Death penalty

[honeybunny]

I could administer a lethal injection to someone who was 100% guilty of a pre-meditated, tortuous murder
Watertight meaning evidence such as the videos found of the paedophile gang who had filmed themselves raping to death several small children in the late 80's early 90's
I would not have lost a wink of sleep if I had injected those men, they do not fit my idea of human and by taking part in the crimes they did they forfeited their right to be treated as human. There is no reason to keep people such as this alive..none of them showed any remorse and even well respected doctors who work with these criminals say those who act this way are never "safe"
Anyone who thinks my view is extreme ought to be made to watch the homemade videos these " men " made.

I know the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent..but my view is you are just putting to sleep a dangerous and unwanted creature who is very unlikely to ever be rehabilitated

In the case of 10 year olds commiting such horrendous crimes, then I think they should be locked away for much longer than these two were... as sad as their childhoods may have been ..sadly the damage was done..and you have to safeguard others from the result

 

[Jeremy]

:wave: So you would agree then that killing isn't always morally wrong? In the context of murderers (when there is no shadow of doubt at all) being executed I would argue Jeremy that it is in fact a form of defence - by eliminating the danger to society you are defending the people who may not be able to defend themselves and you are protecting innocent people from others who are capable of murder.

As Martin has already said, there are plenty of other ways of removing the danger. This is not self defense.

If your saying killing in self defence is not morally wrong - what about if the victim is unable to defend themselves and therefore the right to defend themselves and kill before being killed is removed? Surely the death penalty in such cases is just a balance then and justified?

No, it should not be about "balance". My self defense argument says that I would only kill them if it was the only way to stop them killing me. It would be an act of desperation. It does not mean "You attacked me so you deserve everything you get". If an innocent is killed then the harm has already been done. Killing someone else will change nothing.

 

[VickiP]

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

:wave::wave: So you wouldn't shoot soldiers invading your country who were going to shoot you and your family then Mart because killing is immoral?

The difference between execution and murder is clear, execution is an act of killing someone guilty of murder. Murder is killing someone innocent who was unable to kill the murderer in self defence and subsequently had their life removed for no good reason. I think you are confusing morals and ethics.
If someone commits murder it could be argued that morally they have forfitted the right to be treated humanely as this is in fact a crime against humanity. Execution of someone who has commited murder is not the same, it is killing but, morally it is not the same in my view. This is digressing and splitting hairs but, I don't think it's fair to say all killing is morally wrong it depends on the context of the act.

Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: "Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights" (Jimmy Carter).
Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants" (Omar N. Bradley).

 

[Jenova]

I've voted 'not in favour - other' as I think it's the easy way out for the killer. I say give them life meaning life and make them earn their keep while they're inside by doing some sort of production work. No prisoner should get a free ride. Prisons should be run as a business and the prisoners should be made to work or they don't get fed, etc.

I agree!

 

[VickiP]

As Martin has already said, there are plenty of other ways of removing the danger. This is not self defense.


No, it should not be about "balance". My self defense argument says that I would only kill them if it was the only way to stop them killing me. It would be an act of desperation. It does not mean "You attacked me so you deserve everything you get". If an innocent is killed then the harm has already been done. Killing someone else will change nothing.

It will prevent them from killing anyone else, it will save a huge amount of rescources and it will send out a clear message that murder of innocent people is not something you will just get a short prison sentence for oh and while your there study for a degree, surf the internet, play on the playstation and plan what your going to do when you get out! I cannot understand the need to be compassionate and apply the principles of humanity to people who have no respect for those things themselves. In the cases of Myra Hindley and Ian Bradey - what was the point in not putting them to death?

 

[Jeremy]

If someone commits murder it could be argued that morally they have forfitted the right to be treated humanely as this is in fact a crime against humanity.

Even if this could be argued (and I disagree), how does that absolve us of wrongdoing? You argue that they lose their right to be treated humanely as if we're just waiting for an excuse to treat someone inhumanely. The moral issue is with us not with them.

 

[Jeremy]

It will prevent them from killing anyone else

So will locking them up

it will save a huge amount of rescources

So now murder is ok because it will save some money? :?

I cannot understand the need to be compassionate and apply the principles of humanity to people who have no respect for those things themselves.

Because I have respect for these things. It's not about being compassionate, it's about not wanting to commit murder.

In the cases of Myra Hindley and Ian Bradey - what was the point in not putting them to death?

The point is that murder is wrong. Whether commited by an individual or state sanctioned.

 

[lauramc888]

I am in favour of it, and voted that I would be the executioner, but by that I mean as long as there is no doubt the person is guilty....and if it was something done to one of my family...without a doubt Id do it!!

 

[lauramc888]

I could administer a lethal injection to someone who was 100% guilty of a pre-meditated, tortuous murder
Watertight meaning evidence such as the videos found of the paedophile gang who had filmed themselves raping to death several small children in the late 80's early 90's
I would not have lost a wink of sleep if I had injected those men, they do not fit my idea of human and by taking part in the crimes they did they forfeited their right to be treated as human. There is no reason to keep people such as this alive..none of them showed any remorse and even well respected doctors who work with these criminals say those who act this way are never "safe"
Anyone who thinks my view is extreme ought to be made to watch the homemade videos these " men " made.

I know the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent..but my view is you are just putting to sleep a dangerous and unwanted creature who is very unlikely to ever be rehabilitated

In the case of 10 year olds commiting such horrendous crimes, then I think they should be locked away for much longer than these two were... as sad as their childhoods may have been ..sadly the damage was done..and you have to safeguard others from the result

I agree with you!

 

[VickiP]

So will locking them up

So now murder is ok because it will save some money? :?

:lol: Not at all, I said earlier my personal opinion is that execution is not 'murder' - murder is something that happens to 'innocent' people, execution is something that happens to people who commit murder.

We already established earlier that killing is contextual - on that basis I personally don't think it is immoral to execute a murderer who is without doubt guilty and always going to be a danger to innocent people in society.

I actually think it is morally wrong to value a murderers human rights over the human rights of citizens and allow them to walk free after serving a 'sentence' in prison. For me this is about the ability to harm someone else and take their life in the first place, I think if someone is able to do that then they are always going to be a danger. It doesn't mean a soldier who shoots to defend innocent people in war will always be a danger because he has killed in a morally different way. It doesn't mean a person who killed in self defence will always be a danger to society because they killed in a morally different way. It doesn't mean that the executioner will be a danger to society because he is killing in a morally different way. Killing someone is different depending on the context of the act.

Of course executing someone would not be OK just because it saves money, I am not saying that. I was giving you examples of other things that could be achieved if we did execute murderers who are 100% guilty and unlikely to ever be released.

 

[VickiP]

The point is that murder is wrong. Whether commited by an individual or state sanctioned.

I agree murder is wrong, execution is not murder.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders

Edited to add as leaving this thread now that for me it is morally wrong to not protect innocent people from others who are a danger to society. We are living in times that unfortunately have a lot of cases of people who would need to be incarcerated for life till they die to protect people from them, in these instances when they are 100% proven without any doubt guilty of murder and certifiably unable to ever be re-introduced to society because of the danger aspect they should be executed as they are a waste of space, this in turn may enable judges to impose prison sentences on other crimes that at present go un-punished by a prison term because of lack of space in prisons. This is just my opinion, not an ideal scenario by any means but, I cannot see the need to keep them alive when there is no-way they will ever be suitable for release.

 

[Jeremy]

:lol: Not at all, I said earlier my personal opinion is that execution is not 'murder' - murder is something that happens to 'innocent' people, execution is something that happens to people who commit murder.

My opinion is that murder is murder.

We already established earlier that killing is contextual

No, only in the specific context of kill or be killed. Again, that has nothing to do with executing prisoners.

- on that basis I personally don't think it is immoral to execute a murderer who is without doubt guilty and always going to be a danger to innocent people in society.

I do.

I actually think it is morally wrong to value a murderers human rights over the human rights of citizens

Again, this is not about them. I couldn't give two hoots about their human rights. This is about you and I sanctioning the murder of another person. What that other person has or has not done is irrelevant.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)

I'm not trying to argue semantics. I'm just using the word to mean the taking of another life. This is wrong whatever word you use to describe it.

 

[Tempest]

I'm not in favour, how many people are later found to be innocent after new evidence had come to light, sometimes years later? Even one mistake would be one too many. :?

 

[VickiP]

My opinion is that murder is murder.

Mine is that murder is unlawful killing of innocent people, execution is killing murderers and within the law.

No, only in the specific context of kill or be killed. Again, that has nothing to do with executing prisoners.

I think you either kill (execute) some murderers or run the risk of them killing (murdering) innocent people again.

Again, this is not about them. I couldn't give two hoots about their human rights. This is about you and I sanctioning the murder of another person. What that other person has or has not done is irrelevant.

I don't think it is about us sanctioning the murder of a murderer, I think it is about us wanting to protect society by executing a convicted murderer.

I'm not trying to argue semantics. I'm just using the word to mean the taking of another life. This is wrong whatever word you use to describe it.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that taking another life is always wrong, I have used the example of a soldier, self defence etc This isn't semantics I don't think because I honestly don't see execution as murder - murder is something that is unlawful and happens to innocent people, I do believe there are sometimes when taking another human life is necessary.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, how do I do the quoting of individual sentences like you have to reply to each sentence separately?

 

[Jack's-Jane]

how do I do the quoting of individual sentences like you have to reply to each sentence separately?

Open RU on two pages and copy+paste the quotes




...............Calm down dears, its only Jack's-Jane giving computer advice................... :shock:

 

[Boudicca]

...............Calm down dears, its only Jack's-Jane giving computer advice................... :shock:

:lol:

I'm in favour of the death penalty and I would be able to carry it out myself it was a member of my family that had been murdered!

 

[LoopyLouie]

Very strongly not in favour, legalised murder has no place in a civilised society.

 

[Jeremy]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this

Yup. We just seem to be going round and round in circles. :lol:

 

[Suzanne]

I think it's very easy to say you're against it and it isn't right etc...but it's not your child, sister, mother who has been murdered.

I am for the death penalty although it depends on each individual case. For John Venebles it seems that 'reabilitation' hasn't worked for him. And I believe that he is a danger to society.

 

[sillyrabbit]

Nope don't think its ever alright