Death Penalty vote back in the forefront

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm not a big Barton fan and don't do twitter. I'd love to hang on your every word but so many of them get deleted I'm not sure they keep their context.

I'm releasing an uncut version of my musings soon just for my biggest fans, so hang on in there.

If we really must be serious for a moment, I feel the need to explain why I made that comment to anyone. If you're more concerned about some random throwaway remark than the ultimate sanction against bestial criminality, then that is your business, but I don't wish to make it mine.

 

[MK Shrimper]

That makes my blood boil...If someone has committed a murder, they lose all rights to anything.

Far to black and white.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

That makes my blood boil...If someone has committed a murder, they lose all rights to anything.

Far to black and white.

Indeed.

Let's say DWB, that someone has killed your wife. You know who did it, before the police can arrest the culprit you take your revenge.

What now? You've killed someone so must lose all your rights including according to your law, your life. YET the law now says taking a life for revenge is ok. It's a conundrum.

 

[canveyshrimper]

We've had this debate on numerous occasions and IMO it's been done to death (pun intended).

We'll have this debate again by the look of things, however abuse and personal insults won't be tolerated, any more the thread will be closed.

Now play nicely and debate without taking recourse to abuse.

Ta muchly

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Decapitation for suicide bombers is an interesting concept.

He did say terrorists, not suicide bombers. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers.....or are you just trying to raise a laugh :winking:

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Indeed.

Let's say DWB, that someone has killed your wife. You know who did it, before the police can arrest the culprit you take your revenge.

What now? You've killed someone so must lose all your rights including according to your law, your life. YET the law now says taking a life for revenge is ok. It's a conundrum.

I wouldn't be so silly

 

[pickledseal]

So for instance, a burglar breaks into your house and ends up killing your wife/child, or a madman kills your wife/child in a random street attack or a drunk driver runs over and kills your wife/child.

You will NEVER see them again, but the murderer will be out and enjoying life again in a few years, a life that your wife/child will NEVER again enjoy.

Would you be happy with that?

You've given some good examples.

Things that I would always LIKE TO THINK I could consider:

1) Do I want to force someone else to go through what I have? (ie if I had my son killed, would I want another family to have their son killed?)
2) Would it make me happier if someone was killed in my name? (ie to make me feel better about the situation)

I think in both cases the answer would genuinely be no.

If you ever get the chance listen to the Mizen family speak, Barry and Margaret. I've heard them several times (the first time in Hyde Park during the Papal Visit, but twice since too). They have a website: http://www.jimmymizen.org/

Their attitude is that there is enough hate already in the world, and that to react to their sons death with more hate, creates a more hate-filled world. They have opend a cafe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11856674) and there is quite a lot on this site here - http://www.familiesutd.com/the-families/jimmys-story/

I find them an incredible inspiration and I hope that if I ever found myself in the situation of having my son, or any other close member of my family killed, I'd be trying to do something similar, rather than running around in anger calling for someone else to die. That's tough as it's your natural reaction.

I always show Dead Man Walking to the kids at school when we are studying the death penalty, it's a true story and a bit sh"orter than the other excellent film on this topic The Green Mile. The final words of Matthew Poncelet, a rapist and killer, are: "I just wanna say I think killin' is wrong, no matter who does it, whether it's me or y'all or your government."

The film is also good to see how it creates more victims, the Poncelet family.

 

[pickledseal]

3. Rubbish. They've been having this discussion in California this year, wanting to do away with the death penalty because it's too expensive for the taxpayer. A death penalty trial costs the taxpayer 20x more than life imprisonment.

Indeed:

In California, the annual cost of the present death penalty system is currently $137 million USD. It would cost 70% more ($232m) if critical reforms - to ensure fair trials and eliminate wrongful convictions - were put in place. By contrast, a system of life without parole would cost $11.5m. - http://www.reprieve.org.uk/articles/2010_02_07_DP_Campaign_Cost/

 

[MK Shrimper]

I wouldn't be so silly

A lot of murders are impulsive or "crimes of passion". If any of us lost a loved one through such a heinous act none of us would be thinking rationally.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

A lot of murders are impulsive or "crimes of passion". If any of us lost a loved one through such a heinous act none of us would be thinking rationally.

I meant I would get someone else to do it for me :winking:

 

[OldBlueLady]

For goodness sake, I specified right at the beginning about diferentiating between types of murder as they do in the States, that would rule out the "accidental" type death some have been talking about. I'm talking about those that are serial offenders or mass murderers.

 

[southendkid]

The death penalty is wrong, death isn't a punishment to the criminal, once he's dead he can't feel and therefore can't be punished. The only people punished in that case are the family who haven't actually committed a crime. Life sentences need to actually mean life, but a death sentence is pointless and generally only fulfils the public's lust for revenge.

 

[pickledseal]

Ah but that's a slippery slope...

1 murder = life in jail
2 murders = life in jail
3 murders = death penalty

How long before it becomes 2 murders? And then 1 murder? Bit like Holland and euthanasia... the bar just keeps getting lowered once it is allowed.

Also I don't by this whole 100% sure of being guilty thing. We can never be 100%.... even people who claim they have done something are sometimes not sound in the head! How many prisoners of the total prison population are actually guilty? Less than 100%.... and that includes those in prison for murder. How do we work out which ones are 100% guilty? Do we keep the 99% guilty ones in prison?

I pointed this article out earlier. I'd love to have one of you pro-death penalty people go through each argument are give a proper cohererant counter argument! Here it is again if anyone wants to try: http://www.reprieve.org.uk/publiceducation/2010_02_15_ReprieveAgainstTheDP_Main/ :winking:

 

[pickledseal]

Also how about terrorists?

Say bin Laden had been captured alive.... better to lock him away in the darkest, deepest cell in the US or to execute him and create a martyr? I know from my church history the execution of so many Catholics in the Reformation did wonders for the faith of the believers around the world! :winking:

 

[pickledseal]

The whole other interesting debate is that of ePetitions and their use.

Just seen a tweet calling for one on GCSE Clingon...

 

[davewebbsbrain]

The whole other interesting debate is that of ePetitions and their use.

Just seen a tweet calling for one on GCSE Clingon...

I reckon Worf raised that

 

[applelover]

It is just a thought. Just. A thought generated by a mind trying to excuse its own mediocrity.

:net: shooting fish in a barrel

 

[applelover]

For goodness sake, I specified right at the beginning about diferentiating between types of murder as they do in the States, that would rule out the "accidental" type death some have been talking about. I'm talking about those that are serial offenders or mass murderers.

Wouldn't you say that serial offenders and mass murderers are generally seriously mentally ill? Are they anymore responsible for there actions than the crime of passion murderer.

 

[MK Shrimper]

:net: shooting fish in a barrel

Rick Stein gets the death penalty? That's very harsh.

 

[southendkid]

A comment on BBC I thought was interesting
Comment number 776.
Paul 4 HOURS AGO
Having the death penalty gives several 'unintended' consequences:- people are not going to confess to a crime which has the possibility of a death sentence- jurors are less likely to find someone guilty of a crime which has the possibility of a death sentenceEven '100%' evidence is not 100%. Unless someone actually commits the crime in front of the jury, the evidence could have been altered
---
I also think the petitions could be prone to 'marketing' where people advertise them without telling people where the anti petition can be found. A good idea I've seen is that all petitions should have agree and disagree buttons