|
| Thread: Death penalty yes or no? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
frostymuaddib
Promising
Supreme Hero
育碧是白痴
|
posted August 09, 2014 12:59 PM |
|
|
Death penalty yes or no?
I'm not sure if there was this kind of topic here (I tried search, but found nothing) so after recent events in Serbia I decided to open a thread with this topic.
What happened? Two weeks ago, 15 year old girl from Serbia disappeared. Search started immidiately, people hoped that she is still alive, but unfortunately she was found dead two days ago. I won't go into details, as they still makes me sick, but what happened is that 32 year old male hit her with his car, raped her and buried her. He was found and arrested two days ago, and he confessed the crime.
Now, my dilemma is next: until this happened, I was against death penalty (barely so, but I was still against). Now, I changed my mind. First, and obvious reason, is that the monster that killed that girl does not deserve to live. Honestly, I do not care if he had some mental problems (I mean, he definitely had them when he did what he did) that can be used as 'excuse' (maybe this is not the best word, but my english is not the best) for his crime. Second, less obvious reason is money: why should state spend any money on feeding and keeping 'safe' that kind of criminal?
I should also say that death penalty was abolished in Serbia, following the example of EU states. Also, the maximum sentence length for this kind of crime is 40 years in Serbia, which means that he could easily get less than 40 years (I think minimum is 10, but I am not sure about that).
Now, I am curious what do others think about death penalty. Should there be death penalty for the most gruesome crimes, or is abolishing death penalty good call?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:09 PM |
|
|
I've had a lot of opportunities to think about that, because after every terrorist act in Israel many people demand the death sentence for the terrorists.
And still, I am against it. The reason is the sentence's finality. I'm afraid that if we start using it, it is only a matter of time until an innocent man gets executed. And if some new evidence surfaces up some years later, you wouldn't be able to let him go and try to piece his life back together, because by then he'll be long dead.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
frostymuaddib
Promising
Supreme Hero
育碧是白痴
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason is the sentence's finality. I'm afraid that if we start using it, it is only a matter of time until an innocent man gets executed.
I forgot to write this in my first post, but that is a big argument agianst death penalty.
I'd like to think that investigation can be 100% perfect, and that only guilty can be executed, but I know better that that... But still, there are 'clear' situations where you have bunch of evidence and a confession that show that someone is guilty (of course, this can't be 100% certain: false confessions and false/misinterpeted evidence).
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:51 PM |
|
|
What you must remember clearly is that the justice system isn't some retribution institution that dispenses emotion fueled sentences, so he killed and raped my daughter, lynch the ****!
I personally think that every human being has the right to life, even monsters (they're monsters even before the crime, the deed merely reveals them). So they have a choice to either learn to control their various perversions or be placed on a reservation island where they'll be monitored but largely left to their own devices (of course not permitted to build a raft and escape).
These are people who kill, rape and torture not because of some justifiable motive (revenge, crime of passion, et cetera, not that these are justifiable in court, but the motive is one which we can understand) but because of some inherent monstrous desire to inflict their perversions on others. Once they commit the crime they ought to be put down, no need to make it painful or anything like that, not going to alter anything at that point.
My problem is single instance offenses, when an individual feels so wronged by another human being that it leads to murder, it's very unlikely that the offender is a "danger to society", especially if his records confirm thus. Obviously dispensing your own justice isn't something that the system wants to be the norm, but the system isn't perfect, having the police and courts deal with every little dispute or wrong serves only to tear us away from being able to deal with things ourselves, turning us into widdle puppets. For example, merely punching someone, (battery of it ain't serious) hell even pretending to do so and not hitting them (assault) would result in a prison sentence regardless of reason. (though realistically if you have jury sympathy you'll probably not get convicted, even you committed the crime, but system's still ****)
So idk, my opinion these people should be murderers, but I don't believe in prisons, £80,000 pounds a year (food electricity and guard wages to included divided on average among convicts) for every prisoner is extortionate, the individual isn't paying for his "crime against society" (load of bull) but we are. Shoot the bugger and send a good kid off to uni. But as I said, most people in prison aren't criminals, some have done an offense at their wits end, others were completely oblivious. There was was this one case, http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Stone--and--Dobinson.php R v Stone and Dobinson, they were too 'dumb' (unintelligent?) to call an ambulance since they didn't know how a phone worked, yet still charged with murder due to omission. (they failed to take necessary steps to avoid death of someone in their care, the sister Fanny)
This naturally expands unto people who are genuinely innocent of the crime they're accused of, I don't know how commonplace this is, I know that there are many groups both in the UK and US (the ones I have knowledge of) are actively fighting perceived/actual miscarriages of justice and are often successful. Anyway, the point is a problem that is more commonplace in America, sending innocent people to be executed.
Personally I think that the law should be more fluid, something simple like a bill of rights. Here at HC our CoC isn't adhered to literally, the mods are at liberty to 'do as they please', but they don't, our fear of police, the system, government you name it abusing power to do as they see right is too much for us it seems, so we create laws that aim to penetrate and regulate everything, every situation now has a crime attached, just being somewhere and scaring someone with your presence (who then incurs any injury trying to escape from you) is a punishable offence, our legal system lacks common sense. The juries were supposed to be the key, but when a judge advises them on the law they tend follow it and apply it, especially for complicated things like the crime of omission, or the mens rea of murder.
Obviously a wild west approach to justice would not be prudent, but more common sense and compassion in the police (which some do very well here, but too many don't) rather than an orthodox upholding of the law is much needed imho. I.e police ought to know when to let things slide, or when to crack the whip, and I don't necessarily mean taught, but hire people with such aptitude.
Anyway, to conclude this, while I agree with the death penalty, it should be a last resort to remove an "active" serious danger to society who has already proven this by committing one or several offences of a grievous nature. Before that deportation to a reservation, a prison of sorts, but one that allows one to live with some freedom, in order to protect him and others from himself (since he acknowledges that s/he can't). And before you go saying that people wouldn't do that, there was a case where a schizophrenic woman went to the police that she had urges to kill and wants to be locked up, the police lacking jurisdiction or even care just ignored her, she lobbed some other woman's head off and was found guilty of murder because for insanity you must fail to realize the nature of your crime. (she know what she was doing was "bad", proved by her going to the police beforehand). Besides it's always best to offer a way out for these people besides death or succumbing to their perversions/broken minds. Once they commit the offence however they should be executed. (with grace). HOWEVER, our current justice system is "ok", our laws (in England for certain) are constructs of necessity and convenience, they are so far from perfect that it almost makes me weep, it does not dispense justice, but it does keep order and prevents people from doing whatever they please on others. (which is good, but not enough imho) So till the legal system is overhauled from bottom up I cannot condone such a system to render judgements on life or death.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:51 PM |
|
|
Situation that are too 'clear' may very well be a result of bribery and set-ups. And besides, since we both agree that nothing is ever 100%, who defines if 'clear' is 99% or 98%? And once one judge sets the precedent that 98% is enough, how long will it take before the same question is asked about 98% or 97%? And so and so on...
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:54 PM |
|
|
Geny said:
I've had a lot of opportunities to think about that, because after every terrorist act in Israel many people demand the death sentence for the terrorists.
Your answer is the most relevant argument against death penalty. While you are fixed in your mind that those are terrorist acts, a lot of humans with objective sight will consider the Israel's oppressors those who bring terror.
This is the death penalty dilemma: the guiltiness is often in the eyes of the accuser, while the sentence is definitive.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:58 PM |
|
|
We're not talking about morals here, Sal. A man who broke the law is guilty. Even if his actions were just revenge on another criminal.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 01:58 PM |
|
|
"Beyond all reasonable doubt", 100%. But how do you convey that on facts? How can someone be 100% likely to be guilty? Cases like that are not common, where 5 reliable eyewitnesses see a man stab another to death out of cold blood, and when the police arrive he claims that he is glad that he killed the snow.
Also, don't forget that most crimes need both an actus reus, (guilty act) and a mens rea. (guilty mind) So merely committing a crime doesn't necessarily make you a criminal.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 02:03 PM |
|
|
Look, they tested death penalty over a very long period of time, and it's just not cutting it. The thing is, once you did something that would gain you the death penalty, you don't have anything left to lose, which means you can commit every crime, especially with a view on not getting caught.
So that's why they invented multiple death penalties: first a hanging, but without breaking your neck, then when you were nearly choked, breaking of arms and legs, lastly beheading. Or some such. But even serious torture followed by DP wouldn't cut it, because people would obviously kill themselves rather than getting caught.
Which means, a penalty that doesn't leave the perpetrator any hope doesn't work.
So, you could for example try torture without death. Say a month of pain, followed by half a year or something in case of a repetition.
Which is what I would try instead.
Torture is inhuman? But that's true for prisons as well, at least if they deserve that name.
The whole system is pretty inefficient - it's also a question of what it costs the tax payer.
In case of a mental defect, you'd obviously have to try to change that condition, because otherwise it will happen again anyway.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 02:07 PM |
|
|
If all that's keeping people from butchering and raping each other is the overhanging threat of punishment then I think this world needs a thorough purge.
Quote:
The whole system is pretty inefficient - it's also a question of what it costs the tax payer.
Already stated both things. 
Quote:
Torture is inhuman? But that's true for prisons as well, at least if they deserve that name.
And that's true, prisons were meant to keep dangerous individuals separated from society once deportation to various places like Australia and America was no longer an option. But now they're simply being misused, keeping people locked up for a set amount of time as a "punishment", and yes I agree it can be classed as torture.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 02:11 PM |
|
|
|
I wanted to come up with a very convincing and simple argument against death penalty, but at the sight of JJ I realized that deep down in my guts I agree with it.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 02:15 PM |
|
|
As I said, the death penalty is good, but our system isn't responsible enough to make that decision/render such judgement.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 03:40 PM |
|
|
NO
Saying it's wrong to kill and then killing doesn't work for me.
However, a rebuttal to my decision starts with the families of the victims and gets worse when a killer is let out and kills again. <imo> This is far worse than killing a killer.
For me, a sentence of "no parole and WORK till death" might suffice but the bottom line is there is no certain justice anywhere in this argument. The problem is there is no way and never will be a way to compensate for a single human life.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 04:12 PM |
|
|
Developing countries: yes
wealthy countries: no
It's a prudential decision. When you've established a certain degree of rule of law and stability, it becomes impractical to keep that kind of hazard around for the state to wield, plus there is the negative message it encourages. Mentors have a hard enough time controlling the violent appetites of boys & girls, men & women without state-endorsed encouragement.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 04:18 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:22, 09 Aug 2014.
|
No.
My reason(s) wouldn't be that it's irreversible though. Yes, you can not reverse death penalty but if someone turns out to be innocent, neither can you reverse 40 years in prison when the guy gets out 82 years old. No system is flawless and there is nothing to do to prevent that, except trying to make it less flawed.
My reasons would be:
1- A murderer is already a person whose acts we don't approve of, (and not to excuse anything but the ones that get the death penalty are usually mentally sick psychopaths). The state corresponding to those acts with the same act is wrong. I think there are two kinds of states, the ones you inevitably submit to because of fear and helplessness and the ones you feel you are a subject of, with genuine respect and belonging. (I have to add that most states are a little bit of both. However, one of those reasons usually trumps the other as an overall position). I do not want the state that represents me to systematically terminate human life. The idea repulses me.
2- When you execute someone, it is also a very harsh punishment on their loved ones, especially the parents who are innocent. Life imprisonment without parole is severe enough for the criminal. The parents can see their child at least once or twice a year. There is no rationality in making two mothers go through the same thing to satisfy your own desire for revenge.
3- Studies show that death penalty has no significant deterrent effect whatsoever. Crimes that are seen serious enough to be punishable by death are committed by people who are reckless and anti-social enough to commit them, anyway. So this is not a practical way of preventing crime but rather people satisfying their own ego, even if they don't like to admit that to themselves.
Btw, most of the modern democracies abandoned death penalty anyway, frankly, I think if it wasn't for the Americans, we'd be talking about it as a historical phenomenon like dungeons or official torture rather than something to debate about.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 04:41 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
Developing countries: yes
wealthy countries: no
Sanctity of life decided by wealth. Spoken like a true capitalist. Why am I not surprised?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 04:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no rationality in making two mothers go through the same thing to satisfy your own desire for revenge.
How do you justify asking the tax payer to fund a psychopath's life-time incarceration? Here in England it's on average £40,000 pounds a year for the upkeep of a single prisoner. (Changed the figure, some types of prisoners are £70,000+ a year, but the average is £40,000 per prisoner on a whole)
Source 1
Source 2
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 05:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:19, 09 Aug 2014.
|
Isn't that question valid for all prisoners then? Why should the tax payers fund the cost of thieves, gangsters, burglars, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, thugs? Anyone who'll do serious time inside and most probably wont be getting out as a productive member of society can be seen as useless expenditure. Should we line them all up and call the firing squad?
It's the price you pay for a system that values human life.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 06:32 PM |
|
|
Right, let's repeat it, so everyone understands it:
A society cannot deal out punishments that make it irrelevant what a wrongdoer does after they would in theory fall under it.
That's for example a reason why you cannot punish rape really hard. Killing a rape victim would obviously increase the chances to get away with it, so if the difference between the two crimes in punishment is too small, chances are more rape victims will be killed.
And so on. As a perp, once you know you are dead, when they catch you - what is going to stop you from using UTMOST violence to not get caught?
So in order for the heavy perps keeping a modicum of reason there must be some perspective, even in punishment.
Death isn't one.
Doing life (until you die) isn't either.
By the way, "justice" is bollocks anyway - it's a completely abstract concept that needs absolute knowledge for starters - and it's not justice society is interested in. If there is a danger the perp will repeat its crime, society has to protect its members; if there isn't that danger, then the punishment is actually for deterrence: if someone kills a killer for revenge, the punishment is actually to deter others in the same situation. Can't have people run around starting blood feuds again.
That's all there is to it - everything else is just rationalisation.
Lastly, it makes no sense to spend a lot of tax money for the punishment.
That makes long sentences pretty darn stupid. And after, say, 25 years in the whole - can you really be part of a society that movec 25 years further?
So. You can't kill them; you can't put them away for a long time - what does that leave?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 06:41 PM |
|
Edited by Geny at 18:41, 09 Aug 2014.
|
Cutting off hands like in the olden days?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
