And so we're back to all the points covered in the recent thread about the two dead policewomen. People will call for death to criminals, probably with stoning and the cutting off of balls as in that thread too. Shadow will counter argument after argument with facts. Shadow will be ignored and insulted. One or two may suggest a agree to disagree approach, and will join Shadow talking to themselves. I'll get my popcorn for the ensuing row......
If proven guilty, I believe he should be incarcerated while a second Judge reviews the case to make sure. If no doubt as to his guilt exists whatsoever then whatever the most humane method of execution exists needs to be applied - and not 10 years down the line but as soon as the executioner has time! That's as far as my Human Rights extends in this case.
The best we can hope for is that when in prison he is on the wrong end of an 'unfortunate' incident. To that end I say put him in the general prison population rather than isolation...
Capital Punishment, being the ultimate recourse, needs to be applied only where guilt is absolutely beyond doubt; caught red-handed etc and the case re-checked independently. I do agree if there is even the slightest element of uncertainty only jail terms should be considered. It would very likely be the case that it was only seldom applied but I do believe it should be an option for the clear-cut cases - not circumstantial evidence and the like. Being an emotive subject, people have their reasons to support their viewpoints and it is unlikely a debate here would do anything other than share those reasons. I don't expect people to agree with me and I respect the stance other's take; being in a Democracy, I obviously am happy to accept the wishes of the majority.
It's been proved that capital offences actually rise where the death penalty is reintroduced. What's the way forward then?
Has it really though? I accept certain States in the USA can cite examples that appear to support this but I don't believe it is that straight-forward and that there are other mitigating circumstances that contribute and advocates on both sides of the argument can use all manner of Stats to support a claim. However, if introducing Capital Punishment instils further a psyche towards a lesser value for Life and appears to encourage crime then we should be looking at other methods to eliminating this belief rather than culling Capital Punishment; this just tells the worst of criminals that they win! Looking elsewhere though, South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1995 but violent crime actually increased... I would suggest that, all things equal in all Societies (income per capita, unemployment etc etc) Capital Punishment doesn't do all that much as a deterrent but nor does it increase crime. So why do I support it if it allegedly serves no real benefit? I make my decision on a personal level and looking back at my own experience: Had my sister been murdered, I would have to accept that the 'right' solution was for the murderer to go to jail and quite possibly be paroled to enjoy a nice life later on. Nice to have rose-tinted glasses on when you want to talk 'perfect-World' scenario's and dictate Humane human rights etc. but some of us see things quite differently once having had an encounter with a savage criminal. I thought like you do too...once. I think I've been misunderstood here: I advocate the Death Penalty on behalf of the victims and survivors, not as a deterrent - if someone loses all they have, i.e. their Life, then the guilty party (if proven conclusively with no room for error) should forfeit theirs. This acts as a two-fold benefit, it punishes the crime and brings closure to those left behind.
Pretty sure the people executed dont re-offend. If it was an animal that killed then there would be no arguement over having it destroyed. But an animal acts on instinct. A human knows right from wrong and if he/she steps over that line then the punishment should fit the crime. And there is a difference between causing a death by stupidity/carelessness, and deliberately setting out to multilate and kill another human. The law recognises this and should be able to apply the ultimate punishment if the crime warrants it. As an aside I work with lots of different nationalities and asked them their opinion on the death penalty. ALL of them said it was warranted in certain circumstances. Call it revenge, call it a deterrent, call it punishment, but it SHOULD be available if necessary. Sorry Shadow.
'In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2010, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.01 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.00 per cent.' Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, from Death Penalty Information Center. Also, 'In the USA, 130 people sentenced to death have been found innocent since 1973 and released from death row'. Source: Amnesty International.
Only because they are kept on Death Row for so long! Also, you are applying your argument to examples from the USA alone - you need to look at other countries too. As I said, South Africa contradicts your USA argument. The debate over proof that abolishing Capital Punishments needs to be taken from Worldwide stats and needs to be applied where conditions are like for like. Even in the USA, crime stats vary from State to State for many reasons, not one single cause. Aaaand, as I've mentioned too, IF and it is an IF, your assertions are correct then we need to look at how we can keep Capital Punishment AND reduce capital crime. We mustn't pander to the criminals and surrender to them. You might be able to accept it when a loved one is brutally slain and shake the hand of their killer when he / she is released from prison and good for you but I couldn't. You are entrenched in your Beliefs of what is right and wrong here and I am too - I don't know what your reasons are but I've explained mine and I ain't gonna agree to anything except Capital Punishment being on the table no matter how many Stats you throw around, suffice to say I accept the will of the majority in the Democracy I've signed up to.
I use the USA as a example as the economy, beliefs, set up etc are seen as nearer to the UK (home) than South Africa. I totally understand your arguments, and can fully appreciate why it's something you feel passionate about. In your situation I am sure my feelings would be as heartfelt. How about we agree that we probably won't agree on this? I could produce facts proving one thing, you proving others, and then the discussion could continue indefinitely!
Oh absolutely, I've been involved in many online debates pertaining to all manner of emotive subjects and in the end it is simply a sharing of opinions and we shouldn't be expecting to sway another to agree - in the end we should always accept that we will have different views based upon different experiences and fundamental belief systems. So yes indeed, I agree that we will disagree but in saying that I totally respect your opinions.
one thing is certain about the death penalty it is more more effective than lengthly and expensive prison sentences at preventing criminals from reoffending however the justice system in this country is so bent and so many questionable judgements are made that any talk about death penalties is a complete waste of time because it would create far greater miscariages of justice than the flawed system we currently enjoy
I am guessing that you are not very familiar with the realities of the process in criminal trials. I am. In the real world no-one is ever convicted "absolutely beyond doubt" and if that was the required standard of proof, nobody would be convicted of anything. In trials, some witnesses lie or are mistaken; some police have interrogated oppressively; some experts overstate their level of certainty; some forensic material may have been planted; some jurors are thick; some prosecutors fail to disclose to the defence material which could prove innocence; and occasionally a judge cocks up the process. The criminal trial process is designed to pick its way through the maze of possibilities and problems, and arrive at convictions on the basis of "proved beyond reasonable doubt". All those involved are human beings, and are fallible. You seem to be suggesting, Coolbanana, that we chuck out the English common law principles, which have been developed down the centuries with such enormous effort, and adopt a new and untried system which you have just thought of. Nice try! The European Convention on Human Rights drawn up in 1950 was based largely on the English common law, and was for the purpose of avoiding people being oppressed, ghettoised, and shoved into gas chambers in their millions. Sixty years later all the 47 nations of Europe subscribe (excepting only Belarus and the Vatican), and the lives and liberties of all of us have been protected. The standards of fairness and justice throughout have been enormously improved for everyone. Citizens have the right to defend themselves reasonably, and criminals have the right to be arrested, tried and imprisoned - importantly, we all have the right not to be tortured or killed. All this great human achievement would be tossed way on a whim, it seems, by some of our less thoughtful posters. I would be willing to fight and die to preserve their human rights - even if, it seems, they would not lift a finger to preserve mine.
Pete's convinced me. No death penalty for criminals. Not only will I, too, fight and die to protect the rights of murderers ... I will also pay for their upkeep, education, entertainment and rehabilitation. The government would only waste my taxes on hospitals anyway. Hyperbole aside, am I comfortable at the thought of living in a society that executes its citizens? No, no more so than I am happy to live in a society that harbours murderers. There's no path of least resistance, they are both unacceptable to me personally. The somewhat noble sentiments expressed by Pete and others here - in the end, they are only opinions about what is right and proper. The arguments against the death penalty are equally arguments against life imprisonment - how can you lock someone up for 20, 30 or 40 years when you cannot be certain of their guilt? Imprisonment is a fundamental denial of a person's human rights. Not only that, it isn't a perfect or even adequate deterrent to committing crimes. If instead of executing someone convicted of a crime, you imprison them on the basis that they might be innocent, what kind of life do they have? A harsh, unbearable one because prison is so bad? In that case, have you really been merciful to them? Or - what if prison is a cushy number, as people suggest here on the forum? In which case, do we honestly believe that we are punishing the guilty? I see no consistency inherent in our current penal system, it is the worst of every possible choice. And as I have suggested before in these debates, before ensuring the human rights and dignity of criminals, there should be a greater allocation of resource to ensuring the human rights and dignity of law-abiding citizens. No, there's no happy solution. So no death penalty. Keeping prisoners in degrading conditions - is that what we want? No, so prisons need to be what many people would consider to be comfortable, too comfortable to be a punishment. In the end, all you can do as an ordinary everyday citizen is hope that crime and tragedy don't befall you - oh, and pay your taxes so that people who may never contribute anything to society can be kept alive and comfy. At least our consciences are clear.
So what happened to the human rights of the person who was murdered Who gave the murderer the right to take someone's life? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951 Little April it seems had all hers taken from her with no choice what justice does she get? You kill someone and it's proven then surely you give those human rights up. Having a quick look through human rights this country The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a binding international agreement that the UK helped draft and has sought to comply with for over half a century. However, for many years the Convention was not a full part of our own law, so using the Convention usually meant taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. This was often time-consuming and expensive. So I guess while the UK plays an important role it can't be seen to be sentencing people to death while trying to stop the rest of the world doing it. A very emotive subject I really want to say that a life for a life because I'm angry and want justice for those murdered.
Afraid you still haven't quite grasped it. We are all human. Every person who is arrested/on trial might be a criminal or might be a law-abiding citizen - or might be you or me. Until the end, we don't know which they are - that's the point - and even then we cannot be 100% certain.. If you start off by taking away the human rights of the accused person, all you will do is punish the innocent along with the guilty. The main point of the ECHR is to help us all avoid being tried unfairly, tortured or killed - it does not prevent anyone being properly tried, convicted and imprisoned. It protects you, me and everybody else. Some posters on this thread seem to start by presuming guilt, and want immediately to take away the human rights of the suspect. They seem to imagine there are two different sorts of human beings, some with rights and some without. How can they tell the ones without, I wonder; is it the ones who are jewish, or black, or gay, or muslim ...? Strangely, they always seem to place themselves in the category with rights.
'The arguments against the death penalty are equally arguments against life imprisonment - how can you lock someone up for 20, 30 or 40 years when you cannot be certain of their guilt? Imprisonment is a fundamental denial of a person's human rights. Not only that, it isn't a perfect or even adequate deterrent to committing crimes.' I fear we are going round in circles in this discussion, but here we are. The reasoning behind the legal system is beyond REASONABLE doubt. If you lock someone up for 20, 30 or 40 years believing that it was the right conviction at the time which later proves flawed you have the option, indeed the responsibility, to release them, and do everything possible to enable them to try and rebuild their lives as much as they can. It's not the right result for them, certainly. But it's a whole lot better than if you executed them and they are rotting in a unmarked grave, surely? That my conscience could not live with.
