Death penalty

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Murder should mean whole life sentence not the get out after a few years that we currently experience. I remember a case a  number of years ago where a convicted murderer was released and within a fortnight had murdered again for no apparent reason. Ten years later they released him again.
All murders are abhorrent and it does the victims family no good to see the murderer walk after a relative short period of time.  The other issue I have is we allow the majority of murderers out after a period of time but why retain the likes of Huntly, Brady, Hindley,  Sutcliffe, etc. In basic terms all they did was commit murder, albeit a bit more than heinous than the others but surely they should be walking as well.  Without going into the pros and cons, even the man who killed 259 people was allowed to walk on compassionate grounds. Pity he had not shown any to his victims.
You have to remember that in Scotland we have a government that does not want to jail people and give the impression that they think more of the accused than the victim. Because of Covid the authorities in Scotland have given prisoners over 7500 mobile phones, as it is important for them to maintain contact with their families. So far the rules for using them have been abused over 800 times.  Anyone care to think that these will be taken back later.
Pity the government had not shown the same compassion to those going from hospital to care homes and who still cannot see their families.

PARKLIFE

[Detournement]

27 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

 

When contained they do not pose a great threat to others. So we do not kill them due to an inherent value on human life and to retain the possibility that new evidence may offer reprieve. It is not for the guilty we have no death sentence but that there may be innocent falsely convicted and as a society we do not have a motive to kill. 

 

Unless you live in Afghanistan, Swat Valley, Yemen, Somalia, Syria or Iraq.

Then it's look out below.

[dorlomin]

Appeals to emotive arguments.

Not making clear moral explanations of why a death penalty is justified. 

Anyone have a reasoned argument based on a widely applicable. moral rational?

[Gordon EF]

5 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Unless you live in Afghanistan, Swat Valley, Yemen, Somalia, Syria or Iraq.

Then it's look out below.

Are you aiming these and the P&B constituency who're anti-death penalty but pro-killing civilians in other countries?

[Gus Setsniffer]

8 hours ago, tamthebam said:

The Birmingham Six would likely have been hanged in the 1970s if the UK had still had the Death Penalty.

They were fitted up.

That's why it's always been a "No" from me.

that's my reason for a No as well, lazy and/or corrupt police work, there are dozens upon dozens who are guilty and should be swinging from a rope, but things like the Birmingham 6 stop that, Sutcliffe shouldn't have died last week, he should've been dead before Sheena Easton sang her James Bond theme song.

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Are you aiming these and the P&B constituency who're anti-death penalty but pro-killing civilians in other countries?

Did you miss the RAF flag?

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Did you miss the RAF flag?

Who was this in response to then?

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

People are generally ok with execution by drone by Our Boys so if it's good enough for an Afghan wedding it's good enough for Ian Huntley.

The UK government executed this 12 year old British child and no one gave a f**k.

 

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Who was this in response to then?

 

That was for anyone  who hasn't thought about drone warfare in the context of the death penalty.

The rest of it is for Billy Britain.

[dorlomin]

What is the moral principle upon which we should kill people who have been captured, convicted and incarcerated?

If there is no answer we can dismiss the question and its supporters. 

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

What is the moral principle upon which we should kill people who have been captured, convicted and incarcerated?

If there is no answer we can dismiss the question and its supporters. 

I think it’s a form of justice, in the way that most people understand it at a fairly simplistic level. Emotional responses aren't necessarily wrong. If someone killed a family member of mine i'd want them dead. I think the moral principle is do unto others etc. It seems fair, doesn't it? 

Personally i think the high probability of miscarriages of justice and making all of society, particularly the jailers, complicit in cold blooded killing should be given a higher weighting. 

To dismiss people's strongly held feelings and understanding of the world as "emotional" is reductivist student debate stuff. 

[Shotgun]

My thoughts:

The Death Penalty is, and always has been about revenge rather than justice.
Texas in particular, is notorious for executing people who are later shown to be innocent. We can only wonder how many innocents have been put to death without anyone finding out the truth.
Being black, male and poor dramatically increases your chances of receiving the death penalty. Whether or not you're guilty comes a distant second.
Much like hitting children to teach them not to hit their siblings; killing is either wrong or it isn't wrong. "It's different when we do it" doesn't apply.

[Dee Man]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

People are generally ok with execution by drone by Our Boys so if it's good enough for an Afghan wedding it's good enough for Ian Huntley.

The UK government executed this 12 year old British child and no one gave a f**k.

To be fair, he does look like a wee arsehole. 

[dorlomin]

5 minutes ago, coprolite said:

 Emotional responses aren't necessarily wrong. If someone killed a family member of mine i'd want them dead.

In law, a sentence has to be repeatable across all similar cases. 

Some justifications on this thread have been that people in prison will be there a long time thus can be killed. Others that crimes are so uniquely heinous that the action is justified. Some have taken more extraneous justifications. 

If someone burnt your house down or got you fired you may feel that this justifies death.  

A lifetime of incarceration  is a very heavy penalty. It offers the option of reprieve in cases of false conviction. 

The justifying principle for the taking of a life has to work across all similar cases.

This is my view, others are free to disagree. 

[Jacksgranda]

15 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

To be fair, he does look like a wee arsehole. 

Probably even more so now.

[Shandon Par]

The P&B rep system could be used to deliver the death penalty. 

[Nutz_the_Squirrel]

We’re all innocent in here. Didn’t anyone tell you?

[Lurkst]

 

[Scary Bear]

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I'm normally 100% against state sanctioned murder outside a battlefield, but I'd make an exception for this c**t. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-kidnapped-raped-buried-texas-teen-alive-executed-n1248333

He had a good innings. 26 years to think about what he’d done. 

[101]

3 hours ago, throbber said:

Maybe it would be more of a deterrent if the method was more painful - like death by anal impalement or being buried alive but being fed on a drip so you eventually die of old age. 

Often the lethal injection the people being killed feel their entire body burning before it actually kills them and it sounds like a horrific way to go. 

[Scary Bear]

15 minutes ago, 101 said:

Often the lethal injection the people being killed feel their entire body burning before it actually kills them and it sounds like a horrific way to go. 

Sounds bad. That said, it’s possibly preferable to being raped for a couple of days, then smacked about the head with a shovel, covered in petrol, and buried alive, as happened to the victim in that original post. Both sound shite to be fair.