Death penalty?

[traps]

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/03/08/zuma-and-the-death-penalty-referendum/

 

[Wazeeri]

Traps

There is a difference between murder and execution.

Crime is made of two parts, the actual act and the intention. If someone was to kill someone accidently lets say by running them over on a dark road, than would this mean that they have stooped to a murderer's level? NO! The act of taking a life alone is not a crime and is not something which deserves to be looked down upon.

Executing a criminal similarly is with for the betterment of soceity and thus should not be enough to warrant a comparison between the morals of the justice system and that of a criminal.

 

[traps]

Waz our guys are split on this - crime is rampant on the one hand BUT whether this acts as a deterrent nobody seems sure.

 

[Wazeeri]

Traps

In your article you said you will set aside the argument of deterrence as it is still open to debate. I just didn't agree with your assertion that just because we are carrying out the same act we are morally on the same level as the criminal. I don't believe that is the case.

 

[Hash]

I don't believe in the death penalty personally.

I don't think the state should have a right to decide when and how somebody should die. I also don't believe it acts as a deterrent.

 

[Wazeeri]

Cue the EU, Arab stats and "what if we get the wrong guy"....etc

 

[Inswinger]

Some people consider life sentence in prison worse than death by lethal injection.

 

[Wazeeri]

I am some people.

A lifetime of confined mental torture is much more cruel than a few seconds of pain.

 

[Inswinger]

I am some people.

A lifetime of confined mental torture is much more cruel than a few seconds of pain.

Im one of those people as well.

 

[Hash]

Im one of those people as well.

and me.

Although I don't think prison should be about lazing around in a cell all day. They should be made to provide a service to the country while serving their sentences....I believe prisoners in the UK make street signs. Things like that.

 

[161]

The death penalty has always been and will always be just a public spectacle.

The masses have always been out for blood and politicians and rulers have always been all to quick to give it to them as long as they benefit from it.

A politician isn't going to get any votes for sparing a mass murdered, but he will connect with the fear and hatred of the average man if he sends such heinous individuals to their death.

 

[Wazeeri]

The only argument that I am willing to accept against capital punishment is that of punishing the innocent in error.

This is however more a problem of the judicial systems and forensic techniques rather than of the morality of the punishment.

 

[161]

The only argument that I am willing to accept against capital punishment is that of punishing the innocent in error.

You speak as though to kill is the default position ?

Shouldn't to not kill be the default position ?

Shouldn't society have a dam good reason before someone is sent to death?

As I posted above .. there is no such reason .. death penalty is just a public stunt to quench the blood lust of the average joe.

 

[Wazeeri]

The death penalty should be avoided in as many cases as possible. If the criminal shows remorse than he should be given a chance (by the family of the victim) I don't believe in imprisoning people for life.

 

[traps]

As a specialist criminal attorney I can't claim to be the boff but I truly believe that life in jail is much worse.

Of course nobody wants to die but that is far more merciful than rotting away knowing that it all could have been so different.

 

[Hash]

The death penalty should be avoided in as many cases as possible. If the criminal shows remorse than he should be given a chance (by the family of the victim) I don't believe in imprisoning people for life.

The family of the victim should have no say in the punishment. A criminal sentence is not something which should be made on emotional grounds.

 

[Wazeeri]

The family of the victim should have no say in the punishment. A criminal sentence is not something which should be made on emotional grounds.

Laws of different nations have been in existence only because of the need to maintain peace. When two parties have a disagreement they goto the courts to settle it instead of fighting it out between themselve ala NWFP.

The family of the victim is the party most affected by the crime and therefore it should be upto them to say whether the matter has been settled or not.

 

[traps]

Waz I agree with you - The family must have a say in terms of the penalty as the parties most affected.

 

[Taurus]

The death penalty is barbaric, uneccessary and unreliable. Any government that persists with the death penalty is committing state-sanctioned murder.

 

[traps]

Surprising from you Augustus Ceaser!

 

[Vegitto1]

I believe in natural law, an eye for an eye, therefore I fully support the death penalty in cases where it is 100% clear that the defendant was guilty of murder.

There is a difference between murder and execution.

Crime is made of two parts, the actual act and the intention. If someone was to kill someone accidently lets say by running them over on a dark road, than would this mean that they have stooped to a murderer's level? NO! The act of taking a life alone is not a crime and is not something which deserves to be looked down upon.

Executing a criminal similarly is with for the betterment of soceity and thus should not be enough to warrant a comparison between the morals of the justice system and that of a criminal.

Fully agree with this point Wazeeri made earlier on. You cannot compare execution to a murder.

However, in cases where their is a slightest chance of error, I think that Life imprisonment should apply. i.e. where it is 99% evident that the defendant was guilty, however their is still a slight element of doubt.

Moreover, those who argue life imprisonment should know it is a theoratical concept. hardly any prisoner does life. and By life it usually means 15 years imprisonment. Moreover, I think it is highly impractical to give life imprisonment sentences to even hardcore professional murders, considering the fact that we are paying for their upkeep.

Why does society needs to pay to keep murderers alive? That same money could be spent on other more useful areas which would benefit the society more then keeping murderers alive in a prison.

 

[traps]

Is it not to ensure that they receive a punishment ie life that deters others from doing the same.

 

[Wazeeri]

Waz our guys are split on this - crime is rampant on the one hand BUT whether this acts as a deterrent nobody seems sure.

Traps

Do you mean South Africans

 

[traps]

Waz - Yes - our crime rate is staggering.

 

[Taurus]

Fully agree with this point Wazeeri made earlier on. You cannot compare execution to a murder.

It's exactly the same thing - somebody taking somebody's life. There are plenty of murders in real life that have been committed by someone who has tried to rid the world of a supposed evil, but it doesn't disguise the fact that they unlawfully and unjustly put somebody to death. The simple truth is that only fate should decide when a person dies, whereas all we can do is keep those who are dangerous away from those who they would endanger, and from there let nature take its course.

However, in cases where their is a slightest chance of error, I think that Life imprisonment should apply. i.e. where it is 99% evident that the defendant was guilty, however their is still a slight element of doubt.

Pretty much every case has at least 1% error. Murders are not committed in front of video cameras, and even if they are they're not usually very revealing. Murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence such as forensics and witness testimony. Even supposed murderers who have pleaded guilty have eventually turned out not to have done anything. There are plenty of idiots out there, and human testimony can easily be sleighted by a grudge.

Even forensic evidence can only prove that somebody was at the scene of the crime, except in the case of a murder-rape.

Moreover, those who argue life imprisonment should know it is a theoratical concept. hardly any prisoner does life. and By life it usually means 15 years imprisonment. Moreover, I think it is highly impractical to give life imprisonment sentences to even hardcore professional murders, considering the fact that we are paying for their upkeep.

The aim of imprisonment is supposedly rehabilitation. There are probably murderers who genuinely are rehabilitated after "X" Years. However, serial killers and child killers should immediately be imprisoned for a life term. It's not anyone's fault that life isn't life anyway - it should be. That the current system is failing because of a simple flaw that could easily be rectified is no justification for the death penalty though. In the UK, prisoners are being let out simply to save space and money.

Why does society needs to pay to keep murderers alive? That same money could be spent on other more useful areas which would benefit the society more then keeping murderers alive in a prison.

Because of appeals, counter-appeals and the various other costs associated with putting someone to death, it actually costs even more to execute someone than it does to imprison somebody for life.

 

[Wazeeri]

It's exactly the same thing - somebody taking somebody's life.

So if I was to kill someone in an accident I will be a murderer?
Because that fits your description of somebody taking somebody's life

There are plenty of murders in real life that have been committed by someone who has tried to rid the world of a supposed evil, but it doesn't disguise the fact that they unlawfully and unjustly put somebody to death.

We are talking about killing someone justly and law fully. That is what the topic is about.

Even forensic evidence can only prove that somebody was at the scene of the crime, except in the case of a murder-rape.

The above arguments and the many you have presented along side it are arguments against the current level of human intelligence. Unless ofcourse you are going to argue that an innocent person could be put to death but even still it could be argued that you could possibly imprison someone for life because of the failures of forensic sciences.

If you want to argue for a 100% proof system than you will have to put up with 100% of unconvicted criminals. It is just not practical. You have to see the evidence for and against and base a judgement on the net weight of the two. It would be brilliant if we had a system which could provide 100% proof (even if there was the liberals among us would argue that it is infringement of privacy) but we don't have such a system, human judgemennt is the only way we can tackle crime.

However, serial killers and child killers should immediately be imprisoned for a life term. It's not anyone's fault that life isn't life anyway - it should be.

You earlier made an argument that The death penalty is barbaric, unneccessary and unreliable.

Your alternative is imprisonment.

Taking the three descriptions in bold.
BARBARIC
I would rather be barbaric than cruel enough to put a human being through a whole life of mental torture.

UNECCESSARY
Can you explain the necessity of imprisonment. Especially for life?
When it drains funds and has no purpose other than inputting a criminal and outputting his dead body. A lot like capital punishment only longer and more torturous.

UNRELIABLE
What is the reliability of imprisonment like? How many prisoners do you think come out new men?

 

[Wazeeri]

Because of appeals, counter-appeals and the various other costs associated with putting someone to death, it actually costs even more to execute someone than it does to imprison somebody for life.

You mean when a person is given life imprisonment he or she doesn't appeal against it?

 

[Taurus]

If you want to be pedantic, between the years of 1939 and 1945, six million Jews were killed lawfully by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party - because he made it law. Law is not necessarily right, for there's the law of God and the law of the land. Armed forces kill people, and that's not exactly just but people say it is so because it's a different kind of murder: state-sanctioned murder.

Imprisonment is clearly more humane because it keeps the person alive. There's no doubt there's still a level of barbarism behind it, but there's a scale here, and on the scale, I'd happily choose life over death regardless of its form.

As far as I'm concerned, if you kill somebody DELIBERATELY (a word I admittedly missed) you are a murderer. We're talking about somebody being killed deliberately here - as in pre-planned, and thus, first degree murder.

Regarding appeals, counter-appeals and whether they're equally in place in normal imprisonment, I am only repeating something I've read. Here's an interesting website that agrees with me:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

 

[Wazeeri]

If you want to be pedantic, between the years of 1939 and 1945, six million Jews were killed lawfully by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party - because he made it law. Law is not necessarily right,

Augustus you are losing course of the argument I think. We are discussing whether this should be introduced into law not whether law has always been right or not.

Imprisonment is clearly more humane because it keeps the person alive. There's no doubt there's still a level of barbarism behind it, but there's a scale here, and on the scale, I'd happily choose life over death regardless of its form.

People who eventually end up killing themselves would disagree with you.

As far as I'm concerned, if you kill somebody DELIBERATELY (a word I admittedly missed) you are a murderer. We're talking about somebody being killed deliberately here - as in pre-planned, and thus, first degree murder.

If you are going to use legal terms than I will have to be pedantic. Execution is not first degree murder.

and I don't mind you calling executions murder because ity would just be splitting hair if we got into that argument but as far as I am concerned executing someone is an acceptable murder.

As for the link I am sure if you read the very first line you will see that argument is based on the difference between DIFFERENT CRIMES. Aggravated murder and murder.

 

[Vegitto1]

If you want to be pedantic, between the years of 1939 and 1945, six million Jews were killed lawfully by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party - because he made it law. Law is not necessarily right, for there's the law of God and the law of the land.

First of all, you are comparing genocide with state punishment. These are two completely different things. Hitler agenda was that of racial cleansing regardless of the fact whether the person was a criminal or not. Whereas, we are talking about captial punishment for those who purposefully and with malice take life of another human being.

You mention Law of God i.e. Natural Law. Natural Law supports captial punishment. The punishment should fit the crime. Life imprisonment does not act as a deterrent, since there is no such thing as Life Imprisonment.

Imprisonment is clearly more humane because it keeps the person alive. There's no doubt there's still a level of barbarism behind it, but there's a scale here, and on the scale, I'd happily choose life over death regardless of its form.

I concede that imprisonment is more humane, however, I fail to understand why would you want to send a murderer to prison for life (15 years). Is it so that he can plan his next murder victim? or that he uses the gym facilities and other resources to become even more brutal and barbaric?
As far as choice is concerned, when you murder someone (within the definition you provided) you forfiet your right to life. You cannot pick and choose your punishment.

 

[iZeeshan]

There is way too much to say about this, but all I will say is this:

Killing a man, IMHO, is no punishment at all.

Sorry, let me rephrase that, "Executing a man, IMHO, is hardly a punishment."

 

[gazza619]

What do you guys think about death penalty. Does having the penalty or not have the penalty have any consequences on society?

Do the countries who have the penalty are now more peaceful? If not death penalty, then what should be imposed as a maximum punishment?

 

[Justcrazy]

I don't believe in the death penalty personally.

I don't think the state should have a right to decide when and how somebody should die. I also don't believe it acts as a deterrent.

But the murderer is doing exactly that !!

 

[LongHorn]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46658878

Just read this, an Iranian businessman was executed for bribery and forging documents to secure loans ....

Your typical naïve desi will clap and say Iran is a great place and if only the SC had such rules, India/Pakistan would have been a first world country ...........

What they will ignore is that most likely this is a case of the right people not getting the right share of proceeds ... there is a lot of corruption in iran among the ruling classes, and not all of it is based on loans and forged signatures. ....

 

[Pakistanian]

The death penalty should only be used for murderers, serial killers/psychopaths, terrorists, rapists and pedos.

Other crimes only warrant jailtime, financial penalties or maybe volunteer work.

 

[Robert]

What do you guys think about death penalty. Does having the penalty or not have the penalty have any consequences on society?

Do the countries who have the penalty are now more peaceful? If not death penalty, then what should be imposed as a maximum punishment?

In my view it makes the state as bad as the murderer.

Among Western democracies only some parts of the USA have it and that country is the most violent.

 

[KingKhanWC]

In my view it makes the state as bad as the murderer.

Among Western democracies only some parts of the USA have it and that country is the most violent.

Come on Robert western democracies are hardly the example of justice. You supported the bombings in Iraq by Bush snr which resulted in many deaths of innocent people. Of course im not suggesting you think it's ok to bomb innocent people but you still support the right of a nation to meet out it's version of justice even if it results in collateral damage. At least with the death penalty a court will decide if the person is guilty before he is killed.

 

[gazza619]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46658878

Just read this, an Iranian businessman was executed for bribery and forging documents to secure loans ....

Your typical naïve desi will clap and say Iran is a great place and if only the SC had such rules, India/Pakistan would have been a first world country ...........

What they will ignore is that most likely this is a case of the right people not getting the right share of proceeds ... there is a lot of corruption in iran among the ruling classes, and not all of it is based on loans and forged signatures. ....

Scary to hear that you will get executed for forging documents for a loan.

Dont you think though there after this execution someone will think a million times before forging documents in Iran?

What should be set as maximum punishment?

 

[Robert]

Come on Robert western democracies are hardly the example of justice. You supported the bombings in Iraq by Bush snr which resulted in many deaths of innocent people. Of course im not suggesting you think it's ok to bomb innocent people but you still support the right of a nation to meet out it's version of justice even if it results in collateral damage. At least with the death penalty a court will decide if the person is guilty before he is killed.

In both cases the minimum force to achieve the outcome is applied. In the case if the common murderer, s/he gets life imprisonment to protect the public. In the 1991 case of the invader Saddam, military (only) targets were attacked in the authority of the UN to protect the public of Kuwait.