Death penalty

[Barry Shnikov]

so, if you were Iraki, would you make the injection ? (pull the trigger / tie the rope / whatever )

Did you notice I didn't say I was in favour of executing Saddam? I simply pointed out that it is perfectly arguable that a death sentence might be appropriate for the Idi Amin/Robert Mugabe/Enver Hoxha/Adolf Hitler type offences whereas for the crime of 'simple' murder it might be immoral.

I'm not certain that I agree with Saddam's execution. But if I were to decide that I approved, then yes I would be prepared to push the button.

[Trouble]

Does nobody think that if we put the death penalty back into our courts that it would reduce the amount of murders taking place.

i do truly beleive that this would cut the crimes resuling in death by large numbers as the threat of the death penalty would make them think about it.

Can a woman walk quite safely at night these days - no they can not, i dont even feel safe walking my dog during the day. When i go to Michigan USA to visit family, i still find it freaky that at night, nobody walks, its just not safe and i think the UK will if not already, end up like that.

This is because the prisoners now have more rights than say joe bloggs out in the street and potential killers dont have any worries if they get caught as they get colour TV, cooked meals, a lawyer to fight their corner if somebody upsets them and CAN TAKE THE GOVERNMENT TO COURT if they mistreat them for removing peas from the menu. This effects their right to vitamins.

Whilst i understand the views that death penalty is not right, its inhuman, its this that and the other, i feel something should be done to deter violent crimes leading to death. Death penalty may be the answer.

[Paul F]

Does nobody think that if we put the death penalty back into our courts that it would reduce the amount of murders taking place.

My gut feeling is that it wont deter that many people. Im guessing here but I would imagine those that kill do so as a result of huge emotional turmoil. They probably dont even consider the consequences. Those that do probably dont think they will get caught!!

Its a nasty topic to discuss isnt it! Makes for an interesting debate but its not a nice subject.

[TheTramp]

My gut feeling is that it wont deter that many people.

I had a quick look at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/

Looking at 2 random states with the death penalty (Texas and Tennessee), the number of murders committed per 100,000 people is 6.2 and 7.2 respectively.

2 random states without the death penalty (Massachusetts and Iowa), the number of murders committed per 100,000 people is 2.7 and 1.3 respectively.

So, it appears that you're more likely to get murdered in a state with the death penalty, than in a state without (on that sample).

[Caro]

Did you notice I didn't say I was in favour of executing Saddam?

yep, I was just asking, out of curiosity really...

I simply pointed out that it is perfectly arguable that a death sentence might be appropriate for the Idi Amin/Robert Mugabe/Enver Hoxha/Adolf Hitler type offences whereas for the crime of 'simple' murder it might be immoral.

Any position on death penalty is arguable, for most people it's just a matter of where you draw the line, as you've already said:

There's always (or nearly so) an apparently good reason to kill somebody.

We pretty much all agree to say death penalty is 'bad' in concept, after that people find exceptions and a certain logic that makes it acceptable, whether it's:
- but he/she killed
- but he/she killed several times
- but he/she killed children
- but he/she is not human anymore
- but he/she has no hope of rehabilitation
- but he/she made others commit murder on his/her behalf
- but he/she lead a genocide

To any of which people add 'and it cost me money' 'and it will serve as a deterrent for others' and so on to make their case apparently stronger.

You're just at the end of the scale, whereas Paul and others would be closer to the beginning.

I am just saying that I think it is paramount that a justice system is based on some very solid and consistent principles, one of them for me being 'no murder will be tolerated in this society', therefore I am against death penalty, period. Call it extreme, but there's no 'but...' in my vision on that topic.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Does nobody think that if we put the death penalty back into our courts that it would reduce the amount of murders taking place.

I would doubt it, because it wouldnt. No wonder you're confused

i do truly beleive that this would cut the crimes resuling in death by large numbers as the threat of the death penalty would make them think about it.

Not a chance. You're confusing murderers with rational human beings who will care about the consequences.

Can a woman walk quite safely at night these days - no they can not, i dont even feel safe walking my dog during the day. When i go to Michigan USA to visit family, i still find it freaky that at night, nobody walks, its just not safe and i think the UK will if not already, end up like that.

The few times Ive been in America Ive noticed how few people walk anywhere, Im sure thats not down to being scared. Compare that to Holland where you'll get people walking or cycling until midnight or so, even at this time of year.

This is because the prisoners now have more rights than say joe bloggs out in the street and potential killers dont have any worries if they get caught as they get colour TV, cooked meals, a lawyer to fight their corner if somebody upsets them and CAN TAKE THE GOVERNMENT TO COURT if they mistreat them for removing peas from the menu. This effects their right to vitamins.

They dont have any more rights, you're just annoyed that they have the SAME rights as someone who hasnt been found guilty of a crime. I can quite understand to, its quite galling to hear about prisoners getting benefits when yourslef or people you know have to struggle to make ends meet. This is the price of civilization now that we're actually working toward having one. Reminds me of a quote from Ghandi - when asked what he thought of Western Civilization he replied "i think that would be a very good idea".

Whilst i understand the views that death penalty is not right, its inhuman, its this that and the other, i feel something should be done to deter violent crimes leading to death. Death penalty may be the answer.

Well, it isn't. More should be done to combat crime certainly and stopping people reoffending, but killing them is the easy but barbaric option - thats what we used to do.

[David Bailey]

Does nobody think that if we put the death penalty back into our courts that it would reduce the amount of murders taking place.

Nope - because, again, murderers don't expect to get caught, so they don't generally care what the punishment is - they don't expect to pay it.

i do truly beleive that this would cut the crimes resuling in death by large numbers as the threat of the death penalty would make them think about it.

Can a woman walk quite safely at night these days - no they can not, i dont even feel safe walking my dog during the day. When i go to Michigan USA to visit family, i still find it freaky that at night, nobody walks, its just not safe and i think the UK will if not already, end up like that.

And, note, the USA has the death penalty. So that's clearly not working...

Whilst i understand the views that death penalty is not right, its inhuman, its this that and the other, i feel something should be done to deter violent crimes leading to death. Death penalty may be the answer.

A lot of violent crimes seem to be drug-related. Solve the drug problem and you solve a lot of the crime problem.

So, it appears that you're more likely to get murdered in a state with the death penalty, than in a state without (on that sample).

That actually makes sense - in that a death penalty sends out a message to the public that "It's OK to kill people sometimes", this could affect the general populace in that way.

So the death penalty is actually an incitement to murder

[Dreadful Scathe]

Type of offense Number of convictions Percent of total


All offenses 927,717 100.0
Violent 164,584 17.8
Property 283,002 30.5
Drug 314,626 33.9
Possession 119,443 12.9
Trafficking 195,183 21.0
Marijuana 22,975 2.5
Other 54,633 5.9
Unspecified 117,575 12.7
Weapons 31,904 3.4
Other 133,601 14.4
Source: Felony Sentences in State Courts.

quote from here

34% of U.S. crime is drug related but it looks like that doesnt include crime by drug users themselves - which i would imagine would be quite a good percentage of the violent and property figures.

[David Bailey]

quote from here

34% of U.S. crime is drug related but it looks like that doesnt include crime by drug users themselves - which i would imagine would be quite a good percentage of the violent and property figures.

Makes sense - it's not too much of a leap to say that the majority of crime is drug-related then.

Decriminalise drugs, you halve the crime figures. Easy.

[Paul F]

2 random states without the death penalty (Massachusetts and Iowa), the number of murders committed per 100,000 people is 2.7 and 1.3 respectively.

So, it appears that you're more likely to get murdered in a state with the death penalty, than in a state without (on that sample).

Mr. Tramp. I am surprised at you. A man from the legal profession using 'curious' stats. Leave that to me
Im sure you cant just compare random states like that. Massachusetts is a very afluent state unlike the other states you mention that have the death penalty. It stands to reason that the overall levels of crime will be considerably lower.

I suppose the only true stat would be a 'before and after' stat on a state that introduces the penalty. I still dont see it being a deterrent though.

I am just saying that I think it is paramount that a justice system is based on some very solid and consistent principles, one of them for me being 'no murder will be tolerated in this society', therefore I am against death penalty, period. Call it extreme, but there's no 'but...' in my vision on that topic.

But the death penalty isnt murder!

[TheTramp]

Mr. Tramp. I am surprised at you. A man from the legal profession using 'curious' stats. Leave that to me
Im sure you cant just compare random states like that. Massachusetts is a very afluent state unlike the other states you mention that have the death penalty. It stands to reason that the overall levels of crime will be considerably lower.

I suppose the only true stat would be a 'before and after' stat on a state that introduces the penalty. I still dont see it being a deterrent though.

True.

It was merely an indication. And the rates were significantly higher. Which might allow somewhat for the differences in the social standing of the respective states.

And, even with the acknowledged discrepancy, I would still contend that those stats could be used to contest the original premise as stated that having the death penalty acts as a deterrent to anyone wanting to commit murder...

[Andy McGregor]

But the death penalty isnt murder!

History proves you wrong. A death penalty is a killing ordered by a state, a government or a dictator. That means it is allowed under the law of that country. How many times has a state administration or government or dictator been proved to be corrupt and how many times has that death penalty been proved to be unlawful? Think of Amin, he ordered deaths. As Amin was the law they were lawful at that time. You could argue the same with Saddam, Mugabe, Hitler, etc, etc.

Let's consider the UK. We're told that, if there was a referrendum on the death penalty, the population would vote in its favour by a slim majority*. I think this is a measure of how far our own society has still to go on the road to civilisation and enlightenment. And we consider that we are a civilised country. Think about the level of civilisation of most Iraquis or Afghans. Our mission has been to become a civilising influence in the face of tyranny. How can we do this if our own state is still killing off its citizens when it has an alternative option?

[Barry Shnikov]

Does nobody think that if we put the death penalty back into our courts that it would reduce the amount of murders taking place.

Sadly, no. Evidence from the US shows that there is no statistical difference between capital crimes in states that have the death penalty and states which don't (weighted to take account of demographic variations).

First, many murders are committed on the spur of the moment and it is only afterward that the killer has leisure to decide whether it was wise.

Second, many murders are committed by those who do not believe they will be caught, and so what punishment awaits them is not a matter of concern.

[Barry Shnikov]

You're just at the end of the scale, whereas Paul and others would be closer to the beginning.

No, that's not right. I'm sorry my post wasn't clear. I am saying there is a qualitative difference in what heads of state do, not merely quantitive.

It's similar to the situation where a Customs officer takes part in smuggling or a policeman beats people up. These are not only crimes, they are affronts against the trust and office that they have been given.

Also - and I know I was pretty clear on this - there are quite distinct considerations to be applied when determining how to punish any head of state which do not apply to punishing ordinary citizens.

[Dreadful Scathe]

But the death penalty isnt murder!

In all practicality - its pre-meditated murder sanctioned by the state, don't pussy foot around the language here because you dont like the sound of murder. You could equally change the language of Fred Wests murders by calling them "life retirement" .

If you dont have a choice in the matter and its YOU being put to death, what would you call it ?

[Paul F]

In all practicality - its pre-meditated murder sanctioned by the state, don't pussy foot around the language here because you dont like the sound of murder. You could equally change the language of Fred Wests murders by calling them "life retirement" .

If you dont have a choice in the matter and its YOU being put to death, what would you call it ?

You're only calling it murder because thats what the legal system decided is the term to be applied to this particular illegal act.
If the sytem decides to change that term you would have to change your usage of it.

Currently the term 'murder' refers to an illegal act. If, after a majority vote, the definition was changed due to the introduction of the death penalty it would no longer be murder. I would then use that term.

The bottom line is it would not be 'murder' as we currently know it.

[Andy McGregor]

You're only calling it murder because thats what the legal system decided is the term to be applied to this particular illegal act.
If the sytem decides to change that term you would have to change your usage of it.

Currently the term 'murder' refers to an illegal act. If, after a majority vote, the definition was changed due to the introduction of the death penalty it would no longer be murder. I would then use that term.

The bottom line is it would not be 'murder' as we currently know it.

Wrong again. Paul F is aguing that if a decision was reversed in Parliament he would be right. But, that decision has not been reversed, therefore he is wrong (but I have considerable admiration for the debating style that says "if the rules were changed I wouldn't be breaking them"). Our legal system does not allow for killing of a citizen. Therefore it must be illegal to kill someone - therefore, it would be murder as we currently know it. We are debating the death penalty. We are not defining murder. Of course murder might be one of the reasons some uncivilised state would give for applying the death penalty. We are debating the death penalty itself.

[Caro]

But the death penalty isnt murder!

A quick check to the dictionary showed that you are actually quite right on that one Paul :
Murder:
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So I need to rephrase that principle on which I would like the justice system to be based to replace 'murder' by 'killing'.

No, that's not right. I'm sorry my post wasn't clear. I am saying there is a qualitative difference in what heads of state do, not merely quantitive.

It's similar to the situation where a Customs officer takes part in smuggling or a policeman beats people up. These are not only crimes, they are affronts against the trust and office that they have been given.

Also - and I know I was pretty clear on this - there are quite distinct considerations to be applied when determining how to punish any head of state which do not apply to punishing ordinary citizens.

Actually, I totally agree on that, but still maintain my position on death penalty. So to make it clear, as long as the head of state is human*, I am against death penalty, whatever they have done. They do deserve to be judged on more 'severe' criteria because of their position, but death penalty still isn't an option for punishment, if you want.
*And to stop and debate on this 'human', my definition of it is simply biological. (as opposed to those who think that serial killers are not 'humans' or 'people' anymore).

[Dreadful Scathe]

You're only calling it murder because thats what the legal system decided is the term to be applied to this particular illegal act.

not at all - its a word that has been around for a long time despite changes in laws and governments.

see here for one dictionary reference

one definition is simple : to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously and that certainly applies to the death penalty in any modern society I would say

yes you can be clinical, but MURDER can and does mean more than a mere legal term for a particular crime.

[Paul F]

one definition is simple : to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously and that certainly applies to the death penalty in any modern society I would say

We cannot pick and choose definitions. The law is quite clear on what is and what isn't murder. In this case, an introduction of the death penalty into the legal system as a means of punishment is not 'murder'.