Taboo subject number 4 - Death penalty effective or barbaric?

Is the death penalty acceptable deterrent or just barbaric?

Should the death penalty be handed out by jurors or left to the Judge?

Is the death penalty an acceptable act in todays society by those who still execute criminals?

What are you views on the death penalty?

On one hand too many people have been executed following a tainted conviction. ONE mistake is a mistake too many.

As unpalatable as it is to see a killer avoid the same justice that he/she meted out to another, it is safer to be able to overturn a wrong verdict where the convicted is still alive to benefit from it.

Furthermore, in some cases the politicians and media put the police under intolerable pressure to solve a crime, without even knowing or caring how difficult it may be to do so with sufficient evidence to arrest. It encourages the police to make a hasty judgment and maybe concoct evidence, just to get themselves off the hook on which they should have not been placed in the first instance.

On the other hand, they did the crime shouldn't they pay for it as in; eye for an eye, take a life forfeit your life?

Is there any justice served in taking an innocent life, or a guilty life whoever may be responsible for it?

Has the prison system become so complacent and easy with mod cons and hotel style of accommodation that conviction fora crime is seen as an extended holiday not as punishment for the crime? Hard labor is a thing of the past. Now it is more like living in a top hotel, all mod cons thrown in.

Would bringing back harsher regimes make the crime rates to drop off. Harsher does not mean torturous in this case. That said is 12 hours hard labour chain-gang style clearing ditches in the sun with water given in set breaks than on demand be a form of torture?

It's unjust and unjustifiable.

.tUrniP wrote:

It's unjust and unjustifiable.

How so?

There is no justice in it or the moral equivalence that "an eye for an eye" implies, it's simply small minded revenge.

Even if we were to assume any moral merit in taking the life of a killer we'd have to consider the aggregate effect on ourselves, on society as a whole - "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

The job of executioner creates a problem in itself. Surely anyone that actively wants to do it is exactly the kind of person we would be trying to get rid of in the first place and since we would have made the position we too would be undesirables. Who kills us?

There is the practical element of course, and I can see the apparent value but I believe that to be false (or, at least, overshadowed) as well. We only have to look at the crime rate of the United states (state by state so as to compare those that do and those that don't have the death penalty) to see that it doesn't work particularly well as a deterrent.

Put on top of that the imperfect nature of the judicial system...

Let alone it not being anyone's to give, to willingly hand over the ability to kill more people to the powers that be worries me. We need a society based on respect, not fear. I mean, we already allow for murder through military action, do we really want to degrade our already broken society any further?

To postpone morality as it suits is to entirely negate its value.

tl;dr - It's murder.

In certain cases I think that he or she, who has killed should be put to death. How ever I would draw the line here in that this would be in a case of where there is no doubt of the action committed by the killer. In front of witnesses or proved utterly and completely that he or she committed the murder. If there is reasonnable doubt of whether he or she is guilty or not , then the sentence should be commuted to life. But life in the sense that that person never ever leaves the prison walls.
Modern prisons often give prisonners better living conditions than those outside! That should change! They are there to be punished , not in a holiday camp!

Furthermore, in some cases the politicians and media put the police under intolerable pressure to solve a crime, without even knowing or caring how difficult it may be to do so with sufficient evidence to arrest. It encourages the police to make a hasty judgment and maybe concoct evidence, just to get themselves off the hook on which they should have not been placed in the first instance.
This should stop. Several times here the police has been pushed to find a guilty person and have messed up the job. The police should be left to get on with the job and not have power hungry politicians breathing down their necks, or Newspapers calling for blood.

I agree, there are laspses in the law where the innocent are pushed through as guilty in order to have somebody there to blame, rather than let it be known the killer/s are still loose and time and money are not avialble to hunt them further.

Which I always thought was why the saying justice is blind is so apt. What the law doesn't see won't harm it.

I for one think it should be brought back. although Turnips's comments does make one think and raises an interesting debate in itself. As i have to confess that i have said before that i would happily be the executioner to the likes of the previously mentioned killers and the likes.

Quote :

The job of executioner creates a problem in itself. Surely anyone that actively wants to do it is exactly the kind of person we would be trying to get rid of in the first place and since we would have made the position we too would be undesirables. Who kills us?

However, with some killers out there (i.e Brady, hindley, huntley ect) surely they do deserve the death penalty. Yes the justice system is far from perfect, however forensics is getting better and better (certainly a lot better since the death penalty was last in effect). But there is bound to be a screw up at some point and someone put to death who is later found to be innocent.

But it is so annyoing with the crap sentences that are handed out these days to serious offenders, all because they can't afford to over crowd prisons. I am all for the offenders spending the rest of their lives locked up, but that is if life meant life, and all the perks of being a prisoner in the UK didn't exist.

I suppose what i'm trying to say is that those who do kill do deserve the death penalty IMO (and not a humane one either), but the justice system being safe enough to have the death penalty in effect is another matter, and i don't think it is.

Could you explain why they 'surely do deserve the death penalty' - the morality of it?

For me it is because of the suffering they caused to their victim, but also to the family that is left behind. The family that are left behind not only suffer of finding out their loved one has gone, but how they died. Often a very sick and disturbing end. But their suffering goes on for the rest of their own lives. And no amount of prison sentence will ever compensate for that. Granted in many cases executing the killer does not compensate for their loss either, but some do get some (call it what you want, comfort, satisfaction, or sense of justice from knowing their loved one's killer is no longer living. I personally would want them dead if i knew that they would be free after x amount of years. Maybe if life meant life then i wouldn't want them executed.But that is not the case in this day and age.

I mean after what some of these murderers, rapist ect have done, why should they deserve to live anyway. Maybe it's not so much a sense of "an eye for an eye", but more a case of what right does the killer have to live?

TK Trooper wrote:

For me it is because of the suffering they caused to their victim, but also to the family that is left behind. The family that are left behind not only suffer of finding out their loved one has gone, but how they died. Often a very sick and disturbing end. But their suffering goes on for the rest of their own lives. And no amount of prison sentence will ever compensate for that. Granted in many cases executing the killer does not compensate for their loss either, but some do get some (call it what you want, comfort, satisfaction, or sense of justice from knowing their loved one's killer is no longer living. I personally would want them dead if i knew that they would be free after x amount of years. Maybe if life meant life then i wouldn't want them executed.But that is not the case in this day and age.

I mean after what some of these murderers, rapist ect have done, why should they deserve to live anyway. Maybe it's not so much a sense of "an eye for an eye", but more a case of what right does the killer have to live?

Don't forget the hidden victims in this, the family of the perp. They also have to live with what a member of the family has done.

Gris Gris wrote:

TK Trooper wrote:

For me it is because of the suffering they caused to their victim, but also to the family that is left behind. The family that are left behind not only suffer of finding out their loved one has gone, but how they died. Often a very sick and disturbing end. But their suffering goes on for the rest of their own lives. And no amount of prison sentence will ever compensate for that. Granted in many cases executing the killer does not compensate for their loss either, but some do get some (call it what you want, comfort, satisfaction, or sense of justice from knowing their loved one's killer is no longer living. I personally would want them dead if i knew that they would be free after x amount of years. Maybe if life meant life then i wouldn't want them executed.But that is not the case in this day and age.

I mean after what some of these murderers, rapist ect have done, why should they deserve to live anyway. Maybe it's not so much a sense of "an eye for an eye", but more a case of what right does the killer have to live?

Don't forget the hidden victims in this, the family of the perp. They also have to live with what a member of the family has done.

Very true and a good point, but i still doubt that is much comfort or concern to the victims family. It is something the guilty party should have considered before committing their crime. If the criminal in question had simply burgled a house and received a prison sentence, would they consider the family of the criminal when handing them their sentence, maybe offer a shorter sentence because of the effect it would have on their family. A crime is a crime. And for me the how the criminals family feel is a guilt the criminal themselves should carry, not the victims family or anyone else IMHO.

At the end of the day if a family member of mine came to serious or fatal harm at the intentional hands of another i would want them to pay the ultimate price, life does not mean life these days, maybe of it really did then my views would probably be a lot different

TK Trooper wrote:

Very true and a good point, but i still doubt that is much comfort or concern to the victims family. It is something the guilty party should have considered before committing their crime. If the criminal in question had simply burgled a house and received a prison sentence, would they consider the family of the criminal when handing them their sentence, maybe offer a shorter sentence because of the effect it would have on their family. A crime is a crime. And for me the how the criminals family feel is a guilt the criminal themselves should carry, not the victims family or anyone else IMHO.

At the end of the day if a family member of mine came to serious or fatal harm at the intentional hands of another i would want them to pay the ultimate price, life does not mean life these days, maybe of it really did then my views would probably be a lot different

That's a fair point to make. However how many times have do any of us concidered our family when we may have committed any criminal act, or simply been very very drunk?

Those who kill, rarily consider anybody but themselves. If your child, to all is a loving wellr espected individual, friendly kind to all, killed somebody without remorse. How would you feel?

Much depends on the reason . if it was in retaliation for a very bad offence towards my son or his girlfriend then I would accept the fact . If it was a senseless killing , then I feel that I would have failed as a father . Secondly I could not forgive him for what he had done , taking a life with out any remorse . Plus how to face the family of the victim ?
There again I am not in that position so any reply is pure conjecture . It would be interesting to have the view of some-one who is in that position .

What separates the death penalty from murder?

How does anything compensate for the loss of a loved one or anything for that matter?

Why does anybody deserve to live?

Who should decide the 'law'?

Where do you see 'society' ending up if we do have the death penalty and if we do not?

When is it justice and when is it revenge ( are they even separate )?

The death penalty is societies ultimate recours against a hideous crime; the taking of a human life . How ever this does not deter people from taking that fatal step . How ever people should know that if they commit the ultimate crime then they run the risk of seeing their own life terminated .
Nothing can replace the depart of a loved one in such circumstances nor compensate the fact . but to know that the person who took the life will no longer be able to do it again is some satisfaction .
Why does anyone deserve to die ?
Society would still be the same , just that in certain courts at certain times , the judge will adorn his head with a black cloth . The accused would then know which path he will be treading .
Justice when ordered by a court of law, revenge when on a personnal basis .

Inuit, your definition of justice worries me and asking "Why does anyone deserve to die ?" is just rewording my question and giving it back to me. Regardless, haven't you essentially just said that it is pointless but that we should do it anyway?

I'm not trying to argue with how people should feel. I mean if someone I love was murdered I would probably feel the same. We are most definitely emotional beings but that doesn't make it right.

Turnip if some-one I loved was murdered then I would not wait for some so-called justice decide whether the "poor misunderstood" and " a revoked childhood , abused etc" murderer is to be tried or to be pitied . He would not be before a judge , I would . For having taken revenge and stopping him from ever doing it again .
As in all cases , innocent people where taken to the gallows , electric chair , whatever . Nothing will bring them back . I would condone the death penalty where there is a 100% certainty that the person before the judge is guilty of that crime . If there is even the slightest chance or doubt about whether he or she is guilty or not then it should be life imprisonnement . If found later that that person is in fact innocent , then he or she should be immediatly freed .
How many murderers , rapists, pédophiles have recidived once free again ? Should not society be protected from these monsters ? They have taken a life then they no longer deserve to walk this earth.

.tUrniP wrote:

Inuit, your definition of justice worries me and asking "Why does anyone deserve to die ?" is just rewording my question and giving it back to me. Regardless, haven't you essentially just said that it is pointless but that we should do it anyway?

I'm not trying to argue with how people should feel. I mean if someone I love was murdered I would probably feel the same. We are most definitely emotional beings but that doesn't make it right.

Nothing or nobody is right or absolute in this world.

We all have differing views, morals, social upbringing and emotional aspects.

The common denometer should be what is justice and how is it best applied?

Isn't justice about moral rightness or balance? If there is no right then there can be no justice. Of course that may well be true but ethical nihilism is potentially hazardous when trying to talk about laws.

You'll notice that I have been trying to ask semi leading questions to try and address exactly this aspect but I'm clearly not very good at it...

I don`t agree with it as mastakes can and have been made and some people who turned out to be inocent have already been put to death and you can`t give them there life back

There is a rumour that the death penatly maybe brought back ot the UK as there has been arise in the great unwahsed populice want it back. Especially as DNA testing and forensic science is 99.9999% infallible.

Quote :

forensic science is 99.9999% infallible

Sadly, humans are not.

Very true in a sad way.

For serious crimes, agree with death penatly, the likes of Manson types its the only way to ensure the world is safe.