Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay

Sliver said:

Hardly. A throw away quote is a throw away quote, lets not get excited.

Click to expand...

I might have got carried away with that

Tbf though i'd be interested in knowing the answer, and the no voters justification why a military/armed police killing on one mans judgement in a split second is ok but the killing of a known murderer with solid evidence/a confession and conviction after a proper investigation and trial is somehow not ok.

Makes me sound very anti military, i'm not honest

adolf hamster said:

Tbf though i'd be interested in knowing the answer, and the no voters justification why a military/armed police killing on one mans judgement in a split second is ok but the killing of a known murderer with solid evidence/a confession and conviction after a proper investigation and trial is somehow not ok.

Click to expand...

Because they're not remotely the same thing and you know it.

TheVoice said:

Because they're not remotely the same thing and you know it.

Click to expand...

Dunno, armed police is basically that to some extent and there are notable cases of innocent people getting shot.

adolf hamster said:

Dunno, armed police is basically that to some extent and there are notable cases of innocent people getting shot.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't at all. Lethal force is used by police to stop an immediate threat to life and the intention is to stop that threat, not necessarily to kill. The first thing you'll see armed officers do after shooting someone is start providing emergency medical care.

That you apparently can't see the clear difference between that and capital punishment is quite worrying.

enkoda said:

Conversely, no one on 'the other side' even appears to have acknowledged the issue that some cases are 100% watertight (Lee Rigby). Why would any civilised nation impose the death penalty on hearsay or evidence that doesn't prove absolute, cast iron guilt? It's a bizarre argument that keeps cropping up in this thread.

Click to expand...

Ok let's say that the case is 100% clear cut and the crime was beyond appalling. The person gets executed. Tell me what has that achieved? Keeping them locked up would have protected everyone else.

And don't use the saving money argument. I find it hilarious that people get all riled up about things their taxes get spent on when they're emotionally involved, but couldn't care less about all the other stuff the government needlessly wastes money on.

My theory would be all it has done is pandered to those driven by their hatred. Some kind of weird distanced bloodlust or ultimate form of apparent "justice".

timebomb26 said:

The person gets executed. Tell me what has that achieved?

Click to expand...

It's to dispose of unwanted rubbish. You seem to be saying those sorts of people are human beings that deserve to be around.

What do you do to violent dogs? Put them down.

I wonder how many cases a year would fit the "100% watertight" guilty verdict and also be serious enough offenses to warrant execution? Wow those 5 cases are gonna change the country if we just killed those guys.

Devrij said:

I wonder how many cases a year would fit the "100% watertight" guilty verdict and also be serious enough offenses to warrant execution? Wow those 5 cases are gonna change the country if we just killed those guys.

Click to expand...

It's not changing the country it's just disposing of the most sickest people on this planet that don't deserve to be alive.

As long as it's watertight 100%.

We do it to animals all the time, if a dog kills a baby it's put down. In fact I would class the "humans" that commit those crimes worse than dogs, because dogs don't have the intellect nor ability to think as us.

For a human to torture a human for days, rape and then kill them shows they lack any morality at all. Times like that when middle eastern justice should be enacted.

People are too soft now, bunch of ******* "oooh don't hurt the feelings of murderers they should be given a second chance, let's hug them to make them feel better and release them back into the community "

hornetstinger said:

It's to dispose of unwanted rubbish. You seem to be saying those sorts of people are human beings that deserve to be around.

What do you do to violent dogs? Put them down.

Click to expand...

I won't address the dogs thing, as even though they're awesome, they obviously don't have the same rights as humans and therefore aren't really relevant.

You say it is disposing of unwanted rubbish? Does putting them in jail not achieve the same thing? It is removing them from society.

hornetstinger said:

What do you do to violent dogs? Put them down.

Click to expand...

You can't apply the same rules to dogs as humans. That's a false equivalency fallacy.

hornetstinger said:

We do it to animals all the time, if a dog kills a baby it's put down. In fact I would class the "humans" that commit those crimes worse than dogs, because dogs don't have the intellect nor ability to think as us.

Click to expand...

We also put down dogs for being too old to walk. We don't do this for humans - although the amount of resources doing so would free up is immense, many times more than the whole prisons budget.

The argument against state sponsored violence is simple: Violence is insanity. either temporary (drugs or emotional) or permanent (psychopaths).

The only sane motive for violence is self defence (which under various moral and legal backflips, we use for all recent military actions - including defence of others - although so did Hitler at first).

I don't really want to be in a country run by psychopaths or the emotionally unstable. I know I live in a country where a good 50% of the population are, I just don't want them to be in charge.

TheVoice said:

No, it isn't at all. Lethal force is used by police to stop an immediate threat to life and the intention is to stop that threat, not necessarily to kill. The first thing you'll see armed officers do after shooting someone is start providing emergency medical care.

That you apparently can't see the clear difference between that and capital punishment is quite worrying.

Click to expand...

There are at least 8 notable cases of people being shot dead by armed police since 1980 where "immediate threat to life" is a questionable circumstance, the majority of whom were unarmed (the most apt case being jean charles de menezes).

The fact that you're basing an argument against capital punishment on "but innocent people might die" yet defending the use of lethal force in scenarios where misinformation and lack of due process have led to exactly that situation.

If i throw my 2 cents of: armed or geared up police presence does lay an air of security which deters at least some pettier crimes i'd imagine, will people ask me to quote studies on it?

I certainly dont plan to go out and do anything illegal in the presence of police but when i see armed officers, i cant help but feel that eyes lay somewhat heavier on myself and the people around me. Funnily enough, it doesnt make me feel safe (not any point to this statement, just interesting enough to be said). I am certainly not anti-police like is fashionable among some circles.

adolf hamster said:

There are at least 8 notable cases of people being shot dead by armed police since 1980 where "immediate threat to life" is a questionable circumstance, the majority of whom were unarmed (the most apt case being jean charles de menezes).

The fact that you're basing an argument against capital punishment on "but innocent people might die" yet defending the use of lethal force in scenarios where misinformation and lack of due process have led to exactly that situation.

Click to expand...

The intention is important - shooting someone dead to save others is self defence, shooting someone dead to punish them is not.

The British empire killed huge numbers in concentration camps in the boar war - but we didn't mean to, we just didn't give them enough food or care. Oops our bad. The Nazis Set out to kill as many as possible - I doubt anyone who died or lost family really care about the difference but it is an important distinction.

At an individual level, the motivations can be unclear, but at an organisational, institutional or state level - it certainly isn't.

adolf hamster said:

There are at least 8 notable cases of people being shot dead by armed police since 1980 where "immediate threat to life" is a questionable circumstance, the majority of whom were unarmed (the most apt case being jean charles de menezes).

The fact that you're basing an argument against capital punishment on "but innocent people might die" yet defending the use of lethal force in scenarios where misinformation and lack of due process have led to exactly that situation.

Click to expand...

The Menenzes case wasn't questionable at all.

The problems with that case was more to do with what happened afterwards than what happened before.

The Armed officers had reason (Multiple reasons in fact) to suspect him. That all those reasons turned out to have innocent explanations was something that was only appreciated in hindsight.

There is only one way to stop a suspected suicide bomber and that is to kill him quickly, without warning, and in a highly specific manner.

If you shoot a suspect and he turns out to be innocent, you have killed 1 person. If you hesitate and he is in fact a suicide bomber you might end up killing dozens.

Sadly, public safety demands that the correct course of action is to shoot first and say sorry afterwards if necessary. If you are not shooting the occasional innocent suspect, then you are not doing it right.

Orionaut said:

If you are not shooting the occasional innocent suspect, then you are not doing it right.

Click to expand...

I just wore a backpack for the last time after reading that.

Orionaut said:

The Menenzes case wasn't questionable at all.

The problems with that case was more to do with what happened afterwards than what happened before.

The Armed officers had reason (Multiple reasons in fact) to suspect him. That all those reasons turned out to have innocent explanations was something that was only appreciated in hindsight.

There is only one way to stop a suspected suicide bomber and that is to kill him quickly, without warning, and in a highly specific manner.

If you shoot a suspect and he turns out to be innocent, you have killed 1 person. If you hesitate and he is in fact a suicide bomber you might end up killing dozens.

Sadly, public safety demands that the correct course of action is to shoot first and say sorry afterwards if necessary. If you are not shooting the occasional innocent suspect, then you are not doing it right.

Click to expand...

I'm by no means questioning what the firearms officers did, i would clear them in court had i been there, they were acting on misinformation which led them to a reasonable beleif he had a bomb and intended to use it, and as you say the technical requirements of public safety meant shooting him 7 times in the head was the correct decision for them to make at the time.

Now whoever told them he had a bomb has some explaining to do i will admit.

What i'm asking, is if you say you cannot morally justify an institution that kills people (ie execution of murderers who have been convicted without reasonable doubt in court) because mistakes may lead to an innocent person being killed then how can you justify an institution that kills people (ie the armed police) with not only the potential, but a track record of killing people who were innocent and who, if it had been to trial, would have been cleared completely?

I accept that "innocent people might die" as a valid argument against execution, what i'm asking is how you justify "lawful killing" used to kill both guilty and innocent people at the same time. The end result of both scenarios is the same-mostly guilty people will die, but some innocents may die.

adolf hamster said:

I accept that "innocent people might die" as a valid argument against execution, what i'm asking is how you justify "lawful killing" used to kill both guilty and innocent people at the same time. The end result of both scenarios is the same-mostly guilty people will die, but some innocents may die.

Click to expand...

No rational person could justify the killing of innocent people, but the fact that innocent people are killed is just an unpalatable fact of life. People are not perfect and act on intelligence and when that intelligence in flawed, innocent people get killed. But to not have the deterrent of lethal force when dealing with criminals or terrorists would be a mistake.

People question the effectiveness of executions as a deterrent. It certainly cannot be directly compared to police use of lethal force.

Avenged7Fold said:

People question the effectiveness of executions as a deterrent. It certainly cannot be directly compared to police use of lethal force.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I think the effectiveness of executions as a deterrent is clearly in-effective. People in countries with the death penalty still commit murder and so that leads me to think a life term prison sentence is the correct response to these crimes. At least with incarceration, a potentially innocent prisoner has a chance at redemption from his sentence.