Do you agree with death penalty?

[kevconnor]

As my signature may allude to my position on this is rather clear. I could list several miscarriage of justice in circumstances which would have led to capital punishment. In 1991, 6 months before they were released by Courts of Appeal, Lord Denning had this to say about the Birmingham six in a Spectator interview:

"It ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten, and the whole community would be satisfied."

If you want to know some of those who may never have been proven innocent just look at this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom

I am also with Desmond Tutu when he says "If you take a life, whe a life has been taken, that is revenge, not justice."

The concept of a deterrent doesn't wash either, those places which have it don't inherrently have lower crime levels, quite the opposite in some areas.

 

[Antman]

Which is everyone who is convicted of murder. Otherwise, there is doubt and the conviction can be easily overturned. Is I've said already (if you'd bothered to read it), it's a very dangerous precedent for the legal system.

I'm not entirely sure what aspects of that post were "hyperbole".

At the moment people are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, surely the difference is obvious?

 

[GB]

For the record, I think the death penalty is an extreme punishment. However, I have no problem having it reintroduced for extreme circumstances. I don't care if that makes the perpetrator a martyr or if my opinion makes me no different to them according to others.

 

[cb a1]

If a person murdered someone I care deeply about, would I want to see that person executed?

For me, the answer is an unequivocal No. Maybe it's because I'm an atheist, but a dead person can't suffer, can't feel pain. They're dead. If anything, I see CP as the lesser sentence compared to life imprisonment.

 

[SS4]

For the record, I think the death penalty is an extreme punishment. However, I have no problem having it reintroduced for extreme circumstances. I don't care if that makes the perpetrator a martyr or if my opinion makes me no different to them according to others.

It doesn't matter how you see them though for the argument of making the perpetrator a martyr though. It's their followers and apologists that matter in this case. Look at what happened when the Easter Rising was put down by executing the leaders.

Whilst you'll never rehabilitate the worst offenders (especially those who don't wish to learn like religiously motivated crimes such as "honour" killings) letting them rot is much better.

 

[me123]

At the moment people are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, surely the difference is obvious?

So, under your model, someone could be convicted beyond reasonable doubt, but the jury/judge isn't certain so they won't get executed, am I correct? If so, the sentenced individual will be quite easily able to overturn their sentence on the basis that there must be more than reasonable doubt. That would be a very easy appeal process. So we'll likely end up in a situation that all convicted murderers will be sentenced to death.

Do you support this model?

This is the reason that all convictions (from speeding to murder and everything in between) are proven "beyond reasonable doubt". It's the same standard for everything, and it would be wrong and dangerous to put in this extra standard of "certainty" into the equation. In fact, it will be very rare that certainty exists in these circumstances, because lots of people who go through the legal process maintain their innocence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Another reason against is people have to be involved in administering it. Is it fair to ask people to kill or be involved in the killing?

Was it fair to ask those who shot the lorry driver in Nice and the killers of Father Jacques Hamel to administer the 'killing'? I'm somewhat intrigued that those people were - in effect - given capital punishment (albeit in somewhat ad hoc manner) and I have yet to see a single person here object to that, despite the large number of people objecting to CP in principle. That seems a tad inconsistent to me.

I think one of the reasons for being against is that death isn't really a punishment. Let them suffer in prison.

Ultimately capital punishment is vengeance rather than justice, so has no place in a just legal system.

So on the one hand we have Mojo (and some other people) arguing against CP on the grounds that - if I've understood your posts correctly - prison amounts to better vengeance, and others arguing against CP because it's vengeance and vengeance is wrong. Which is it? Surely both of those arguments cannot be simultaneously right?

(FWIW I'm in the camp that says vengeance is wrong. I'm undecided about CP because, although in principle I'm inclined towards the view that killing anyone is wrong, I also think there may be circumstances when CP is, rationally, the least bad thing to do in terms of protecting potential future victims of the criminal/terrorist)

 

[TheKnightWho]

So on the one hand we have Mojo (and some other people) arguing against CP on the grounds that - if I've understood your posts correctly - prison amounts to better vengeance, and others arguing against CP because it's vengeance and vengeance is wrong. Which is it? Surely both of those arguments cannot be simultaneously right?

I don't think there's any inconsistency if different people are arguing for the same thing for different reasons.

I'm also not convinced they're incompatible with each other: vengeance is not inherently undesirable, but can be very useful in conjunction with a rehabilitative element; indeed, preventing recurrence is why we have an inclination towards vengeance in the first place. The death penalty doesn't serve to achieve this with the individual in question, however. Combined with the fact it's not a useful deterrent, the death penalty can be both wrong because it's solely about vengeance with no useful purpose, and also not a real punishment either because it's relatively quite painless.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think there's any inconsistency if different people are arguing for the same thing for different reasons.

Indeed. And in moral issues you're never searching for an absolute truth.

 

[me123]

Was it fair to ask those who shot the lorry driver in Nice and the killers of Father Jacques Hamel to administer the 'killing'? I'm somewhat intrigued that those people were - in effect - given capital punishment (albeit in somewhat ad hoc manner) and I have yet to see a single person here object to that, despite the large number of people objecting to CP in principle. That seems a tad inconsistent to me.

I would say that it is, on occasion, appropriate to use lethal force in policing in order to protect the public, where it is the most appropriate (i.e. only) option in that circumstance. This is, of course, a very rare occurrence. Whether that was the case in the instance you discussed is open to question - I do not know enough surrounding the specific details to comment in those particular instances.

Of course, there are many situations were the use of lethal force by police services has been inappropriate.

This is all very different to CP - in CP, the perpetrator is under control in custody. Killing them does nothing to protect the public.

 

[AlterEgo]

The shooting of people by the police or armed services isn't capital punishment anyway.

Police or armed services may shoot if they feel their life, or the life of an innocent party, is under threat. It's not a punishment, it's a way of keeping people out of harm.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I would say that it is, on occasion, appropriate to use lethal force in policing in order to protect the public, where it is the most appropriate (i.e. only) option in that circumstance. This is, of course, a very rare occurrence. Whether that was the case in the instance you discussed is open to question - I do not know enough surrounding the specific details to comment in those particular instances.

Of course, there are many situations were the use of lethal force by police services has been inappropriate.

This is all very different to CP - in CP, the perpetrator is under control in custody. Killing them does nothing to protect the public.

So we spend more money on keeping someone in prison than we would on treating a cancer patient - someone who has committed a heinous act and would do so again given the chance ?

Law abiding citizens who are terrorised by murderous psychopaths are then expected to pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives.

Also, as you have eluded to, agents of the establishment can on the spot decide whether or not they (and they alone) consider someone enough of a threat to warrant execution. So in many respects we do already have a death penalty.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So we spend more money on keeping someone in prison than we would on treating a cancer patient - someone who has committed a heinous act and would do so again given the chance ?

Law abiding citizens who are terrorised by murderous psychopaths are then expected to pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives.

Also, as you have eluded to, agents of the establishment can on the spot decide whether or not they (and they alone) consider someone enough of a threat to warrant execution. So in many respects we do already have a death penalty.

Did you actually read the bit about where it's more expensive to execute someone than keep them in prison for life?

Or do you think we'd actually go back to the 1940s about it? Because if you think that'd happen you're totally deluded.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also, as you have eluded to, agents of the establishment can on the spot decide whether or not they (and they alone) consider someone enough of a threat to warrant execution. So in many respects we do already have a death penalty.

It isn't a death penalty as I described earlier.

The shooting is to keep people safe. It is not a judicial punishment administered by the state, or any single individual.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

It isn't a death penalty as I described earlier.

The shooting is to keep people safe. It is not a judicial punishment administered by the state, or any single individual.

Would not executing psychopaths keep people safe or do you have to wait until they are actually throttling someone and hope there is an armed response unit in the vicinity (unlikely as due to funding cuts etc etc).

The decision is based on what is deemed for the good of the community at large.
It would be interesting to ascertain how many people have been murdered by repeat offenders.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would not executing psychopaths keep people safe or do you have to wait until they are actually throttling someone and hope there is an armed response unit in the vicinity (unlikely as due to funding cuts etc etc).

The decision is based on what is deemed for the good of the community at large.
It would be interesting to ascertain how many people have been murdered by repeat offenders.

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...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course, there are many situations were the use of lethal force by police services has been inappropriate.

This is all very different to CP - in CP, the perpetrator is under control in custody. Killing them does nothing to protect the public.

Doesn't it? What if a person has a history or clear intentions of coordinating more crimes either from prison or when eventually released? It seems to me that there have been enough instances of people in prison attempting to or succeeding in doing that kind of thing (eg. using smuggled mobile phones) to suggest that completely preventing that while keeping a reasonably humane prison system is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible. That rather suggests that in some (admittedly, rare) situations, it may well be that CP is the only way of protecting the public. The difference between that and a police marksman killing someone who poses an imminent danger would appear to me to be one of timescale rather than principle.

I don't think there's any inconsistency if different people are arguing for the same thing for different reasons.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with people putting different arguments. My point was that one of those arguments must be faulty. Your counter-argument (below) in which you state that vengeance is not inherently undesirable would imply that the faulty argument is the one that states that CP is undesirable because it's about vengeance. Oddly, that perfectly matches the point I was making

I'm also not convinced they're incompatible with each other: vengeance is not inherently undesirable, but can be very useful in conjunction with a rehabilitative element; indeed, preventing recurrence is why we have an inclination towards vengeance in the first place. The death penalty doesn't serve to achieve this with the individual in question, however. Combined with the fact it's not a useful deterrent, the death penalty can be both wrong because it's solely about vengeance with no useful purpose, and also not a real punishment either because it's relatively quite painless.

I do not agree that the death penalty is solely about vengeance - and you'll notice that none of the possible arguments I've suggested in favour of CP rely on vengeance. The arguments I've put forward are based on the idea that imposing CP, while undesirable in itself, overall does less harm than the alternatives.

 

[J-2739]

I do not agree that the death penalty is solely about vengeance - and you'll notice that none of the possible arguments I've suggested in favour of CP rely on vengeance. The arguments I've put forward are based on the idea that imposing CP, while undesirable in itself, overall does less harm than the alternatives.

I thought vengeance was a prime argument of the death penalty in America? I heard somewhere (can't remember, probably ID) that in the US, people are generally less reluctant to put death on someone who committed a serious crime on someone close to them than we are.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I thought vengeance was a prime argument of the death penalty in America? I heard somewhere (can't remember, probably ID) that in the US, people are generally less reluctant to put death on someone who committed a serious crime on someone close to them than we are.

Sure, many of the arguments that other people have put forward to justify the death penalty in the past in practice have been based on vengeance. I would regard those arguments as morally wrong - because, to my mind, vengeance is morally wrong. However, my point is that, in principle, vengeance is not the only argument in favour of the death penalty. There are other possible arguments, including the possibility that there may be some situations in which avoiding the death penalty ultimately does more harm (such as resulting in the perpetrator later killing/raping/committing other crimes against other people) than using the death penalty.

 

[Jonny]

There are two problems - one of mental capacity (such as the Derek Bentley case) and expansion to criminal acts other than murder (typically treason and/or drugs offences).

In fact, there have been executions in South-East Asia for drugs offences. That is a significant issue, since any victims are indirect, if at all. It shows that governments may not be trusted only to use it for direct killers.

Also, in the USA, the death penalty has been passed on conspirators to murder when the killer has not been sentenced to death.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with people putting different arguments. My point was that one of those arguments must be faulty. Your counter-argument (below) in which you state that vengeance is not inherently undesirable would imply that the faulty argument is the one that states that CP is undesirable because it's about vengeance. Oddly, that perfectly matches the point I was making

I'm not sure that's quite true, though - there's a distinction between the death penalty being wrong because it's about vengeance, which is the view you're saying must be wrong in this comparison, and the death penalty being wrong because it's only or primarily about vengeance, which I argue is not incompatible with the view that the death penalty is wrong because it isn't punishment enough.

I do not agree that the death penalty is solely about vengeance - and you'll notice that none of the possible arguments I've suggested in favour of CP rely on vengeance. The arguments I've put forward are based on the idea that imposing CP, while undesirable in itself, overall does less harm than the alternatives.

Sure, but I wasn't making an argument against your own arguments in favour of CP - I was simply explaining how the two views you claimed were incompatible weren't.

 

[dcsprior]

So, under your model, someone could be convicted beyond reasonable doubt, but the jury/judge isn't certain so they won't get executed, am I correct? If so, the sentenced individual will be quite easily able to overturn their sentence on the basis that there must be more than reasonable doubt. That would be a very easy appeal process. So we'll likely end up in a situation that all convicted murderers will be sentenced to death.

Do you support this model?

This is the reason that all convictions (from speeding to murder and everything in between) are proven "beyond reasonable doubt". It's the same standard for everything, and it would be wrong and dangerous to put in this extra standard of "certainty" into the equation. In fact, it will be very rare that certainty exists in these circumstances, because lots of people who go through the legal process maintain their innocence.

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"

Unlike Antman, I don't think that the death penalty should ever be available, but I don't think the point he's making is invalid.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One argment against the death penalty that I eon't think anyone has mentioned is that it may increase the chance of innocent people pleading guilty as part of a deal to avoid it... if I was accused of murder and thought there was even a 1% chance I'd be convicted & executed, I'd try and avoid this even if it meant pleadimg guilty when I'd done nothing.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[me123]

So we spend more money on keeping someone in prison than we would on treating a cancer patient - someone who has committed a heinous act and would do so again given the chance ?

Law abiding citizens who are terrorised by murderous psychopaths are then expected to pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives.

The statistics on the implementation of capital punishment demonstrate that you actually spend more money executing somebody than you do giving them food and board for the rest of their lives (certainly in the USA). This is for a variety of reasons:
1) You can't just execute someone quickly. You have to allow time for the extensive appeals procedure. In the US, this is an average of 15 which is already an extensive time to be looking after them (probably a significant portion of the life sentence in many cases).
2) The security is higher - most places that I'm aware of, Death Row inmates are kept separate from the rest of the prison community. This has costs associated with it.
3) The extensive appeals process costs a lot of money. Now, of course, the US system will not be replicated in the UK. But it would be naive to think that we wouldn't need a similarly robust process, and that does come at a significant cost.

The counter argument to this is that we should just crack on and kill them quickly anyway, but that simply isn't a legal solution. As the death penalty is final and irreversible, the appeals process must be exhausted before the sentence is carried out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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"

But surely if they are already beyond reasonable doubt they'd be quite happy to agree to the death penalty? Otherwise, there is a demonstration of reasonable doubt that would be used by the defendant in the appeals process. Certainty is exceptionally difficult to prove in these sorts of cases, but introducing a demand for absolute certainty would risk other cases falling apart. You'd potentially see murderers successfully appeal their cases based on small pieces of circumstantial evidence.

I don't think people realise how silly and dangerous this idea is. Everything in the UK is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that must be the case in all judicial decisions.

In the US, at the point in a capital trial when a jury has to decide upon use of the death penalty, the defendant is guilty. There is no quibbling about reasonable doubt vs absolute certainty. The defendant has been found guilty. The jurors' job at that point is to decide whether the case is a capital murder case, as defined by the laws of that state, or not.

(This all assumes that we follow the US model in mandating that a jury decides upon use of the death penalty - I understand in the UK it was the judge that made that decision).

 

[Antman]

For the record, I think the death penalty is an extreme punishment. However, I have no problem having it reintroduced for extreme circumstances. I don't care if that makes the perpetrator a martyr or if my opinion makes me no different to them according to others.

My thoughts exactly, I'm not for one minute suggesting every murderer should fact the death penalty but in extreme circumstances and when there is no doubt whatsoever about their guilt, maybe.

 

[J-2739]

There are other possible arguments, including the possibility that there may be some situations in which avoiding the death penalty ultimately does more harm (such as resulting in the perpetrator later killing/raping/committing other crimes against other people) than using the death penalty.

This was what I was thinking, that in some of these, not long enough sentences are given. When they come out, they can't do anything like a good job because of their criminal records, so they might revert back to commiting offences and they'd be back to square 1.
If death sentences are not reintroduced, then I think life sentences without possibility of parole should. I might even prefer the latter.

 

[Butts]

I'm not in favour of Capital Punishment mainly due to the "miscarriage of justice standpoint" Lazarus notwithstanding erroneous sentences are hard to rectify. A posthumous pardon is not much use to the "late" offender.

Neither am I in favour of Life Sentences with no hope of parole and or release under licence. Are we not sending people to prison and denying them their liberty which is the punishment rather than to be punished ?

Surely the way miscreants are treated reflects how civilised a society is. There should always be hope of rehabilitation for offenders who acknowledge their crime and seek ways to ameliorate it.

Failing the above Transportation to Australia remains an option to be considered.

 

[Lankyline]

Problem is that in this day and age, life imprisonment is not life, yet that is exactly what it should be. Anyone committing a capital crime ie murder should lose their freedom for the rest of their life, they have taken someone else's life, 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, lock them up throw away the key and then carry them out in a box. Unfair on the prisoner's human rights, sorry they gave up their rights when they carried out the crime.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Problem is that in this day and age, life imprisonment is not life, yet that is exactly what it should be. Anyone committing a capital crime ie murder should lose their freedom for the rest of their life, they have taken someone else's life, 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, lock them up throw away the key and then carry them out in a box. Unfair on the prisoner's human rights, sorry they gave up their rights when they carried out the crime.

You don't give up rights, because that means they aren't rights. Rights aren't worth the paper they're written on if they're only there when convenient.

Punishments are only as valuable as the society that gives them - having no chance for parole or rehabilitation neither works as a deterrent nor does it make prisons cheaper to run. Just compare America and Norway to see the difference between extreme prisons and those that focus on genuine prevention. America has had little/no success in reducing crime where it has simply made prisons harsher.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Problem is that in this day and age, life imprisonment is not life, yet that is exactly what it should be. Anyone committing a capital crime ie murder should lose their freedom for the rest of their life, they have taken someone else's life, 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, lock them up throw away the key and then carry them out in a box. Unfair on the prisoner's human rights, sorry they gave up their rights when they carried out the crime.

Looking upon the word "life" in that of Biblical terms, you look at a period of 70 years, so the usual remission of sentence would still mean that a time period of 35 years has still to be served.

 

[DarloRich]

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

Problem is that in this day and age, life imprisonment is not life, yet that is exactly what it should be. Anyone committing a capital crime ie murder should lose their freedom for the rest of their life, they have taken someone else's life, 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, lock them up throw away the key and then carry them out in a box. Unfair on the prisoner's human rights, sorry they gave up their rights when they carried out the crime.

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

My thoughts exactly, I'm not for one minute suggesting every murderer should fact the death penalty but in extreme circumstances and when there is no doubt whatsoever about their guilt, maybe.

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.