|
Post by PeterB on Nov 28, 2005 21:16:49 GMT -4
Well, Margamatix chose a spectacularly gross way of starting discussion on the topic, by posting three pictures of a man who'd been executed in the electric chair.
But this is still a topic which can be discussed without pictures.
My view, for what it's worth, is that I'm opposed to the death penalty, for a number of reasons.
1. There's no recourse if the executed person is later found to have been innocent. I understand that a disturbingly high number of innocent people have been executed in the USA.
2. It's no deterrent. The evidence suggests that the extremity of punishment is no deterrent when people consider committing a crime. A far better deterrent is an increased likelihood of being caught.
3. Juries are more likely to find people not guilty of a crime if they know the accused will be executed as opposed to being jailed. This means that guilty people are often found not guilty.
4. It's discriminatory. At least in the USA, I understand guilty people are far more likely to be executed if they're poor, as they can't afford good lawyers.
5. It's inappropriate. The justice system in many cases seeks to make the guilty person make recompense for their crime, rather than simply extract vengeance. For example, if someone damages your car, the punishment is not to damage their car, but to get them to pay for your repairs. Why does this change when it comes to murder?
Anyone else care to comment?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 28, 2005 22:02:31 GMT -4
I think that there is a case for it, but not the way it is done in the US.
For me the things that would have to be true before considering it.
1) It must be a crime of a heinous nature. Killing children, multiple murder, killing a Police Officer.
2) It must be proven absolutely beyond any doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that the party was responsible and that they were in full control of their actions at the time. This would discount anyone under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or with a psychiatric condition, or other mental impairment
Execution should be:
1) Extremely quick timewise. None of this waiting around for 20 years and endless appeals.
2) Humane. Lethal Injection is the best method.
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 28, 2005 22:42:33 GMT -4
I am completely against taking a human life, no matter the reason. Exile is more to my taste.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 28, 2005 22:49:04 GMT -4
I think there are flaws in the system, but I'm not morally opposed to the death penalty if the crime is heinous enough.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 28, 2005 22:55:25 GMT -4
It must be a crime of a heinous nature. Killing children, multiple murder, killing a Police Officer.
This would discount anyone under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or with a psychiatric condition, or other mental impairment
Wouldn't that put the number of those who you feel merit the death penalty down to zero? I mean, who would not be deemed several bricks short of a load if they commit said "heinous" crime, such as to savagely kill and maybe dismember someone? Not to mention serial killers?
I don't think mental impairment should necessarily prevent all murderers from the death penalty.
Jeffrey Dahmer (killed by fellow inmate) and Clifford Olson (still alive) are two prime examples of very sick and twisted multiple murderers I believe are (or were) definitely worthy of execution.
Peter, you also have presented very valid points to consider from an anti- capital punishment view. I concur for the most part, with the exception of a very small percentage of cases, as I noted above.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 28, 2005 23:01:41 GMT -4
Piper said:
Where? To another country? Why should they take them? And where else otherwise? Where could you send them?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 28, 2005 23:32:47 GMT -4
Australia? It's already been used as a penal colony and is full of crims.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 28, 2005 23:35:18 GMT -4
I would only support the death penalty under very serious circumstances, like mass murderers or serial killers where they admit to their crimes AND the other evidence (in addition to their confession) is overwhelming. Otherwise there is always the possibility that an innocent person will be executed.
For rapists and pedophiles I think castration is a good solution.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 28, 2005 23:37:57 GMT -4
Wouldn't that put the number of those who you feel merit the death penalty down to zero? I mean, who would not be deemed several bricks short of a load if they commit said "heinous" crime, such as to savagely kill and maybe dismember someone? Not to mention serial killers.
Well while you could make an argument that anyone that kills is sick, I don't think that would really wash. A person like Jeffery Damher is still in charage of their faculties, they know what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care and that will never change. A person doped out on drugs who shoots a shop owner however would be a different case. Cleaned up and straightened out they could once more be a useful member of society. People with mental illness can be treated with medications and so on. Psyocpaths, they just should get the injection.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 28, 2005 23:53:15 GMT -4
Where? To another country? Why should they take them? And where else otherwise? Where could you send them?The White House. They would feel right at home, sharing "amusing" anecdotes and "in-jokes" back and forth with the current residents! On second thought.....wasn't Australia, (as PW said) once upon a time, "the" place to exile criminals, peter?
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Nov 28, 2005 23:57:45 GMT -4
1. There's no recourse if the executed person is later found to have been innocent. I understand that a disturbingly high number of innocent people have been executed in the USA. The State of Illinois suspended all executions after a number of near-gaffes, including one in which a group of journalism students made a pretty convincing case that one person on the state death row was innocent. I'm not aware that there have been clearly demonstrated executions of innocents, but, given the number of executions and the tendency not to continue investigation after the accused has been executed, this is certainly not outside the realm of possibility...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 28, 2005 23:58:52 GMT -4
What Australia doesn't know is that we're already sending them all our crims.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 29, 2005 0:11:37 GMT -4
What Australia doesn't know is that we're already sending them all our crimsNow you've done it - the Aussies are sure to catch on any day now! Well, I give it another 6-7 months, max! j/k peter!
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 29, 2005 2:39:38 GMT -4
PhantomWolf said:
Hmmm. I've described my brother-in-law a number of ways, but I've never thought that selling engineering equipment was a crime... :-)
|
|
|
Post by colinr on Nov 29, 2005 5:27:09 GMT -4
Here in the UK last weekend there was a shooting of 2 police officers, one died, one was fairly seriously injured, now this is a pretty rare event here , with the removal of almost all legally held handguns some years ago, (and that's a whole other argument)
Almost as soon as the dust cleared came the calls for the death penalty to be re-introduced. Well that really hasn' t played well here ,
The UK police forces in the 70's and early 80's were themselves guilty of some fairly horrendous miscarriages of justice with innocent men and woman imprisoned for years for , at most being in possession of the wrong accent in the wrong location - eg Irish in Birmingham , days after major explosions ).
If the death penalty had been in force these innocent people would now be dead, and no amount of apologies/compensation would have changed that fact
As far as I'm concerned - its wrong - end of story -we as humans are fallible - people make mistakes - and when its someone's life at stake- mistakes aren't acceptable
|
|