The Death Penalty

[Firefox]

This was brought on by the murder of Pim Fortuyn. Would you call for capital punishment for someone who admitted murdering a person in cold blood in an attempt to undermine the democratic process, or someone who was proven to have killed in any other circumstance for that matter?

I'm very against capital punishment whatever the circumstance, but no doubt there are some who hold the opposite view.

_________________

<font size=1>

Click For Freestyle Fashions </font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Firefox on 2002-05-08 01:29 ]</font>

[terayon]

i think it should go entirely on a case by case thing...i mean, if someone was drunk and got into a fight and killed someone by accident, they dont deserve to die, then again...NOTHING would anger me more than if the US captured Bin Laden and kept him alive, some people DO deserve to die for what they have done

[Francis]

the only problem with killing Bin Laden would be that it would make him a martyr, a figurehead for the cause. Keeping him alive and letting him die of old age while imprisoned will serve as a greater warning. The death penalty does have it uses, but has been known to end up with the wrong person being executed. Until then, it should be used in cases where the person has been proved beyond any doubt (this includes the defendants admission of guilt) before administering this form of retribution.

[Laurieheels]

The death penalty attracts too much attention. I mean, people want to broadcast executions for pay per view and over the internet! It is a serious matter, and i think there is a better sollution than killing someone. Have them fade out of importance. Why shuld someone achieve fame and even become a martyr because of killing another person? The world is twisted enough. So the key is to create a place where people who have been extremely bad can be taken to vanish. Something like a desert penal colony, and if the criminal can survive, fine, and if not, oh well. A quiet passing out of the public eye. Yes, this is an extreme concept, but it also provides an out for an innocent person who may have been accused and convicted of a bad crime. After all, if we execute someone who is innocent, in essence, society has committed murder. The only hope for society is in finding a way to reform people and enlighten them. While some crimes may deserve death, and exceptions could be made for that sort of thing (flying airplanes into buildings comes to mind), there should be an element of compassion and a desire to make things better. If we killed every person who was convicted of first degree murder, we would be sending a very brutal message. People will still murder, and people will be executed. It is human nature. I say we try to change human nature and save the executions for the most extreme of the extreme cases. Sometimes people need a second chance. And I am reminded of a short story I wrote a long time ago. I should take the idea and re-write it. There might be some interest. It pertains to the idea about the desert survival prison. Hrm...

[Laurieheels]

I disagree with the death penality being automatic. Anyone who is suicidal but afraid of killing him or herself will go and plan a murder and carry it out, just to have someone else take his or her life. I think a better deterrant is extreme psychological adjustment. What this means is putting a person through something worse than death, and something much more difficult. With proper program design and care, the person could reabilitate, but the thought of going through something horrible is much more frightening than just being dead.

[ShockQueen]

I still firmly believe that 'life in prison without the possibility of parole' is far better since the person would have to live with the memory of what they did for the rest of their lives. If you kill them off, then they don't have to remember anymore.

[Laurieheels]

Nah, it is better to find a cure for something, or even prevent it. I still think people who aren't afraid to die will do as they please, especially when they have nothing left to lose. Can you imagine someone who has just lost everything and has no hope deciding that it is worth living? Not everyone is that well adjusted. A fate worse than death seems so much more intimidating.

[Laurieheels]

A new idea! Instead of killing these offenders, why don't we sell them for medical research? Society gets a benefit out of it, and the offenders can do something productive. I think being sold for medical research would be more terrifying than just having leathal injection.

[Laurieheels]

and subjecting someone to gas in a small chamber isn't cruel and unusual? They just need to pass a law saying it is legal to forgeit a criminals rights in extreme situations. Then, anything can happen.

[azraelle]

On 2002-05-08 06:05, Laurieheels wrote:

...A fate worse than death seems so much more intimidating.

A few years ago, the governor of Arizona forced a change in the prison uniform from striped coveralls to Hot Pink coveralls. A great many men would find this to be a fate worse than death! He may also have been the one that instituted a program for hard timers to be housed in WW-II style army tents. Don't know what became of that one, tho.

[terayon]

the thing a lot of you are forgetting is that in most states in the US, and in Canada...a life sentence is not until you die, a life sentence is 20 years in america and 25 years in canada...sure, judges can give multiple life sentences, but often dont...so its not like convicted murderers stay in jail for their entire lives

[Firefox]

After all, if we execute someone who is innocent, in essence, society has committed murder.

In my view, if we execute someone who is guilty society, commits murder too. It's still someone's life we are talking about. I wouldn't even kill Bin Laden if we captured him alive. Killing him would not bring back even one of the thousands of innocents who died. It seems purely a revenge motive, and revenge is not only stupid, it is also futile. Look at the problems of Israel and Palestine in this respect.

Furthermore, if someone quotes the death penalty as a "deterrant", in Bin Laden's case I assure you it would have precisely the opposite effect. It would spur on hordes of fundamentalist terrorists. By smugly watching him die you would be tacitly sentencing to death hundereds if not thousands more people in future terrorist atrocities than would have died otherwise.

But aside from any practical issues, I still believe capital punishment is morally wrong whatever the situation. Life imprisonment is not perfect but it's the only way to keep undesirable people out of society. The only thing I can see against it is the cost of keeping these people locked away, but that is preferable to the alternatives.

I would also lock away paedophiles, for life because they cannot be cured, and children must be protected from them.

[Laurieheels]

The life sentence being only 20 or 25 years is a way to hope the criminal can be rehabilitated and released back into society. Esentially, that person's life is changed. That person loses his or her life. If everyone has a second chance, if everyone is given that moment to attone for something wrong, isn't that fair? If we kill people, what do they learn? Of course, if they die during medicall research that benefits humanity... then in a way, the prisoners have made up for the wrongs against society by helping to prolong the lives of others. Yes it is twisted, and in many ways not all that serious, but criminals should be put to work at the very least, and be made useful rather than sit in cells or clean garbage or even break rocks. There has to be more we can get for the money from our taxes!

[DesertHeeler]

If I remember right, it is actually cheaper to keep somebody in prison for life than to put them to death, because of the cost of all the appeals they get before they are finally executed. I used to be strongly for the death penalty, then I realized that it has no deterrent value and is just "eye for an eye" revenge. My replacement for it would be life in solitary confinement with no chance of parole. Execution lets them off to easy, and there have been to many "oops" discovered from DNA testing.

[hoverfly]

In extreme cases the death penalty should only be used beyond reasonable doubt. But after all the appeals it cost more than it dose to impression some one for life.

[Bubba136]

ShockQueen and several others have referred to 'life in prison without the possibility of parole.' Here in the southeastern part of the US, where I live, this sentance called "pine box life".

[Francis]

the only way out being a wooden overcoat

[Stu]

I continue to feel very conflicted over the death penalty. On the one hand, it seems perfectly fair and appropriate to me that someone who commits first-degree murder should forfeit their own life. I had no problems with Timothy McVey being executed. However, I acknowledge that the death penalty has little deterrent value, and the prospect of executing an innocent person is chilling and should give anyone reason to pause before advocating wider use of the death penalty. So, in contrast to many people, I find the death penalty to be completely defensible on moral and ethical grounds, but there are practical considerations that make it questionable. As for executing Bin Laden if we ever capture him, there are pros and cons. Yes, he could become a martyr if we execute him, but only to people who already consider him a hero. But I also like the thought of denying him his martyrdom and making him grow old and feeble in a U.S. prison (preferably on a diet of pork three times a day). However, if we were to keep him alive in prison, that would inevitably spark a "Free Bin Laden" terrorist movement. He would become a living symbol to his followers just as, ironically, Nelson Mandela became to his followers. Would we want that? Maybe it would be better to execute him after all and be done with it.

[IHeels]

Very interesting stuff, anyhow for much the same reasons alluded to by Francis the death penalty doesn't exist in Australia. Good thing to!

[Firefox]

Well I think we all know that evidence which has come to light later has proved 100's of executed people innocent in spite of any number of courts of appeals. It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that the legal process is not perfect.

[Dr. Shoe]

On 2002-05-11 20:36, Firefox wrote:

Well I think we all know that evidence which has come to light later has proved 100's of executed people innocent in spite of any number of courts of appeals. It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that the legal process is not perfect.

Actually, in the UK, there has not been one execution where the prisoner had later been found innocent. Hanratty is the only case where a large number of people had claimed that he could not possibly have committed the murder yet DNA evedence has now proven that he DID do it.

Even in the case of David(?) Bentley, there was no denying that he and his accomplice was on the roof and that a policeman was shot and killed, there was no denying that he had told his accomplice to "let him have it", the case rested on the fact that he had meant let the policeman have the gun.

Now, consider the facts: two young men, one of them armed with a loaded weapon, both know full well that they would have gone to prison for a very long time if caught are confronted by a loan policeman on the roof of a building they were in the process of burglaring. They didn't know if he was alone or whether he had full back-up on the ground they must have considered it a good risk and that they might have got away. If they were going to give up then Bentley would have certainly said "Give it to him".

I don't know aboput the rest of the world, but in the UK they would only execute if beyond all reasonable doubt- usually on a confession or incontrovertable evidence. The only cases to have had a post humous pardon have been in the case of a couple of "unsafe" convictions which have only been ruled as such on technicalities.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dr. Shoe on 2002-05-12 01:37 ]</font>

[Yamyam]

This is a difficult one. I don't think that automatic penalties are a good idea. After all, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances.

Overall, I suppose the problem that I have with the death penalty is that it's irreversible. I don't know 100% that no-one who's been executed has been later found innocent. I do know there have been several cases where someone has been found innocent after several years in prison, who might have been executed had the death penalty been in force for that offence at that time.

So I'm against the death penalty.

On the other hand, as a parent of a 4-year old, I'm in favour of the harshest possible penalties, possibly including death, to anyone who harms a child.

So, I'm also in favour of the death penalty.

Actually, as a high-heeled man, I don't agree with society on everything anyway.

9 out of 10 dog owners can be wrong!

[WarrenB]

I am against the death penalty. There have been far too many people in prison, or on death row, found innocent by DNA or evidence withheld by proscecutors. I don't want the innocent wrongly convicted and killed by the state.

[Laurieheels]

Um, like, the Dark Ages, 476 to 800, roughly, were filled with stupid punishments that resulted in death, and sometimes for poor reasons. It was quite the brutal time. Some law codes had fair tests, but many of the ordeals were quite painful, and they were very quick to inflict them. Here, hold this hot iron bar. It will burn you. If the wound heals, you're innocent because God looks after you. If it becomes infected, you're evil, in league with the devil, and thus, guilty. And at that point, they could exceute someone. In many nasty ways. What is worse when the ordeal was designed to have a bad end either way. We'll throw you into the lake. If you drown, you are innocent and God took you to heaven. If you survive, you have magic powers and are evil, thus guilty, thus we'll kill you and send you to hell. Nice, huh? Not that the dark ages really ends at 800, I mean, Vikings come along to spoil it, but 800 is the turning point. We'll save this for another time.

[Francis]

Prepare the ducking stool! We're gonna have ourselves a witch burning!!

[Laurieheels]

Inga is going to come in here with the actual Monty Python sketch, I know it!

[Tom-NL]

Yes. Sir Bedevere

[Bubba136]

Who is Sir Bedevere? Perhaps you mean Sir Edward de Vere? "Oxford, 17th Earl of (Title of Edward de Vere.) 1550?1604. English courtier and poet who is believed by some to have written Shakespeare's plays".

[Bubba136]

Who is Terry Jones?

[Dr. Shoe]

The post above was me. Gotta get outta these mules!!