Topical discussion on a boring Wednesday - The Death Penalty

[Soton Seagull]

Arnie the Governator refused pleas to delay the execution of a convicted double murderer in Calafornia last night, the 1st execuation there for 3 years. As such, this guy was put to death, 25 years after he committed the crime.

2 pronged question really?

1. Does anyone beleive that in a civilsed society the death penalty can ever be justified?

2. If so, should it not be carried out within months of conviction, not a quarter of a century later?

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

What I can't understand is why there's always such a long waiting list

 

[looney]

These are not in favour or against questions are they? I'm against.


1. Does anyone beleive that in a civilsed society the death penalty can ever be justified?

Of course, there are reasoned arguements 4 and against. Thats not the same as Morally right or wrong.

2. If so, should it not be carried out within months of conviction, not a quarter of a century later?

Neither. If your going to ice people you need an effective appeals proceedure to prevent miscarrages of justice but not one that exceeds reasonable time limits.

Except lawyers, just ice those fuckers.

 

[SussexHoop]

1. Does anyone beleive that in a civilsed society the death penalty can ever be justified?

I used to think eye for an eye and all that and still feel if anyone harms my family, they're fing dead.

However, there have been so many miscarriages of justice in recent years that I feel totally uncomfortable with the idea. I do feel though that a life sentence really should mean life. At least if they're in prison and it's later shown to be a miscarriage of justice, we can go some way to righting that wrong by letting them out.

2. If so, should it not be carried out within months of conviction, not a quarter of a century later?

Appeals process has to be allowed to run it's course. The alternative if they're guilty, is for them to accept their punishment.

 

[Wilka]

It's not an easy question really.

The main argument against it for me is that if there is one miscarrages of justice and they are sentanced to death then thats one to many.

 

[The Large One]

Execution is state-sponsored murder by another name.

Why should the state have the right to unilaterally end the life of an individual? There are other forms of punishment other than killing someone.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The answer is that when convicted the paedophiles, rapists and murderers should start by serving a month solitary in a special secure unit in a bare cell with nothing but a chair, some rope, a beam, a loaded gun and a sharp knife, then leave it up to their own conscience as to whether they should live or die.

If, after a month, they're still alive then lock them up for life in a prison.

That way, there is no miscarriage of justice, nobody has blood on their hands and the criminal is forced to contemplate the outcome of their evil actions.

 

[Marc]

if someone killed someone else then the Death Penalty is the easy and quick way out. They should be sentanced to LIFE in Prison (by life I mean their entire life not released 20years later) and made to suffer by regretting what they did. Thats much harsher and better IMO.

 

[pasty]

Under no circumstances would I vote in favour of the death penalty. As TLO says above it is nothing more than legalised murder.

The thing that pisses me off most is the common argument I always hear from the pro-lobby about applying it to murderers is "No one has the right to take a human life".....err ?

 

[Gully]

In answer to question 1, no, for precisely the reason that TLO gave. Arnie appears to be about to cock up in the same way that George W Bush did, allow the execution of someone who is mentally deficient in some way, if someone is incapable of knowing right or wrong because of an underlying medical condition (say for example having a mental age of 8) how can they be executed for commiting an offence that in all probability they did not know was wrong.

Emotive subject, personally I have always opposed the death penalty for absolutely any offence, in my opinion no country that wants to call itself civilised should kill its own citizens.

 

[chip]

Bring it back, there are a clear class of criminal for whom it can be wholly justified with no danger of a miscarriage of justice. It costs around £50000 per anum to keep someone in a prison and that is money that could be better spent elsewhere. Notwithstanding, what is the morality of denying someone their freedom forever?

As to it being state sanctioned murder, many would see that abortion is as well. Except that in the case of abortion the murder victim is always innocent. It seems very illogical to have the later without the former. On the subject of morality, that is just a subjective judgement.