Discussion
I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty. Caught between "hang em high" and "hanging an innocent".
However, the case of the MacDs killer really gets me.
Here is someone who stabbed to death a woman in view of 50 witnesses and was apprehended as it happened by members of the public. There is absolutely no doubt here about the innocence of this guy.
Could someone tell me why this person shouldn't be hanged?
However, the case of the MacDs killer really gets me.
Here is someone who stabbed to death a woman in view of 50 witnesses and was apprehended as it happened by members of the public. There is absolutely no doubt here about the innocence of this guy.
Could someone tell me why this person shouldn't be hanged?
deckster said:
Because that makes us as bad as them. Revenge killings have no place in a civilised society.
I don’t see it as revenge, I see it as preventing this person from committing any further crime of this nature. Otherwise they lock him up, he gets out for good behaviour after serving only half his sentence then committs the same crime again.
Eric Mc said:
The best way to ascertain if the death penalty serves any purpose (other than revenge) is to look at countries and societies where it is used.
It does serve a purpose, it's cheaper than keeping them locked up. Debatable if that, on it's own, is good enough justification though.
Europe isn't an excuse, and its only a bit of legislation and can be changed.
My question is why we shouldn't execute this person in terms of humanity.
I mean, how much humanity did he show as he plunged the knife into her chest? Why should society respect his humanity when he showed so little for memebers of that same society?
My question is why we shouldn't execute this person in terms of humanity.
I mean, how much humanity did he show as he plunged the knife into her chest? Why should society respect his humanity when he showed so little for memebers of that same society?
Plotloss said:
If you take the life of someone else then you deserve to lose your life as punishment.
^ I can't find a frowning nodding smiley so this'll have to do!!
It drives me to the absolute brink of madness as to how people can kill for all the selfish reasons they do. It doesn't matter if it's money, religion, or worst of all some sort of kick, life should be cherished and respected and as with this case if it's 100% that the killer is guilty, then they too should lose their life.
I agree. There can be no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty. He should be void of human rights for the rest of his days. Why kill him? Leave him in a damp horrible grotty cell with no daylight with the minimum amount of food to keep him alive until the end of his days.
Make sure there's no toilet in there either.
Make sure there's no toilet in there either.
Of course killing him would be 'revenge'. You killed someone, therefore as we'll kill you and see how you like it. I can't think of any other word for it!
So because he's behaved in an 'inhuman' manner, we should too? Nope, really don't see the logic of that. Either we're civilised, in which case we deal with scum like him in a civilised manner, or we're not - in which case how can we condemn him in the first place?
As an aside, given mankind's short and largely brutal history, I can't really see how murdering someone in cold blood is 'inhuman' - it's entirely in our nature - but the whole point civilisation is to distance ourselves from our animal sides. After all you don't hear lions killing their own offspring being decried as 'infeline' and we're really not so far removed!
The death penalty also denies the possibility that someone can genuinely change and become a 'better' person; unlikely in some cases perhaps, in which case life without parole seems a reasonable way to go, but I wouldn't ever like to entirely rule it out.
tinman0 said:
I mean, how much humanity did he show as he plunged the knife into her chest? Why should society respect his humanity when he showed so little for memebers of that same society?
So because he's behaved in an 'inhuman' manner, we should too? Nope, really don't see the logic of that. Either we're civilised, in which case we deal with scum like him in a civilised manner, or we're not - in which case how can we condemn him in the first place?
As an aside, given mankind's short and largely brutal history, I can't really see how murdering someone in cold blood is 'inhuman' - it's entirely in our nature - but the whole point civilisation is to distance ourselves from our animal sides. After all you don't hear lions killing their own offspring being decried as 'infeline' and we're really not so far removed!
The death penalty also denies the possibility that someone can genuinely change and become a 'better' person; unlikely in some cases perhaps, in which case life without parole seems a reasonable way to go, but I wouldn't ever like to entirely rule it out.
To work properly the death penalty needs to be at the top of a criminal justice system based on punishment instead of the current politically correct joke. Birching is good for the chav element, it can be used therapeutically or on special occasions like when they key cars. For their parents the ASBO joke should be replaced by the stocks. Hold them up to ridicule in front of society and pelt them with bad eggs, dog poo etc.. Moslem Sharia law works well in the middle east so we could learn from that and start cutting bits off thieves, makes it more difficult to repeat the crime and serves as a visual marker. Of course we wouldn't be in this situation if we didn't let the low lifes breed. All the above punishments should come with a compulsary snip.
>> Edited by bruciebabe on Tuesday 19th April 12:56
>> Edited by bruciebabe on Tuesday 19th April 12:56
>> Edited by bruciebabe on Tuesday 19th April 12:56
>> Edited by bruciebabe on Tuesday 19th April 12:56
deckster said:
The death penalty also denies the possibility that someone can genuinely change and become a 'better' person; unlikely in some cases perhaps, in which case life without parole seems a reasonable way to go, but I wouldn't ever like to entirely rule it out.
How do we judge?
For the worst crimes life should mean life.
For many others it should mean imprisonment until they are too old/infirm to be a danger to others.
The point of the death penalty is most certainly not revenge. It is the administration of justice. Murdereres (and perhaps traitors, paedophiles etc.) having commited these crimes deserve punishment by death. It's not just a case of killing them to make victims (or their families) feel better, or to save money.
The 'hang the wrong guy' point is valid i suppose, but surely only people that are proven 100% guilty should be convicted.
>> Edited by magnum on Tuesday 19th April 13:00
The 'hang the wrong guy' point is valid i suppose, but surely only people that are proven 100% guilty should be convicted.
>> Edited by magnum on Tuesday 19th April 13:00
bruciebabe said:
To work properly the death penalty needs to be at the top of a criminal justice system based on punishment instead of the current politically correct joke. Birching is good for the chav element, it can be used therapeutically or on special occasions like when they key cars. For their parents the ASBO joke should be replaced by the stocks. Hold them up to ridicule in front of society and pelt them with bad eggs, dog poo etc.. Moslem Sharia law works well in the middle east so we could learn from that and start cutting bits off thieves, makes it more difficult to repeat the crime and serves as a visual marker. Of course we wouldn't be in this situation if we didn't let the low lifes breed. All the above punishments should come with a compulsary snip.
You're onto something there. Islamic justice does have its good points!
Edited to add - I like the dog poo comment as well!
>> Edited by crazydave on Tuesday 19th April 13:02
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff