Law12 mins ago
Still in opposition to the death penalty?
58 Answers
http://www.dailymail....e-disabled-woman.html
Can some of Britain's society sink any lower than these 5 savages have sunk to?
There have been many unspeakable crimes committed in the past, but most of those who committed them met their end at the end of a rope.
I know that there are some who even after reading this despicable case will still oppose the death penalty, the question must be why?
Can some of Britain's society sink any lower than these 5 savages have sunk to?
There have been many unspeakable crimes committed in the past, but most of those who committed them met their end at the end of a rope.
I know that there are some who even after reading this despicable case will still oppose the death penalty, the question must be why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it's always a contentious issue, because it usually arises when you have cases like this. Personally i would have sentenced them all to life in prison and no parole. As others have said it would bring the law down to their level, and no one wants that. There have been many cases like this, like the poor woman and who killed herself and her daughter because of the bullying they endured for years, is another example of this heartless cruelty. And too many do get away with it. No to hanging, even though there are some i would gladly see gone, but life to mean life.
I agree entirely with NJ - execution has no place in a civilised society.
Talk of it only brings out the utterly self-righteous with their "I'll pull the lever!" rantings - it's simply unexcusable.
Revenge and justice are not the same thing, and it looks like civilisation will ensure that the difference is maintained.
Still opposed to the death penalty? Absolutely.
Talk of it only brings out the utterly self-righteous with their "I'll pull the lever!" rantings - it's simply unexcusable.
Revenge and justice are not the same thing, and it looks like civilisation will ensure that the difference is maintained.
Still opposed to the death penalty? Absolutely.
At the point of death the convicted are no longer punished, they are out of the picture. It is the effect that it has on the still living that is the issue.
Some people would feel good about the death, feel like justice has been done. Somtimes some people will end up feeling bad about a death when it is proven that the people they killed were innocent. Heinous crimes will still be commited, the deaths will not stop some humans following their basest urges.
So the death penalty will ultimately have the effect of some people feeling good sometimes, a reasonable reason for consideration no doubt - I myself would no doubt feel good if I were close to somebody who had a terrible crime commited to them - but this cannot be a reason to instate it in a civilised society.
Some people would feel good about the death, feel like justice has been done. Somtimes some people will end up feeling bad about a death when it is proven that the people they killed were innocent. Heinous crimes will still be commited, the deaths will not stop some humans following their basest urges.
So the death penalty will ultimately have the effect of some people feeling good sometimes, a reasonable reason for consideration no doubt - I myself would no doubt feel good if I were close to somebody who had a terrible crime commited to them - but this cannot be a reason to instate it in a civilised society.
As I've said before, I'm sympathetic to the case for the death penalty in the case of psychopaths who have committed crimes because as yet, they are incurably dangerous - and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that that attempts to 'cure' them simply make them more effective manipulators.
But even this has its problems - Colin Stagg does seem to have been a genuine sexual psychopath who was nevertheless innocent of the murder he was accused of, had done nothing to break the law, and would almost certainly have been killed under capital punishment.
What I will say is that I find AOG's apparent case for CP in this particular thread quite depressing. What the argument amounts to is essentially a knee-jerk, emotive response to one particularly horrid case. This is exactly the kind of thing our criminal justice system should not be based on.
But even this has its problems - Colin Stagg does seem to have been a genuine sexual psychopath who was nevertheless innocent of the murder he was accused of, had done nothing to break the law, and would almost certainly have been killed under capital punishment.
What I will say is that I find AOG's apparent case for CP in this particular thread quite depressing. What the argument amounts to is essentially a knee-jerk, emotive response to one particularly horrid case. This is exactly the kind of thing our criminal justice system should not be based on.
As you say Kromovaracun - there is a world of difference between self-righteous revenge and justice. One is based on emotion, the other on debated ethics - and as I have said, it is fortunate that a civilised society bases its laws on the best (but by no means perfect) solution to an extremely difficult moral question, and not the thoughts of those who feel that their sense of anger entitles them to some sort of destruction fest.
Oh yes. Three examples why:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Kiszko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing
http://en.wikipedia.o...l_Nickell_murder_case
The Stefan Kiszko case especially makes very disturbing reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Kiszko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing
http://en.wikipedia.o...l_Nickell_murder_case
The Stefan Kiszko case especially makes very disturbing reading.
Kromovaracun, you'd execute psychopaths? Psychopathy is a mental disorder, and that sort of thing has long been seen as a mitigating factor. If a madman and a sane man commit the same crime, why would it be the first one and not the second who should die for it? Psychopaths seem to me precisely the sort of people who should be locked up forever - but not killed.
Well it would seem that most on AB would still oppose the death penalty even after reading this disturbing case.
That's fair enough, but what I find unusual is the fact that if a referendum was raised over this matter, most would ask for the restoration of the death penalty for certain crimes.
Does that mean that the members of AnswerBank are not a fair representation of the rest of society? This is in no way a criticism of fellow ABers, as everyone must follow their true feelings.
The main contention over this matter seems to be the fact that maybe there might be a danger of someone being put to death for a crime they did not commit, my answer to this is that I do not think with present day DNA etc, and that the death penalty would not be issued lightly, there would be very little chance of this happening.
Take the particular case in question, do any ABers think that these 5 pieces of scum are in fact innocent?
That's fair enough, but what I find unusual is the fact that if a referendum was raised over this matter, most would ask for the restoration of the death penalty for certain crimes.
Does that mean that the members of AnswerBank are not a fair representation of the rest of society? This is in no way a criticism of fellow ABers, as everyone must follow their true feelings.
The main contention over this matter seems to be the fact that maybe there might be a danger of someone being put to death for a crime they did not commit, my answer to this is that I do not think with present day DNA etc, and that the death penalty would not be issued lightly, there would be very little chance of this happening.
Take the particular case in question, do any ABers think that these 5 pieces of scum are in fact innocent?
AOG - i would concur with your proposition that the AB members are not a full representation of society as a whole.
People who use a site like this are more likely to think about things on a deeper level, and to have a more reasonable approach to a debate like this.
In conclusion - I do not think that the criminals in this case are innocent - their trial has dictated otherwise, but i do believe that a death sentence is more an act of revenge than the true concept of justice - and as i have said before, what ever punishements a civilised society can mete out to its transgressors, execution is not an appropriate one.
People who use a site like this are more likely to think about things on a deeper level, and to have a more reasonable approach to a debate like this.
In conclusion - I do not think that the criminals in this case are innocent - their trial has dictated otherwise, but i do believe that a death sentence is more an act of revenge than the true concept of justice - and as i have said before, what ever punishements a civilised society can mete out to its transgressors, execution is not an appropriate one.
"
jno
Kromovaracun, you'd execute psychopaths? Psychopathy is a mental disorder, and that sort of thing has long been seen as a mitigating factor."
I think you're confusing the legal definition of insanity with the popular definition. To qualify for an insanity plea, you need to have a mental disorder of the kind which plainly demonstrates that you weren't fully aware of what you were doing. Read any definition of a psychopath and you'll find that this does not apply to them.
With regard to your first question - my answer is that I'm undecided, but I am sympathetic to the argument. This is because there is as yet no demonstrable way to cure or reform psychopaths who have become killers (and not all do). Such men are an unambiguous threat to public safety and, with the current state of knowledge of the condition, pretty hopeless cases when it comes to change. I think there's a strong case for executing them, yes. The reason I'm not wholly convinced by it is because of the case of Colin Stagg - almost certainly a genuine psychopath who nevertheless was pretty harmless and was innocent of the murder he was accused of. He would definitely have been executed under my system, which is something of a fatal flaw.
@ andy: I wholly agree.
@ AOG:
"Does that mean that the members of AnswerBank are not a fair representation of the rest of society?"
Yes, I think that's probably true. You're right to observe there's strong public support for (even limited) capital punishment. My response is that this fact, for reasons outlined above by myself and more eloquently by Andy, does not necessarily make it right.
jno
Kromovaracun, you'd execute psychopaths? Psychopathy is a mental disorder, and that sort of thing has long been seen as a mitigating factor."
I think you're confusing the legal definition of insanity with the popular definition. To qualify for an insanity plea, you need to have a mental disorder of the kind which plainly demonstrates that you weren't fully aware of what you were doing. Read any definition of a psychopath and you'll find that this does not apply to them.
With regard to your first question - my answer is that I'm undecided, but I am sympathetic to the argument. This is because there is as yet no demonstrable way to cure or reform psychopaths who have become killers (and not all do). Such men are an unambiguous threat to public safety and, with the current state of knowledge of the condition, pretty hopeless cases when it comes to change. I think there's a strong case for executing them, yes. The reason I'm not wholly convinced by it is because of the case of Colin Stagg - almost certainly a genuine psychopath who nevertheless was pretty harmless and was innocent of the murder he was accused of. He would definitely have been executed under my system, which is something of a fatal flaw.
@ andy: I wholly agree.
@ AOG:
"Does that mean that the members of AnswerBank are not a fair representation of the rest of society?"
Yes, I think that's probably true. You're right to observe there's strong public support for (even limited) capital punishment. My response is that this fact, for reasons outlined above by myself and more eloquently by Andy, does not necessarily make it right.
As a member of the Council of Europe, the UK is in any case banned from using the death penalty (tho it could bring it back onto the statute books).
I can't understand the argument that the more horrendous the crime the greater is the justification for the death penalty. Certainly the greater are one's gut feelings of horror and desire for revenge, but such heightening of the emotions should have no place in determining punishments.
I can't understand the argument that the more horrendous the crime the greater is the justification for the death penalty. Certainly the greater are one's gut feelings of horror and desire for revenge, but such heightening of the emotions should have no place in determining punishments.
"Ickeria, whilst i agree with that, there are cases where the criminal, who has committed a serious crime, i.e murder, has done his time, been released and then killed again. First degree murder in Britain should carry a mandatory life sentence, no parole. "
In turn I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. There are of course lots of cases where murderers who are deemed very likely to kill again, often I think for reasons of psycopathy, are indeed banged away for life, but whether that should automatically apply to all perpetrators of certain types of murder is something for consideration
In turn I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. There are of course lots of cases where murderers who are deemed very likely to kill again, often I think for reasons of psycopathy, are indeed banged away for life, but whether that should automatically apply to all perpetrators of certain types of murder is something for consideration
Why must the question be "why?"
The 'why' doesn't change because you have an example of, "an unspeakable crime". An act that is morally wrong doesn't cease to be so because someone else performs such an "unspeakable crime".
Society should never judge the level of behaviour it should sink to by the standards of the criminals it disapproves of. Or are we to race to the bottom faster and faster ?
The 'why' doesn't change because you have an example of, "an unspeakable crime". An act that is morally wrong doesn't cease to be so because someone else performs such an "unspeakable crime".
Society should never judge the level of behaviour it should sink to by the standards of the criminals it disapproves of. Or are we to race to the bottom faster and faster ?
Latest Posts
Music34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.