Capital Punishment - yes or no?

Yossarian

Test Debutant
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Runs
13,898
Post of the Week
1
To the "No" brigade:
Why pay for years and years of prison costs? not to mention that the relatives of the victims will know that whilst their loved one is 6 feet under, the perpetrator of the crime is still living and breathing, with always the possibility of escape.

To the "Yes" crowd:
What happens if it's the wrong person that is punished? No chance of rectifying the mistake if, subsequently, new evidence is discovered proving that he/she was innocent after all.

Which side are you on? The "Yes" crowd or the "No" brigade?

Please help me make my mind up - I can't decide.
 
Very complex issue. I was initially against it till i read in the newspapers about a guy who was convicted in jail for murder and sentenced to life, he was let off 25 years later for good behavior and later he committed another murder. So no real definite answer.
 
On the "No" side:

Stefan Kizko was jailed in 1975 for killing 11 year old Lesley Susan Molseed .

In 1992, he was released when it was discovered that he was innocent. He died shortly afterwards. The real killer, Ronald Castree, was arrested in Nov 2006.

Had there been capital punishment, Stefan Kizko would have been put to death, even though he was innocent.



On the "yes" side:

A Neighbour of mine's son was murdered 25 years ago. The killer was released last week after serving 25 years of his life sentence.

Because there was no capital punishment, my neighbour and his family are suffering all over again, knowing that their son's killer is free to live a 'normal' life.
 
Last edited:
AhmedZulfiqar said:
A little bit of explanation would be appreciated, bearing in mind the examples given above.
Otherwise I would have just tossed a coin!
 
Javelin said:
A little bit of explanation would be appreciated, bearing in mind the examples given above.
Otherwise I would have just tossed a coin!

it is still the most effective deterrent out there
 
Stefan Kizko was jailed in 1964 for killing 11 year old Lesley Susan Molseed .

In 1980, he was released when it was discovered that he was innocent. He died shortly afterwards. The real killer, Ronald Castree, was arrested in Nov 2006.

Had there been capital punishment, Stefan Kizko would have been put to death, even though he was innocent.
The above example to me says even sentence of 20 years is not good (doesn't say it was a death sentence) as the person maybe innocent and real person found later or in the 15the year of imprisonment. I will be interested in knowing the cases which were solved in few days, weeks, months of 2-3 years of even jail sentence that wrong person was sentenced. The problem then will be the investigation and system and not punishment. Why are the examples of only 15-25 years range (I am not pointing at the poster but that is what I see) before finding them innocent. The way I see it that after such a sentence life is mostly finished and if you are very very lucky you might be set free if you were serving life sentence.

Give me a choice if I want to spend 10 years in jail and there will be a coin toss to see if I spend another 10 or not. I will ask for a painless procedure to put me to sleep. Except the people found innocent don't have that choice and they just live on a hope but probably no life
 
Last edited:
12thMan said:
The above example to me says even sentence of 20 years is not good (doesn't say it was a death sentence) as the person maybe innocent and real person found later or in the 15the year of imprisonment. I will be interested in knowing the cases which were solved in few days, weeks, months of 2-3 years of even jail sentence that wrong person was sentenced. The problem then will be the investigation and system and not punishment. Why are the examples of only 15-25 years range (I am not pointing at the poster but that is what I see) before finding them innocent. The way I see it that after such a sentence life is mostly finished and if you are very very lucky you might be set free if you were serving life sentence.

Give me a choice if I want to spend 10 years in jail and there will be a coin toss to see if I spend another 10 or not. I will ask for a painless procedure to put me to sleep. Except the people found innocent don't have that choice and they just live on a hope but probably no life
The reason those examples were given is because had there been Capital punishment as a sentence available to the Judges to 'pass down', in all likelihood they would both have been given the death sentence. The Judges, in each case, gave the maximum they could give, i.e. life sentences.

That is the reason for the thread. Capital punishment, yes or no.
Yes, meaning the death sentence.
No, meaning life imprisonment (or 20 to 25 years in reality)
 
Last edited:
AhmedZulfiqar said:
it is still the most effective deterrent out there
It is good to see that you are looking at both sides of the argument, weighing up the pro's and con's, and providing a detailed explanation as to why you are favouring one over the other.
That will really answer the question I was asking, "Please help me make my mind up - I can't decide". Thanks!

Anyway, if it was simply as a deterrent, then your answer would'nt work. Most criminals, when committing such a severe criminal act , would most likely think "I'd rather die than go to prison for life, if I ever get caught".
 
Last edited:
TAK said:
are we talking for the uk?
The principle of the argument should apply everywhere. Although the examples given were for the UK. So lets start off with the UK. BUT I could not say Yes to Capital punishment in one country, and No in another.
 
No, meaning life imprisonment (or 20 to 25 years in reality)
people do get multiple life sentecnes so that can be 100+ years (silly really but reality).
What is a life sentence in different countries? UK, Canada, USA, Norway, Pakistan? They will be different and my guess is USA will have more than others and Pakistan either same or more than USA. 20 years in prison a lot different than capital punishment means different things to different people. I can say kill me pleasently now as I am not faced with it and I can say jail is very bad living (though in USA they might be eating better then poor people but then theymay have to face violence and confinment etc, going by movies). Somewhere I read it costs more in USA to give someone Capital punishment than prison. I really don't get it and the figures were big for both.

20 years in prison or kill the person? I think the person should be given a choice when given a jail sentence
 
It needs to be systematic.

If there is evidence which proves quite clearly who the murderer is and where the murderer himself admits guilt, capital punishment should be allowed. For example, where the murder is caught on CCTV or there are more then one eye-witnesses.

However, if there could be a 0.1% possibility that the defendant is not guilty then I support a life sentence until new evidence comes to light either proving the defendant innocent or 100% guilty.
 
An unequivocal yes.

yaa ayyuhallaziina aamanu kutiba alaikumul qisaasu fil qutlaa ... [2.177]
O men who believe, qisaas is decreed for you in the matter of bloodshed ...

wa lakum fil qisaasi hayaatun yaa oolil albaabi la'allaukum tattaqoon. [2.178]
And there is life for you in qisaas, O men of understanding, that you may ward off (evil).

qisaas : Law of equal retaliation, like-for-like punishment.
 
Last edited:
YES YES YES

You kill someone, you should be put to death. That is how it should work, always!!!

Some people come up with the argument that what if someone is convicted falsely. WElll, that is the fault of the judicial system, not the punishment.
 
Last edited:
Yes, only with an unbeatable justice system.

No, only with a crap justice system.
 
Momo said:
An unequivocal yes.

yaa ayyuhallaziina aamanu kutiba alaikumul qisaasu fil qutlaa ... [2.177]
O men who believe, qisaas is decreed for you in the matter of bloodshed ...

wa lakum fil qisaasi hayaatun yaa oolil albaabi la'allaukum tattaqoon. [2.178]
And there is life for you in qisaas, O men of understanding, that you may ward off (evil).

qisaas : Law of equal retaliation, like-for-like punishment.
So you would have put to death Stefan Kizko, had you been the Judge passing down the sentence?

(According to reports, there were 'witnesses' who had seen him abducting the girl, there was a 'confession', there was other 'evidence'. All of which were eventually proved to be false - hence his release)
 
waqar_ahmad said:
YES YES YES

You kill someone, you should be put to death. That is how it should work, always!!!

Some people come up with the argument that what if someone is convicted falsely. WElll, that is the fault of the judicial system, not the punishment.
What if it was you, or your brother or father who was falsely accused and convicted? And evidence proving innocence only came to light after the death sentence was carried out

Would you still be of the same view?
 
Last edited:
Vegitto1 said:
It needs to be systematic.

If there is evidence which proves quite clearly who the murderer is and where the murderer himself admits guilt, capital punishment should be allowed. For example, where the murder is caught on CCTV or there are more then one eye-witnesses.

However, if there could be a 0.1% possibility that the defendant is not guilty then I support a life sentence until new evidence comes to light either proving the defendant innocent or 100% guilty.
Hmmm - best answer I've seen so far.
 
yes for certain categories of offence e.g. pre-meditated murder, rape and paedophilia

needs to be a seperate judicial system for those offences where capital punishement would apply to remove the possibility of misacrrige

specialist judges, specialist police, stringent rules on admissable evidence, incetigation procedures etc. would be required

at present you can be a multiple murderer and still get to meet celebreties inside:

guess who??

2h3a3c5.jpg
 
No.


No one has the right to take another person's life. If one does commit murder (with unequivocal proof) then they deserve to be thrown in a cell with no windows and absolutely no possibility of release.

I really don't get how murderers are allowed to walk free after a period of time. Life in prison should mean exactly that.

Oh and rape and pedophilia should have the same sentence as murder i.e. life in a hole.
 
Last edited:
Im a lot like John Kerry on this issue - i really flip flop, sometimes im in the yes camp then others in the no


I can understand why people say yes and its hard to tell someone who has been a victim as a result of a murderer, rapist etc that the person who committed the crime is still living his life whilst they suffer on a daily basis

Then on the flip side you have cases where innocent people are sent to jail either due to corruption or simply because of mistakes - not easy to rectify those mistakes if capital punishment is in place

If there was a way to GUARANTEE you have the right person (there cant be the slightest of doubts) then its hard to argue against capital punishment . . . . . . BUT having said that you have the case of Stan Tookie Williams, he was the guy who started the LA Gang the crips, he was on death row and executed a few years back (was convicted on 4 murder charges) - this guy despite his early gang life was doing a lot to help dissuade people from the gang culture, so he was doing a lot of good, keeping him alive may have been a better option?????
 
If im not mistaken (dont have any figures) BUT hasnt it been shown that capital punishment hasnt shown to be a deterrent

I think what needs to be done is to have tougher sentencing - LIFE should mean exactly that, LIFE.

Also they should think about reintroducing chain gangs, might aswell get some benefit out of these people
 
Javelin said:
So you would have put to death Stefan Kizko, had you been the Judge passing down the sentence?

(According to reports, there were 'witnesses' who had seen him abducting the girl, there was a 'confession', there was other 'evidence'. All of which were eventually proved to be false - hence his release)
You are confusing yourself now.

The original question (your own) was whether capital punishment should exist as a mode of punishment or not. And now you ask me whether a judge should put to death somebody or not.

Well these are two completely different issues. My first post addressed the first issue. The judge can only pronounce the punishments available in the penal code. He can't go for something not even there.

Coming to your example, while I am not familiar with the case, I will take your facts as you present them and say this much: There will always be unfortunate cases like the one you have mentioned. But if the judge is convinced about the facts, he should go for the capital punishment (if it is at his disposal of course).

These things are not decided based on exceptions. When Allah says that there is life in qisaas for us, He is saying it in full knowledge that the cases will be heard by humans and humans are not infallible. So exceptions (where justice is not done despite all efforts and sincerity) will always be there.

These things are seen at the level of the society and not on individual levels. In that way qisaas is indeed life for us even if there are some isolated cases like the one you mention.
 
Last edited:
Javelin said:
What if it was you, or your brother or father who was falsely accused and convicted? And evidence proving innocence only came to light after the death sentence was carried out

Would you still be of the same view?
What if it was you (Javelin), your brother, your son, or your father, who was wrongly accused and was sent behind bars and lost fifteen years of his life before evidence came out proving him innocent?

Are you sure death is worse than fifteen years behind bars, after which you are almost certainly unfit to live normally even your remaining years?

What about twenty years? Twenty five?

See, you are confusing two cmpletely different things here. Miscarriage of justice and the moral/practical justification of capital punishment. The two have nothing to do with one another.
 
Last edited:
I'd probably say no but this is as someone who has not had some horrible crime perpetrated against a family member.

My reasons for no:

1. There may be a possibility of mistake and the person being innocent. In this case you would have murdered an innocent person, as the justice system in any country is very fallible.

2. Not sure about prisons for crimes of murder, but if you're a murderer, it surely must be worse to suffer life imprisonment than a quick release through death? 30-40 years in a horrible prison? I might perfer death.

On the other hand, if someone raped/killed a family member, I might much prefer to have the ******* killed. Besides, if the person is definitely guilty, what if they're in some prison where they could still get some pleasures out of life, such as reading, exercising, watching tv in designated hours, etc. What if there is some possibility of parole?

I'd probably have to do a lot more research before formulating a properly educated opinion, but those are my initial thoughts.
 
Momo said:
\

See, you are confusing two cmpletely different things here. Miscarriage of justice and the moral/practical justification of capital punishment. The two have nothing to do with one another.

They have everything to do with each other because justice systems everywhere are not perfect. I'm surprised by this very naive statement.
 
Blistering Barnacle said:
They have everything to do with each other because justice systems everywhere are not perfect. I'm surprised by this very naive statement.
That's where the two of us are different. Having full knowledge of your dyslexia like reading disability that you display on every thread, I am not surprised by anything from you any more.

Don't take it personally though.
 
Momo said:
That's where the two of us are different. Having full knowledge of your dyslexia like reading disability that you display on every thread, I am not surprised by anything from you any more.

Don't take it personally though.

This excuse of yours is getting tiring.

Either address the content or don't bother posting in response.

Simply positing insulting and sarcastic responses aren't doing you any good.

You show a serious ignorance by not realizing that one of the major arguments against capital punishment is because of the implementation of it.
 
Momo said:
Are you sure death is worse than fifteen years behind bars, after which you are almost certainly unfit to live normally even your remaining years?

Nelson Mandela spent 27 years behind bars if I'm not wrong, and went on to become the President of SA.
 
I am with Momo on this one. I am not sure but I do believe Islamic law makes it hard to present false witnesses etc.

Momo is there any punishment for false witnesses? If so I believe it can make sure to a large degree innocent people do not suffer.
 
Blistering Barnacle,
I am almost in full agreement with all of your posts on this issue in this thread.
So, Thanks.

It would be funny, if it were not such a serious issue as this, how some posters are adamant that it should be a "Yes" (or a "No"), until the question of if they were the judges, or if they were the accused, or if they were relatives of the victims, is put to them.
Then 'I am confused, or else the law cannot be based upon individual cases' is the response.

Anyway, looking at the two examples I gave in the opening post, the Stefan Kizko example would make me say "Absolutely No" to capital punishment, whilst my neighbours example would make me say "a definite Yes".

And yet, had he not been released, and instead given the death penalty even the "Yes" answer may have meant that he was being let off too easily by being put to death, and thus avoiding years and years of pain and misery that he deserved for his crimes.
 
Blistering Barnacle said:
Nelson Mandela spent 27 years behind bars if I'm not wrong, and went on to become the President of SA.

And I'm sure you can find similar examples for individuals who have come out of prison after serving sentences? List 5-10 if you can.
 
AhmedZulfiqar said:
A good example of how some will say "Yes" and others "No".

(Remember, millions already have - that's why he is in Power, whilst others would like to 'take him down')
 
In theory, I'm all for it. But looking at the way it's conducted, at least in the U.S., forces me to conclude that it's very arbitrary, depending on many factors such as the defendant's economic situation, the state in which the crime is committed, the prosecutor and the judge who're assigned to the case, the victims of the crime, etc. I'm all for it if there was uniformity and transparency, but there is neither. I don't like the idea that so many inconsistent factors can cause one person for a crime to be sentenced to death in one jurisdiction whereas a very similar crime in another jurisdiction nets another guy a different sentence. Plus, the way it's conducted now (usually behind closed doors in a sterile environment) defeats the purpose of deterrence--the people who're supposed to be deterred don't even find out about it. I prefer open-executions (only hangings or fire-squads, nothing medieval) where the public is invited to see first-hand the punishment one gets for a heinous crime. I realize that laws in different jurisdictions are different and that the uniformity I, and countless others, seek is just not plausible. In that case, I guess the society has to make the determination whether it's just to continue with capital punishment when there's no real way of accounting for the lack of uniformity and deterrence effect. So many jurisdictions apparently think it is. I, for one, don't.
 
When you look at people like Ian Huntley and you see the kind of life he is living - it is in prison BUT he has access to many luxuries like tv, private gym, reading etc etc, you find it hard to argue against capital punishment because a ******* like him doesnt deserve to live - or at the very least doesnt deserve any luxuries in the slightest
 
The death penalty exists in virtually every major religion - but is, naturally, to be employed in the very last resort. It is, essentially, a deterrent. Also, there are methods by which a crime may be atoned for through financial compensation to the family who have suffered a loss as a consequence. We might bear in mind, that the Lawgiver/Maker is the Ultimate Authority, HIS Laws, if adhered to, protect the innocent and prevent injustice - they set limits on human behaviour and provide the boundaries within which they may operate. Exceeding these boundaries and limits causes widespread chaos and confusion - as may be witnessed in the world today.

Surah 5, Al-Ma'idah, Verse 32
Because of this did WE Ordain to the Children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being - unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading corruption on earth - it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.."

Verse 45
And WE Ordained for them in that (Torah): A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and a (similar) retribution for wounds; but he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone thereby for some of his past sins. And they who do not judge in accordance with what Allah has Revealed - they, they are the evildoers!


An emphasis on superficial compassion for the criminal has led to many societies/nations enacting lenient sentences and abandoning the death penalty - with catastrophic consequences for all concerned. In addition, justice systems are weighted against the poor/minorities and heavily weighted in favour of the rich/elites - which effectively means that justice is being denied to many peoples.

The Creator, Who has brought into being Laws for every single part of HIS creation so that all things work and operate within them and are consequently in balance, has Ordained Laws - which are based upon/an outcome of HIS Grace and Mercy - for mankind, if he rejects or denies them and instead creates his own, he will be the loser. Allah The Beautiful Knows Best, Alhamdulillah.


(Translations from "The Message Of The Qur'an" by Muhammad Asad)
 
Jadz said:
.....We might bear in mind, that the Lawgiver/Maker is the Ultimate Authority, HIS Laws, if adhered to, protect the innocent and prevent injustice - ..hey set limits on human behaviour and provide the boundaries within which they may operate. .....
If HIS Laws were adhered to by one and all, there would NOT be any need for a death penalty or any other penalty.
If HIS Laws were adhered to by one and all, there would NOT be any need to protect the innocent and prevent injustice.
If HIS Laws were adhered to by one and all, the question of Yes or No to Capital punishment would not arise in the first place, since no crimes would ever be committed..

If such a heinous and shocking crime can be committed that it could mean the taking of the life of the accused, then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone else totally innocent could also be accused, found guilty and murdered by the state for that crime.

So lets not hide behind religion when it suits us, and ignore it when it does'nt.
 
Last edited:
Javelin said:
So lets not hide behind religion when it suits us, and ignore it when it does'nt.



I appreciate your response, thankyou. Please permit me to clarify my comments - in no way, shape or form am I hiding behind religion or seeking to ignore it, if that had indeed been the case I would not have mentioned religion or quoted from the Scriptures at all. The purpose of my contribution was merely to draw attention to the fact that all of creation operates within the parameters of the Laws of the Creator, Mankind is not exempted from these Laws which are specifically instituted for his benefit.

Secondly, if there are injustices committed through incorrect application of these Laws one can hardly blame the Law-Giver for that. Countries/societies have constitutions - the criminal/justice system being integral to them - which if adhered to allow for growth at every level. Those who either corrupt or abandon the Statutes/Provisions of their Constitutions create havoc within society and distort its direction. Many of the Laws on the Statute Books are inspired by Divine Laws which are present in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an. However, as I said earlier, many Divine Laws have been replaced by man-made laws - and the latter can never be a substitute for Eternal Laws which are founded upon Eternal Truths.

Allah The Beautiful Knows Best.
 
Yes.

It is allowed for serious crimes only in Islam such as rape, adultery, etc. and it has to be decided by way of justice and law. You cannot have a bunch of illiterate Talibans decide it.

Why do I support it?

Less money will be spent on criminals and more on other things. We will have a safer society with less criminals. It would deter people from committing crimes.

Innocent people will probably get punished but it's going to be rare. If you put those people in jail for lets say six months and find out that they are innocent, will you be able to give them back their six months? the stress and the mental trauma that you caused, will you be able to do anything about it? No! Besides, death penalty is allowed only for certain serious crimes and it must be decided by the way of law and justice. And even if the wrong person is punished, people would still think a million times before committing a crime as serious as rape/adultery/murder.
 
Last edited:
It has been proved in many studies that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent.
In fact, as a deterrent, it's sometimes quite the opposite. A criminal is more liable to think, before going out to commit a murder, or a bank robbery, or a terrorist action "I'm going to take a gun with me and make damn well sure I don't get caught, no matter what, since the State will put me to death anyway if I do get caught".
In other words, having a death penalty, may actually mean that the crime is worse that it would have been otherwise.

Of course, I accept, that many criminals would say, "I'd rather be put to death than go to prison for life".

Either way, it is not acting as a deterrent, to the crime being committed in the first place.

So, whilst there are many good reasons, such as revenge, finality, closure... for the relatives, by having a death penalty, the death penalty as a deterrent is not one of them.
 
Jadz,
Thank you at least for taking the time to clarify your comments. I appreciate that very much.

If you read my original thread, as well as my subsequent posts, I am genuinely in two minds as to whether I support Capital punishment or not.

When I hear of cases where people are released, after originally being found guilty, in cases where, had the Judge at the time had the option, he/she would surely have passed a death sentence, and only passed a life sentence because that was the maximum punishment available to him, it convinces me to be against Capital punishment. Otherwise the people in question would have been put to death despite being innocent -and I cannot accept the State murder the innocent, especially it's own citizens.

And then, when I see examples such as my neighbours, I want to be in favour of it - get them 6' under I say.
 
Hello to Javeling brother,

Quite an interesting thread, I will have say:13:. I can´t help but entering it:22:......

Javelin said:
To the "Yes" crowd:
What happens if it's the wrong person that is punished? No chance of rectifying the mistake if, subsequently, new evidence is discovered proving that he/she was innocent after all.

Should a thief be punished for stealing? What if, after the 'thief' has gone through the period of punishment, a evidence/proof is discovered which goes in his favour to prove his innocence?

Thing actually is that there is at least one to five percent chances of guiltless people being punished in each and every matter. If we start thinking about this "what if" then we will never come to a right conclusion as this is a possibility in almost all the cases (unless of course, the accused accepts his crime/sin).

Other "what ifs":

1. Suppose a judge refrains from giving the order of death sentence and calls for the imprisonment of some years´ time. 'What if' the accused turns out to be someone who didn´t learn the lesson and commits the same act after being released?

2. Why not lift the life imprisonment? Man is no God and is prone to mistakes, but 'what if' in all this someone else´s life is ruined behind the bars of jail?

In my opinion, if the evidence is reliable, and if is very much clear that the accused has committed it, then the death penalty should be carried, otherwise the accused should be left free.

Good day brother:19:!
 
Last edited:
Javelin said:
What if it was you, or your brother or father who was falsely accused and convicted? And evidence proving innocence only came to light after the death sentence was carried out

Would you still be of the same view?
Once again, that is a flaw in the judicial process, not in the punishment itself. If such incidents happen on a regular basis, then fix the judicial process.
 
Javelin said:
It is good to see that you are looking at both sides of the argument, weighing up the pro's and con's, and providing a detailed explanation as to why you are favouring one over the other.
That will really answer the question I was asking, "Please help me make my mind up - I can't decide". Thanks!

Anyway, if it was simply as a deterrent, then your answer would'nt work. Most criminals, when committing such a severe criminal act , would most likely think "I'd rather die than go to prison for life, if I ever get caught".

You are just making assumptions.

Ever heard of a mercy petition? It is usually filed by criminals who have been sentenced to death, and want it converted to a life sentence. Happens all the time. That means that they WOULD NOT prefer death over life sentence.
 
Vegitto1 said:
It needs to be systematic.

If there is evidence which proves quite clearly who the murderer is and where the murderer himself admits guilt, capital punishment should be allowed. For example, where the murder is caught on CCTV or there are more then one eye-witnesses.

However, if there could be a 0.1% possibility that the defendant is not guilty then I support a life sentence until new evidence comes to light either proving the defendant innocent or 100% guilty.

Vegitto

If there is any doubt, even 0.01%, the person can not be convicted. That is the law. Capital punishment doesnt even come into play here. You cant even fine someone if his offense hasnt been proven a 100%
 
DHONI183 said:
Hello to Javeling brother,

Quite an interesting thread, I will have say:13:. I can´t help but entering it:22:......



Should a thief be punished for stealing? What if, after the 'thief' has gone through the period of punishment, a evidence/proof is discovered which goes in his favour to prove his innocence?

Thing actually is that there is at least one to five percent chances of guiltless people being punished in each and every matter. If we start thinking about this "what if" then we will never come to a right conclusion as this is a possibility in almost all the cases (unless of course, the accused accepts his crime/sin).

Other "what ifs":

1. Suppose a judge refrains from giving the order of death sentence and calls for the imprisonment of some years´ time. 'What if' the accused turns out to be someone who didn´t learn the lesson and commits the same act after being released?

2. Why not lift the life imprisonment? Man is no God and is prone to mistakes, but 'what if' in all this someone else´s life is ruined behind the bars of jail?

In my opinion, if the evidence is reliable, and if is very much clear that the accused has committed it, then the death penalty should be carried, otherwise the accused should be left free.

Good day brother:19:!
Hello Dhoni my friend.
Unfortunately, the punishment we are talking about is death, and something in which mistakes cannot be rectified after the punishment has been carried out. This 'punishment' sets it apart from other forms of punishments.
As you will hopefully note, from the two examples I gave in the op, along with my other posts, part of me is in favour of Capital punishment, and part of me is against it.
 
waqar_ahmad said:
Vegitto

If there is any doubt, even 0.01%, the person can not be convicted. That is the law. Capital punishment doesnt even come into play here. You cant even fine someone if his offense hasnt been proven a 100%
Unfortunately you are utterly and totally wrong.
Many people are convicted on majority verdicts, meaning that a majority of the jury members were convinced of the guilt but at leasy some were not.
I would highly recommend you to watch the film "12 Angry Men" - ideally the 1957 version.
 
Javelin said:
Unfortunately you are utterly and totally wrong.
Many people are convicted on majority verdicts, meaning that a majority of the jury members were convinced of the guilt but at leasy some were not.
I would highly recommend you to watch the film "12 Angry Men" - ideally the 1957 version.
In case of a jury, I dont think so. In case of a panel of judges, yes, you are right.

But the judges have to convinced entirely.A judge cant say he is almost sure the guy is guilty, so hang him.

But see, once again, its the judicial process, NOT the punishment
 
aashiqmizaaj said:
And I'm sure you can find similar examples for individuals who have come out of prison after serving sentences? List 5-10 if you can.

There will be plenty of people who have been incarcerated who have gone on to do great things or lead very fulfilling lives in terms of contributing to society. Are you saying that you need famous people in order to believe it?

All you need is one example to disprove something, which I gave. If there is one, there could be millions.

I could spend time researching political prisoners and give you a list of 5-10 easily but you can do that work yourself. In the meantime, here are a few off the top of my head - rubin carter, asif zardari.
 
Blistering Barnacle said:
There will be plenty of people who have been incarcerated who have gone on to do great things or lead very fulfilling lives in terms of contributing to society. Are you saying that you need famous people in order to believe it?

No I'm asking you to give examples of average joe shmoe. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who ended up a manager let alone CEO of a major company after being in prison on a sentence of murder, rape, kidnapping, theft.

Political prisoners are a different story.
 
Javelin said:
Unfortunately you are utterly and totally wrong.
Many people are convicted on majority verdicts, meaning that a majority of the jury members were convinced of the guilt but at leasy some were not.
I would highly recommend you to watch the film "12 Angry Men" - ideally the 1957 version.


No you're utterly wrong. In capital cases, the conviction can only be based on a unanimous decision - meaning all 12 jurors for example in the US would have to agree. Your example of the 12 Angry Men - I think you need to watch it again because that's exactly the dilemma of the movie - some jurors who thought the man was guilty, while others who did not. What the movie also portrays however, is an inherent flaw in the juror based judicial system in that average people will bring in their own biases to the decision process. This of course is virtually impossible to eliminate.

Burden on prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Burden on jury is to come to a unanimous decision.

Sentencing is left up to the judge.
 
aashiqmizaaj said:
No you're utterly wrong. In capital cases, the conviction can only be based on a unanimous decision - meaning all 12 jurors for example in the US would have to agree. Your example of the 12 Angry Men - I think you need to watch it again because that's exactly the dilemma of the movie - some jurors who thought the man was guilty, while others who did not. What the movie also portrays however, is an inherent flaw in the juror based judicial system in that average people will bring in their own biases to the decision process. This of course is virtually impossible to eliminate.
Burden on prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Burden on jury is to come to a unanimous decision.
Sentencing is left up to the judge.
Did you actually bother to read the post is was replying to?
As far as the film/play is concerned, did you perhaps not think that I may also have been referring to each individual Jury member and not simply the 12 Jury members as a whole? THAT was the point of the play, was each and every member, in themselves, 100% convinced of the boys guilt.

By the way, here is the quote I was replying to and saying that the author was wrong:
Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad
Vegitto

If there is any doubt, even 0.01%, the person can not be convicted. That is the law. Capital punishment doesnt even come into play here. You cant even fine someone if his offense hasnt been proven a 100%
Note the bit "You can't even fine someone if his offence has'nt been proven 100%". How does that stand up with majority verdict decisions?
 
aashiqmizaaj said:
Political prisoners are a different story.

I don't think they are a different story because the point in the post I was responding to was spending significant periods of time imprisoned vs being killed instead. Furthermore, political prisoners are also killed or given capital punishment, such as Bhutto.

Rubin Carter btw was imprisoned for murder.
 
If someone killed a member of my family or a close friend (God forbid) I would like the murderer die via capital punishment and burn in hell.
 
Whilst I am still in two minds re-the initial question about Capital punishment, I hope that there will never be a referendum in the UK on this question(as some politicians have called for). 'cause if there is a referendum, I will have to make a decision one way or the other, and cast my vote accordingly.

However, reading some of the posts in this thread takes me back to my history lessons and about the tests they performed on those accused of witchcraft in the Middle ages.

They had their hands/feet tied, and they were thrown into the river or the lake. If they floated they were guilty of witchcraft, and taken out and burned. If they sank they were innocent but had drowned anyway.

If you wanted to get rid of a love rival or somebody you did'nt like, just accuse them of being a witch. A sure way of getting rid of them.

(Applied to male witches as well as female)
 
Immy Ji said:
If someone killed a member of my family or a close friend (God forbid) I would like the murderer die via capital punishment and burn in hell.
So would I!
But then again, their death would be quick and over and done with. I'd also like to see them suffer for a while (mentally, if not physically).

My only worry would be, and hence the reason for the thread, what if they had got the wrong person? ? I don't want the State to murder someone who's innocent.
 
Blistering Barnacle said:
I don't think they are a different story because the point in the post I was responding to was spending significant periods of time imprisoned vs being killed instead. Furthermore, political prisoners are also killed or given capital punishment, such as Bhutto.

Rubin Carter btw was imprisoned for murder.

It is a different story. Come on. You're equating a celebrity going to prison and coming back to some average joe shmoe committing a crime, going to prison and then coming out and be able to function in society as a normal person? There are job applications that clearly ask if you've been convicted of a crime - just what do you think that question does?

Rubin Carter btw was already a celebrity prior to his murder conviction. He was also declared innocent.

Do you think that someone who committed murder, goes to prison, serves a life sentence of 25 years can come back into society and be a productive, positive influence? Are there any such examples based on the average non-celebrity - you know the type that actually fills up the prisons.
 
Javelin said:
As far as the film/play is concerned, did you perhaps not think that I may also have been referring to each individual Jury member and not simply the 12 Jury members as a whole?

And the juror system in capital cases still has to come up a with a unanimous decision, however, it comes about. There are no majority decisions.
 
Javelin said:
It has been proved in many studies that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent.
In fact, as a deterrent, it's sometimes quite the opposite. A criminal is more liable to think, before going out to commit a murder, or a bank robbery, or a terrorist action "I'm going to take a gun with me and make damn well sure I don't get caught, no matter what, since the State will put me to death anyway if I do get caught".
In other words, having a death penalty, may actually mean that the crime is worse that it would have been otherwise.

Of course, I accept, that many criminals would say, "I'd rather be put to death than go to prison for life".

Either way, it is not acting as a deterrent, to the crime being committed in the first place.

So, whilst there are many good reasons, such as revenge, finality, closure... for the relatives, by having a death penalty, the death penalty as a deterrent is not one of them.
Come on, this is pure speculation. One can equally validly assume that criminals would be afraid of the death penalty, no?

Tried to say the same thing in a jocular fashion earlier but it didn't quite work. :)
 
Last edited:
To those saying that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

Is there any way that this can be shown to be correct, one way or another? Perhaps in the USA, where some States have it and others do not.

Please note, when claiming the death penalty to be a deterrent, the argument is not death penalty or nothing, but rather, the death penalty or life imprisonment., and which of the two the criminal will have in his/her mind, prior to going out and committing his/her crime.

I would have thought that the intended criminal would, first of all, not even think about being caught, and if he thought that there was the possibility of being caught, his first thought would be, "What can I do to make sure I don't get caught?" - "I know, I'll take a gun with me"....

So please, those who are claiming the death penalty to be a deterrent, can you back-up your argument a little bit more?

(and for the umpteenth time, I can see arguments in favour of the death penalty - but as a deterrent? ...studies say otherwise)
 
Javelin said:
A criminal is more liable to think, before going out to commit a murder, or a bank robbery, or a terrorist action "I'm going to take a gun with me and make damn well sure I don't get caught, no matter what, since the State will put me to death anyway if I do get caught".
In other words, having a death penalty, may actually mean that the crime is worse that it would have been otherwise.
You mean he might decide in favour of taking a gun with him, as opposed to say a bouquet of flowers (which he would otherwise have used for the purpose of murder, bank robbery, or terrorism), because he doesn't want to get caught?

An interesting thought. :inzi
Javelin said:
I would have thought that the intended criminal would, first of all, not even think about being caught, and if he thought that there was the possibility of being caught, his first thought would be, "What can I do to make sure I don't get caught?" - "I know, I'll take a gun with me"....
Well if the intended crime is something like selling a cricket match ticket in the black market, the criminal (if he has any brains) wouldn't worry about the death penalty anyway. If on the other hand he is contemplating something sinister such as murder, bank-robbery, terrorism etc (crimes that do carry death sentence in some parts of the world), chances are he is already carrying a gun.

So 'I know I'll take a gun with me' is a rather silly non-starter, I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
On a slightly different note, who is for capital punishment for non-possession of a sense of humour?

Anybody?
 
Last edited:
In January, 1995, Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted a national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs in the United States. In that poll, the chiefs had the opportunity to express what they believe really works in fighting crime. They were asked where the death penalty fit in their priorities as leaders in the law enforcement field. What the police chiefs had to say may be surprising to many lawmakers, and to much of the public as well. The Hart Poll found that:

* Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, and a better economy with more jobs.
* The death penalty was rated as the least cost-effective method for controlling crime.
* Insufficient use of the death penalty is not considered a major problem by the majority of police chiefs.
* Strengthening families and neighborhoods, punishing criminals swiftly and surely, controlling illegal drugs, and gun control are considered much more important than the death penalty.
* Although a majority of the police chiefs support the death penalty in the abstract, when given a choice between the sentence of life without parole plus restitution versus the death penalty, barely half of the chiefssupport capital punishment.
* Police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.
* Police chiefs do not believe that murderers think about the range of possible punishments.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/front-line-law-enforcement-views-death-penalty
 
Has any PPer ever been on a Jury panel?
has anyone ever been sent to prison ? (It could be for any crime, and for any length of time)? It would be interesting to hear from you as to how you felt at the time.

(I'm aware that UK law prohibits Jury members from talking about any individual cases - hence I'm not talking about giving any specific details, but just general viewpoints and feelings)
 
aashiqmizaaj said:
It is a different story. Come on. You're equating a celebrity going to prison and coming back to some average joe shmoe committing a crime, going to prison and then coming out and be able to function in society as a normal person? There are job applications that clearly ask if you've been convicted of a crime - just what do you think that question does?

Rubin Carter btw was already a celebrity prior to his murder conviction. He was also declared innocent.

Do you think that someone who committed murder, goes to prison, serves a life sentence of 25 years can come back into society and be a productive, positive influence? Are there any such examples based on the average non-celebrity - you know the type that actually fills up the prisons.

You're missing the point....capital punishment applies to everyone regardless - whether they are political prisoners, whether they are actually guilty or just found guilty when really they are innocent, etc.

Even if you refer to political prisoners as celebrities, which I disagree with because many of them are small time or not famous or don't go on to achieve any political success, capital punishment applies to them as well.

An extension of that debate, in which I responded to another poster and you then responded to me, was that it is better for them to be killed than spend significant periods of time in prison and released. That is way too much of a generalization.

The point is not whether they go on to become presidents or become famous in any other ways. The examples I gave were inspirational and famous ones, but it doesn't mean that there are not other people that were actually innocent that spent time in prison and then came out to lead productive fulfilling lives. The point is that they would have been DEAD and done nothing after being released from prison.

You say Rubin Carter was declared innocent. That was after what, 20 years in prison? According to your argument, he should have just been killed for being convicted of three murders as being killed is better than spending 20 years in prison. Instead he is now a motivational speaker and highly respected by many people.

Another example is Tim Allen, who was convicted of possession of 1.4 pounds of cocaine at an airport. In many countries, he could potentially have received the death sentence and would have been dead these last 30 years. Instead he reformed and became a famous actor.
 
Javelin said:
Hello Dhoni my friend.
Unfortunately, the punishment we are talking about is death, and something in which mistakes cannot be rectified after the punishment has been carried out. This 'punishment' sets it apart from other forms of punishments.
As you will hopefully note, from the two examples I gave in the op, along with my other posts, part of me is in favour of Capital punishment, and part of me is against it.

Another thing is brother that people are likely to take it very lightly once this kind of punishment is absolutely lifted.

Islamically, a quote from The Holy Prophet حضرات Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) might shed some light:

"It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing"

I would say that if a judge is certain that the person accused comes across to be innocent of the guilt then he should be forgiven. Afterthoughts should definitely take part in your mind before delivering a verdict.

I will still go for capital punishment:)!
 
DHONI183 said:
Another thing is brother that people are likely to take it very lightly once this kind of punishment is absolutely lifted.

Islamically, a quote from The Holy Prophet حضرات Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) might shed some light:

"It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing"

I would say that if a judge is certain that the person accused comes across to be innocent of the guilt then he should be forgiven. Afterthoughts should definitely take part in your mind before delivering a verdict.

I will still go for capital punishment:)!
I guess the reason this debate has come about is due to the way, in very, very serious cases, the options that are given to the Judge and Jury.

In too many countries, the choice in front of the Jury is 'Innocent' or 'guilty'. And if found 'guilty' or not-guilty even by 1 Jury member, it is possible that a person could be totally set free or given the death sentence .

Perhaps there could be something that satisfies both?

Say, if it's a unanimous Jury verdict of Guilty, then the Judge passes the death sentence.
However, 11-1, or 10-2 verdicts of guilty should also be allowed, for which the judge passes a life sentences or a 20 year sentence.

That way, if 1 or 2 Jury members think someone is almost definitely guilty, that Jury member is not faced with having a person totally set free or given the death sentence, purely 'cause of him/her/


Or


Rather than simply guilty (-death penalty) or not-guilty (-set free), the Jury members had a 3rd option, say only 99% sure of guilty.
If all Jury members voted guilty, then it's = death sentence, but if even 1 Jury member voted 99%-guilty, then it's=life sentence.
Obviously if even 1 Jury member voted not-guilty, then overall verdict is not-guilty and the person is set free..


Just throwing around some (compromise) ideas!
 
Last edited:
No. We have no right to take away anyone's life. If someone commits murder then you do not kill them in return. If nothing else it would actually be more painful for them to have to endure the rest of their life in prison, bearing whatever guilt they have. Also, you cannot deprive a child of its parent or a husband of his wife. Completely immoral.
 
shane said:
No. We have no right to take away anyone's life. If someone commits murder then you do not kill them in return. If nothing else it would actually be more painful for them to have to endure the rest of their life in prison, bearing whatever guilt they have. Also, you cannot deprive a child of its parent or a husband of his wife. Completely immoral.

If that´s the case then simply forgiving the murderer is a better option really. A life imprisonment would also 'deprive a child of its parent or a husband of his wife'. "Completely immoral" in your words:26:.
 
When a criminal murders someone he signed off his life in return. Capital punishment does two things. Firstly the criminal gets his due punishment and secondly it serves as a warning to the rest of society.

Here in the uk part of my taxes goes to feeding murderers and rapists holed up in prisons. What a waste of money.
 
DHONI183 said:
If that´s the case then simply forgiving the murderer is a better option really. A life imprisonment would also 'deprive a child of its parent or a husband of his wife'. "Completely immoral" in your words:26:.


Morality is subjective, that is true. To say that we should not kill someone is not to say that we should forgive them - they are very different things. Punishment is a matter of degree.

Having visited prisons in the past (as a lawyer) I can assure you that it is a miserable existence - some prisons I have visited are not fit even for murderers! But children can visit their parents in jail, they cannot visit them in the grave.

I also understand that I am talking as one of the fortunate people who have not lost a loved one as a result of someone's criminal acts. And for those people it is obviously a much more heated issue, with revenge being a very important element.
 
Two traffic policemen yesterday raped and killed a three and half year old girl in Pakistan. There is absolutely no doubt as to who the culprits are behind this.

I don´t know if there should any other punishment than death penalty or not in this case.
 
A court in Singapore has executed a Malaysian drug smuggler, his sister has confirmed to the BBC.

Nagaenthran Dharmalingam had been on death row for more than a decade for attempting to bring around three tablespoons of heroin into Singapore.

His case was highly controversial as he was assessed by a medical expert to have an IQ of 69 - a level that indicates an intellectual disability.

But the government said he "clearly understood the nature of his acts".

In an earlier statement, the government said they found he "did not lose his sense of judgment of the rightness or wrongness of what he was doing".

The court had earlier on Tuesday dismissed a last-ditch appeal by his mother, adding that Nagaenthran had been given "due process in accordance with the law", adding that he had "exhausted his rights of appeal and almost every other recourse under the law over some 11 years".

At the end of Tuesday's hearing, Nagaenthran and his family had reached through a gap in a glass screen to grasp each other's hands tightly as they wept, according to a Reuters report. His cries of "ma" could be heard in the courtroom.

Family prays as man with low IQ set to be executed
In 2009, Nagaenthran was caught crossing into Singapore from Malaysia with 43g (1.5oz) heroin strapped to his left thigh.

Under Singapore's drug laws - which are among the toughest in the world - those caught carrying more than 15g of heroin are subject to the death penalty.

During his trial, the 34-year-old initially said he was coerced into carrying the drugs, but later said he had committed the offence because he needed money.

The court said his initial defence was "fabricated". He was eventually sentenced to death by hanging.

In 2015, he appealed to have his sentence commuted to life in prison on the basis that he suffered from an intellectual disability.

His lawyers had argued that the execution of a mentally ill person is prohibited under international human rights law.

But a court found that he was not intellectually disabled. A push for presidential clemency was also rejected last year.

"The Court of Appeal found that this was the working of a criminal mind, weighing the risks and countervailing benefits associated with the criminal conduct in question," said Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs in an earlier statement.

The movement has gained traction on social media, where there has been an unusual outpouring of anger and sympathy, including from the British billionaire Richard Branson and actor Stephen Fry, who oppose capital punishment and have called on Singapore to spare Nagaenthran.
BBC
 
Iranian authorities put three women to death on Wednesday for murdering their husbands, a human rights charity says.

According to the Iran Human Rights Group they were among 32 people executed in the past week alone.

A former child bride, convicted of later killing the man she had married at the age of 15, was among them.

Authorities are believed to have substantially stepped up their use of the death penalty, executing twice as many people so far this year than last.

Rights groups report that Iran also executes more women than any other country, the majority of whom are thought to have been found guilty of killing their husbands.

On Wednesday, the Iran Human Rights Group says former child bride Soheila Abadi was hanged in prison after being convicted of killing her husband after marrying him 10 years previously when she was 15 years old.

The sentencing court reportedly said the motive for the murder had been "family disputes."

Two other women executed on Wednesday had also been convicted of murdering their husbands, the group said.

Activists say many of the cases involve accusations of domestic violence but that Iranian courts frequently do not take that into account.

Precise figures on execution numbers are not available as Iranian authorities do not officially announce every case where the death penalty has been carried out.

According to a research published in April by two rights groups, only 16.5% of executions believed to have been carried out in Iran last year were announced by officials.

Reports this year suggest the use of the death penalty has spiked even further since.

Human rights group Amnesty International this week accused Iran of having embarked upon a "horrific" execution spree in recent months, reportedly putting more than 250 people to death in the first six months of 2022 - more than double the number executed over the equivalent period in the previous year.

"The state machinery is carrying out killings on a mass scale across the country in an abhorrent assault on the right to life," said Diana Eltahawy, deputy regional director at Amnesty International.

Some of those convicted have been put to death in mass executions, the rights group reports, including a dozen people in one prison on 15 June and the same number in a separate prison on 6 June.

Ethnic minorities are also overrepresented in the statistics.

Despite making up around 5% of Iran's general population, members of the Baluchi minority made up more than one in four of those believed by Amnesty International to have been executed so far this year.



BBC
 
Back
Top