FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
From BBC website:
'Two men who planned to target the Jewish community in Manchester in what police said could have been "the UK's most deadly terror attack" have been jailed for life.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, arranged for guns to be smuggled into the UK as part of an "Isis-inspired plot'
If there was absolutely no doubt of guilt, would you ever support capital punishment for crimes this serious?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In really extreme cases (think Ian Brady), where the evidence is iron-clad, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It saves the country money, it protects society, and it's almost an act of clemency for the criminal.
I wouldn't support it for these two failed terrorists though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"From BBC website:
'Two men who planned to target the Jewish community in Manchester in what police said could have been "the UK's most deadly terror attack" have been jailed for life.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, arranged for guns to be smuggled into the UK as part of an "Isis-inspired plot'
If there was absolutely no doubt of guilt, would you ever support capital punishment for crimes this serious?
"
No.
Reason: we would create an environment of appeal after appeal, after appeal. Each appeal would cost millions, and such is the climate, society would not be able to deal with the outcome.
The only people that would benefit would be the legal teams. Lock them up in solitary and let them live out their days knowing nothing more than 4 walls and 30 minutes in the rain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"In really extreme cases (think Ian Brady), where the evidence is iron-clad, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It saves the country money, it protects society, and it's almost an act of clemency for the criminal.
I wouldn't support it for these two failed terrorists though."
I agree that it can be more humane that a life sentence. I would certainly prefer it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"From BBC website:
'Two men who planned to target the Jewish community in Manchester in what police said could have been "the UK's most deadly terror attack" have been jailed for life.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, arranged for guns to be smuggled into the UK as part of an "Isis-inspired plot'
If there was absolutely no doubt of guilt, would you ever support capital punishment for crimes this serious?
No.
Reason: we would create an environment of appeal after appeal, after appeal. Each appeal would cost millions, and such is the climate, society would not be able to deal with the outcome.
The only people that would benefit would be the legal teams. Lock them up in solitary and let them live out their days knowing nothing more than 4 walls and 30 minutes in the rain. "
That is a very good point about the appeals which I believe is what happens in the US. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"From BBC website:
'Two men who planned to target the Jewish community in Manchester in what police said could have been "the UK's most deadly terror attack" have been jailed for life.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, arranged for guns to be smuggled into the UK as part of an "Isis-inspired plot'
If there was absolutely no doubt of guilt, would you ever support capital punishment for crimes this serious?
"
If they would have succeeded yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They intended to destroy lives. To extinguish families. To leave permanent harm in their wake.
.
Some call for their execution.
.
I do not.
.
I do not argue for mercy because they deserve it.
I argue for mercy because we do.
.
A society does not prove its strength by how fiercely it punishes, but by how firmly it upholds its principles — especially when anger would make abandoning them easy.
.
If we answer hatred with destruction, we concede the moral ground. If we fight fire with fire, the whole house burns.
.
No. We contain it. We extinguish it. We refuse to let it spread through us.
.
Life imprisonment is not leniency. It is accountability without surrendering our values. It ensures they can never harm another soul, while affirming that we will not become what they were prepared to be.
.
Justice protects society.
.
Mercy proves our strength. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"From BBC website:
'Two men who planned to target the Jewish community in Manchester in what police said could have been "the UK's most deadly terror attack" have been jailed for life.
Walid Saadaoui, 38, and Amar Hussein, 52, arranged for guns to be smuggled into the UK as part of an "Isis-inspired plot'
If there was absolutely no doubt of guilt, would you ever support capital punishment for crimes this serious?
If they would have succeeded yes."
Interesting distinction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"I prefer transportation. Drop them on an island somewhere and leave them to it. Saves a fortune and no issues of the state killing people "
What about carrying out important medical experiments on them? I'm serious btw. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble. "
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment."
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes? "
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"They intended to destroy lives. To extinguish families. To leave permanent harm in their wake.
.
Some call for their execution.
.
I do not.
.
I do not argue for mercy because they deserve it.
I argue for mercy because we do.
.
A society does not prove its strength by how fiercely it punishes, but by how firmly it upholds its principles — especially when anger would make abandoning them easy.
.
If we answer hatred with destruction, we concede the moral ground. If we fight fire with fire, the whole house burns.
.
No. We contain it. We extinguish it. We refuse to let it spread through us.
.
Life imprisonment is not leniency. It is accountability without surrendering our values. It ensures they can never harm another soul, while affirming that we will not become what they were prepared to be.
.
Justice protects society.
.
Mercy proves our strength."
I'm not sure all victims of the most serious crime would agree that they have received justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it."
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws? "
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant."
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant.
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person. "
Fair point about the name ! Although like anything it could be rebranded for liberal sensibilities the way we do for pets (putting to sleep) or increasingly humans (voluntary euthanasia). I disagree that death as a punishment cannot be merciful or humane - many, if not all, very serious criminals are very damaged people who will never be able to live safely outside of prison. Death could be a release from their own pain and quite possibly preferable to decades of confinement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant.
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person.
Fair point about the name ! Although like anything it could be rebranded for liberal sensibilities the way we do for pets (putting to sleep) or increasingly humans (voluntary euthanasia). I disagree that death as a punishment cannot be merciful or humane - many, if not all, very serious criminals are very damaged people who will never be able to live safely outside of prison. Death could be a release from their own pain and quite possibly preferable to decades of confinement."
I think framing it as a kindness is a step too far even for 'liberal sensibilities ' but it certainly enables advocates of the death sentence to accept it with a clear conscience. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant.
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person.
Fair point about the name ! Although like anything it could be rebranded for liberal sensibilities the way we do for pets (putting to sleep) or increasingly humans (voluntary euthanasia). I disagree that death as a punishment cannot be merciful or humane - many, if not all, very serious criminals are very damaged people who will never be able to live safely outside of prison. Death could be a release from their own pain and quite possibly preferable to decades of confinement.
I think framing it as a kindness is a step too far even for 'liberal sensibilities ' but it certainly enables advocates of the death sentence to accept it with a clear conscience."
If people feel the death penalty is the correct response to the most serious crimes then why would they not have a clear conscience? When serious criminals are released to reoffend are supporters of rehabilitation troubled by a guilty conscience. Or what about the likes of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi who seriously wounded several prison guards while in custody ? Do those who think he shouldn't have faced the death penalty have a guilty conscience about his further crimes ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant.
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person.
Fair point about the name ! Although like anything it could be rebranded for liberal sensibilities the way we do for pets (putting to sleep) or increasingly humans (voluntary euthanasia). I disagree that death as a punishment cannot be merciful or humane - many, if not all, very serious criminals are very damaged people who will never be able to live safely outside of prison. Death could be a release from their own pain and quite possibly preferable to decades of confinement.
I think framing it as a kindness is a step too far even for 'liberal sensibilities ' but it certainly enables advocates of the death sentence to accept it with a clear conscience.
If people feel the death penalty is the correct response to the most serious crimes then why would they not have a clear conscience? When serious criminals are released to reoffend are supporters of rehabilitation troubled by a guilty conscience. Or what about the likes of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi who seriously wounded several prison guards while in custody ? Do those who think he shouldn't have faced the death penalty have a guilty conscience about his further crimes ?"
Why would anyone have a guilty conscience about someone else's crimes?
I'm talking about the feelings towards supporting or otherwise the death penalty and people's conscience as advocates of it or not. Not whether anyone ought to feel guilty about further crimes commited.
Fortunately I don't have to make a decision on the question of reinstating capital punishment. If there was ever a time when I did I'd be conflicted because certainly there are crimes that I'd happily *have someone else* decide whether the person died or not. That's the deciding factor for me, if I couldn't carry out the sentence myself I'm not sure I should be asking someone else to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we answer hatred with destruction, we concede the moral ground. If we fight fire with fire, the whole house burns.
"
I am not a supporter of death penalty. But metaphors like these are so lame. If we follow these rules, no one should have gone to war against Hitler. Sometimes, self defense forces one to resort to destruction and it is completely justified. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I am have an idea better than death penalty. Use the criminals for hard labour. And the wages they get for doing the Labour goes to their actual or intended victims.
In this case, get the criminals to do the labour and send the wages to Jewish organisations. We can use the same for r@pists. Put them in prison for 20 years, get them to work and send all the wages they toiled for, to the r@pe victims.
I think that's a much harsher punishment than death penalty 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and if the crime you commit means death penalty so be it.
As long as the it's beyond reasonable doubt and guilt is without question then yes absolutely.
With forensics and technology as it is, plus the amount of CCTV it's rare evidence isn't available.
BUT it's not infallible you only need to look at the Letby case to see that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
If someone commits a crime where the known punishment is the death penalty, then surely they are responsible for the consequences, not the State. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
Presumably you are therefore against any British involvement in Ukraine. Since there is no threat to the UK, there is no justification for providing the tools to kill Russians.
Have I got that right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
Presumably you are therefore against any British involvement in Ukraine. Since there is no threat to the UK, there is no justification for providing the tools to kill Russians.
Have I got that right?"
Nope. Because you are deliberately hazing for areas where you feel compelled to challenge my stance using whataboutery and false equivalance.
.
Read the statement again.
"The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
.
It does not talk about lending support to Ukraine does it ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
Presumably you are therefore against any British involvement in Ukraine. Since there is no threat to the UK, there is no justification for providing the tools to kill Russians.
Have I got that right?
Nope. Because you are deliberately hazing for areas where you feel compelled to challenge my stance using whataboutery and false equivalance.
.
Read the statement again.
"The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
.
It does not talk about lending support to Ukraine does it ?
"
Making a logical comparison is not false equivalence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In this case, get the criminals to do the labour and send the wages to Jewish organisations. We can use the same for r@pists. Put them in prison for 20 years, get them to work and send all the wages they toiled for, to the r@pe victims.
I think that's a much harsher punishment than death penalty
"
👍 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
Presumably you are therefore against any British involvement in Ukraine. Since there is no threat to the UK, there is no justification for providing the tools to kill Russians.
Have I got that right?
Nope. Because you are deliberately hazing for areas where you feel compelled to challenge my stance using whataboutery and false equivalance.
.
Read the statement again.
"The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
.
It does not talk about lending support to Ukraine does it ?
Making a logical comparison is not false equivalence."
No, because executing a restrained person is punitive killing of a non-threatening individual. Military aid in an active invasion context concerns self-defence against ongoing aggression. Those are morally distinct categories, so the comparison doesn’t follow.
For my claim of false equivalence to fail, you would have to prove that "State execution of restrained persons"
is the same as “Providing defensive military support in active war”. Which obviously you cannot prove. Thus your comparison is indeed illogical and is false equivalence, sorry ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
"Presumably you are therefore against any British involvement in Ukraine. Since there is no threat to the UK, there is no justification for providing the tools to kill Russians.
Have I got that right?"
"Nope. Because you are deliberately hazing for areas where you feel compelled to challenge my stance using whataboutery and false equivalance.
.
Read the statement again.
"The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible."
.
It does not talk about lending support to Ukraine does it ?"
My apologies. I quoted your later post, but I was basing my question on the things you said in your first post, where you laid out your deontological position. The one where you said "If we answer hatred with destruction, we concede the moral ground. If we fight fire with fire, the whole house burns".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death."
I would still like to understand the answer to this.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this...."
It is a good question!
I think part of the answer is that people who oppose capital punishment for moral rather than pragmatic reasons also disagree with whole life sentences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this...."
The difference, in my opinion, is the probability of innocence. New evidence can overturn a conviction. There have been instances where life sentences were quashed due to new evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this....
The difference, in my opinion, is the probability of innocence. New evidence can overturn a conviction. There have been instances where life sentences were quashed due to new evidence."
which is a valid call out, however placing someone in a cell for "life" is a restrained human waiting to die, in my opinion.
The moral view sounds perfect but seems to be weak, more virtuous than moral maybe? I'm happy to be corrected on this hence the question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this....
It is a good question!
I think part of the answer is that people who oppose capital punishment for moral rather than pragmatic reasons also disagree with whole life sentences. "
that could be the answer, it is not something I could support personally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this....
It is a good question!
I think part of the answer is that people who oppose capital punishment for moral rather than pragmatic reasons also disagree with whole life sentences. "
If people opposed whole life sentences for some of the most heinous crimes, that is a really problematic view point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Once society as a whole loses it's humanity we're all in trouble.
One could argue that happens when we tolerate the most heinous crimes. Many of the greatest human civilisations have practiced capital punishment.
Who said anything about tolerating heinous crimes?
In historical terms out treatment of the most heinous crimes is very tolerant. Other civilisations would I think be astonished by it.
Yes they probably would but I'm frequently astonished by other civilisations. I'm not sure how useful comparing civilisations is really.
Do we tolerate or punish according to our laws?
I would say all justice systems try to balance between tolerance (for example giving people second chances, even for most serious crimes, treating them humanely in prison) and punishment, and we probably all have different views on that balance. My view regarding capital punishment is that it is not, by definition, inhumane or intolerant.
Capital punishment in itself is just that. Death by various means as a punishment, the act itself can't be tolerant or otherwise, I'd argue that the method can certainly be inhumane . Only the people/society carrying it out can decide on the humanity of actually killing another person.
Fair point about the name ! Although like anything it could be rebranded for liberal sensibilities the way we do for pets (putting to sleep) or increasingly humans (voluntary euthanasia). I disagree that death as a punishment cannot be merciful or humane - many, if not all, very serious criminals are very damaged people who will never be able to live safely outside of prison. Death could be a release from their own pain and quite possibly preferable to decades of confinement.
I think framing it as a kindness is a step too far even for 'liberal sensibilities ' but it certainly enables advocates of the death sentence to accept it with a clear conscience.
If people feel the death penalty is the correct response to the most serious crimes then why would they not have a clear conscience? When serious criminals are released to reoffend are supporters of rehabilitation troubled by a guilty conscience. Or what about the likes of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi who seriously wounded several prison guards while in custody ? Do those who think he shouldn't have faced the death penalty have a guilty conscience about his further crimes ?"
Great points |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and if the crime you commit means death penalty so be it.
As long as the it's beyond reasonable doubt and guilt is without question then yes absolutely.
With forensics and technology as it is, plus the amount of CCTV it's rare evidence isn't available.
BUT it's not infallible you only need to look at the Letby case to see that. "
As much as I would agree with bringing back capital punishment. It would be limited to people that had committed multiple murders and there would have to be no doubt of there guilt. Eg caught in the act and with multiple eye witnesses like the Southport killer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and if the crime you commit means death penalty so be it.
As long as the it's beyond reasonable doubt and guilt is without question then yes absolutely.
With forensics and technology as it is, plus the amount of CCTV it's rare evidence isn't available.
BUT it's not infallible you only need to look at the Letby case to see that.
As much as I would agree with bringing back capital punishment. It would be limited to people that had committed multiple murders and there would have to be no doubt of there guilt. Eg caught in the act and with multiple eye witnesses like the Southport killer."
One of my concerns is that how much of a deterrent is it against for example a terrorist who is prepared to die?
Would they then become martyr's and their deaths blamed on the system they are trying to terrorise?
Also the death penalty doesn't seem to deter American criminals who are incarcerated in their tens of thousands in the States and end up costing a fortune in very long protracted appeals...
As I said I am in favour but given the amount of liberal apologists who'd happily forgive the most horrendous crimes to protect " human rights of the guilty" and the fact that our governments are too spineless to make a hard decision, I mean they can't even agree with assisted suicide so bringing back hanging is never going to happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I said I am in favour but given the amount of liberal apologists who'd happily forgive the most horrendous crimes to protect " human rights of the guilty" and the fact that our governments are too spineless to make a hard decision, I mean they can't even agree with assisted suicide so bringing back hanging is never going to happen."
Interesting that you've decided hanging is the most sensible option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and if the crime you commit means death penalty so be it.
As long as the it's beyond reasonable doubt and guilt is without question then yes absolutely.
With forensics and technology as it is, plus the amount of CCTV it's rare evidence isn't available.
BUT it's not infallible you only need to look at the Letby case to see that.
As much as I would agree with bringing back capital punishment. It would be limited to people that had committed multiple murders and there would have to be no doubt of there guilt. Eg caught in the act and with multiple eye witnesses like the Southport killer.
One of my concerns is that how much of a deterrent is it against for example a terrorist who is prepared to die?
Would they then become martyr's and their deaths blamed on the system they are trying to terrorise?
Also the death penalty doesn't seem to deter American criminals who are incarcerated in their tens of thousands in the States and end up costing a fortune in very long protracted appeals...
As I said I am in favour but given the amount of liberal apologists who'd happily forgive the most horrendous crimes to protect " human rights of the guilty" and the fact that our governments are too spineless to make a hard decision, I mean they can't even agree with assisted suicide so bringing back hanging is never going to happen. "
Agreed, a humane death wouldn't be a deterrent. A inhumane one maybe? But then we really do start going down some dark paths. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I said I am in favour but given the amount of liberal apologists who'd happily forgive the most horrendous crimes to protect " human rights of the guilty" and the fact that our governments are too spineless to make a hard decision, I mean they can't even agree with assisted suicide so bringing back hanging is never going to happen.
Interesting that you've decided hanging is the most sensible option."
Crikey jump to conclusions much?
It was an example of a method used in this country.
I think I've given reasoned reasons for and against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I said I am in favour but given the amount of liberal apologists who'd happily forgive the most horrendous crimes to protect " human rights of the guilty" and the fact that our governments are too spineless to make a hard decision, I mean they can't even agree with assisted suicide so bringing back hanging is never going to happen."
"Interesting that you've decided hanging is the most sensible option."
"Crikey jump to conclusions much?
It was an example of a method used in this country.
I think I've given reasoned reasons for and against"
Heh heh. I see your reasoning.
And you are correct, if we can't even agree on assisted suicide, the death penalty is a long way off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and if the crime you commit means death penalty so be it.
As long as the it's beyond reasonable doubt and guilt is without question then yes absolutely.
With forensics and technology as it is, plus the amount of CCTV it's rare evidence isn't available.
BUT it's not infallible you only need to look at the Letby case to see that.
As much as I would agree with bringing back capital punishment. It would be limited to people that had committed multiple murders and there would have to be no doubt of there guilt. Eg caught in the act and with multiple eye witnesses like the Southport killer."
The Letby case is a good example of how difficult it could be to agree what is a 100% established conviction. Certainly it could not just rely on circumstantial evidence as in her case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Sadly, there are miscarriages of justice, and quite serious ones where an imprisoned individual has served considerable time.
Some of these have been overturned on appeal or new information and an innocent party has walked free.
.
That's a bit difficult to do after execution.
.
I should imagine to cost to the state is considerably higher as well for executing a prisoner who was posthumously declared innocent.
.
The safest way then, is life imprisonment.
.
And this keeps decisions about executing restrained individuals completely out of the hands of the state, which is my overriding preference above everything else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadly, there are miscarriages of justice, and quite serious ones where an imprisoned individual has served considerable time.
Some of these have been overturned on appeal or new information and an innocent party has walked free.
.
That's a bit difficult to do after execution.
.
I should imagine to cost to the state is considerably higher as well for executing a prisoner who was posthumously declared innocent.
.
The safest way then, is life imprisonment.
.
And this keeps decisions about executing restrained individuals completely out of the hands of the state, which is my overriding preference above everything else."
That's why it should only be used for heinous crimes of which there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadly, there are miscarriages of justice, and quite serious ones where an imprisoned individual has served considerable time.
Some of these have been overturned on appeal or new information and an innocent party has walked free.
.
That's a bit difficult to do after execution.
.
I should imagine to cost to the state is considerably higher as well for executing a prisoner who was posthumously declared innocent.
.
The safest way then, is life imprisonment.
.
And this keeps decisions about executing restrained individuals completely out of the hands of the state, which is my overriding preference above everything else.
That's why it should only be used for heinous crimes of which there is absolutely no doubt of guilt."
No doubt of guilt is only a point of time concept. Someone can their sentencing overturned in the future. New forensic method or a new witness can change the course of the sentencing. No doubt of today could be doubtful tomorrow.
Justice system decides sentence based on current evidence, that’s why we have appeal process in the justice system |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My deontological position is clear.
The deliberate killing of a restrained human being by the state is morally impermissible.
What is the difference between causing death and knowingly imposing a condition which the endpoint is death.
I would still like to understand the answer to this....
The difference, in my opinion, is the probability of innocence. New evidence can overturn a conviction. There have been instances where life sentences were quashed due to new evidence.
which is a valid call out, however placing someone in a cell for "life" is a restrained human waiting to die, in my opinion.
The moral view sounds perfect but seems to be weak, more virtuous than moral maybe? I'm happy to be corrected on this hence the question."
My argument isn’t about virtue. It’s about risk, irreversibility, and justice. No justice system is perfect, and new evidence has overturned serious convictions in the past. If justice is the goal, then we must allow for correction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadly, there are miscarriages of justice, and quite serious ones where an imprisoned individual has served considerable time.
Some of these have been overturned on appeal or new information and an innocent party has walked free.
.
That's a bit difficult to do after execution.
.
I should imagine to cost to the state is considerably higher as well for executing a prisoner who was posthumously declared innocent.
.
The safest way then, is life imprisonment.
.
And this keeps decisions about executing restrained individuals completely out of the hands of the state, which is my overriding preference above everything else.
That's why it should only be used for heinous crimes of which there is absolutely no doubt of guilt.
No doubt of guilt is only a point of time concept. Someone can their sentencing overturned in the future. New forensic method or a new witness can change the course of the sentencing. No doubt of today could be doubtful tomorrow.
Justice system decides sentence based on current evidence, that’s why we have appeal process in the justice system"
No those would be cases where there could be a doubt.
I am talking about cases like the two men that killed Lee Rigby.
They where arrested at the scene during the act. Multiple eye witnesses, Multiple phone footage of them killing him and mutilating his body...
Is that kind of case "only a point in time concept"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I should imagine to cost to the state is considerably higher as well for executing a prisoner who was posthumously declared innocent."
You'd have to imagine it because, fairly obviously, we don't have a scale of compensation for that. The closest equivalent is for false imprisonment where the maximum is £1m. I think that same value would apply for 'improper execution'.
The cost of a category A prison place at the moment is about £60,000 per year. This means that if the person is likely to live for 17 years after conviction, execution would be cheaper than any potential compensation.
Of course for people like Ian Brady, the annual containment cost was considerably higher. But then, in his case there was no possibility of a miscarriage of justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In theory I'm all for death penalty. Some people really do need to be ended. But in practice, I dont think any conviction is safe enough for the ultimate punishment. Yes we have forensics, dna etc, but we also have humans who make mistakes. We also have bent coppers. Lawyers who can sway a jury one way or another. And we have the gutter press that whips the public up in to a frenzy. There have been some horrendous mis carrages of justice. So for that reason I would say no to the death penalty, and more years behind bars for offences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial. "
Maybe that is the next step, trial by social media.
Login give the story a once over, click guilty / not guilty, followed by the appropriate sentence if guilty. At a predetermined point in the day the line is closed, votes counted up and a decision is made.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial. "
Trial by Fab is even worse 😮🤭 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only problem with our justice system is life doesn’t mean life anymore and the person who did some serious stuff to me who got 20 years is after just 6 years getting out. It makes a mockery. "
Total mockery. Sorry you didn't get the justice you deserved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial.
Maybe that is the next step, trial by social media.
Login give the story a once over, click guilty / not guilty, followed by the appropriate sentence if guilty. At a predetermined point in the day the line is closed, votes counted up and a decision is made.
"
Isn't that the ultimate form of a jury trial? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In theory I'm all for death penalty. Some people really do need to be ended. But in practice, I dont think any conviction is safe enough for the ultimate punishment. Yes we have forensics, dna etc, but we also have humans who make mistakes. We also have bent coppers. Lawyers who can sway a jury one way or another. And we have the gutter press that whips the public up in to a frenzy. There have been some horrendous mis carrages of justice. So for that reason I would say no to the death penalty, and more years behind bars for offences. "
This morning's BBC headline article was Police framed man for murder, new evidence suggests. The article shows how they have found evidence that the police fabricated statements, intimidated witnesses into changing their stories, hiding crucial evidence that cast serious doubt on the charge and conviently lost or buried CCTV evidence that also cast serious doubt on the charges. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In theory I'm all for death penalty. Some people really do need to be ended. But in practice, I dont think any conviction is safe enough for the ultimate punishment. Yes we have forensics, dna etc, but we also have humans who make mistakes. We also have bent coppers. Lawyers who can sway a jury one way or another. And we have the gutter press that whips the public up in to a frenzy. There have been some horrendous mis carrages of justice. So for that reason I would say no to the death penalty, and more years behind bars for offences.
This morning's BBC headline article was Police framed man for murder, new evidence suggests. The article shows how they have found evidence that the police fabricated statements, intimidated witnesses into changing their stories, hiding crucial evidence that cast serious doubt on the charge and conviently lost or buried CCTV evidence that also cast serious doubt on the charges. "
This is my only reason for being against death penalty. You can never trust the institutions fully. End of the day, death is irreversible. Sure even life sentence could mean you can't get back the lost time if you find that the judgement was wrong but at least it gives a chance for redemption. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial.
Maybe that is the next step, trial by social media.
Login give the story a once over, click guilty / not guilty, followed by the appropriate sentence if guilty. At a predetermined point in the day the line is closed, votes counted up and a decision is made.
Isn't that the ultimate form of a jury trial? "
It is and could be argued better than the traditional smaller jury and politicised judges. It would remove some backlog in the system and I do believe it would be a deterrent to crime.
Send em down, NEXT! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe that is the next step, trial by social media.
Login give the story a once over, click guilty / not guilty, followed by the appropriate sentence if guilty. At a predetermined point in the day the line is closed, votes counted up and a decision is made."
"Isn't that the ultimate form of a jury trial?"
Except in a real jury trial the jury are forced to listen to *all* the evidence, not just the bits they want to hear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"In theory I'm all for death penalty. Some people really do need to be ended. But in practice, I dont think any conviction is safe enough for the ultimate punishment. Yes we have forensics, dna etc, but we also have humans who make mistakes. We also have bent coppers. Lawyers who can sway a jury one way or another. And we have the gutter press that whips the public up in to a frenzy. There have been some horrendous mis carrages of justice. So for that reason I would say no to the death penalty, and more years behind bars for offences.
This morning's BBC headline article was Police framed man for murder, new evidence suggests. The article shows how they have found evidence that the police fabricated statements, intimidated witnesses into changing their stories, hiding crucial evidence that cast serious doubt on the charge and conviently lost or buried CCTV evidence that also cast serious doubt on the charges. "
The case looks bad although he is still in prison, conviction hasn't been overturned. Seems there was no forensic evidence in this case or cctv, only 'eye witness' statements. If capital punishment was introduced I think incontrovertible visual or forensic evidence would be a minimum requirement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial.
Trial by Fab is even worse 😮🤭"
Yeah you may end up with a well hung jury. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 11 weeks ago
|
"One of the biggest factor's in today's society is Trial by media.
Lot's are guilty in the eyes of armchair detectives long before the trial.
Trial by Fab is even worse 😮🤭
Yeah you may end up with a well hung jury. "
👏👏👏👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 11 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe that is the next step, trial by social media.
Login give the story a once over, click guilty / not guilty, followed by the appropriate sentence if guilty. At a predetermined point in the day the line is closed, votes counted up and a decision is made.
Isn't that the ultimate form of a jury trial?
Except in a real jury trial the jury are forced to listen to *all* the evidence, not just the bits they want to hear."
The assumption is that they do listen, do take it all onboard and apply their reasoning to the law.
I think that is not the reality in many controversial cases!
In my opinion we are slowly absorbing the US system of judges appointed and acting via state political bias, we will get there in the end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In theory I'm all for death penalty. Some people really do need to be ended. But in practice, I dont think any conviction is safe enough for the ultimate punishment. Yes we have forensics, dna etc, but we also have humans who make mistakes. We also have bent coppers. Lawyers who can sway a jury one way or another. And we have the gutter press that whips the public up in to a frenzy. There have been some horrendous mis carrages of justice. So for that reason I would say no to the death penalty, and more years behind bars for offences.
This morning's BBC headline article was Police framed man for murder, new evidence suggests. The article shows how they have found evidence that the police fabricated statements, intimidated witnesses into changing their stories, hiding crucial evidence that cast serious doubt on the charge and conviently lost or buried CCTV evidence that also cast serious doubt on the charges.
The case looks bad although he is still in prison, conviction hasn't been overturned. Seems there was no forensic evidence in this case or cctv, only 'eye witness' statements. If capital punishment was introduced I think incontrovertible visual or forensic evidence would be a minimum requirement."
Please have a look at Stefan Kizsko and Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kizsko was sentenced by witness statements, Sean Hodgson was released after DNA test, which was not available at the time of his sentencing.
When it was incontrovertible at the time of sentencing, with new information allowed some people a delayed freedom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am have an idea better than death penalty. Use the criminals for hard labour. And the wages they get for doing the Labour goes to their actual or intended victims.
In this case, get the criminals to do the labour and send the wages to Jewish organisations. We can use the same for r@pists. Put them in prison for 20 years, get them to work and send all the wages they toiled for, to the r@pe victims.
I think that's a much harsher punishment than death penalty
"
Only release them after said sentence is served as above BUT remove thier testicles live in ppv TV. It would be some sort of compensation for the victims |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The main issue with the death penalty is the state WILL get it wrong. The system will kill an innocent person. Not might, not could, not perhaps, not possibly but WILL.
It WILL happen.
I say this because history as already proven this. Many times. And at the time there was "no doubt of guilt" as sentence was handed down.
Don't get me wrong I understand perfectly there is the majority of the general public's call for it to be introduced. Found guilty of murdering my loved one? I'll tie a noose and pull a lever with NO hesitation. I totally understand that sentiment and raw anger. Its real.
But with greatest respect people clamouring for reinstatement do often confuse revenge with justice, but they mean well. We get that. However, many people aren't given all the data needed to make this decision. Someone on here suggested Ian Brady was an obvious candidate. He is a succinct example as although initially found guilty of those horrendous crimes and imprisoned (once upon a time he'd have lived but 3 Sundays after being found guilty) he was later diagnosed as mentally incapacitated and spent the rest of his life in a secure medical facility and maybe that should've been picked up on at his arrest? If we had capital punishment and Brady correctly diagnosed from the start then he would have been exempt anyway.
No, the most pressing issue is there WILL be miscarriages of justice and anyone who says they would vote to reinstate the death penalty immediately and without hesitation just needs to ask themselves ONE question before they tick that box:
"How many members of your own immediate family or people close to you could you watch being killed by the state for a crime they are later found innocent of before you clamour for its abolishment again?"
The harrowing statistical fact is if the death penalty is reinstated by your vote you will be condemning a family at some point somewhere to that very ordeal. It could even be you and yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
