thinking that it completely defeats the purpose. You can't build a perfect working society if you kill everyone who does something wrong.

And my last point: in the debate over the death penalty, the USA is at the very top of everyone's mind. America still has the death penalty. And yet, America also has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. So the death penalty is doing bugger all. Time for a rethink?

So. Any thoughts?

[Darkscull]

The other thing is: surely the main purpose of a punishment is to deter the punishee from further wrong doings? Otherwise, what's the point? Obviously if you're dead you can't commit further crimes, but I can't help thinking that it completely defeats the purpose. You can't build a perfect working society if you kill everyone who does something wrong.

the argument in favour of the death penalty on the grounds of deterrent is that if people realise "hey, if i get caught doing what i'm planning to do, then they'll kill me", and therefore not do it.
it is however, a bollocks argument, since the people who do the sorts of things that get you on death row usually aren't the most well-balanced of people, and they obviously think that committing the crimes they're going to commit is worth the sacrifice (being a wanted criminal, or at least a suspect, and possibly getting caught), and if someone is willing to risk a life in prison for whatever reason, then death might not be that big a step up for them.

the main reason it's a bollocks argument is that, as you've said, it appears (AFAIK, IIRC) that it has made no real difference to the rates of violent crime (those violent crimes that may get the death penalty that is).

of course, it's a tricky situation to pin down with statistics, because:

not all states in the US have the death penalty, and so the population of those supposedly living in fear of the death penalty is mixed up with those who may not really know much about the specifics, and both parts are mobile and capable of committing crimes in other states.

also, it could be said that the reason it doesn't work as a deterrent is that all the safeguards involved and constant appeals means that people live on death row for years, and will have the best lawyers fighting for them etc. and so in practical terms it could not be considered a case of "do this crime, and you'll be killed", thereby negating the deterrent factor.
this may be used as an argument for death sentences with less red tape, but that would never happen considering the only reason the death sentence still exists in some states in america is because of the legal safeguards around it.
So as it is it doesn't work as a deterrent in practice, but to make it a more effective deterrent would remove the reason it hasn't been gotten rid of.

therefore, it's a fairly pointless waste of (taxpayers') money that exists purely to make the far-right wing people 'safe' in their beds, and give them some entertainment to distract them from the evils of a merely 'right-', rather than 'far-right-' -wing america.

[gembird]

The whole thing seemed rather ironic to me, considering that, regardless of how humane a method of executing is, it is still killing.

This is true. Personally I agree with you; I think the death penalty is wrong and pointless. I know that there will be people who post here saying that keeping prisoners alive is almost like rewarding them for their crimes- they get to stay inside in the warm, with three meals a day and people to protect them from hurting each other, which is a lot more than many innocent people have. And it's all paid for by the taxpayers.

However, I feel that the death penalty is wrong because, as you've said, it's just more killing. I think that killing someone in cold blood is wrong, whatever the circumstances- and isn't this in cold blood? The people who organise this sort of thing clearly believe that these criminals deserve to die after all.

After a bit of nosing around on Google Images for some maps, I've found out that many of the places who actually execute prisoners in the USA are states which have a high level of support for the Republican party and a more right-wing, Christian population and outlook. But Christianity is supposed to be about forgiveness right? Jesus allegedly said things along the same lines as that Gandhi quote, which would indicate a peace-loving religion which does not condone killing or revenge. Yes, that murderer has killed, but if killing is a sin then causing another deliberate death is just making things worse. Of course, the religion and politics of the US might not make all that much difference- after all, California has the death penalty and is known to be relatively tolerant compared to some areas.

Oh, and as for humane execution, I heard that the best way was beheading as it's so quick, but that might not be true.

[Pie hunter D]

Firstly, the crime rate in america is probably proportionate to other countries. You seem to forget just how big the US is.
Beheading is supposed to be the most humane, yeah. Old studies have shown,however, that the brain is cognicent of it's surroundings for 12 seconds after being seperated from steady oxygen... How do I know these things...
Anyhow, The major concern I have over the death penalty is a simple one. How do you know for sure , 100% , that you have the right man/woman? There have been incidents (a good few) in the past where it was found that those executed were , in fact, innocent! How do you explain that to the family; "Oh erm yeah sorry bout that we kina fucked up. No compensation though, they shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Fuck that.

You can argue that methods of identifying suspects have advanced in the passing years but it's still not 100%. Just my 2 pence .

[Splush]

Ah bugger I meant to watch that documentary, shame I missed it. I'll have to give the on demand streaming service on the BBC website a shot. I saw a great documentary about the morality of the death penalty years ago that really solidified my opinions on it, I wish I could remember what it was called.

I believe execution is always morally wrong regardless of how painless it is. The idea of the state killing a prisoner in my name is just sickening, I'm happy to pay the taxes to keep people in prison for life if it means I don't have execution on my conscience.

The arguement of deterrent seems weak to me if we're talking about a crime like murder, I don't think many potential murderers are sitting at home rationally weighing up the pros and cons of murder and concluding "I really want to kill my wife, but I'm just too scared of being executed so I can't go through with it". I think murders are either irrational, passionate acts or, if not, they're at least done by somebody who believes that they will get away with it. The idea that somebody is scared straight by the idea of execution but would be willing to accept lifelong imprisonment is silly.

In his view, someone who "hits his victims in the side of the head with a hammer and then slits their throat" (his words, possibly paraphrased) should be given as horrible a death as they gave to their victims. Otherwise, "That's not justice."
This concept of justice makes me seethe :mad:

[Timmeh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b008rdyh.shtml

There you go, for anyone who missed it (expires in 6 days, only works in IE). Full opinions coming later.

[Pie hunter D]

Good point...
Need to remember theres always different circumstances. Accidents are common enough, crimes of passion you could be an upstanding member of the community, just lose it for a second or w/e. The people who set out to murder obviously don't care about the concequences either way... So what would it achieve?
By deffinition a Psychopath has no real emotion :eng101: . The people that would suffer are the minor groups who most likely didn't mean to kill anyone at all. I'm not condoning killing people on any grounds, but Execution seems kinda harsh.
I DO believe, however, that the real threats should be locked up for life. Just seems like common sense, but then you would have to argue if thats really humane either. Theres a catch 22 right there.

[Darkscull]

Firstly, the crime rate in america is probably proportionate to other countries.

the key word is rate.

the number of crimes committed is not the crime rate.
the crime rate is the number of crimes committed per head of population.

it's also, obviously, a rate of crimes committed over time, but that is necessary otherwise it would be completely meaningless.


however, you are completely right about the not being 100% sure thing.
that is the second most fundamental argument against the death penalty, but it's been taken for granted in debates on the death penalty here for so long i forgot to mention it. :rolleyes:


By deffinition a Psychopath has no real emotion :eng101:

actually, by definition a psychopath has no sense of right and wrong.
they have, if anything, too strong emotions, and little or no conscience to keep them in check.

sociopaths on the other hand, have little or no emotions, and although they know full well the difference between right and wrong, they don't care.

both are (fortunately) a minority in the population, and the rest of your point applies, i'm just a pedant :)

[Pie hunter D]

actually, by definition a psychopath has no sense of right and wrong.
they have, if anything, too strong emotions, and little or no conscience to keep them in check.

sociopaths on the other hand, have little or no emotions, and although they know full well the difference between right and wrong, they don't care.



You are correct! Mea Culpa. The principle of mental instability stands though :p

[faragher]

I believe execution is always morally wrong regardless of how painless it is. The idea of the state killing a prisoner in my name is just sickening, I'm happy to pay the taxes to keep people in prison for life if it means I don't have execution on my conscience.This. So much this. I (and this is not hyperbole) would leave this country if we reinstated the death penalty - in fact, its pretty much all that has stopped me and my wife buying a house in the US. I just don't want people executed in my name.

Also, I think it is wrong for the state to have that much power. I always find it weird that in the US, which has written into its constitution safeguards against the gov getting too powerful, they allow it to execute people.

[feeshy]

Something to remember though (although the thread isn't about it as such) is that the programme wasn't anything to do with whether the death penalty is right or wrong. It was merely saying 'there's been a lot of problems with various methods, so let's see how they're done and how they work'. And also 'while we don't have the death penalty, most of America does and isn't likely to get rid of it anytime soon'.

I'm really not sure where I stand on crime and punishment at all. On both the death penalty and life (proper life) sentences. It all seems so... pointless. Presuming to have either of these you'd have to have done something pretty damn awful, simply living out your days locked up somewhat (presuming you're well behaved etc) isn't really much of a punishment, is it? Being cynical, the death penalty is probably better economically (ethics is all well and good, but isn't always practical) as there's no chance of reoffending, saves money, space, and is probably more of a deterrent (even if not much of one). Optional death for lifers perhaps? Sounds a bit silly, but that sort of combines both ideas. By the time you want to die, that's the peak of the punishment. As I said, I'm not sure, so don't take it meaningfull-y.

[faragher]

Presuming to have either of these you'd have to have done something pretty damn awful, simply living out your days locked up somewhat (presuming you're well behaved etc) isn't really much of a punishment, is it? Being cynical, the death penalty is probably better economically (ethics is all well and good, but isn't always practical) as there's no chance of reoffending, saves money, space, and is probably more of a deterrent (even if not much of one). Optional death for lifers perhaps? Sounds a bit silly, but that sort of combines both ideas. By the time you want to die, that's the peak of the punishment. As I said, I'm not sure, so don't take it meaningfull-y.The main problem with the death penalty is, well, someone has to die. Thats dead. No coming back.

It may be cheaper, but at the end you have a dead dude. I'm not sure that any cost saving makes this acceptable.

[cyber_turnip]

There always have been cock-ups and as far as we can see, there always will be cock-ups with the legal system. If the death penalty being kept away only saves 1 innocent human being from death, then surely that alone is enough of a reason to not use it.

[Splush]

I had a feeling that you could still technically be executed in the UK for the crime of high treason, so I looked it up on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom#Punishment) and it turns out it was abolished in 1998. I also learned that sexual intercourse with the sovereign's consort is considered high treason: let this be a warning to any girls who might fall for Prince Philip's dubious charms!

Optional death for lifers perhaps?
This is an interesting idea, I certainly feel like I'd want to die if I was going to be in jail for the rest of my days. It gets me thinking though, I bet there's people who support the death penalty but would oppose optional death on the basis that assisted suicide is immoral.

[Pie hunter D]

This is an interesting idea, I certainly feel like I'd want to die if I was going to be in jail for the rest of my days. It gets me thinking though, I bet there's people who support the death penalty but would oppose optional death on the basis that assisted suicide is immoral.


This.
Good point, another catch 22.

[Svelter]

I totally hate the death sentence. I would say why but I could go on for ages. I just hate everything about it.

Having said that, I thought the tank Portillo found would be great for euthenasia. I'd certainly rather have that than waiting to die in agony. The American man, who was hugely in favour of the death sentence really made my blood boil as well. He just seemed like an all-round horrible person.

[rikmania]

i am another who is not sure where exactly i stand because as much as i would like justice for whoever has been wronged and want to believe that no criminal can commit such extreme crimes without repercussion, im not convinced execution is the answer. execution is on the fine line betwen justice and revenge and i dont doubt that those who have suffered a loss through murder etc may find it a cathartic outcome, but as has been said previously im not comfortable being part of that.

did anyone see that louis theroux programme, i think it may have been the previous night when he went to that prison in america where some of the worst criminals are held, including one man serving 521 years + 11 life sentences. he said he doesnt find that depressing because he can make a life for himself inside and finds it a comfortable life. the reason i bring this programme up is this is an example of the other side of the doubt in my mind because that and the extent of some gang cultures in there lead to crimes, including murders suggesting that nothing is being learned. obviously i seriously doubt this is representative of the general prison population but is a suggestion that this may not be much of a punishment, no one is feeling remorse or becoming better people merely continuing their lives just within a smaller area.

then there is the doubt that can be raised over whether someone is the actual perpertrator, but then that could be said in a lot of crimes...arrrgggghhhhh!!

[Splush]

Yeah that Louis Theroux doc was fascinating, if that's representative of prisons and prisoners in general then it's clear that the whole system is deeply flawed. I suppose that gives some credence to the idea that execution is more of a deterrent than a life sentence, but I feel like perhaps it takes the type of messed up mind that a serial murderer must have to be able to feel that comfortable in prison. And, I suppose, the fact they have to put on a show of feeling comfortable with it for the sake of appearances and their own psychological security.

[Sean_Seanston]

This concept of justice makes me seethe :mad:

In fairness though, I've been thinking... about this whole "justice" business...

Doesn't really make sense does it? It's not really the right word at all.

To say that someone getting killed in a robbery and then something (doesn't matter what) happening to the perpetrator being "justice" is almost as if to say "an innocent man was shot dead, but we did X, so everything's ok now".

How can you really have "justice" of any kind here? Something happened that you didn't want to happen and it can never be fixed, so the whole concept of "justice" is kind of... optimistic. Naive maybe.

As for being "criminally insane"...

Think about it: The only reason anyone ever does or can do something is because
A) They are a certain way
&
B) Certain things happen to them

People are born a certain way and based on the situations they find themselves in, they'll make certain decisions. If one person kills somebody because of how they are and what happened to occur around them to change them is "criminally insane" and gets a pardon, but another is just "evil" yet somehow not insane and gets screwed, how is that fair?

One thing's for sure though: Somebody shouldn't be able to steal from you without you being able to take any physical action you desire to prevent them from doing it.

[Splush]

Yeah, the word justice does kind of imply that you can correct what went wrong, which is obviously out of the question when it comes to a murder charge. There is certainly a core of "eye for an eye" thinking in the way we look at the criminal justice system, and I don't know if it can be rationalised at all.

[rikmania]

the whole concept of "justice" is kind of... optimistic. Naive maybe.

yea i hadnt even considered that. like most i just assumed that being wronged naturally gave the right to do something to level the score so to speak. in that respect there are victim support groups etc for those directly affected but again, even if they can be supported and comforted and dont call for it, the masses often bay for blood.

my final input on the execution thing is that i think each criminal and their crime must be looked at holistically and objectively to see what the crime was, try to find out why, any antecedents, awareness or even disregard of consequences etc etc. then if at all possible conduct any counselling, reparations etc whatever it takes to see if there is still some good in the person that can be saved so maybe even if its a slight possibility, they could be rehabilitated safely back into society rather than righting them off completely. or maybe in an ideal world anyway...

[Pie hunter D]

Yeah, the word justice does kind of imply that you can correct what went wrong, which is obviously out of the question when it comes to a murder charge. There is certainly a core of "eye for an eye" thinking in the way we look at the criminal justice system, and I don't know if it can be rationalised at all.

Thats the problem, retrebution, "Eye for an Eye", etc , etc. It all ties in with preconceptions of how it should be, a lot of this stuff is in the bible! I don't doubt half the argument is "But the big man said we could!".
It's all just really primal when you strip away the flesh of it.

[Pilk Man]

I'm actually going to comment on the program's content, since nobody else seems to be doing so.

I see any of the science described as somewhat...superfluous. If you're looking for a quick, painless and efficient way to kill people quickly (and with no chance of it going wrong), just kneel them in a field and shoot them in the head?

Ok, it's a little messy, but the fact is that you don't survive being shot in the head, point-blank. You don't feel any pain (or rather you're not alive long enough for the pain to mean anything to you), you die quickly, and it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to do it wrong.

All of this "do it humanely" stuff is approaching the bawlucks stage. It strikes me that the humanity behind the act is now over-taking the necessity to get the job done quickly.

[Zhyl]

What I object to the most is the deadly blend of "Oh well I'm going to die anyway" and the relaxed gun laws. I reckon that any advance in crime rates with this as a deterrent would be more than made up for by people going on rampages.

[katt]

let this be a warning to any girls who might fall for Prince Philip's dubious charms!

.

hehehe judging by his shameless quote collections it sounds like it would be impossible not to fall his sweet words (that was sarcasm :P)

anyway i agree with the death penalty for mass murderers/serial killers and extreme cases of treason (ie putting your entire country in danger). Basically my feeling is there are some murderers society would be better off without and the fact we have the luxury to sit and worry about whether they live or die shows that we have become a society that has too much time and has forgotten to put things into perspective.

I am talking about the worst of the mass murderers .... not anything less than serial killers/mass murderers.

[GorillaBearBear]

Yeah, the word justice does kind of imply that you can correct what went wrong, which is obviously out of the question when it comes to a murder charge. There is certainly a core of "eye for an eye" thinking in the way we look at the criminal justice system, and I don't know if it can be rationalised at all.

Hardly surprising though is it? Allow me to get slightly esoteric for a minute. If you consider the image of "justice" as in the literal depiction of her. She is generally depicted with a set of scales, a sword, and a blindfold.

I think nowadays the generally preferred interpretation of that image is that she is blinded to represent a lack of bias, using only the scales to weigh up arguments and evidence and determine the truth of a case, as well as presumably an appropriate severity for punishment. The sword would be merely an indication of legitimacy. This is obviously the type of justice we should strive for, at any rate, and largely I think we do in Britain - but only because the law courts remain separate from most other concerns and pressures, ideally.

But I personally imagine that the original sense of what that statue represents is entirely more bloodthirsty. The scales represent an eye for an eye, the sword is the "firm" hand of the law. The blindfold is a lack of mercy, an inability to excuse something based on circumstance. It certainly fits with Britain's former methods of punishment. For example the punishments for treason and so on. The entire thing just suggest to me that the justice system was created, at first, for appeasement rather than "justice" as we like to think of it.

Another possibility is that people like me and you don't want justice - justice is a barbarism. What we want is, as you say, rehabilitation.

[feeshy]

I see any of the science described as somewhat...superfluous. If you're looking for a quick, painless and efficient way to kill people quickly (and with no chance of it going wrong), just kneel them in a field and shoot them in the head?


Well, yeah, there are plenty of really quick and painless ways to kill people. But since people have got to witness it, the 'not gory' factor comes into play. And you're going to have to sweep up all the little bits of skull and brain after, which is a bummer of a job. And all the blood spatters are going to need some serious scrubbing... That aside, close range shooting has got some health and safety problems, both for the shooter (emotional problems too, although I guess an automated system could be rigged up) and people in the area.

Edit-

What we want is, as you say, rehabilitation.

The problem being, does the legal system have enoguh flexibility for that to happen? What I mean is, for example, a murderer with mental problems who doesn't really have a reason for killing is a danger to the public and a lot harder to rehabilitate than a murder with a motive- such as a man who kills his wife's lover. I'm not saying either is justified, but once the second man has killed the lover, he has no need to kill again. In that instance, you can't really rehabilitate, only punish.

[Darkscull]

@katt:

how do you feel about the whole never being 100% sure that someone is guilty thing?





NB: i'm not saying "oh, you're wrong, how can you kill people when you aren't 100% sure blah blah blah" or anything. I'm just wondering, and I don't think I've seen your thoughts on the matter before.

[GorillaBearBear]

The problem being, does the legal system have enoguh flexibility for that to happen? What I mean is, for example, a murderer with mental problems who doesn't really have a reason for killing is a danger to the public and a lot harder to rehabilitate than a murder with a motive- such as a man who kills his wife's lover. I'm not saying either is justified, but once the second man has killed the lover, he has no need to kill again. In that instance, you can't really rehabilitate, only punish.

And therein lies the crux of any debate about justice and its aims. A crime of passion ought to be punished. A premeditated crime certainly ought to be punished - in a sane person I think punishment can function as rehabilitation, although the difficulties faced afterwards make the entire thing a murky river - but in someone who is mentally unhinged, what can you do? Is it possible to rehabilitate them fully, and is there any point punishing them? To my mind they occupy a pretty knotty tangle of grey string.

[Mushroom]

I'm completely against the death penalty under any circumstances.

Firstly, I believe that if someone murders someone else, they forfeit their right to freedom. They do not forfeit their status as a human being. There are severe historical dangers in allowing the state to decide someone's status as a human being, and I do not think that road should be trodden.

Secondly, I believe that the state should maintain the moral highground in such cases. If the state declares killing to be an unacceptable crime, then why does it then carry it out itself?

Thirdly, and continuing from the last point, I believe that having the death penalty encourages a system that is based on vengeance, not justice. I consider the two to be mutually exclusive. Vengeance is what the proponent of the death penalty in the documentary wanted, not justice. Allowing murder to be an applicable punishment is merely delayed vigilanteism, which is not something that I think should be encouraged in a 'healthy' justice system.

I find it awfully hypocritical that people like President Bush will happily harp on about the value of human life when denying funding for potentially life-saving stem cell research, or interfering in the family decisions of a woman in a vegetative state, when as governor of Texas he signed away the lives of 152 people, more than any other governor in the state's history. I don't believe that people with those sorts of skewed ideas on human life should be in the position to make such decisions.

[katt]

@katt:

how do you feel about the whole never being 100% sure that someone is guilty thing?





.

I think there are some cases where the evidence for a particular person being guilty is so overwhelming that there is practically no chance of the person being innocent.

For instance, in the dahmher case he had body parts and stuff in his fridge and a witness. It was so obvious that he was guilty. I think in some instances wondering if someone might be innocent is more of an exercise in hypothetical thought than anything else because the probability would be so low as to be almost nonexistant.

I don't think anyone is for the death penalty in cases where there is some doubt. For example, a lot of people think OJ simpson is guilty but no one really feels 100 percent certain so executing someone in that situation of uncertainty would not be right. Well, it doesn't matter anyway cause he went free.

I can understand why people are against the death penalty because it is not very nice. But, i think the original crimes are far worse and there truly are some people the world would be better off without. I don't think i see it as revenge so much as 'good riddance to bad news'

[Splush]

Another possibility is that people like me and you don't want justice - justice is a barbarism. What we want is, as you say, rehabilitation.
You might be right here. I'd say I want protection/prevention foremost, and then rehabilitation where possible. Retribution doesn't really come into it. If justice means "people who do bad things should have equally bad things done to them, and then everybody should be satisfied" then justice is stupid as well as blind.

[edit]
Something I've been thinking throughout this thread is that the important thing is not to let justice become primal or passionate. If somebody killed my parents and somebody asked me how the killer should be punished, I might well want them killed, but if you gave me six months to think about it I'd probably have rationalised things enough to have reverted back to the opinion that they should be incarcerated until they don't present a danger any more. The existence of the death penalty seems rooted in an emotion response, not a rational response. We can all imagine wishing death upon an aggressor but the job of the criminal justice system is surely to not ignore the emotional response and try to be rational and objective. I suppose this is what I think "justice is blind" is about, but I may be wrong.

The problem being, does the legal system have enoguh flexibility for that to happen? What I mean is, for example, a murderer with mental problems who doesn't really have a reason for killing is a danger to the public and a lot harder to rehabilitate than a murder with a motive- such as a man who kills his wife's lover. I'm not saying either is justified, but once the second man has killed the lover, he has no need to kill again. In that instance, you can't really rehabilitate, only punish.
Yeah, it's easy to say "we should rehabilitate everyone" but it's obviously much harder in practice, and if we're unable to rehabilitate somebody and they still present a danger to the public then there's little choice but to keep them locked up (or execute them, if you like). But I'd see that from the perspective of protecting the public by preventing further assaults, rather than punishment. The punishment is an unpleasant by-product of the protection. Perhaps that's just quibbling over semantics, but it seems important to me.

[BlueIncaPilot]

There are 3 reasons why I disagree with the death penalty:

1) How are people expected not to be brutal in a society when a government says its ok to kill? Exectution is murder. You can't execute somebody for murdering someone else, that's hypocrisy of the highest order. It's an ancient way of dealing with things that we in this modern day and age should be well passed. So yeah, reason 1 - brutalising the sytem.

2) There is always the fear that you could accidentally execute someone innocent. It's been known to happen in the past (example Timothy Evans) and it's alright saying they are pardoned but it's not going to bring their life back is it. At least in prison they can be released.

3) The pain caused to the family and friends of that person. These people have commited no crime but they are being punished by the state for it, by killing their loved one. One reason why the death penalty is used in some countries is to try and repay the debt to the friends and family of the victims. By executing that person the state is doing exactly what they are trying to retribute to a different set of people. Why should they be punished for something their son/daughter/whatever committed? When in jail, they can still communicate, by visits or letters if nothing else. Once a person's gone they're gone.

[feeshy]

At least in prison they can be released.



Is that better for the person though? I know you can't bring back the dead, but depending on the crime and prison term, the psychological damage of the whole thing is enormous. Everyone assumes you're guilty, you and your family are abused, and even if you're released it's not going to stop.

[BlueIncaPilot]

Surely being released to return home to your family is better than being dead, however long it has been. Better for them too, who of course do not deserve to be punished in having a loved one removed from them permanantly.

[Pilk Man]

Surely being released to return home to your family is better than being dead, however long it has been.
As a side note, what's your view on the death penalty vs a life term?

If there's no chance of perole or release before death, what's the point in making them suffer by keeping them there?

[Smartie]

There always have been cock-ups and as far as we can see, there always will be cock-ups with the legal system. If the death penalty being kept away only saves 1 innocent human being from death, then surely that alone is enough of a reason to not use it.

Just to play devils advocate.... if the death penalty saves the life of 1 innocent victim, then isn't that also reason enough to consider it?

In the UK, where life doesn't mean life, a killer will be probably considered for parole at some point and has the potential to be back out within society. This potentially means they are free to kill again. Look at the stream of 'gangland' murders where people end up serving maybe 15 years and come back out into society into their old ways. These are not crimes of passion, they are crimes of violence and reputation. Some of these people couldn't care less who they hurt or how. Rehabilitation in the UK doesn't work.
See stories of George Leigers, Peter Bryan, Mark Goldstraw
Between 1995-2006, 29 convicted killers have committed further murder after being released*.

Problematically this subject is very emotive, and people find it hard to not allow themselves an emotional response to it.

*Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/26/nreid126.xml)

[BlueIncaPilot]

As a side note, what's your view on the death penalty vs a life term?

If there's no chance of perole or release before death, what's the point in making them suffer by keeping them there?


Because there are still ways to communicate, the person is still with them in some way. And as a general answer to death penalty vs life term - all the stuff I said before. I'm not into circular debates.

[faragher]

Just to play devils advocate.... if the death penalty saves the life of 1 innocent victim, then isn't that also reason enough to consider it?

In the UK, where life doesn't mean life, {snip}No. The state should not be allowed to kill people, irrespective of the effect of that. There are two main arguments against the death penalty:
- people getting dead isn't nice : this is where your idea can be effective, if you kill a potential serial killer, then hurrah for all the 'saved' victims. Though we risk being in thoughtcrime territory with that...
- the state should not be so powerful that it can kill its citizens : for this one, your argument is irrelevant. Oh, and this is the non-emotional argument.

Sorry :)

[Pilk Man]

- the state should not be so powerful that it can kill its citizens : for this one, your argument is irrelevant. Oh, and this is the non-emotional argument.
So what about the police having guns? Is it bad that the police kill people who wave guns around? Would it be better if the state didn't give them the power to kill people and instead left the offenders to run around shooting folks while the police tried to take them down with tasers?

[Darkscull]

So what about the police having guns? Is it bad that the police kill people who wave guns around? Would it be better if the state didn't give them the power to kill people and instead left the offenders to run around shooting folks while the police tried to take them down with tasers?

there is a long standing distinction between premeditated killing and killing in self-defense.

[katt]

No. The state should not be allowed to kill people, irrespective of the effect of that.

If the state releases a known killer back into society and the killer kills again the state is indirectly 'killing (innocent) people' by not protecting them properly from known threats.

[gembird]

So what about the police having guns? Is it bad that the police kill people who wave guns around? Would it be better if the state didn't give them the power to kill people and instead left the offenders to run around shooting folks while the police tried to take them down with tasers?

To paraphrase Al Murray, the Pub Landlord, British police are the most dedicated in the world. They don't have guns, so if they want to kill someone they have to kick them to death.

I know police brutality and so on isn't the issue, sorry. But the point stands that most of our police officers can't shoot anyone because they don't carry firearms. It's only in certain circumstances that specially trained officers are brought in. I wanted to say something about that before we go too far down that route.

[Darkscull]

If the state releases a known killer back into society and the killer kills again the state is indirectly 'killing (innocent) people' by not protecting them properly from known threats.

there are several options inbetween killing them and letting them wander free, you know.

[katt]

yes but can you offer a 100 percent gurantee that they will never go free again (whether through parole, escape etc etc)?

Although I see your point.

I am not even entirely sure what legal distinctions are made between killers who remain behind bars and killers who are executed in the states that have legal executions. I suppose it has something to do with numbers of people, state of mind and intentions (ie planning it out in detail vs getting angry in a bar fight).

Interestingly the republican candidate huckabee (Whom i do not support at all) has come under criticism for his soft stance on criminals (offering pardons etc). He freed one rapist who eventually murdered someone.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071210/D8TEKRSO1.html here is an article that summarizes some of that.

I don't believe in a soft stance on criminals at all. I don't really believe that most of them can 'behave better'

[Pilk Man]

My general attitude on the death penalty is "don't do unto others that which you wouldn't have done unto you".

Although I don't live in a country where the DP is in effect (UK), I know if I lived in the US, I'd be kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

The simple solution if you don't want to be executed is *SHOCK HORROR* don't commit murder! It's not like the criminals are FORCED to commit murder and then UNJUSTLY MURDERED BY THE EVIL STATE BOO HISS, is it? The death penalty is in effect to deter people from lethally violent crime and it must be somewhat effective for it to have lasted this long. The way I see it, if you're happy to take somebody else's life away from them (without a decent reason like the Army etc.), you should be prepared to give yours in punishment.

You do the crime, you do the time/die.

[feeshy]

It's all very well saying that, but 'murder' is as broad an area as 'stealing'. It's a bit different stealing a couple of sweets from a Pick'n'mix than a million ponds from a bank. Some people who kill have mental problems, it could be accidental (yet still technically judged as murder), it could be an unthoight, spur of the moment lashing out that happened to end in a death.

[Svelter]

Killing someone to show that killing is bad is silly.

Pretty much my views on the entire punishment.

[isthisspartalol]

in the united states at least, captl punishment is more expensive than supporting someone in prison for several decades. captl punishment facilities require high and ongoing maintenance, and there is not a steady flow of crims coming thru like there are in prisons, to justify maintenance. so it works out that the individual is costing more to kill than to support in prison.

but who cares how much it costs anyway, i just think killing ppl is lame. don't do it. morals etc.

plus it's very high and mighty of the justice systems that use capital punishment to believe they are so efficient that no one will ever be wrongly put to death. what if new evidence emerges a few years after a convicted crim is killed, oh whoops he's already dead, nuthin we can do, and such. it's JUST SILLY.

put them in the clink, less taxpayers dollars, less immoral, less retarded all round.

[jonffm]

Killing someone to show that killing is bad is silly.

Not expressing a view because the whole debate has been knocked around for so many decades that it's almost pointless.

But...your view is rather...well...wrong, as that isn't the point of capital punishment. The point is for it to act as a deterant as some authorities are of the mind that certain members of society are not even slightly put off by the thought of jail - so to them, they are lawless unto themself. If the punishment doesn't punish you, then it is entirely flawed.

However, (yes...i've putting a SMALL opinion), I do think that jail is a suitable pnishment for the vast majority, and the existance of capital punishment inevitably leads to some cases of criminals being killed when jail is suitable enough.

[katt]

I am always curious why people care so much about the life of someone who murdered a lot of people. Just putting things into perspective

Yes, I know they are still human beings, but they also have done away with other human beings unprovoked. So in effect, they are a lesser human being; far less deserving of concern than their victims.

Not to mention the countless, nameless people around the globe who might be good people who die prematurely each day. And yet people still worry about the lives of mass murderers.

[Splush]

Because if you don't care about their lives then you're as bad as they are. I think people prematurely dying around the world aren't really relevant to this issue because they aren't being executed by the state in the name of its citizens. The untimely death of an innocent is clearly sadder than that of a callous murderer, but the fact is we as a species could stop executing prisoners right now, really easily, whereas preventing random untimely deaths is a rather different task.

[katt]

No. You cannot equate the life of an innocent murder victim to the life of a mass murderer. There are some differences.

not being upset over a mass murderer being executed (who has killed innocent people) does not make you as bad as someone who kills innocent people.

They are never going to get my sympathy (hardened murderers who prey on the innocent). Personally I don't care either way: whether they are executed or locked in jail I don't care what happens to them. So long as they are not let out to hurt anyone else.

edit: and as for the reference to all the unjust deaths on earth: it was merely to put across the relative worthlessness of the life of someone who has seen fit to kill a lot of other people. If good people can (most unfortunately) matter so little on earth then why should we care what happens to the likes of mcveign, bundy, or dahmer.

[Darkscull]

The untimely death of an innocent is clearly sadder than that of a callous murderer, but the fact is we as a species could stop executing prisoners right now, really easily, whereas preventing random untimely deaths is a rather different task.

No. You cannot equate the life of an innocent murder victim to the life of a mass murderer. There are some differences.

???

[katt]

^Because if you don't care about their lives then you're as bad as they are.

such a statement seems to be made with the assumption that the lives are comparable (at least more comparable than i believe them to be).

edit: on a related note, I think prisons need to be made a bit harsher than they are. Don't inmates get tv in addition to free food? sheesh. there are people in third world countries who don't get that.

If someone is to be put away for life for murder then we should not worry if they are having a good enough time.

[Cjw]

I am always curious why people care so much about the life of someone who murdered a lot of people. Just putting things into perspective

I think it's less caring about the murderer and more showing that we aren't going to stoop to the same level as them by killing them/torturing them whatever.

And being locked up in the same building with possible other unsavory types for a very long time....well, a television wouldn't exactly make me feel comfortable.

[katt]

I think it's less caring about the murderer and more showing that we aren't going to stoop to the same level as them by killing them/torturing them whatever.

And being locked up in the same building with possible other unsavory types for a very long time....well, a television wouldn't exactly make me feel comfortable.

Here is an article i just found where a killer boasts about his cushy life in jail:

KILLER'S BOAST OF A CUSHY LIFE IN JAIL
Apr 19 2007

A NOTORIOUS killer has boasted that he is better off serving life in jail than living as a pensioner on the outside.

Michael Sams was given four life sentences in 1993 for the murder of Leeds teenager Julie Dart and the rape and kidnap of estate agent Stephanie Slater.

In a letter to Inside Time, a national newspaper for prisoners, he bragged that his life in HMP Whitemoor, Cambridgeshire, was better than what he could expect on a state pension.

He was responding to a campaign for elderly convicts to receive the state pension.

The one-legged killer, 66, wrote: "How many pensioners, who are totally dependent on the basic state pension and live in rented accommodation, are able to spend around £20 per week on luxuries? "Most struggle to keep warm in winter, afraid to put the heating on, barely eating, let alone getting three square (readymade) meals per day.

"Free access to the gym to keep those joints supple and no bills except for £1 per week TV rental.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=killer-s-boast-of-a-cushy-life-in-jail--&method=full&objectid=18925679&siteid=66633-name_page.html

I definitely don't think they should have tv :P Don't know how widespread this sort of 'its cushy' nyahh attitude about jail is.

But i can understand the concept of not wanting to stoop to their level. I guess the people who support death penalty think removing them permanently from society isnt 'stooping to the same level' as much as the people who don't support it do.

[Pilk Man]

I think it's less caring about the murderer and more showing that we aren't going to stoop to the same level as them by killing them/torturing them whatever.
A punishment should always be fitting for the crime and, frankly, no amount of time in prison is equal punishment for murder.

I don't see the point in keeping somebody alive if they're so shit that they have to be kept locked away forever to keep the public safe. I don't like the thought of my tax money feeding those who rape/murder children and tbh, 9mm is a very cheap munition.

A perfect example is a local chap (with a wife and 10-month old daughter) from my island who was stabbed to death in the high street a year or so ago. The guy that did it stabbed him 3 times in the chest, twice in the back, returned 10 minutes later and stabbed him twice in the heart, killing him. He got 6 years.

Justice? Don't make me laugh.

[katt]

A perfect example is a local chap (with a wife and 10-month old daughter) from my island who was stabbed to death in the high street a year or so ago. The guy that did it stabbed him 3 times in the chest, twice in the back, returned 10 minutes later and stabbed him twice in the heart, killing him. He got 6 years.

.

That is horrible.

What was their justification for giving him such a light sentence ?

[Smartie]

That is horrible.

What was their justification for giving him such a light sentence ?


Because the British justice system is flawed beyond comprehension.
If life meant life then the execution arguement would almost be moot, as there would be no chance of reoffending outside of prison.

in the united states at least, captl punishment is more expensive than supporting someone in prison for several decades. captl punishment facilities require high and ongoing maintenance, and there is not a steady flow of crims coming thru like there are in prisons, to justify maintenance. so it works out that the individual is costing more to kill than to support in prison.

....

put them in the clink, less taxpayers dollars, less immoral, less retarded all round.

Putting prisoners in jail for life does not cost less.
America I think is curious in it's choice to keep prisoners on death row for like 20 years, because surely if you've been convicted and people are resonably certain you're guilty, then why wait? Why does the US prolong the agony for its criminals?

In the UK there's a guy - Ian Brady - who murdered at least 5 children (although it's suggested it's more like 10, possibly as many as 22) and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1966.
He is still in prison now because the Home Secretary decided he should never be freed (a decision which is now no longer possible by politicians due to changes in the law), but has for the last 8 years been FORCE-FED against his wishes to starve himself to death.

Tell me how much money this man is costing the taxpayer to be kept?
It costs £3,700 PER WEEK. That's £192400 PER YEAR (US$ 376,065 or AUS$ 430,238). That's £1,350,558 over the 8 years assuming a 3% inflation rate over the 8 years)
This might be an extreme example, but it serves to prove if this person had been DP sentenced, it would have been considerably cheaper in the long run.
He escaped it only because it had been abolished 5 months previously.
Is it not more barbaric and cruel to keep him alive against his own wishes?

I resent keeping this miserable scum alive with my taxes, when he himself wants to be dead anyway.

[Timmeh]

An interesting point regarding cost - did you know it is, in fact considerably more expensive to execute a prisoner than it would be to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives, even if they were 18 years old committing the offence and planning to live until 110 (at least in the U.S.). The cost of actually going through all of the proceedings to have a criminal executed and the execution itself has an extreme amount of red tape that needs to be cut with enormous cheques. While it could end up not costing that much to execute prisoners here, don't delude yourself that it'd be as cheap as the chemicals you're injecting them with. I agree with (to an extent) Smartie's point about not stopping prisoners from taking their own lives, but only for those who'd never realistically be released - what would happen if, say a 20 year old prisoner who's in for 10 years attempted to kill themselves? Should the authorities intervene then? The criminal justice system is built around rehabilitation and the idea that people can change, so I can hardly see them allowing prisoners to top themselves when there's a good chance for them to see the outside again, officially having paid their dues for the crime. And taking your example in point, how many people are in fact guaranteed to be in prison until the day they die like Brady? I'm guessing it's probably a low enough figure to count on one hand, so while that solitary example stands, I don't suppose it'll occur often enough to give any real consideration in the commons let alone an attempt to change the law in a society that's already morally and legally opposed so suicide.

The main two things that I feel currently suck about our criminal justice system; number one, the release times. Okay, so the sentences imposed by judges are normally reasonably fair - 12 years for murder is the norm (you may be thinking "but that's not much", but consider what you've done in the last 12 years personally... I'm guessing it was a hell of a lot). What's not so great is when these prisoners who were given fair sentences for their crime are paroled after serving just half the time. Of course, if there was no parole, prisoners would have no incentive to behave in prison, and that messes with the notion that everyone there is being rehabilitated. I suppose the best way around this'd be no parole until 3/4 of the sentence is up for violent criminals, or even giving judges the option of giving longer sentences for really violent crimes with the option of saying "no parole until year x". I'm not exactly sure of the best way around this, but I do know that at present, the fact the majority of prisoners'll be out after just half their sentence does make me uneasy. Point number two: prisoners sitting around inside doing sod all being paid for by us. It sounds a bit archaic, but why not have some sort of forced work program? I'm not talking about standing over them with bull whips as they sew nike footballs, but make prisoners put some work in. I know there are work programs in prison at the moment, but they're voluntary and pay some ridiculously low sum (less than 50p an hour in many cases - it's hardly worth it). I'm sure if there was an enforced work program (lasting no longer than a reasonable office day) where your pay packet is directly linked to productivity, prisoners could actually be doing something, earn some money themselves and, from sales of the product be making a fair amount to go towards keeping them housed. Even getting non violent prisoners out for a few hours to do menial jobs for the council - just having prisoners do something has to be better than what could be a large, powerful work force sitting about scratching their arses all day.

[maxxy_p]

I don't see the point in keeping somebody alive if they're so shit that they have to be kept locked away forever to keep the public safe.What if you as an individual killed a murderer? Is that then alright, because they were rubbish at being a person?

[katt]

I respect the belief that executions are stooping to the level of the murderer and are wrong.

What i do not respect is the belief that murderers deserve a 'second chance'. That is taking a gamble with the lives of the general populace. Also, where is the murder victim's 'second chance'?

[Pilk Man]

What if you as an individual killed a murderer? Is that then alright, because they were rubbish at being a person?
No, but then again, I don't administer justice. Just as I don't set tax levels, define the NHS budget or manage international relations.

The thing you must remember is that capital punishment isn't one person killing another. Capital punishment is the combined power of the governmental system of justice deciding that it's not safe to let you live amongst others and prison isn't enough of a punishment to warrant them locking you away. The crimes you have committed are so terrible that the only way to adequetly punish you is to end your life.

And regarding "people change! give people a second chance!" arguments: If you do something so bad that locking you up until the day you die isn't enough of a punishment, you're quite beyond second chances and forgiveness.

[Splush]

I definitely don't think they should have tv :P Don't know how widespread this sort of 'its cushy' nyahh attitude about jail is.
I think it's probably pretty widespread, I think if you're in prison it's important both for your own psychological stability and your social standing within the prison environment that you don't act like prison life phases you. If you sit around crying all day in prison you'd presumably be quickly marked as an easy target by other inmates, and if the state have put you away for life then what better way to spite them than to boast about what a great time you're having?

I don't think I agree about the TV thing, in Britain television is such a basic part of life that taking it away seems as spiteful as taking away books or newspapers. I think it could also add to the problems prisoners have adjusting to life on the outside, popular culture is a huge way of how people connect with each other in society, and if you come out of prison after 20 years without any idea of what the cultural zeitgeist is then it could surely only add to the trauma of trying to reintegrate yourself.

It's hard to imagine that the threat of no TV would act as much of a deterrent for anyone, that somebody would be about to stab somebody but think of the terrifying prospect of spending 10 years without Eastenders and decide against it. For me, any element of incarceration that doesn't act to deter potential criminals or keep dangerous people away from the public is superfluous. And, in the case of that guy serving four life sentences, taking his TV away just seems unnecessarily callous to me.

A punishment should always be fitting for the crime
I don't know why this phrase largely seems to be taken as self-evident. I'd call it old testament logic but if I'm not mistaken you're an atheist. If you subscribe to some idea of karma or something, where justice is a spiritual phenomenon, I can understand the logic of making a murderer suffer as much as possible, but trying to look at it rationally I don't see how this approach is either moral or of any practical use.

[bionic sheep]

Personally, I feel any economic argument is pretty much moot. I would happily pay 90% tax rates and see it all go to prisons rather than have a single person executed in my name.

You're talking about the murder of people you have at your mercy. The way we treat unarmed men who are at our mercy is what seperates civilised society from savages. The idea that it could ever be acceptable to take someone who has no means of defending themselves and kill them in cold blood for economic reasons cuts absolutely no ice here, no matter what their past crimes are.

To argue that their doing it justifies our doing it opens up some absolutely terrible lines of thought in regard to other crimes. Should a rapist suffer what they inflicted on their victim? No, that's sick and immoral. So why a murderer?

If this argument isn't absolutely smacking you between the eyes right now, I'll try and make it a touch clearer:
The reason the state shouldn't - hell, can't - kill people we have at our mercy is because that is what murderers do.

[Pilk Man]

I don't know why this phrase largely seems to be taken as self-evident. I'd call it old testament logic but if I'm not mistaken you're an atheist. If you subscribe to some idea of karma or something, where justice is a spiritual phenomenon, I can understand the logic of making a murderer suffer as much as possible, but trying to look at it rationally I don't see how this approach is either moral or of any practical use.
Maybe I explained it badly, think of it like this.

If somebody mugs you for £100 and runs off, you'd be pretty pissed off, right? If the thief then gets caught and says "Yeah, sorry, here's your £50 back", you'd be like "Oi, you sneaky, thieving twat, where's my other £50?!"

Then they'd get a punishment/fine on top of what they returned to make sure they were on a downer and didn't do it again, right?

So (at least if this makes any sense) if you take a murderer and give him 7 years before letting him out, he's coming out £50 to the good, isn't he? His victim is still dead and rotten but no, he's happy as larry to go back to his life at home. If the theft/crime isn't balanced by the punishment/fine, the criminal keeps the profit, and one of the most basic rules of policing is that you never let the criminal enjoy the proceeds from his criminal exploits. If you do? There's no deterrent from a life of crime.

If potential murderers knew they'd only get a 7-10 year sentence every time, you'd get people starting to weigh up 7-10 years inside against the value of taking out the person they're targeting. With the possibility of the death sentence in place, you at least create a somewhat demoralising uncertainty in the back of the criminal's mind.

For this reason, I believe murder should carry EITHER a high chance of a death penalty or at the very least, a 30 year prison sentence. And none of this parole after 7 years rubbish. Maybe a year or two off for good behaviour, if he's lucky.

If he doesn't like life inside/being hung, injected or electrocuted? Tough shit, he shouldn't have murdered in the first place.

[Splush]

Well I do agree that the lengths of sentences for violent crimes that are often reported are silly, people should certainly expect to get more much more than 7 years for murder or we'd all be murdering each other willy-nilly.

The bit I took issue with was: "A punishment should always be fitting for the crime and, frankly, no amount of time in prison is equal punishment for murder." Maybe I'm reading too much into one line, but it sounds a lot like punishment for punishment's sake to me. I'd agree that lifelong imprisonment isn't equal to murder, but I'd disagree with the idea that the prisoner should be necessarily be subjected to a torment equal to the one he's been guilty of putting somebody else through. If we convict somebody of murder in the first degree and we give them a genuine life sentence, that's all we need to do, and all we have a moral right to do. It keeps that person from murdering anybody else and it's a serious enough sentence to act as a deterrent to any potential murderers paying attention. If, with those practical necessities taken care of, we begin to concern ourselves with whether that person's time in jail is tortuous enough, we're acting like the same sort of monsters we're supposed to be sentencing.

I'm not picking on you, because that eye-for-an-eye mentality is everywhere, but I just don't get it.

I suppose this is a bit off-topic, because it's just about general approaches to justice rather than necessarily to do with execution. Although I think that sort of righteous vengeance approach is important to the issue of execution. It seems to be that if somebody supports execution then it's either because they feel we have a moral right and responsibility to exact righteous retribution upon evil-doers (i.e. killers deserve to be killed), or because of more practical reasons (i.e. why should we spend money keeping these people alive?). But both of these are morally suspect to me, it's either saying "it's right for us to have power of life or death over other people", or it's saying "I'll sell my moral integrity for the sake of convenience or tax cuts".

[Shiyiya]

I'm actually going to comment on the program's content, since nobody else seems to be doing so.

I see any of the science described as somewhat...superfluous. If you're looking for a quick, painless and efficient way to kill people quickly (and with no chance of it going wrong), just kneel them in a field and shoot them in the head?

Ok, it's a little messy, but the fact is that you don't survive being shot in the head, point-blank. You don't feel any pain (or rather you're not alive long enough for the pain to mean anything to you), you die quickly, and it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to do it wrong.

All of this "do it humanely" stuff is approaching the bawlucks stage. It strikes me that the humanity behind the act is now over-taking the necessity to get the job done quickly.

I have to comment on this, there was a guy on Ripley's BION who had been shot, an execution, seven guns one of them firing a blank so all the guys could think it wasn't them what actually killed the guy, blah blah blah, and he had six bullets go through his head, AND HE SURVIVED. His head looked damned weird. They let him off the death penalty, as I recall, because it seemed he wasn't meant to die or sommat.

hehehe judging by his shameless quote collections it sounds like it would be impossible not to fall his sweet words (that was sarcasm :P)

anyway i agree with the death penalty for mass murderers/serial killers and extreme cases of treason (ie putting your entire country in danger). Basically my feeling is there are some murderers society would be better off without and the fact we have the luxury to sit and worry about whether they live or die shows that we have become a society that has too much time and has forgotten to put things into perspective.

I am talking about the worst of the mass murderers .... not anything less than serial killers/mass murderers.

I knew, online, a guy who ended up killing four people, at two churches. He was extremely mentally sick and ended up taking his own life after a security guard shot and wounded him. But, what should have been done with him had he lived? Should he have gotten the death penalty for finally snapping and going out to massacre random innocent Christians? (He called his shootings Christian America's Columbine. Look up Matthew John Murray, in Denver, Colorado. Youth With A Mission and the New Life church.)

Something to remember though (although the thread isn't about it as such) is that the programme wasn't anything to do with whether the death penalty is right or wrong. It was merely saying 'there's been a lot of problems with various methods, so let's see how they're done and how they work'. And also 'while we don't have the death penalty, most of America does and isn't likely to get rid of it anytime soon'.

I'm really not sure where I stand on crime and punishment at all. On both the death penalty and life (proper life) sentences. It all seems so... pointless. Presuming to have either of these you'd have to have done something pretty damn awful, simply living out your days locked up somewhat (presuming you're well behaved etc) isn't really much of a punishment, is it? Being cynical, the death penalty is probably better economically (ethics is all well and good, but isn't always practical) as there's no chance of reoffending, saves money, space, and is probably more of a deterrent (even if not much of one). Optional death for lifers perhaps? Sounds a bit silly, but that sort of combines both ideas. By the time you want to die, that's the peak of the punishment. As I said, I'm not sure, so don't take it meaningfull-y.

This is one of the main arguments I can see *for* the death penalty, that it's economical. Because feeding and clothing people for the rest of their lives on taxpayer dollars is pretty steep. On the flip side of that coin is my main argument against it, that the person in question might not actually be guilty. Then again, they get so many appeals it's completely ridiculous, so that risk is fairly small, but still. The death of even one innocent is inexcuseable.

Oh, and I think optional death sounds like a good idea, but I'm pro-choice on the issue of suicide, I think that all people should have the right to die if they want to, so I'm not a fair sample of opinion on that one :P

I live, by the way, in Arizona, in the United States, and I actually don't know if my state has the death penalty, I'd have to check wikipedia.

yes but can you offer a 100 percent gurantee that they will never go free again (whether through parole, escape etc etc)?

Although I see your point.

I am not even entirely sure what legal distinctions are made between killers who remain behind bars and killers who are executed in the states that have legal executions. I suppose it has something to do with numbers of people, state of mind and intentions (ie planning it out in detail vs getting angry in a bar fight).

Interestingly the republican candidate huckabee (Whom i do not support at all) has come under criticism for his soft stance on criminals (offering pardons etc). He freed one rapist who eventually murdered someone.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071210/D8TEKRSO1.html here is an article that summarizes some of that.

I don't believe in a soft stance on criminals at all. I don't really believe that most of them can 'behave better'

Generally, crimes of passion, in which there is unlikely to be a repeat offense, the prosecution is unlikely to seek the death penalty. Also, women are less likely to get the death penalty unless they're crazed mass murderers or something, because people's gender perceptions haven't really changed. Assisted suicides are also not going to end up with the death penalty. Even if it's an angel of death type thar's killed dozens and is technically a serial killer.

Mass murderers, serial killers, extremely brutal murders, likely repeat offenders, and murderer-rapists are more likely cases for the prosecution to seek the death penalty.

I watch a ridiculous number of crime TV shows and know a lot in general about the American legal system (Not all from TV - I'm not a complete idiot, I don't think that tells the whole story in some hour-long TV drama)

[Gabber-Baby]

Apologies that i haven't read every single post in this thread. I do understand what alot of people are saying about the death penalty and how it is also "murder" but to be fair, getting served 12 years for raping a 2 week old baby is hardly justified. MUCH longer sentences need to be handed out at least. Don't alot of prisons these days have satellite television and other things seen as "luxuries" to prisoners? That's wrong, people are in prison for a reason and they should be treated that way.

Some of these killers and perverts really do not get enough punishment. Ok, so alot of them really are mentally ill but if someone killed both my parents i'd sure as hell want to see their killer executed, same as any other person i think.

I have seen a couple of programmes in the past about death row in America, and some of the cases do seem harsh and perhaps execution isn't necessary for their crimes. I do believe in the death penalty but only in extreme cases.

Also, the electric chair i think is a little too old skool and i dont agree with that choice of execution, same with hanging really - too medieval.

Yeah, the death penalty is a horrible thing to think about but at the end of the day, killers need to pay for what they've done and a few years in prison isnt enough sometimes.

[Roachy]

Killing a killer, makes you a killer and maybe you should be killed too.

(This isn't directed at anybody)

[gembird]

As much as I disagree with the death penalty, I do think that life should mean life. 12 years for murder is bloody ridiculous; in the case of killing deliberately it's not a suitable punishment. Obvously if someone was under severe stress at the time it isn't the same circumstance, and the case should be treated accordingly. But if there is little or no remorse for what they have done then the sentence should be longer for that reason, as they clearly aren't well adjusted for life in the outside world.

[katt]

I only believe in the death penalty for the most extreme of crimes (as an example: Ok city bombing timothy mcveign). I guess I believe some evil is so bad that it needs to be done away with once and for all.

I also believe that there are crimes that are horrific enough for the perpertrator to literally not deserve life.

It might be considered either an emotional reaction or a logical one. Emotional in the (perceived?)need for revenge. Or logical in the realization that someone who has killed 100 people is best eliminated, once and for all, as a future threat (especially considering how precarious life is on earth in the first place; why should an evil person's life who has already shown the utmost disrespect for the lives of others be worried about)

anyway 12 years is nowhere near enough time for someone to be in prison for murder. its sort of disgusting really; that after 12 years they could get a second chance when their victim never will.

[Cap'n Hair]

I also believe that there are crimes that are horrific enough for the perpertrator to literally not deserve life.

You say this as if life is a privilege given to people by the government.

[katt]

You say this as if life is a privilege given to people by the government.

no i believe life is a privilege given to people by god.

I believe that a crime such as murder is done against the victim and his friends/family in particular and against humanity in general; not the government. I believe the government's duty is to act on behalf of the people it serves.

I certainly don't think the government should let out those who murder in 12 years. If a government does this then they should not pretend to care about the lives of murderers (out of a professed regard for life in general) since they are risking the lives of innocent people by releasing murderers back into the fold.

[Cap'n Hair]

Then shouldn't it be the family's (as opposed to the government's) choice whether or not the criminal gets the death penalty?

If life is a privilege given to people by god, he should be the only one with the ability to take the privilege away. Who are the family and the government to act on behalf of god?

I agree with you that only 12 years isn't a suitable punishment for murder, but I also think that jail time is a more satisfying revenge than a death penalty because the criminal suffers. I suppose I would rather have him killed than out on the street, but a life sentence would be the best option, in my opinion.

[captain canuck]

You say this as if life is a privilege given to people by the government. In a wierd sense it probably is the case, for katt, and anyone else living where she does. According to the collective legal documents which define the Health System in the United States, citizens are effectively commodities in and of themselves. Life itself, as a fundamental property of human Health, is indeed a privelage given so that those commodities will produce more capital gain for the system as a whole.

I'm off on a tangent, of course. I've already expressed my views on Capital Punishment in threads like this twice since I joined here, though. Dig one of those up and read it, if you must know ;)

[katt]

In a wierd sense it probably is the case, for katt, and anyone else living where she does. According to the collective legal documents which define the Health System in the United States, citizens are effectively commodities in and of themselves. Life itself, as a fundamental property of human Health, is indeed a privelage given so that those commodities will produce more capital gain for the system as a whole.

I'm off on a tangent, of course. I've already expressed my views on Capital Punishment in threads like this twice since I joined here, though. Dig one of those up and read it, if you must know ;)

what the devil are you on about LOL. and don't presume to think for me and others from my country

our health system is not out of the government; it is managed privately through insurance

that has absolutely nothing to do with the government thinking they have control over life. If anything a government health scheme shows that the government thinks they have control over life and death more than a private scheme does

[captain canuck]

Subtle humour is truly lost on you, isn't it.

[katt]

Subtle humour is truly lost on you, isn't it.

it is often hard to tell over the internet via text if someone is actually crazy (according to your relative conception of what crazy is)in a debate or is trying to be funny

I have been misunderstood in such a manner myself a few times; the latest time being when i was going on about the 'unwashed masses' sarcastically. So i generally prefer to just not make any attempts whatsoever at humor :D

[captain canuck]

If the U.S. government didn't think they have control over the lives of their citizens, why is it that capital punishment is not outright disallowed? Is that not a determination of precisely what I describe? It is a control over death, and therefore life by analogy.

Canada abolished the death penalty over 30 years ago because of, among other reasons, "concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals" (that's right from one of the documents pertaining to the decision, btw) - i.e. the government, even in the case of criminals, decided it had no right to control the death (and by association life) of a citizen.

[katt]

If the U.S. government didn't think they have control over the lives of their citizens, why is it that capital punishment is not outright disallowed? Is that not a determination of precisely what I describe? It is a control over death, and therefore life by analogy.
.

Isn't throwing someone in jail for many years having control over the lives of citizens?

The difference between a free man and one in jail is the one in jail made the choices to land him there; by his actions he gave up his rights to act as a free man.

The difference between those who support the death penalty and those who do not is that the proponents feel that some crimes are so horrible that the murderer has forfeited his own right to life.

It is simple enough to completely avoid any potential penalty for murder: do not take the lives of other humans.

[captain canuck]

This might come as a surprise to you, but I respect your opinion inasmuch as this is a very sticky argument that has positive and negative consequences on both sides. I object more often than not, when you veer from debate into personally dismissive territory. I.e.

according to your relative conception of what crazy is

These petty attacks and overgeneralizations are generally why I have issues with your style of "debating"; you confuse rationality with emotion, deliberately remove contexts from others' statements in order to reinterpret and misuse what they said, and tend to assume any constructive criticism of American policy and institutions is a personal attack, most of the time putting words in the mouths of others in the process.

I can't help but be amused by your failed attempt to minus me, though. Thanks for that laugh.

[katt]

This might come as a surprise to you, but I respect your opinion inasmuch as this is a very sticky argument that has positive and negative consequences on both sides. I object more often than not, when you veer from debate into personally dismissive territory. I.e.



These petty attacks and overgeneralizations are generally why I have issues with your style of "debating"; you confuse rationality with emotion, deliberately remove contexts from others' statements in order to reinterpret and misuse what they said, and tend to assume any constructive criticism of American policy and institutions is a personal attack, most of the time putting words in the mouths of others in the process.

I can't help but be amused by your failed attempt to minus me, though. Thanks for that laugh.

yeah ok whatever. i misunderstood your seriousness in one post because it was text on the internet in a serious debate thread. (and i still think it was an insult to americans of sorts on an unrelated topic...why don't i get out the big book of canuck healthcare flaws and start posting the dirt on your healthcare system)

Now you complain about petty attacks yada yada yada yada when its you who did the most heavy duty personal attacks on this page of replies (this post is an exception yes?).

you fail at being worthy of debating with. you have spent more time whinging on this thread than replying about the death penalty which is the topic at hand

there are plenty of people i disagree with whom i would not describe as whinging and failing to be worthy of debating with. next!

[jonffm]

These petty attacks and overgeneralizations are generally why I have issues with your style of "debating"; you confuse rationality with emotion, deliberately remove contexts from others' statements in order to reinterpret and misuse what they said, and tend to assume any constructive criticism of American policy and institutions is a personal attack, most of the time putting words in the mouths of others in the process.

I can't help but be amused by your failed attempt to minus me, though. Thanks for that laugh.

Everyone debating, carry on. Idiots. Read.


Okay, place putting time.

The post I saw in which you ended with the most pompus line i've seen today, "I've debated this before, dig up another thread if you must read my opinions.", acting as though your opinion was that critical that someone would actually bother doing that. I thought the spew of self-rightousness was going to end there....but LUCKY US! You summoned the energy to post your nothing opinion anyway. Thank you. Reallly.

This thread is about the PRINCIPLES of capital punishment. What I mean by that, as I feel I have to explain, is your own personal view on the subject. Personal view. Not the states view, not a neighbouring country of whom you rarely go 2-3 posts in a debate without mentioning, your OWN. The whole point of a thread like this is because the political implications mean that no universal answer will ever be found in terms of states or governments, but this way we get indfividual person views on it. But it seems subtle underlying meanings are lost on you. ;)

You, though, seem intent on turning this - like most 'debates' you enter, into some more mud slinging against the american government. The funny thing is, I actually agree with most points you made about the american government. However, I actually don't want to go through my life not being able to have a debate without the mention of america nor americans government.

So, either express and debate an opinion about the subject matter, or leave. Choice is yours. But don't start hounding people giving their opinions. I'd much rather talk to katt about it, as I think the religious viewpoint is a very valid one. I do not think the same about that of the anti-american viewpoint.


On a final note. Firslty, I find it deliciously ironic that you would bash someones debating skills, when you yourself have actually used the "LOL, I was joking" line in a serious debating thread. Frankly, how the hell are we meant to know whicyh of your anti-america chants are jokes and which are not? Sarcasm doesn't transmit via text, unfortunatly. (Oh, and I rolled my eyes when I said unfortunatly to denote sarcasm. Irony.) On the same topic, since your debating skills seem so important, I do believe that real skill in debating comes from the tact of being able to put across sometimes contraversial and oppositing views without seeming pompus, high-horsing or condescending. At this, you fail, so where does that leave your own skills. Secondly, since you care so much about rep, as anyone must do if they would actually laugh at an attempt to negative rep...(interesting sense of humor)...I have neg'ed you FOR katt. I hope you also find this as highly amusing. We all need a good laugh in the morning.

However, I know none of this will actually get through, as your debating image is so damn important to you. So I won't even bother with it from here in, as I feel no need to reply to the witless dry responce that will no doubt follow. If you MUST have my opinion, PM me.

Oh hay, I can be condescending too :ultra:

End.

[katt]

haha. well its one thing to mudsling against the american govt on a related topic. I dont think the american govt is above criticism.

its another to mudsling on an unrelated topic with the preceding phrase 'katt and anyone living where she is' in lieu of 'the american govt' lmao

[Shiyiya]

*raises her hand*

If you're talking about government controlling the lives of its citizens, I'm sorry but you have just hit a major sore point with me. The government forces people to live. ANYBODY should have the right to die if they want to, and to have someone help them make it quick and painless without fear of consequences. If you think that people have a right to life, and the government has no right to take that life away from them, then how to poeple not have the right to die if they want to? The goverment is force-feeding its Chriatian pro-life agenda to us *shakes fist*

Sorry, that was a bit offtopic I think, but I'm VERY pro-choice on the issue of suicide and it is reasonably related to the subject at hand.

[katt]

Hmm I think the reason they don't have easily available suicides is that more people would kill themselves if there were easy, less messy ways of doing it. And chances are alot of these people would be people who think their situation is a lot worse than it is and later on would be glad to be alive.

I guess it is in place to prevent people from making poor choices about their life on a whim.

The government does not prevent people from taking their own lives in the end. It only refuses to support businesses which render it as a service out of concern for whether the people who turned to such a service would be thinking straight at the moment.


The assisted suicide for those who are suffering from an extreme terminal illness that is giving them a ton of pain is a slightly different issue. I think that has more proponents than suicide mills for everyone

[Splush]

I suppose the death penalty could be used for political reasons, with the government executing a political prisoner instead of allowing them to stay alive (albeit incarcerated) and continue to promote their agenda. I know it's happened in China, and I expect it happened in all of the other authoritarian dictatorships. It seems unlikely this would happen somewhere like britain though, because a martyr is just as effective as a living activist, if not more so. Although it raises the question why, in britain, high treason still warranted the death penalty decades after murder stopped warranting it.

I think it's hard to argue that this isn't an issue of government control, either way. Obviously the justice system is all about handing a degree of control over to the government by necessity, but executing prisoners seems beyond the realm of necessity to me.

[Lawrence]

Capital punishment removes bad people from the human gene pool. =)

[doctor_fruitbat]

It also removes good people occasionally, and that is simply unforgivable.

[Darkscull]

there's also no evidence that 'bad' is a transferable trait.

[gembird]

Capital punishment removes bad people from the human gene pool. =)

I think 'bad' is a little bit simple really. Nobody is totally good or bad- Hitler hated cruelty to animals, but he was fine with cruelty to some people. I believe that it's the things someone does rather than the person themselves that can be judged as being good or bad.

It also removes good people occasionally, and that is simply unforgivable.

I agree, if someone is jailed for something they didn't do it wastes years of their life, but they still have a life. If they're executed, it doesn't matter if they are later found innocent because nothing can be done about it- you can't release someone from death.

there's also no evidence that 'bad' is a transferable trait.

Again, I agree. My biology brain loved that post :) now I can pretend to be smart. Basically, people aren't genetically predisposed to do things that are wrong, but if they have something that is wrong with them mentally (which may be inherited) then certain events in their life may cause them to be more likely to do something they shouldn't. That sounds very vague, but I hope at least some people know what I'm trying to say. If not, I'll try to explain if anyone asks- I just don't want to get into complicated descriptions of something I don't completely understand myself.