capital punishment or not

I opose the death sentence on two grounds, first it is an easy way out. Life in my book ought to mean life and with less emphesis on rehabilitation and more on punishment.

Secondly how can we trust the state when over the years there have been numerouse miss trials not to mention more sinister things sutch as rendition etc.

A deterent the death sentnce is not, crime rates in those countries that have it are as high or higher than those that dont. The only differance is usually were there is a death sentence they are farr more strict with minor crimes.

 

So, what are you going to do about the "punishment". Make them run round in circles carrying logs? I've been subject to this and all it makes you do is to show to your fellow inmates how "tough" you are.

Nobody trusts the "state". You have to find a different solution to the "state".


This argument doesn't make any sense. We're not America or Armenia or Turkey or Gambia or anywhere else, we happen to live in the U.K.

 

Interesting...

I would like to add if I may, economic decisions can in no way justify moral ones. There is a solution it just hasn't been thought of yet.

On a slightly different note, I find as our society becomes more dilute in nationality and more accepting of foriegn people and cultures, the standards by which we define decency, morality and the expectations we place on the state to protect us from criminality are almost impossible to meet. Human life is becoming ever cheaper and I think it would be sad to cheapen it further by endorsing state executions.

That said, touch my car and I will no longer support cancer research, chop off your hands and offer my services for hire as Banana Hit-Man Ltd.

:D

 

Hi, B.M. Yeah, I know what you're saying but we are still happy with the "state" killing people in our name,(see the previous message). Can't see the difference between this.
You're still killing people.
Appreciate the "oil on the water" sentiment but we're still killing people. Maybe a Peado's life is worth more than an innocent child in Iraq? Your choice.

 

The weekends are a busy time for me. I'll catch you later

 

I'm sorry but if someone committs a crime against my family I could not count on the state to meter out the appropriate punishment,I would sort it out myself no matter how far I had to go (an eye for an eye)

 

Might I recommend Banana Hit-Man Ltd :D

Certainly not but you can't compare foreign policy and domestic policy and expect to balance out a perception of fairness that will appeal to everyone. Peados wouldn't get the death penalty and that child might very well have been putting a grenade in a soldiers boot ?

The fact remains that the state should be leading by example, and personal resolution is a different matter. To forgive or seek revenge is something I hope we never have to choose between.

I can't remember the lady's name but she went on TV last year after her son was murdered. She said that she forgave the people that killed her son. I thought she was amazing !

 

''So, what are you going to do about the "punishment". Make them run round in circles carrying logs? I've been subject to this and all it makes you do is to show to your fellow inmates how "tough" you are.''

****I feel that prison is viewed by many as an easy option ie tv acsess, use of internet, choices of food etc. To me the purpose of prison for those serving a life sentence should be punishment, esentials eg food and excercise but not tv etc. For murder a Life sentence should be a life sentence.

Clearly a lot of people do trust the state however you only have to look into GBs role in rendition to feel unnease. Remember the bloke arested under the terorrism act 2 years ago for heckling at the labour conference?

Not to mention examples sutch as the guy convicted for the murder of jill dando largely on the basis gun shot residue, evidence viewed by many countries as unnadmisable.

[ 20. October 2007, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Pro Gard ]

 

Hi guys. P.G. I can't argue with you. I've never trusted the "state" or "authority" I was actually part of it for a while. All I'm doing is the "theory" bit. With a little practical knowledge thrown in.
B.M. It would depend on what the Peado. had done. It's not so much revenge, more to what is the point of keeping them alive? You're going to incarcerate them forever, for what purpose?
I don't think that a bomb from a 'plane , landing in the wrong place, has anything to do with a, possibly, child carrying out a violent attack. I think you missed my point, mate.
Having said all that, I would always be scared of a "wrong" conviction and I'm not sure how you "square" that circle.

 

I'm with Walnut on this one do onto others as they do to you!
Helen.xxx.

 

hello
i'm for you helen but... there have been mistakes. i'm just playing devils advocat here (is that right? or a drink?)
i know dna etc proves 99.9% or whatever, but what about the other .1%? if you were convicted of a crime you didn't commit you would want that pointed out.
on the other hand, i say let the 'nasty' people of this world die. why should we keep them? it's not a financial problem for me just that, half the time people in prison get a better life than some outside. yes they have tv's, access to the internet (which has proved to cause other problems) etc.
to me, going in prison would be awful. a little word at the end of that sentance. but truy awful. to others, in & out, it means nothing. they get food & shelter, help, & drugs etc apparently. and then help when they come out.
I have a son.... i hate the thought of him ending there, i say ending maybe i mean beginning. however i know that if he went in prison he would come out harder, tougher etc than when he went in.
so, even before i had my son i knew the world wasn't black & white. much before i used to think it was all black & white.
i think there should be capital punishment. well that's my pc, phone lines etc logged now!! but i do. there are people out there that are evil. i don't why they do it. i think that they should be given some help but it's difficult to know who's wrong - the physiciatrist or the patient. seriously. some of the 'best' physcio-analyists et at have been diagnosed with mental disorders at the end of their lives or before!
truly s**t people should be done away with, no more hurting people. no prob. i would pull a trigger. would i actuallly? i don't know. if there was someone who was in my house & going to hurt us, yes. i think. of course you would. outside, so. i wouldn't have a gun. but if i was young these days & they thought it was cool to have it. well who knows what you would do with it. the adrenalin gets going, what would be a fist fight years ago, goes into gun fighting.
how bad. sounds flippant here. but don't mean that.
so am i going round in circles here? is no-one going to answer?
i hate the thought of people suffering needlessly, i hate the thought of people getting 'life' when they don't deserve it, but i want horrible people to die. cruelly.
so if it can be proved, let them be gone.
flipping heck.
i have to go to the bathroom now.

 

I was going to keep out of this because what we say on here, will not be listened to by the 'powers that be' anyway. But I have decided that this is a moral issue and I really was just keeping out of it to avoid (another) argument, which will make a change 'cos I usually argue only about gardening matters nowadays.

I believe it basically boils down to one question, with riders. That question is, 'Does Society (I won't say the state - that is an emotive term) have the right to take life any more than the individual does? Especially as society as a group makes mistakes.

You could argue that it does have the right to protect its members. So that then begs the question 'Does the death penalty prevent murder?' The answer, as has been pointed out, is clearly, looking at societies that have the death penalty, 'No, it doesn't'.

So then we have to ask the question 'Is society made better by killing those who have killed, as opposed to just removing them from circulation, in any way?' Well the only way society can be made better by doing that (they're removed anyway, it's just that one way is permanent) is financially. But actually the cost of keeping someone in prison is not quite as high as people think. You still need to pay the prison officers no matter if 500 or 501 prisoners are in the clink. You still need to keep your prisons running, so building upkeep is the same. You still need your judicial system, your police force etc. etc. So the extra is food, clothing and medical care and a few paltry things, which are not expensive. They are quickly absorbed when you think that the last state hangman and other staff connected with a 'civilised' execution, in the UK were paid, at today's prices, �£50,000 an execution.

People say, 'I would do it for free', but, to quote a well known advert, 'It doesn't work like that.' The killer may be appalling but the death of the killer has to be seen to be humane (if a muderer is inhuman or insane, society must not be either of those (look at Nazi Germany, an insane society) in the eyes of the world.

So there is only one argument left for capital punishment. We have to start by asking the question 'Why punish?' There are various obvious reasons, reform, rehabilitation, protection of society, example setting (pour encourager les autres) and some lesser ones as well but these are all discredited by the real world. The only thing left is the one extolled by Emanuel Kant, RETRIBUTION. REVENGE. The families of murdered people in the USA mainly say that having the killer killed will make them feel better, but after the execution most say that it does not.

If you believe that revenge is a valid reason for society to take a life then you must support the death penalty. If you believe that it is not a valid reason, then you should oppose it.

Remember, many die who deserve to live, and many live that, possibly, deserve to die. If you think that you can differentiate between who these people are then you are setting yourself up as either the President of the United States or God.

Now I got to go to the loo as well and then another litre of martini before the match.

 

Sorry John, I read every word of that, And didn't agree with any of it.
Too much soul searching for me.

Match? what match. :D

 

Pete. I haven't actually reached any conclusion. I just presented the argument as put by the late Sir Karl Popper, who is accepted by academics and philosophers the (free) world over as the greatest moral philosopher, epistemologist and logician of modern times. Where is the soul searching? It simply says 'Look at the evidence and then decide.' But of course the 'strip 'em and whip 'em brigade simply think the evidence is.... I hate murderers therefore kill 'em. Not many people would argue with hating them. Everybody hates 'em. The question is beyond that simplistic view, 'I hate 'em, therefore let's kill 'em' It simply asks, 'Is that necessarily the best way of dealing with them, for societies sake?' I hate lots of people. I think stupidity should be illegal. But I don't want to kill the stupids, even though they are the people that cause death on the road and in the work place and in the home (and in the garden). Politicians that send our soldiers off on unnecessary wars that are nothing to do with us are stupid. But you can't kill 'em all, except for revenge.

Maybe we should make dismissing the arguments of one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century (yes last century, died I think about 1998) with the words.. 'too much soul searching for me' illegal. That certainly is NOT a conclusive argument (sorry nearly said killing argument).
:D

PS Einstein you stink. Cos I don't understand you.