Capital punishment
Scroll to see replies
Nope, I am fundamentally opposed to killing in cold blood unless there literally isn't a prison system to keep those dangerous individuals from doing more harm (i.e. I could understand why a lot of people thought Morgan was being an idiot in the last few Walking Dead episodes).
Beyond that, I would argue that it offers retribution for victims, not justice, and certainly not the opportunity for rehabilitation - which, on top of protecting society, is another key principal of why we have a justice system.
Then of course there are the economic issues, it would cost far more unless you want to remove the appeals process (I'm sure Kim Jong Un's legal system is pretty affordable in this respect).
Also, it would appear that it does not act as a deterrent to heinous crimes. Intuitively it would seem that if you are at risk of being killed yourself instead of simply imprisoned, you'd be less likely to murder. However I don't think a desire to murder is a particularly normal thing to have, and I'd wager that those that have it probably don't apply the same weightings to the value of their life etc as most ordinary people would.
Finally, it's a type of punishment that is rightly on its way out in the Western World, and so restoring it here would demonstrate being socially regressive/out of step. In Europe, only the authoritarian Belarus uses it, EU countries simply aren't allowed to use it (and the EU's official position is to campaign against its use worldwide), even Russia has a moratorium on its use. In the US there is a growing sense that its application is arbitrary, 'cruel and unusual', and damned expensive - accordingly, the rate of its usage has fallen through the floor, and we're beginning to see even Red States implementing/considering abolishment or moratoriums. I would argue that as religious apathy continues to grow in the Western World, fewer and fewer people are going to be convinced by 'eye for an eye', retributive justice, and instead demand something that works. In short, it would be embarrassing if it we reintroduced it.
Beyond that, I would argue that it offers retribution for victims, not justice, and certainly not the opportunity for rehabilitation - which, on top of protecting society, is another key principal of why we have a justice system.
Then of course there are the economic issues, it would cost far more unless you want to remove the appeals process (I'm sure Kim Jong Un's legal system is pretty affordable in this respect).
Also, it would appear that it does not act as a deterrent to heinous crimes. Intuitively it would seem that if you are at risk of being killed yourself instead of simply imprisoned, you'd be less likely to murder. However I don't think a desire to murder is a particularly normal thing to have, and I'd wager that those that have it probably don't apply the same weightings to the value of their life etc as most ordinary people would.
Finally, it's a type of punishment that is rightly on its way out in the Western World, and so restoring it here would demonstrate being socially regressive/out of step. In Europe, only the authoritarian Belarus uses it, EU countries simply aren't allowed to use it (and the EU's official position is to campaign against its use worldwide), even Russia has a moratorium on its use. In the US there is a growing sense that its application is arbitrary, 'cruel and unusual', and damned expensive - accordingly, the rate of its usage has fallen through the floor, and we're beginning to see even Red States implementing/considering abolishment or moratoriums. I would argue that as religious apathy continues to grow in the Western World, fewer and fewer people are going to be convinced by 'eye for an eye', retributive justice, and instead demand something that works. In short, it would be embarrassing if it we reintroduced it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Drummerz
It could be but thats highly unlikely given the burden of proof that should be required before someone is senteced to death,but I agree even if just one innocent person is executed thats one too many..
It's happened with twins mostly, but there are cases where all evidence went against the person, who was sent to jail and then cleared 30 years later
Original post by Underscore__
What are you talking about? The US doesn't know use 'guilty until proven innocent'. Well I haven't trawled through all of the case law in the UK but I'd say public prosecutions are still more common. You're clearly not very knowledgable on the UK legal system so allow me to give you a quick lesson. All criminal trials begin at the magistrates court, more serious cases are then referred to the crown court where the case is heard in front of a jury. By 'more serious' I mean anything that isn't a summary offence.
The two systems are very similar, next time you google something you don't know anything about to make an argument you'll need to research it a bit better.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The two systems are very similar, next time you google something you don't know anything about to make an argument you'll need to research it a bit better.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think your knowledge of the US legal system is very good so allow me to educate you. America does use guilty until innocent clause, it is a common practice in American court, which has led to many incorrect sentences being given. I can show you some case files to prove that.
And yes I know that, I think I made it clear that I knew that.
They do have similarities on the outer view but when they are further examined they are rather different.
Original post by sw651
I don't think your knowledge of the US legal system is very good so allow me to educate you. America does use guilty until innocent clause, it is a common practice in American court, which has led to many incorrect sentences being given. I can show you some case files to prove that.
And yes I know that, I think I made it clear that I knew that.
They do have similarities on the outer view but when they are further examined they are rather different.
And yes I know that, I think I made it clear that I knew that.
They do have similarities on the outer view but when they are further examined they are rather different.
source? innocent until proven guilty is part of the universal declaration of human rights
Original post by Implication
source? innocent until proven guilty is part of the universal declaration of human rights
Which as we know is never followed properly. Look at Guantanamo bay where they used speed trials without evidence.
Original post by sw651
Which as we know is never followed properly. Look at Guantanamo bay where they used speed trials without evidence.
The emboldened is obviously false, and I have no idea how often it really isn't 'followed properly'.
But what does this have to do with the point against which you raised this as an objection? Even if the US do use 'speed trials without evidence' in a significant number of cases (though I'm extremely sceptical of this), that would result in a decreased cost and hence we would expect our own costs to be even greater by contrast.
Original post by Implication
The emboldened is obviously false, and I have no idea how often it really isn't 'followed properly'.
But what does this have to do with the point against which you raised this as an objection? Even if the US do use 'speed trials without evidence' in a significant number of cases (though I'm extremely sceptical of this), that would result in a decreased cost and hence we would expect our own costs to be even greater by contrast.
But what does this have to do with the point against which you raised this as an objection? Even if the US do use 'speed trials without evidence' in a significant number of cases (though I'm extremely sceptical of this), that would result in a decreased cost and hence we would expect our own costs to be even greater by contrast.
Russia, South American Nations, South Eastern Asia, Middle east all have UN countries, yet terrible human rights records.
It doesn't though, because you still have to pay a prosecution, and defence, also if death is the penalty then you have the cost of a medical professional, final request, a proper dignified way of body disposal, mortuary professionals etc
Original post by sw651
Russia, South American Nations, South Eastern Asia, Middle east all have UN countries, yet terrible human rights records.
It doesn't though, because you still have to pay a prosecution, and defence, also if death is the penalty then you have the cost of a medical professional, final request, a proper dignified way of body disposal, mortuary professionals etc
It doesn't though, because you still have to pay a prosecution, and defence, also if death is the penalty then you have the cost of a medical professional, final request, a proper dignified way of body disposal, mortuary professionals etc
Let's rewind a sec. Somebody said that capital punishment is far more expensive in the US, and our justice systems are fairly similar so we might expect to see a similar cost discrepancy were we to reintroduce capital punishment here. Could you clarify your objection to this please?
Original post by Implication
Let's rewind a sec. Somebody said that capital punishment is far more expensive in the US, and our justice systems are fairly similar so we might expect to see a similar cost discrepancy were we to reintroduce capital punishment here. Could you clarify your objection to this please?
My objection was to the fact that the systems have similarities in SOME aspects, but to use the American system as evidence for a cost for execution would be inaccurate. That was my only objection.
Original post by sw651
I don't think your knowledge of the US legal system is very good so allow me to educate you. America does use guilty until innocent clause, it is a common practice in American court, which has led to many incorrect sentences being given. I can show you some case files to prove that.
And yes I know that, I think I made it clear that I knew that.
They do have similarities on the outer view but when they are further examined they are rather different.
And yes I know that, I think I made it clear that I knew that.
They do have similarities on the outer view but when they are further examined they are rather different.
Please stop being ridiculous; a simple google search will throw up multiple sources that will tell you that the burden of proof in the USA rests with the prosecution, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
There are of course differences but the two justice systems are very similar
just like this useless statement
Original post by Holydude
Yea, some actions render individuals useless to society.
Original post by Guls
just like this useless statement
Do you think the execution of Nazis at Nuremberg was a mistake then? Because I feel this was a perfect example of the use of capital punishment.
Original post by Holydude
Do you think the execution of Nazis at Nuremberg was a mistake then? Because I feel this was a perfect example of the use of capital punishment.
The Nuremberg trials are an absolutely deplorable application of 'law', please don't cite them as a positive ever again
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
The Nuremberg trials are an absolutely deplorable application of 'law', please don't cite them as a positive ever again
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree it wasn't an ideal application of law, but the principal that war criminals should face death is difficult to argue against considering their contribution towards the deaths of tens of millions of humans.
Original post by abruiseonthesky
That would make it totally irrelevant because I'm talking about justice within the context of this discussion.
You seem reluctant to answer the question I posed a number of times. Which is ok really. This ended exactly where it started.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I wouldn't categorize the loss of liberty as a decision that someone takes lightly and in actual fact, homeless people, who are most in need of food, accommodation and clothes, rarely would give their liberty up to spend their days and nights in prison.
Yes, homeless people do have it significantly harder in terms of material needs but it pales in comparison to the deprivation of liberty.
I would fundamentally disagree with this as no matter how horrendous a crime perpetrated is, due process has to be followed and that inevitably means allowing appeals (as appeals, in most of the cases are not primarily to do with evidence, but procedural transgressions).
I wouldn't categorize the loss of liberty as a decision that someone takes lightly and in actual fact, homeless people, who are most in need of food, accommodation and clothes, rarely would give their liberty up to spend their days and nights in prison.
Yes, homeless people do have it significantly harder in terms of material needs but it pales in comparison to the deprivation of liberty.
I would fundamentally disagree with this as no matter how horrendous a crime perpetrated is, due process has to be followed and that inevitably means allowing appeals (as appeals, in most of the cases are not primarily to do with evidence, but procedural transgressions).
1) Very true. But there will be a minority that would trade liberty for food and shelter. And they could tempt themselves to commit a crime simply so they attain their so styled "basic" needs. But as long it's a tiny minority I guess it can be dealt with for the moment.
3) I wouldn't endorse anything that would blatantly go against current legal formalities, but rather propose a overhaul on how cases like mass shootings are handled.
Original post by Holydude
I agree it wasn't an ideal application of law, but the principal that war criminals should face death is difficult to argue against considering their contribution towards the deaths of tens of millions of humans.
Problem with Nuremburg is that no one indicted was actually a criminal.
I completely disagree that those in senior roles during wars should be executed. Had the Nazi's won the people on our side would have been seen as terrible criminals. Both sides made decisions that lead to millions of death and in most wars who's right and who's wrong is all about perspective.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Holydude
Do you think the execution of Nazis at Nuremberg was a mistake then? Because I feel this was a perfect example of the use of capital punishment.
So are you saying the only way to punish these horrible people is to kill them for their killing. Who gives you the right to terminate their lives.
Original post by Holydude
I agree it wasn't an ideal application of law, but the principal that war criminals should face death is difficult to argue against considering their contribution towards the deaths of tens of millions of humans.
What about sending them out to space.
I don't understand the viewpoint that capital punishment is wrong because innocent people get convicted of murder and so on. Because does that mean it is alright for these people to spend their life in prison even though they have done nothing wrong. I know if I was in their situation, I would prefer to be given the death sentence than face a life of torment in a maximum security prison knowing that I am innocent.
Original post by Guls
So are you saying the only way to punish these horrible people is to kill them for their killing. Who gives you the right to terminate their lives.
Some were sent to prison, or found innocent so it was not all 'an eye for an eye'. You don't need a 'right' to terminate someone's life.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
