Capital Punishment Review?

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Spirit m8, Life Imprisonment does not amount to torture.
I have a man who used to be my best m8 when he was on the out, who is behind the door for life. Not being tortured.

Torture is keeping some poor bastard on death row for more than a decade then deciding to off them:/ how sick is that?
 
@Thur :thumb:

Religion has no place in the mechanisms of the state. I fully support the right of any citizen to follow their religion of choice, as long is it does not deny any other individual their own human rights. but the appearance of even the slightest trace of religion within the statute, or within the structures of power is utterly unacceptable. As an example, I am one of the people who voiced objections to the Scottish parliament allowing prayers before parliament sessions to be said in the chamber.

Back to technology: yes, all is fallible, but here's a way it could work:

Scenario One:
A future murder is commited: the *real* criminal is caught. Mind probing shows he has complete recollection of the murder, several key details not know to anyone except the victim, murderer and prosecution are used to confirm.

Death penalty is carried out after 100 years. Criminal is cryo-preserved immediately. To all intents and purposes, he is dead.

The government places a sum of money in bond/investments, which will pay for the preservation over the coming 100 years. after 100 years, the bond is dissolved and the remains are disposed of.


Scenario Two:
A future murder is commited: an innocent is caught. Mind probing shows he has complete recollection of the murder, perhaps due to imagining the event and getting "lucky". he is convicted.

The innocent is cryo-preserved. The government again places a sum of money in bond/investments, paying for preservation. Over the coming years, proof of innocence is uncovered, or the mind probing technology is improved. The innocent is revived, and the bond money is paid in compensation.

If proof of innocence cannot be discovered by your friends/family/further advances within a century, then you did it!
 
Many good posts, definately the most interesting thread in a long time!

Thur, that is probably the best explanation I have heard as to why crimes against children are viewed as worse. A genetic compulsion to preserve the species.

Originally posted by Spirit
As I said, I would happily give my life to save that of 100 children - wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely definately not.
The thing here wether you are talking about the crime in the first place, or a capital punishment act of revenge is that your life is all you have. You have one chance at it, and nothing else. I am not willing to lose it for anyone. Thats not to say I wouldnt jump into a river to try and risk it to save a drowning person or so on, but there is no circumstance under which I would be prepared to lose my life, especially for something I didnt do.

I feel the practicalities of mistakes pretty much rule out capital punishment being fair or acceptable. Make it a theoretical question then assuming 100% accuracy is the death penalty justifiable in any instance?

Difficult question. The most disturbing thing from the murder of those two girls is that the bodies will take so long to identify, meaning that even dental records arent able to identify them :(
Horrific.
Shipman is incredibly terrifying, not only did he systematically kill hundreds of people, the only reason he was caught is he faked a change in a will, which has been said to be a deliberate act to get caught. He has shown no remorse what so ever. I can virtually guarantee that indirectly, other people will die because of Shipman as people are too scared to go to their doctor in case they also get killed.
In these cases, the victims have lost their lives. Nothing can be done to bring them back, or to restore the quality of life to the friends and families. Revenge might help the families come to terms with the loss. You could also say that the right to life is everything, but by deliberately and with malice removing the life of someone else you lose that right. But somehow I cannot bring myself to agree with it :\
 
Originally posted by BBStr@nge
Spirit m8, Life Imprisonment does not amount to torture.
I have a man who used to be my best m8 when he was on the out, who is behind the door for life. Not being tortured.

Torture is keeping some poor bastard on death row for more than a decade then deciding to off them:/ how sick is that?
Click to expand...

If life really means life, then I it seems like it would be pretty torturous to me. Nothing to look forward to, no hope, no fun... day in day out for 50 years or so ? Dunno about you but that sounds like hell to me. Existing for existing sake, nothing else. Whats you mate in for life for?! Must be something pretty damn horrendous to get life :\

And I agree keeping someone on death row for a decade is sick, thats even worse torture, and imo shouldnt happen. If the decision is made to punish someone with death it should be instigated immediately. The decision is made when they are convicted, so what else do ya need? If they are proven guilty then so be it.
 
Originally posted by BBStr@nge
Torture is keeping some poor bastard on death row for more than a decade then deciding to off them:/ how sick is that?
Click to expand...

Nah man... Torture is keeping the bastard alive whilst you slice bits off him, and abuse him with a fooking stun baton. :(

I agree that the prison system we have, even without the treat of death at the end is not torture. far from it.
 
@ Mughi,

Well, I would give my life if it meant saving 100 children's lives. Yes you only get one chance at it, but better 100 kids get a chance than 1 person...

@ Wintermute - nice ideas there, the first person to actually come up with a viable alternative to the current justice system :)
 
@ Wints - keeping someone in chokey for sometimes upto 25 years and then killing them is barbaric.

@Spirit - My m8 murdered his wife. I hate what he did but I don't hate him. Most mild mannered dude I ever met. She had an affair, he snapped and murdered her. 15 years w/o parole. That's as serious as it gets:/ Would I see him killed? No.
He needs to understand what he has done and the ramifications for those affected by it. I have taken his Daughter to see him in HMP Gartree. That was torture. She lost her Mother, should she lose her Father to the noose?
 
I think most people would agree a crime of passion such as that doesnt necessarily deserve death. Punishment, yes, a life has been lost, but its the premeditated, vindictive ones especially the ones without any signs of remorse that are a seperate case :\
 
hmmmm

tbh BB, I dont think I have seen many even amongst the pro-death penalty camp who would suggest the death penalty for crimes of passion, which that clearly is.

Personally, I see multiple murders, or planned out, premeditated murders as being a very different thing from the *snap* reaction where you find yourself standing there with a knife in your hand and a body at your feet.
 
I think 1000s of inmates would disagree that prison is worse than death. Im sure spirit, if faced with the reality of the choice, you would change your mind. Someone who kills somebody intentionally for a given reason isnt necessarily a danger for the rest of their lives. Quite often these people are realeased after 14 years(think the minimum tariff has been reduced to 12 years now). There can be many reasons someone can kill somebody else in what would be described as cold blood. This doesnt necessarilly make them a threat to the rest of the general public.

Take the guy whose name escpaes me. Who shot the burgler on his land, and killed him. He was convicted opf murder because the Police ballistics experts said he had shot the gun from downstairs. This implied he was waiting for them. On appeal an independent ballastics expert(mike haywood or hayward i think) proved he had infact fired the gun, as he said all along from half way down the stairs.

Or crimes of passion that have always been treated with Leniency.
 
nope, as the above posts say i would be strongly against death penalty in that case. I would imagine he started repenting what he had done pretty much immediately afterwards, and would be about as strong a case for reform as you can get.

Situations which I feel CP would be applicable to would be like the Hanibal example, where there is no chance of reform, the killer does not regret what he has done, is fully aware of what he has done, enjoyed it, and would be willing to do it again if given the chance...
 
Originally posted by Wintermute

Back to technology: yes, all is fallible, but here's a way it could work:

Scenario One:
A future murder is commited: the *real* criminal is caught. Mind probing shows he has complete recollection of the murder, several key details not know to anyone except the victim, murderer and prosecution are used to confirm.

Death penalty is carried out after 100 years. Criminal is cryo-preserved immediately. To all intents and purposes, he is dead.

The government places a sum of money in bond/investments, which will pay for the preservation over the coming 100 years. after 100 years, the bond is dissolved and the remains are disposed of.


Scenario Two:
A future murder is commited: an innocent is caught. Mind probing shows he has complete recollection of the murder, perhaps due to imagining the event and getting "lucky". he is convicted.

The innocent is cryo-preserved. The government again places a sum of money in bond/investments, paying for preservation. Over the coming years, proof of innocence is uncovered, or the mind probing technology is improved. The innocent is revived, and the bond money is paid in compensation.

If proof of innocence cannot be discovered by your friends/family/further advances within a century, then you did it!
Click to expand...
If u dont think a 100% safe conviction is possible today then u cant seriously claim that 1 would be obtainable at any given time in the future. If there are `counter measures' today then there will be `counter measures' tomorrow.

I think that 100% safe convictions can & are obtained today.
 
Torture is keeping some poor bastard on death row for more than a decade then deciding to off them:/ how sick is that?
Click to expand...

Not very

I'm suprised no-one even mentioned this until now. Keeping some-one on death row for over a decade isn't to see how much sleep the guy loses at night or for the amusement of whoever is supposed to be "torturing" him. It's so that if he was innocent then they have a chance, or several bloody chances over 10 years, to prove that he is innocent and to pardon him.

That's the reason they don't flick the switch straight away, there are fall backs should the innocent man be declared guilty.

If yes after he was held for 10-15 years, whilst being innocent all along, then exectuted and the new evidence is brought to light then I agree it's a terrible shame and tragedy. But will some-one tell me one system on the planet that isn't without it's faults.

I know that having said that every1 who opposes CP will say that the syetm that executes another human can't have faults.

Well to that I say, people die on the operating table for minor sugery, people die from drunk drivers, people die from all manner of things where it wasn't fair.

Surely, we have to weigh up the cost of what good it could do to the general populose (sp?) to release "reformed" murderers and the like into society against the accidently lose of an innocent life.

I know I say this now and would prolly disaree later but if I was to murder someone in cold blood, I would deserve the DP. Same as if I beat up my finance, then I would expect Frost and Mael to use my head as football.

Hypothetical Game:

Imagine the whole planet used CP as the punishment for ANY crime. Murder, rape, speeding, under age drinking. In each case where it was 100% gulty and you died for it, wouldn't the world be a safer place in the long run?

Remember, hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
I think if I remember rightly that one of the burgalars that the farmer (Tony Martin) shot was shot in the back as he was running away.

That was not in that case self defence or the use of reasonable force.
 
Tony Martin it was proven, was an unstable and sick man who boasted about wanting to shoot trespassers on his land in general, not just burglars.
 
RE:

The fact is he did shoot tresspassers/burglars, they didnt deserve to die nor did he deserve to be disturbed. When it comes to someone right's versus another who is to judge who is in the right. The fact is if someone came into my house now and tried to steal my TV and i say hit them with a bat and broke their jaw I could be prosecuted for assault yet the chances of me getting my TV back if they get away are remote the law is just not able to deal with these situations in its current form.
 
Originally posted by TexasTom
I think 1000s of inmates would disagree that prison is worse than death. Im sure spirit, if faced with the reality of the choice, you would change your mind..
Click to expand...

You missed my point completely Tom. I'm sure 1000s of prisoners would prefer prison to death and so would I if I knew I was going to get out after 15 years, however out of those thousand how many are desitined never to be released into society ever again? 1? Maybe just 1 in a thousand, prolly more like 1 in 100,000. That is the one Im talking about, not the rest who are the there for robbery, not paying ur taxes etc etc. The one who has committed multiple murders, raped and eaten all his victims. If you were never going to be put back into society, not even a small chance, then, and only then, I would prefer death.

Someone who kills somebody intentionally for a given reason isnt necessarily a danger for the rest of their lives. Quite often these people are realeased after 14 years(think the minimum tariff has been reduced to 12 years now). There can be many reasons someone can kill somebody else in what would be described as cold blood. This doesnt necessarilly make them a threat to the rest of the general public
Click to expand...

Again you missed the point - I'm not saying everyone how commits murder should be put to death :lol: Read the previous posts, BB's mate murdered his wife and I would be very strongly against death in that case, also the kid in Wales Uzi talks about and you examle. Death penalty should be reserved for those very few who have committed crimes of pure evil maybe 1% of all murderers, those who will never repent what they have done, and will never be released back into society regardless...
 
Mogs I agree-lol
I have upset people with my vehemence in this subject.
If someone breaks into my house I am hitting em till they stop moving. Wouldn't want them dead, just incapacitated.
My biggest fear is something happening to my lad.
We all got fears, it's how we rationalise them.
Still against the death penalty tho'.
 
I agree with mogs too, and in reflection of the other thread in here about sueing ppl, it gets even worse - if someone breaks into your house to rob you, and trips over a lose wire - they can sue you !!! How fucked up is that?!

If someone breaks into my house I will do what I can to protect my family and possesions. I would never try to kill someone in that situation, however if my family is threatened I will retaliate with equal force.

Still with CP however, if someone is too far gone to reform in any way or be released back into society, I just can't see the point in keeping em locked up for the rest of their lives just so they can rot in a cell at tax payers expense...
 
Legally as far as I'm aware there is now problem with using reasonable force if the aim is to defend yourself. If that ends up in someone losing their life as long as you can prove it is self defence and that reasonable force has been used then you are (in theory) ok.

And if you can prove that someone broke into your house and you protected yourself, which isn't difficult, then the police and the legal system will come down on your side unless they believe that you used more than was "reasonable force" as in the Tony Martin case.

So I reckon twat 'em with a big fuck off stick (cricket bat would be good but must be lying around the house for a good reason and not there primarily as a weapon) and then say they attacked you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back