Do you agree with death penalty?

[Tetchytyke]

Emotionally i understand the attraction of the eye for an eye approach

I think it depends. An acquaintance of mine from uni lost his wife, and was badly injured himself, in one of the big ISIS gun attacks a couple of years ago, and he's even more firmly against both the death penalty and racism against Islamic people. I applaud him for having the strength, I'm not sure I would. But there are plenty of people- here and elsewhere- who speak on behalf of terrorist attack victims without bothering to find out what these victims think.

I think Antman's point is that jurors probably interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" (which is deliberately not quantified in instructions to them) to mean somewhere between 95%-99.9% sure; but that the death penalty should only be applied when a higher standard of certainty is met - perhaps five 9's or even more, which could perhaps be described as "way beyond reasonable doubt"

This is where much of the cost comes in, at least in the US. They have one trial to decide if a defendant is guilty and then what is effectively a second trial to decide if the defendant is so guilty that they should be put to death.

 

[TheKnightWho]

This is where much of the cost comes in, at least in the US. They have one trial to decide if a defendant is guilty and then what is effectively a second trial to decide if the defendant is so guilty that they should be put to death.

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent, because it effectively lowers the burden of proof for guilt.

There will always be doubt - that's the nature of real life. However, what levels exist between "beyond reasonable doubt" and the unachievable "no doubt at all"?

 

[DarloRich]

I think it depends. An acquaintance of mine from uni lost his wife, and was badly injured himself, in one of the big ISIS gun attacks a couple of years ago, and he's even more firmly against both the death penalty and racism against Islamic people. I applaud him for having the strength, I'm not sure I would. But there are plenty of people- here and elsewhere- who speak on behalf of terrorist attack victims without bothering to find out what these victims think.

He is a better man than me!

 

[J-2739]

Take a read of this:
http://news.sky.com/story/knife-attacker-inspired-by-is-gets-life-in-jail-10519323

This is an example of people who deserve to be locked up for ever with no opportunity to get out, if not the death sentence. A 'minimum of 8 and a half years' is not enough to justify for the lives of whom he was trying to end.

 

[GB]

But there are plenty of people- here and elsewhere- who speak on behalf of terrorist attack victims without bothering to find out what these victims think.

So unless you have been directly involved in a terrorist or ones views differ from someone that has, ones opinion is invalid?

 

[Tetchytyke]

So unless you have been directly involved in a terrorist or ones views differ from someone that has, ones opinion is invalid?

One's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has never experienced.

This is an excellent example of what I mean:

why should they be given time off for good behaviour or because they have become a remorseful person, stuff that, their victim / victims had their lives cut short

 

[Gutfright]

One's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has never experienced.

It's possible that people enjoy being killed but I doubt it.

The problem is it's very difficult to find out what people think after they've been murdered, as corpses rarely voice an opinion on their attackers. Therefore, it's left to non-victims to decide how the killer should be dealt with.

There's also the argument that one's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has experienced. For example, if someone stole my car I would probably want the death penalty for the thief. Victims don't always think rationally.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Islam is not a race.

Yawn.

The problem is it's very difficult to find out what people think after they've been murdered, as corpses rarely voice an opinion on their attackers. Therefore, it's left to non-victims to decide how the killer should be dealt with.

You're assuming all victims of, say, a terrorist attack get killed.

There's also the argument that one's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has experienced.

Indeed there is.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There's also the argument that one's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has experienced. For example, if someone stole my car I would probably want the death penalty for the thief. Victims don't always think rationally.

This kind of thinking is usually used by people who are ignorant of topics to justify why they should be allowed to speak over those who have first-hand experience. Usually the very same people who use their experience as a way to make their voices heard in areas where they do have first-hand experience.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make, because it essentially prioritises detached ignorance. We're intelligent enough to work out when someone is saying something out of distorted passion rather than first-hand knowledge, and don't need to dismiss them outright.

 

[J-2739]

There's also the argument that one's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has experienced. For example, if someone stole my car I would probably want the death penalty for the thief. Victims don't always think rationally.

That's a little extreme. Are you seriously asking to end someone's life just because 'they stole your car'?

You could always buy another car. You obviously can't buy a victim back to life.

 

[Antman]

Emotionally i understand the attraction of the eye for an eye approach but I simply do not feel it is punishment, odd as that may seem.

That is before we consider the ethical points, the irreversible nature of a miscarriage of justice ( which will always happen despite the safety nets) in these cases




what of the crime passionnel ? What of the fight outside a pub after a decent sup? What of the abused killing thier abuser? What of the killer who finds god and repents? Real life, and the law, simply isn't that clear.

My view is that I would like tougher sentences for those convicted of heinous crimes but in advocating that we have to accept that costs us more in building more prisons to store these criminals and care for them when they become aged



So do we change the burden of proof? Convictions are on a beyond treasonable doubt basis. That is very different to no doubt. I would suggest there is always doubt and creating or "exploiting" that doubt is the job of counsel.

I didn't say anything about changing the burden of proof.

For the death penalty to be considered somebody would have to be found guilty beyond any doubt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a little extreme. Are you seriously asking to end someone's life just because 'they stole your car'?

You could always buy another car. You obviously can't buy a victim back to life.

I suspect he's just using that as an example of victims not thinking rationally, whether that is correct is another matter.

 

[Gutfright]

You're assuming all victims of, say, a terrorist attack get killed.

I'm assuming all victims of murder get killed.

This kind of thinking is usually used by people who are ignorant of topics to justify why they should be allowed to speak over those who have first-hand experience. Usually the very same people who use their experience as a way to make their voices heard in areas where they do have first-hand experience.

So because a similar sort of argument is usually used by jerks, we should always dismiss it out of hand?

It's quite a dangerous argument to make, because it essentially prioritises detached ignorance. We're intelligent enough to work out when someone is saying something out of distorted passion rather than first-hand knowledge, and don't need to dismiss them outright.

First-hand knowledge of what? A victim of car theft has first-hand knowledge of how it feels to have their car stolen, yet if they called for capital punishment for car thieves their view should be dismissed outright.

That's a little extreme. Are you seriously asking to end someone's life just because 'they stole your car'?

You could always buy another car. You obviously can't buy a victim back to life.

If someone stole my car I would be very angry and that would probably cloud my judgement. I might want the thief to be killed at the time, but that doesn't mean that they should be.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm assuming all victims of murder get killed.

Attempted murders don't happen, then? No family victims of murders, etc.?

So because a similar sort of argument is usually used by jerks, we should always dismiss it out of hand?

It's a bad argument because it makes no sense. See the point I made about being able to distinguish. Or do you think people who have no experience or investment should be the only people who make decisions on anything? Because that would be total madness. If not, why should it only apply here?

First-hand knowledge of what? A victim of car theft has first-hand knowledge of how it feels to have their car stolen, yet if they called for capital punishment for car thiefs their view should be dismissed outright.

Yet you made the general point that we could dismiss people who have first-hand experience because they might be emotionally invested. Backtracking to a specific example doesn't change the argument you first made, nor the implications of it.

 

[Gutfright]

Attempted murders don't happen, then? No family victims of murders, etc.?

"Attempted murder" and "murder" are two different crimes.

I take your point that the loved ones of a murdered person could also be considered victims of the murderer, but they're not victims of murder.

I believe in parts of the USA they have "victim impact statements", where the victim of a crime tells the court how sad they are that a crime happened to them. Imo this is a bad idea. The jury and the judge should be as detached and analytical as possible, which means trying to take emotion out of the equation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

"Attempted murder" and "murder" are two different crimes.

I take your point that the loved ones of a murdered person could also be considered victims of the murderer, but they're not victims of murder.

I believe in parts of the USA they have "victim impact statements", where the victim of a crime tells the court how sad they are that a crime happened to them. Imo this is a bad idea. The jury and the judge should be as detached and analytical as possible, which means trying to take emotion out of the equation.

"Detached and analytical" are complete misnomers. It's impossible to have no emotional state, and part of the very thing that makes murder so horrific is the emotional impact it has. This attitude has #edgy teenager written all over it, and conflates "lack of investment" with "objectivity" with little rational basis to it. Then again, I consistently hear this argument from people who want to discredit those most impacted by events.

 

[Gutfright]

"Detached and analytical" are complete misnomers. It's impossible to have no emotional state,

That's why I said "as detached and analytical as possible" and not "100% detached and analytical".

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's why I said "as detached and analytical as possible" and not "100% detached and analytical".

Please explain how you can do this without being ignorant of the situation. Given you've utterly ignored the point about emotional hurt being part of the issue, it doesn't seem like you've given this much thought.

 

[Lankyline]

One's opinion is invalid if it is based on a victimhood one has never experienced.

This is an excellent example of what I mean:

Sorry an excellent example of what exactly and what in gods name is victimhood ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

He is a better man than me!

He's a better man than me, too, he really is.

My view has always been that an eye for an eye just leaves everyone half-blind. I'd like to think I'd keep that view if something like that happened. But still.

 

[Gutfright]

Please explain how you can do this without being ignorant of the situation.

By prioritising facts and evidence over the victim's feelings.

It sounds harsh, but it's the best way to get justice.

 

[TheKnightWho]

By prioritising facts and evidence over the victim's feelings.

It sounds harsh, but it's the best way to get justice.

Please tell me more about these perspective-less facts.

I know this is attractive for people who are ""rational"" like yourself, but frankly such attitudes are usually codeword for "my opinion is objective because I can't empathise with others who hold different ones".

 

[Gutfright]

Please tell me more about these perspective-less facts.

Who says they don't have any perspective?

I know this is attractive for people who are ""rational"" like yourself, but frankly such attitudes are usually codeword for "my opinion is objective because I can't empathise with others who hold different ones".

Usually =/= always.

 

[bb21]

Please find previous off-topic posts here.

 

[Antman]

If I were representing Edward Tenniswood I would struggle to put up a case for this vile individual to be spared the death penalty.

 

[Jonny]

If I were representing Edward Tenniswood I would struggle to put up a case for this vile individual to be spared the death penalty.

Maybe, but at least the Judge will have the option of a whole-life term. Who needs the death penalty?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If I were representing Edward Tenniswood I would struggle to put up a case for this vile individual to be spared the death penalty.

Hmm. The only sentence for murder is life, he'll be 82 before he can be considered for parole (which is very different to actually being granted it), and I'm sure his fellow prisoners will already be lining up to make his life a living hell. He'll probably spend most of the next thirty years in seclusion for his own safety. It's hardly going to be a nice experience.

If bloodlust and revenge is your thing, you'd get more sport out of keeping the ******* alive.

And if bloodlust and revenge isn't your thing, you can go about safe in the knowledge that we haven't stooped to his level.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Are you suggesting killing psychopaths before they've committed a crime?

I'm afraid that in a modern western democracy, people have to be presenting an imminent threat before you can open fire on them...

So how are you going to protect us from the psychopaths ? The Russell Square murderer will always be a threat to us all for as long as he lives - execute him and that threat is gone. Unfortunately a poor innocent woman has lost her life because of your attitude. What is wrong with putting the rights and safety of everyday folk ahead of a murderous loony ?

Similarly to the EU poll

 

[NSEFAN]

What are the odds of being killed by a random stranger? Compare with the odds of dying from preventable diseases and car crashes. I would suggest the money spent on executing the occasional madman murderer is better spent on improving lifestyles and road safety, if the aim is to protect people.

 

[AlterEgo]

So how are you going to protect us from the psychopaths ? The Russell Square murderer will always be a threat to us all for as long as he lives - execute him and that threat is gone. Unfortunately a poor innocent woman has lost her life because of your attitude. What is wrong with putting the rights and safety of everyday folk ahead of a murderous loony ?

Similarly to the EU poll

You didn't answer my question. You asked if you could just execute psychopaths OR did you have to wait until they were actually throttling someone?

Hence my question - are you suggesting killing all psychopaths even before they've committed a crime?

 

[Antman]

What are the odds of being killed by a random stranger? Compare with the odds of dying from preventable diseases and car crashes. I would suggest the money spent on executing the occasional madman murderer is better spent on improving lifestyles and road safety, if the aim is to protect people.

How much money would be spent on executing this occasional madman murderer?