Associate
I would assume he was referring to killing people because they killed people.
Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
I would assume he was referring to killing people because they killed people.
Yes I would to. Slight tweak fixes that. They killed someone without a legally justified reason.
After all, you are legally allowed to kill someone as long as it's appropriate force given the situation.
Soldato
Right, well I think you need to consider what vengeance and hatred actually mean when you call someone a rabid animal.
I don't think we should be legally killing anyone, no matter what the situation. I suppose if my life was at threat instinct might take over and I could kill someone, but it's not a decision that I'd ever make consciously, I don't think.
There is no legal justification for murder, particularly not state sanctioned.
Who are the state to determine who lives and who dies?
Well they do that all the time by cutting certain services that are publically funded.
Naturally, cutting the Mental health budget more means they can seemingly die acceptably, more so than someone with cancer.
Last edited:
Soldato
Arguably, I make the same decision when I get in my car every morning. I don't think that's a good argument.
Kind of cool that this thread still has legs. Show's people are willing to discuss the issue reasonably (for the most part, haven't see any posts from Deuse for a while so going to assume it's going alright).
However, I still haven't read any arguments that have yet convinced me it's a good idea to reinstate capital punishment. The 'cost' and 'deterrent' arguments seem to be continually shot down by hard evidence to the contrary from elsewhere.
However, I still haven't read any arguments that have yet convinced me it's a good idea to reinstate capital punishment. The 'cost' and 'deterrent' arguments seem to be continually shot down by hard evidence to the contrary from elsewhere.
Actually, one thought that occurred to me was that while the debate has centred on Yes/No there are other issues to consider.
IF the answer is yes, then, would we be just looking at just going back to the 60's? Or would we be considering a different method or procedure for execution or a change in the categories of capital offences?
If the answer is No, would we be leaving things a they are, or would we be looking to change current laws, perhaps to introduce a "Three Strikes" rule or for greater use of "Whole Life" terms?
IF the answer is yes, then, would we be just looking at just going back to the 60's? Or would we be considering a different method or procedure for execution or a change in the categories of capital offences?
If the answer is No, would we be leaving things a they are, or would we be looking to change current laws, perhaps to introduce a "Three Strikes" rule or for greater use of "Whole Life" terms?
^^ This.
Man of Honour
Ian Huntley, one million a year, justify those apples.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
I don't agree with prison full stop, I see only 3 realistic options:
1) someone has done something so terrible that they can't realistically be released without reasonable doubt that they will do the same or worse, in which case death or
2) they haven't done something so terrible and a fine or community service order or some form of rehabilitation is suitable or
3) they're clinically insane.
Prison is neither a cost nor is it a deterrent. The death penalty may cost just as much as prison but least they're never going to re-offend, neither do victims need to live in fear for the rest of their lives.
1) someone has done something so terrible that they can't realistically be released without reasonable doubt that they will do the same or worse, in which case death or
2) they haven't done something so terrible and a fine or community service order or some form of rehabilitation is suitable or
3) they're clinically insane.
Prison is neither a cost nor is it a deterrent. The death penalty may cost just as much as prison but least they're never going to re-offend, neither do victims need to live in fear for the rest of their lives.
Soldato
Prison isn't a deterrent? How so?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Statistically as many as 2/3rds of people jailed commit further crimes once released (depending on the length of the sentence). If that's how little it deters people who actually go to jail then it probably isn't a huge deterrent for people who haven't yet been.
For people who's punishment is the death penalty there is no chance of committing further crimes.
Last edited:
Soldato
Whats the bit about length of jail term? Whats the reoffending rate for people going in for long sentences? Im guessing the shorter the jail length, the more likely someone is to reoffend, maybe sentences aren't harsh enough for petty crime.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Essentially yes, the longer you're in for the longer they have to rehabilitate you, it's still a high as 20% for those spending 10+ years inside. Also statistically community service produces lower reoffending rates for petty crimes than prison sentences.
On the flip side, what are the likely costs both human and financial in incorrectly applied sentences. With many, as pointed out by Ian Hislop potentially made martyrs to a cause they were not involved in?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Prison doesn't work because opinions are as divided on the function of prisons as they are in this thread. Is it rehabilitation or punishment? Or both? As a punitive deterrent, it's rubbish. High recidivism rates back that up. Perhaps if we got behind a stronger rehabilitative model it would work better, but the lynch mob would never go for that.
I still want to hear someone give a clear benefit of execution over life in prison. I don't see what else it accomplishes. Is it purely just revenge?
I still want to hear someone give a clear benefit of execution over life in prison. I don't see what else it accomplishes. Is it purely just revenge?
Soldato
OK, that means 80% don't commit a crime again after spending 10+ years in prison, i know its subjective, but that seems quite reasonable, not perfect obviously but reasonable. I suppose that 20% are people that are 'broken' if you want to use such a word. For shorter sentences, if the reoffending rate is so high then that's something that needs to be looked at, which i'm sure they are. If you could get that number up to 80% for shorter sentences as well then i'd say Prison is doing a decent job at rehabilitation and punishment.
Right, i get what your saying, i sort of find it hard to believe that a strong punitive system isn't a deterrent for criminals, i'm not doubting what you said at all, it just doesn't sit well with me. I suppose it kinda makes sense though as some of the human race is predisposed to do bad things, it doesn't what matter measures you put in place, it will happen. I suppose the question is how do you affect peoples criminal thought processes, we could probably debate that issue all night as it's proper vast to get your head around. I think using the USA as a comparison is going to sway the results poorly as well, the way they run their system doesn't seem to be very humane, they are literally money making machines over there. Did that book use America as an example, can you remember? What would the crime rate be if there was no punitive system at all? I suppose that question goes back to the predisposition of the human race, are we tribal? Probably, football is a great example of that, i'd hazard a guess that it would be pretty grim reading if we didn't have a punitive system at all.
I was thinking the longer they are in prison, the more likely they are to self access and actually try and understand what they did, with the help of support officers and rehabilitation, the longer stint would all allow the hardened mind to soften up i suppose, whilst also boring the **** out of them so they never want to go back and waste their life, increased chance of an epiphany about life i feel.
Last edited:
I think there's no doubt that some crimes (and hence criminals) deserve death. But ultimately in the cold light of day it seems to cause more problems than it solves.
The idea that everybody can be rehabilitated is nonsense. As is the effort and expense of new identities, police protection, etc. On the other side you have convictions that are deemed unsafe at a later date, and the possibility of executing an innocent.
Ultimately I think incarceration is really the only punishment we have the moral right to inflict upon people found guilty of a crime. I don't think we have, as a society, the moral right to cut someone's life short.
But yes, there are some people who absolutely deserve it. A guess that's a contradiction. But since I wouldn't be prepared to execute someone (and vengeance should have no place in justice), I can't vote for the death penalty and expect someone else to do it.
The idea that everybody can be rehabilitated is nonsense. As is the effort and expense of new identities, police protection, etc. On the other side you have convictions that are deemed unsafe at a later date, and the possibility of executing an innocent.
Ultimately I think incarceration is really the only punishment we have the moral right to inflict upon people found guilty of a crime. I don't think we have, as a society, the moral right to cut someone's life short.
But yes, there are some people who absolutely deserve it. A guess that's a contradiction. But since I wouldn't be prepared to execute someone (and vengeance should have no place in justice), I can't vote for the death penalty and expect someone else to do it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Aren't you cutting someone's life short by jailing them?
Innocent or not spending 25+ years potentially for a crime you may be innocent of must be far worse in my mind than the death penalty.