Do you think that Capital Punishment is acceptable under any circumstances?

[bhaexpress]

Thats fair enough.Is it done in private ?

Well there are invited witnesses who include some press and various government officials.

 

[Lammy]

In my view, for a state to decide calculatedly to put an end to someone's life is as immoral as if you and I decided to do it. That's not to mention miscarriages of justice and the lack of any deterrent effect whatsoever. I'd make an exception to that for what happens during war-time but that's not capital punishment, of course.

I'd agree with this, but I can't help but think that taking the decision to lock someone up for the rest of their live is just as immoral, if not even more so?

 

[Commander]

I'd agree with this, but I can't help but think that taking the decision to lock someone up for the rest of their live is just as immoral, if not even more so?

So what's the solution then?

 

[Soton Seagull]

Certainly not, drags society down to their level.

 

[Lammy]

So what's the solution then?

I don't know damn it?

What happened to just giving them a damn good THRASHING?!?!?


*Argh damn 2 minute rule, I want to respond but I'm not allowed!!!*

*second attempt failed too!! I hope I'm not too late to make my point...*

 

[algie]

I'd agree with this, but I can't help but think that taking the decision to lock someone up for the rest of their live is just as immoral, if not even more so?

So let Huntley out after a few years because it's wrong to bang someone up for life?

 

[Man of Harveys]

I'd agree with this, but I can't help but think that taking the decision to lock someone up for the rest of their live is just as immoral, if not even more so?

No. I think it's a question of whether you accept the idea that any state has criminal laws to which people should conform or be punished and that punishment can vary in length, for a very long time. There is also the importance of protecting the rest of society from potentially dangerous criminals.

I don't have a problem with any of those principles and at least they leave the possibility of addressing miscarriages of justice. I don't have vast amounts of faith at all in the judicial system to get it right though - my stint of jury service was enough to scare me silly - but I guess it's the least bad system that exists.

 

[Lammy]

So let Huntley out after a few years because it's wrong to bang someone up for life?

Obviously not.

I'll explain for YOU.

If you believe it is wrong to kill someone because it is immoral. I believe you cannot also sanction the use of prison, especially life sentences as that too is just as imoral.

The only difference really is you can reverse a jail sentence decision but not a death sentence. But you can't give someone 20 years of their life back either?!??

 

[pasty]

No. Never in any circumstances.

 

[Lammy]

...I guess it's the least bad system that exists.

That's what I'm getting at. There is no perfect system. The points you make are correct and I agree with them.

I suppose we are happy with a given punishment so long as it is no perminant. i.e. not killing or cutting hands off etc.


It quite tricky one to get your head around though if you really start to think about it. Well for me it is anyway

 

[algie]

Obviously not.

I'll explain for YOU.

If you believe it is wrong to kill someone because it is immoral. I believe you cannot also sanction the use of prison, especially life sentences as that too is just as imoral.

The only difference really is you can reverse a jail sentence decision but not a death sentence. But you can't give someone 20 years of their life back either?!??

What a load of rubbish.We are not in the 1920's no more.DNA will prove wheather there guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[itszamora]

To those who say yes - explain to me how, therefore, we could say to someone 'you've killed someone. That is illegal. Therefore we are going to kill you'. It makes no sense to me, you can't punish someone for an illegal act by performing the same act (albeit 'legally') upon them.

 

[Lammy]

What a load of rubbish.We are not in the 1920's no more.DNA will prove wheather there guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt.

*sigh*

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

In wartime yes. Even the ECHR allows capital punishment during times of war.

 

[Man of Harveys]

It quite tricky one to get your head around though if you really start to think about it. Well for me it is anyway

There's some surprisingly good stuff on the nature of what constitutes criminality here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminality

 

[bhaexpress]

To those who say yes - explain to me how, therefore, we could say to someone 'you've killed someone. That is illegal. Therefore we are going to kill you'. It makes no sense to me, you can't punish someone for an illegal act by performing the same act (albeit 'legally') upon them.

Its called punishment. Put it this way, if somebody abused and murdered somebody you loved would you want them to stay alive ?

 

[algie]

To those who say yes - explain to me how, therefore, we could say to someone 'you've killed someone. That is illegal. Therefore we are going to kill you'. It makes no sense to me, you can't punish someone for an illegal act by performing the same act (albeit 'legally') upon them.

who says it's illegal?Who makes that judgement then?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Its called punishment. Put it this way, if somebody abused and murdered somebody you loved would you want them to stay alive ?

Yes I would.

 

[bhaexpress]

Yes I would.

Well I hope you never find out but I would have no hesitation and would quite willingly carry out the job personally.

 

[Lammy]

There's some surprisingly good stuff on the nature of what constitutes criminality here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminality

Jesus MoH, that's a bit heavy going for a Thursday afternoon! I'll need to bookmark that and check it later