Cainkane1
Philosopher
Which European country has the death penalty?
Capital punishment
- Thread starter DC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- death penalty
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,221
Belarus.
Another reason capital punishment probably should not be around: it is the only- ONLY- instance in which society demands an "eye for an eye" in punishment. This is the only time we make "the punishment fit the crime".
When a rapist is caught and sentenced to prison, does the judge and jury sentence him to be raped? If he is a serial rapist, is he condemned to 5 rapes a year? If he's raped by the guards or other prisoners, it's not cause it was ordered by society.
Is a wife beater, child abuser or a thug who lost control at the local bar sentenced to an assault in jail because he/she committed an assault? If they did it serially, are they sentenced to getting beaten every day or every week? Again, if the guards or other prisoners do it, it isn't because society made them.
Do we burn down arsonists' homes?
Does the law and government come to a thief's home and steal his stuff? Does it get distributed between the cops and the judge? Are shoplifters allowed to come into his house and take whatever they want?
When we catch a trespasser, do we then let other people crash in his garage and invade his privacy?
When someone gropes a woman, do we order people to sexually harass him?
When we catch a pimp or madam, do we make him/her prostitute himself/herself in prison to strange men and women for 5 bucks a pop?
When we catch a kidnapper, do we make the police grab him off the streets and hold him in a dark and smelly basement for a week?
Do we make drunk drivers ride sober in the backseat with a drunken driver at the wheel?
No, because this would be bizarre and serve no purpose. We put them in jail. Or give them parole, house arrest, fines, community service, serious legal restrictions, etc. That's what we do for punishment.
Edit: Before anyone says this, yes, it is true that some other countries do things like this for punishment. Rapists are caned with the stick in Singapore, yes. Muslim nations cut off a thief's hands. And so on. Yes, some nations do "eye for an eye", at least for certain crimes. They are at least more consistent than the US in this regard, where "eye for an eye" is only used in murder cases.
Another reason capital punishment probably should not be around: it is the only- ONLY- instance in which society demands an "eye for an eye" in punishment. This is the only time we make "the punishment fit the crime".
When a rapist is caught and sentenced to prison, does the judge and jury sentence him to be raped? If he is a serial rapist, is he condemned to 5 rapes a year? If he's raped by the guards or other prisoners, it's not cause it was ordered by society.
Is a wife beater, child abuser or a thug who lost control at the local bar sentenced to an assault in jail because he/she committed an assault? If they did it serially, are they sentenced to getting beaten every day or every week? Again, if the guards or other prisoners do it, it isn't because society made them.
Do we burn down arsonists' homes?
Does the law and government come to a thief's home and steal his stuff? Does it get distributed between the cops and the judge? Are shoplifters allowed to come into his house and take whatever they want?
When we catch a trespasser, do we then let other people crash in his garage and invade his privacy?
When someone gropes a woman, do we order people to sexually harass him?
When we catch a pimp or madam, do we make him/her prostitute himself/herself in prison to strange men and women for 5 bucks a pop?
When we catch a kidnapper, do we make the police grab him off the streets and hold him in a dark and smelly basement for a week?
Do we make drunk drivers ride sober in the backseat with a drunken driver at the wheel?
No, because this would be bizarre and serve no purpose. We put them in jail. Or give them parole, house arrest, fines, community service, serious legal restrictions, etc. That's what we do for punishment.
Edit: Before anyone says this, yes, it is true that some other countries do things like this for punishment. Rapists are caned with the stick in Singapore, yes. Muslim nations cut off a thief's hands. And so on. Yes, some nations do "eye for an eye", at least for certain crimes. They are at least more consistent than the US in this regard, where "eye for an eye" is only used in murder cases.
Last edited:
The confiscation of the proceeds of crime is common practice. Of course it does not go to the police, but to the state and forms the basis of compensation funds for victims of crime.
There is however no reason the death penalty should be restricted to murder. In Britain it was the penalty for treason. Spies could be - and were- hanged. Personally, I would not necessarily distinguish between murder and some forms of assault where it's clear the criminal did not care if the victim died, although he in fact survived.
Also, some forms of egregious criminal recklessness or neglect- as of children allowed to die through neglect, or someone driving at speed in town while hopelessly drunk- might be considered so extreme as to merit the death penalty, even if (by good luck) nobody died.
I don't think it's automatically or solely an eye-for-an-eye situation.
There is however no reason the death penalty should be restricted to murder. In Britain it was the penalty for treason. Spies could be - and were- hanged. Personally, I would not necessarily distinguish between murder and some forms of assault where it's clear the criminal did not care if the victim died, although he in fact survived.
Also, some forms of egregious criminal recklessness or neglect- as of children allowed to die through neglect, or someone driving at speed in town while hopelessly drunk- might be considered so extreme as to merit the death penalty, even if (by good luck) nobody died.
I don't think it's automatically or solely an eye-for-an-eye situation.
Last edited:
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,221
Yes, we confiscate the proceeds of the crime. Agreed. That's a form of restitution, though, not punishment.
We don't want them to profit from their crime, yes. However, we don't go into the thief's home and take all the cash he has in his drawers, stolen or not, to show him what it feels like to be stolen from.
We don't come to a burglar's home and break all of his windows after he's already been arrested and is sitting in prison.
We don't go to a dealer who made the drugs too strong and killed a few of his clients through stupidity and recklessness and inject him with enough junk to overdose.
And so on.
The idea that a killer has forfeited his own life because he killed someone and must be repaid in kind by society, well, ok. That might be valid.
The idea that his actions must be repaid in kind? It doesn't really hold water.
Plus, there's the unbelievable hypocrisy of it. To show people that murder is very bad, the state...kills someone?! Shouldn't someone now kill the judge and jury because they killed someone? And then the whole population of the state? And then kill the person or people who did the second and third sentence? And then kill the people who killed them?
The state did the exact same thing to the condemned man that he did to someone else and that they deemed he was fit to die for- which means they must automatically think that they themselves are fit to die for it. What a paradox that is.
We don't want them to profit from their crime, yes. However, we don't go into the thief's home and take all the cash he has in his drawers, stolen or not, to show him what it feels like to be stolen from.
We don't come to a burglar's home and break all of his windows after he's already been arrested and is sitting in prison.
We don't go to a dealer who made the drugs too strong and killed a few of his clients through stupidity and recklessness and inject him with enough junk to overdose.
And so on.
The idea that a killer has forfeited his own life because he killed someone and must be repaid in kind by society, well, ok. That might be valid.
The idea that his actions must be repaid in kind? It doesn't really hold water.
Plus, there's the unbelievable hypocrisy of it. To show people that murder is very bad, the state...kills someone?! Shouldn't someone now kill the judge and jury because they killed someone? And then the whole population of the state? And then kill the person or people who did the second and third sentence? And then kill the people who killed them?
The state did the exact same thing to the condemned man that he did to someone else and that they deemed he was fit to die for- which means they must automatically think that they themselves are fit to die for it. What a paradox that is.
Last edited:
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,334
Note: Not the same thing. I'm looking for an example of when the wheels of justice, grinding finely but slowly, finally are done, and the person is executed, then it's discovered it was a mistake.
Note that this also therefore would not support the "rapid executions" issue that the pro side likes to trout out as the primary reason it's not much of a deterrent.
Last edited:
Cainkane1
Philosopher
Actually tit for tat is interesting. I work for the Department of Drivers services and I was told a story about a man who had raped his 8 year old daughter. The other prisoners stopped up a toilet and it was filled with urine and excrement. They shoved his face in it and he would have drowned had the guards not rescued him.
Do I pity him? Well he shouldn't have raped his daughter should he?
To show people that kidnapping is very bad, the state... abducts someone and confines his movement for years against his will?
No, the judge and jury didn't murder anyone. Now, if someone goes around killing judges and juries because they imposed the death penalty, well, that is murder.
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,221
I understand the sentiment. Believe me, I do.
Still, the state should show better behavior than murderers, rapists, molesters, arsonists, kidnappers, etc.
By doing the exact same thing to them that they did to their victims, they are sinking to their level.
They are also showing they aren't better than them and are therefore not fit to judge and punish them in the first place. If you do the same thing to someone that they did to another, you are showing that you are no better and no worse than he is and therefore have no right to punish him in any way.
The state and society should have higher standards than that.
Really, to argue for the right to be as bad as a criminal is?
It's also rather childish and primitive. It's the logic of the brother who smacked his younger sister because "She STARTED it!" and "She did it FIRST!".
Actually, that's an excellent point.
I'm afraid I have no answer to that.
Last edited:
That's the one.
We aren't talking about accidental deaths so these analogies don't apply, we are talking about a system specifically designed to kill its (the state's) constituents.
Since my country has not had the death penalty in recent times then such an example can't exist, all we can do is point to convictions that when we had the death penalty would have resulted in the death penalty. For instance the killing of two babies. We only removed the death penalty from our system, the test as to whether anyone is guilty or not was not changed.
Last edited:
As I asked you: Which "Europes Justice" system are you talking about? There are over 45 "European" countries, each with at least one unique justice system.
Define "accidental", in the context of an ER room.
I'm saying both systems are less than perfect. Both incur deaths. In the legal case sometimes those would be the deaths of people not guilty of the crime they were tried for. They might be wholly innocent of any crime. In the case of the people who die "by mistake" in hospital, the same applies. They had an occlusion.They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were attended by a tired doctor who administered the wrong drug, or the weren't seen in time. They're still dead.
The solution is to improve the system, not to suppose the system is inherently unworkable and give up.
There's nothing fun , or popular, or nice about death. Discussing it in any context loses you public votes. Let's not pretend though, that the state does not kill people. It does.
Our road systems kill, our hospitals kill, our diet kills. We accept this as part of the process. Why should a system designed to kill be morally different? If anything, it's surely a bit more honest?
Why is it acceptable to shoot Afghans who have never been tried for anything , yet it's not OK to hang a Brit we are pretty damned certain murdered a couple of kids? Do we pull the troops out tomorrow then? Bring the nuke boats home and scrap them? Or can you make a convincing case as to why these processes are morally different?
What I see here is a spectrum of moral responsibility. There may be Fraunhofer lines on it, but you seem to hold one or two as more significant than the others. If you're plain scared of making such judgements yourself and you don't trust the people who would make them, I can sympathise. But that doesn't mean such judgements are impossible to make. Yes , there would have to be safeguards-and if distrust ofthe system and it's handlers is your sole objection I can agree up to a point, but it seems more like another objection called up to justify an innate distatste.
If you don't trust the legal system to kill the right people, why trust it at all?
I'm saying both systems are less than perfect. Both incur deaths. In the legal case sometimes those would be the deaths of people not guilty of the crime they were tried for. They might be wholly innocent of any crime. In the case of the people who die "by mistake" in hospital, the same applies. They had an occlusion.They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were attended by a tired doctor who administered the wrong drug, or the weren't seen in time. They're still dead.
The solution is to improve the system, not to suppose the system is inherently unworkable and give up.
There's nothing fun , or popular, or nice about death. Discussing it in any context loses you public votes. Let's not pretend though, that the state does not kill people. It does.
Our road systems kill, our hospitals kill, our diet kills. We accept this as part of the process. Why should a system designed to kill be morally different? If anything, it's surely a bit more honest?
Why is it acceptable to shoot Afghans who have never been tried for anything , yet it's not OK to hang a Brit we are pretty damned certain murdered a couple of kids? Do we pull the troops out tomorrow then? Bring the nuke boats home and scrap them? Or can you make a convincing case as to why these processes are morally different?
What I see here is a spectrum of moral responsibility. There may be Fraunhofer lines on it, but you seem to hold one or two as more significant than the others. If you're plain scared of making such judgements yourself and you don't trust the people who would make them, I can sympathise. But that doesn't mean such judgements are impossible to make. Yes , there would have to be safeguards-and if distrust ofthe system and it's handlers is your sole objection I can agree up to a point, but it seems more like another objection called up to justify an innate distatste.
If you don't trust the legal system to kill the right people, why trust it at all?
Last edited:
As I said before, an ER room is not designed to kill anyone so to compare it to a system that is designed to kill someone is to compare apples and pears.
Outside the military can you show me where the UK state kills anyone, by design.
I don't trust it.
The tragic case of Sally Clark has been mentioned in passing. Had Clark been hanged it would indeed have been a grave miscarriage of justice, or so we must suppose.
Meadows' assumption that there was no environmental or genetic link between two cot deaths in the same place and family was absolutely wrong. Why did nobody point this out to him before he opened his mouth in court? Where were the medics? Where were the statisticians?
The prosecuting counsel knew the second child showed signs of a Staph.a infection, yet chose not to reveal that fact. Is he in jail? I doubt it. The pathologist was banned from the Home Office Pathologist Register. Meadows was struck off, but reinstated- ie the scientist / medics involved were investigated and at least censured to some extent. What of the lawyers? What happened to the prosecutor who knew the second son had an infection?
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe some here does?
What happened to Sally Clark?
She died of alcohol poisoning in 2007, suicide or not, we don't know.
Nor, the prosecution errors notwithstanding, do I know if she was responsible for the death of either son. I have no good reason to think she was - but I don't know.
I do know that letting her out of jail did not "repay her" for what happened.
Of course, had she been hanged, the situation would be every bit as bad.
My point is that it is not the sentence which destroyed her life, but the multiple failures of the system.
It seems we get upset at the notion that an innocent person might hang due to flaws in the system, while complacently accepting that the same system is probably destroying lives daily.
This I find a bit odd.
ETA-Darat, James Bond aside, I suspect we manage the occasional assassination. I don't accept your distinction between accidental and deliberate death though. Dead is dead. If a death is avoidable, how far should we go to avoid it? A simple law governing the power -to-weight ratio of cars and requiring engine governors would cut road death figures to near zero. No government has done it. Would you support one that did?
Meadows' assumption that there was no environmental or genetic link between two cot deaths in the same place and family was absolutely wrong. Why did nobody point this out to him before he opened his mouth in court? Where were the medics? Where were the statisticians?
The prosecuting counsel knew the second child showed signs of a Staph.a infection, yet chose not to reveal that fact. Is he in jail? I doubt it. The pathologist was banned from the Home Office Pathologist Register. Meadows was struck off, but reinstated- ie the scientist / medics involved were investigated and at least censured to some extent. What of the lawyers? What happened to the prosecutor who knew the second son had an infection?
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe some here does?
What happened to Sally Clark?
She died of alcohol poisoning in 2007, suicide or not, we don't know.
Nor, the prosecution errors notwithstanding, do I know if she was responsible for the death of either son. I have no good reason to think she was - but I don't know.
I do know that letting her out of jail did not "repay her" for what happened.
Of course, had she been hanged, the situation would be every bit as bad.
My point is that it is not the sentence which destroyed her life, but the multiple failures of the system.
It seems we get upset at the notion that an innocent person might hang due to flaws in the system, while complacently accepting that the same system is probably destroying lives daily.
This I find a bit odd.
ETA-Darat, James Bond aside, I suspect we manage the occasional assassination. I don't accept your distinction between accidental and deliberate death though. Dead is dead. If a death is avoidable, how far should we go to avoid it? A simple law governing the power -to-weight ratio of cars and requiring engine governors would cut road death figures to near zero. No government has done it. Would you support one that did?
Last edited:
Who has argued that folks in her situation are "repaid" simply because they did not hang? I don't think anyone would be surprised to find that imprisonment of innocent people is devastating to the person imprisoned.
I disagree, to me it seems (and it has to be a seems since I have no knowledge of her mental state and so on beyond media reports) that it was a combination of three things, her grief at the death of her children, the accusation and prosecution for their murder and the sentence.
At the moment we do not have the death sentence and since we know there are serious flaws in our current system why would we want to introduce something so final as death into that system before we try to fix it?
And I would say that many people (myself included) are anything but "complacently accepting" of the current faults in our system, indeed the Sally Clarke case is a good example of people not being complacently accepting of the current flaws in our system.
Last edited:
Not in this thread (or I missed it), but the argument that we can release and compensate a wrongfully convicted person is one you must have seen used against CP elsewhere.
Indeed. I'm merely pointing out the falsehood of the "release and compensate" argument.
Absolutely. How watertight would it have to be before you accepted CP then? Do you not accept that any existing conviction in the last 30 years was solid enough?
What's to be done then?
welshdean
Michael McDonald 1967 - 2021
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 5,681
Here's one for you, Derek Bentley, us Brits know all about the case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/134951.stm
But the problem with obtaining these examples that you ask for is complex to say the least. Once someone has been executed the state does not pursue the veracity of the conviction. Here a few examples of possible mistakes that have not been investigated further:
But "release and compensate" was not what you were saying. And it is simply a fact that you cannot end a death sentence but you can end imprisonment. That it will more than likely have had devastating effects on the person wrongly convicted does not alter that.
What's the falsehood? It is true that you can end imprisonment and seek to make amends but you can't end a death sentence and seek to make amends.
I really don't know, all I can say is that given just the cases I know about the current system is not good enough that I would consider giving the state the right to kill me.
What is being done - keep working to improve system.
What certainly shouldn't be done is to add something that cannot be revoked into the system.
Sneaked in an ETA did you...
That would mean that you hold that if I in the street accidentally stumbled and fell under the wheels of your car and was killed that is the same as if you hunted me down in cold blood and killed me with a knife in my guts because "dead is dead". Of course it isn't, there is a world of difference between a system that is designed simply to kill and one in which there are accidental deaths.
Cainkane1
Philosopher
Actually any kind of punishment is social retaliation. Rehabilitation may be one goal but punishment is the other. The main thing is to protect society from predators.