mia'n'patch
Alpha Buck
I agree.
And yes, I may sound like a cold hearted b**ch, but (unfortunatly), i know what murder can do to the victims family.
Death penalty
- Thread starter ecudc
- Start date
I agree.
And yes, I may sound like a cold hearted b**ch, but (unfortunatly), i know what murder can do to the victims family.
takethatmad
Young Bun
As the mother of three boys, ,my youngest now almost the same age as James when he was killed, I can truly say that yes I wouldn't think twice about executing this evil being. And I would serve my time. Maybe that would make me as bad as them but the knowledge that he couldn't inflict that pain on any other child or family would be comfort enough for me. They both knew it was wrong that day when they walked that poor child four miles away from his mother to his death. They were stopped by a handful of adults who were concerned about James's state and they lied to them. There were enough opportunities to hand that boy over. Far too many children have an awful upbringing, they don't turn to crime this serious. The thought of that little lad crying for his mummy whilst they continually pelted him with stones is an image that it etched on my mind and won't go away. Can you imagine how Denise Bulger must feel? How she functions on a daily basis is beyond me and she deserves a medal. Too much time is given the murderers and not enough for the victims. I say leave the decision up to Denise & Ralph. I believe there is absolutely no place in society for either of the murderers.
I watched a documentary on tv about a guy who spent 20 years on death row when he didn't even commit the crime. He was convicted as a photo of him several years younger was picked out buy the victim. He didn't look anything like the photograph as he was considerably older when the crime was committed. When DNA evidence came into use it proved he was innocent. Imagine if that poor man had been killed for someone elses crime! 
He was released but his life is totally ruined as he doesn't know how to function anymore, he is so traumatised.
He was released but his life is totally ruined as he doesn't know how to function anymore, he is so traumatised.I agree that if it was my family then it's more than possible I'd want to kill them too, but surely that just proves that the process is based on revenge, not on any impartial moral standard.
Blimey - much discussion after I went to bed last night.
You keep bringing this up - but it's not relevant to having a death penalty. War, or killing in self defence is just that, self defence. If I were threatened in that situation, I would defend myself, family etc 100%.
That is totally different from execution. I know you argue that execution is an act of self-defence in that it prevents further acts from that person - but there are other means (ie locking up)
Execution as I see others pushing it is as an act of retribution, punishment and has nothing to do protection. Words commonly used are 'they deserve to be strung up' etc.
I urge you to watch a film by Polish director Krzysztof Kieślowski: "A short film about killing". It follows the story of a young criminal who kills a taxi driver, is caught and ultimately executed. I suspect it would be pretty typical of most murders. The film doesn't use polemic or any other means of anti-capital punishment, it merely presents the process, and it is pretty horrific. That wont sway you if you believe in the death penalty, but it at least provides a context.
Another aspect.
How about the moral context more globally. It is right that China executes as many people as it does ? Is it alright to stone people ? if it's Ok for us to kill them as punishment, then surely stoning is perfectly OK too, after all it's less severe than killing.
In my eyes, there is no moral ambiguity in not having the death penalty. Once you introduce it, not only have you accepted that it is alright for society to kill outside of self-defence, but you have introduced a whole other moral maze of when it should or shouldn't apply.
Martin
You keep bringing this up - but it's not relevant to having a death penalty. War, or killing in self defence is just that, self defence. If I were threatened in that situation, I would defend myself, family etc 100%.
That is totally different from execution. I know you argue that execution is an act of self-defence in that it prevents further acts from that person - but there are other means (ie locking up)
Execution as I see others pushing it is as an act of retribution, punishment and has nothing to do protection. Words commonly used are 'they deserve to be strung up' etc.
I urge you to watch a film by Polish director Krzysztof Kieślowski: "A short film about killing". It follows the story of a young criminal who kills a taxi driver, is caught and ultimately executed. I suspect it would be pretty typical of most murders. The film doesn't use polemic or any other means of anti-capital punishment, it merely presents the process, and it is pretty horrific. That wont sway you if you believe in the death penalty, but it at least provides a context.
Another aspect.
How about the moral context more globally. It is right that China executes as many people as it does ? Is it alright to stone people ? if it's Ok for us to kill them as punishment, then surely stoning is perfectly OK too, after all it's less severe than killing.
In my eyes, there is no moral ambiguity in not having the death penalty. Once you introduce it, not only have you accepted that it is alright for society to kill outside of self-defence, but you have introduced a whole other moral maze of when it should or shouldn't apply.
Martin
I agree with this ^^
We have other methods of dealing with these people - I actually think that there should be more emphasis on rehabilitation in a situation where upbringing or mental health can be blamed - no one is born "evil" - we (as a society) make them that way, but we are quick to slam the blame elsewhere. I don't think murdering someone should be part of a civilised society.
as you can probably guess from the poll and my statements on the other threads I am against the death penalty. My reasons are:
I don't think it acts as a deterrant. Other countries than the USA have the death penalty or other forms of physical punishment of crimes and yet crimes in those countries are still comitted. We had the death penalty here and people were still murdered (in fact in victorian england so many people were murdered that people could make a living fishing bodies out of the thames).
I would have very grave doubts that we could ever be 100% sure that the right person has been convicted for a crime. The current threshold for being convicted for a crime is "beyond reasonable doubt" but even then (were possibly some slight doubt still exists) confessions can be forced, dna, fingerprint or other forensic evidence may not always indicate that you were actually the murderer, only that you had had contact with the victim or the crime scene, even the example of the gang filming their crimes (which is very rare that you would get such compelling evidence) could be faked by someone wishing to frame someone else.
above all though I believe that taking another life is wrong. If indeed killing someone is wrong how can I possibly put someone in the situation where, even when condoned by human law, they have to be the one to administer the injection or fire the bullet? The only time I could say that it is justified is if someone was standing in front of me with the sole aim of killing me or another person (i.e. spur of the moment self defence). I'm not even 100% convinced that war is ever justifiable, except where possibly you would be saving more lives than would be lost otherwise as in WW2. I think that is possible the only war this century that we have been involved in, possibly alongside the war in the former yugoslavia that I would ever say I would have supported.
I also don't believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If you go down that route then if you break my arm is it Ok for me to break yours? If you steal my boyfriend do I have the right later to start sleeping with yours? If we go through life with the view of an eye for an eye then that society would end up in chaos. Even for example in the case of rapists, capital punishment is MORE than an eye for an eye, the bible quote says only that, that you may take one eye for each eye, no more. I prefer to take the view that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves and if faced with agression turn the other cheek. That doesn't mean to say that I think we should let people who have been convicted of a crime be unpunished I agree that they should be removed from society until safe to be re-introduced to it but ultimately I believe that the judgement of death is not one that we should make.
I don't think it acts as a deterrant. Other countries than the USA have the death penalty or other forms of physical punishment of crimes and yet crimes in those countries are still comitted. We had the death penalty here and people were still murdered (in fact in victorian england so many people were murdered that people could make a living fishing bodies out of the thames).
I would have very grave doubts that we could ever be 100% sure that the right person has been convicted for a crime. The current threshold for being convicted for a crime is "beyond reasonable doubt" but even then (were possibly some slight doubt still exists) confessions can be forced, dna, fingerprint or other forensic evidence may not always indicate that you were actually the murderer, only that you had had contact with the victim or the crime scene, even the example of the gang filming their crimes (which is very rare that you would get such compelling evidence) could be faked by someone wishing to frame someone else.
above all though I believe that taking another life is wrong. If indeed killing someone is wrong how can I possibly put someone in the situation where, even when condoned by human law, they have to be the one to administer the injection or fire the bullet? The only time I could say that it is justified is if someone was standing in front of me with the sole aim of killing me or another person (i.e. spur of the moment self defence). I'm not even 100% convinced that war is ever justifiable, except where possibly you would be saving more lives than would be lost otherwise as in WW2. I think that is possible the only war this century that we have been involved in, possibly alongside the war in the former yugoslavia that I would ever say I would have supported.
I also don't believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If you go down that route then if you break my arm is it Ok for me to break yours? If you steal my boyfriend do I have the right later to start sleeping with yours? If we go through life with the view of an eye for an eye then that society would end up in chaos. Even for example in the case of rapists, capital punishment is MORE than an eye for an eye, the bible quote says only that, that you may take one eye for each eye, no more. I prefer to take the view that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves and if faced with agression turn the other cheek. That doesn't mean to say that I think we should let people who have been convicted of a crime be unpunished I agree that they should be removed from society until safe to be re-introduced to it but ultimately I believe that the judgement of death is not one that we should make.
Last edited:
LoopyLouie
Wise Old Thumper
This arguement is completely flawed yet it rears it's head everytime. Of course people would be out for revenge, if someone killed someone close to me the natural instinct, I'm sure, would be retribution, but legalising the killing of another human being cannot be based on such things as base instincts, society may aswell be run by vigilante mobs.
jenzel5
Mama Doe
I think, how can you kill someone for killing someone. Does not make sense really :? I also believe that death is an easy way out. They should have to rot in prison with the guilt of their actions until they die.
I only read some of this thread but read someone say only if it is certain they are found guilty. That seems stupid to me because there is only guilty and not guilty and people are found guilty even when they are innocent. There isn't a, hhmmm not sure option. So you could be sure that someone is guilty even when they are not, mistakes are still made. Technology has gotten better but that also means it is easier to frame someone also.
ETA I also believe they shouldn't work. Yes they would be helpful to society but they shouldn't have anything to do with the outside world. Work is a distraction that makes the time go quicker. They should stay in a cell thinking about what they have done every single day.
If someone killed someone close to me I would want them to rot in prison for the rest of their lives, no tv, games, work etc. They don't deserve anything, not even work.
I only read some of this thread but read someone say only if it is certain they are found guilty. That seems stupid to me because there is only guilty and not guilty and people are found guilty even when they are innocent. There isn't a, hhmmm not sure option. So you could be sure that someone is guilty even when they are not, mistakes are still made. Technology has gotten better but that also means it is easier to frame someone also.
ETA I also believe they shouldn't work. Yes they would be helpful to society but they shouldn't have anything to do with the outside world. Work is a distraction that makes the time go quicker. They should stay in a cell thinking about what they have done every single day.
If someone killed someone close to me I would want them to rot in prison for the rest of their lives, no tv, games, work etc. They don't deserve anything, not even work.
Last edited:
TermiteFrank
Wise Old Thumper
You'd have probably said the same about Stefan Kisko if you were Lesley Molseed's mother. And that's where the death penalty and vigilanteism all falls down.
four little paws
Alpha Buck
I agree with all your posts on this subject. Every word you say it just and true.
Up until very recently I might have said yes to the death penalty...
However I have now seen how flawed this countrys justice system is and I don't think that they get it right a lot of the time, innocent people would undoubtably get killed and many more lives ruined in the process.
2 wrongs don't make a right although I do believe people should be kept behind bars for longer when proved guilty.
However I have now seen how flawed this countrys justice system is and I don't think that they get it right a lot of the time, innocent people would undoubtably get killed and many more lives ruined in the process.
2 wrongs don't make a right although I do believe people should be kept behind bars for longer when proved guilty.
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
I won't change my views - there are some crimes that are so depraved that in my view it is impossible to 're-habilitate' some people, they are so seriously disturbed and no amount of therapy or whatever they do to cure them will ever work. If you are physically capable of some of the sorts of crimes I am referring to eg, The Moors murders, Jack the Ripper etc you are beyond 'change'. I don't think it is the responsibility of 'society' to feel sorry for what happened in these people's lives to make them that way either. I think we can all sympathise to a degree but, we can't erase the past or undo the damage.
I think it seems harsh but, you have to consider what they are capable of and what indeed they have done and evaluate each individual case on the facts. I cannot see anyone wanting to 'execute' people in this country on a whim or if there is any doubt of guilt, no sane person would want that on their conscience and I would imagine lessons have been learned from the past. It probably wouldn't ever happen anyway, we are more concerned with giving them a nice cushy life in prison and then letting them out again so that they can eventually re-offend or harm someone else. The victims and their families are soon forgotten and we focus on the poor criminals and feel sorry for them because they were abused or whatever and that made them do it:roll:
I think it seems harsh but, you have to consider what they are capable of and what indeed they have done and evaluate each individual case on the facts. I cannot see anyone wanting to 'execute' people in this country on a whim or if there is any doubt of guilt, no sane person would want that on their conscience and I would imagine lessons have been learned from the past. It probably wouldn't ever happen anyway, we are more concerned with giving them a nice cushy life in prison and then letting them out again so that they can eventually re-offend or harm someone else. The victims and their families are soon forgotten and we focus on the poor criminals and feel sorry for them because they were abused or whatever and that made them do it:roll:
LoopyLouie
Wise Old Thumper
I will never change my views either, I feel more strongly than this than any other issue, has the right to take another life, it is too precious a gift, but thankfully I live in a country that agrees with me.
Last edited:
louise and Gus
Wise Old Thumper
I see absolutely no place or reason for the death penalty, I think prison sentences should be stricter and life mean life for heinous crimes but it can never be right to sentence another being to death..
giantbunnymummy
Warren Veteran
I am completely against the death penalty, it's barbaric.
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
At the moment that is true although I think the number of people calling for a tougher approach is increasing now, in any case, if the numbers of people getting life sentences carries on increasing it may have to change - they have to go somewhere to play on their playstations and study for their degrees etc and sooner or later space will run out, never mind they can always close a few schools or hospitals to pay for new prisons to house them all, afterall we wouldn't want to execute them when we can look after them and feed & clothe them indefinately at tax payers expense, it's not like any of us would mind paying more tax towards keeping them and none of us would object if one was released and then killed us or one of our family because 'they got it wrong' and they weren't cured at all, it's not like there are far more worthwhile ways to use those rescources is it:roll:
LoopyLouie
Wise Old Thumper
Agree 100%.
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
Maybe they should devise a system where by all the people who want to keep these depraved individuals alive even when they are never going to be released should pay for them then, it would be fairer to give society an option - I would rather my money went to the victims families than keep these 'incurable monsters' languishing in prison for the rest of their lives.
