The Death Penalty - Let's all be nice now

[sausage]

:)


I'll start off with a smilie so we can keep this argument civil. The Death Penalty - are you for it or against it in your own country? I italicised that bit because I genuinely believe capital punishment could work well in a country the size of NZ.

Just a crack over four million people; everyone pretty much knows one another. blah blah blah.

We had a interesting occasion whereby David Bain - mass murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain) served 13 years after being found guilty of killing five family members - released last year - new trial this year found not guilty - FREE MAN! I for one think he should of gotten fried because he is clearly guilty in my mind.


So yeah.....

[Vindik8or]

Oh shit, I just thought of a circumstance!

People who go "should of" instead of "should've" or "should have".

[texta]

We had a interesting occasion whereby David Bain - mass murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain) served 13 years after being found guilty of killing five family members - released last year - new trial this year found not guilty - FREE MAN! I for one think he should of gotten fried because he is clearly guilty in my mind.So you think because a guy was found guilty and then 13 years later able to prove his innocence (and the corruption of the NZ police) that there should be a death penalty.

For those of us with functioning brains, that's the number one reason why people oppose the death penalty.

Australia and New Zealand have enough cases of clear wrongful conviction for serious crimes that we're clearly not in a position where a non reversible barbaric punishment like the death penalty could be seriously considered.

But I would argue that putting aside that argument, we're in a position in society where we can function without the need for that kind of vulgar response to any crime. We hold ourselves to be better than the murderers and the rapists and to be better we shouldn't be using the same tactics.

[Stevorooni]

The only thing that should be sentenced to death is the death penalty!

[Second]

The last time I voiced my opposition to the death penalty on a forum (a Police forum, no less) I was almost banned.

Yall dicks if you reckon the death penalty is a good way to go though.

[Space_Monkey]

Can't we put the imprisioned to better use than fertilizer?

[castr8or]

But I would argue that putting aside that argument, we're in a position in society where we can function without the need for that kind of vulgar response to any crime. We hold ourselves to be better than the murderers and the rapists and to be better we shouldn't be using the same tactics.

ahhh yes, how vulgar, instead we lock them up in a tiny concrete cell and give them 1 hour of daylight if they are lucky for the rest of their lives :)

I don't have an issue with the Death penalty so long as it occurs in a situation where guilt is irrefutable, think situations like Port Arthur.

[texta]

ahhh yes, how vulgar, instead we lock them up in a tiny concrete cell and give them 1 hour of daylight if they are lucky for the rest of their lives :)The treatment of incarcerated prisoners is a State issue and my understanding for at least Tasmania is that the conditions of prisoners is generally of a much higher standard than what you've described.

[banjoeskimo]

No. Too often it's mixed up with justice being vengeance, and even when it's not the risks of killing an innocent aren't worth the risk.

The biggest factor for me is that I think once a criminal is apprehended beyond reasonable expectation of escape, the act of killing someone isn't really about self defence, and so I have a difficult time justifying it. At that point I think it says more about us than it does about the offender, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. On the worst side of it, there's a primal need for vengeance and blood, and even on the milder, more rational side of things ("one more mouth to feed," cost vs benefit etc.) I'm not sure that I'm comfortable rationalising another person down to a cost ratio, even if they're absolute scum.

castr8or does bring up a good point that in some systems, death would be the easier or "kinder" option for the prisoner, and if it's honestly that bad I could imagine a system whereby a prisoner could be given the option of suicide, but I think what you're getting at is more the idea that the moral high grounders are secretly worse because they want even more suffering than death could provide.

Either way, if you're at the point where you think the death penalty should be a live option so the offenders won't eventually be free or because prison is torturous, I'm not sure that's a good excuse for death, so much as it is an excuse for sentencing and prison reform.

/2 cents

[castr8or]

The treatment of incarcerated prisoners is a State issue and my understanding for at least Tasmania is that the conditions of prisoners is generally of a much higher standard than what you've described.

pretty irrelevant since in the end you are still locking them up for the rest of their lives and violating all kinds of their human rights in the process :)

Vulgar indeed

[texta]

pretty irrelevant since in the end you are still locking them up for the rest of their lives and violating all kinds of their human rights in the process :)

Vulgar indeedWe both know that imprisonment for crime isn't a breach of any human rights.

[Fenrir]

Hmm, perspective seems to be the key to livening up this thread.

But I would argue that putting aside that argument, we're in a position in society where we can function without the need for that kind of vulgar response to any crime. We hold ourselves to be better than the murderers and the rapists and to be better we shouldn't be using the same tactics.
The other perspective would be that the executioner is exempt from judgement, to the extent that it is necessary to enact justice. We seem happy enough with this model in the context of imprisonment - if I were caught imprisoning an entirely innocent person in my basement*, there'd be, well, ironically, jail time for me as punishment.

I'll note that I'm not entirely supportive of, or opposed to, the rationale in the above paragraph - I just don't like the classical moralistic side of the debate. There are better and more interesting arguments to be had in the financial and behavioural parts of the issue.


*As I don't have a basement, this is unfortunately not possible.

We both know that imprisonment for crime isn't a breach of any human rights.
But aren't human rights (and by extension, the exclusion of any right to freedom from imprisonment) essentially arbitrary in nature?

[texta]

The other perspective would be that the executioner is exempt from judgement, to the extent that it is necessary to enact justice. We seem happy enough with this model in the context of imprisonment - if I were caught imprisoning an entirely innocent person in my basement, there'd be, well, ironically, jail time for me as punishment.Some acts are illegal depending on their context (eg imprisonment) while others should never be practised (eg murder, rape). I don't think there's really much of a case that all crimes are equal.


But aren't human rights (and by extension, the exclusion of any right to freedom from imprisonment) essentially arbitrary in nature?Not really. Even the Universal Declaration on Human Rights says this:

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
You can take that to read that your human rights are limited to protect the rights of others and of society generally.

In more substantive international legislation such as the Rome Statute, some actions that would otherwise be war crimes or crimes against humanity are permissible in some circumstances. (For example: Israel's bombing of civilian targets in Palestine would prima face be a war crime but because Hamas deliberately use civilian locations as protection to attack Israel, it is legitimate to attack them back).

[Fenrir]

Some acts are illegal depending on their context (eg imprisonment) while others should never be practised (eg murder, rape). I don't think there's really much of a case that all crimes are equal.
You're very near begging the question.

Not really. Even the Universal Declaration on Human Rights says this:


You can take that to read that your human rights are limited to protect the rights of others and of society generally.
No, by arbitrary, I meant we (ie the people who developed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and similar paperwork) basically just made this shit up, didn't we?

[texta]

If you go back far enough that's probably true of all laws.

[sausage]

And if you go back that far the death penalty would be available and doing a roaring trade.

[Fenrir]

If you go back far enough that's probably true of all laws.
What I'm getting at, is that you seem to have little more justification than the arbitrary paperwork to which we just happen to currently adhere. "The law is right because it's the law", essentially. Imprisonment is only illegal and unacceptable sometimes, depending on context, whereas murder is always illegal and unacceptable, regardless of context.
Observing that we're still talking about moralistic integrity, why, when done in the name of justice, is one morally acceptable, and the other not? Aren't they both morally corrupt, if one is?

[sausage]

Hear-hear. Three cheers for grey areas.

[texta]

What I'm getting at, is that you seem to have little more justification than the arbitrary paperwork to which we just happen to currently adhere. "The law is right because it's the law", essentially. Imprisonment is only illegal and unacceptable sometimes, depending on context, whereas murder is always illegal and unacceptable, regardless of context.
Observing that we're still talking about moralistic integrity, why, when done in the name of justice, is one morally acceptable, and the other not? Aren't they both morally corrupt, if one is?
At the end of the day the questions you're asking come down to what my morals are. Ultimately I believe that taking another person's life without their consent is almost always going to be wrong.

When it comes to our criminal justice system I agree that some people may be a danger to the community and imprisonment can be a reasonable part of attempting to rehabilitate that person, protect the community and deter others from committing the same crime. On the other hand I don't believe that the death penalty would be a proportionate or necessary response to any crime.

That said, I'm not a big fan of imprisonment and certainly not of it being used for retribution. I don't think people always appreciate the impact even a "short" prison sentence can have and I'd like to see our governments moving towards more progressive justice systems where possible.

[Dunkurtin]

Lets just send them all to an island far away. That will work.

[Mellomaniac]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but it bothers me that we're paying and devoting resources to keeping murderers, rapists, drug dealers alive and healthy when there are people out there without a home, starving, plagued with illnesses etc

ideally however, I would confine prisoners to a gym; riding exercise bikes that power electrical generators... "you have been sentenced to 10 million kw of power"

[Xanafalgue]

No I don't agree with the Death Penalty.

[banjoeskimo]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but it bothers me that we're paying and devoting resources to keeping murderers, rapists, drug dealers alive and healthy when there are people out there without a home, starving, plagued with illnesses etc

It's bothersome, yes, but it only works insofar as you're sentencing people to a true "rest of your life" term where they don't need to be re-released at some point.

Realistically, you can make that critique of any societal offender, but we're obligated to keep them somewhere since even if we did have a death penalty the majority of inmates wouldn't be privy to it. Point being, unless we drastically upped punishments, the amount of money we'd be saving is only corollary to the number of people in the justice system we'd kill, which is not many.

In any case, while the generator thing is chuckle-worthy it's probably not far off the mark. The idea of using prisoners for useful gain is a sound one (you know, so long as we're not setting it up with the conditions of a Nazi labour camp) and I'd have to imagine it'd do prisoners a lot more good to be doing something useful as opposed to sitting around in one another's company stewing all day.

[This_is_me]

I don't agree with it either, but also dose the death penalty cost a lot of tax payers money?

[texta]

Yeah, unless it's some backward nation like North Korea or something.

[Stevorooni]

ideally however, I would confine prisoners to a gym; riding exercise bikes that power electrical generators... "you have been sentenced to 10 million kw of power"

Or do it Matrix style, put them in a tube and harness their electrical energy!