Death Penalty

[Billy_Dean]

I think Clocker made a good point there. You say it's revenge, he says it's a penalty. It's arguable to say that life in prison is worse than death, people have stated that view in this thread, is it not then merciful to put them to death to save them from a life in prison?

There is no doubt in my mind that people who commit premeditated murder deserve to be killed. I've said before that I would be happy to see corporal punishment used if it could be established beyond any doubt that the person was guilty. How do you establish that tho?

I lived in Saudia Arabia for a time in the late 70's. In the evenings we would walk through the souk, along tiny dark alleyways, into places, where, were you in Morocco or similar, you would not be safe. But we were, there was almost no crime. It's no coincidence that they had (have) public executions, and hands off for theft. I left a brand new Olympus OM2 camera under the table of a juice bar, went back an hour later and it was still there; where else would that happen?

Maybe a return to the sport of public executions is not such a bad idea Clocker.

[junkyardking]

I'm agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 15:59
I'm agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

It's not revenge, any more than imprisonment is ... it's punishment.

[the.gringo]

Originally posted by junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 06:59
I'm agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent.

Execution carried out by the state does not warrant revenge it is JUSTICE.

If one was to kill with the intent of getting VENGEANCE this would be simply VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

Yes, innocent people have been executed but the reality is that with modern forensic investigation techniques such as DNA tests etc. we are able to in MOST cases the guilty ones are those who recieve the lethal injection or firing squad etc.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@1 January 2004 - 06:30
I think Clocker made a good point there.  You say it's revenge, he says it's a penalty.  It's arguable to say that life in prison is worse than death, people have stated that view in this thread, is it not then merciful to put them to death to save them from a life in prison?

There is no doubt in my mind that people who commit premeditated murder deserve to be killed. I've said before that I would be happy to see corporal punishment used if it could be established beyond any doubt that the person was guilty.  How do you establish that tho?

I lived in Saudia Arabia for a time in the late 70's.  In the evenings we would walk through the souk, along tiny dark alleyways, into places, where, were you in Morocco or similar, you would not be safe.  But we were, there was almost no crime.  It's no coincidence that they had (have) public executions, and hands off for theft.  I left a brand new Olympus OM2 camera under the table of a juice bar, went back an hour later and it was still there; where else would that happen?

Maybe a return to the sport of public executions is not such a bad idea Clocker.

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by the.gringo+1 January 2004 - 11:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (the.gringo @ 1 January 2004 - 11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 06:59
I&#39;m agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent.

Execution carried out by the state does not warrant revenge it is JUSTICE.

If one was to kill with the intent of getting VENGEANCE this would be simply VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

Yes, innocent people have been executed but the reality is that with modern forensic investigation techniques such as DNA tests etc. we are able to in MOST cases the guilty ones are those who recieve the lethal injection or firing squad etc. [/b][/quote]
Call it what you want, justice or an eye or an eye it&#39;s still revenge.

Modern forensics are just an other piece of evidence with the flaws that come along with it, innocent people will and have been executed which is not tolerable.

Whats wrong with sentancing people to life long hard labour

[fugley]

Here&#39;s my quick thought on this&#33;

Have the death penalty by all means - but it should only be used when there is 100% certainty of guilt. Problem is, can this 100% certainty ever really be achieved? In the vast majority of cases I suspect not&#33;

Examples

Witnessess get it wrong&#33;

Unfortunately finger prints are not date stamped&#33;

Most video evidence is floored (often fuzzy and inconclusive)

DNA evidence (contamination possibilities in labs and the one in a million shot where more than one person have near identical DNA - apparently this has occurred&#33;.

Also how good&#39;s your defence lawyer? Suspect it could be a bit of a lottery&#33; Or worse still down to how much cash you have&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Wanna be represented by fugley or JPOL? (stick with me kid and yer a dead duck&#33

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 22:03

If you have a point I would appreciate it if you could make it, it really isn&#39;t that difficult if you put your mind to it.

Is becoming deliberately dense one of your New Years resolutions, JP?
The death sentence is no more "revenge" than imprisonment is.

All state sanctioned penalties could be viewed as "revenge" if one were so inclined.

Ha&#33;
First post of the new year in World News.
What do I win?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 23:19
Ha&#33;
First post of the new year in World News.
What do I win?

Sorry mate, the prize goes to Neo 721.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+1 January 2004 - 06:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 1 January 2004 - 06:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 04:29
<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol

@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.

Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.

[/b][/quote]
No, I am not being deliberately dense, or even obtuse.

It is obviously a penalty, I never said that it wasn&#39;t. However the more important aspect is that it is society&#39;s revenge on the criminal. There are other ways of imposing a penalty, life imprisonment for one. That is a punitive measure which does not reduce society to the level of taking lives.

The "public aspect" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is an act of revenge. Whether you would suggest it or not. It may succeed in making the act even more barbaric than it already is. However it makes it no more or less an act of revenge.