Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Important Note:
There was a thread, which I thought was brilliant, originally about the need for a reform in our prison systems, but which soon became a debate about capital punishment. However, it soon became nothing more than a malicious flame-fest, and the debate turned to whether or not I had a brain defect, and why my opinions proved that I was a sick and twisted individual who had no right to speak. What I’d really like is if we could discuss the topic, capital punishment, without flaming this time. You may not agree with my extreme views, and that is fine, but this is the thread for arguing against them (or preferably with them), not against me personally. I am sick and tired of the ad hominem arguments I keep having thrown at me, and do not want to have to put up with any more. Okay, rant over, now onto capital punishment.

Okay. First off, I am pro-capital punishment. In the United Kingdom, the death penalty was abolished quite a long time ago, and, at the time, most people were very pleased about the decision. And back then, perhaps it was for the best, pro bono publico. Particularly so, in light of the fact that the “crime” of treason, also known as “active resistance” was punishable by death long after other crimes, and many were less than happy that equality was so obviously unavailable.

Nowadays, although many remain opposed to capital punishment, there are also many who, like me, believe it is time for the idea to resurface. This is for a few reasons.

The main thing is that there is little-to-no justice involved in the English Legal System. Murderers, rapists, child molesters and other, similar pond scum (I use this term on the basis that no ZU members are such people and therefore I shouldn’t be offending anyone), can go to gaol for a relatively short sentence, and then be released early. Then, they are back out on the streets, perfectly able to kill/rape/molest/etc again and again.

Whilst in gaol, they can have a jolly time, enjoy fine cuisine, watch digital television, and make use of such facilities as libraries and pool tables. Some criminals are even allowed to leave gaol and go home in order to have sex with their wives and girlfriends. Presumably, that is unsupervised leave, so it is entirely possible for them to escape or commit further crimes.

Rape/etc victims, and their families, and the families of murder victims often feel unsatisfied, shockingly, by this apparent lack of punishment to the violent thug that did whatever they did. It is a nasty situation, I am sure, to find yourself in, that, for example, your young daughter has been raped and murdered by someone, we’ll call him Mr X. Mr X was caught, tried, and sent to a luxury hotel (in effect) for a little while. They will (relatively) soon be free, and able to do the same again to Mr Y’s daughter. Many people can have serious health issues, possibly mental health issues, due to this gross miscarriage of justice, and it can even lead to suicide.

In the time of the Bloody Code, the death penalty was the punishment for all crimes, even the most minor of them. For that reason, the juries were unwilling to convict criminals, victims were unwilling to press charges, and public executions were social events. This meant the Bloody Code had no deterrent value, which is why it was swept away in the 18th Century. I am by no means suggesting we should re-invoke the failed Bloody Code. However, if the punishment of death were only for the most serious of crimes, it would be more likely that the criminal would actually be executed, and executions need not be social events. This would mean that there would be much higher deterrent value.

Finally, let me reiterate something which I have always said. Death is, of course, irreversible. There is no room for doubt with the death penalty. If we find out later that the executed was innocent all along, it is too late. I do not wish for there to be any chance of this happening, and, as such, am only in favour of the death penalty in situations where there is absolute proof, beyond any doubt reasonable or otherwise. If there is even the slightest shred of possibility that the accused did not commit the crime for which he is convicted, the punishment should be life imprisonment, and gaols should not be such nice places. Basic food, water, hard work, etc, etc, etc; you’ve heard it before I expect.

Well, that is my view of the matter. I await responses, and hope for a healthy debate, but as I said before, please do not flame me. Attack the argument, not the arguer. In fact, don’t attack at all, debate nicely instead, it is more fun that way.

I think that prisons do need to be reformed but i would not want the death sentence to return. I think it is wrong that prisoners get TV's and things like that which taxpayers have to pay for. They should be made to get a job - obviously someone would need to supervise them at all times - and pay for all the things they need to live like food and water and the rest would go to the goverment. Death is something i think should be reserved for the very worst people like war criminals and serial killers.

Originally Posted by Hugh O

I think that prisons do need to be reformed but i would not want the death sentence to return. I think it is wrong that prisoners get TV's and things like that which taxpayers have to pay for. They should be made to get a job - obviously someone would need to supervise them at all times - and pay for all the things they need to live like food and water and the rest would go to the goverment. Death is something i think should be reserved for the very worst people like war criminals and serial killers.

Serial killers is on my list too - as are war criminals, although I didn't think of it at the time. Are we in agreement then, that death is an acceptable sentence, but we just are not agreed on what you must have done to deserve it?

And incidentally, your little info thingummy says Scotland - what is the legal system like there? Because England and Wales have a different legal system to Scotland, although I'm not sure how different they are.

I don't our legal system is to different. Although most scottish people like to think so. I do think our courts are too leinient, i'm not sure if it's the same in England and Wales.

^Trust me, it is.

I dont support the death penalty, unless there is no hope for rehabilitation.

If we find out later that the executed was innocent all along, it is too late. I do not wish for there to be any chance of this happening, and, as such, am only in favour of the death penalty in situations where there is absolute proof, beyond any doubt reasonable or otherwise.

This strikes me as idealistic. How many situations will arise with absolute proof?

I'm kinda moderate really. I'm more for more life-long sentences, no extra luxuries.
I don't support the death sentence unless the circumstances are extreme. If you kill someone go to jail for life in tedium. I agree on the deaths of those being executed for Crimes Against Humanity, such as the Halocaust.

My philosophy on jail and Capital Punishment is this:

I don't approve of killing for motives of revenge or hatred at the very least. Therefore, if anyone is put to the Death Penalty, it should be for the good and safety of the society at large, (low or no chance of rehabilitation) as an act of altruism, and not for retribution. Special measures would be taken, in my ideal country, to ensure that this was all verified if one had to go through such measures. I don't view governments the same way I view individuals taking judgment and killing out of singular motives.

My theory on government is this: breaking any law is an act of treason. You betray the government, and the government betrays you. So, if you are well aware of this law that protects you, honorably, when you cross the line, don't be surprised when it kills you. Like Thoreau, I see the government as a necessary evil, and same for the Death Penalty. In society, you need boundaries, even if you have to do something that would be considered wrong to deter the baddies. Morally, I say the Death Penalty is wrong. Ethically, I say it depends. I don't think, as you say, Guy, that people should be put to it unless they have massive, nearly infallible evidence supporting their crimes, and if not, life without parole. If, then, though, you have the evidence you need for it, it shouldn't take years to happen. Making a man wait years knowing his days are numbered is cruel and unusual punishment if it persists for too long.

Jail should be a punishment, a job, not a daycare center for the legally retarded. And as for the leaving without supervision to be with your girlfriend? Wow, lame. In my philosophy, no breaks. If you want sex, you filthy oxygen vampire, you ask your friendly neighborhood man-whore, cell B82. In my dreamworld, Jail is a mobile workforce, criminals are in charge of maintenance much like those in correctional centers. Of course, they should be kept under control, chained, and fed stuff like flavorless noodle soup and hard biscuits. These men would also be a large sum of the military during the draft, instead of law-abiding citizens who are for the most part entitled to life as an unalienable right. Citizens, then, would receive better benefits for participating in Wars if drafted, and criminals would receive none.

I think you make a very good point, Guy. America sucks at legal, but it sounds like you've got it worse. What kind of idiot made the Burglar's Law thing and then these kinds of allowances? Madness.

Originally Posted by Lucky Seven

This strikes me as idealistic. How many situations will arise with absolute proof?

Not many. Perhaps it is idealistic. I'm happy to accept that. I'd rather a hundred killers lived than one innocent man died. But there are occasions where absolute proof is available, and in the circumstances where it is not, that is where life (by which I actually mean life, and not the misnomer we use in our pathetic legal system these days) imprisonment comes in - because that sentence can always be overturned if it turns out that the accused was innocent all along.

Yeah, not many cases have absolute proof. Even if people confess, that isn't proof. In the Maxwell Confait case, which inspired the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984, three young people were convicted, based on their own confessions, of murder. Three years (I think it was three) later, an investigation showed that it would have been physically impossible for the boys to have committed the crime. The conclucsion was that the police had abused their powers, which is why PACE was introduced, to give them more power, so they couldn't cause so much damage. Point of that speech being that proof is difficult to come by. Sometimes though, I think it is there.

EDIT:
Prince Shade, I laughed, a lot.
When you say Burglar's Law, do you mean the ones that say you can't hurt burglars, and if they trip and fall down the stairs it is your fault for not helping them, so they can sue you? And that if they attack you, you can't defend yourself, and must "retreat to a secure room"? Yeah, those rights are ludicrous. This is what I hate about "Great" Britain, which is becoming less and less "great" by the day, in my opinion.
Most of what you say makes perfect sense to me.

Hrm, here's a topic I'm not too sure about, and am therefore undecided on my true views.

Let me just put my thoughts out....

The death penalty is not a very nice thing, no one can argue this fact. I don't really think that we as humans have the right to decide who should live and who should die, as to WHO has that right... well I'm not going to talk about that in this thread but I'm sure most of you know who I'm talking about.
However, If I were a victim or bystander of... say rape (most likely not me, probably someone i know since girls have a much higher chance) then I'm not really sorry to say that I would want to see that person dead. Maybe that's weakness, I don't know. Somthing just isn't right about someone being treated nicely for somthing like that.

On an entirely different note though.... Sometimes the issue of abortion is tied in with the death penalty. So, if someone that has raped children doesn't deserve to die, why should an innocent baby? Sorry for the randomness, just on my mind when i think about "organized death".

Originally Posted by Prince Shade

My philosophy on jail and Capital Punishment is this:

I don't approve of killing for motives of revenge or hatred at the very least. Therefore, if anyone is put to the Death Penalty, it should be for the good and safety of the society at large, (low or no chance of rehabilitation) as an act of altruism, and not for retribution. Special measures would be taken, in my ideal country, to ensure that this was all verified if one had to go through such measures. I don't view governments the same way I view individuals taking judgment and killing out of singular motives.

My theory on government is this: breaking any law is an act of treason. You betray the government, and the government betrays you. So, if you are well aware of this law that protects you, honorably, when you cross the line, don't be surprised when it kills you. Like Thoreau, I see the government as a necessary evil, and same for the Death Penalty. In society, you need boundaries, even if you have to do something that would be considered wrong to deter the baddies. Morally, I say the Death Penalty is wrong. Ethically, I say it depends. I don't think, as you say, Guy, that people should be put to it unless they have massive, nearly infallible evidence supporting their crimes, and if not, life without parole. If, then, though, you have the evidence you need for it, it shouldn't take years to happen. Making a man wait years knowing his days are numbered is cruel and unusual punishment if it persists for too long.

Jail should be a punishment, a job, not a daycare center for the legally retarded. And as for the leaving without supervision to be with your girlfriend? Wow, lame. In my philosophy, no breaks. If you want sex, you filthy oxygen vampire, you ask your friendly neighborhood man-whore, cell B82. In my dreamworld, Jail is a mobile workforce, criminals are in charge of maintenance much like those in correctional centers. Of course, they should be kept under control, chained, and fed stuff like flavorless noodle soup and hard biscuits. These men would also be a large sum of the military during the draft, instead of law-abiding citizens who are for the most part entitled to life as an unalienable right. Citizens, then, would receive better benefits for participating in Wars if drafted, and criminals would receive none.

I think you make a very good point, Guy. America sucks at legal, but it sounds like you've got it worse. What kind of idiot made the Burglar's Law thing and then these kinds of allowances? Madness.

I agree with most of what you've said apart from enlisting criminals in the military, i mean they hardly have any motivation to fight unless you gave them some sort of bonus for fighting. Large numbers would desert the army as well while they were in some far off country.

Originally Posted by Lucky Seven

I dont support the death penalty, unless there is no hope for rehabilitation.

Who exactly has the authority to say that there is no hope? A psychiatrist(sp?) who could be bought off? The truth is humans are flawed, I don't think there is a right answer. It depends entirely upon the situation at hand. ~Fadock's complete view in 22 words~

Originally Posted by Hugh O

I agree with most of what you've said apart from enlisting criminals in the military, i mean they hardly have any motivation to fight unless you gave them some sort of bonus for fighting. Large numbers would desert the army as well while they were in some far off country.

Fine, you're right. How about, if they survive (we'll send them out to lead as the head of every group) they get their sentences reduced somewhat? Like one-third of it? Plus, trust me, the military can whip them into submission if they need to.

EDIT:

IN IRAQ

Military Officer:

"Sir...it looks like an ambush..."

Military Commander:

"It does, eh? HEY YOU! Yea, you! Baby Killer Joe? Front and center."

Baby Killer Joe:

*sips from his canteen, which is a baby skull with a nozzle on the end*

"Eh. Whatever, man."

*gets his gun*