Q1. Very few. A lot of murders are committed by: people who commit suicide soon afterwards, or people who are insane, or people who are never caught, or people who are so ignorant & illiterate they have no understanding of deterrence, or people who are at the end of their tether, or fanatical religious terrorists, ... etc etc. Deterrence cannot be effective for most of them. Countries with the death penalty like USA have many times more murders than we in UK without it. Q2. Policemen would be much more likely to fit up innocent people if the police knew the defendants would soon be executed and thus unable to keep on protesting their innocence. This is obvious, and surely not hard to grasp. Q3. Executing people in cold blood is so extremely repugnant that lots of people would find it unbearable. When you say "salving the conscience" perhaps you are referring to basic standards of humanity and decency; the very qualities which distinguish civilised citizens from criminals and murderers.
The last statement doesn't contradict the first. No man who is innocent should be executed. Where there is no doubt whatsoever (and not merely beyond reasonable doubt) the man would not be innocent. So there is no contradiction. And note that I said the arguments are looking thin, not that I am 100% in favour.
I'm not arguing with you re the first and second statements contradicting, it's that they are congruent, but you've sandwiched your disagreement, it doesn't make sense.
Interesting thread, even if I am surprised at certain Joseph Mengele sentiments. i am dead against the death penalty for all the arguments that Albert Camus came up with a lot more eloquently than I could (though definitive miscarriage of justice and lack of deterrent are good places to start). You can lock up people for ever and sometimes they are (the Yorkshire Ripper won't ever get out). Maybe not often enough. Broadmoor is the place for that. Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test is very interesting and helps you understand that there is a personality type, not so uncommon, which will commit the most heinous crimes without remorse and which cannot be treated. They should be removed from society but I still don't think they should be cold-bloodedly exterminated. As for passing tests to be allowed to breed - very Brave New World. Read the book to find out which blind alley that leads you up.
You seem to be saying that there should be two categories of conviction for murder, one where there is "no doubt whatsoever", and a second category where there is some degree of doubt. This would be a wholly novel concept. Presumably the jury would be given the impossibly difficult task of distinguishing between the categories, while knowing the "no doubt" category means death. I cannot imagine there would ever be any convictions in that category in reality. It would be more realistic to have "First degree" and "Second degree" murder, reflecting the seriousness and circumstances of the offence. Some jurisdictions have this 1st and 2nd system, although not in the UK. If some murders are more serious that necessarily means others are less serious, and politicians have ben unwilling to agree that any murder can be 'less serious'. The proposal, although sensible, has foundered so far for that reason.
OK. I disagree with Lord Denning but think that the arguments against the death penalty are wearing a bit thin when there is absolutely no doubt whatsover. Is that clearer ?
My understanding of murder is that there must be intent to kill as opposed to manslaughter wheren the death was a consequence of some other action, I am comfortable with that distinction and don't see the need for First Degree and Second Degree Murder. Regarding reasonable doubt the miscarriages of justice following some murder trials to come out of Northern Ireland would have resulted in a death penalty for innocent people if the death penalty had been available at the time, and that would have been wrong. However if there had been CCTV evidence along with forensic evidence in the recent execution style killing of the Indian student, and therefore without any doubt, then I would not argue against a death penalty for what what was an horrific crime. I would be very uncomfortable about it though and that is something I need to think about more.
Nobody is getting 'arsey' Royum. There is a tendency to read in sentiment that was not intended when using internet forums.
So far no one has offered a counter-argument. I would have liked to see one, just for the novelty. Very cynical and possibly true in a number of cases. Who do you consider would find this point of view hard to grasp, by the way? Bit of a straw man (and emotive) argument there. Executing "in cold blood"? You aren't suggesting that executions should be done only by angry people, are you? Whether or not people find a thing repugnant isn't the sole measure of the value of the thing, to society as a whole. Obviously, if the majority of people find a thing "unbearable" and "repugnant", it shouldn't be made into law. The will of the people (right or wrong) ... What I am saying is that people do not want to deal with problems. They want problems to go away and impact them as little as possible. A large number of people don't support the death penalty simply because they find it troubling, so the idea of incarceration eases their conscience. If these people don't want to be troubled,. they could volunteer to look after these "criminals" for, say, a year, to ensure that they are not being mistreated by the system. Humanity and decency are principles we rightly uphold, but they don't cover every situation. We do not rehabilitate or incarcerate dangerous animals that have killed human beings, as a rule. There are examples of "human being" where the definition stops at the physical description of the "person". If they do not share certain "human" traits of behaviour, then I don't consider that normal human rights apply. And please spare me any discussion of "but where do you draw the line?". The line is somewhere around the point where children are tortured and killed, where vast numbers of innocent people are mown down by a single gunman who clearly has no remorse for what he's done, and all the other examples we've seen of individuals who have no understanding of, or interest in, the principles we as "civilised people" wish to espouse.
They only appear thin if your strawman is based on the supposition that objections to the death penalty are only based on proof of guilt. If they're based on the fundamental wrongness of executing people then there's no thinning whatsoever.
How about anyone guilty of a torture murder never gets out - no attempt at rehabilitation, no parole? My gut feeling is that for serial killers life should mean life (consecutive life sentences essentially).
There is no "fundamental wrongness" regarding state executions. There is only the viewpoint that they are wrong. Yes, we are now on the slippery slope to a discussion about moral relativism. We were on that path when someone mentioned the word "fundamental" :wink:
Absolutely, which is why I am still not entirely convinced. The idea of the State executing it's own citizens is as deeply disturbing as the crimes that we hear about all too often. I also take the point that Pete makes about deterence and the fact that for many murders it is simply not a factor.
Congratulations on the most ridiculous comment so far. Also it's sexist, there are police officers available in all 3 genders.........
I have some sympathy for your post but I would have more if it were not for the fact that there have been some noteable cases in the past where innocent people would have been executed on what turned out to be very dubious evidence or evidence that was withheld. We need to recognise that whilst the vast majority of our police are exemplary there have been and no doubt still are some bad apples.
It's not just the police though, is it? Trials are often (it appears - not been to any) a contest between lawyers. All sorts of shenanigans go on. The outcome isn't always just by any means. Condemning people to death on the basis of a legal joust seems patently ridiculous. If you are innoncent with a lousy defence counsel up against a top silk, you might easily find yourself put away. Bring back the death penalty and you could find yourself executed.
Royum, my views on the death penalty have been held for a (very) long time, it just so happens I am discussing them on a thread about a recent murder. I doubt the outcome of this case will affect how I think. Ian
