Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Did the murderer give his victim due process, legal counsel, a jury trial, and an appeal before committing the murder?
No.
He just decided to kill. There's no comparison between murder and execution.
Bali bombers executed.
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
No.
He just decided to kill. There's no comparison between murder and execution.
This is the old deterrence argument, which falls down at two points:
1. Most murders (not including acts of terrorism such as this, obv) are committed when the red mist descends and the perpetrator is not thinking of the consequence. Most murders, therefore, would not be prevented by the presence of the death penalty, which is why...
2. There is no evidence that the death penalty has any effect at all on the murder rate. Pro-capital punishment types drivel on endlessly about how the murder rate in thwe UK has gone up since the death penalty was abolished '60s. The fact that it's stayed stable or fallen since the abolition of capital punishment elsewhere is inconvenient for them, which is perhaps why they never bother to mention it.
Albert Pierrepoint evidently didn't believe he'd done much to reduce crime:
I wouldn't equate the death penalty with murder. Indeed, I don't have much of a moral problem with it, in certain circumstances. I would, however, argue that because no legal system is 100% reliable, and because no restitution can be made to someone who has been wrongly executed, the practical case against it is overwhelming.
And this is a very tired old debate.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
IMO the challenge that faces society is to treat those who do terrible things ultimately with kindness. Censure, take away the liberty of those who need to be kept apart, but once you have done that, attempt to understand and to provide the opportunity for some kind of redemption.
If you don't do that, if you wish to punish and make miscreants suffer, you might as well put a bullet in their heads.
If you don't do that, if you wish to punish and make miscreants suffer, you might as well put a bullet in their heads.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
True, but it's also a vitally important one. And I came at it from a different angle by opposing the execution of the Bali bombers for lack of due process, namely a jury trial with a unanimous verdict.
I wasn't actually making the deterrence argument: I was saying that execution gives the murderers a choice, in that the condemned chose to kill. Regardless of a "red mist", there must be mens rea (guilty mind) to convict. A murder conviction is impossible without premeditation, however brief it may be. (Legal anomalies like killing in furtherance of a crime aside, which can easily be remedied.)
But since you raised deterrence, there's no universal rule. True, many murders are committed in the heat of the moment and will never be deterred: but other types of murder might be: before abolition, there are reports of criminal gangs searching each other for guns, because, if one gangmember killed during a crime, all his accomplices were hanged. Likewise, evidence from America is complex, and might say as much about American society as execution per se.
But my support for hanging doesn't rely on deterrence. It's a useful side-effect, but I'm not a utilitarian. I support capital punishment because I believe it best upholds the sanctity of life.
Executing innocents is the strongest counter-argument but it isn't unanswerable. Humans are flawed. Anyone who supports the police shooting if faced with deadly force accepts innocents will be killed by the state. Ditto anyone who isn't an absolute pacifist. Intent is the key. To spare every innocent without cheapening the crime of murder you must knowingly gaol murderers for their natural life. (And since the falsely convicted may well commit suicide in gaol, even that isn’t perfect.) I used to support that position, but I now find myself unable to justify such cruelty. Rigorous due process followed by equally rigorous appeal is the best solution in an imperfect world.
As for the oft-quoted Pierrepoint quote, Mr Pierrepoint was a superb and humane technician, but not a jurist, and he later reconsidered his words after reading of child-murders. Whatever his view, it only carries special weight if it relates to the technical details of long drop hanging.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
How is locking someone up in a concrete bunker with a bunch of psychopaths, for the rest of their life, 'kind'?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I don't think that killing a mass murderer, is on the same level as blowing up and burning to death, 200 people out drinking a pint and having a dance.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I don't think it was a deterrence argument. I think he was saying that those who kill, should know what the consequences are.
Yes. Perhaps not the right thread to have aired this on...
No. The mens rea for murder requires only the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. You can intend only to give someone a beating, but if you get carried away - the 'red mist' - and kill them then you can be charged with murder.
If you're not arguing deterrence, then, I fail to see what your point is. We all act in the knowledge that our actions have consequences: that's true of premeditated murder whether or not the death penalty is present, so I can't see how it imposes a choice that the individual doesn't have anyway.
As for the evidence on deterrence, no-one's pretending there isn't a debate to be had, except for the Peter Hitchens's of this world who happily quote the rising British murder rate as though it's incontrovertible evidence in their favour.
I can't see how judicial killing 'upholds the sanctity of life' - except in the sense that some think it's a deterrent to murder which, as we've already been over, is highly debatable. Meanwhile, I don't think the fact that the police occasionally get it wrong and shoot someone is an argument for allowing the death penalty. Two wrongs do not make a right.
You seemed to brush aside the point about wrongful executions as if it were of no importance, and yet to my mind it's the one thing that renders the death penalty unworkable.
Incidentally, I can't help wondering about the extent to which the absence of the death penalty helps to keep the police honest. Once someone's dead, the need to clear their name usually becomes less pressing. I wonder if the catalogue of police malpractice that led to the convictions of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six would ever have come to light if they'd been hanged, as they almost certainly would have been had we still had the death penalty when they were convicted.
Pierrepoint's views remain the subject of some debate and it seems he did reconsider his stance on a few occasions. However, he never spoke in favour of the death penalty AFAIK. His opinion is worth listening to, since he knew more than most about executing people.
Azrael: "Trial by jury.": I was not talking about your comments regarding Trial by Jury. I surely agree with that. My sense of justice is derived from my faith, Judasim. Our faith dictates that justice must address imbalances created by a crime. In the case of 200 plus bodies killing 2 people will not set the balance right but it is a whole lot better than just letting them live.
People satisfy their consciences by saying life in prison is far better punishment because they see it as torturous. That of course is absolute nonsense and all the more so in a country like Indonesia.
In addition, as another poster said in either this or one of the concurrent threads on this very subject, if allowed to live the bombers would have been more iconic, acting as more of an inspiration. Death allows not only justice but closure for the vistims and society.
"Picking up body parts.": It is absolutely valid. in English they say "Armchair General" when discussing people that make academic arguments far removed from the reality of the situation. This is what I meant by "Philosophical." As I had also said, when you live in a place lik the UK, US, Australia, etc. you do not really see the damage wrought by terrorism. Sure, right after an isolated event you have a feeling of unease, the feeling of "what if" but in the end your day day shuffle is not really impacted.
Being an Israeli, and again living on Mindanao I sadly see the effects of terrorism on a daily basis. I also see how people act when they feel they can do so with impunity. As I also had said, the Saudi system of justice is proven to be effective. Even with the miniscule number of capital offences annually, more than 60% are committed by foreigners so that people who are educated within that system are very aware of the consequences for certain actions and therefore are very cognisant of everything they do.
Were the West to be half as vigilant I am sure their soceities would be much better off.
Roadkill: "Most murders happen out of impulse so claiming that the Death Penalty acts like a deterrant from any angle is counter-intuitive.": But your claim is false. Most murders are NOT acts of impulse. Especially in the West one sees a graduated system with incremental penalties for pre-meditation, and so on. How people are convicted of 2nd and 3rd Degree Murder (using the American terminology)? then you run into another tangent, is carrying a loaded gun on a burgarly or robbery and having that firearm go off and kill someone an act of "pre-meditation" or an "impuslive" act?
Then, to go further, what if the death penalty is only applied to pre-meditated acts?
It is not a black and white issue.
Then, your demonstrating the futility of the argument in England over the rate of murder declining or rising due to the status of capital punishment is inane because ther is no proven link in either direction is built around only selective utilisation of data.
Looking at it in a wider scope, one does see a proven effectiveness as demonstrated in Arabia, Iran, Egypt, states in Nigeria that are under Shari'ia Law, and so on. IF a person who has been conclusively proven guilty is executed PROMPTLY there is a very real deterrant effect. Sitting in an American country club of a prison, with cable tv, nutritious meals, running water, mail and even in some cases conjugal visitation and then waiting 15 or even more years for your punishment is not going to deter many rational people.
If it was no-frills justice the effect would be much different (as indicated by the dynamics in the aforementioned nations).
LittleBabyJesus: Spoken like a true Westerner!
"Redemption is possible.": Only through G-D. As an officer once told me, "Only meeting G-D can the murderer find forgiveness, my job is to arrange the meeting."
People satisfy their consciences by saying life in prison is far better punishment because they see it as torturous. That of course is absolute nonsense and all the more so in a country like Indonesia.
In addition, as another poster said in either this or one of the concurrent threads on this very subject, if allowed to live the bombers would have been more iconic, acting as more of an inspiration. Death allows not only justice but closure for the vistims and society.
"Picking up body parts.": It is absolutely valid. in English they say "Armchair General" when discussing people that make academic arguments far removed from the reality of the situation. This is what I meant by "Philosophical." As I had also said, when you live in a place lik the UK, US, Australia, etc. you do not really see the damage wrought by terrorism. Sure, right after an isolated event you have a feeling of unease, the feeling of "what if" but in the end your day day shuffle is not really impacted.
Being an Israeli, and again living on Mindanao I sadly see the effects of terrorism on a daily basis. I also see how people act when they feel they can do so with impunity. As I also had said, the Saudi system of justice is proven to be effective. Even with the miniscule number of capital offences annually, more than 60% are committed by foreigners so that people who are educated within that system are very aware of the consequences for certain actions and therefore are very cognisant of everything they do.
Were the West to be half as vigilant I am sure their soceities would be much better off.
Roadkill: "Most murders happen out of impulse so claiming that the Death Penalty acts like a deterrant from any angle is counter-intuitive.": But your claim is false. Most murders are NOT acts of impulse. Especially in the West one sees a graduated system with incremental penalties for pre-meditation, and so on. How people are convicted of 2nd and 3rd Degree Murder (using the American terminology)? then you run into another tangent, is carrying a loaded gun on a burgarly or robbery and having that firearm go off and kill someone an act of "pre-meditation" or an "impuslive" act?
Then, to go further, what if the death penalty is only applied to pre-meditated acts?
It is not a black and white issue.
Then, your demonstrating the futility of the argument in England over the rate of murder declining or rising due to the status of capital punishment is inane because ther is no proven link in either direction is built around only selective utilisation of data.
Looking at it in a wider scope, one does see a proven effectiveness as demonstrated in Arabia, Iran, Egypt, states in Nigeria that are under Shari'ia Law, and so on. IF a person who has been conclusively proven guilty is executed PROMPTLY there is a very real deterrant effect. Sitting in an American country club of a prison, with cable tv, nutritious meals, running water, mail and even in some cases conjugal visitation and then waiting 15 or even more years for your punishment is not going to deter many rational people.
If it was no-frills justice the effect would be much different (as indicated by the dynamics in the aforementioned nations).
LittleBabyJesus: Spoken like a true Westerner!
"Redemption is possible.": Only through G-D. As an officer once told me, "Only meeting G-D can the murderer find forgiveness, my job is to arrange the meeting."
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Yes. They have no one to blame but themselves.
That the law must reflect the unique awfulness of the crime of murder with a unique punishment. Current punishment is not inherently different from property crime or assault. It should be.
As regards mens rea, I mentioned legal anomalies such as the GBH rule, and these could be removed without any trouble. They're not an argument against capital punishment, merely English murder law in its current form.
Peter Hitchens agrees that deterrence is debatable: in his book A Brief History of Crime he admits that the deterrence argument hasn't been proven either way, and suggests an experimental reintroduction of capital punishment for a period of five years. I don't agree, but not the words of a man whose mind is fixed.
I see no evidence that wrongful execution encourages police malpractice. If anything the reverse is true: would Derek Bentley have become a cause célèbre had he been gaoled like his accomplice? Very doubtful. Imagine the outrage if the police had got 11 people murdered. Ruling confessions not made in open court inadmissible in murder cases would prevent another Guildford Four. (Already very, very unlikely post-PACE.)
I admire Mr Pierrepoint for his humanity and professionalism but he wasn't an oracle. His view would have been skewed by the diversity of murderers (over 600) he executed: he simply cannot know how many others were deterred, and I've seen no evidence that he ever made a detailed study of crime statistics.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Then which "philosophical diatribe" of mine are you referring to? To clarify, had these men been given a jury trial and appeal, I would have no problem whatsoever with them being marched into an execution shed to be hanged by the neck until the body be dead, dead, dead.
Seems we agree?
I'll address this one separately as I take it very, very seriously indeed.Roadkill said:
As I said, I place so much importance on this point that it led me to support condemning guilty men and women to spend up to 80 years in a concrete box. As you know, I'm a passionate supporter of civil liberties, for the very reason that I find wrongful conviction abhorrent.
If I don't oppose killing by the state in principle then the only question is where do you draw the line. I see upholding the sanctity of life to be of utmost importance. The gravity of murder must be atoned for with the ultimate sacrifice. And practically, how long will the wrongfully convicted be gaoled before the damage is irreparable? Thirty years? Forty? Is it humane to intentionally gaol a repentant murderer until his nineties to remove the possibility of wrongful execution? If you follow the logic of this through, then our entire penal system must be geared to minimising the damage of wrongful conviction. Prisons should be secure hotels with conjugal visits and creature comforts.
Intention is everything. The law itself places huge weight on it (in demanding mens rea for a conviction). Wars kill and maim innocents, but I support defensive war provided there is no intention to kill civilians, and every possible step is taken to avoid their deaths: executions after a due process packed with procedural safeguards are far, far, far less likely to kill innocents. How can I support the first and not the second?
Azrael: "Which 'philospohical diatribe' of Azrael was Rachamim referring to?": I was talking about more than a couple of powters in this thread, not just you. Why, or rather how could any rational person take issue with Trial by Jury as long as said jusry is truly made of peers (rarely the case but even so).
Yes, we agree. However, if you mean in ths case of these people in Indonesia, then we do not agree. Jury is the ideal, but when there is absolutely no question of guilt, as in this case, what would a jury matter? They freely and proudly admit their deed, and even went unrepentant to the end.
As such it is merely an accoutrement, soemthing to settle the consciences of the people ajudicating the matter and not anything at all to do with the situations of the actors.
Yes, we agree. However, if you mean in ths case of these people in Indonesia, then we do not agree. Jury is the ideal, but when there is absolutely no question of guilt, as in this case, what would a jury matter? They freely and proudly admit their deed, and even went unrepentant to the end.
As such it is merely an accoutrement, soemthing to settle the consciences of the people ajudicating the matter and not anything at all to do with the situations of the actors.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
It came in a post headed with my username, but if was a general comment, fair enough.
As for trial by jury, as I said earlier, governments rarely legislate for specific cases. Laws are universal. Pragmatically speaking, cases whose guilt is far less certain will face death; therefore, to protect them, you must support jury trial in every case, even that of the Bali bombers. Besides which, if jury trial is inalienable (ie, not "ideal", but essential), then even the Bali bombers should have that right.
I'm defending the right, not the people.
I agree with that in theory, but a good friend of mine died in the Bali bombings and I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't pleased to hear the bombers had been executed, or that I hoped they didn't spend their last hours alive quaking in fear.
I still don't agree with capital punishment - especially not for religious crazies who just want to be martyrs anyway - and I think it would be better if the bombers had been left to rot away for decades, going grey and doubting their faith after multiple years of cleaning the prison toilets.
Understanding and redemption would be out of the question though - maybe a better person than me would accept it, but I'd be inclined to doubt the truth of their understanding and redemption and be aggrieved if the bombers ever got to walk the streets with normal people again.
Fucker wasn't even meant to go to Bali anyway, but he got a new job and decided to splurge on the trip, RIP Ed.
http://www.edwaller.com/
You are of course right to say that the law could be altered so to draw a distinction between premeditated and unpremeditated murder (effectively, introducing 'degrees' of homicide) and if you support capital punishment for premeditated murder it does make sense to do so. But I don't.
I don't accept the argument for placing murder in a qualitatively separate category from other crimes against the person. I don't see such a huge moral gulf between killing a man and beating him so badly he's left blind, brain-damaged and in a wheelchair for life as to justify that. Nor am I convinced that the death penalty is any more awful than a life sentence.
I did say I was speculating, not advancing a hypothesis for which I have much evidence. Nevertheless, it makes logical sense and it'd be interesting to look further into. Policing has not always been of a high standard, and plenty of cases have come to light of shoddy police work putting people inside on convictions that were unsafe at best. One wonders how many more could come to light with some serious research.
Derek Bentley I think is a rather poor example to use against it, since his execution came at a time when the death penalty was controversial and it was accordingly seized upon by the anti- campaign. It would be more instructive to look further back to when the death penalty was more routine.
Since I can't accept the moral argument that murder is so different from any other crime that it requires a completely different punishment, I don't really accept this.
The idea that by killing someone you uphold the sanctity of life strikes me as a very odd one. In fact, the phrase 'like fucking for virginity' comes to mind. It just strikes me as illogical, unless meant in the sense that it deters murder, and we've already been over that! As for where I draw the line on the state killing people, well, I can see no good reason not to draw it at the state not killing people in cold blood. Accidental deaths are one thing; deliberate killing is another. As you say, intention is everything.
It doesn't actually concern me much that prison is arguably more cruel than hanging someone. You argue that the death penalty is the ultimate sacrifice: I'd suggest that a life sentence is probably worse. Indeed, if I'd committed a murder personally I would actually rather hang than serve a life sentence, if I were guilty. If not, at least I'd have some chance of clearing my name. A long prison stretch does do permanent damage, I'm sure, but better that the state can apologise to me and offer some compensation than handing a posthumous pardon and a 'sorry, we got the wrong man' to my next of kin.
Nor do I think that withholding the one form of punishment for which no restitution at all can be made to the wrongful victim, and whose benefits are highly debatable at best, means that the logic of the entire legal system has to change. Why should it? We don't allow most police officers to carry lethal weapons, but that doesn't mean they cannot use force at all. Is the law not based on many such compromises between principle and practical concerns?
<e2a> In the end, we're talking past one another here. You're arguing an essentially moral case: I don't accept a lot of it, but nor do I have a strong moral position against capital punishment. I do, however, think that the practical case against is damning. Ne'er the twain shall meet, I suspect!
@rachamim18 - Don't bother. I've no interest in trying to engage with you on any level.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
He's still alive. There's the potential for some quality of life. Are you saying that to be disabled and brain-damaged is as bad as being dead? Murder eliminates not only the victim's quality of life, but their existence, and to my mind that makes it a crime of unique horror, one qualitatively distinct from GBH.
Is imprisoning a kidnapper, or fining a thief, like fucking for virginity also? The moral distinction between execution and murder is that you're delivering a proportionate response to a prior act.
As the point about police malpractice is largely hypothetical, I'll leave aside.
My position isn't abstract: accepting innocents may die is a surely a "compromise between principle and practical concerns". Obviously most wrongfully-convicted people would want to live, but against that stands the murderers condemned to a lifetime not worth the living. There is not a clean answer to this one: distinguishing between intent and accident is the best I can come up with.
I will say this on deterrence: the American comparison is flawed because deterrence relies on consistency and only the State of Texas (and arguably a few others), impose capital punishment consistently and regularly. Other states execute the occasional criminal as a human sacrifice to appease the voters. Potential-murderers know that there's an excellent chance of avoiding execution. (Also, overworked DAs often bump Murder One charges down to Murder Two in exchange for a guilty plea, part of the reason why I wouldn't support two "degrees" of murder. Victims are equally dead.)
I agree life in a cage is worse than execution, which is partly why I support the gallows. I can see no purpose whatsoever in keeping a murderer caged for life beyond cruelty, and the law should not lower itself to that.
But you're still arguing an essentially moral case in favour of capital punishment: murder = uniquely awful crime = requires unique punishment. I don't believe that. I don't think murder is so different as to require it, certainly when you factor in intent. I don't, for example, believe that someone who goes too far in a fight and kills someone deserves so much worse a punishment than someone who set out to kill someone and fails. You don't support introducing degrees of murder, so how would you resolve that dilemma? You also assert that capital punishment is a 'proportionate' response to murder. Why is it, on any grounds other than 'an eye for an eye'? What's so disproportionate about a long prison sentence?
Meanwhile, you accept that no judicial system is flawless and that innocent people will die (there's no 'might' about it), and that the argument that capital punishment acts as a deterrent is far from proven. There's also some evidence that juries are more reluctant to convict on capital charges.
Still talking past one another...
Meanwhile, you accept that no judicial system is flawless and that innocent people will die (there's no 'might' about it), and that the argument that capital punishment acts as a deterrent is far from proven. There's also some evidence that juries are more reluctant to convict on capital charges.
Still talking past one another...
Roadkill: If and when I respond to one of your points it is not you per se but the point and I do so for the benefit of many others who will read the thread. IF my doing so bothers you, I kindly suggest you engage the Personal Messaging function so nicely provided by U75. Otherwise you sound ridiculous chastising another poster for responding to something you posted.
Azrael: Indonesia does not provide Trial by Jury for anyone. They base it on the German model of Civil Law, not Common LAw as in the UK, US, and so on. They use a 3 judge panel, with majority vote carrying the day. There does seem to be problems though, with the scarcity of dissention amongst sitting judges.
However, in the case at hand I do not see this as limiting in any way, shape, or form since all 3 of the bombers freely and proudly admitted to their deed. Indeed one could not stop smiling and even smirked in the faces of survivors' families. If there were ever truly a case to pull fence sitters in to the "Pro" camp this was it.
As far as Common Law derived systems, particularly the American version, there is an option to do away with juries although I cannot honestly say whether it holds true for capital cases as well although I would imagine it does. Ergo, juries do not have to be a commonality to all cases.
I understand though that you are talking on principle and not for the individuals in this case per se.
Roadkill: Roadkill's point about there not being much difference from an atrocious assault and a murder is just ridiculous (no offence). All the more so when Roadkill has just previously stated that he/she recognises that there in fact degrees in the offence of murder. IF there incremental differences in offence, why would you then negate this concept as it applies to lesser offence ssuch as battery, assault, and so on?
"Not conviced that the Death Penalty is any more awful than Life imprisonment.": It depends entirely on the degree and environment of imprisonment. Say for example, you are tried in the Hague. You have your own cell, with temperature control, your own PC, radio, TV, and reading materiels widely varied at will. Food is decent, medical treatment excellent bar none.
Say for example you instead imprisoned in Thailand or the Philippines where you risk rape or violence every day of your life, are subjected to infested soggy rice 3 times a day, unless you have the means to buy a very limited range of foods from vendors, and so on. Would Life imprisonment be equal all across the board? Absolutely NOT. IF it was rather pleasurable, and in the case of the Bali 3 one could then propagate their thoughts and doctrines to a new generation of offender, why would this be harsher or even equal to death?
The idea is perposterous. As an Israeli the assasin of PM Yitzchak Rabin comes to mind. Here is a man who was an ardent Kahanist. He was not only piut in the nation's best prison but was allowed to marry and get CONJUGAL VISITS!
Now he has gone and given a somewhat filmed (via cell phone) interview without authorisation and they moved him to another prison farther form his family (you can drive our country top to bottom in less than 4 hours) and have supended his conjugal rights for 90 days. 90 FUC%ING DAYS!
More importantly though, his views are cherished amongst a ertain demographic in Israel, those known as "Hilltop Boys" in English and he manages to spread his viewpoint, AND father children as the case may be.
Indonesia is NOT Israel, granted. Indonesia prisons are a breed apart, along the lines of Thai, and so on. However, it is also a very volatile nation with an overwhelmingly poor and Islamic population, i.e. the exact demographic most supporting the actions they took. It is quite conceivible that were they to be given Life instead, they could have certainly regained freedom and could have done so sooner rather than later.
To digress a bit, the though of my country of residence, the Philippines , weighs heavily. 2 weeks ago the NPA, the communist gurilla force here broke comrades out of prison in a daring move. they remain free. In the past Islamic gurillas have done the same, and so on. People sentenced even to death have managed to escape. In the case of terrorists is there any doubt that most have returned to their stock and trade? Especially when freed by fellow terrorists?
Killing those 3 was a great thing, yes a GREAT THING. The only down side was the length of time it took. THAT should be the point of repproach.
Azrael: Indonesia does not provide Trial by Jury for anyone. They base it on the German model of Civil Law, not Common LAw as in the UK, US, and so on. They use a 3 judge panel, with majority vote carrying the day. There does seem to be problems though, with the scarcity of dissention amongst sitting judges.
However, in the case at hand I do not see this as limiting in any way, shape, or form since all 3 of the bombers freely and proudly admitted to their deed. Indeed one could not stop smiling and even smirked in the faces of survivors' families. If there were ever truly a case to pull fence sitters in to the "Pro" camp this was it.
As far as Common Law derived systems, particularly the American version, there is an option to do away with juries although I cannot honestly say whether it holds true for capital cases as well although I would imagine it does. Ergo, juries do not have to be a commonality to all cases.
I understand though that you are talking on principle and not for the individuals in this case per se.
Roadkill: Roadkill's point about there not being much difference from an atrocious assault and a murder is just ridiculous (no offence). All the more so when Roadkill has just previously stated that he/she recognises that there in fact degrees in the offence of murder. IF there incremental differences in offence, why would you then negate this concept as it applies to lesser offence ssuch as battery, assault, and so on?
"Not conviced that the Death Penalty is any more awful than Life imprisonment.": It depends entirely on the degree and environment of imprisonment. Say for example, you are tried in the Hague. You have your own cell, with temperature control, your own PC, radio, TV, and reading materiels widely varied at will. Food is decent, medical treatment excellent bar none.
Say for example you instead imprisoned in Thailand or the Philippines where you risk rape or violence every day of your life, are subjected to infested soggy rice 3 times a day, unless you have the means to buy a very limited range of foods from vendors, and so on. Would Life imprisonment be equal all across the board? Absolutely NOT. IF it was rather pleasurable, and in the case of the Bali 3 one could then propagate their thoughts and doctrines to a new generation of offender, why would this be harsher or even equal to death?
The idea is perposterous. As an Israeli the assasin of PM Yitzchak Rabin comes to mind. Here is a man who was an ardent Kahanist. He was not only piut in the nation's best prison but was allowed to marry and get CONJUGAL VISITS!
Now he has gone and given a somewhat filmed (via cell phone) interview without authorisation and they moved him to another prison farther form his family (you can drive our country top to bottom in less than 4 hours) and have supended his conjugal rights for 90 days. 90 FUC%ING DAYS!
More importantly though, his views are cherished amongst a ertain demographic in Israel, those known as "Hilltop Boys" in English and he manages to spread his viewpoint, AND father children as the case may be.
Indonesia is NOT Israel, granted. Indonesia prisons are a breed apart, along the lines of Thai, and so on. However, it is also a very volatile nation with an overwhelmingly poor and Islamic population, i.e. the exact demographic most supporting the actions they took. It is quite conceivible that were they to be given Life instead, they could have certainly regained freedom and could have done so sooner rather than later.
To digress a bit, the though of my country of residence, the Philippines , weighs heavily. 2 weeks ago the NPA, the communist gurilla force here broke comrades out of prison in a daring move. they remain free. In the past Islamic gurillas have done the same, and so on. People sentenced even to death have managed to escape. In the case of terrorists is there any doubt that most have returned to their stock and trade? Especially when freed by fellow terrorists?
Killing those 3 was a great thing, yes a GREAT THING. The only down side was the length of time it took. THAT should be the point of repproach.
Roadkill (yet again): "Capital Punishment as a deterrant.": I repeat that one need only look to countries where it is carried out swiftly to see it in full utility.
"Capital Punishment as a way to uphold the sanctity of life. Oxymoronic?": Not at all. UPHOLDING THE LIVES OF THE INNOCENT. Is war without utility as well? Were an armed force to grab your wife and kids would you not wish to take up arms to protect them? IF one finds utility in defence of hearth and home, one should also see not only the utility BUT also the nobility of protecting society.
"IF the person were guilty...": That is where irreuftable evidence comes in to play. DNA? Fully scrutnised filmed evidence IN COMBINATION with a MULTITUDE of witnesses? Personal confession COMBINED with other evidence? Personal confession never recanted?
Without any and all of the preceeding I would call for Life if given any say (theretically speaking).
I want to add that both in Jewish Law as well as in Islamic Shari'ia as practiced in Arabia there is an exception to the Death Penalty IF and when families of victims agree to forgo it either out of compassion and/or for materiel reward, Blood Money if you will.
This allows for a most efficient usage of the system and indeed it has proven its value.
"Capital Punishment as a way to uphold the sanctity of life. Oxymoronic?": Not at all. UPHOLDING THE LIVES OF THE INNOCENT. Is war without utility as well? Were an armed force to grab your wife and kids would you not wish to take up arms to protect them? IF one finds utility in defence of hearth and home, one should also see not only the utility BUT also the nobility of protecting society.
"IF the person were guilty...": That is where irreuftable evidence comes in to play. DNA? Fully scrutnised filmed evidence IN COMBINATION with a MULTITUDE of witnesses? Personal confession COMBINED with other evidence? Personal confession never recanted?
Without any and all of the preceeding I would call for Life if given any say (theretically speaking).
I want to add that both in Jewish Law as well as in Islamic Shari'ia as practiced in Arabia there is an exception to the Death Penalty IF and when families of victims agree to forgo it either out of compassion and/or for materiel reward, Blood Money if you will.
This allows for a most efficient usage of the system and indeed it has proven its value.
It doesn't bother me: I just signalled that I'm not interested in replying. If I wanted to 'chastise' you I'd have explained why, but politeness dictates I shouldn't. However, to carry on quoting someone's remarks and blazing away at them even after they've said they're not interested in a debate strikes me as a very bizarre way to approach a discussion forum.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The problem with your argument is that the death penalty has never been applied in a blanket fashion (which would assure that the killer knew that "there's a high chance that they'll loose their own life in payment"), but always in a selective manner.
Our own legal system presided over a capital punishment system that condemned far fewer members of the upper social classes to death for murder than it did "the lower orders", for example.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Let's look at some facts, shall we?
The table on this page shows the murder rates in the US state-by-state. As you can see, Texas is consistently just above the average.
The states without the death penalty are highlighted in yellow. Do you see a pattern in the rates yellow vs not-yellow? A very strong correlation between existence of the death penalty and high murder rates. Of the states with no death penalty, only Alaska and Michigan are consistently above average.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Easy. Acquit if self-defence, else convict for manslaughter, unless the pugilist made a conscious decision to kill their fellow brawler. There is a case to be made for executing attempted murderers (the murderous intent is the same) but I wouldn't support it.
I'm arguing a moral case because I detest "ends justify the means" utilitarianism. But once a moral case is made on its own merits practical reasons can bolster it. Deterrence is one argument. Another is curtailing the sentence escalation that came with abolition. Another is that capital punishment can deter not only murder, but other crimes of violence: ie, criminals being afraid to assault a police officer lest they go too far and hang.
Some juries were troubled by sending a prisoner to die, but most dutifully convicted with "recommendation for mercy", and in any case, this could be solved by emulating the USA in having separate jury hearings for conviction and sentence.
Capital punishment isn't "eye for an eye" because it isn't like for like. Murderers don't give the victim due process, act in response to a prior crime, or seek to kill with a minimum of suffering. (A long drop hanging is over in less than a minute. Albert Pierrepoint once executed a man in seven seconds!) Due process is what makes execution a proportionate response to the crime of ending another's existence, and not revenge.
Civil law is no bar to jury trial: Belgium has them, Denmark has them, France used to (and retains a form of jury in its assize courts), and Spain recently introduced them. Scotland, with its unique civil law/common law hybrid, makes extensive use of 15-person juries.
True, which is why I don't want degrees of murder or secret Home Office reprieves like under the old system. I can't say whether more poor people were hanged, but I want every murderer hanged, whatever their background.
As I pointed out, the USA is misleading because in most states capital punishment is tokenistic. Very few murderers actually die, and those that do only after endless appeals, completely undermining the deterrence factor.
Since Texas reintroduced executions in 1982, its murder rate has fallen from 2,466 to 1,420. This may or may not be down to execution, because even Texas only executes for a tiny number of Murder One crimes. (Mostly involving the murder of police officers.)
As no State of the Union swiftly executes every murderer, America doesn't prove deterrence one way or the other.
This comes across as self-contradictory. You've said several times that you think murder is such a uniquely awful crime that it alone deserves the death penalty. That's tantamount to saying that if you deliberately take a life you deserve to forfeit your own in return, which in turn is very close indeed to saying, 'an eye for an eye.' I do disagree with that quite strongly: it's not a principle we should be upholding if we claim to be civilised.
I'm not convinced by the practical concerns you marshal in support of your moral case either. We've already been through the 'deterrence' thing and I still don't buy it. I'm not aware of any evidence that capital punishment deters violent crime and it's unlikely to be the case given how high a proportion of violence of all sorts is unpremeditated. I'd also point out that the US, which does have capital punishment in many states, has a considerably higher rate of violent crime in general (plus a murder rate a third higher) than Canada, which does not. Meanwhile, as far as I know you're wrong about convictions on capital charges: the last thing I read on the subject suggested that rates of conviction were lower. One could look further back for evidence, in fact, and point out that one reason the Bloody Code was disposed of here is that juries were reluctant to convict, knowing that the defendant would face the death penalty - and this despite the well known fact that the majority of sentences were never actually carried out.
8ball
As seen on TikTok
I hope he isn't - it sounds quite possibly far worse.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
How? The key point isn't that the prisoner is killed but how and why he or she is killed. "Eye for an eye" justice would involve the police dragging the prisoner out the back of the stationhouse and kicking him to death.
Scenario from the USA.
Mr Robber turns over 7/11. Sees witness. Considers shooting witness.
Mr Robber thinks: "I might get the needle. Unless the DA cuts me a Murder Two plea; or unless the police screw up the Miranda warning; or unless one of my endless appeals works; or unless the governor grants a moratorium. Ten years before anything happens anyway."
Bang.
To deter execution must be speedy and universal. The USA's capital punishment regime is a sclerotic mess due to its endless appeals and plea bargains. England used to execute convicts three weeks after they were sentenced, but the Home Office often granted mercy, no reason given. Arbitrary power is bad in principle, but also a disaster in practice.
As for the Bloody Code, that bears no relation to a modern regime of capital punishment for intentional homicide. It failed to deter because vast numbers of convicts had their sentences commuted, and life was incomparably more brutal than today. Yes, juries refused to convict by the early 19th century, because hanging people for housebreaking and theft was wildly disproportionate. And as Montesquieu said, execute for minor crimes, and thieves will add murder to their rap-sheet. (He might have phrased it slightly differently.) It's a separate issue from what I'm proposing.
How would you deal with murderers, and seek to deter the crime?
What is the relevance of how the life is taken? The salient fact, surely, is that it is taken at all, whether after due process or not. I still cannot see how your argument that if you take a life you deserve execution differs from 'an eye for an eye,' and I still find it self-contradictory, especially the bit about executing people to uphold the sanctity of life. And, for that matter, this bit:
So you are arguing deterrence, despite the fact that you've already conceded that the deterrence argument is at best highly debatable!
The Bloody Code is very relevant here, because its whole intention was to deter crime through draconian punishments. It signally failed in that. What deterred crime far more effectively than gruesome punishment is the likelihood of being caught as policing became more efficient. That still holds true today, which is why I think that the whole argument over the death penalty is pretty much an irrelevance anyway. I'd also point out that hanging people within weeks of conviction with no chance for effective appeals is completely incompatible with your professed belief in the sanctity of life.
How would I deal with murderers? Simple: prison.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
It all comes down to the Mill quote: is fining a thief self-contradictory? If not, then neither is hanging a murderer. If so, then how should we punish thieves and kidnappers?
I don't rely on deterrence: I adduced it when you asked for some practical benefits of capital punishment. Deterrence is a red herring because it's unprovable unless the death penalty is applied domestically under controlled conditions, which is why, I suspect, some abolitionists place so much weight on it.
Comprehensive policing is vital -- I've argued many times here that the abolition of beat policing has contributed to spiraling crime rates -- but it won't seriously deter "professional" criminals, the type of rational crooks who may be deterred by hanging. The bloody code isn't relevant because only a tiny fraction of death sentences were executed, and it applied in an alien world of early death and unimaginable squalor.
I don't support hanging convicts after three weeks (unless they waived their right to appeal): preparation of six months to a year would seem fair, but the stay could be longer, provided that it didn't descend to the endless appeals that undermine capital punishment stateside.
How long would you gaol murderers? Should a hard labour regime be imposed, and what special disincentive you employ to stop rapists and robbers from adding murder to the charge book?
turing test
Nearly Toowrong
Strange argument you have there.
Behaviorism is unequivocal. The only effective punishment is quick & sure. The death penalty will never be either.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not really. I don't think the moral case for capital punishment rests on deterrence, but as Roadkill wanted practical arguments, I made them.
Why not? (And how does "behaviorism" know the mind of every potential murderer?)
Similar threads
