Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Voted no, mainly because of the regular miscarriages of justice and the conviction of innocent people still occurring in our justice system.
Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
I perceive you might be some sort of Leftie
In all seriousness, I really do not mean to provoke offense here, (And, indeed I do not know if I am even correct in your case, but the above statement does fit the typical pattern)
It is a common major intellectual failing with "lefties" that because they are generally intelligent, thoughtful and educated people, they tend to make the massive error that their world view has to be the correct one and therefore they simply cannot comprehend why other equally intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people might take a totally different viewpoint.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,708
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I
It is a common major intellectual failing with "lefties" that because they are generally intelligent, thoughtful and educated people, they tend to make the massive error that their world view has to be the correct one and therefore they simply cannot comprehend why other equally intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people might take a totally different viewpoint.
You put it way better than I could have done.
Why does everyone seem to jump to the conclusion that if the death penalty was brought back it would be dished out like parking tickets?
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The problem is that it would never be black and white, crime rarely is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,070
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
I think only for crimes that threaten national security e.g. terrorism and treason, and only if it's without doubt that they've caught the right person.
Obviously if we're talking state-sanctioned death penalties, we'd not be talking about untrained doctors using black market drugs or anything. It'd be rare enough(in my ideal situation) that there wouldn't exactly need to be a plethora of stock or willing doctors needed.
"When done correctly" - you mean in perfect situations.
There is no 100% sure way to know whether the neck will break on falling, or whether a shot is going to definitely kill somebody, even at near point blank, pointed directly at the brain. People survive all kinds of crazy gunshots.
Either way, my point still stands - none of these are humane. They are spectacle. There are far better ways of doing it that dont involve decades, or centuries old barbarism.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Nay.
A large percentage of criminals, even serious criminals who would fall under the sentence can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Few that cannot be, can be humanely contained without creating a costly and socially corrosive institution and industry of systematic vengeful murder, which can be privately or publicly coopted into serving interests far away from any conception of justice, such as suppression of political dissent, human sexuality or free association, for example. Furthermore, unlike a life sentence, the death penalty cannot be reversed in cases of miscarriage of justice once carried out.
Neither our interactions, courts or juries are free of bias or error, and as such miscarriages of justice are guaranteed to occur given sufficient time and cases, whatever the crime. As a result, it'd be folly to idealise certain forms of sentencing in this regard as extra special in status, method or result.
In the end it boils down to whether you believe punishment -- and in the case of the death penalty, extreme punishment -- works as a tool of social control. In my view and that of the majority of our elected representatives and many a much maligned expert, it does not. Others, craving a false sense of security or the ghoulish satisfaction of their violent fantasies provided by the death penalty, disagree.
A large percentage of criminals, even serious criminals who would fall under the sentence can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Few that cannot be, can be humanely contained without creating a costly and socially corrosive institution and industry of systematic vengeful murder, which can be privately or publicly coopted into serving interests far away from any conception of justice, such as suppression of political dissent, human sexuality or free association, for example. Furthermore, unlike a life sentence, the death penalty cannot be reversed in cases of miscarriage of justice once carried out.
Neither our interactions, courts or juries are free of bias or error, and as such miscarriages of justice are guaranteed to occur given sufficient time and cases, whatever the crime. As a result, it'd be folly to idealise certain forms of sentencing in this regard as extra special in status, method or result.
In the end it boils down to whether you believe punishment -- and in the case of the death penalty, extreme punishment -- works as a tool of social control. In my view and that of the majority of our elected representatives and many a much maligned expert, it does not. Others, craving a false sense of security or the ghoulish satisfaction of their violent fantasies provided by the death penalty, disagree.
Correct and perfect aren't the same.
Something doesn't have to be perfect for it to be right.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Who decides if the evidence is irrefutable and incontestable? Where is the line drawn? Are you saying that our current "beyond reasonable doubt" test is not enough to apply the death penalty?
Support for the death penalty dropped below 50% for the first time last year. OCuk is better than average but only just.
I perceive you might be some sort of Leftie
In all seriousness, I really do not mean to provoke offense here, (And, indeed I do not know if I am even correct in your case, but the above statement does fit the typical pattern)
It is a common major intellectual failing with "lefties" that because they are generally intelligent, thoughtful and educated people, they tend to make the massive error that their world view has to be the correct one and therefore they simply cannot comprehend why other equally intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people might take a totally different viewpoint.
I completely get your statement, and it was lazy of me not to elaborate on my point. So let me explain my point of view:
There will always be individual cases that are difficult to argue against the death penalty for. That even I wouldn't really have issue with. The problem is one of legislation and execution (if you'll excuse the pun). I don't believe that we can, as a society, country, penal system or otherwise, correctly determine when to end the life of a person with absolute certainty all of the time. Texas is a prime example of where this kind of power can be used incorrectly. I feel like ignoring the problems of where you draw the line (surely every case should be evaluated individually when the stakes are this high, but then how do you ensure consistency?) and how you enact punishment like this are really key sticking points.
A second issue for me is why would we want to kill people who have committed these offenses? Is it to protect the public or is it revenge? If the former, prison is fine and at least offers opportunities for rehabilitation, and if the latter, what purpose does a vengeful state serve? Should we apply this method of vengeance to all crimes with victims? Should we bring back the stocks as well? If the logic isn't consistent, then it appears to be an emotional response rather than a rational one. That's not the way I would have us run our justice system
Lastly, I think capital punishment is avoiding a problem rather than addressing it. It is a blunt tool to deal with the symptom rather than the cause. So I would rather we explored ways to understand and prevent serious crimes rather than simply punish offenders more severely. I don't see what good that does anyone.
So maybe that stance puts me in the box of leftie, but if you can address those points sufficiently then I'm open minded enough to change my views.
The problem with using drugs no matter how rarely is that they have a shelf life and every medical company out there refuses to supply drugs for the purposes of execution.
Ironically if it weren't for the countries ridiculous criminialisation of drugs they would be easy for prisons to obtain, because they are used very widely in hospitals.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,708
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
But as you get older you may experience stuff that may change your mind so age is important.
And who knows, if I live another 10 years the stuff I experience may make me vote no.
So yes, age makes a massive difference.
The fact that miscarriages happen proves, in some cases, that 'beyond reasonable doubt' hasn't worked. I certainly don't believe the death penalty ever has or ever would work as a deterrent.
However, would you not agree that if someone commits a murder in front of multiple witnesses (i.e. in a crowded public place), with the event recorded on camera, the 'suspect' arrested at the scene, and then admitting the offence, that this constitutes irrefutable and incontestable evidence?
On a side note, an old work colleague used to work as a prison guard in Kingston Prison in Portsmouth (now shut down) and he told me what some of the lifers were in for....all I can say is
!!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,708
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Age still matters as you have just rightfully pointed out so you are agreeing with me.
It's the experiences within that age that counts and once again you have agreed with me.
What's your point?
Or are you trying to say that because I mentioned my age I must be right because if so you're posting ******* again?
Age was mentioned because I've changed my mind over the decades.
Why should they? How is it worth all the cost just to do so? What's the benefit?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,708
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Why should they? - To get scum off the streets
How is it worth the cost? - What cost?
You are guilty > van ride to unmarked graveyard/crematory > bullet/injection/hanging > grave/crematory > job done all for the cost of the van driver, executioner & maybe grave digger.
What is the benefit? - To get scum off the streets
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,513
- Location
- ST4
Dale Cregan, I mentioned that piece of filth some posts back.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,708
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I would also feel no guilt in executing this piece of trash who isn't guilty of murder - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Watkins_(Lostprophets)