Should the death penalty ever be used?

By that logic you could say "who gives you the authority to decide the ultimate destiny of another human being" by locking him up for the rest of his life.

 

Looking at the swelling queues of prisoners on your Death Rows I see no strong deterence argument. Rather I see a system that does not work. The shear number of Prisons in your Country-and in mine indicates that we have not got it right at all . How many more Prisons & Death Rows are we gona biuld & at what cost to you & me. Its not so much 'no tolerance' as no competance.
We don't have the Gun crime to anywhere like the degree you have. The felons in our prisons mirror the kinds of societies we have. Therefore change the nature of the society & you effect the general nature of offending. I'm certainl not holding up the UK as any kind of ideal just making a comparision. Nor in making the comparison am I claiming we are in anyway 'better' than you guys-we're struggling too!
I am against the Death penalty because its a cop-out. When you have done ALL that you can do to learn & act upon the causes of crime I would then suggest that the Death penalty might become a relatively rare thing.

For instance, try ridding your society of drugs and of guns . Try creating a society that does not have Ghettos, where people a right to reasonable aspirations . Ditch the Right to go to the shopping mall & buy an Assault Rifle on the strength of a Driving licence .We gota start thinking this through-in the USA & in the UK. Killing Felons isnt a moral option for us.

 

It is the right of people to disagree and govern their societies different from one another without imposing upon other societies that is the primary basis of individual freedom as well a societal freedom allowing the governed to control their government giving it only the powers they collectively allow to be imposed upon them.

I have no idea what Guest status permits or denies, and I believe there are threads already opened which would relate to what you would like to discuss. I started one called "Imagine - A New Constitution" http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=468791&f=36 which I feel Constitutional Republicanism would be deserving of attention.

As best I can tell, you are given new titles here based on how long you have been a member, other than that I find no rational meaning to the titles beneath your handle.

 

Thank you Individual,I'l check out the link you've kindly provided and hope , if you wish to , to debate with you again soon. I hope that you don't think that I'm trying to impose anything upon anyone. My society is no better than yours. My fear is that we are heading down the same road! Nor do I have the answers-its difficult enough getting to the right questions ! Today I notice that my titles changed to'member' (my 'titles' amusing). Cheers .

 

The consent of the society in which laws are applied should be the basis of their creation and the authority under which they are applied.

 

While the deterrent factor is indeterminable, I believe the vast majority of the population would think twice before committing a crime punishable by death, and there will always be those who will break laws regardless of the consequences, either not caring or thinking they can get away free.

Looking at some of the 3000 plus who have been convicted of a capital crime punishable by death, it would appear that a great number of sentences should have been carried out long ago, reducing the need to house and fund their continued existence.

If you look at the individual instances where the death penalty has been applied, gun laws are irrelevant as many of the crimes involved the use of hands, knives, hammers, matches, or other means or tools in the act of taking the life of another or others.

The primary cause of such heinous crimes is the mind of the person(s) who commit them, not the means by which they accomplish their act.

Killing innocent persons is not a moral option for many of the rest of us, and recognizing the fact that it would be impossible to remove every possible tool or means by which a life could be taken, the removal of those who would commit such acts is a much more reasonable and rational solution. I like to be able to cut my steak when I eat, use a hammer to build, lay my head on a pillow when I go to bed, and use matches or a lighter to light a fire when I'm cold.

I'd be receptive to the elimination of the death penalty if instead, it was replaced by permanent incarceration of those convicted where they imposed no, or very little burden on society in providing their care, making them alone responsible for producing and acquiring their most basic needs, providing ONLY a wall separating them from the societies which they proved themselves unfit to reside within.

 

Like millions of Brits Ive watched the tragedy of yesterdays Boston Marathon unfold all day. Like 9/11 national boundaries dissolve . If the perpetrators of of this think it will draw attention to their cause they're wrong, it does the opporsite . Their motive disapears in the magnitude of their actions cruelty & loss,their cause is irrelevent. Likewise they have no nationality-be they domestic or foriegn terrorists. They're just evil and our enemy,nothing more.
Am I still against the Death Penalty-even for such as this heinous crime? Yes I am. But a life sentence,as has been suggested as an alternative, would,for such a crime , have to mean life. I can think of no greater Hell than to have perpetrated such an act and to have to live with that reality for the rest of ones life!
We are all Americans today.

 

Figuratively speaking, of course, but do you really believe persons such as those who commit this type of act would have feelings of remorse while imprisoned?

 

I do believe that people can and do change,that has been my own experience & that which I have seen in others. That may be what drove McVey to ask for the death penalty-for all his bravado perhaps he could not live with what he had done-or the consequences of it! I would have denied him that cop-out.
The late Margaret Thatcher had the correct approach to terror-deny it publicity-just as a parents denies giving attention to their child throwing a tantrum in the shopping mall.Given that the Parent stays consistant the child sees that bullying does not work & changes its behavior.
Terrorists like 'spectaculars'-the headline grabbing event. They're media savvy be it Warren Point in 70s or Boston this week. They have no other means of expression. Deny them access to the media,attention, & you begin to win against terror.
Yes, that means controling the media-or more acceptably- seeking its cooperation . My point is that there is a great deal that a society can do to fundermentally change unacceptable behaviors if it is prepared to change its own. What other effective option is there?

 

As I fear I may be heading off topic I'm hoping to create a Thread especially to discuss Terrorism in the Politics Section .If so I may expand on the ideas suggested in the above post .


Please see new Thread Politics section 'War on Terror-why arn't we winning?'

 

I like that, just ignore terrorism and it will go away. How is the rehabilitation of Charles Manson, eligible for parole in 2027, going?

I still have no problem imposing the death penalty for certain premeditated violent crimes where there is no doubt of guilt. Society need not bear the cost of maintaining the life of some criminals when it has so many other areas where the money could be used more beneficial to society.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone ignores terrorism and you know itthats why I started the thread.
Is advocating the Death Penalty about economic expediency then ,or isit just an admission of societys failure to to deter crime/rehabilitate or is it back to the old eye for an eye thing ?

 

In my opinion, application of the death penalty is not about economic expediency OR an admission of a failure of society, but instead the recognition of someone who has proven him/herself unfit to be a member of society. Societies cannot survive without some rules, and laws are necessary in an attempt to deter crime, with punishments most fitting to the crime they are meant to deter. While a thief might be able to make amends by returning what was stolen, a murderer cannot give back the life they have taken. You may call it an 'eye for an eye', but it is simply justice relative to the crime committed. It's served as quite an effective deterrent for me, and so has the punishments for lesser crimes, all of which are more than I'm willing to risk.

 

It was you that brought economic expediency into discussion not I. In a recent post I recall that you said that you apprehended a Burgler and dealt with him,it seems to me, with fairness and compassion. I doubt that the deterance effect of any penalty crossed your mind or motivated your actions. I used to work,for some years, with offenders upon whom deterance had little ,if any ,effect. Yet I would see them lead away in tears having been given a custodial sentence ! Then often as not would get out and offend again.

 

That I did, and it IS a factor to be considered.
The instance I mentioned where my home was broken into was not life threatening, although had it been I would have reacted quite differently, and I took advantage of the incident to ask the police just what they thought would be appropriate and acceptable as a response to various situations. In the case of the break-in, they said I could have inflicted harm if I so desired, but considering I suffered no loss an apology was all I wanted, and incarceration proved to be adequate as he returned to live in the village after his release and appears to now be drug free as well. Were he to repeat his attempt once more, I would respond a little more forcefully. But that was not a capital crime or deserving of a death penalty. Also repeat offenders here usually get a much stiffer sentence, and no time off for good behavior.

One more thing, prisons here I'm told, serve as a deterrent in stopping a great many from becoming repeat offenders. Only the barest of necessities are provided.

 

For murderers and rapists, yes. Though, letting them rot in a cell is very tempting...

 

while their are certainly situations that might warrent its use, can they ever be judged accurately other then on the ground at the time and in the place?

its the irreversability of it that makes its implimentation so morally questionable.
the more so the difficulty of assessing the likelihood of the accused being the actual perp.

 

Personally, I think someone more qualified, equipped, and intelligent than myself should answer this question because I would only answer it base on emotions. So, I think it should be answered and carried out in a more objective manner, as in the person deciding this has to have unconventional morality. Not just the typical morality that most of us have, where if you screw me, I'll screw you twice over, or you screw the defenseless, I'll screw you twice over and come back and screw you again. Too much emotion there and too much enjoyment in violence. So, I would not feel comfortable having someone like that decide someone else's life.

 

Yes, because it's cheaper and population controlling.