CumbrianRam Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorne Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Our of curiosity, what method would people advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Great book I have read and used for research before. Can get for decently cheap. May help some. "http://0.tqn.com/y/atheism/1/S/O/3/bk_DebatingDeathPen" alt="bk_DebatingDeathPen"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I think the people who are opposed to the idea have created this little fantasy land in their head. There are absolutely people who deserve this kind of punishment. But typically they get the idea that somehow we would get round to hanging hundreds of people every year. Even the innocent. I don't like the idea of capital punishment. But there are crimes that we can not even comprehend, that are so evil. In which this is the appropriate measure. I also believe we should setup a euthanasia clinic too. In time this will evolve. There are people working on radical life extension. This will happen. That goal will be achieved. Then what? Stuck with the same laws and culture and morals of a bygone era that is no longer relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I think the people who are opposed to the idea have created this little fantasy land in their head. There are absolutely people who deserve this kind of punishment. But typically they get the idea that somehow we would get round to hanging hundreds of people every year. Even the innocent. I don't like the idea of capital punishment. But there are crimes that we can not even comprehend, that are so evil. I also believe we should setup a euthanasia clinic too. In time this will evolve. There are people working on radical life extension. This will happen. That goal will be achieved. Then what? Stuck with the same laws and culture and morals of a bygone era that is no longer relevant.There is no little fantasy in my head about it. Even one innocent person being executed is too many, and Britain not only has executed innocent people in the past, but also continued to wrongly convict. Even as a rare punishment, there is still that chance that it could be used against an innocent person.It's not just that though, it's not even just the question of philosophy (whether it's against fundamental humanity for the state to sanction murder or whether it's just that some be murdered), it just doesn't make sense, and just isn't necessary. People can be locked up for life, and never be even given the thought of freedom, they are both punished and out of society for good. Murdering them would only serve to give them an early release without the risk of harm to society.From there though you have to ask what the knock on impacts it may have though. For one it's massive financial drain. It is cheaper, and less load on the courts to put people away for life. There is no reason to think it acts as a deterrent, and it seems that it might even be the opposite. Ultimately it's no surprise that the modern world (at least most of it) has rejected the death penalty.Laws change and adapt with the time, they will change in the future as things change, just as we've moved past the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Albert you could write a book on this topic mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 There is no little fantasy in my head about it. Even one innocent person being executed is too many, and Britain not only has executed innocent people in the past, but also continued to wrongly convict. Even as a rare punishment, there is still that chance that it could be used against an innocent person. It's not just that though, it's not even just the question of philosophy (whether it's against fundamental humanity for the state to sanction murder or whether it's just that some be murdered), it just doesn't make sense, and just isn't necessary. People can be locked up for life, and never be even given the thought of freedom, they are both punished and out of society for good. Murdering them would only serve to give them an early release without the risk of harm to society. From there though you have to ask what the knock on impacts it may have though. For one it's massive financial drain. It is cheaper, and less load on the courts to put people away for life. There is no reason to think it acts as a deterrent, and it seems that it might even be the opposite. Ultimately it's no surprise that the modern world (at least most of it) has rejected the death penalty. Laws change and adapt with the time, they will change in the future as things change, just as we've moved past the death penalty. You highlight my point perfectly. I too agree that one innocent person being executed is too many. But my views on capital punishment are not that if you are convicted of murder, then the state hangs you immediately. Or 3 murders and it's off for the chop. Capital punishment should exist for the extreme cases. People I have in my mind are like Anders Behring Breivik. It would be a very long drawn out process. I don't care for the cases being put forward as to why we should not. Because they are always stupid. People are conflating notions together. Such as what about the innocent. This won't work as a deterrent. If you murder someone I don't think that is justification for the death penalty. But for people like Anders Behring Breivik it is suitable punishment. They are simply trying to shut down the debate. In my view there would be less than a handful of cases that would warrant the death penalty every year. My hope would be that only a handful are sentenced to death in a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Can someone give me one reason why someone like Lee Rigbys killers should still be allowed to draw breath? Just one reason. The first person to say 'but they might be innocent' gets a bloody slap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 ...or Ian Huntley LR, and more besides, Sarah Payne's murderer also springs to mind, a waste of resources, give 'em a jab like you would with a dog that maims/kills someone. Waits for the sandal wearers to shoot me down again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Can someone give me one reason why someone like Lee Rigbys killers should still be allowed to draw breath? Just one reason. The first person to say 'but they might be innocent' gets a bloody slap. How about after 23 years the murderer finds Jesus says I'm sorry and all is dandy. Except of course for the victim and the people that loved him/her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 East Herts, I take great offence that you assume sandal wearing is is a symptom of 'Liberalitis'. I just think they are comfy at the beach. But I won't suggest shooting you down unless your real name is Myra. I too immediately think of the Brevik case, Rigby and similar when advocating the death penalty. Completely clear cut, sadistic with absolutely no remorse shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 You highlight my point perfectly. I too agree that one innocent person being executed is too many. But my views on capital punishment are not that if you are convicted of murder, then the state hangs you immediately. Or 3 murders and it's off for the chop. Capital punishment should exist for the extreme cases. People I have in my mind are like Anders Behring Breivik. It would be a very long drawn out process. I don't care for the cases being put forward as to why we should not. Because they are always stupid. People are conflating notions together. Such as what about the innocent. This won't work as a deterrent. If you murder someone I don't think that is justification for the death penalty. But for people like Anders Behring Breivik it is suitable punishment. They are simply trying to shut down the debate. In my view there would be less than a handful of cases that would warrant the death penalty every year. My hope would be that only a handful are sentenced to death in a generation. Why do you think death is a punishment for some people? Choosing between life imprisonment (if life meant life) or the death penalty would be a difficult decision. In a lot of extreme cases these people are prepared to die for their beliefs, they expect to die. Didn't Breivik say he'd rather be sentenced to death than be declared insane or something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 You highlight my point perfectly. I too agree that one innocent person being executed is too many. But my views on capital punishment are not that if you are convicted of murder, then the state hangs you immediately. Or 3 murders and it's off for the chop. Capital punishment should exist for the extreme cases. People I have in my mind are like Anders Behring Breivik. It would be a very long drawn out process. I don't care for the cases being put forward as to why we should not. Because they are always stupid. People are conflating notions together. Such as what about the innocent. This won't work as a deterrent. If you murder someone I don't think that is justification for the death penalty. But for people like Anders Behring Breivik it is suitable punishment. They are simply trying to shut down the debate. In my view there would be less than a handful of cases that would warrant the death penalty every year. My hope would be that only a handful are sentenced to death in a generation. This is the problem though, you start with the assumption that death is a "fitting punishment". Many question (myself included) why it is even considered a possibility, why anyone would even stoop to the level of considering murdering them, when leaving them to rot in prison can be seen as a far worse punishment. Why do so many desire giving them the easy way out, effectively giving them an early pardon (without the risk of them reoffending), when we can leave them to rot for the rest of their days. Ultimately though it comes down to people assuming how others should think. I fully accept that some people think that it's morally acceptable for a state (a collection of people) to murder it's own people, and that some think that this murder is the ultimate punishment. I think it's disgusting that a modern person could think that way, but I do accept that some would think that way. Sadly, what this all leads to is that the philosophical arguments end up a loggerheads, and it comes down to the more pragmatic side. With the punishment on the table, and the way people react to horrific crimes, it will end up being used incorrectly at some point. People talk about it being used for only the worst of the worst, where it is absolutely proven, but even ignoring that there is no such thing as true certainty, most cases that people could name that they feel would be "absolutely proven" are cases of a perpetrator with a mental illness. This opens up another whole can of worms. Brevik is a good example of the debate about mental illness in this case. People (those who want blood for retribution) will tend towards wanting it used for any crime that to them seems horrific, and any reasonable person will see many more cases than you'd think as horrific. Case in point: Can someone give me one reason why someone like Lee Rigbys killers should still be allowed to draw breath? Just one reason. The first person to say 'but they might be innocent' gets a bloody slap. It the case of a couple of posts people have discussed "only for the very worst, most proven cases, i.e. Brevik" to "Lee Rigby's killers". This is exactly the problem, for every case like Lee Rigby's, there are others where the crimes committed come across as equally horrific, and not every one is provable to the extent that would be required. To be honest, based on the system that Uptherams presented, they'd at worst be locked up for life instead of murdered by the state. But this is exactly the problem, many would want it as a last resort for the very very worst, the mass serial killers, those who commit terrorist attacks, mass murders etc., but to reasonable people, pretty much any murder, particularly of a child, comes across as horrific beyond what we could ever grasp (as it should). To me though, life imprisonment is a worse punishment than death, and takes out all the philosophical issues of publicly supported murder. Murdering such scum is like giving them an early pardon without the risk of reoffence. Give me one reason such people should be let off easy? ...or Ian Huntley LR, and more besides, Sarah Payne's murderer also springs to mind, a waste of resources, give 'em a jab like you would with a dog that maims/kills someone. Waits for the sandal wearers to shoot me down again. Again, having capital punishment actually costs far far more than just locking them up. Going through the process of murdering them would be a waste of resources. As with before as well, people have immediately gone from Uptherams' style of thinking on capital punishment, to pretty much every sicko, which is entirely the problem. That's exactly how Timothy Evans ended up being killed. It was decided he must have been the one to murder his wife and child, it was decided it was a horrible crime, he was executed, only for it to be found that someone else had committed those murders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renkon Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Is Kant on the syllabus for sociology or psychology? Right proper student debate. When the courts put criminals in prison is the reason to punish or to protect society or both? Capital punishment would have a 100% success rate in preventing reoffences following release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.