|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Nov 28, 2008 13:18:43 GMT
An alternative response: The person breaking into my house is not behaving as a human, therefore he forfeits his 'rights'. 'Murder' only applies to people killing people, so no conviction. ;D Don't take that one too seriously, but it illustrates the idea that criminals should have their rights revoked. The question is to what degree?
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 29, 2008 13:03:17 GMT
I'm not sure about this "behaving as a human" thing. How many other animals behave in that way? Murder, burglary, self-defence with heavy objects... these are all VERY human ways of behaving. I put it to you that, because you would never do these things yourself (save the third where absolutely necessary), you do not wish to associate yourself with a species that exhibits this kind of behaviour on a regular basis. Sorry, but this IS behaving like a human. I hate it too.
|
|
|
Post by bh on Nov 29, 2008 21:02:00 GMT
Good debate.
How do you all feel about what happen in India this week?
Should these sub-humans be allowed to exist in a supposedly civilised world?
They are not animals, saying they are is insulting to all the beautiful creatures of the world!
|
|
|
Post by coops on Nov 30, 2008 0:10:25 GMT
Had Michael Ryan (Hungerford) not had the decency to top himself we'd all be paying for his upkeep now,why? Top him. Because to kill him would mean that whoever killed him was a murderer, and those who convicted him are accessories to murder, and anyone who voted through a bill to bring back the death penalty are just doing it because they feel that the only way to atone for killing someone is to, err, kill them!
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 30, 2008 17:15:28 GMT
You can look on the death penalty as murder by the state. But murder victims have no choice in their fate whereas if the death penalty was on the statute book, it could be looked on as someone in effect commiting suicide as they would know if they were to be aprehended and convicted they would be put to death.
Bit of a perverse way of looking at I suppose.
One avenue we've not touched on is, the death penalty is not just about it's deterant value it's also about retribution/revenge, ugly but true.
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Nov 30, 2008 18:03:10 GMT
I used to support capital punishment in my youth, but have long since realised the folly of that view.
There are three compelling reasons for opposing the death penalty, all of which have been mentioned in this thread. To recap:
1. If you condone the death penalty then in a sense you are descending to the level of the murderer. By allowing the murderer to live you are showing mercy, which the murderer failed to show to the victim. That puts you on a higher moral plane than the murderer and sets an example for others to follow.
2. There's no evidence that the death penalty acts a deterrent. That's probably because murderers either don't expect to be caught (a lot of them are not very bright) or the fatal act is committed in 'the heat of the moment' so that there's no time to think through the consequences.
3. You can never be 100% certain that you've got the right person. There have been plenty of examples in the UK of individuals convicted of murder whose convictions were later shown to be unsafe - innocent people banged up for years for murders they didn't commit. They include the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and Barry George. At least if they've only been in prison the state can release them and offer some sort of compensation. If they're dead there's nothing you can do to right the wrong.
The desire for retribution is a natural human emotion, and not something to be ashamed of. But it's not a reliable basis for a system of justice - somebody thirsting for revenge is not likely to make reasoned and balanced judgements. In a civilised society, decisions about life and death should be made with cool heads. That's why we have courts of law and not lynch mobs.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 30, 2008 18:15:52 GMT
I take on board those points Amberaleman and they're all valid. I don't think there is any doubt about the guilt of Micheal Ryan, Peter Sutcliffe or Ian Huntley.
A point I would make is, if corporal punishment was introduced and implemented in a swift manner for lesser crimes than serious crime could have more time dedicated to it leading to more thourough investigations and hopefully safer convictions and lead to less full prisons.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 30, 2008 21:02:42 GMT
You can look on the death penalty as murder by the state. But murder victims have no choice in their fate whereas if the death penalty was on the statute book, it could be looked on as someone in effect commiting suicide as they would know if they were to be aprehended and convicted they would be put to death. I can see where you're coming from, Frankie. But who are we to say every murderer had a choice in the first place? Why do people commit murder? Do they wake up one morning and think, oh, it looks like a nice day to stick a fire axe into someone's skull? Probably, in most cases, not. So what about murder that happens because the perpetrator has completely lost control of his or her emotions? Because he or she has been abused systematically for years, and finally cracks against the abuser? Because a person they have loved passionately for a long time has wronged them so badly? Because they have a serious mental illness? And so on. I am aware that this makes me seem as if I am more in sympathy with the murderer than with his or her victim. Of course not, but as AA says, capital punishment is irreversible. There are some cases where people torture and kill their fellow human being because they are weaker. How do you distinguish this from a case where there might be mitigating circumstances? Sometimes the evidence isn't there. It's very difficult to know what to do for the best, because you can never know 100% of what happened in any one case.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Dec 1, 2008 11:40:12 GMT
I accept we are all capable of murder (I've said myself I can honestly say I'd never commit rape but I could never say I'd never murder anyone).
I'm not advocating murder should carry a mandatory death sentence, each case would have to be taken on it's merits, that's why we have judges (mind you they should be drawn from a wider background not just from a group who by-and-large live very privileged lifestyle). The life sentence should be exactly that though.
The law is an ass, how can it be two people can kick another to death in an unprovoked attack and it's classed as manslaughter.
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Dec 1, 2008 18:00:31 GMT
Killem all, Killem all, The long and the short and the tall, Tear off their heads and poo in the hole, Hang by their goolies upside down on a pole, Cos were sayin' kill, kill, killem all, The long and the short and the tall, They'll get no redemption, so top 'em an' trench 'em, Yes cheer up my lads, killem all. Ooops, my alter egoid 21st century schizoid man seems to be taking over
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Dec 1, 2008 18:01:26 GMT
...how can it be two people can kick another to death in an unprovoked attack and it's classed as manslaughter. Well, because it is unprovoked, i.e. no time to think about it. Murder: kill intentionally and with premeditation. Amber - I can assume you the atrocities committed in the animal kingdom go far beyond what people do to each other. The difference is that people think about it...
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 1, 2008 20:44:57 GMT
That difference, in my opinion, is crucial. I wouldn't say there was anything much worse out there. I've worked with people with learning disabilities for 5 years and before that I had never dreamed that people could do such terrible things to their fellow humans. Some of the people I worked with had been systematically abused, bullied and treated as subhuman for decades, just because they were disabled. And most of their abusers were "carers," who often sincerely believed that what they were doing was "for the best." If, as you say, they'd thought about it, then clearly they genuinely believed that people with LDs don't deserve to be treated in the same way as other human beings... OK, that's a different rant. My apologies
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 1, 2008 22:31:42 GMT
...how can it be two people can kick another to death in an unprovoked attack and it's classed as manslaughter. Well, because it is unprovoked, i.e. no time to think about it. Murder: kill intentionally and with premeditation. Amber - I can assume you the atrocities committed in the animal kingdom go far beyond what people do to each other. The difference is that people think about it... I would argue that most people don't think about things most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 1, 2008 22:33:59 GMT
Depends on what you mean by "think": whether you're referring to conscious, deliberate thought patterns or deeper, less conscious stuff. human beings appear to do more of both than any other animal, but even the subconscious stuff has to have its roots somewhere. That's called your personality.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Dec 1, 2008 22:45:16 GMT
I would take the view most people think about what they're doing, they just don't always think of the consequences of their actions for themselves or others.
The two in the unprovoked attack did think about what the were doing, that's why they picked on an individual and not a group I would think. Cowardly actions.
It would appear I'm in a minority on this forum, I've enjoyed the debate but I still feel (even though I do have reservations) the death penalty and corporal punishment should be restored.
|
|