Death Penalty

[sbagman]

I think I can sum up my arguement like this:

Everyone, no matter who, has the right to exist. We as a society cannot revoke that right, because we did not give the right in the first place.

When we start revoking that right for criminals, on the basis they don't deserve to exist, who is to say we won't revoke that right for other members of society?

The fact that these people have done wrong is a red herring. I posed the question... what about disabled people? Mentally handicapped? Of course noone would argue they don't have a right to live, as they haven't done any wrong. But do you really think a serial killer is normal? It could easily be argued that they suffer a mental illness. But this is not my point. My point is that the only reason we want to kill criminals is not to protect society, not to deter criminals, and not because they don't deserve their place on this planet. Whatever way you look at it, it is because we want revenge. We want them to suffer. And I know I myself would want the killer of my brother to be put to death. But I cannot judge that man's right to live, just as he had decided my brother's right to live. For that would make me the same as him. We cannot let the animal desire for revenge, to make someone else suffer, make our decisions for us. We must rise about that, for it is that desire to inflict pain which causes the crime in the first place.

Killing is killing.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Jars458

Who died and made you God?

Obviously you did, given you are the first to mention it. I didn't and wouldn't presume to be so arrogant.

Originally posted by Jars458

How do you get to chose who is evil and who isnt??

Let me make it perfectly simple for you.

(a)If there is any reasonable doubt at all, then invoke a prison sentence.

(b)If a person is found guilty of an individual murder then they should be punished with a prison sentence. If, once they are released, they re-offend then invoke Capital Punishment. (refer to point 'a')

(c)If a person is found guilty of an individual rape then they should be punished by prison sentence. If, once they are released, they re-offend then invoke Capital Punishment. (refer to point 'a')

(d)If a person is found guilty of multiple murder or rape of victims unknown to the perpetrator then invoke Capital Punishment (refer again to point 'a').

(e)If guilt is proved, but the defence proves that there was provocation (including revenge), then invoke a prison sentence.

To repeat - Capital punishment should only be applied in cases where there is no reasonable doubt and no provocation. This would limit the application to extreme cases like Martin Bryant, Julian Knight and the likes of 'Mr Stinky'.

No doubt, no justification.

Originally posted by Jars458

You can't deal in vagaries and grey areas

Don't be a simpleton. You deal with vagaries and grey areas every day of your life.

If you honestly think that a murder and shoplifting are of the same moral order, then you are absolutely kidding yourself.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by sbagman


Killing is killing.

What absolute rubbish.

Are you suggesting that a driver who runs over a child who has carelessly run out on the road, has the same degree of moral wrong as Martin Bryant who murdered dozens in cold blood? The same?

Are you suggesting that a women who takes the life of an abusive husband is of the same moral order as a child rapist who murders his victims to prevent capture? The same?

Are you suggesting that an Allied soldier who shoots a German soldier has no more moral right than a Nazi concentration camp Guard who executes people based on their race? The same?

Killing is NOT just killing - it happens in a context.

Are you suggesting that "society" (whatever the hell that means) can't distinguish between the disabled, the poor, etc. and someone who has murdered people?

I think they can.

As for the idea about someone's mental illness being the cause of serial rape and murder - I don't really care. I personally think that the "insanity" plea is a pathetic cop-out, dreamed up by lawyers.

People must be held accountable to their actions.

 

[sbagman]

Originally posted by TigerTank


What absolute rubbish.

Are you suggesting that a driver who runs over a child who has carelessly run out on the road, has the same degree of moral wrong as Martin Bryant who murdered dozens in cold blood? The same?

Are you suggesting that a women who takes the life of an abusive husband is of the same moral order as a child rapist who murders his victims to prevent capture? The same?

Are you suggesting that an Allied soldier who shoots a German soldier has no more moral right than a Nazi concentration camp Guard who executes people based on their race? The same?

Of course it is. It is the taking of a human life. It is not our place to judge who is worthy of life or not. It isn't anyone's, except God's, if you believe in that. Once you start making judgements on who is worthy of living and who isn't, you open a Pandora's box. It isn't about morals. It's about not having the right to judge the value of another's life. As far as I can see, killing IS killing. The end result is the same, regardless of who has the moral highground.

Still, I do see your point. I just reiterate my initial statement.... we all have a right to live on this earth, and noone has a right to take that away, for we didn't give it in the first place. It just makes no sense whatsoever to fix killing with another death.

We can continue this arguement perpetually, the fact is that thankfully Australia doesn't have the death penalty, and hopefully never will.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by TigerTank



Don't be a simpleton. You deal with vagaries and grey areas every day of your life.

If you honestly think that a murder and shoplifting are of the same moral order, then you are absolutely kidding yourself.

What about murder and attempted murder?

Murder and grevious bodily harm?


I say you are playing God because you are saying who deserves to die and who deosn't. To me that is being arrogant.

Grey areas in deciding which toothpaste to pick is far different from deciding whether to take someones life

Where do you draw the line??????

And your explanation doesn't work becasue there are many other scenarios.


Thanks for calling me a simpleton too, its a shame the usual personal abuse that appears on the Footy boards couldn't be kept out of this debate.

 

[Asgardian]

In a philosophical discussion it is a well worn tool to place yourself in the situation of being one of the participants, ie, make believe you are the victim, or related to the victim.
Say if we set up a "Hypothetical"
Joffa is a dad, Emma is his daughter, and Evildoer is a criminal.

Evildoer has just been released from his third stint in jail for violent crimes, the parole board has said he has been rehabilitated, this is after his mupliple offences including theft, assult, rape and sexually interfering with a minor.
Evildoer is one hell of an actor, it is the ONE thing they do learn, and learn well in prison. He has re-established his life in the few weeks of his freedom, but those old urges have never left him, just been temporarily hidden when he needed to hide them. Now unfettered, they return, and he will do anything to feed his hunger.
He decides to go where lots of young kids go, the amusement parlor, where hundreds of young boys and girls are enjoying themselves on the video games etc.
He sees a beautiful young lady, Emma, and selects her as his target.
I need not go through the horrible details, suffice to say the young lady's body is found the next morning, a victim of a disgusting violent depraved sexually based abduction and murder crime.
Evildoer was not smart, he left incriminating evidence, ie:- DNA samples, and he is quickly found and held for trial.

The ONLY question here that really matters is what would the dad, Joffa, want, and do in this type of circumstance?

Joffa has already said he is against the death penalty, but what would be his feelings in the above type of scenario?

This is wrong of me, but I shall pre-empt his answer with my own.

If the above type of scenario occurred to my daughter, I would seek to rip the throat out of Evildoer with my bare hands, I would smash his skull in with a rock and them rip him limb from limb.

Is that type of reaction by me consistent with humanity? damn right it is, revenge has always been a strong motivating emotion throughout mankinds history.

However

Is that type of reaction consistent with a more humane evolving society, that wants to live in a world where the base deeds mankind is capable of no longer occur? NO, but we are yet to reach utopia, so why try to enforce utopian ideals on a society which cannot rid itself of the base elements as yet.

My reaction as a parent is probably consistent with how a majority of parents would react in the scenario described, so if it is understandable that we would want the death penalty for someone who killed your own daughter, is it not hypocritical to say that "because it is not my child, I do not want the death penaly"?

In my opinion all hate crimes, such as murder, child molestation, rape etc are treated FAR too leniently

YES, I am a strong advocate for the death penalty

(sorry for being long winded, many years ago I used to go to school with one of the Beaumont kids, it has had a lasting effect on how I see these type of matters, if you know not of the Beaumont's, older South Aussies such as Alf and CIK could fill you in)

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by sbagman

Still, I do see your point. I just reiterate my initial statement.... we all have a right to live on this earth, and noone has a right to take that away, for we didn't give it in the first place. It just makes no sense whatsoever to fix killing with another death.

I see your point too, even if I doubt I'll ever agree with it.

Every one comes onto the earth with the same right to live on it. On that much I'll agree.

But that right (like all rights) comes with a basic responsibility, and to my mind, some forfeit that right with their deeds.

You value human life highly - a noble sentiment.

I value it highly too, but frankly there are some human lives which, because of their acts, I value considerably less than that of a cat.

I feel my cat, for example, has more right to live than, say, the Yorkshire Ripper. (Not to be confused with Bigfooty's Mr Ripper)

That word "acts" is the key word. Judging people not by who they are (poor, disabled, whatever - which you were worried about), but by their "acts" (rape, murder, etc).

Different values, I guess.

Originally posted by sbagman

We can continue this arguement perpetually, the fact is that thankfully Australia doesn't have the death penalty, and hopefully never will.

Well, you're right about that,
.
.
.
.
.
.
for the moment.

 

[TigerTank]

Jars458,

I didn't call you a Simpleton. I was merely advising you not to be one.

But perhaps that was unnecessary, so I do apologise.

It does frustrate me, though, that those opposed to capital punishment accuse those in favour of 'looking for the simplistic solution' when the statement 'To me its easy - don't execute anyone and the problem is solved' is equally simplistic.

The problem is not solved.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by TigerTank
Jars458,

I didn't call you a Simpleton. I was merely advising you not to be one.

But perhaps that was unnecessary, so I do apologise.

It does frustrate me, though, that those opposed to capital punishment accuse those in favour of 'looking for the simplistic solution' when the statement 'To me its easy - don't execute anyone and the problem is solved' is equally simplistic.

The problem is not solved.

Fair enough.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I think we still have the death penalty for high treason don't we ?

 

[FunkyBlue]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

Funky Blue, if you believe in Karma your in a sh!t load of trouble my friend.

And why exactly am I to expect a bad dose of Karma to come crashing down on me Santos? Does having the opinion that "what goes around comes around" make me a bad person?

I have morals, I have a conscience. I believe if I intentionally do something wrong, then YES, it will come back and bite me on the arse. I try and be the best person I can be. I say please and thank you. I treat people how I expect to be treated. I don't go around driving pick axes into peoples chests or parking vans filled with explosives in front of public buildings. If someone has blatant disrespect for MY life, why should I have respect for theirs?

I too found it "interesting" that a comparison be made between those that are handicapped, poor or suffer from mental illness and people like Timothy McVeigh. Did my niece have a choice to be severely handicapped? Did she choose to be 10 years old and still wearing a diaper, unable to walk, talk or feed herself? No. Does my friend have a choice on whether or not he'd like to have downs syndrome?No. Did Timothy McVeigh have a choice when load up that van with explosives? Did he have a choice when drove the van and park it out the front of the building? Yes.
I do understand both sides of the argument, a human life is a human life, but when you read the the details of some of these brutal murders, it's hard to imagine the perpitrator being a "human being".

As Asgardian said, put yourself in their shoes.Read this story ......http://www.murdervictims.com/voices/jeneliz.html, and put yourself in the shoes of those poor girls. This is just one family's story, there are thousands more like it. This attack was not carried out by human beings deserving of compassion. It was the act of vicious animals who chose to take the lives of two young girls because they were bored. If you can walk away from this story ,push your feels of loathing and disgust to the side and still want to show compassion for these "human beings", well your ability of acceptance is greater than mine will ever be.

Many of you who are"anti-death penalty" have said "Who are we to judge who gets the right to live or die?' I guess it's only the criminals who get to play judge, jury and executioner when it comes down to the lives of our families and loved ones.

Jars, as a matter of interest, I'd like to hear some of your ideas on what you think would be better ways to deliver justice and punishment to these "people"

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
I think we still have the death penalty for high treason don't we ?

Not high treason BSA. Would you believe it's for piracy!

I am not joking.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by FunkyBlue


And why exactly am I to expect a bad dose of Karma to come crashing down on me Santos? Does having the opinion that "what goes around comes around" make me a bad person?

I have morals, I have a conscience. I believe if I intentionally do something wrong, then YES, it will come back and bite me on the arse. I try and be the best person I can be. I say please and thank you. I treat people how I expect to be treated. I don't go around driving pick axes into peoples chests or parking vans filled with explosives in front of public buildings. If someone has blatant disrespect for MY life, why should I have respect for theirs?

If you can walk away from this story ,push your feels of loathing and disgust to the side and still want to show compassion for these "human beings", well your ability of acceptance is greater than mine will ever be.


Many of you who are"anti-death penalty" have said "Who are we to judge who gets the right to live or die?' I guess it's only the criminals who get to play judge, jury and executioner when it comes down to the lives of our families and loved ones.

Jars, as a matter of interest, I'd like to hear some of your ideas on what you think would be better ways to deliver justice and punishment to these "people"

If it's good Karma your looking for then you should show compassion to all people all the time.

It's not about showing 'compassion' to these people, it's about not becoming just like them.

Most people are killed by persons known to them!! The figure is something like 90%. This myth of the big bad person stalking us all, waiting to kill our loved ones at the first opportunity, is just that....a myth.



Go for it Jars, I've seen you in a new light this week.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

Most people are killed by persons known to them!! The figure is something like 90%.

Fine! Don't execute that 90%.

Perhaps we could just execute your remaining 10%.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by sbagman
I just reiterate my initial statement.... we all have a right to live on this earth, and noone has a right to take that away, for we didn't give it in the first place.

That depends on whether you believe in God or not. I doubt your argument would hold much sway for someone not of a religious persausion.

 

[Dave]

Chris, firstly let me say welcome back!

Secondly, well said. As a parent I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Hopefully it's a situation we never find ourselves in.


One question you posed though has an obvious answer:

"so why try to enforce utopian ideals on a society which cannot rid itself of the base elements as yet. "

Because we have to start somewhere?

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dave


That depends on whether you believe in God or not. I doubt your argument would hold much sway for someone not of a religious persausion.

Disagree Dave

I am not Christian at all but believe we have no right to take away life.


I think Asgardian it is perfectly understandable that a parent would want to react in the way you say - its only human

But it is not the right way to go about things if we eventually want to reduced murder to as low as possible.

Yes - we must aim for utopia - because if we don't the lowest common denominator will continue to drag us down.

Also look at the other side of the coin - if you were a family member of the culprit - would you want them to be executed no matter how heinous the crime - probably not because you know of the good that exists in them - as of course there is some good in all people.


Most murders are done in the heat of the moment anyway so the death penalty is no deterent.

Longer sentences are no deterrent either.

The only argument for longer sentences is retribution and surely that is the least pressing of the reasons for criminal punishment.


Most other murders are commited by people who are not mentally adequate and in a sense can't be held repsonsible for their actions, in as much as the death penalty would be harsh, if they are non concious about the meaning and the quality of their actions.


What of paroled criminals who have gone on and done some good in society to atone for the crimes they have committed. There would be some of them.


Morgan Freeman's characer in Shawshank was treated sympatheticlaly yet he was a murderer. Should he have been exectued??


Anyway, it seems to be one of those areas where people have strong opinions both ways.

It is refreshing to see this forum can be used for intelligent debate for a change.


Santos - one should never judge a person by their football views - its a sure case where almost everyone in society is biased or mentally unbalanced in one way or another!!

After all - it is only a game.

 

[Mobbs]

Yes, it eases the suffering of those who live through crime.

Yes, it eases the suffering of a victims' family.

Some people suffer for sixty or eighty years, due to a trauma caused early in life. It's not a weakness, its a physical condition.

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by sbagman
Everyone, no matter who, has the right to exist. We as a society cannot revoke that right, because we did not give the right in the first place.

Some people belive that no one has the right to anything, including life itself.

To have the right to life you have to earn it, and by taking away someone else's life, you have lost your chance to earn that right.

 

[Asgardian]

The old chestnut of the death penalty not being a deterrent pops up its ugly head.
To be totally honest, can you say that life in prison is a deterrent?
NO
It has been stated correctly that most murders are crimes of passion, that no thought of ANY penalty comes into the thought process of the criminal.
So, in my opinion, sentencing in this type of crime should devalue the deterrent aspect for the extra importance to be placed on the Victim Impact Statement
Let the real victim have a say in the sentencing, say in the McVeigh case, let the 9 year old get up and say that his mummy is not there to hug him and kiss him anymore, let the jury hear the 5 year old girl cry the she wishes she could remember her daddy, let the jury hear the statement read out from the man who has committed suicide because he cannot face life without his wife.
These people ARE the real victims, these people are the ones we should listen to when sentencing some crazed beast masquerading as a person

 

[QT]

Originally posted by WCE2000




To have the right to life you have to earn it, and by taking away someone else's life, you have lost your chance to earn that right.

Spot on

 

[Visro]

No one has the right to choose whether another person lives or not. The thing with the McVeigh case that I personally deteste with a passion, is the level to which the whole affair extended to. IT WAS A FUC***G JOKE!!! I could not believe that people would be spectating his death besides the ones he wished too. In my opinion, even serial murders have rights when concerned with death and despite what McVeigh did, I think he still deserved to die by himself.

Vis

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by Visro
I could not believe that people would be spectating his death besides the ones he wished too.
Vis

I agree with you on that point.

I still think we should have the death penalty for cases like this, but if a person is executed, i don't think we should make a big song and dance over it.

The way the American's were treating the whole thing, was as if it was the Super Bowl. I thought that was a pretty ordinary aspect over the whole ordeal.

If a person is executed, there should be an announcement, and the government should have a ban on all other media dealings.

Did anyone see the scene outside the prison gates.

A mob (i didn't see it, i just heard on the TV while i was getting dressed) were doing a seconds countdown (10, 9, 8 etc,.) till McVeigh was going to be executed.

I thought that was very ordinary indeed.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

Most people are killed by persons known to them!! The figure is something like 90%.

Originally posted by TigerTank


Fine! Don't execute that 90%.

Perhaps we could just execute your remaining 10%.

Sorry TT that kind of reasoning is just insane. By your logic, if a father rapes and kills his own child or a realtive we shouldn't use your death penalty, but murder by a stranger warrants the death penalty. Why should murder by a relative, lover or friend mean that we treat their crimes any differently?

Pre-meditated murder is pre-meditated murder, no matter who commits the crime.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
Disagree Dave

I am not Christian at all but believe we have no right to take away life.

Fair 'nuf.

I think Asgardian it is perfectly understandable that a parent would want to react in the way you say - its only human

But it is not the right way to go about things if we eventually want to reduced murder to as low as possible.

Yes - we must aim for utopia - because if we don't the lowest common denominator will continue to drag us down.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think the death penalty is the biggest problem facing humanity on this planet currently, but that's another issue and another soap box

Also look at the other side of the coin - if you were a family member of the culprit - would you want them to be executed no matter how heinous the crime - probably not because you know of the good that exists in them - as of course there is some good in all people.

If it were a member if my family I'd be ashamed. If it were my child I'd blame myself and wonder where I went wrong raising them (not saying this is how people should think, just how I would).

Most murders are done in the heat of the moment anyway so the death penalty is no deterent.

Longer sentences are no deterrent either.

The only argument for longer sentences is retribution and surely that is the least pressing of the reasons for criminal punishment.

So we just let them go free? Deterrent is not the sole reason for the justice system. There is an element of punishment and paying for your crime.

Most other murders are commited by people who are not mentally adequate and in a sense can't be held repsonsible for their actions, in as much as the death penalty would be harsh, if they are non concious about the meaning and the quality of their actions.

Many, not all. And they aren't the ones I believe it should be applied to anyway.

What of paroled criminals who have gone on and done some good in society to atone for the crimes they have committed. There would be some of them.

What of their victims? Why should we forgive murderers because they *might* do some good after they've been released. If you believe the most sacred thing of all is life how can anyone possibly make up for taking one purposely?

Morgan Freeman's characer in Shawshank was treated sympatheticlaly yet he was a murderer. Should he have been exectued??

That's fiction. Life's not hollywood movies.

Anyway, it seems to be one of those areas where people have strong opinions both ways.

It is refreshing to see this forum can be used for intelligent debate for a change.

Yes, agree 100%.