Death penalty

[David Bailey]

And now for something completely different...

Given the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial, and the fun it was watching Blair try to oppose the death penalty but support the Iraqi govenment decision, I wondered what people's opinions were in general, and why?

I'll kick off.

I'm against it in all but the most extreme circumstances - i.e. those circumstances where proof is incontrovertible, and where the penalty would otherwise be life imprisonment without hope of release. Multiple serial killers, basically - the Shipmans, the Wests and so on.

What do you think?

[Paul F]

I remember having a nice discussion on here on this particular topic.

Im all for it when, as you say, there are multiple pieces of definate evidence i.e. repeated offender (of course I am in no position to say what definate evidence is)

The main argument those against it come up with is the one that suggests those wrongly convicted willl be executed. This, of course, is a concern but for extreme cases where the offender has committed the same horific offence and has been tried and convicted then yes. I would prefer to see him/her/it be put to death.

I would stress though I only think this for repeat offenders.

Im a bit confused as to the difference between "extreme cases" and "where appropriate"?

[stewart38]

I remember having a nice discussion on here on this particular topic.

Yes takes me back

Im far more in favour of community stuff for the harder criminal

thats should start off a a nice friday debate

[Shodan]

I believe in real justice in this world, not someone going out and killing a bunch of people, then being told they are a naughty person and sentenced to a life in prison. A prison where they get fed and clothed and looked after by us taxpayers and get creature comforts and stuff.

If a killer is proved a killer (beyond doubt) then they should be executed.

And as for our prisons at the moment, the prisoners there should be made to work a full days work doing suitable jobs for the betterment of the public.

Now I'm a nice guy, so can't see why people in this world should do naughty things. So I believe naughtiness should be better punished.

The death penalty and so forth would also strike fear into the wrong-doers in our country and make them think twice about commiting crimes. At the moment criminals know that their lawyer will either get them off immediately, or they'll be sentenced to life imprisonment but then only do a few years and let out on good behaviour and then do more crimes.

A better punishment system would be a good deterent.

Note: Purely the opinion of this author only.

[Caro]

I have to say I STRONGLY disagree with all the above, to me death penalty isn't excusable on any grounds.
Although I do understand why people would like to see the worst crimicals, for whom there is no doubt, executed, I still fundamentally disagree with the principle.

To me, a State cannot decide on who lives and who doesn't. We punish people from taking other's life, and yet we, as an organised state, would want to do the same???

I think it is paramount to differenciate the emotional reaction that makes death penalty acceptable for some from the rational, cold logic of a state that applies justice.

There's two things here,
1. we all agree that the fact of taking a life is reprehensible - hence we cannot allow our very own justice to do that
2. are we still in the age of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?' even if in that case it's 'your life for the hundreds you have taken' it still is a derivative of that principle, which I think is just fundamentally wrong. Surely we are more clever than that?
To take a trivial comparison, it's like giving a slap to your kid because he has hit another kid....

[David Bailey]

Im a bit confused as to the difference between "extreme cases" and "where appropriate"?

For the purposes of this thread, my definition (and I'll admit it's a woolly one), of "extreme cases" would be that all of the following conditions are met:

• There is incontrovertible proof - ideally, a confession and rock-solid evidence.
• The criminal is a monster - multiple murderer, basically, on several different occasions.
• There's no hope of rehabiliation or of release (real life imprisonment)

So, from recent memory, that'd include Sutcliffe, the Wests, Shipman, and similar.

However, note that this would not include either the 7/7 bombers (if they were around), or Ian Huntley.

Hope that's clear.

[David Bailey]

There's two things here,
1. we all agree that the fact of taking a life is reprehensible - hence we cannot allow our very own justice to do that
2. are we still in the age of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?' even if in that case it's 'your life for the hundreds you have taken' it still is a derivative of that principle, which I think is just fundamentally wrong. Surely we are more clever than that?

Dunno - I'm almost certainly not more clever than that.

But the trouble with adopting an abolutist approach to the death penalty is that you then have to define an absolutist approach to abortion, to be consistent. OK, you can weasel out by saying that life only begins at birth or whatever, but that's a cop-out.

Whatever else you say about the Catholic Church, it is at least consistent on this issue, unlike both the extreme positions of the USA - pro-lifers are also typically pro-death penalty, and vice versa.

[Caro]

Dunno - I'm almost certainly not more clever than that.

But the trouble with adopting an abolutist approach to the death penalty is that you then have to define an absolutist approach to abortion, to be consistent. OK, you can weasel out by saying that life only begins at birth or whatever, but that's a cop-out.

Whatever else you say about the Catholic Church, it is at least consistent on this issue, unlike both the extreme positions of the USA - pro-lifers are also typically pro-death penalty, and vice versa.

sorry may be the biblic reference was misleading, I am not a catholic at all I don't believe in god.

I just think that if the ethic of a state is to condamn assassination, then it cannot organise one, whatever the reason. As simple as that.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I just think that if the ethic of a state is to condamn assassination, then it cannot organise one, whatever the reason. As simple as that.

Indeed. Abortion is personal choice about your own body as a woman and is hardly the same thing as government run executions

[David Bailey]

sorry may be the biblic reference was misleading, I am not a catholic at all I don't believe in god.

I'm not a Catholic either - it was just an example. I certainly don't endorse the Catholic faith (although they do have good schools )

I just think that if the ethic of a state is to condamn assassination, then it cannot organise one, whatever the reason. As simple as that.

And that's a perfectly acceptable position to have.

But would you also advocate witholding any state support for abortion advice or treatment? And what about family planning, contraception and so on?

Indeed. Abortion is personal choice about your own body as a woman and is hardly the same thing as government run executions

Only if your premise is that life begins at the exact moment of birth and no sooner.

[Caro]

But would you also advocate witholding any state support for abortion advice or treatment? And what about family planning, contraception and so on?

Are you seriously comparing contraception to an organised assassination by a state

sorry running out of time to discuss on abortion but will come back to that later....

[David Bailey]

Are you seriously comparing contraception to an organised assassination by a state

Nope, I'm wondering if you can admit there's some inconsistency in the "Pro-choice but anti-death-penalty" position, in that they both involve termination of a human life.

Note that I'm using non-emotive words here - it's easy to win an argument by saying "family planning is nicer than assassination", it's a bit harder by saying "abortion is nicer than the death penalty". So I'd appreciate "death penalty" rather than "assassination", they are different.

I'll clarify my position: I believe that abortion is horrible, it's traumatic, and there should be less of them. I also believe that it should be safe and legally-available, but I'd like it to be much less of a lifestyle choice, and there should be much more support (counselling etc.) for the poor woman who has to go through it.

Therefore, my position is demonstrably consistent on both of these issues. They're both bad, but I'd avoid being a complete absolutist either way.

[Magic Hans]

... Sounds to me like people might have differing opinions of how life is defined.

It is black and white? Having a pulse good enough for being alive? Or consiousness in there as well?

I personally don't see it as black and white at all, but on a more psycho-emotive level.

How much (or less) 'alive' is the person scaling the North face of the Eiger, or circumnavigating the globe, compared with someone, say, living on TV, sleep and drugs every day ... or with alzeimers or some other degenerative mental disorder [I'm not saying that there is any right or wrong in this]? The same? It is, of course, a personal judgement, and an argument that I can't really disprove, but certainly disagree with.

As for the death penalty .... well, seeing as we, as a society, are very quite cr*p at rehabilitating those that we, as a society, condemn, then we might as well take all of their life away.

Personally, I would like to believe that we, as a society, were creative enough to find ways to rehabilitate those who we adjudge to have wronged us.

[Shodan]

Its good to see everyones views on this. I know mine above are controversial in most peoples eyes. But I strongly believe that if you set out to do big crime / stupid thing then you deserve everything you have coming to you.

Why should all those lovely people in this nation that go out and are law abiding peaceful people have to PAY (through taxes) to house, cloth and fed some criminal thats done some serious wrong? Just waste em and save the burden on the state.

After a few death penalties done, the rest of the crims will wise up that they could be next and could deter many wannabe crims that are currently laughing at our "justice" system.

Note: My comments here are not meant to offend anyone here. Merely expressing my view which I understand is very controversial.

[David Bailey]

After a few death penalties done, the rest of the crims will wise up that they could be next and could deter many wannabe crims that are currently laughing at our "justice" system.

Just to preserve the balance, I'll argue against this as well.

The death penalty is proven not to be a deterrent - look at the USA for examples of this. The USA has executed over 1,000 people in the past 30 years, and I don't see it being held up as a shiny paragon of lawfulness anywhere - for example, 4.2 murder rates per 100,000, compared to 1.4 here.

And the reason it's not a deterrent, is that crims don't expect to get caught. They don't care what the penalty is - they don't expect to have to pay it.

Note: My comments here are not meant to offend anyone here. Merely expressing my view which I understand is very controversial.

Actually, I mainly wanted to test the statement someone made that we could discuss anything here without rancour

[Paul F]

To me, a State cannot decide on who lives and who doesn't. We punish people from taking other's life, and yet we, as an organised state, would want to do the same???

Justice perhaps?

Thats one less multiple murderer for the public, law enforcement and tax payers to be worrying about.

I dont mean offence but I find this argument very simplistic and not 'real world'.

[David Bailey]

Justice perhaps?

Thats one less multiple murderer for the public, law enforcement and tax payers to be worrying about.

I dunno about "justice" - those arguments are practical and economic, not moral.

Not that I'm disagreeing - IMO the only practical arguments against the death penalty are practical - but let's not confuse the two.

I dont mean offence but I find this argument very simplistic and not 'real world'.

Go on, then, raise the debate, I dare you

I'm off-forum this weekend, try not to break the place whilst I'm away...

[Juju]

I'm against the death penalty, not least because a posthumous pardon is no bloody good to anyone. Also I feel that a state with the power to execute its citizens is a state with too much power. If life sentences meant just that and the most serious criminals were kept in prisons with basic conditions, then it would be punishment enough. Death is the easy way out for a lot of those mentioned above, hence the high incidence of suicides and attempted suicides - why give the buggers what they want?

Have to say I'm confused by this:

For the purposes of this thread, my definition (and I'll admit it's a woolly one), of "extreme cases" would be that all of the following conditions are met:

• There is incontrovertible proof - ideally, a confession and rock-solid evidence.
• The criminal is a monster - multiple murderer, basically, on several different occasions.
• There's no hope of rehabiliation or of release (real life imprisonment)

So, from recent memory, that'd include Sutcliffe, the Wests, Shipman, and similar.

However, note that this would not include either the 7/7 bombers (if they were around), or Ian Huntley.

Hope that's clear.

Why those exceptions?

[Juju]

But the trouble with adopting an abolutist approach to the death penalty is that you then have to define an absolutist approach to abortion, to be consistent. OK, you can weasel out by saying that life only begins at birth or whatever, but that's a cop-out.

Not sure that follows myself. It depends on which criteria you consider when you're coming to a decision.

[Andy McGregor]

I am in no doubt about this one. We live in a Christian country. We were given rules. Rule number 6 says "Thou salt not kill". There are two considerations that spring to mind;

1. What do we do if someone breaks the rule?
2. How do we ask someone to break the rule on behalf of the state?

1. If someone breaks the rule I believe we should never let them get into a position where they can break it again. Of course you could kill them. But you could lock them up and throw away the key to get that effect.

Don't get me wrong. I have no sympathy for murderers. I believe that they should never see the light of day again. But we should not let them turn us or our state into killers.

2. Which brings me on to the second point. Who actually does the killing. Somebody has got to press that button, give that injection, pull that trigger, etc. How CAN the state ask anyone to do that?

There are people who will argue that the Commandment says "Thou shall not murder" and interperet 'murder' as killing an innocent human being. What if the murderer uses this as their defence? None of us are innocent. Most of us have, from time to time, coveted our neighbours wife, house, manservant or cattle: many have committed adultery.

Let's lock Saddam up. Let's keep him locked up. Let's not stoop to his level and do what he's done and what he would do. Think how surprised he'll be!