Capital punishment

[Last of the Fraggles]

There are any socio-economic differences which could easily make up the difference, even between US states.

And why don't you explain how locking certain people up forever could lead to more crime. They aren't going to be among society hurting people. Do you think that people are more likely to commit crimes if the sentence is harsh? Because that just doesn't make any sense.

My personal hypothesis to explain the situation is that when a nation doles out harsh penalties and executes its own citizens it contributes to a environment and society which promotes greater levels of violence amongst its own people which results in greater levels of violent crime.

In oversimplified terms - if the state says its alright and justified to kill people sometimes then its surely not an unimaginable consequence that some people may interpret when 'justified' is in a different way to that of the state.

In ever more oversimplified terms - if its OK to kill a murdered then its ok to kill a rapist, then its ok to kill the guy who raped my daughter, then its ok to kill the guy who killed my brother because he raped my daughter, then its ok to kill the guy who stole my car, then its ok to kill the guy who owns a nice car so I can have his car....etc...etc.

Its not that simple. Of course not. But its not that simple the other way either. Being harsher on crime doesn't reduce crime rates - it starts to appear more and more that people who promote harsh sentences just want revenge.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Only after they prove they are willing to do it. And what I said I would do isn't even illegal.

I'm not familiar with US law to any depth so I have no reason to doubt you when you tell me that it would be legal for you to advertise the fact you would kill someone raping your daughter and for you then to go ahead and do so.

I'm not particularly surprised either, as an outsider the US does appear to tend towards supporting the rights of its people to commit violent acts provided it regards them as the 'Good Guys'

Personally I'm happier with the message that 'its not right to kill people whoever you are' than trying to draw lines between Good Guys and Bad Guys.

And I think it goes back a bit to the point I made just before - your culture and social surroundings obviously have led you down a different path to mine. So we take a different view on things like 'justifiable homicide'

 

[ZirconBlue]

Personally I'm happier with the message that 'its not right to kill people whoever you are' . . . .

Again, even in self-defense? In defense of others?

 

[DC]

Again, even in self-defense? In defense of others?

depends on the situation i think, when it really is needed to kill someone to protect yourself or someone else's live, then there should be an exception be applied.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Again, even in self-defense? In defense of others?

Even in self defence and in defence of others. It's not right to kill people and you shouldn't do it. Sometimes 's*** happens' though, especially in the heat of the moment but that's for the courts to untangle.

There is an important difference between 'if you try to do any harm to me I will try to stop you and you might be hurt or killed' and 'if you try to do me any harm I will kill you'

I'm not saying there are never ever exceptions to the rule either - but the rule is clear.

Where I'm from trespassers WON'T be shot, and I like it that way.

 

[ZirconBlue]

depends on the situation i think, when it really is needed to kill someone to protect yourself or someone else's live, then there should be an exception be applied.

Same as in the US.

 

[Segnosaur]

Have a look at this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Re: costs of incarcerating prisoners in California

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Not really sure if we should just take those figures at face value...

After all, while it may cost more to incarcerate a death row inmate than someone sentenced to life, its also possible that those sentenced to death row crimes would still require extra supervision (e.g. solitary confinement) even if their sentence were commuted to 'life'. After all, many of those sentenced to death are "special cases" (serial killers, for example) that you might not want to put into the general population.

The other issue is the legal cost... those sentenced to death do have rather pricey court costs (in part because of the appeals), but cases that might be considered for the death penalty will likely be quite complex and the cases might result in lengthy court cases/multiple appeals even if the death penalty were eliminated. For example, remember Reuben Carter had multiple appeals (and was even released, even though there's evidence that he was guilty) even though he wasn't subject to the death penalty at the time.

Has there ever been a study examining the cost of prosecuting crimes of similar types/complexity in death penalty vs. non-death penalty jurisdictions? (Personally, I think there might be some cost savings by eliminating the death penalty, but not as much as critics think.)

 

[ZirconBlue]

Even in self defence and in defence of others. It's not right to kill people and you shouldn't do it.

Here's where we part ways. I think it is sometimes "right" to kill people. Well, at least "not wrong".

Sometimes 's*** happens' though, especially in the heat of the moment but that's for the courts to untangle.

In actuality, that's how it works here, too. If it's a clear-cut case of self-defense it probably won't even go to trial, but if it's questionable you'll probably have to make your case in court.

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm not familiar with US law to any depth so I have no reason to doubt you when you tell me that it would be legal for you to advertise the fact you would kill someone raping your daughter and for you then to go ahead and do so.

I'm not particularly surprised either, as an outsider the US does appear to tend towards supporting the rights of its people to commit violent acts provided it regards them as the 'Good Guys'

Personally I'm happier with the message that 'its not right to kill people whoever you are' than trying to draw lines between Good Guys and Bad Guys.

And I think it goes back a bit to the point I made just before - your culture and social surroundings obviously have led you down a different path to mine. So we take a different view on things like 'justifiable homicide'

A year or so ago I actually posted about a man who caught a rapist trying to rape his daughter. He beat this serial rapist with a pistol and he hit him so hard he broke the trigger guard on him. The rapist didn't die but he has permanent brain damage. Nothing was done to the father and nothing should have been done beyond pinning a medal on him.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Here's where we part ways. I think it is sometimes "right" to kill people. Well, at least "not wrong".

Presumably you don't think its right to kill you, your family or your friends? Why not extend that courtesy to others?

Anyway, I guess this toing and froing is a bit irrelevant as I already said individual cases don't bother me as much as the overall results.

As far as I can tell if you live in a country with the death penalty you are more likely to be a victim than if you live in one that doesn't. The only people who would like to introduce the death penalty to the UK are Daily Mail readers and other mental deficients so I'm fairly happy with that situation.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Presumably you don't think its right to kill you, your family or your friends?

You presume too much. In certain circumstances, I would think it right. For example, if I were trying to murder you, then yes I would think it right for you to kill me.

 

[Stellafane]

It might be 'justified' to you, but if my son or brother was murdered by a father for raping his daughter I would probably feel he was unjustified in doing so.

Well, you'd be wrong.

This is why the victim's (or anyone else's) emotions and feelings are not the way we make laws, nor should they be. If someone was raping my daughter no doubt I would feel like killing that person, that doesn't mean I believe we should execute rapists.

Neither do I, if you re-read my original post. Individuals are sometimes justified when they act in passion. Societies, however, need to act dispassionately -- which was the whole point of my post.

Your second example is very different and isn't really relevant to execution or discussion of legal punishments.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong again -- it's precisely germaine to my point.

How far is it OK to go in self-defence? Surely as much as is necessary? Intent is also a question. If someone robs your house and you shoot him in the back as he runs off - that's not self-defence. Equally if someone is waving a gun at you threatening to blow your head off and you swing a baseball bat at his head and he dies then that's not murder. If someone threatens you with a knife and you mow them down with an Uzi..... there's so many permutations, that's why we have courts and lawyers.

Again, we don't disagree (except, perhaps, where to draw the line at which a deadly response to a threat is justifiable). My whole point in posting at all is that I oppose capital punishment, even though I feel that some people deserve to die. And if those people just happen to die at the hands of those whom they have offended (for instance, the baseball bat to the head you mention in your post) I have no problem with that. Thus I'm really not sure what we're arguing about, since even you agree that killing another person in some instances is justified.

 

[dtugg]

So if somebody is trying to murder me what am I supposed to do? Run away and hide hoping he doesn't find me? Or maybe I should just let him kill me? I say **** that. If possible, I am getting my gun and emptying the clip.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If you were wrongfully accused of raping someone's daughter and put on death row, would you still support the death penalty as you walked down to the execution room?

 

[dtugg]

If you were wrongfully accused of raping someone's daughter and put on death row, would you still support the death penalty as you walked down to the execution room?

Are you talking to me? If so I already said I am on the fence because of this. I don't have a problem executing scumbags but since innocent people may also get executed, in practice it may not be such a good idea.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Death Penalty

I personally think capital punishment is wrong. doesn't make much of a difference how you do it.

what are your thoughts?

I'm generally OK with capital punishment, but the key is: YOU HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT.

I think the burden of proof should be much more strenuous in sentencing these cases than it is in determining guilt. You can't undo capital punishment.

I am opposed to the lackadaisical attitude towards capital punishment that they have here in Texas.

 

[Stellafane]

If you were wrongfully accused of raping someone's daughter and put on death row, would you still support the death penalty as you walked down to the execution room?

And if you're talking to me, I've already said I don't support the death penalty.

 

[welshdean]

Well DC and Eeney I have feeling you’re gone a love my opine.
All VIOLENT felons
Let me make this clear
ALL (murders, rapists, child molesters, violent assaulters, so on)
VIOLENT
FELONS
Should be put to death!

I bumped into a guy that raped my sister three weeks after the assault in 1992, he didn't get out of hospital for 6 months. Should I be hanged, electrocuted or injected. (I was charged with S.18 GBH with intent, sentenced to one year suspended for two. The judge saw that there were mitigating circumstances and this was reflected in his sentencing).

Stellafane

Of course I'd have a problem with the rapist's brother killing the father, since the killing wouldn't be at all justified. I was using the example of a father catching his daughter's rapist in the act as an instance where I believe a deadly response is justified. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that anyone would consider the father in this instance a "violent offender murderer."

Perhaps you don't think the rape of a daughter is sufficient cause to use deadly force (which I admit I do, perhaps because I do in fact have a daughter and can only imagine what I'd do if I caught someone trying to harm her). So how about this: The father catches someone in the act of lobotomizing his daughter. It isn't self-defense per se, because the offender isn't killing the girl, and the father's life is not threatened. Do you think the father would be justified in killing the perpetrator then? If not, what would an appropriate response be: "Oh please stop doing that, it isn't nice"? Or maybe the father should just beat the guy senseless -- but in doing so, what happens if he dies, does the father get charged with manslaughter?

My point is, some people do things so heinous that I have zero qualms about their lives ceasing to exist. I don't think society should be the ones to do that, but in certain cases, if the offended party takes things into their own hands, I am very sympathetic.

I'm reminded of two films here, the first is Last house on the left (Para 1)
The second is Law abiding citizen (para 3)

I agree with the former, not the latter.

 

[Cainkane1]

I bumped into a guy that raped my sister three weeks after the assault in 1992, he didn't get out of hospital for 6 months. Should I be hanged, electrocuted or injected. (I was charged with S.18 GBH with intent, sentenced to one year suspended for two. The judge saw that there were mitigating circumstances and this was reflected in his sentencing).



I'm reminded of two films here, the first is Last house on the left (Para 1)
The second is Law abiding citizen (para 3)

I agree with the former, not the latter.

You deserve a medal.

 

[welshdean]

You deserve a medal.

I wish that was true, I honestly, really, wish that was true. What my sister, me and the other fella deserve need is help. I know I still have nightmares about the night I beat the piss out of him, I know my sister still has nightmares about self doubt on the night she was raped, I know that the bastard needs help to kerb his sexual urges, frustrations or whatever it is that could drive a man to such a heinous act. From a purely selfish point of view (after all I suffered the least here) is to put it behind me. But I find it hard to do. I still have nightmares about him dieing in his hospital bed, me at the foot of it, looking on, willing him to come through.
That fella suffered, he's a prick, but he suffered, desevedly so, I thought. But my sister and I (after a month of him being hospitalised) wished, hoped, begged for a recovery. Part of me feels that it was because of my/our humanitarianism, part of me feels that his recovery offered a lesser sentence. I just don't know.

Who knows how I'd feel if he'd died. At my hands. In a fit of pique!

Keep your death penalty. I'd say if you vote for it and agree with it, then have a call up similar to jury service. You have to press the button, pull the lever, push the syringe, pull the trigger or whatever is required when your name is called. I couldn't do it. That's why I disagree with it.