The death Penalty.

[aaronxl]

I think what RetroPwn was saying is that JNR-XV's point would lead to murder and manslaughter becoming one, and so for example, if a wife is often abused by her husband and on one occasion fights back and in doing so kills her husband, she in fact be guilty of the same crime as someone who simple killed in cold blood. I'm interested to know how JNR-XV can justify this, as surely one is worse than the other?

 

[Robbo]

It took me about 10 hungover minutes to reply to Bon's initial post ,by which time you had posted your views , but I thought I caught the point in my answer to Bon ..

I disagree with your stance, I think people use the "kiddy killer" line as an excuse to vent there own anger and show there views in a way that they are unlikely to get disagreement from anybody, which is a bit of a weak play in my eyes ,I have two kids and I would wreck serious vengeance on anyone that harmed them but that's down too the personal love of a father. As an educated human being I believe that we need a strong and fair judicial system ...not Sharia law.We need to get rid of the Masonic 100 year olds with no grasp on reality that we call judges, we definitely need to get rid of the extended appeals processes and red tape that cost us all a fortune and I'm actually with Dodge on the repeat offenders thang to a degree but we don't need to be America ..it doesn't work and they prove it ad-nauseum..



Edit: and that ^^^ aint everything I've got ...

I am not disrespecting your post mate but it does cover a few meandering points there and the only point I made was, I believe in the death penalty in some circumstances.

Some of the other points you make, I am in total agreement with but I will only respond to the part of your post where you do deal with the death penalty.

I will agree with you, there is most definitely a part of me that is extremely angry, and the death penalty is a convenient vent-hole; but this does not in any way detract from the points I will make, leastwise in my head they don't.

There are a few major points that underwrite my position and they are these:- The most vulnerable of all in our society are children, and so it follows, if you kill a child, then this is the most heinous of all crimes.

If we can now assign this crime as the most serious, then we have to also assign to it an appropriate penalty, one that satisfies two criteria, it has a deterrent value and also as a societal penalty (justice) upon that individual.

The knee jerk response of the vast majority of people who adopt your position is, 'the death penalty doesn't deter and therefore there is no point in having it' ....well for starters, the jury's still out on that one as there is no hard and fast evidence that concretes any position.


Let me ask you to ponder this please Dskize, let's say we have the death penalty in place, we then have two possibilities regarding deterrence value, either it works or it don't .... now, if it doesn't work, that is, the death penalty does not deter child murderers, then the child murderer's life was taken in vain, if we evaluate that execution from a deterrence effectiveness point of view.

Now, if the death penalty does act as a deterrent, then all those children who would have been murdered had these potential killers not been deterred, now have their lives to look forward to; as does the potential murderer who was deterred by the death penalty.

If we now take an overview of that situation, then it can only be viewed as a positive for society as well as morally; the only way we can overthrow that conclusion is if we value the murderer more highly than the prospective victims.
I haven't even begun to shore up my argument but I'll await your response to this point first ...

 

[Dskize]

First of all ,the idea that you can deter somebody from committing the most abhorrent of all crimes, in itself makes that argument null and void ,the entire act of the crime involved broadcasts the mentality of the individual and the consequences of their actions doesn't come in to it

 

[dave t]

First of all ,the idea that you can deter somebody from committing the most abhorrent of all crimes, in itself makes that argument null and void ,the entire act of the crime involved broadcasts the mentality of the individual and the consequences of their actions don't come in to it

perhaps we should ensure that person doesn't do it again then ?

 

[Buddha 3]

And don't tell me what not to do, i'll do it anyway.


Incase you didn't realise this forum is for open discussion, and the topic is the death penalty. Go figure why?


(Incase you have a hard time working it out, its because its a controversial topic, and I think if I made a thread syaing "should we have harder prison sentences" it would be a thread full of "yes")

Thanks for proving me right.

First, I didn't tell you not to respond, I asked. There's a subtle yet important difference.

Second, I can tell you to do a lot of things on these forums, I'm one of the mods. But I don't do that.

Third, explaining to me what this forum is about is rather insulting, but I'll let you get away with it because I called you retarded, which is not a nice thing to say. My apologies for that.

See, I'm not so bad.

PS You might want to look at Pete's post, he does a far better job of defending death penalty than you, its main advocate do.
He's still wrong though.

 

[Dskize]

perhaps we should ensure that person doesn't do it again then ?

And a (real) life sentence wouldn't do that?

Am I speaking German here ? We are arguing about the moral right to take a life not the fact that currently the law is an ass...

 

[Bon]

Pete can put together what im thinking in a post much more coherantly than I can

On a side note, while browsing through wikipedia links (ive spent 4 hours just going form one page to another what the hell!) I came across this.



Anthony Anderson, a convicted murderer was sentenced to 15 years in jail before chance of Parole had his sentenced increased to 20 years.
He apealed this and won on the grounds it was against HIS human rights?

Does this not seem outrageous?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Anderson_(murderer)

 

[Robbo]

First of all ,the idea that you can deter somebody from committing the most abhorrent of all crimes, in itself makes that argument null and void ,the entire act of the crime involved broadcasts the mentality of the individual and the consequences of their actions don't come in to it

If that is your response, and it was a truly considered response, then I'm afraid our little debate will be going no further.

 

[Buddha 3]

I am not disrespecting your post mate but it does cover a few meandering points there and the only point I made was, I believe in the death penalty in some circumstances.

Some of the other points you make, I am in total agreement with but I will only respond to the part of your post where you do deal with the death penalty.

I will agree with you, there is most definitely a part of me that is extremely angry, and the death penalty is a convenient vent-hole; but this does not in any way detract from the points I will make, leastwise in my head they don't.

There are a few major points that underwrite my position and they are these:- The most vulnerable of all in our society are children, and so it follows, if you kill a child, then this is the most heinous of all crimes.

If we can now assign this crime as the most serious, then we have to also assign to it an appropriate penalty, one that satisfies two criteria, it has a deterrent value and also as a societal penalty (justice) upon that individual.

The knee jerk response of the vast majority of people who adopt your position is, 'the death penalty doesn't deter and therefore there is no point in having it' ....well for starters, the jury's still out on that one as there is no hard and fast evidence that concretes any position.


Let me ask you to ponder this please Dskize, let's say we have the death penalty in place, we then have two possibilities regarding deterrence value, either it works or it don't .... now, if it doesn't work, that is, the death penalty does not deter child murderers, then the child murderer's life was taken in vain, if we evaluate that execution from a deterrence effectiveness point of view.

Now, if the death penalty does act as a deterrent, then all those children who would have been murdered had these potential killers not been deterred, now have their lives to look forward to; as does the potential murderer who was deterred by the death penalty.

If we now take an overview of that situation, then it can only be viewed as a positive for society as well as morally; the only way we can overthrow that conclusion is if we value the murderer more highly than the prospective victims.
I haven't even begun to shore up my argument but I'll await your response to this point first ...

Pete, the death penalty's value as a deterrant has been proven to be zero over and over again. Not only in the US, in other countries too. People will do what people do. Unfortunately.

I fully understand your sentiments behind the child killer thing. Hell, if anybody were to touch my child, I'd be the first one out there with something sharp and pointy. But that's the prerogative of the victim and its family; you don't gave to be reasonable.
That's why we leave the judging to people that are not involved with the case and who (supposedly) have studied long and hard to be able to do it. They don't suffer from knee jerk reactions.

Holland has prisons that are often called hotels by the people that have never been inside one. Prisoners here also get a TV in their cell and all that stuff. Sentencing does seem to be on a similar level compared to the UK. Yet we have one of the lowest percentages of people that go back to crime after they come out of prison. That is because a lot of time and effort is spent trying to teach the prisoners how to act and perhaps even teach them a trade other than crime.

Now ofcourse there are those that are unable to change their ways, like the criminally insane. That's why in Holland there is something called TBS, which means Ter Beschikkingstelling van de Regering (Placed at the disposal of the government). This is something that can ordered even if somebody is found to be temporary insane (so no getting away with a crime of passion here). It is usually given besides a jail sentence. You have to do your time first and then TBS kicks in.

What TBS means is that you will be placed in a closed, high security mental institution, where you will be observed and tested. If found to be sane after your treatment, you will be free to go as you have already served your time. But if you appear to be unable to change, you will remain in the institution. Potentially for life...
Guess where the child killers end up. If they don't get life that is. Thankfully life means life in this country.

Death penalty is never the answer. Too many possibilities for abuse and mistakes. And I think it's dafe to assume I'm not of the PC posse...

 

[snax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley

what about this case then? I think its funny how some of the topic brung up on this forum, we have been discussing in my english lesson's.