Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Sarah Everard's Murderer
The current law in England and Wales states that the murder of a police (or prison) officer in the course of duty is a factor indicating a murder of ‘particularly high seriousness’, which must attract a minimum sentence of 30 years.
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
What would the death penalty achieve?
It's not punishment because the recipient is excused the result.
It's not a deterrent because no-one commits a crime if they have its consequences in mind.
So it's revenge, a primeval notion of satisfaction.
Does that reflect well on a civilised society, to respond to one death with another?
I don't think so.
It's not punishment because the recipient is excused the result.
It's not a deterrent because no-one commits a crime if they have its consequences in mind.
So it's revenge, a primeval notion of satisfaction.
Does that reflect well on a civilised society, to respond to one death with another?
I don't think so.
andy-hughes
What would the death penalty achieve?
It's not punishment because the recipient is excused the result
It would achieve hundreds of thousands of pounds saved over a 30 year period
Money that could be spent on nhs services or the elderly or medicines and treatment for children
Why waste all that money on someone who can never be released back into society ?
What would the death penalty achieve?
It's not punishment because the recipient is excused the result
It would achieve hundreds of thousands of pounds saved over a 30 year period
Money that could be spent on nhs services or the elderly or medicines and treatment for children
Why waste all that money on someone who can never be released back into society ?
Stickybottle - // It would achieve hundreds of thousands of pounds saved over a 30 year period
Money that could be spent on nhs services or the elderly or medicines and treatment for children
Why waste all that money on someone who can never be released back into society ? //
Your argument is a very common one, but popularity does not equate with sound logic.
First of all, assuming your position to be sustainable, you would need to be able to establish a line between the money saved by the absence of incarceration, and the financial benefit to the health service, or any other worthy cause.
That of course simply does not happen.
The idea that the Home Office would calculate the cost savings as a finite amount, and simply shift that sum from their account to the other, is simply not how government funding works, so the idea of a proveable financial saving does not in fact exist.
Add to that the proposition that we are equating the life of someone to a financial sum, and extingusing one to provide the other is a viewpoint that would keep me awake at night.
And before anyone leaps to their keyboard to accuse me of being m morally superior, let me say clearly that I am not suggesting that my moral standpoint is superior to yours, or that is inferior of course, merely that it is different.
We all adopt the morality that allows us to be comfortable with ourselves, but I have pointed out many times that I believe that the concept of killing someone for killing someone else diminishes us as individuals and as a society.
If a tiny fraction of my tax payer's money is used to keep a murderer off the streets for his or her natural life, then that's price I am willing to pay.
Money that could be spent on nhs services or the elderly or medicines and treatment for children
Why waste all that money on someone who can never be released back into society ? //
Your argument is a very common one, but popularity does not equate with sound logic.
First of all, assuming your position to be sustainable, you would need to be able to establish a line between the money saved by the absence of incarceration, and the financial benefit to the health service, or any other worthy cause.
That of course simply does not happen.
The idea that the Home Office would calculate the cost savings as a finite amount, and simply shift that sum from their account to the other, is simply not how government funding works, so the idea of a proveable financial saving does not in fact exist.
Add to that the proposition that we are equating the life of someone to a financial sum, and extingusing one to provide the other is a viewpoint that would keep me awake at night.
And before anyone leaps to their keyboard to accuse me of being m morally superior, let me say clearly that I am not suggesting that my moral standpoint is superior to yours, or that is inferior of course, merely that it is different.
We all adopt the morality that allows us to be comfortable with ourselves, but I have pointed out many times that I believe that the concept of killing someone for killing someone else diminishes us as individuals and as a society.
If a tiny fraction of my tax payer's money is used to keep a murderer off the streets for his or her natural life, then that's price I am willing to pay.
drmorgans - // And we see in America that prisoners on "death row" are held for decades while the lawyers argue over whether the execution should take place. //
It is difficult to find an argument against the notion that the continual argument by lawyers with other lawyers serves nothing meaningful, and simply pays obscene amounts of money to both sets of laywers.
I am all in favour of justice, but how can justice be served if due process is followed, and then appealed for decades.
The apparent conclusion being that the due process was clearly not fit for purose in the first place.
It is difficult to find an argument against the notion that the continual argument by lawyers with other lawyers serves nothing meaningful, and simply pays obscene amounts of money to both sets of laywers.
I am all in favour of justice, but how can justice be served if due process is followed, and then appealed for decades.
The apparent conclusion being that the due process was clearly not fit for purose in the first place.
davebro - // And I wouldn't feel at all "diminished" (whatever that means) by seeing vile murderers receive the ultimate penalty. //
Fair enough - but that brings me back to my original point - that capital punishment is rooted in the eomtion of revenge, and revenge is not justice.
To function properly, the law has to be utterly without emotion, in order to be as fair as it has to be.
The minute emotion comes in - and revenge is absolutely an emotion, understndable emotion, but emotion nevertheless, then the law stops operating as it should.
Fair enough - but that brings me back to my original point - that capital punishment is rooted in the eomtion of revenge, and revenge is not justice.
To function properly, the law has to be utterly without emotion, in order to be as fair as it has to be.
The minute emotion comes in - and revenge is absolutely an emotion, understndable emotion, but emotion nevertheless, then the law stops operating as it should.
I maybe have a different notion of "revenge" from you, Andy. To me, keeping someone locked up forever, with no chance of freedom, would be far more vengeful. That's purely punishment, which they can never learn from.
Death penalties aren't "revenge", as you say, the person isn't there to suffer. It keeps the public safe, without tormenting anyone.
Death penalties aren't "revenge", as you say, the person isn't there to suffer. It keeps the public safe, without tormenting anyone.
pixie - // I maybe have a different notion of "revenge" from you, Andy. To me, keeping someone locked up forever, with no chance of freedom, would be far more vengeful. That's purely punishment, which they can never learn from. //
I see it differently.
Incarcertation is not for the purposes of punishment, merely for the safety of society as a whole, removing a viable threat is a justified response to the crime of murder in my view.
//Death penalties aren't "revenge", as you say, the person isn't there to suffer. It keeps the public safe, without tormenting anyone. //
I think we will have to agree on this one.
My view is underlined by the moral outrage that permeates almost every post advocating capital punishment, the sense of anger and desire for revenge, there's that word again', that motivates almost every view is clear to see.
Once again I must stress, I am not immune from the impulses that generate such a view, but I believe that society as a whole is not best served by allowing emotions to govern its lawmaking.
I see it differently.
Incarcertation is not for the purposes of punishment, merely for the safety of society as a whole, removing a viable threat is a justified response to the crime of murder in my view.
//Death penalties aren't "revenge", as you say, the person isn't there to suffer. It keeps the public safe, without tormenting anyone. //
I think we will have to agree on this one.
My view is underlined by the moral outrage that permeates almost every post advocating capital punishment, the sense of anger and desire for revenge, there's that word again', that motivates almost every view is clear to see.
Once again I must stress, I am not immune from the impulses that generate such a view, but I believe that society as a whole is not best served by allowing emotions to govern its lawmaking.
Ellipsis - // But for me the best argument for it is (in this case) the peace of mind it may give Sarah's family to know that this vile person was gone ... it may make their future lives more tolerable. //
I doubt it, but I can see where your view comes from.
None of us can imagine the grief and anguish this poor family are enduring, nor can we suppose that they would gain comfort from the death of the murderer of their loved one.
That comes down to individuals - each and every case is different, and the law has to provide sanctions for each and every one of them.
That is why, and I keep returning to my original position - emotion has no place on the formulation and exercise of the law.
I doubt it, but I can see where your view comes from.
None of us can imagine the grief and anguish this poor family are enduring, nor can we suppose that they would gain comfort from the death of the murderer of their loved one.
That comes down to individuals - each and every case is different, and the law has to provide sanctions for each and every one of them.
That is why, and I keep returning to my original position - emotion has no place on the formulation and exercise of the law.
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.