Should he be executed? Watch

Poll: Should he be executed?
Yes (26)
31.33%
No (57)
68.67%
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by Ferrus)
Except that a malefactor has been justly punished according to the code of law in the land in which the crime has been commited, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The US law does not mandate he be executed - It leaves it to the Jury who in turn take into account the kind of factors we have addressed. Were they to decide that he shoudl not be put to death, US law would have been perfectly adhered to.
0
reply
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
(Original post by Lawz-)
It leaves it to the Jury who in turn take into account the kind of factors we have addressed.
Who decide based on US law and various common law principles. The jury can't just decide to execute someone on charges of "he has a funny nose", can they?
0
reply
xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb
Badges: 0
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by Ferrus)
Yes, it was a method of social control at the time, and it worked. When it was no longer deemed morally acceptable by society, it was democratically repealed. It is facile to talk of laws 300 years ago when people thought in a very different way anyway.
But if everyone thought like you there would have been no change. Laws change because of people thinking they are unacceptable. Your argument makes no sense.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Define "Justice".
Punishing those who violate the law with constitutionally appropriate sanctions.

(Original post by Lawz-)
The US law does not mandate he be executed - It leaves it to the Jury who in turn take into account the kind of factors we have addressed. Were they to decide that he shoudl not be put to death, US law would have been perfectly adhered to.
So if the jury does decide that he should be executed, you'd agree that justice is being carried out?
0
reply
Akhoza
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
(Original post by xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb)
Revenge is not a good principle. No doubt I would feel differently if it was a member of my family. But that wouldn't make me right.
It'd make me feel right since these people are terrorists who plan on taking more innocent lives.
0
reply
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 13 years ago
#46
(Original post by xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb)
But if everyone thought like you there would have been no change.
And so, and here comes the clue train so you better engage some of your meagre mental power: they become politically active and seek to have the law changed through the legistlative process!
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
(Original post by Bismarck)
Punishing those who violate the law with constitutionally appropriate sanctions.
Well, by that definition anything - including execution - is just, if the constitution says it is. My beef is then with the constitution (or whatever) itself.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by Ferrus)
Who decide based on US law and various common law principles. The jury can't just decide to execute someone on charges of "he has a funny nose", can they?
No. but so what?

There is no benefit in killing him really... nothing is gained OVER locking him up for life.

TO say - wel US law would be stuck to - applies equally to imprisonment - so its not a good reason to kill him.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
(Original post by Bismarck)
So if the jury does decide that he should be executed, you'd agree that justice is being carried out?
Jusitce? God knows ... its a personal thing ... personally I think punishments should look to the consequences not revenge.

Do I think it would be legal? Sure.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
(Original post by Akhoza)
Maybe if one of those who died was member of your family you would've understood.:rolleyes:
One of these days you'll blunder along saying things like that and run up against someone who DID lose a relative in some appalling catastrophe and DOES have the capacity to forgive the guards at Auschwitz, the 11/9 hijackers or whatever. Or who recognises that killing a killer doesn't bring the victims back. And then where will your emotionalist argument be, eh?
0
reply
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by Lawz-)
There is no benefit in killing him really...
Upholding the rule of law and justice seems a rather good benefit to me, does it not to you? Or would you prehaps prefer to live in a society where you can, on impulse decide to kill someone for no good reason, not to mention be free to commit acts of rapine and larceny?
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Well, by that definition anything - including execution - is just, if the constitution says it is. My beef is then with the constitution (or whatever) itself.
Why should one person's opinion on what is just supercede 230 years of history and the consistent backing of the courts and legislatures? If people think that the death penalty isn't just, they're free to make amendments to the state or federal constitutions to ban it.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
(Original post by Ferrus)
Upholding the rule of law and justice seems a rather good benefit to me, does it not to you? Or would you prehaps prefer to live in a society where you can, on impulse decide to kill someone for no good reason, not to mention be free to commit acts of rapine and larceny?
Im sorry but you are missing the point.

Killing him may uphold the rule of law
But then so does imprisonment

So what added benefit is there to killing him?

The comparison is between the above - not killing him or giving him some LV trunks and sening him off on around the world cruise.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
(Original post by Bismarck)
Why should one person's opinion on what is just supercede 230 years of history and the consistent backing of the courts and legislatures? If people think that the death penalty isn't just, they're free to make amendments to the state or federal constitutions to ban it.
Why should it? Well from the point of view of the person who thinks it is unjust - because it is unjust.
0
reply
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by Lawz-)
Jusitce? God knows ... its a personal thing
A truely asinine opinion if ever I have seen one. Justice is quintescentially to do with the personal relations between people, therefore cannot be anything but a societal thing. Even if you are a moral relativist, you have to accept that justice is not morality, it is the way society is held together and the correct manner in which human interactions take place. Justice may be many things, but at its bare minimum it must be obdience to the law.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by Lawz-)
Jusitce? God knows ... its a personal thing ... personally I think punishments should look to the consequences not revenge.
Don't you think considering the consequences of punishments gives too much power over to those who are not involved in the judicial process? It sounds too much like basing the decision on fear than on what one believes to be the best punishment for the crimes themselves.
0
reply
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
(Original post by Lawz-)
Im sorry but you are missing the point.

Killing him may uphold the rule of law
But then so does imprisonment

So what added benefit is there to killing him?
Because there is a legal principle at stake as to whether he should be executed or not. Firstly, that the principles underpinning common law would say it is fair that he is: after all similar laws were applied to other criminals who were executed and did just as much if not less than he. Secondly, the rule of law has empowered that jury to make a decision, the legal system compels one to recognise their decision as legally binding. If an American citizen does not like such a legal structure, they can vote in representatives that will change it.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
(Original post by Ferrus)
A truely asinine opinion if ever I have seen one.
Im sorry - but - the notion of what constitutes justice doesnt vary from person to person?

You think "justice" is absolute? That my friend is asinine.

(Original post by Ferrus)
Justice is quintescentially to do with the personal relations between people. Even if you are a moral relativist, you have to accept that justice is not morality, it is the way society is held together and the correct manner in which human interactions take place.
Not even close. Justice is to do with desert. Desert is to do with morality. You cannot for a second remove justice from morality.

Lets have a look shall we?

    1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
    2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
    1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

Sure is alot of Morality for a concept that has nothign to do with it.

Justice has nothing to do with the most efficacious manner of holding society together... it is about what people deserve.

Asinine?

Heh ... indeed.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 13 years ago
#59
(Original post by Ferrus)
Because there is a legal principle at stake as to whether he should be executed or not.
What on earth are you on about. You seem to have a poor grasp of legal concepts.

(Original post by Ferrus)
Firstly, that the principles underpinning common law would say it is fair that he is
Huh? The Common law in no way necessitates capial punishment. Indeed, it would be odd if it did, when the vast majority of common law countries have outlawed it.

(Original post by Ferrus)
after all similar laws were applied to other criminals who were executed and did just as much if not less than he.
And the law dictates that the Jury can take into account relevant factors to determine whether or not to execute him. The law in NO way requires he be executed.

Especially since he didnt actually kill anyone.

(Original post by Ferrus)
Secondly, the rule of law has empowered that jury to make a decision,
The rule of law? Statute has. The rule of law is a concept of equality before the law, not an jury empowering instrument.

(Original post by Ferrus)
the legal system compels one to recognise their decision as legally binding. If an American citizen does not like such a legal structure, they can vote in representatives that will change it.
yes. What's your point? This is entierly irrelevant to my point.
0
reply
cubanarmy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#60
I think he should be executed, once he's been executed it will send out a message to other terrorists that if they try to commit these acts, they will be executed in an undignified way by the very people that they hate. If he is allowed to live he may go on hunger strike and gain publicity for himself and al qaueda
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (89)
50%
No (89)
50%

Watched Threads

View All