Last edited:
Botched execution in the US
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Oh and you are an authority on what is murder and what is not?
An eye for an eye should not be part of a civilized society.
Murder is murder plain and simple what ever the reasons behind killing an individual it is murder. Say you kill someone for killing someone else for example, in the mind it is no different to if you were the person who committed the crime. The only thing that changes is the reasoning is behind the decision to do it.
At the end of the day executing a murderer is still a form of murder whether it is legally justified or not...
Our whole system is wrong, prison should be about rehabilitation but as you can see from many prisons in the UK let alone the US they are not.
There is also small percentage of people who have been executed that were innocent and there are many more that people may not even know about.
The fact that there could be a 1% to 4% chance of innocent people being executed means we should not do it at all until we have a 100% method of determining true guilt in my opinion.
The entire system is flawed.
Its hilarious seeing people with there kneejerk reactions about killing someone or throwing them off a cliff in response to someone elses murder. That is really not the kind of thinking we want in our society as it only serves to make things worse.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,783
- Location
- Falling...
^^ Well said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Let's disarm our military then! Then, when raging hordes of Vikings come and rape and murder our families we can hand them some leaflets telling them that killing is murder, and that they need to give quiche a chance! That'll teach them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I weep for Western Civilization. It's only a matter of time before we're swallowed up by a stronger culture.
Martin Luther King
You may not like it, but much of it is in line with our scientific understanding of human behaviour.
Familiarity with violence increases violent tendencies, beaten children go on to be more violent, the unloved grow up as being bitter twisted & uncaring individuals (all on average, not all cases) - it's simply a matter of cause & effect.
Killing a person as a punishment for killing a person is a simplistic & outdated outlook on crime & justice - well suited to people with poor reasoning skills who see the world as a series of false dichotomies - unable to appreciate the nuanced nature of reality.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Well I'm so glad someone who can appreciate the nuanced nature of reality can weigh in on this one. Tell me, is your aim to create a pacifist society or is there room in your progressive and modern society for self-defence?
If say the Yanks/Russians/Iranians/Martians decided to invade us now, would you resist, or would you roll over and take it? After all, violence engenders violence. Do you really want to be part of the problem and encourage more violence, or would you rather be part of the solution and let them conquer your nation and replace it with a foreign regime?
Honestly?
i would accept the regime ahead of a devastating war. Seriously.
Depends on the credibility of the threat, and the nature of the conquerors, of course.
I'd support a non-aggressive society, which believe it or not does't preclude the option of self-defence when required.
Could you explain how killing somebody who is already incarcerated counts as self-defence?, as that's all that is required to resist invasion.
Violence should not be the first point of call when other options exist, only an ape would think that way.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No, I cannot explain that, because it's not my argument.
Earlier posters were claiming that as a society we'd have blood on our hands if we executed people. My argument is that by that logic, our hands are already drenched in the blood of the innocent because we as a society engage both directly and indirectly in violent acts all the time.
Our parliament represents the will of the people, so we've a responsibility for the actions it takes in our name. WE are responsible for the wars it wages and we're personally responsible for the economic activity we engage in which may create misery and loss of life elsewhere.
If you're willing to take a life to defend yourself, then it's not the taking of a life specifically that you object to, but the reason and manner in which it's done. We can then move the argument forward, because we've already accepted that taking a life is not the problem, but the motives.
Wow, just skip Godwin's law all together!
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,272
- Location
- Woking
This is moronic. It is highly hypocritical to say to everyone "you may not murder" whilst at the same time carrying out state sanctioned murder. Who makes the decision on whether the capital punishment is carried out? They become a murderer by association. Who injects the lethal dose? They become a murder by action.
Killing and murdering are exactly the same thing, other than that murder may not be premeditated, where apparently killing is.
So, if the state has the power to kill, why shouldn't the citizens? How can you announce that something so damn important is wrong on one hand, and say it's fine on the other.
Your argument is complete rubbish.
Well, that depends on if the person in question supports the political parties which then go on to act in these wars.
I don't personally so I have no blood on my hands, there is also a pretty key difference between actively supporting activities & policies which in turn result in the deaths of others (like war, or the death penalty) to actively campaigning & supporting political parties which will not indulge in the same activities.
You are also presenting a red herring, if not enough can be said in defence of the death penalty in isolation, if it can't be defended on it's own merits then it should not be supported - if our society supports or doesn't support wars is immaterial to this debate.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,006
- Location
- Kent
Let's just ignore the first part (before I quoted) about an innocent person being caught first, as this has no bearing on my argument as it is less likely that someone is going to be wrongly found guilty of a string of crimes, than just the one...
I feel that this is a horrendously soft approach. If heaven existed and we lived in it this would be fine, but unfortunately this is the real world. There are people in this world who if there is no punishment for doing something bad, they will just do it. A vast majority of people break the law (sometimes in small ways) most of the time. Here are some examples, getting worse as we go.
1) Ever recorded a tape when you were younger? A CD? Done some torrenting? Until very recently this was a breach of copyright (torrenting still is) and against the law. However the chances of being caught/punished for it are pretty low so most people (who know how to) do it.
2) Doesn't seem too bad though does it? I agree, but next up are the people who troll forums (yes they exist here, especially in GD), flame other people's Youtube videos, say racist and hateful remarks in a video game and who generally range from rude to plain racist, because they are unlikely to be caught and punished. At worst, they may get banned from that particular game or forum, but overall they are unlikely to be affected in real life.
3) Then we have thieves, muggers and other low level criminals, who get put into prison, come out and carry on their lives as normal. They got punished and don't do it again. Fine. There was a victim and they had a nasty experience, but so did the perpetrator of the crime (prison).
4) Then there are serial offenders, who are too thick, have underlining issues or enjoy prison too much for it to actually sink in that they are hurting people. They should probably get locked up permanently on the third strike, as they are never going to change.
5) Then there are those who killed someone. Maybe a pub brawl got a little out of hand, or the person they lived with constantly tormented them both mentally and physically until they could not take it anymore, who knows? But that other person is now dead. They still feel bad about doing it, even though at the time it felt perfectly justified. They won't do it again, well are unlikely to.
Up until now my examples have all been of people who should be punished for what they have done (at least in the law's eyes), but granted, the death penalty would be far too extreme.
6) Finally there are the serial rapists/murderers, there are also sociopaths who kill because the person just got in the way of their progress. There are people who rape women and then kill them so they can't be pointed out. Are you seriously suggesting that these people should:
A) Take up space in our (already overcrowded) prisons when there is no way that they are going to change?
B) Be allowed out again in the future when they have already demonstrated that they have no qualms about killing others?
I think the death penalty has a place, it should act as a deterrent to the worst offenders, and get rid of them from society permanently at the same time. Obviously we don't want to employ it all the time, and should be reserved for only the worst offenders, but to dismiss it entirely for being "barbaric" won't achieve anything.
Sorry about the wall of text, but I hope it put across what I mean in a way that at least intelligent people understand the point I am making (even if they don't agree).
I'm not sure how I feel about capital punishment, as one one hand you have basically state side murder, whilst on the other, you have to support that criminal often for the rest of their life, leading to wasted taxes in my opinion.
I agree with the point that until its 100% proven guilt, the death sentence should never be applied. Innocent people should never be executed! However I don't see the point in trying to rehabilitate the most violent members of society. I'd rather let pharmaceutical companies use them for human testing then allow someone like Anders Behring Breivik out of prison.
I agree with the point that until its 100% proven guilt, the death sentence should never be applied. Innocent people should never be executed! However I don't see the point in trying to rehabilitate the most violent members of society. I'd rather let pharmaceutical companies use them for human testing then allow someone like Anders Behring Breivik out of prison.