Capital Punishment Review?

[Phear]

Perhaps we should ship em all back off to Australia again?

Nah seriously, they should be made to work, anything will do, but they should earn their keep.

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Bluey


its nomore closer to home and its no more sudden

its a simple fact that the deth of 2 little girls stirs up a stronger emotional respons and people start to call for the deth penalty for the wrong reasons.


its tottaly differnt if i have the gun and it does not amount to the same thing
giveing me the gun makes me the murder i have to pull that trigger i have to watch the people die and i have to bare that vision for the rest of my life that i have murdered 50 people its a completely differnt situatin

Well it's closer to home for me m8, Soham is just a few miles from where I live...

And it was more sudden - these girls suddenly vanished, where as Shipman's victims we known to be dead, and presume from natural causes therefore the grieving was alreayd done with. It was only after the event it was discovered they had actually been killed. In this case the girls were missing for nearly 2 weeks before their bodies were found, which is a lot more sudden and traumatic for all involved.

People arent calling for the death penalty for the wrong reasons at all - Holly and Jessica's killers deserve whatever they get. The error was not calling for it in Shipman's case, imho both cases justify use of capital punishment.

Also, I don't think it is much different if you have the gun in your hand - yes you would have to live with the image on killing people that way, however you still had the choice in your hands whether the 50 innocent ppl live or die, and you chose for them to die to save yourself.......

 

[DraizeTrain]

Originally posted by Phear
Nah seriously, they should be made to work, anything will do, but they should earn their keep.

Yeah i totally agree...bring back the chain gangs...but care should be taken over finding the specific tasks they would be found to do cos no doubt certain councils would see it as a means of obtaining cheap labour at the expense of legitimate workers.

 

[Ajax]

they do work in most prisons

 

[Rich]

your emphasising the whole emotional respons that is the reason why CP is not the right way to go
you cannont justify the takeing of a life buy takeing another

and there would be mistakes and inocent people would be put to deth.

and the argument that 1 innocent for every 100 guilty is ok

ITS NOT


as for chaingangs i agree that prison should be a place you never want to go back to , but there is fine line between punishment and abuse of power, read papillon.

im not a do gooder or a member of the god squad but i can see past an emotionally charged argument and i cannont see the justification of an eye for an eye and a life for a life.

 

[Spirit]

I'm not trying to justify the taking of a life by taking another, I'm justifying the punishment of taking a life by taking another - those are completely different things...

And I agree 1 innocent in a hundred guilty isnt ok, for a start it wouldn't be anything like that, more like in in a hundred thousand with all the forensics we have these days. There would be maybe 1 person executed each year, so 1 innocent person in 1000 years is not bad imho, and although it would be better if it was 0 innocent ppl, 1 is still better than allowing murderers to re-offend and kill numerous innocent ppl each time.

Answer me this: You have Hanibal lector caught red handed with someones liver on his dinner plate. What good is putting him in prison gonna do? He's never gonna reform so you will never be able to release him back into the public, it will cost the public a huge amount of money to keep him in prison for the rest of his life, and by doing so you are not achieving anything other than waiting for death to take him by natural cuases as opposed to doing it yourself.

What are you gonna acheive by keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? What is the point in doing that? Why not apply capital punishment, save the public a shit load of tax and avoid the risk of him escaping and killing more people. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained from keeping him in prison.

 

[Rich]

nope there exactly the sameonly differnce is you added the word punishment , punishent is the way you are justifying murder your saying its ok to murder this person because they murdered someone.

thats a life for a life
exactly the same thing.

and 1 inocent person in 100 years is not OK its makes the whole point of CP wrong

killing 1 inocent wrongly accused every 100 years is no diffent than killing 2 innocent little girls every 100 years

you cannont justify murder

What are you gonna acheive by keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? What is the point in doing that? Why not apply capital punishment, save the public a shit load of tax and avoid the risk of him escaping and killing more people. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained from keeping him in prison.

first thing your doing is putting a price on someones life "save the public a shit load of tax" where do you draw the line?

second thing your doing is saying that anyone who is deamed unfit for general society should be exicuted because keeping them in secure acomodation isnt going to gain us the greater public anything. where do you draw the line?

 

[Phear]

There is no acceptable figure, be it 1 in 100, 1 in Million, or 1 person for each and every human being that will exist from now until the distruction of the universe.

Even if nobody was ever wrongly killed, and Captital punishment was 100% effective with no innocent loss of life, I still don't beleive it can be classed as a justified form of punishment. What if that person never re-offended, what have you achieved by killing them? You've saved no lives, you have killed some1 for no benefit whatsoever. With the bomber example you kill the person to save some1's life, in this case you kill some one for no gain whatsoever. If nothing is gained, it as mindless a killing as the crime commited itself.

Logic, not emotion should control peoples decisions, unfortunately, that usually isn't the case.

 

[uZi]

dave, asif hannibal lector is gonna exist.. fs

Also, why does the murder of those 2 girls affect you more than anyone else... just cos you live close to soham, it makes you effected than the rest of us, you knew them just as well as we did (ill assume) - not at all, and only share the "thats fucked up, sick and wrong" feeling

Speaking of all this hannibal lector shite, there was some kid in north wales who murdered this old woman and ate her heart or some shit... hes like 16-17... does he deserve to be executed?

Personally i think he should be locked up for a fair few years and attempted to be reformed (which is what i expect will happen to him)

The subject of prisons costing tax payers money is a fair point tho, why should we pay for people to live in comfort when they have wronged society.. i have to agree with the ideas of getting them to earn their keep

 

[Spirit]

You've corrected yourself now opti - your first sentence "justifying murder by murder" is saying that I am saying the first murder is ok. That murder is never justified or it wouldnt need to be punished in the first place. By adding the word punishement it changes the meaning of the whole sentence.

No-one has answered my question about Hanibal Lector - what would be the advantage of keeping him in prison when he is never gonna be released back into society?

 

[Rich]

You've corrected yourself now opti - your first sentence "justifying murder by murder

i havent i ment it exactly how it sound you cannont justify murder by murder

as for the hanibal example its exactly the same thing
your murdering someone to deal out justice for them murdering someone
your taking there life because they took someones life

and there is no justification for murder

 

[uZi]

Rich is right dave, it is "justify murder by murder"

ie your claiming the murderers life to kinda balance out the murder he has commited... which is kinda what punishment (ie prison) is there to do

Obvious you cant balance it out for the murdered person tho.. so prison atm is the closest thing

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Uzi-Suicide
dave, asif hannibal lector is gonna exist.. fs

There have been plenty of similar cases, there was that guy in Russia who ate about 50 ppl... I was just using his name as it is well known.

Also, why does the murder of those 2 girls affect you more than anyone else... just cos you live close to soham, it makes you effected than the rest of us, you knew them just as well as we did (ill assume) - not at all, and only share the "thats fucked up, sick and wrong" feeling

It doesn't, I never said it did and I never said this situation was any worse than Shipman. What Shipman did was 100 times worse, but that doesnt take away from the horror of these crimes.

Speaking of all this hannibal lector shite, there was some kid in north wales who murdered this old woman and ate her heart or some shit... hes like 16-17... does he deserve to be executed?

No, tbh I dont he should. That guy is clearly deluded and there is a possibilty of reform for him. You may say Hanical Lector was deluded too, but some of these people know exactly what they are doing, they just enjoy it. Those are the ones you need to worry about.

I think some of you have misunderstood me anyway, I do not know all the facts of the Holly and Jessica case, I do not know why the couple murdered them, and I have not said that I think capital punishment should definately be applied in this case. This debate is about captital punishment as a whole, and I still believe it should be applied in some cases, regardless of whether this is one of them or not.

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Uzi-Suicide
Rich is right dave, it is "justify murder by murder"

It's not right

jus·ti·fy Pronunciation Key (jst-f)
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
v. tr.
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
To declare free of blame; absolve.
To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin.

If you read that sentence grammitcally correctly, it means you would justify the first killing by making another killing. Capital punishment is in no way validating the first murder, it is completely the opposite.

You are not freeing the murderer of "guilt and penalty attached to a grievous sin", you are not proving his actions to be right or valid. You are not "justifying murder by murder", you are "punishing murder by murder"

Those two sentences mean completely different things...

 

[Rich]

how ever its put and whether i was gramatiacly right it doesnt matter you cannot take a life and say its ok to do so because its a Punishment for takeing a life

 

[Spirit]

But what would be the point in putting someone like Hanibal Lector in prison? You are effectively ending there life anyway as there is no chance of reform and you are never going to release them back into society. You are saying to them - you are never going to expereince pleasure again in your life.

Personlly, if I was in that situation I would rather have a lethal injection, than spend the rest of my life in prison knowing I would never be released. And as it will save the government time, money and space, seems like a win-win situation to me - everyones happy!

 

[Vector]

i say bring back hard labour, UK could do with some high speed train rails or something, make them work for the rest of thier sick lifes.

they could come work for my company that soox too

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Spirit
How can you chose the death of 50 innocent people over that one 1? How can you justify that?

Easy. If you have Capital Punishment, an innocent will always be wrongly convicted. Statistically, it is going to happen. 1 innocent person being convicted and executed is 1 too many.

The point is that in this case, there is nothing which could save that person, or bring them back from the dead.

With all those released murderers, anything could happen to prevent them murdering again. The victim might stab their eyes and escape. The victim might scream loud enough to help. And so on...

In short, it is not a foregone conclusion that more people will end up dead if a murderer is released. It may be highly likely but that is completely different. But an innocent person who gets executed stays dead.

Aside: From what I've read in newspapers, Ian Brady never asked for parole, and in fact twice asked for his ventilator to be turned off when he was ill in a prison hospital before he died of natural causes. Maybe he came to realise that the nature of his crimes was such that he would never be released. Myra Hindley on the other hand does not seem to have reformed at all. She apparently regularly applies for parole, and tries all sorts of tricks like apparently "converting" to Christianity, and forming a relationship with her prison psychologist in an attempt to appeal to her parole officers on "compassionate grounds". Unfortunately for her, most people seem to see these exercises for what they are: a cynical attempt to deflect blame from herself. The crimes she committed with Ian Brady can have no excuse, and should be subject to the strongest sanction available. If that means she rots in prison, so be it.

There is something worse than murder: Its called Torture.

 

[BBStr@nge]

Originally posted by Spirit
Personlly, if I was in that situation I would rather have a lethal injection, than spend the rest of my life in prison knowing I would never be released. And as it will save the government time, money and space, seems like a win-win situation to me - everyones happy!

Quite obvious then that you have never faced the end of your life at some-one's say-so.

It is nice to see now this thread is rid of a couple of idiots (and I apologise for my rant but he did need telling) there are some very valid points.
Both for and against capital punishment.

Let me just clarify something, the term "Playing God" does not pertain to the fact I follow a particular religion. Just a phrase.
I don't believe in God. If there was one we wouldn't have two children dead in Soham.
I do however believe in spirituality.
And because of that, I believe it is wrong to take the life of another human being. Regardless of however you justify it, murder is murder is murder.
Rather than reiterating what I have already said in previous posts, I will sum up at the present time by posting this quote.


There but for the grace of God go I.

— George Whitefield (1714-1770), 18th century clergyman, watching a condemned criminal being led to the execution chamber.

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by BBStr@nge


Quite obvious then that you have never faced the end of your life at some-one's say-so.

No, I haven't. However, life imprisonment with no hope of release and lethal injection are both ending your life, just the method of imprisonment takes a damn site longer and would be much more unpleasant.

As Thur said, torture is worse than death, and that is what life imprisonment amounts to (as long as life really does mean life). Personly, I'd chose immedaite death over a torture which last many years until eventual death..