The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[DuncanONeil]

How about that Aussie Granmum hunted down the perps that raped her granddaughter and shot both of them in the jewels?

[QUOTE=ian 2411;840948][QUOTE=MMI;840891]Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.[QUOTE]

I have to disagree that statement, I believe that there was a mini survey carried out about two years ago. The question asked was should the death penalty be brought back, and the pole was so close that it was said, “If there was a national vote the result would be so close that they would probably have another to get a resounding majority, and it was a you Gov pole I’m sure.” But I will stand and be corrected on that one. I don’t think it is settled and I don’t think it ever will be. How can you say it is a reactionary protest, I have heard this being talked about in a number of places, and once it was outside a church at a wedding that I was attending, so no it is not settled.

Fatal stabbings in the UK 2007/8

Scotland 45

England and Wales 277

Combined that is an average of 6 a week, and that is 6 to many.

In 1977 135 the whole of the UK that is a rise of 38%

Ok there are a lot more people in the UK now than 1977 but that is not an excuse. One death is too many, and until the UK has some sort of deterrent these deaths will no doubt increase. I am sure that if the death penalty was introduced once more and just one of these knife thugs was executed, there would be a dramatic decrease. Now you will argue that it is barbaric justice? Yes, and punishment to fit the barbaric crime, a life for a life.

Amnesty International states that the Death Penalty 'violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. But what about the Human Rights of victims, aren't they entitled to the Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture? The Death Penalty may well be 'the ultimate denial of Human Rights' but if you take another's life then you should no longer benefit from the protections afforded under any legislation.

The bank teller MMI that was a cheap shot, it was an example meaning habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated. If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it. Now while we are on the subject three months ago or just over there was the case of a postman’s son in a post office getting shot, go and ask the postmaster if the man that shot his son should be rehabilitated or hanged, I don’t think you will get a knee jerk response, it will come from his heart?

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.

Well I expect you would, because it seems you get most of your information from it, I however do have a choice of three papers and all with glossy pictures, when my reading ability falters. LMFAO

Regards ian 2411

[Saheli]

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.
Thorne


I agree but not completely. I agree in the sense I suppose you mean, murders that are done out of malice and hate rather than, say, self-defense or some other, more understandable reason...if murder is ever truly understandable. If someone kills out of hatefulness, that is a HUGE risk to society. But I also agree with MMI when he said, "Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is greater than the value of his life." Who of us has the right to assign any dollar amount to a life? This debate in my opinion is about the lesser of two evils rather than which is the sensible thing to do. Instead of choosing based on appeal, we much choose based on avoidance: in the end it comes down to which one is a little less terrible.

[MMI]

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.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.

[denuseri]

Truely spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime or had a loved one who has.

Go through something like that yourself and then come back and tell me I need to have my head examined for thinking some bastards get what they deserved when the switch was thrown.

Depriving someone of their freedom for horendous acts against another just simply isnt enough sometimes.

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

[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 lengthy 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 denuseri 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

[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]

Truely spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime or had a loved one who has.

Go through something like that yourself and then come back and tell me I need to have my head examined for thinking some bastards get what they deserved when the switch was thrown.

Depriving someone of their freedom for horendous acts against another just simply isnt enough sometimes.

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

I think you add emphasis to my argument, den. You seem to be arguing for the execution of people who haven't even killed.

Someone who has been the victim of a violent crime must be so wrapped up in anger and hatred for the perpetrator, and perhaps self-pity too, that his desire for revenge will skew his perspective and cloud his judgement. He would reduce a sophisticated legal system to the level of a primitive tribal council, or abandon it completely in favour of vendattas or mob law.

That is why I feel that punishments for such crimes must be set in a dispassionate forum and when the crime is committed, and they should never be greater than the crime itself. Furthermore, punsihments must be handed down carefully by people who are not involved in or affected by the crime. You say the ancients got it right first time. Even they relied upon tribal/village elders to deal with such matters with a degree of impartiality, but often they were too closely involved for a fair punishment to be delivered.

If I am wrong, why has the "law" changed everywhere society has developed beyond antediluvian communities?

[Thorne]

If I am wrong, why has the "law" changed everywhere society has developed beyond antediluvian communities?

We can't say that you're TOTALLY wrong, at least. Laws evolve, just as communities and civilizations evolve. As our knowledge and understanding of human nature grows our laws must reflect that knowledge. Is it justice to execute an insane person who had no idea he was doing harm? Of course not. Incarcerate him, in an institution, yes, but not execution. Should we drown women to see if they're witches? Ridiculous! There are no witches (the magic kind, at least. No offense to Wiccans.) Should we hang a woman because a child ran out from behind a parked car and she couldn't avoid striking him with her car? Of course not. (I lost a cousin this way. No way the woman was at fault.)

Naturally, each case would have to be judged on its own merits. No one I know, and certainly not myself, advocates rampant use of the death penalty. But there are some people, men and women, who just should not be allowed even the slightest chance of getting back into society. And the only way to guarantee that is to execute them.

[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.

[MMI]

... But there are some people, men and women, who just should not be allowed even the slightest chance of getting back into society. And the only way to guarantee that is to execute them.

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

[Bren122]

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

the problem with such sentiments is that we have created a system that has more concern for procedure than with justice.

[MMI]

I've been arguing all along that the pro-death penalty lobby is more concerned with the severity of the sentence than the justness of it, and I see that as a worse problem.

[Ozme52]

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street.

[MMI]

Roflmao

[mkemse]

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[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.

[Ozme52]

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

Calling yourself out doesn't excuse you.

As to your point, Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

[Ozme52]

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street.

Roflmao

And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history.

[IAN 2411]

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.

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty. I would also bring it back for murder while committing another felony IE: - armed robbery, mugging, and auto theft. There is also a case of treason, and piracy on the high seas, and the latter is still taking place as we write these posts.

[QUOTE=MMI;842201]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.[QUOTE]

So you are human after all and with the same desire for revenge laying dormant inside you, just like the rest of us, I was wondering. Then again I expect you to turn that word into justice, but I’ll bet I will not hear rehabilitation coming from your lips, I doubt very much if it would have room in your heart.

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.

Thank you Ozme52 for your correct observation and remark, as words fail me.

Regards ian 2411

[SadisticNature]

I think there is a lot to be said for Actual Life in prison, rather than 15 years or 25 years. That being said the death penalty is awkward.

Some of the most famous murder cases are famous precisely because of the press. That is to say the press plays up the nature of the crimes and makes the person so reviled that the prosecutors feel obliged to press for the maximum possible sentence. It's not often the merits of the case that decide these things, but rather the budgetary concerns, the public reaction and the effects on elected officials. One of Canada's most famous 'killers' spent 25 years in jail before being found innocent through new evidence (DNA). There have been quite a few such cases with the discovery of DNA evidence, and its hard to believe that the next level of evidence will show the same thing.

People who are alive have advocates to call for such testing. I wouldn't be surprised if DNA evidence would show that a small number of capital cases in the 1970's and 1980's actually involved innocent people. Of course such testing will never get done because no one has their freedom at stake, and the state would be liable for erroneously putting someone to death if they found that they did such. If 25 years in prison erroneously costs between $1-$10 million in damages, I can't imagine what the jury would reward for erroneous executions.

The thing about an advocacy system is that people are routinely "negligent" in the eyes of civil law. When your career is based upon providing evidence for successful convictions, you often don't pursue paths that a reasonable person in the eyes of the law ought to pursue that would eliminate a suspect. The police system is in parts political and like all things political suffers from corruption.

[DuncanONeil]

While Saheli may be right in saying we can not assign a dollar value to life, in the specifics of this discussion we are assigning a value of "life" to "life". That is an appropriate value!

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.
Thorne


I agree but not completely. I agree in the sense I suppose you mean, murders that are done out of malice and hate rather than, say, self-defense or some other, more understandable reason...if murder is ever truly understandable. If someone kills out of hatefulness, that is a HUGE risk to society. But I also agree with MMI when he said, "Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is greater than the value of his life." Who of us has the right to assign any dollar amount to a life? This debate in my opinion is about the lesser of two evils rather than which is the sensible thing to do. Instead of choosing based on appeal, we much choose based on avoidance: in the end it comes down to which one is a little less terrible.

[DuncanONeil]

It was not solely the "virtue" of the victim. But that virtue, not being a party to the actions and the callous disregard of the "virtue of life" by the offender.

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.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.

[DuncanONeil]

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.

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 lengthy 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 denuseri 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

[DuncanONeil]

"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."

Kind of like the curse our parents layed on us all. "Wait until you have kids of your own!"

[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!

[DuncanONeil]

But they have TV, cable in fact. And a free gym membership. Plenty of time for socializing. Good food. Libraries and school classes, if they choose. Free medical treatment. Sports. Outside visitors, some times even conjugal. In other words the ultimate level of welfare.
Perhaps the only thing lacking is security from the criminal element!

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[denuseri]

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.

When I lived in Japan, the rule of thumb with vehicular mannsluaghter crimes or other forms of acedental injury or death was that you had to be able to pay a certian monetary amount to the bereved or face jail time.

As for recent changes in the impecable legal system they have had in place for years:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=63030

[denuseri]

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

[MMI]

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.

True, but reread some of the exchanges here and see if it is really out of place. Besides, it amused me.

"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.

Go back to the first post. The accused referred to has not yet been tried, let alone convicted, and the poster is saying, in nearly as many words, that he will get off with a relatively light sentence when the penalty he truly deserves is unavailable under English law. That's trial, verdict and sentence in half a dozen lines. Where's the due process there, and whose argument is the more inflammatory?

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.

One has to describe things the way one sees them. "A life for a life" is so hackneyed and tired that is has lost all the impact it once had. So, yes, it is trite, and I am entitled to say so.

Now I have reviewed this thread, I see it was you who first introduced the phrase. At least you used it only to try to elucidate the meaning of yet another tired and hackneyed quotation. It has also been used by another poster to support the cause of judicial murder, however.

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.

I think we all realise that.

[COLOR="lime"]
... Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.

Yes, I accept that. What kind of system would English criminal justice be, if not capricious, if it executed suspects in the manner proposed in post number 1? Fortescue would have argued (I presume - I have not read him), that it would be "capricious" to execute someone when it was not certain he deserved the death penalty.

But we can't, as I've pointed out a couple of times already, always be sure ...

[COLOR="lime"]

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

I see you have anticipated me, but we haven't fully agreed on this point. They must be there, of course, but they must also be completely reliable. Most of you on your side of the argument might agree with the proposition as it is ... must agree, I suppose, but no-one on my side (and there have been one or two) can possibly concede it. The appeals system is inadequate: innocent people have been hanged here in spite of it. As I said before, the Common Law approach to determining guilt or innocence depends more upon the barrister's skills than whether the accused committed the crime.

As for science, there's a long way to go before it can be relied upon completely for absolute certainty, so we shouldn't be acting as though it is foolproof already. As yet, not even DNA can prove a person committed a crime.

And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history.

Yes, a little levity now and then is important when frank and earnest points of view are being exchanged, no matter in how friendly a manner.

The observation was startlingly clever and highly amusing.

[MMI]

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty.

In your original post you said,

I believe in certain cases an eye for an eye and a life for a life. Don’t for one minute think that I have not thought this out, as I know there are cases where it was inevitable things would turn out nasty ... a crime of passion ... only deserve life meaning life and in some cases less or even freedom. I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week ... and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her [emphasis supplied] ... I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right[emphasis supplied]. Now the question is, should the UK ... hang the murderers...? [emphasis supplied]Also if it was brought back, have we any Judges that have the balls to serve out the sentence of death[emphasis supplied], at the moment they have a softer attitude than the JPs.

No, you didn't say the accused should be executed without being tried first, but neither did you say he shouldn't. What you did say was he committed the crime and that, after he had pleaded guilty, which you anticipated, it would be wrong if he only got life. And then you suggested that hanging be brought back and hanging judges too. The implication is clear.

Besides, wasn't this a crime of passion? Not that English law recognises such a thing.

(Ooops: Ozme wasn't the first to use "a life for a life." If they are appropriate, apologies are tendered.)