Capital Punishment Review?

[Spirit]

Hmm yeah selfence defense is usually ok as long as you dont use excessive force - there was one case a while ago when a burglar tripped over a wire which was lying across someone's lounge or something, and sued the householder for negligence.... and won...

Thats fucked up, if I wanna put bear traps down in my own living room I will, if someone breaks into private property it's there own looked out as far as I'm concerned

 

[Hector]

That always cracks me up, 'excessive force'.
You mightt know the right amount of force to subdue a burglar or attacker if you are a kickboxing champion or a trained policeman but pick a normal, everyday citizen off the streets, confront them with a hardened thug/burglar and then tell them not to use excessive force. If they aren't pissing their pants with fear so much they can barely breathe, if they do have enough self-preservation instinct to fight back, how they can be expected to exercise the correct amount of force? It's ridiculous.
If you're fighting someone who's prepared to gouge your eyes out/whack you with a crowbar/whatever rather than be restrained and end up in prison what exactly is the right amount of force? And if they break into your house who knows if they're planning on raping your wife or even, you can't discount this because there are some sick people out there, stealing your DVDs.

(c) Dear Departed Threads

 

[Arnet- StoneAge]

One peculiar thing here is, without getting into the matter pro/against CP how do ppl really think?

I for one thought that in a court u first decide whether someone seems to be guilty or not, and then after that choose the apropriate penalty!?

Someone murders someone else and its proven to an extent of 99.9%, then another man murders someone and somehow ( this is just hypothetical and may as some point out never actually be an reality ) they are proven without a doubt top have commited the crime ( 100% ).

Would one deserve another punishment then the other??

I dont understand? How could progress in the forensics matter if forensics couldnt work to prove guilt to 100% also in 100% of cases.

Even if you get a few CLEAR cases, should the be punished in ANOTHER way because of this? Whether it be in a worse or not way?

Therefore i find all this arguing about proof and stuff strange, if someone is not arguing that u might have 100% proof in 100% of cases but that seems absurd.

And yes, CP is absurd and wrong for quite a few reasons, some of them listed here before but i wont fill out the blanks..

 

[Gen76]

locking someone up for life who isnt guilty is bad enuff,but atleast u got a chance to right the error.

 

[Do0fUs]

locking someone up for life who isnt guilty is bad enuff,but atleast u got a chance to right the error.

but would you rather have a quick death and be innocent, or spend 20 years in a shit heap of a prison and be innocent?

 

[redslayer]

Whilst there is corruption and dishonesty in the world, the death penalty cannot be an option - ever.
Politicians, judiciary, police - all have dishonest elements and all are based on the system of democracy and capitalism.
Whilst idividuals are driven to achieve and get more for themselves; innocents will be convicted - at whatever level of crime. Problem is: you can't give life back, - you CAN however compensate for loss of freedom. (Though it is not possible to compensate for years of loss of freedom).
Until we have a political system that can be trusted, how can you trust what the government departments say and do? (And yes, the courts ARE really government controlled 'departments').
IF, and I MEAN IF, I was absolutely 100% sure of the fact that a killer intended the murder, THEN I would agree with 'a life for a life', but even this will have mitigating circumstances sometimes. (If a father kills his daughter's rapist/murderer intentionally - this is murder).
Problem is, no-one can EVER be sure, and even the best intentions have resulted in innocents being murdered through law.

If you want the death-penalty, then move to the States - some people have no hesitation in killing people for votes.

 

[redslayer]

Sorry, one point I forgot about:

I have thought that 'voluntary euthanasia' may be an option for people covicted of murder, and the method of death be painless.

This also has it's problems: people may be convicted and have total belief in their innocence, but believe that the evidence against them is too overwhelming (cococted too well?) - and choose death. Others who are truly guilty hang on hoping that some 'technicality' will reprieve them from prison.

 

[Tnega]

With the breaking news in the UK this morning that two people have been arrested on suspicion of the murders of missing schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, do ppl think that the capital punishment issue of the UK & indeed the whole of Europe, taking into account the advances in forensic sciences, should be reviewed?

Always DT always.
I would infact possibly go as far as to say 'All laws of the land should be (and I hope are) maintained under constant review'.
(Case specific).

 

[Hector]

Whilst there is corruption and dishonesty in the world, the death penalty cannot be an option - ever..

The only reason I can agree with to kill someone is because there is simply nothing to learn about their deeds that could be used to understand and then treat in others or correct in ourselves; be it a mental illness, a result of upbringing, the inadequacy of our society, etc. Being responsible as members of society should involve more than just eradicating aberrations that don't fit in. It should involve leanring why and eliminating the causes of it.

Another problem with over population is that we aren't seen automatically as a useful resource, our default position is one of burden, so what's the problem with culling a few? An attractive option to be sure but not one that increases our humanity. By over producing we are devaluing ourselves, which in turn leads to the problems currently being addresses: The causes of crime and the treatment of perpetrators.