Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cave Man, Aug 7, 2008.
If this is true, and these guys are caught, they should be drawn and quartered.
i agree completely....and totatlly.. and drawing and quartering is not harsh enough..
As long as the caveat of ensuring having the actual perps is followed, yeah. The problem with the death penalty is that you can't redress an, "Oops! Wrong fella!"
Another death penalty thread?
-> Link to (alleged) atrocity
-> Claims that death is required
-> Thread closed
Two words: Barry George.
I completely understand the want to crucify people that do such sick f***ed up crap, but as long as the wrong people get banged up, the death penalty should never return....frustrating as that might be sometimes.
This (alongside cost) is also my primary criticism. I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but more to the point, I don't know of any criminal justice system anywhere in the world that is lacking in cockups at the major crimes level. If I can't trust the criminal justice system not to incorrectly condemn someone to die, I can't trust it to condemn anyone to die.
XXXHEINOUS CRIMEXXX -> capture of alleged perp -> confession or overwhelming evidence proving guilt -> death.
I'm not usually for it in questionable or circumstantial cases, but if we are sure you done it or you say you done it*, thats good enough for me. I'm not even saying it has to be applied in murder cases.. I feel more strongly for it in cases involving children etc.
*Yes, I'm well aware I used horrendous (sp?) grammar, it was intentional
Like the Guildford 4 or Birmingham 6?
Capital punishment has no appeal process.
Reports that Belgian paedophile ring 'stole Maddy to order' are flawed
That argument, combined with various other examples, is impossible to argue against.
I agree, but to add to it, I don't think a society/government that murders its own citizens as punishment can hold the high moral ground. But that's just my own personal opinion.
Even if the perpetrator is caught and proven guilty, putting him or her to death is a meaningless exercise in vengeance. It achieves nothing except to let armchair executioners feel that they have made a difference, and, more to the point, that they have differentiated themselves from such "monsters".
That's been a huge issue in the states and one of the reasons why being deemed guilty had to be with the highest standard of proof which is "beyond a reasonable doubt", even for small crimes. A landmark case was when a boy stole a small amount of money and the Supreme Court was concerned about the stigma of being convicted of a crime and how it would affect the boy's life, especially based on any less standard of proof, and spending time in juvenile hall. At the time, in New York where the juvenile was being tried, considered it OK to convict a juvenile on a lesser standard of evidence than an adult. Sounds weird, but true nonetheless.
In England, 100 years before the Declaration of Independence in the states and Constitution, English Common Law considered it 100 times worse to convict an innocent person of any crime than to let a guilty person go free by lack of evidence. The main reason for considering a false conviction was the stigma and having the state be a player in the part of a wrongful conviction.
With the death penalty, there is much more at stake. It's too risky and there is no legal remedy and way to take it back.
Has anybody heard of life imprisonment?
I can't believe we are arguing about what the punishment should be for a crime that probably hasn't even been committed.
Putting that aside, I am against the death penalty for the reasons that others have already given.
For the reasons given above, along with a whole raft of others, I am also against the death penalty. I don't want to be governed over by a government that murders people.
I know. It seems daft. I always imaging this conversation with the Prime Minister.
Me: Excuse me, Mr. PM. What do you think about people killing other people?
PM: Terrible, just terrible. Taking another persons life is against morals and many religious values.
Me: In which case why do you support the d.. [interruption]
PM: I'm very sorry, I've got to pop out for some popcorn, there is a good execution I want to go an' see later.
It's almost as if it's not the same thing if the government kill someone, as if another person kills someone.
Now that this thread is underway, I have a question. Are there many, or any, people who are against the death penalty who are in favor of tougher stances on convicted felons, such as chain gangs, that Texas warden I keep hearing about, and/or minimum sentence guidelines? Thanks.
Many years ago, I read this one 28-page pro-death penalty article. It blew away all the anti-death penalty arguments and left me basically pro-death penalty although I was anti-death penalty before.
Its refutation of the argument that the wrong person could be executed was that few people were actually wrongly executed (or something like that).
One is too many.
Do you have a link to this article?
Got a link to this article?
And that is exactly why it should never be used along with lots of other reasons
What if you are that person?
One is far far too many people to accidentally kill let alone a few?
For the record, I don't agree with the death penalty.
I'm totally against the death penalty, I am however all for tougher sentences particularly for repeat offenders and I agree 100% with whole life sentences for certain crimes.
Executing the wrong person is only one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty. I fully believe that we should not live in a society they executes its citizens. Nobody has the right to take another persons life.
Interesting you say that, since the article ended with a cartoon featuring a man being carried away to execution. He said something like "Don't do this! Life is sacred!" And one of the guys who was carrying him away said "Exactly!"
I am all for harsh prison sentences including chain gangs for serious offences. Take a look at the example set by the UAE: they are quite liberal and westward looking but yet have a very low crime rate. Prison sentences are harsh and prison life is harsh too. I know that some of the people are probably locked up unfairly there too but that problem exists in every penal system.
The death penalty is useless as a deterrent and only serves as a vehicle for revenge.
How is that?
Because people still kill people in places where it is in force. If it was an effective deterrent then people would obviously not commit the crimes that attracted that penalty.