|
Post by LeedsWCFC on Dec 2, 2008 0:39:31 GMT
I am totally against capital punishment, however heinous the crime and however safe the conviction might be thought to be.
I do not consider that any person has the right to take someone else's life in a premeditated act (notwithstanding the exercise of the right to self-defence and possibly other exceptional circumstances which I don't wish to enter into here).
There are valid arguments in favour of the death penalty but I am still unable to support any of them.
One of the arguments against its use, as has been mentioned here, is the possibility of a wrongful conviction leading to the wrong person being executed. Despite this danger, and one of which we all know numerous instances, I expect that if a referendum were to be held then a majority would vote in favour of restoration of the death penalty.
If such a referendum were to be held then it should not be a secret ballot. This would be so that when any case of a miscarriage of justice were to be discovered then all those who voted in favour of restoration of the death penalty would have their names "put into a hat" for one, or maybe more, of them to be drawn out to be executed themselves as retribution for their reckless willingness to countenance the possibility of another innocent person being killed.
(I know such a proposal goes against what I professed earlier but - if a vote for the death penalty were still passed despite the inclusion of such a counter-measure - I would expect, indeed want, its first pending usage to result in a realisation that killing other people, even when disguised as a "morally correct" course of action, is an evil thing to do, and for an end to all state murder.)
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Dec 2, 2008 16:36:32 GMT
Humans vs animals;
It may not be the same as suggesting cognitive thought, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that apes, Chimps in particular, work as a team with pre-meditated acts employed to carch prey. the difference is that their pre-meditation relates to survival through the collection of food. Other animals employ "thought" in order to survive, migrate, breed. Comparing the human being to the remainder of the natural world is, personally, an insult to nature! The natural world seeks to evolve and survive.
A number of mammals can be taught to respond to commands - dolphins, elephants, horses, dogs. Eevery country with trained armed forces employs the same principles; training individuals to work together and obey commands without question. Religious zealots and fundamentalist groups also. Animals in the wild kill for one of two reasons; we humans offer up a number of tracts, teachings or other reasoned debates either in defence or mitigation before the act - and that's the key; we seek to justify our actions before carrying them out. We ask for approval.
As an individual, a human being is prone to instinctive natural responses; and also responds to reasoning - take that through to the extent that governs the age old "12 good men and true" argument for trial by jury and guarantee me that any group of 12 men and women in this age would, unless the evidence was incontrovertible or graphic and linked to sound phorensic supporting evidence, submit a guilty verdict in a murder trial if there was an option of the accused then being killed.
It's got nothing to do with an eye for an eye - until we can try the accused in a totally dispassionate way, we cannot guarantee that a jury will not be swayed by either prior knowledge (thanks to our wonderful daily press) or avoid the responsibility of conviction because of a desire not to have blood on their own hands.
Human nature being what it is, consider this.
Two parents with a young child with severe disabilities - the child has the life span of you or me, but no quality of life. the parents take the decision to end that life. Death penalty? It's pre-meditated, but is there an argument in favour of diminished responsibility?
Two 19 year old girls playing with an air pistol; one starts taking pot shots at teh local cats. The other grabs the pistol, says "No - how would you like it" and discharges the pistol, killing her friend. Murder?
Go on. These are as more likely scenarios as there being another Harold Shipman, Fred West or Peter Sutcliffe. What's the verdict??
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 2, 2008 23:41:14 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. I would agree completely. That's where I was coming from in saying most people really don't think things through. Apparently programmes in prisons that have taught offenders how to think logically and critically have reduced re-offending rates amongs the prisoners concerned as it's led to them being able to think things through more and realise the consequences and (lack of) justifications for their actions. Of course, that's all too late once they've already offended though, but these are the schemes that I'm thinking of when I say there are better ways to punish criminals than the death penalty, and real methods of prevention that could work at the root of some, if not most crimes. 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. Both are completely acceptible points and I think that you're in favour of capital and corporal punishment for the right reasons. I think generally the public is fairly split on the issue, but there isn't currently the political will in this country to change the law back now. Politicians would not want to be those responsible for a reintroduction even if the majority of public opinion massively swung in favour. It's a nice hot topic to discuss really. I was quite surprised and pleased when my politics teacher brought this up in a mock Oxford interview I had today. It was quite reassuring to think of Tinpot Terrace while under pressure actually ;D
|
|
|
Post by Giggy of Telford on Dec 8, 2008 15:58:53 GMT
This is an issue that I have always struggled to form an opinion on. I think I lean towards being against the death penalty, with the exception of a person who's continued living is in fact a danger to the public. However it could be argued that with the level of security some prisoners would be under there is very few scenarios where this would arise. I don't however agree with leaving people to stew in a prison at everyone else's expense and think prisoners should work for their keep and to fund the rehab programmes offered in prisons.
For what it's worth we are (as far as i am aware) not legally in a position as a country where we could reinstate the death penalty. I was under the impression that such an action is blocked by EU human rights laws. This being the case since 1998 when the death penalty was abolished for high treason (a common misconception is that this can still happen) except in war situations, and then in 2004 when it was abolished outright in all circumstances, war included.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 8, 2008 21:59:09 GMT
I think you're right about the EU law; 1998 sounds very convincing as that's when the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted into UK law, in line with Labour's manifesto promise to give Britain a clear bill of rights.
|
|