Problem is there's no degrees of guilt. Either you are or not. And innocent people have been hanged. The $64 000 question always is. Your stood with a noose around your neck and your innocent of the crime. Would you say the death penalty was a good thing then. 'Yes but not for me!'
Quote: Griff @ June 18 2008, 9:58 PM BSTThe death penalty is wrong because:
- No-one has the right to take a life, and that includes the state.
- Public service employees should not be required to take part in ritualised murder
- It doesn't reduce crime anyway
- Killing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim, it just puts a second family through hell
- Courtroom verdicts are not infallible, and better ten guilty men live than one innocent man be hanged
- It is predicated on the belief that people are irredeemable. Some are, but not all.Ideally, jails should be places where incarcerated crims are put to good use in some way, by learning skills that benefit the community etc. But then people start bleating about "hotels" etc.
(PS None of the above applies to Radio 2's Steve Wright who I would personally throw the lever for.)
I love you, Griff.
Quote: Alan C @ June 18 2008, 10:52 PM BSTWell the Fred West's & Dennis Nielsen's of this world, sat in their own house with the remains of their victims all around them - I would have no hesitation in saying fry them.
Or indeed in flicking the switch. But it raises the question of whether a higher burden of proof is required in the case of the death penalty. Take for instance the case of Jeremy Bamber who was convicted of callously murdering his entire family for financial gain but who has always resolutely protested his innocence. It would be ludicrous if we got into a position of saying we are sure enough that you are guilty to lock you up for life, but not sure enough to execute you.
Well in the case I have just quoted it would be difficult for them to not admit guilt. Dennis Nielsen did admit guilt. Would you have had to see the crime committed before you can be 100% certain? I would make those cases the extreme that deserves the death sentence. Any ambiguity and it is life.
But sentencing has become a farce - people who get 5 years for killing someone on the road. They get a five year driving ban and, hilariously, the ban runs concurrent to their sentence!!!!! I mean, ffs
Quote: Griff @ June 18 2008, 11:06 PM BSTWe are not sure enough of people's guilt to execute them.
And when they admit guilt with bodies in the basement?
Quote: roscoff @ June 18 2008, 10:58 PM BSTProblem is there's no degrees of guilt. Either you are or not. And innocent people have been hanged. The $64 000 question always is. Your stood with a noose around your neck and your innocent of the crime. Would you say the death penalty was a good thing then. 'Yes but not for me!'
A utlitarian view might be that a certain amount of collateral damage could be justified if this was outweighed by the deterrent effect of capital punishment. However the deterrent effect has not as far as I am aware been demonstrated.
It's not okay for them to kill, so it's not okay for us to kill them.
I think some things really are that simple.
Quote: Alan C @ June 18 2008, 11:05 PM BSTWell in the case I have just quoted it would be difficult for them to not admit guilt. Dennis Nielsen did admit guilt. Would you have had to see the crime committed before you can be 100% certain? I would make those cases the extreme that deserves the death sentence. Any ambiguity and it is life.
But sentencing has become a farce - people who get 5 years for killing someone on the road. They get a five year driving ban and, hilariously, the ban runs concurrent to their sentence!!!!! I mean, ffs
I agree that if someone of sound mind admits guilt in what would be capital case they should have the option of choosing the death penalty, but weight of evidence alone could not be sufficient in itself.
And yes sentencing is mad.
Quote: Griff @ June 18 2008, 11:06 PM BSTNo, that is exactly the situation under British law and not at all ludicrous. We are sufficiently convinced of someone's guilt to lock them up, however we acknowledge the possibility of doubt which is where appeals etc come in. We are not sure enough of people's guilt to execute them.
I think that was the point I was making.
The way I see it, punishment should take into account three things -
actual punishment for the crime; retribution for the victim of the crime (or victim's family) and prevention of the criminal re-offending on the rest of society.
I personally don't think a death penalty works (they have it in the US but it doesn't seem to deter the most heinous of crimes being committed).
I would like the law to be tougher on re-offenders, particularly.
Maybe after they've tasted stir and still came back for more they should get hard labour.
Some interesting views. Personally I don't believe in God so I have no hang ups about life being sacred. Killing once or multiple deaths occurring at the same time I would not change what currently happens. But pre-meditated, multiple killers who don't respect the law, human life and laugh at the punishment they are given - death sentence without a choice.
Quote: zooo @ June 18 2008, 11:11 PM BSTIt's not okay for them to kill, so it's not okay for us to kill them.
I think some things really are that simple.
Aye. The death penalty belongs in the Dark Ages in my opinion. Supporting the execution of a killer makes us no better than the killer I think. That may sound a bit extreme, I can't really think of a better way to put it. What Griff said earlier hit the nail on the head.
I do believe in stronger prison sentences though. The teenagers that kicked to death that Goth girl and severely injured her boyfriend in the park shouldn't see daylight for a very f**king long time in my opinion.
But, having said that, I would have no qualms in personally torturing and gutting people that do horrible shit to defenceless animals, like tying hamsters to fireworks or playing football with hedgehogs.
Quote: Griff @ June 18 2008, 11:37 PM BSTSurely a lack of belief in the afterlife means that life is even more sacred, as it's the only one we're gonna get ?
Nah, it doesn't make it sacred - that implies a worshipful connotation. I value my life and that of everybody else.
Quote: NickTheDon @ June 18 2008, 11:38 PM BSTI do believe in stronger prison sentences though. The teenagers that kicked to death that Goth girl and severely injured her boyfriend in the park shouldn't see daylight for a very f**king long time in my opinion.
3 lads - who killed a disabled boy by hitting him as hard as they could to win a £5 bet to see who could knock him out first - have had their sentences reduced by an average of 3 years because the judge said that the crime was not as severe as was first thought.
Yes the judge has the full facts of the case, and we have teh version that makes a good story.
As for sentencing guidelines, they have their uses. The mate I mentioned who was subject to a malicious prosecution had the case dismissed, because the judge concluded that even if the jury convicted he would not be able to pass sentence, because the offence was not sufficiently serious to meet the criteria for the minimum sentence he could impose.
Quote: Griff @ June 18 2008, 11:53 PM BSTI agree, a lot of sentencing seems a bit crazy. But then I'm also sure that a lot of mischievous reporting goes on. I imagine the judge probably explained in detail why he felt the crime was less severe, but this would have been omitted by the tabloid account. Also judges are in thrall to complex sentencing guidelines laid down by Parliament so it's not always their fault.
Well see whether you think it was mischievous reporting
To expand on what both zooo and Nick have hinted at:
The death sentence brings us (society) down to the level of the criminal, if not beneath. Those who support it, did your mothers never teach you that two wrongs don't make a right
Hellish prisons, lengthy, realistic sentences, and hard labour for profitable gains in order to earn themselves food. No TV, no luxuries; just enough to keep them alive and strong enough to carry out whatever tasks they are assigned.