I'm not advocating removing them, I'm saying that I'm open to the argument for it in extreme cases provided a higher standard is in place in the first place.
Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I'm not advocating removing them, I'm saying that I'm open to the argument for it in extreme cases provided a higher standard is in place in the first place.
It is clear in the sense that we know 100% that she murdered her two children.
If the death penalty was re-introdued then the government would have to bring in new legislation and policies of which crimes deserves it.
I'm sure if we were executing people regularly then the cost would go down.
I'd like to ask you, in this particularly case, why don't you think the death penalty is appropriate? Or is it more about your own sensibilities?
I noticed a few people on the thread wonder how a mother, or anyone, could be so hard faced and lack emotion. Sadly there are a lot of people like this in certain parts of society. This woman is an extreme example of someone carrying out 'the talk' what others do. But I'm not surprised. Society as become very self centered in the last 20 years.
Cost went up for America... so no, the only way to reduce the cost is to strip the system of protections and due diligence, at that point you might as well just let the police shoot people on the street if they "feel" like it.
From what I understand, and I may be wrong, is that the cost of executing people is mainly about the legal challenges to the decision. If we brought it back here we would have an opportunity to answer those challenges and build it in to the system, so reducing costs.
So you don't want to this woman executed? If not, what redeemable quality does she have to live?
The redeemable quality of society as a whole not being tainted by a system of retribution, give people an inch...
At this point it becomes about the collective morality and character of society, killing is simply always morally when you have a choice, she should suffer the death of time if retribution is the only recourse.
Caporegime
Yes seemingly you're wanting to absolve those already guilty of taking more than a mile
No, i don't want to become guilty of collectively murdering someone just because they've committed an unredeemable crime, we didn't spend centuries coming to this conclusion just so you can get your jollies off on bringing it back.
Caporegime
It's for the greater good.
Potentially then, this woman can be released when she's 60, and maybe go on to get a job, perhaps even travel abroad on a nice holiday where she can sip wine in the sun and chat to the waiters who will have no idea of the terrible crime she committed. Are we acting morally to allow her to do that? It would seem immoral to me.
I'd dispute that, you could have a higher standard of guilt required in the first place for the death penalty to even be applicable. Currently in the US the death penalty can be applied in a regular murder trial... with all the possible flaws of any other criminal case that might subsequently be appealed at various stages.
If you were to just have extreme cases and have some higher standard of guilt in the first place then you're only really dealing with a subset of cases for which there are far fewer grounds (if at all) to appeal on in the first place.
It doesn't have to involve any lowering of standards.
Why haven't they they tried what you said then? After all they have the incentive of cost reduction, yet they don't.
You seriously advocating the saving of pennies realistically, plus can you 100% trust that the government (or any future government) wont abuse this fact to get someone killed? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Caporegime
Indeed this. She should never have the chance to live an ordinary life ever again, those poor babies can't. She should have got a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole, ever.
Who is they? Plenty of people don't want to introduce the death penalty at all irrespective of the cost... I'm certainly not advocating for it in general nor doing so simply because it might well save money.
Plenty of people pro the death penalty in jurisdictions that still have it present won't necessarily won't want to admit that it still has large flaws and innocent people are at risk of being killed.
I mean they're not exactly big on trying to get it done as humanely as possible over in the US either.
I'm not advocating the saving of pennies, I'm stating that I'm open to the argument for the death penalty in extreme cases if there were a higher standard of guilt required.
If say the Dunblane shooter (had he not successfully killed himself) or the Lee Rigby killers were to be put to death via say a lethal injection after being given both pain relief and anaesthesia then I'd not have a big issue with it.
Soldato
Execution would be the easy way out for her, ide rather she get life with no parole, that way she could wind up spending 40, 50, even 60 years behind bars reliving her childrens final moments over and over and over again.
Caporegime
I for one second the comments of our Irish brethren!
You think the government would use a high profile death penalty case to kill someone when they could have an agent shoot you in the back of the head on your doorstep?
It's an open door to that at least and it's simply unacceptable.
Soldato
This thing needs to be hanged asap.
That's why they have brought back being shot.
If it was me I would hang them all. Let them have the same pain there victims had.
That's why they have brought back being shot.
If it was me I would hang them all. Let them have the same pain there victims had.
That is already a possibility... for example see the Iranian embassy siege, for example.
Likewise at times in Northern Ireland it was deemed preferable to wait for situations where IRA members could be legally killed rather than pre-emptively arrest them.
I'm not talking about the shady allegations of collusion but say receiving intelligence that an attack is to take place and rather than arresting the members of an IRA unit and then not necessarily having sufficient evidence to necessarily convict all of them instead take the risk, wait for them to carry on and attempt the attack and then ambush and kill them.
So long as the killings are legally justified - an IRA member attacking a police station with a rifle is a legit target as is an armed Iranian terrorist with hostages, then we already have a sort of (situation specific) death penalty option and I don't see a big issue with it.