The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[IAN 2411]

If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all

I don’t think you have heard a word that anyone has said, I can’t remember anywhere in this thread where it has been said all killers must die. I have very hard views on murder, but even I have not said that in any of my posts, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. Of course people on the threads are not calling for the death of every person that causes death through some misfortune that could have been avoided. Although I think that death by dangerous driving should have a far greater sentence that the few years these careless idiots are getting at the present time. There are cases where the death penalty would be inappropriate, in fact where any verdict other than acquittal would be too harsh. That is why even in England, where a person has been found guilty of murder, a Judge can show clemency and can still acquit the guilty. Even cases in the UK are all subject to appeal as well you know MMI, but at the end of the day there are extreme cases where the murderer will never change.

I will point out a fact that no one knows how the murderer is going to react after a length jail sentence. I was watching crime and punishment on the TV about three days ago. A person in the USA was given 20 years to life for murder and attempted murder, after 25 years he was paroled as a model prisoner, within six months he had killed again, now that says a lot for rehabilitation. The punishment should fit the crime as you keep bleating and I agree, but premeditated murder is not excusable in a modern society, take a life for gain and you should lose your own. If a person killed your daughter, wife, mother, and was given life, with a chance of parole in 25-30 years time, after he has been watching TV, playing recreational sport, three meals a day, warm safe environment, seeing their own spouse, mother, siblings. Then MMI, come back and tell us how you forgave the murderer, and you are happy with the sentence he received. Knowing full well that at any time there could be an appeal along the line, because of another human rights law that allows him to come out ten years early, probably thought out by a panel of abolitionary idiots. As denesuri has stated, it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all. And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

The difference between your position and mine is, I think, that you base your views upon people's perfectly understandable response to the horrendous acts they have been affected by. You tell me I would feel the same if I were similarly affected too. den makes the same point. I do not demur. If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.

My position would have become biased and my motives would be flawed.

My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation), with the protection of society against repetition as the first priority and the possible rehabilitation of the killer as its main aim. I doubt his imprisonment (or death) will stop other people killing, so it is pointless to think of this kind of punishment as an example for others.

Retribution - or vengeance - would be the least of all considerations.

[Ozme52]

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all.

And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

"Presuming" that anyone here has argued for capital punishment without due process is a sure sign you aren't here to debate but to inflame.

The difference between your position and mine is, I think, that you base your views upon people's perfectly understandable response to the horrendous acts they have been affected by. You tell me I would feel the same if I were similarly affected too. den makes the same point. I do not demur. If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.

My position would have become biased and my motives would be flawed.

My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation),

Quotations carry with them an understanding of some of the arguements that originally back it up. To call someones use "trite' is uncalled for, especially as none of us needs to hear all of the logic and dialogue that would be needed to say it otherwise to understand those peoples' opinions.

with the protection of society against repetition as the first priority and the possible rehabilitation of the killer as its main aim. I doubt his imprisonment (or death) will stop other people killing, so it is pointless to think of this kind of punishment as an example for others.

I don't think anyone is saying the death penalty stops others from killing, but we know it stops the executed person from doing so again.

[DuncanONeil]

"I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation)"

There is no difference in the two statements!

[Saheli]

.My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime...

I have to ask: if the crime is punished fairly, then wouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?