Totally agree. Either taking a life is morally wrong, or it isn't. You can't say it's morally wrong "except when they deserve it".
Death penalty
- Thread starter ecudc
- Start date
Totally agree. Either taking a life is morally wrong, or it isn't. You can't say it's morally wrong "except when they deserve it".
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
Why can't you say it's morally wrong to murder someone innocent but, it is acceptable to execute someone who is guilty of committing murder? - What would you do if the country were invaded in a war scenario and people were being shot - hose them with a hose pipe because 'morally' killing is wrong? You have to have perspective - the two acts are taking life but, in a completely different context. One has a choice and gives up the rights to be treated in accordance with humanity - the other is an innocent person who has no choice, I don't understand the 'morality' being wrong????
angelmouse
Mama Doe
I'm not sure how I feel where the death penalty is concerned, I don't think I would oppose an introduction of it, however I don't know as its not a topic I've ever fully thought out before. I don't agree with an eye for an eye, but there are some people who I feel that death would be to good for. And unlike a lot, JV is not someone who I feel would deserve a hypothetical death sentence, he was a child, and did not act alone. I don't feel you could morally sentence JV to a death sentence and not RT, yet no one is discussing the death penalty in response to him, only JV. And it is only been discussed as he has done something else, unrelated to James Bulger, surely he's served his sentence for that crime, and still is, so it should be unrelated to any comments on what he's done now.
People like Josef Fritzel however, I can't say I would oppose having a death penalty, it's fully proven what he did, and over what length of time his crimes took place. But in his case, I'm not sure whether a death penalty could even apply
I kind of see being sentenced to a death sentence, even if it is not carried out as a lot higher punishment, as you know that you will be killed one day, but you don't have an exact date for a long time, until all the appeals and everything has passed.
And if a death penalty was introduced, then I feel I could act as the executioner, only if fully convinced of guilt, with an overwhelming amount of proof, and a humane, painless, manner of death.
As you can tell, my thoughts on this are confused. Hmm. Because we don't have the death penalty, and I can't foresee it ever being introduced in this country, I've not thought it through fully, though I might bring this debate up over tea tomorrow.
People like Josef Fritzel however, I can't say I would oppose having a death penalty, it's fully proven what he did, and over what length of time his crimes took place. But in his case, I'm not sure whether a death penalty could even apply
I kind of see being sentenced to a death sentence, even if it is not carried out as a lot higher punishment, as you know that you will be killed one day, but you don't have an exact date for a long time, until all the appeals and everything has passed.
And if a death penalty was introduced, then I feel I could act as the executioner, only if fully convinced of guilt, with an overwhelming amount of proof, and a humane, painless, manner of death.
As you can tell, my thoughts on this are confused. Hmm. Because we don't have the death penalty, and I can't foresee it ever being introduced in this country, I've not thought it through fully, though I might bring this debate up over tea tomorrow.
Last edited:
H Maughan
Mama Doe
I don't believe the death penalty acts as a deterant. They have it in the US and people still commit terrible crimes.
I think prison needs to be made into proper punishment. They should have grey walls, crappy basic food to eat, no tv or games consoles. Community service can be a real soft touch too. Offenders should be made to do real hard labour
I do believe that people who have commited one or two relatively minor crimes shouldn't have to declare what they have done after x amount of years. There's a big problem with ex-cons being unable to find work and end up going back to crime to make any real amount of money.
I don't think sending everyone to prison is going to work. Prison overcrowding is the reason that murderers are able to get off with relatively light sentences. I also think there are too many terms for different crimes. Such as all these names for murder :roll: And the term 'Life' for imprisonment is pretty ambiguous.
The thing I found was most shocking was that the people who killed baby Peter got off with what I'd consider to be lenient sentences. They weren't even charged for murder which to me takes the mick
I do wonder if it would be cheaper to put all these who will be in prison forever into a drug induced coma....?
Helen xx
I think prison needs to be made into proper punishment. They should have grey walls, crappy basic food to eat, no tv or games consoles. Community service can be a real soft touch too. Offenders should be made to do real hard labour
I do believe that people who have commited one or two relatively minor crimes shouldn't have to declare what they have done after x amount of years. There's a big problem with ex-cons being unable to find work and end up going back to crime to make any real amount of money.
I don't think sending everyone to prison is going to work. Prison overcrowding is the reason that murderers are able to get off with relatively light sentences. I also think there are too many terms for different crimes. Such as all these names for murder :roll: And the term 'Life' for imprisonment is pretty ambiguous.
The thing I found was most shocking was that the people who killed baby Peter got off with what I'd consider to be lenient sentences. They weren't even charged for murder which to me takes the mick
I do wonder if it would be cheaper to put all these who will be in prison forever into a drug induced coma....?
Helen xx
Of course you can. Morals don't cover a whole topic.
It's morally wrong to purposely step on a puppy, but it's ok to kill livestock for food.
I would class war in a similar area to self-defense. If someone was trying to murder me, I would feel justified in killing them IF I HAD TO. This is purely down to a "them or me" situation. Having said that I honestly don't know whether I could kill someone even in a war situation. Fair enough you argue correctly that my "always wrong" point would be invalid, but I don't class such things in the same context as sentencing someone to death. This seems to me to be purely an act of revenge dressed up as punishment. You are saying "I judge that this person deserves to die". Who are you or I to judge who deserves to live or die? From skimming this thread I've already seen people suggesting the death penalty for paeodaphiles and robbers!! What next? For parking tickets? :shock:
But it's OK to step on a naughty puppy cus he deserves it?Hessan said:
Isn't that why we put aggresive animals to sleep?
Which I also disagree with.
For truly dangerous animals I guess it falls into my "them or us" category. Ideally they'd be removed somewhere where they couldn't endanger society but I appreciate this is often impractical.
I disagree with the death penalty full stop. I find it wrong to take a life in this context, ie with forethought and deliberation - outside of armed conflict.
Even if you put aside the issue of the right / wrong of capital punishment on a moral level - it doesn't work - look at the US.
There the death penalty is so skewed against those in poverty and with tougher upbringing. The high % of ethnic minorities executed should be enough to realise that it isn't applied equally (if you are white middle classed american you stand a much better chance of side-stepping the death penalty).
Aside from the moral argument - the biggest anti capital punishment argument is where you draw the line. If you draw it at murder, where is the deterrent in committing multiple homicides ? you are already going to get executed, so why not go kill a few more ?
If you draw it for rape - then why not murder as well ?
If you decide it is for multiple homicides - how many ?
What about for someone who has committed a vigilante murder, ie had killed someone who has already killed ? if it ok for the state to kill that person, how can it be wrong for a member of the public to kill them ? should they themselves then be executed ?
The trouble is, people assume that capital punishment will be a panacea and stop all that nasty extreme crime in one simple waft of a magic wand. If anything, those countries with the death penalty have a higher rate of crime (and in particular homicides) than those countries that don't have it. There is simply no evidence that it acts as a deterrent.
Martin
Even if you put aside the issue of the right / wrong of capital punishment on a moral level - it doesn't work - look at the US.
There the death penalty is so skewed against those in poverty and with tougher upbringing. The high % of ethnic minorities executed should be enough to realise that it isn't applied equally (if you are white middle classed american you stand a much better chance of side-stepping the death penalty).
Aside from the moral argument - the biggest anti capital punishment argument is where you draw the line. If you draw it at murder, where is the deterrent in committing multiple homicides ? you are already going to get executed, so why not go kill a few more ?
If you draw it for rape - then why not murder as well ?
If you decide it is for multiple homicides - how many ?
What about for someone who has committed a vigilante murder, ie had killed someone who has already killed ? if it ok for the state to kill that person, how can it be wrong for a member of the public to kill them ? should they themselves then be executed ?
The trouble is, people assume that capital punishment will be a panacea and stop all that nasty extreme crime in one simple waft of a magic wand. If anything, those countries with the death penalty have a higher rate of crime (and in particular homicides) than those countries that don't have it. There is simply no evidence that it acts as a deterrent.
Martin
Last edited:
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
IMO Taking a life can never be divorced form morals. The state would be taking a moral judgement upon a convicted criminal - but then setting them aside to execute them.
I agree with your point on protecting society from those who would do harm - but that can be done via longer prison sentences - and I don't believe the death penalty would actually help protect society as a whole anyway.
Martin
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
Would you feel better if we locked them up but gave them the 'means' to kill themselves? Would you feel better if we locked them up and threw away the key?
I don't think morality comes into the debate (for me anyway). I don't like the USA always being heralded as an example either, it is clear that their system doesn't work but, we are talking about a completely different society with different laws etc The reality is that in this country if it were to be introduced then it would probably only apply in the cases of 100% proven guilty of terrible acts of depraved murder where it is deemed that there really isn't a chance of that person being released into society again. For me the death penalty is preferable to keeping these people alive in prison till they die. It is not a good use of resources, we even force feed them if they decidde to starve themselves for goodness sake, what's the point?
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
So if the country were 'invaded' and soldiers turned up at your door to shoot your family - you would carry out a citizens arrest because killing them would be immoral? Of course taking a life can be divorced from morals it's contextual in my opinion. Innocent and guilty being the context in execution rather than murder.
Just to introduce some stats:
Homicide rate in the US: 5.4 / 100,000 - death penalty applies (some states)
Homicide rate in the UK: 1.3 / 100,000 - no death penalty
Even allowing for the fact that the death penalty doesn't apply in all states - looking at Texas (which does have the death penalty - pretty zealous about it too) - they have a homicide rate of 6.1 (above average for the US).
Martin
Homicide rate in the US: 5.4 / 100,000 - death penalty applies (some states)
Homicide rate in the UK: 1.3 / 100,000 - no death penalty
Even allowing for the fact that the death penalty doesn't apply in all states - looking at Texas (which does have the death penalty - pretty zealous about it too) - they have a homicide rate of 6.1 (above average for the US).
Martin
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
It's not comparible though because of gun laws etc
And more ghettos.
Not sure you can say that morals don't come into the debate. You are making a moral judgement on a murderer - you are saying it is wrong, then saying we'll put morals aside to kill them.
Not sure on leaving the US out when looking at the effectiveness of the death penalty - it doesn't work as a deterrent there, so why should it work here ?
I had already added the caveat regarding armed conflict - that is a different situation, as Jeremy stated, that is a matter of self defence and not an act of retribution.
Martin
But guns only provide the means, if the death penalty does work as a deterrent, then the means of murder is irrelevant, the threat of execution should still work.
My 2 main contentions against the death penalty are that it is immoral, and that it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Martin
