Capital punishment

[JHE]

Shoot him if you like but that's got nothing to do with capital punishment. That's more of a war/revolution issue than an everyday legal question to do with common criminals.

To Malvado: General Malvado el Malísimo, for your crimes against the people, I sentence you to death.

To comrades: Of course, we are all opposed to execution, except when we call it something else. We'll phone Scooter later to find out what we can call this execution.

Right, take Malvado out, prop him against he wall and we'll all shoot him.

 

[scooter]

Come off it. You know that in times of war different rules apply.

 

[JHE]

Come off it. You know that in times of war different rules apply.

And in times of war/revolution you might, in some circumstances, agree that execution is right?

 

[scooter]

yeah totally. But I don't think that's what this thread is about.

 

[ohmyliver]

I'm against Capital Punishment, because:

A it's expensive (it's actually cheaper to hold someone in prison for a life sentance, unless you get rid of legal aid and the appeals process, death row, etc),

B the legal system is never going to be free of human error, and it's a lot better to release a person from prison, than pardon a corpse.

C it has no effect on the crime rate


So, in short, expensive, barbaric and doesn't do anything except sate peoples 'rightous' bloodlust

 

[JHE]

yeah totally. But I don't think that's what this thread is about.

The thread is about capital punishment, not just about capital punishment in times of peace.

One of the poll options is 'Yes, in some other situations (to be explained)'. I think that's one for you.

 

[JHE]

C it has no effect on the crime rate

How do you know?

 

[scooter]

Well if that option includes war then you're right. For example, mutiny in the armed forces during a war generally attracts capital punishment or aiding the enemy etc. There's also the small fact of having to shoot the enemy in combat - it would be a bit difficult to win the war if you're opposed to shooting the enemy on ideological grounds.

 

[internetstalker]

I voted yes by accident

 

[ohmyliver]

How do you know?

two things,
firstly if you compare crime rates in countries with and without the death penalty, you'll soon realise that there isn't a relationship between crime rate and death penalty

secondly, the majority of crimes which the death penalty is used for, like murder, are either done thinking that they'll get away with it (so the penalty is irrelevant), or in the heat of the moment (so it's not a rational decision, so again the penalty is irrelevant)

 

[scooter]

C it has no effect on the crime rate

IIRC South Dakota and North Dakota are extremely similar in terms of social, economic and other factors. South Dakota has the death penalty whereas North Dakota doesn't but the murder rate is higher in South Dakota.

 

[ohmyliver]

IIRC South Dakota and North Dakota are extremely similar in terms of social, economic and other factors. South Dakota has the death penalty whereas North Dakota doesn't but the murder rate is higher in South Dakota.

well, that's the basis of an even better arguement against then: that capital punishment makes people more murderous

 

[Belushi]

two things,
firstly if you compare crime rates in countries with and without the death penalty, you'll soon realise that there isn't a relationship between crime rate and death penalty

secondly, the majority of crimes which the death penalty is used for, like murder, are either done thinking that they'll get away with it (so the penalty is irrelevant), or in the heat of the moment (so it's not a rational decision, so again the penalty is irrelevant)

Yes, iirc the whole reason prisons were introduced was because 'bloody code' (where you could be hung for just about any crime against property) just didnt work. It didnt deter and juries very often refused to convict because they didnt want to see some poor bugger hung for nicking a loaf of bread.

 

[Santino]

OK, here's a scenario...

You, hero that you are, have been in the forefront of the revolution. What's more, you are winning. Unfortunately, troops loyal to the leader of the old regime are still resisting. People on both sides of the battle are being killed. The fighting is likely to continue for days. Dozens or hundreds more will be killed.

You capture the horrible head of the old regime, General Malvado el Malísimo. Malvado, as everyone knows, has been responsible for the torture and killing of umpteen hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people during the long and bitter years of his dictatorship. The people starved, as he ate the best veal and drank the best wine in his palaces.

Your most reliable spies tell you that Malvado's troops are pledged to fight to the last man as long as their general lives, but would surrender if they knew their leader were dead.

I say to you: 'Put the bastard up against the wall and shoot him, making sure to film and broadcast the execution.'

What are you going to do?

What if the soldiers vow to fight on as long as either the General or his nominated successor, his one year old son, are alive? Would you dash the infant's brains against the wall and film that too?

 

[JHE]

What if the soldiers vow to fight on as long as either the General or his nominated successor, his one year old son, are alive? Would you dash the infant's brains against the wall and film that too?

Dunno. Tricky one that. It's probably best to lie - just temporarily like.

News flash: We regret to report that the infant son of the dead dictator has been accidentally killed in the fighting. Eyewitnesses say that the building in which the child was hiding was blown up by troops loyal to General Malvado, though Malvadian sources deny this.

<Insert faked pic of splattered infant>

That might do the trick.

 

[lobster]

Another common argument against capital punishment is human rights.
Its a very abstract term to use , did Slobodan Milošević or some other mass murderer really need to be protected in the name of "human rights" ? There is simple a good and bad human, however we do not want a situation where we have state supported vendettas.

I could imagine a situation where a teenager kills someone and that victims relatives get the state to murder the murderer and then a relative on the murderers side kills another on the other side and so on...

As well as all the other mentioned reasons against it.. mistaken identity and does it really reduce the worse crimes I agree with.

As I started of in that other post on "do we want a general election", we really need to re-establish crime punishments and get back life sentences as life not what it is now.

I think capital punishment does not fit the bill.

I would like too add there is a paper on "human rights" by Charles Blattberg called "The Ironic Tragedy of Human Rights" which in a few days when i finished exams I will read.

 

[maomao]

IIRC South Dakota and North Dakota are extremely similar in terms of social, economic and other factors. South Dakota has the death penalty whereas North Dakota doesn't but the murder rate is higher in South Dakota.

However there hasn't been an execution in South Dakota for over 30 years.

 

[derf]

Absolutely not.

"thou shalt not kill" is fundemental.

Then there is the stupidity of saying "oh, you killed someone. That's so bad we're going to kill you". Utterly incoherent.
.

You quote the bible but only a bit of it. If I recall that is a commandment issued to the people in the form of a law.
The bible also instructs as to the punishment for breaking that law.

Leviticus 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Deuteronomy 19:21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(I quite like Deuteronomy especially the bits about testicles.)

Of course in he sermon on the mount Jesus gave it a bit of "turn the other cheek" but I understand that he got fucked anyway doing that one.

Sod all point basing your argument on a biblical law but telling us that your base is "Utterly incoherent" when it comes to the bit you don't like.

0/10 - Must try harder.

 

[Santino]

Dunno. Tricky one that. It's probably best to lie - just temporarily like.

News flash: We regret to report that the infant son of the dead dictator has been accidentally killed in the fighting. Eyewitnesses say that the building in which the child was hiding was blown up by troops loyal to General Malvado, though Malvadian sources deny this.

<Insert faked pic of splattered infant>

That might do the trick.

So just fake the general's death.

Or the troop's don't believe your story and keep fighting anyway.

My point is that anyone can come up with an improbable story about why killing someone may appear to be justified, but that doesn't carry any weight on the issue of whether this society, in 2009, should have the death sentence.

If you like I can invent a daft story about a virulent form of influenza that can only be prevented from killing the whole human race by rounding up green-eyed people and gassing them. What does that have to do with genuine political decisions?

 

[JHE]

So just fake the general's death.

Or the troop's don't believe your story and keep fighting anyway.

No, shoot the bastard!

Make sure it is all clearly enough filmed for there then to be no doubt about the identity of the man shot and the thoroughness of the shooting.

Malvado's dead. That's an important moment in the liberation - as well as having been the old brutes just deserts.

My point is that anyone can come up with an improbable story about why killing someone may appear to be justified, but that doesn't carry any weight on the issue of whether this society, in 2009, should have the death sentence.

If you like I can invent a daft story about a virulent form of influenza that can only be prevented from killing the whole human race by rounding up green-eyed people and gassing them. What does that have to do with genuine political decisions?

The story (my one) is not that daft or improbable. Do you remember the Romanian revolution? Quite a similar situation, IIRC.

The question I posed was not just about whether we should routinely have the death penalty for murder (which, as it happens, I've never supported) but about the death penalty, including in some non-run-of-the-mill situations.

Sometimes, execution is the prudent choice.

 

[Santino]

The story (my one) is not that daft or improbable. Do you remember the Romanian revolution? Quite a similar situation, IIRC.

The question I posed was not just about whether we should routinely have the death penalty for murder (which, as it happens, I've never supported) but about the death penalty, including in some non-run-of-the-mill situations.

Sometimes, execution is the prudent choice.

No doubt there are times when execution seems the prudent choice, but it is impossible to say what would happen in these cases. I can come up with an equally plausible story about why executing him would be unwise.

All that is beside the point though when you lay down laws. You can't frame a law to cover every conceivable event. Nor can you have a law that says 'Never do this, unless the situation really warrants it.' The law can't even codify something like 'Don't execute someone unless the evidence is really, really overwhelming, in a way that only a proper idiot could doubt, and the crime is really, really bad,' because there will always be borderline cases. Even if you specifically frame the law to rule out borderline cases, there will be cases on the borderline between borderline and non-borderline.

 

[weltweit]

1) We just had a thread about this.

In 2006, more than 3,800 people were sentenced to death in 55 countries, the EU says.

2) If you could frame a law that gave the death penalty to Fred West, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman and perhaps this Wright chap who killed all those prostitutes recently then I might well support it. I would not lose a wink of sleep thinking about these people being executed.

3) Yes I am aware that within the EU we have signed a treaty and abolishing capital punishment is a requirement for EU members. I am talking theoretically.

4) I don't accept that there is NO deterrent effect, the deterrent effect may not be massive but I think it is very likely that some murderers would be put off killing if they would face the death sentence rather than life imprisonment and yes I know that in the USA where they have the death sentence they still have murders. In life the prospect or risk of an early death does deter people from doing lots of things, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the death penalty would have SOME deterrent effect.

 

[ohmyliver]

1)
4) I don't accept that there is NO deterrent effect, the deterrent effect may not be massive but I think it is very likely that some murderers would be put off killing if they would face the death sentence rather than life imprisonment and yes I know that in the USA where they have the death sentence they still have murders. In life the prospect or risk of an early death does deter people from doing lots of things, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the death penalty would have SOME deterrent effect.

who commits a crime thinking that they'll be caught?

 

[Rod Sleeves]

1) We just had a thread about this.

In 2006, more than 3,800 people were sentenced to death in 55 countries, the EU says.

2) If you could frame a law that gave the death penalty to Fred West, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman and perhaps this Wright chap who killed all those prostitutes recently then I might well support it. I would not lose a wink of sleep thinking about these people being executed.

3) Yes I am aware that within the EU we have signed a treaty and abolishing capital punishment is a requirement for EU members. I am talking theoretically.

4) I don't accept that there is NO deterrent effect, the deterrent effect may not be massive but I think it is very likely that some murderers would be put off killing if they would face the death sentence rather than life imprisonment and yes I know that in the USA where they have the death sentence they still have murders. In life the prospect or risk of an early death does deter people from doing lots of things, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the death penalty would have SOME deterrent effect.

Wow. You take first prize for logic with that post.

 

[Santino]

4) I don't accept that there is NO deterrent effect, the deterrent effect may not be massive but I think it is very likely that some murderers would be put off killing if they would face the death sentence rather than life imprisonment and yes I know that in the USA where they have the death sentence they still have murders. In life the prospect or risk of an early death does deter people from doing lots of things, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the death penalty would have SOME deterrent effect.

It is never reasonable to assume anything so straightforward about human motivation.

Punishment might just as well encourage more crime than it deters. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. How do you determine which effect is more pronounced?

 

[JHE]

No doubt there are times when execution seems the prudent choice, but it is impossible to say what would happen in these cases.

It's certainly not always impossible.

I can come up with an equally plausible story about why executing him would be unwise.

Go on then. You'll have to think of rather different circumstances. And in those circumstances, fine, lock the bastard up instead.

All that is beside the point though when you lay down laws. You can't frame a law to cover every conceivable event. Nor can you have a law that says 'Never do this, unless the situation really warrants it.' The law can't even codify something like 'Don't execute someone unless the evidence is really, really overwhelming, in a way that only a proper idiot could doubt, and the crime is really, really bad,' because there will always be borderline cases. Even if you specifically frame the law to rule out borderline cases, there will be cases on the borderline between borderline and non-borderline.

The 'law' in some circumstances is effectively what a group of people with guns decide is the best thing to do.

In the days of the Cuban revolution, Guevara, who was rather keen on executions, ordered many people associated with the Batista regime shot. I don't think the justification was as strong as in the case of General Malvado, but there were arguments in favour: they had committed terrible crimes, the people wanted 'justice' (ie, they wanted the bastards killed), and the revolutionaries wanted to suppress potential counter-revolution.

 

[weltweit]

who commits a crime thinking that they'll be caught?

I think with modern DNA and such there is more chance now that murderers will be caught. They must think at least a moment about it.

There are lots of things we do which carry the risk of death, and this risk keeps us sane (cycling in London for one) why is it then impossible that the prospective murderer would not mull over the death penalty when planning his/her crimes.

 

[Santino]

It's certainly not always impossible.

Yes it is.





Easy, this arguing lark, innit?

 

[Santino]

The 'law' in some circumstances is effectively what a group of people with guns decide is the best thing to do.

Not a very good law, that.

In the days of the Cuban revolution, Guevara, who was rather keen on executions, ordered many people associated with the Batista regime shot. I don't think the justification was as strong as in the case of General Malvado, but there were arguments in favour: they had committed terrible crimes, the people wanted 'justice' (ie, they wanted the bastards killed), and the revolutionaries wanted to suppress potential counter-revolution.

Who knows what would have happened if he hadn't executed them? No one.

I'm not sure how Che's actions in Cuba during the 1950s relate to whether our society in 2009 should have the death penalty.

 

[weltweit]

It is never reasonable to assume anything so straightforward about human motivation.

Punishment might just as well encourage more crime than it deters. Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. How do you determine which effect is more pronounced?

If detection and punishment were certain and were the death penalty I fail to see how that might encourage "more" crime.