[Andy28 (OP)]

As an adult you have to take responsibilty. If you are foolish enough to murder someone while being fully aware of the consequences i think death is nothing more than you deserve. I do, however, think that it is wrong that some people get the death penalty and others get life. I would like to see capital crimes dealt with by death everytime and very swiftly. I think it's wrong to keep someone incarcerated for years before carrying out the sentence of death. That is no better than torture.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28

As an adult you have to take responsibilty. If you are foolish enough to murder someone while being fully aware of the consequences i think death is nothing more than you deserve. I do, however, think that it is wrong that some people get the death penalty and others get life. I would like to see capital crimes dealt with by death everytime and very swiftly. I think it's wrong to keep someone incarcerated for years before carrying out the sentence of death. That is no better than torture.

Firstly - you should never put someone in a position where they have nothing more to lose.  If you place someone in a position where, if they are caught, there is an automatic punishment, and they know that whatever they do now will not alter that situation (by either making it worse, or mitigating it in any way), then you have lost control over that person.

Secondly, I suspect the vast majority of murders are not premeditated in cold blood.  Any crime that leads to the death of a person (even if you had not intended that death) is classified as murder.  Also, many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, and are not cold blooded at all.  In neither case can you be said to have acted in the full knowledge of the consequences of your action, although there is no doubt that you were foolish in your actions.

Ofcourse, there are some murders which are deliberate, calculated, and cold blooded; but they are in my view the exception rather than the rule.

George

[Andy28 (OP)]

But is'nt that why they have degrees of murder? Death penalty is only be for first degree murder. The death penalty will remain so everyone needs to get used to it.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28
But is'nt that why they have degrees of murder? Death penalty is only be for first degree murder. The death penalty will remain so everyone needs to get used to it.

I am not sure, but I think the US 2nd degree murder is our manslaughter (i.e. where homicide occurs through negligence, but where there is no criminal intent or malice of any kind).  I do not believe 2nd degree murder either refers to homicide committed in a fit of anger, nor homicide that occurs as a accidental by-product of another crime (i.e. the malice associated with the other crime, even if death was not the intention, is still regarded as being malice that brought about a death).

George

[Karen W.]

right on George!

Karen

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28
The death penalty will remain so everyone needs to get used to it.

The death penalty will remain somewhere in the world, not least in those countries that cannot afford to build lots of prisons (so much cheaper storing corpses than trying to keep people locked up for decades), but equally there are an increasing number of wealthy countries who do not have the death penalty.

Ofcourse, pseudo States, such as the Mafia, and other organisations that consider they have their own judicial process but cannot imprison people, will exclusively rely on the death penalty.  Beyond that, we also see countries such as the USA and Israel relying on extra-judicial executions; so yes, in the wider context, there is no doubt that the death penalty will remain part of the judicial process of most European countries.

George

[Gaia]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28

As an adult you have to take responsibilty. If you are foolish enough to murder someone while being fully aware of the consequences i think death is nothing more than you deserve. I do, however, think that it is wrong that some people get the death penalty and others get life. I would like to see capital crimes dealt with by death everytime and very swiftly. I think it's wrong to keep someone incarcerated for years before carrying out the sentence of death. That is no better than torture.

What about miscarriages of justice? And would you then charge the people responsible for the prosecution with manslaughter?

Gaia  xxx

[Karen W.]

I hate the idea of anyone taking a life I know it's a fact and it happens but that doesn't mean I agree. There was a time in my life when I felt it was acceptable but as I have come round in my own self evolution so to speak, I find the taste bitter and unacceptable to palate... It imposes too much on others to do what we are punishing the offender for ,, Humaine  I don't think so and I like to think the best way to teach is through modeling and setting an examples!

Karen

[Gaia]

I am SO glad that we don't have the death penalty in the UK!!! Actually, I vaguely remember that we might still have it for treason. The USA has an appalling record, not least Texas, home of Dubbya. Karen, you're brave in facing up to and question your own personal beliefs/views, it was a courageous thing to do.

Gaia  xxx

[Karen W.]

You guys don't have the death penalty there.. Wow Thats cool! I hate Killing Makes me physically ill, even in movies and I know full well  they aren't real, but the effect on me might as well be... Did you ever see pulp fiction...John Travolta... Yikes gruesome sick demented.. I puked for hours it was horrible and scarey that that could be entertaining..

Karen

[Andy28 (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by Gaia

quote:Originally posted by Andy28

As an adult you have to take responsibilty. If you are foolish enough to murder someone while being fully aware of the consequences i think death is nothing more than you deserve. I do, however, think that it is wrong that some people get the death penalty and others get life. I would like to see capital crimes dealt with by death everytime and very swiftly. I think it's wrong to keep someone incarcerated for years before carrying out the sentence of death. That is no better than torture.

What about miscarriages of justice? And would you then charge the people responsible for the prosecution with manslaughter?

Gaia  xxx

Miscarriages of justice occur very rarely these days since the introduction of DNA. It does remain a sad fact of life that someone who is innocent will occasionally be put to death though.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Gaia

I am SO glad that we don't have the death penalty in the UK!!! Actually, I vaguely remember that we might still have it for treason. The USA has an appalling record, not least Texas, home of Dubbya. Karen, you're brave in facing up to and questioning your own personal beliefs/views, it was a courageous thing to do.

Gaia  xxx

No, I think treason was the last thing to go (not that long ago), but I think it has gone (in fact, for a while I think there remained an exception for treason during time of war, but I think it was the current Government that actually removed that last one).

George

[Andy28 (OP)]

Karen you say you hate killing but that is what the death penalty was brought in to prevent.  The idea was to scare murderers into not commiting the act. The reason that it has failed is it is'nt mandatory - Some killers are handed the death sentence and some are'nt. If it was Known that the penalty for murder was death every time and the method was the electric chair straight after conviction, i bet there would be very few murders.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28
Miscarriages of justice occur very rarely these days since the introduction of DNA. It does remain a sad fact of life that someone who is innocent will occasionally be put to death though.

This is naïve to say the least.  All that DNA (which is itself only as good as the technicians who use it) tells you is that someone was at the scene of the crime, it does not tell you what they did, and in many cases there is simply no DNA.

Are you suggesting that a person accused of murder should be acquitted in the absence of DNA evidence?  A great number of murderers would be let free on that basis?

But often the issue with murder is not even what the person did, but what was their intent (a little analogous with rape) – were they acting in self defence?  Was it an accident?   Was it natural causes (just look at some of the parents convicted of killing their children based not on positive evidence, but upon the absence of any alternative evidence to murder)? Were they in a state of mind to be responsible for their actions?  Were they merely a witness to something they did not take part in?  DNA can rarely give the answers to these questions.  And then there are people who have been convicted of murder when there has been no body found, and the supposed scene of the crime is unknown – what will DNA tell you about that?

George

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Andy28
Karen you say you hate killing but that is what the death penalty was brought in to prevent.  The idea was to scare murderers into not commiting the act. The reason that it has failed is it is'nt mandatory - Some killers are handed the death sentence and some are'nt. If it was Known that the penalty for murder was death every time and the method was the electric chair straight after conviction, i bet there would be very few murders.

The death penalty (to be honest, this is probably true about much of the system of judicial punishment) is about judicial vengeance – none of it has ever been effective as a deterrent, and of all things, the death penalty is the least effective of all.  In a sense, while one may be scornful of judicial vengeance, it has its value insofar as it is intended to deter people from taking the law into their own hands (i.e. in the old days, many crimes lead to family feuds and perpetual vendettas and massive casualties amongst members of the families involved – the idea of judicial punishment was to take the element of vendetta out of the hands of individuals, and place it in the hands of the State, and so break the cycle of vendetta).

Judicial punishment will almost never act as a deterrent, at least not of itself, firstly because those criminals who do commit the kind of crime where they look at a judicial profit and loss sheet, would not anticipate getting caught – however harsh the punishment might be, it is useless if people do not expect to get punished at all.  The reality is that the vast majority of violent crime is committed when people are in some way under stress, or under the influence of alcohol, and they simply do not make judicial profit and loss assessment (in fact, it is not uncommon in cases of murder for the perpetrator, having committed the crime under a state of stress, to then hand himself in to the police, and be quite happy at the thought of joining in death the person whose life they took – and quite possibly, since most murders happen within the family, the victim was someone they loved despite having taken their life).  How would the death penalty help against people who murder, and then commit suicide?

The way combat crimes of violence is to teach people to manage and deal with stress.  Threat of punishment only tries to add to that stress by giving the person even more to fear, rather than giving them a way to deal with their lives without fear.  In the end, adding more fear into the life of a person who is already at breaking point will not work.

Ofcourse, this is very different from using punishment as a deterrent against crimes of profit, but these are mostly white collar crimes, and crimes of property; they are not in the most part crimes of violence (although I am not saying that violence has never been used for profit – but most acts of violence that are actually committed are not for profit).

One final point – the murder rate in the UK did not rise after the abolition of the death penalty (that was something that was carefully monitored at the time, when the death penalty was initially suspended in 1964, and the death penalty was only abolished 1969 after it was seen to have no discernible effect upon the murder rate.

George

[Karen W.]

I understand with what it tried to establish, and I understand  why it went wrong.. the only reason I hate it is that it takes another's life and puts the executioner in the roll of delivering the penalty,, really creepy I like life and still don't like the death penalty,,

Karen

[Gaia]

This thread is titled FAO Exodus. Did Exodus (I assume that's a user name) ever read the thread? Shows how nosey/interested the rest of us are [:I] Mind you, it is a public forum.

Gaia  xxx

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Gaia

This thread is titled FAO Exodus. Did Exodus (I assume that's a user name) ever read the thread? Shows how nosey/interested the rest of us are [:I] Mind you, it is a public forum.

Gaia  xxx

It also shows that you have not yet learn't tro use the features of the site. []

Look up the members list, and find Exodus, and you will find he has not logged on since 11th August this year (and thus thread was created on the 19th Septemver - need I say more). [:p]

George

[Gaia]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by Gaia

This thread is titled FAO Exodus. Did Exodus (I assume that's a user name) ever read the thread? Shows how nosey/interested the rest of us are [:I] Mind you, it is a public forum.

Gaia  xxx

It also shows that you have not yet learn't tro use the features of the site. []

Look up the members list, and find Exodus, and you will find he has not logged on since 11th August this year (and thus thread was created on the 19th Septemver - need I say more). [:p]

George

miaow, especially as it was you asked me to register here in the first place!!!

Gaia  xxx

[Andy28 (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by Andy28
Miscarriages of justice occur very rarely these days since the introduction of DNA. It does remain a sad fact of life that someone who is innocent will occasionally be put to death though.

This is naïve to say the least.  All that DNA (which is itself only as good as the technicians who use it) tells you is that someone was at the scene of the crime, it does not tell you what they did, and in many cases there is simply no DNA.

Are you suggesting that a person accused of murder should be acquitted in the absence of DNA evidence?  A great number of murderers would be let free on that basis?

But often the issue with murder is not even what the person did, but what was their intent (a little analogous with rape) – were they acting in self defence?  Was it an accident?   Was it natural causes (just look at some of the parents convicted of killing their children based not on positive evidence, but upon the absence of any alternative evidence to murder)? Were they in a state of mind to be responsible for their actions?  Were they merely a witness to something they did not take part in?  DNA can rarely give the answers to these questions.  And then there are people who have been convicted of murder when there has been no body found, and the supposed scene of the crime is unknown – what will DNA tell you about that?

George

I see what you are saying but the death penalty should ALWAYS be an option to the courts. Ted Bundy? Need i say more?