The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[IAN 2411]

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

The UK voted the death penalty away, and now I think it should be brought back for certain cases, am i right to ask this, barbarick yes but so is murder? Now here is a question that has been on my mind a lot just recently, I know that there are a few states in America that still have the death penalty as this form of punishment. There is now a knife cult in the UK, and there is not a week that goes by when some poor person gets killed, if it is not the knife then it is the boot. Yes that is right, a person defending his home and family is kicked to death by mindless yobs, or so the papers wish us to believe. I don’t think that in today’s age of education any person can call them mindless individuals; because most have not been drinking. If whether in a gang or by themselves they are damaging a person’s property to get a response, and then kill the owner for protecting his family or home, then that is premeditated murder. I believe in certain cases an eye for an eye and a life for a life. Don’t for one minute think that I have not thought this out, as I know there are cases where it was inevitable things would turn out nasty. Two people fighting with their hands and one falls over hitting his head and dying, temporary insanity, and I believe that does happen, a crime of passion, domestic abuse. Ok the examples are still murder but only deserve life meaning life and in some cases less or even freedom. I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week in my country, and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her, and I think that that is premeditated whatever the excuse. I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right. Life meaning life in this country will never happen, because of all the do good people that say, a prisoner must keep the knowledge that he might be freed one day. Now the question is, should the UK bring back the death penalty and hang the murderers, or life meaning life, and for all you people that say an innocent person might be hanged, this is 2010, DNA and first class forensics. Also if it was brought back, have we any Judges that have the balls to serve out the sentence of death, at the moment they have a softer attitude than the JPs.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

I have always supported the death penalty for certain cases. Those who kill randomly, without provocation, who could kill anyone they cross paths with, should be eliminated from society permanently, if for no other reason than that some time down the road they could conceivably convince some bleeding heart that they deserve to be set free. Why take the chance?

On the other hand, some spurned lover who kills his girlfriend is not a general threat to society and should be sentenced to life in prison. Furthermore, allowances should be made to have him perform some form of useful labor to generate revenues, which should then be given to the family of the person he killed. Make some use of him, but keep him confined at the same time.

And there are some cases, like the mother who drowns her children in a fit of post-partum depression, where neither sentence can be considered justice. She is unlikely to be a danger to anyone else, and perhaps should be allowed to apply for parole after a certain period of time.

These are rather simplified cases, but they can be considered guidelines for distributing justice fairly.

Just my opinion.

[denuseri]

The punnishment should fit the crime.

[morwyn{Myrddin}]

Greetings, i live in a country that has the same basic rules as the UK, the most severe sentence one can recieve is life imprisonment, which is in fact not life at all. This is a topic that i have always felt so strongly about and probably always will.
It is my opinion that the death penalty is worng, and sends a wrong message to our young people seeing it. It is saying to them "It is not ok for you to kill someone, but if you do we will kill you". The death penalty seems to me (emphasising once more this is just my opinion) legalised murder. i find myself asking the question......."what have we learned from this? What have we learned in order that such tragedies may not happen again? Am i seeing this from a completely emotive standpoint? Probably, yet my strong beliefs were based initially on a case in our country, one that happened a very long time ago, and was the last woman ever to recieve the death penalty here in new Zealand before it was abolished. For one of my legal papers i studied the case to the minutest detail, determined to prove that the infamous babykiller Minnie Dean, who we as kids had been brought up to fear, was as guilty as anything and deserved the punishment meted out. To my own dismay after reading every gelatinous droplet i could find on her i was without doubt of her innocence. This shocked me and made me re-evaluate my beliefs in the death penalty. i found myself saddened that we as a society had got to the point that hypocrisy could roam freely, where we could say as a people, murder is wrong, and so because you did that we are going to murder you. And what happens to those who cannot afford a decent legal representative? What happens to those who are railroaded into a confession they neither know nor own?

Yes i acknowledge that the majority of cases are not like this. The conviction is warranted and necessary. In these situations, i firmly believe life imprisonment should mean just that, life imprisonment. The person should have a chance to face their crime every day that they live, and live with the consequences. Yet there must also be a time for remorse, for compassion, for an adjustment of life and heart status. For if there is not what hope is there for humanity as a whole. you see i am an eternal optimist. i refuse to believe that a person can be 'all bad', i have to, nay, i choose to believe that all have good in them somewhere, even those that WE judge to be worst of the worst.

yes my viewpoint is entirely emotive, but we are asked for opinions only and so that is mine.

Warmest regards.........morwyn of Myrddin

[MMI]

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

English so-called justice is riddled with miscarriages, which no amount of DNA or forensics can stop. Why? Because English justice, along with all other Common Law systems, is based on an adversarial system, where the strongest argument, not the truth, determines guilt or innocence. Arguments are put to a lay jury who decide questions of fact; the judge can only decide questions of law. In other words, laymen have to listen to professional advocates and decide what is the truth by reference to what they are told or what is withheld from them. The judge can only rule on admissability, and decide when to adjourn for lunch.

Under the inquisitorial system, the crime is investigated from the outset by a judge, or under his supervision. By professionals, in other words. This is not to say that they won't get their facts wrong now and again, but they are able to take a professional and experienced approach to the question of guilt or innocence, instead of 12 good men and true, bamboozled by the weight of evidence and subject to oratory tricks of the barristers trying to win their case regardless of the truth.

How much more important is this when considering a capital crime? Fortunately, there are no more capital crimes in England, but if there were - and there are in equivalent jurisdicitions - a man's life would depend upon the skill of his counsel in marshalling sufficient evidence, and, knowing enough law, and being sufficiently eloquent to convince the jury of his innocence - whether guilty or not. And for the prosecution the reverse is true: a guilty verdict is more important than letting an innocent man go free.

Can any 21st century legal system that truly considers itself to be just allow such a horrendous method of deciding whether a citizen should live or die? ian used the word "barbaric" - I would wholeheartedly agree with that description.

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful. I do not accept that retribution is an important part of judicial punishment: it is part, but the least important part, and the part that should be given least emphasis. One wrong does not ameliorate another. Quite the contrary, in fact, as morwyn has pointed out: it is not OK to kill, so killing cannot be an appropriate punishment for those who have killed. We don't justify theft by saying the victim was a burglar. We don't justify blackmail by saying the victim was a fraud. We don't justify rape by saying the victim was an adultress. So I contend, we cannot justfy our hanging, electrocuting or injecting a man by claiming his act of killing to be wrong.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

[Ozme52]

The punnishment should fit the crime.

That simple sentence means what?
A life for a life?
Or some sense of mercy for an act that in some sense is justifiable (as in clinical depression, irrational fear, self defense gone too far...)

I have no idea what you wish to convey.

[Ozme52]

I favor the death penalty and the host of automatic processes of appeal and review that go with it in the US.... so that to the best of our ability, we avoid executing an innocent person.

I also believe in differentiating between menaces to society v. the one-off act of an "until then" law abiding person.

Each case really must be viewed in isolation. No one over-arching set of rules can cover all circumstances... and that's why juries should be involved in the sentencing of capital murders.

[Thorne]

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful.
Thank you for that respect. Yes, we've gone over this numerous times, and have yet to come even close to an agreement. I can respect your arguments as well, and even agree with some of them.

But I do have to say that there are evil people in this world. People who are a threat to anyone they may meet. A Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy or a John Gacy should never, ever be permitted even to think about parole or freedom. They should be kept away from the rest of society permanently. Yes, a true life sentence could accomplish this, if applied properly. But escapes from prisons do occur. And villains who should never be paroled have been. All it takes is some idiotic do-gooder to come along and say, "Oh, he's paid for his crimes, and he's been a model prisoner, and oh my, he's become a devout Christian and so must be rehabilitated. Set him free to live a good life." Is it possible he would never kill again? Certainly, it's possible. Is it likely? I don't believe so. Manson has, IIRC, admitted that he would have no qualms against killing again if released.

I will always advocate for executing these kinds of evil people. I believe they have earned that punishment, and we owe it to their victims and, more importantly, to the families of the victims, to deliver that quality of justice.

[denuseri]

That simple sentence means what?
A life for a life?
Or some sense of mercy for an act that in some sense is justifiable (as in clinical depression, irrational fear, self defense gone too far...)

I have no idea what you wish to convey.



Then oh Great Wizard I shall attempt to elucidate:

As the survivor of a violent crime myself, I am hardly impartial on this topic.

And I like Lucretia before me, (though it pains my heart greatly at times to say it, because I also believe in the sanctity of all life) do plea for "Justice" to be done, to be avenged in kind for what was visited upon one.

I only pray that those who hold the power of such dominion over those aforementioned souls; who have committed such wrongful acts as to deserve such reciprocity, do so with honor and wisdom.

[MMI]

But I do have to say that there are evil people in this world. People who are a threat to anyone they may meet. A Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy or a John Gacy should never, ever be permitted even to think about parole or freedom. They should be kept away from the rest of society permanently. Yes, a true life sentence could accomplish this ...

Up to this point we are in complete accord, but beyond it, our opinions diverge. I cannot support the execution, even for Manson ... even for Stalin or Hitler, to be honest (although I would not have stood on my principles in those particular instances).

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

[IAN 2411]

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion? For a start it was not a question, or a statement from me I was asking for opinions and that is what discussions are all about. I was not ranting I was giving my opinion and belief and I never said it was the way to go, and neither do I read a rank paper like the Daily Mail, but it is obvious by your criticism that you do. Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures. I see that you also make fun of my description of a lawless UK by comparing it with NEW YORK, and I can see no reason for doing that.


I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.


Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank, so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?



I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.


Let me once again enlighten you MMI, I have four daughters, and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.




So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion?

Because, now you have raised this topic once more, it has to be responded to in case, by default, the impression is created that everyone agrees with the ideas originally expressed. Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.


... Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures

I think I'll just let that comment stand.




Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank ...



That's a regular occurrence in the UK, isn't it? Tell me, when did the last bank clerk die in that way?


... so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?

Oh, believe me, ian, I'm right about that. As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.

(With regard to paedophiles, and as a pure aside, I bet Sarah's Law will do nothing to make children safer (from a very low risk of abuse) than before, but it will make it much harder to trace suspects, and it will lead to vigilanteism and the inevitable attacks (and perhaps murder) of innocent people by self-righteous "enforcers" who think they have the right to extract justice on their own terms and in their own way. It's happened before, but these people are too stupid to learn. Despicable! What it will succeed in doing, however, is make it virtually impossible for an ordinary person to interact with kids at an ordinary level. Even you, as the father of four girls - I'm sure you never told me that before - might be regarded as a "risk," especially if it were known that you frequented this website.)


... and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.


This is precisely what I mean. It's spleen, not justice




Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

In what way do I contradict myself?

Are you suggesting that human rights are not basic rights?

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.[QUOTE]

I have to disagree that statement, I believe that there was a mini survey carried out about two years ago. The question asked was should the death penalty be brought back, and the pole was so close that it was said, “If there was a national vote the result would be so close that they would probably have another to get a resounding majority, and it was a you Gov pole I’m sure.” But I will stand and be corrected on that one. I don’t think it is settled and I don’t think it ever will be. How can you say it is a reactionary protest, I have heard this being talked about in a number of places, and once it was outside a church at a wedding that I was attending, so no it is not settled.

Fatal stabbings in the UK 2007/8

Scotland 45

England and Wales 277

Combined that is an average of 6 a week, and that is 6 to many.

In 1977 135 the whole of the UK that is a rise of 38%

Ok there are a lot more people in the UK now than 1977 but that is not an excuse. One death is too many, and until the UK has some sort of deterrent these deaths will no doubt increase. I am sure that if the death penalty was introduced once more and just one of these knife thugs was executed, there would be a dramatic decrease. Now you will argue that it is barbaric justice? Yes, and punishment to fit the barbaric crime, a life for a life.

Amnesty International states that the Death Penalty 'violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. But what about the Human Rights of victims, aren't they entitled to the Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture? The Death Penalty may well be 'the ultimate denial of Human Rights' but if you take another's life then you should no longer benefit from the protections afforded under any legislation.

The bank teller MMI that was a cheap shot, it was an example meaning habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated. If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it. Now while we are on the subject three months ago or just over there was the case of a postman’s son in a post office getting shot, go and ask the postmaster if the man that shot his son should be rehabilitated or hanged, I don’t think you will get a knee jerk response, it will come from his heart?

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.[QUOTE]

Well I expect you would, because it seems you get most of your information from it, I however do have a choice of three papers and all with glossy pictures, when my reading ability falters. LMFAO

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

That's not the way it works, ian. The question is not settled when you say it is, it was settled when Britain signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as you have already pointed out, made judicial executions an infringement of human rights. No exceptions, not even for church-goers.

As for your mini survey, its validiy is reflected in the way you describe it: minute.

I don't quite understand the purpose of the statistics you quote: I agree that there are lots of murders in the UK, far too many, and any way that number can be reduced must be tried. But it must be a legitimate way ... Otherwise we could consider bringing back torture for suspects. Rack them until they admit they did it. It worked in the good old days didn't it? Then hang them to make sure they don't do it again.

"...habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated," you say ...


What, none of them? Ever? How do you know this?

I must point out, however, that we haven't just been talking about habitual killers. We've been talking about all murderers, and most murder victims know their killers and are frequently closely related. Such killers are not serial murderers but have reacted to a situation they could not handle any other way. Those people are unlikely to kill again, and probably regret their action.

Then you ask, what about the Human Rights of the victims? Pardon me for stating the absolutely-bleeding-obvious, but they're dead. Whatever right to life they had was taken away. Unlawfully taken away, granted, but their human rights are fuck-all use to them now. The killer must face the consequences, but it affects the victim not at all whether he be imprisoned, hanged or paroled.

The victim's relatives have lost a loved one, a partner or parent or child; a bread-winner perhaps. They will naturally be grief-stricken, and they will be filled with hatred for the murderer. But their human rights are unaffected.

Justice isn't giving satisfaction to the angry and disgusted in order to mollify them, it is meting out a punishment that is appropriate in the view of sober-minded, dispassionate judges according to a law that has developed over hundreds of years and has been enacted by democratically elected representatives after serious argument and debate (on a free vote, by the way).

"If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it."


If that is true, why do many armed robberies take place where the weapons are displayed but not used?

[Thorne]

I must point out, however, that we haven't just been talking about habitual killers. We've been talking about all murderers, and most murder victims know their killers and are frequently closely related. Such killers are not serial murderers but have reacted to a situation they could not handle any other way. Those people are unlikely to kill again, and probably regret their action.
I agree, those kinds of killers should not be eligible for the death penalty.

But what about the guy who walks into a convenience store, pulls a gun and demands the money, then shoots the cashier after she compliently hands over the cash, simply so she won't be able to ID him to the police? This is a cold blooded killer, one with absolutely no regard for anyone's life. He will kill again whenever he feels like it. And he won't regret it, either. At least, not until he gets caught. Do you really believe that kind of killer should be treated the same as the others?

I don't know about the UK, but if a dog kills a human in the US the dog is put down, regardless of circumstances. I don't see why a cold blooded killer shouldn't be treated in the same way.


Then you ask, what about the Human Rights of the victims? Pardon me for stating the absolutely-bleeding-obvious, but they're dead. Whatever right to life they had was taken away.
What if they're not dead, but in a vegetative state, or paralyzed? Do they still have their human right's then? For all intents and purposes they've lost everything except their lives. Should their attacker get a soft sentence for not killing them?


The victim's relatives have lost a loved one, a partner or parent or child; a bread-winner perhaps. They will naturally be grief-stricken, and they will be filled with hatred for the murderer. But their human rights are unaffected.
No, but their lives have been affected. What of the mother's right to see her child grown and married? What of the daughter's right to have her father walk her down the aisle? What of the toddler's right to be raised by her parents instead of the state? Don't those rights mean anything?


Justice isn't giving satisfaction to the angry and disgusted in order to mollify them, it is meting out a punishment that is appropriate in the view of sober-minded, dispassionate judges according to a law that has developed over hundreds of years and has been enacted by democratically elected representatives after serious argument and debate (on a free vote, by the way).
I agree. And sometimes, the only true justice is to remove a mad dog from society, permanently and finally.

Statistics here in the US show that there is no deterrent value to use of the death penalty. So trying to use the argument that it does would be futile. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. The death penalty has its uses, and its faults. I agree it should be a last resort, for very specific crimes, and only after a lot of deliberation and care. That's one reason why every death sentence in the US is automatically subject to appeal. And when push comes to shove, I have no problem with the state executing a John Allen Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad). And while I'm not a violent man, if necessary I would be willing to push the button, throw the switch or pull the trigger myself. Not to deter the others, but to protect the innocent.

[MMI]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.

With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .

[Thorne]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.
I will partly agree with one thing you say: the process can be demeaning. But only when we allow our court systems to treat criminals lightly and not hand out the harshest penalties permitted by law to those who deserve it. Yes, the accused do have certain rights, and they must be protected. But once convicted, those rights are reduced to bare minimum, or at least should be. I, for one, have never felt demeaned by any execution.

With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .
Something else we can agree on, at least partly. (Will wonders never cease?) I don't feel the relatives would feel adequately compensated, either. But they might feel that justice had been done. They can know that the killer won't be permitted to gain even the meager amount of pleasure that might be found in a prison environment. And while I have thankfully never been in the position of such relatives, perhaps they can gain a bit of satisfaction from knowing that the person who killed their loved one will know his end is coming, know the very day and hour, and will have to deal with that knowledge. I don't say it would bring them joy. At least, I hope not. But maybe some closure. So they may grieve for their loved one without the constant knowledge that her killer is still alive.

[IAN 2411]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing.

How can you say they have rights that have to be respected, they should lose their rights at the same time they took away the right of another to live.


Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.


Demean.

To reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way, degrades.

Who the hell care if the killer that is being executed is degraded, humiliated, or feels that his status is lowered; and I am damn sure that England’s last hangman, [Pierpoint] never once felt that way and neither would I. And I very much doubt that all those people, that go and witness the executions of the killers of their loved ones in the States, would agree with you either. They don’t go to humiliate the killer, they go to see justice and get closure.


With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .

You must have a very misguided view of mankind, because I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about in that paragraph. You are now speaking not for yourself but for all of mankind, and it is a careless remark at the least.

[mkemse]

Depending on the Crime the death Penaliuty shoud be sued, ie: Child Malistation, ect but in reality if you execute someone for killing soeone that will not bring the victim back, by setencing that person to life in prison, he not only gets to ivie in bad conditions, but more imprtant, he/she can spend the ret of their lives realizingwhat they di
Tak Scott Peterson who killed his wife a number of year back and his unborn son
The JUdge was brilliant, he sentenced Scott to life in Prison in Supermax but order him to be placedin a very specific cell that over looks the exact spot his wifes body was found washed onto shore,, nothing nicer then looing out 1 window and know that is were her bosdy wa found, that MAY make him think about what he did and the Judge said he ordered him placedin that specific cell for that reason

[Saheli]

All my thoughts on the death penalty contrast each other, so I don't really debate on either side of it, since I don't know what side I favor. I feel like murder is wrong, but I feel like the decision to muder a murderer through capital punishment is still wrong, since I believe that the decision to take anyone's life is not up to me or anyone else. If someone is a murderer, then yes they have done wrong, but if someone else does the same wrong, does that make it right?

On the other hand, it makes it better...since that person will never murder again. And keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life (not the legal term life but their actual life...until the day they die) is really expensive. And I don't particularly want my taxes to pay for that, either! But apart from the expenses there is room to consider...overcrowded prisons or many more of them...neither option is appealing to me.

What's the solution? I think both suck...I feel like murder is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, but logically, it seems like the most administratively practical thing to do.

[Thorne]

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

[IAN 2411]

England 28th Jan 2010

Published: Today
MORE than 1,000 mourners turned out yesterday to say goodbye to murdered teen Asha Muneer.
Asha's grieving family held her funeral in a leisure centre rather than at home because so many people wanted to pay their respects to the 18-year-old student.
Mourners including the sixth former's classmates began arriving hours before the service started.
Many hugged and comforted each other, while others said prayers or quietly wiped tears from their eyes. One weeping relative could not bear to watch as Asha's coffin, covered in green, was revealed at the Rivermead Leisure Centre in Reading, Berks.
A green curtain separated men and women, as would normally happen at a mosque.
Asha's taxi driver dad Mohammed, 67, her mum Nasreen, 47, brother and three sisters were too upset to talk after the service.
But her uncle Saeed Iqbal thanked the local community for giving the family "wonderful support". He said: "Nobody can understand the hell we've been through. She was innocent and somebody took her life for no reason. It's terrible for the whole family."

Mr Iqbal called for the reintroduction of the death penalty, saying: "We are looking for justice and justice is a life for a life."
Tim Royle, head of Highdown School where Asha was studying English, sociology and economics, said: "Asha will be remembered with great affection."
After the service her coffin was driven to a local cemetery.
Asha's body was found last week next to the River Kennet in Reading.
The part-time shop assistant had suffered 25 stab wounds.
A 19-year-old is charged with murder.


Well MMI that has shot your theory that no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution. You also said that relatives would never want a life for a life, but normal people are not as forgiving as you, and when they are hurt, they want to hurt back. I would also like to point out to you that this is the actual murder that i was refering to in my original post in this thread. Good timing or what? All that we have to do is find out which TV channal her murderer will be watching inbetween his three top class meals that he will be getting for the next 12 - 15 years. Then we can give him some rehabilitation money and send if off to get upset and kill again.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

How can you say they have rights that have to be respected, they should lose their rights at the same time they took away the right of another to live.

That's one opinon. It goes against the principle of the European Convention on Human Rights, and because of that, it will have to remain no more than an opinion. Fortunately, I would add.




Demean.

To reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way, degrades.

Who the hell care if the killer that is being executed is degraded, humiliated, or feels that his status is lowered; and I am damn sure that England’s last hangman, [Pierpoint] never once felt that way and neither would I. And I very much doubt that all those people, that go and witness the executions of the killers of their loved ones in the States, would agree with you either. They don’t go to humiliate the killer, they go to see justice and get closure.


I know what the words I use mean, thank-you. I was more concerned about the demeaning of a society which imposes the death penalty in the name of justice than I was for the feelings of the killer. But the killer still has basic rights and a just society will not take them away. Britain is a just society and will not bring back judicial murder to quieten reactionary calls for revenge on the part of the victims and their families.


You must have a very misguided view of mankind, because I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about ... . You are now speaking not for yourself but for all of mankind, and it is a careless remark at the least.

From my perspective, calls for blood-justice are out-dated, counter-productive and not to be countenanced under any circumstances. I don't make that remark casually: I truly belive it. Once again, it is pleasing to note that every government in the EU subscribes to a similar point of view, and people are not being executed to avenge a victim's death, no matter how badly relatives lust after the killer's death.




Well MMI that has shot your theory that no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution. You also said that relatives would never want a life for a life, but normal people are not as forgiving as you, and when they are hurt, they want to hurt back. I would also like to point out to you that this is the actual murder that i was refering to in my original post in this thread. Good timing or what? All that we have to do is find out which TV channal her murderer will be watching inbetween his three top class meals that he will be getting for the next 12 - 15 years. Then we can give him some rehabilitation money and send if off to get upset and kill again.

Regards ian 2411

How so? Mr Iqbal is asking for revenge but disguising it as a call for justice. As you clearly have a fascination for the meaning of words, why not compare "justice" with "revenge" to see if they are synonymous.

One other thing, I would ask you not to attribute hare-brained notions to me in order to expose them as unsupportable. I never said no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution (in fact it seems to me that those who do want it are seeking revenge and retribution), nor did I say relatives would never want a life for a life. What I did say was that a life for a life would not satisfy them, they would yearn for more.

[MMI]

Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in gaol is greater than the value of his life.

[QUOTE=Thorne;841781] ... And no prison is escape proof ...QUOTE]

Then make them escape proof!

According to your President, no-one has ever escaped from a supermax prison.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=Thorne;841781] ... And no prison is escape proof ...QUOTE]

Then make them escape proof!
That's easy enough. Kill all the prisoners. Dead prisoners can't escape. Barring that, it's not as easy as you make it sound.

According to your President, no-one has ever escaped from a supermax prison.
Yet!

MMI, I know that you are sincere in your beliefs, and I respect you for that. And you are right in that many governments all around the world have eliminated the death penalty. Assuming that this is the will of the people, I can accept that. Many US states have also eliminated the death penalty, because the people of those states decided to do so. That does not, however, make those people any more civilized than those who have not so decided.

I am equally sincere in my beliefs. Some people need to be executed. They are too evil to be allowed to remain alive. And, in my opinion, keeping them alive, feeding them three healthy meals a day, providing them a dry place to sleep, giving them free medical care, etc., is not only a waste of tax dollars, it is an insult to the victims, families, and citizens.

[MMI]

Thorne, I doubt you and I will ever get past our disagreements;ha

Never mind, we can still poke fun at each other.

[IAN 2411]

One other thing, I would ask you not to attribute hare-brained notions to me in order to expose them as unsupportable. I never said no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution (in fact it seems to me that those who do want it are seeking revenge and retribution), nor did I say relatives would never want a life for a life. What I did say was that a life for a life would not satisfy them, they would yearn for more.

Please explain to me what you mean. If the man is hanging by the neck and he has gone pale in death, then how could the family of the victim then yearn for more? They have had the justice or revenge, and I for one don’t really care if it is revenge or justice, but the murderer is as dead as the person they killed. Get out of your ivory tower MMI and talk with the people in the real world, you might just learn a little about life, and I say that with respect.



I am equally sincere in my beliefs. Some people need to be executed. They are too evil to be allowed to remain alive. And, in my opinion, keeping them alive, feeding them three healthy meals a day, providing them a dry place to sleep, giving them free medical care, etc., is not only a waste of tax dollars, it is an insult to the victims, families, and citizens.

Quite correct too, why feed someone like a battery hen, if at the end of his/her life they will still be unfit for human consumption.

[Thorne]

Thorne, I doubt you and I will ever get past our disagreements;ha

Never mind, we can still poke fun at each other.

That's half the fun!;)

[DuncanONeil]

I believe that this is the second person to bring up the "right" of a person in prison to know that there is a right to know that there will be a time when they can be released. I can not agree!
Now if you want to incarcerate capital offenses in Maricopa County Arizona I might, repeat might, go along with that concept.
Now I do recognize differing levels of murder, but at the same time I am of the opinion that putting a person guilty of Premeditated Murder in prison for life is coddling. The only place I know where Prison is not as good as living on the outside is as noted above.

I agree with Thorne, that there are people that deserve to be executed. Yes it is murder but what other punishment really fits the crime of murder? Said crime affects far more than the person killed.


All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

English so-called justice is riddled with miscarriages, which no amount of DNA or forensics can stop. Why? Because English justice, along with all other Common Law systems, is based on an adversarial system, where the strongest argument, not the truth, determines guilt or innocence. Arguments are put to a lay jury who decide questions of fact; the judge can only decide questions of law. In other words, laymen have to listen to professional advocates and decide what is the truth by reference to what they are told or what is withheld from them. The judge can only rule on admissability, and decide when to adjourn for lunch.

Under the inquisitorial system, the crime is investigated from the outset by a judge, or under his supervision. By professionals, in other words. This is not to say that they won't get their facts wrong now and again, but they are able to take a professional and experienced approach to the question of guilt or innocence, instead of 12 good men and true, bamboozled by the weight of evidence and subject to oratory tricks of the barristers trying to win their case regardless of the truth.

How much more important is this when considering a capital crime? Fortunately, there are no more capital crimes in England, but if there were - and there are in equivalent jurisdicitions - a man's life would depend upon the skill of his counsel in marshalling sufficient evidence, and, knowing enough law, and being sufficiently eloquent to convince the jury of his innocence - whether guilty or not. And for the prosecution the reverse is true: a guilty verdict is more important than letting an innocent man go free.

Can any 21st century legal system that truly considers itself to be just allow such a horrendous method of deciding whether a citizen should live or die? ian used the word "barbaric" - I would wholeheartedly agree with that description.

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful. I do not accept that retribution is an important part of judicial punishment: it is part, but the least important part, and the part that should be given least emphasis. One wrong does not ameliorate another. Quite the contrary, in fact, as morwyn has pointed out: it is not OK to kill, so killing cannot be an appropriate punishment for those who have killed. We don't justify theft by saying the victim was a burglar. We don't justify blackmail by saying the victim was a fraud. We don't justify rape by saying the victim was an adultress. So I contend, we cannot justfy our hanging, electrocuting or injecting a man by claiming his act of killing to be wrong.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

[DuncanONeil]

There is absolutely no way to determine that ANY criminal has "rehabilitated" while they remain in custody. Add to that that one can not recover from murder ...


Up to this point we are in complete accord, but beyond it, our opinions diverge. I cannot support the execution, even for Manson ... even for Stalin or Hitler, to be honest (although I would not have stood on my principles in those particular instances).

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

[DuncanONeil]

How about that Aussie Granmum hunted down the perps that raped her granddaughter and shot both of them in the jewels?


[QUOTE=MMI;840891]Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.[QUOTE]

I have to disagree that statement, I believe that there was a mini survey carried out about two years ago. The question asked was should the death penalty be brought back, and the pole was so close that it was said, “If there was a national vote the result would be so close that they would probably have another to get a resounding majority, and it was a you Gov pole I’m sure.” But I will stand and be corrected on that one. I don’t think it is settled and I don’t think it ever will be. How can you say it is a reactionary protest, I have heard this being talked about in a number of places, and once it was outside a church at a wedding that I was attending, so no it is not settled.

Fatal stabbings in the UK 2007/8

Scotland 45

England and Wales 277

Combined that is an average of 6 a week, and that is 6 to many.

In 1977 135 the whole of the UK that is a rise of 38%

Ok there are a lot more people in the UK now than 1977 but that is not an excuse. One death is too many, and until the UK has some sort of deterrent these deaths will no doubt increase. I am sure that if the death penalty was introduced once more and just one of these knife thugs was executed, there would be a dramatic decrease. Now you will argue that it is barbaric justice? Yes, and punishment to fit the barbaric crime, a life for a life.

Amnesty International states that the Death Penalty 'violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. But what about the Human Rights of victims, aren't they entitled to the Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture? The Death Penalty may well be 'the ultimate denial of Human Rights' but if you take another's life then you should no longer benefit from the protections afforded under any legislation.

The bank teller MMI that was a cheap shot, it was an example meaning habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated. If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it. Now while we are on the subject three months ago or just over there was the case of a postman’s son in a post office getting shot, go and ask the postmaster if the man that shot his son should be rehabilitated or hanged, I don’t think you will get a knee jerk response, it will come from his heart?

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.[QUOTE]

Well I expect you would, because it seems you get most of your information from it, I however do have a choice of three papers and all with glossy pictures, when my reading ability falters. LMFAO

Regards ian 2411

[Saheli]

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.
Thorne


I agree but not completely. I agree in the sense I suppose you mean, murders that are done out of malice and hate rather than, say, self-defense or some other, more understandable reason...if murder is ever truly understandable. If someone kills out of hatefulness, that is a HUGE risk to society. But I also agree with MMI when he said, "Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is greater than the value of his life." Who of us has the right to assign any dollar amount to a life? This debate in my opinion is about the lesser of two evils rather than which is the sensible thing to do. Instead of choosing based on appeal, we much choose based on avoidance: in the end it comes down to which one is a little less terrible.

[MMI]

If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.

[denuseri]

Truely spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime or had a loved one who has.

Go through something like that yourself and then come back and tell me I need to have my head examined for thinking some bastards get what they deserved when the switch was thrown.

Depriving someone of their freedom for horendous acts against another just simply isnt enough sometimes.

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

[IAN 2411]

If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all



I don’t think you have heard a word that anyone has said, I can’t remember anywhere in this thread where it has been said all killers must die. I have very hard views on murder, but even I have not said that in any of my posts, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. Of course people on the threads are not calling for the death of every person that causes death through some misfortune that could have been avoided. Although I think that death by dangerous driving should have a far greater sentence that the few years these careless idiots are getting at the present time. There are cases where the death penalty would be inappropriate, in fact where any verdict other than acquittal would be too harsh. That is why even in England, where a person has been found guilty of murder, a Judge can show clemency and can still acquit the guilty. Even cases in the UK are all subject to appeal as well you know MMI, but at the end of the day there are extreme cases where the murderer will never change.

I will point out a fact that no one knows how the murderer is going to react after a lengthy jail sentence. I was watching crime and punishment on the TV about three days ago. A person in the USA was given 20 years to life for murder and attempted murder, after 25 years he was paroled as a model prisoner, within six months he had killed again, now that says a lot for rehabilitation. The punishment should fit the crime as you keep bleating and I agree, but premeditated murder is not excusable in a modern society, take a life for gain and you should lose your own. If a person killed your daughter, wife, mother, and was given life, with a chance of parole in 25-30 years time, after he has been watching TV, playing recreational sport, three meals a day, warm safe environment, seeing their own spouse, mother, siblings. Then MMI, come back and tell us how you forgave the murderer, and you are happy with the sentence he received. Knowing full well that at any time there could be an appeal along the line, because of another human rights law that allows him to come out ten years early, probably thought out by a panel of abolitionary idiots. As denuseri has stated, it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about.

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all



I don’t think you have heard a word that anyone has said, I can’t remember anywhere in this thread where it has been said all killers must die. I have very hard views on murder, but even I have not said that in any of my posts, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. Of course people on the threads are not calling for the death of every person that causes death through some misfortune that could have been avoided. Although I think that death by dangerous driving should have a far greater sentence that the few years these careless idiots are getting at the present time. There are cases where the death penalty would be inappropriate, in fact where any verdict other than acquittal would be too harsh. That is why even in England, where a person has been found guilty of murder, a Judge can show clemency and can still acquit the guilty. Even cases in the UK are all subject to appeal as well you know MMI, but at the end of the day there are extreme cases where the murderer will never change.

I will point out a fact that no one knows how the murderer is going to react after a length jail sentence. I was watching crime and punishment on the TV about three days ago. A person in the USA was given 20 years to life for murder and attempted murder, after 25 years he was paroled as a model prisoner, within six months he had killed again, now that says a lot for rehabilitation. The punishment should fit the crime as you keep bleating and I agree, but premeditated murder is not excusable in a modern society, take a life for gain and you should lose your own. If a person killed your daughter, wife, mother, and was given life, with a chance of parole in 25-30 years time, after he has been watching TV, playing recreational sport, three meals a day, warm safe environment, seeing their own spouse, mother, siblings. Then MMI, come back and tell us how you forgave the murderer, and you are happy with the sentence he received. Knowing full well that at any time there could be an appeal along the line, because of another human rights law that allows him to come out ten years early, probably thought out by a panel of abolitionary idiots. As denesuri has stated, it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

Truely spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime or had a loved one who has.

Go through something like that yourself and then come back and tell me I need to have my head examined for thinking some bastards get what they deserved when the switch was thrown.

Depriving someone of their freedom for horendous acts against another just simply isnt enough sometimes.

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

I think you add emphasis to my argument, den. You seem to be arguing for the execution of people who haven't even killed.

Someone who has been the victim of a violent crime must be so wrapped up in anger and hatred for the perpetrator, and perhaps self-pity too, that his desire for revenge will skew his perspective and cloud his judgement. He would reduce a sophisticated legal system to the level of a primitive tribal council, or abandon it completely in favour of vendattas or mob law.

That is why I feel that punishments for such crimes must be set in a dispassionate forum and when the crime is committed, and they should never be greater than the crime itself. Furthermore, punsihments must be handed down carefully by people who are not involved in or affected by the crime. You say the ancients got it right first time. Even they relied upon tribal/village elders to deal with such matters with a degree of impartiality, but often they were too closely involved for a fair punishment to be delivered.

If I am wrong, why has the "law" changed everywhere society has developed beyond antediluvian communities?

[Thorne]

If I am wrong, why has the "law" changed everywhere society has developed beyond antediluvian communities?

We can't say that you're TOTALLY wrong, at least. Laws evolve, just as communities and civilizations evolve. As our knowledge and understanding of human nature grows our laws must reflect that knowledge. Is it justice to execute an insane person who had no idea he was doing harm? Of course not. Incarcerate him, in an institution, yes, but not execution. Should we drown women to see if they're witches? Ridiculous! There are no witches (the magic kind, at least. No offense to Wiccans.) Should we hang a woman because a child ran out from behind a parked car and she couldn't avoid striking him with her car? Of course not. (I lost a cousin this way. No way the woman was at fault.)

Naturally, each case would have to be judged on its own merits. No one I know, and certainly not myself, advocates rampant use of the death penalty. But there are some people, men and women, who just should not be allowed even the slightest chance of getting back into society. And the only way to guarantee that is to execute them.

[MMI]

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all. And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

The difference between your position and mine is, I think, that you base your views upon people's perfectly understandable response to the horrendous acts they have been affected by. You tell me I would feel the same if I were similarly affected too. den makes the same point. I do not demur. If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.

My position would have become biased and my motives would be flawed.

My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation), with the protection of society against repetition as the first priority and the possible rehabilitation of the killer as its main aim. I doubt his imprisonment (or death) will stop other people killing, so it is pointless to think of this kind of punishment as an example for others.

Retribution - or vengeance - would be the least of all considerations.

[MMI]

... But there are some people, men and women, who just should not be allowed even the slightest chance of getting back into society. And the only way to guarantee that is to execute them.

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

[Bren122]

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

the problem with such sentiments is that we have created a system that has more concern for procedure than with justice.

[MMI]

I've been arguing all along that the pro-death penalty lobby is more concerned with the severity of the sentence than the justness of it, and I see that as a worse problem.

[Ozme52]

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street. ;)

[MMI]

Roflmao

[mkemse]

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[Ozme52]

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all.And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.
And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide."Presuming" that anyone here has argued for capital punishment without due process is a sure sign you aren't here to debate but to inflame.


The difference between your position and mine is, I think, that you base your views upon people's perfectly understandable response to the horrendous acts they have been affected by. You tell me I would feel the same if I were similarly affected too. den makes the same point. I do not demur. If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.

My position would have become biased and my motives would be flawed.

My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation),Quotations carry with them an understanding of some of the arguements that originally back it up. To call someones use "trite' is uncalled for, especially as none of us needs to hear all of the logic and dialogue that would be needed to say it otherwise to understand those peoples' opinions.


with the protection of society against repetition as the first priority and the possible rehabilitation of the killer as its main aim. I doubt his imprisonment (or death) will stop other people killing, so it is pointless to think of this kind of punishment as an example for others.I don't think anyone is saying the death penalty stops others from killing, but we know it stops the executed person from doing so again.

[Ozme52]

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

Calling yourself out doesn't excuse you.

As to your point, Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

[Ozme52]

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street. ;)


Roflmao

And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history. :cool:

[IAN 2411]

And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty. I would also bring it back for murder while committing another felony IE: - armed robbery, mugging, and auto theft. There is also a case of treason, and piracy on the high seas, and the latter is still taking place as we write these posts.


If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.[QUOTE]

So you are human after all and with the same desire for revenge laying dormant inside you, just like the rest of us, I was wondering. Then again I expect you to turn that word into justice, but I’ll bet I will not hear rehabilitation coming from your lips, I doubt very much if it would have room in your heart.


[QUOTE=MMI;842201]Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all.


And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

Thank you Ozme52 for your correct observation and remark, as words fail me.

Regards ian 2411

[SadisticNature]

I think there is a lot to be said for Actual Life in prison, rather than 15 years or 25 years. That being said the death penalty is awkward.

Some of the most famous murder cases are famous precisely because of the press. That is to say the press plays up the nature of the crimes and makes the person so reviled that the prosecutors feel obliged to press for the maximum possible sentence. It's not often the merits of the case that decide these things, but rather the budgetary concerns, the public reaction and the effects on elected officials. One of Canada's most famous 'killers' spent 25 years in jail before being found innocent through new evidence (DNA). There have been quite a few such cases with the discovery of DNA evidence, and its hard to believe that the next level of evidence will show the same thing.

People who are alive have advocates to call for such testing. I wouldn't be surprised if DNA evidence would show that a small number of capital cases in the 1970's and 1980's actually involved innocent people. Of course such testing will never get done because no one has their freedom at stake, and the state would be liable for erroneously putting someone to death if they found that they did such. If 25 years in prison erroneously costs between $1-$10 million in damages, I can't imagine what the jury would reward for erroneous executions.

The thing about an advocacy system is that people are routinely "negligent" in the eyes of civil law. When your career is based upon providing evidence for successful convictions, you often don't pursue paths that a reasonable person in the eyes of the law ought to pursue that would eliminate a suspect. The police system is in parts political and like all things political suffers from corruption.

[DuncanONeil]

While Saheli may be right in saying we can not assign a dollar value to life, in the specifics of this discussion we are assigning a value of "life" to "life". That is an appropriate value!


Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.
Thorne


I agree but not completely. I agree in the sense I suppose you mean, murders that are done out of malice and hate rather than, say, self-defense or some other, more understandable reason...if murder is ever truly understandable. If someone kills out of hatefulness, that is a HUGE risk to society. But I also agree with MMI when he said, "Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is greater than the value of his life." Who of us has the right to assign any dollar amount to a life? This debate in my opinion is about the lesser of two evils rather than which is the sensible thing to do. Instead of choosing based on appeal, we much choose based on avoidance: in the end it comes down to which one is a little less terrible.

[DuncanONeil]

It was not solely the "virtue" of the victim. But that virtue, not being a party to the actions and the callous disregard of the "virtue of life" by the offender.


If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.

[DuncanONeil]

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.


I don’t think you have heard a word that anyone has said, I can’t remember anywhere in this thread where it has been said all killers must die. I have very hard views on murder, but even I have not said that in any of my posts, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. Of course people on the threads are not calling for the death of every person that causes death through some misfortune that could have been avoided. Although I think that death by dangerous driving should have a far greater sentence that the few years these careless idiots are getting at the present time. There are cases where the death penalty would be inappropriate, in fact where any verdict other than acquittal would be too harsh. That is why even in England, where a person has been found guilty of murder, a Judge can show clemency and can still acquit the guilty. Even cases in the UK are all subject to appeal as well you know MMI, but at the end of the day there are extreme cases where the murderer will never change.

I will point out a fact that no one knows how the murderer is going to react after a lengthy jail sentence. I was watching crime and punishment on the TV about three days ago. A person in the USA was given 20 years to life for murder and attempted murder, after 25 years he was paroled as a model prisoner, within six months he had killed again, now that says a lot for rehabilitation. The punishment should fit the crime as you keep bleating and I agree, but premeditated murder is not excusable in a modern society, take a life for gain and you should lose your own. If a person killed your daughter, wife, mother, and was given life, with a chance of parole in 25-30 years time, after he has been watching TV, playing recreational sport, three meals a day, warm safe environment, seeing their own spouse, mother, siblings. Then MMI, come back and tell us how you forgave the murderer, and you are happy with the sentence he received. Knowing full well that at any time there could be an appeal along the line, because of another human rights law that allows him to come out ten years early, probably thought out by a panel of abolitionary idiots. As denuseri has stated, it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

"it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about."

Kind of like the curse our parents layed on us all. "Wait until you have kids of your own!"

[DuncanONeil]

"I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation)"

There is no difference in the two statements!

[DuncanONeil]

But they have TV, cable in fact. And a free gym membership. Plenty of time for socializing. Good food. Libraries and school classes, if they choose. Free medical treatment. Sports. Outside visitors, some times even conjugal. In other words the ultimate level of welfare.
Perhaps the only thing lacking is security from the criminal element!


I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[denuseri]

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.

When I lived in Japan, the rule of thumb with vehicular mannsluaghter crimes or other forms of acedental injury or death was that you had to be able to pay a certian monetary amount to the bereved or face jail time.

As for recent changes in the impecable legal system they have had in place for years:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63030

[denuseri]

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

[MMI]

And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

True, but reread some of the exchanges here and see if it is really out of place. Besides, it amused me.


"Presuming" that anyone here has argued for capital punishment without due process is a sure sign you aren't here to debate but to inflame.



Go back to the first post. The accused referred to has not yet been tried, let alone convicted, and the poster is saying, in nearly as many words, that he will get off with a relatively light sentence when the penalty he truly deserves is unavailable under English law. That's trial, verdict and sentence in half a dozen lines. Where's the due process there, and whose argument is the more inflammatory?


Quotations carry with them an understanding of some of the arguements that originally back it up. To call someones use "trite' is uncalled for, especially as none of us needs to hear all of the logic and dialogue that would be needed to say it otherwise to understand those peoples' opinions.

One has to describe things the way one sees them. "A life for a life" is so hackneyed and tired that is has lost all the impact it once had. So, yes, it is trite, and I am entitled to say so.

Now I have reviewed this thread, I see it was you who first introduced the phrase. At least you used it only to try to elucidate the meaning of yet another tired and hackneyed quotation. It has also been used by another poster to support the cause of judicial murder, however.


I don't think anyone is saying the death penalty stops others from killing, but we know it stops the executed person from doing so again.

I think we all realise that.


[COLOR="lime"]
... Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.


Yes, I accept that. What kind of system would English criminal justice be, if not capricious, if it executed suspects in the manner proposed in post number 1? Fortescue would have argued (I presume - I have not read him), that it would be "capricious" to execute someone when it was not certain he deserved the death penalty.

But we can't, as I've pointed out a couple of times already, always be sure ...


[COLOR="lime"]

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

I see you have anticipated me, but we haven't fully agreed on this point. They must be there, of course, but they must also be completely reliable. Most of you on your side of the argument might agree with the proposition as it is ... must agree, I suppose, but no-one on my side (and there have been one or two) can possibly concede it. The appeals system is inadequate: innocent people have been hanged here in spite of it. As I said before, the Common Law approach to determining guilt or innocence depends more upon the barrister's skills than whether the accused committed the crime.

As for science, there's a long way to go before it can be relied upon completely for absolute certainty, so we shouldn't be acting as though it is foolproof already. As yet, not even DNA can prove a person committed a crime.


And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history. :cool:

Yes, a little levity now and then is important when frank and earnest points of view are being exchanged, no matter in how friendly a manner.

The observation was startlingly clever and highly amusing.

[MMI]

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty.

In your original post you said,



I believe in certain cases an eye for an eye and a life for a life. Don’t for one minute think that I have not thought this out, as I know there are cases where it was inevitable things would turn out nasty ... a crime of passion ... only deserve life meaning life and in some cases less or even freedom. I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week ... and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her [emphasis supplied] ... I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right[emphasis supplied]. Now the question is, should the UK ... hang the murderers...? [emphasis supplied]Also if it was brought back, have we any Judges that have the balls to serve out the sentence of death[emphasis supplied], at the moment they have a softer attitude than the JPs.


No, you didn't say the accused should be executed without being tried first, but neither did you say he shouldn't. What you did say was he committed the crime and that, after he had pleaded guilty, which you anticipated, it would be wrong if he only got life. And then you suggested that hanging be brought back and hanging judges too. The implication is clear.

Besides, wasn't this a crime of passion? Not that English law recognises such a thing.

(Ooops: Ozme wasn't the first to use "a life for a life." If they are appropriate, apologies are tendered.)

[MMI]

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

[Saheli]

.My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime...


I have to ask: if the crime is punished fairly, then wouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

[Saheli]

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

I agree that punishments should not depend on how victims feel about things. I believe they should be somewhat of a reflection of the damage doled out to the victim: damage-focused, not victim-focused. Sometimes, they may equal, but that should be irrelevant. Can you imagine the psychological damage done to a child victim of rape? What if the rape was a longterm constant component of the child's life? What if the rapist was a family member? There are so many details that add varying degrees of damage. A few months in prison or even a couple of years pales in comparison.

There is nothing that anyone could do to such a rapist to impart the damage that was done to the child...unfortunately. But to say that if a court hands down a verdict, that's fine is not something I agree with. Of course we all should have respect to the systems that govern our lands, wherever we are in the world, but the only way I could agree to the statement that we should accept all verdicts handed down would be if that acceptance was accompanied by absolute certainty that the verdict was just.

Of course, we also know that there will never be a certainty either way: some verdicts are just while others are more of a joke. So back to the rapist, whose verdict might or might not be just...how do you define "just"? I don't know that we can, which is really what this entire thread is about. Is the death penalty justice? A few years, months? Guilt-driven, psyhological self-punishments?

I don't know what the answer is. But in the case of a child rapist, if the court hands down a couple of years when that child will be psychologically scarred for ALL OF THEIRS doesn't seem to be anywhere close to just in my opinion. So in that case I wouldn't be able to just accept the decision. You can never repair all damage done. I think we all know that. But we can get a little closer, don't you think?

As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

[IAN 2411]

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week in my country, and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her, and I think that that is premeditated whatever the excuse. I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right. Life meaning life in this country will never happen, because of all the do good people that say, a prisoner must keep the knowledge that he might be freed one day.

As we are talking petty things MMI, I have not stated he is guilty, I stated that he has done the crime, yes it is presumptuous, but just in case you have not read the papers lately, the police have stated, “They are looking for no one else in connection with the murder of this poor girl,” I wonder what that means, you had better explain that to me also? If he is found guilty of the murder of a young innocent that has her life in front of her, then yes I would ask that he be executed, and just once more for you MMI. [A LIFE FOR A LIFE] in brackets this time so there is no need to highlight my words. Yes, I have suggested hanging judges be brought back, and you have grasped that implication clearly, in fact it was not a suggestion but a plea. It will not deter others committing murder, as I am not that naive to think of such things, but it would take a lot of trash off the streets. Let’s get something straight that we have all forgotten, I might be in favour of the death penalty, but that does not mean I like the idea, because I think it is a barbaric way of justice. I very much doubt that anyone that has written a post in this thread likes the death penalty, but until there is more just form of punishment that faces a perpetrator of these heinous crimes, they might be thinking like me that there is no alternative.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

You said he did it. That's the same as saying he's guilty!

The more just punishment is life (and I agree that must mean life).

As for your reference to "trash" it is objectionable in this context.

[MMI]

I have to ask: if the crime is punished fairly, then wouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

I agree they can be the same. I was simply pointing out that the phrase "the punishment must fit the crime" wasn't mine.

I don't agree that doing the same thing to the perpetrator that he did to the victim, whether that be killing him, torturing him, or raping him, necessarily fits the crime. It simply mirrors it.

If we are to abandon our established penal systems in favour of handing the convict over to the victim (or his family), then we are abandoning justice in favour of revenge. That way lies chaos and anarchy.

As for filming it, I find the idea sickening.

[SadisticNature]

A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

[Thorne]

It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.
While I agree with your statement, you have to ask: given the choice between life in prison and death, how many murderers would choose death? My guess is that damned few would. And none of them gave their victims such a choice, did they?

[MMI]

Life is sweet, so they will choose life. And so they will serve their sentence.

[Saheli]

I don't agree that doing the same thing to the perpetrator that he did to the victim, whether that be killing him, torturing him, or raping him, necessarily fits the crime. It simply mirrors it.

If we are to abandon our established penal systems in favour of handing the convict over to the victim (or his family), then we are abandoning justice in favour of revenge. That way lies chaos and anarchy.

As for filming it, I find the idea sickening.

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?

Not all establishments are always fair, but as I mentioned before they should be respected, and I don't think any convict should ever be handed over to the victim's family. That's not what I said or meant.

As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. If such a punishment were given (regardless of whether it was filmed or not), that would not be handing someone over to the victim or victim's family...so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that idea from. If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

If the cliche "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is what we consider justice, then I don't understand why you feel a punishment that mirrors a crime is justice.

[Saheli]

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

I really like your idea and would definitely vote for something like that if the opportunity ever arose.

[IAN 2411]

A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

That hasn’t got a hope in hell of working with the majority of prisoners, because most are habitual, and I presume you are talking about murderers, for god’s sake get real, apart from a minute percent you could never trust them again however many credits they had. The murderers lost all credibility when they carried out their heinous crimes, they are there to be punished, and that is only because they escaped the death penalty.

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

given the choice between life in prison and death, how many murderers would choose death? My guess is that damned few would. And none of them gave their victims such a choice, did they?

That is so very true.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?



Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.




As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. ... If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?


Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

[Thorne]

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?


Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

At one time in history, punishments were public and brutal, and intended as a lesson for aspiring criminals. While I don't propose making executions brutal, I sometimes wonder if making them more public might not benefit society more than putting criminals away where people can forget they exist.

[Saheli]

Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.


You could look at it as tit-for-tat, but like I said, it goes back to the 'eye for an eye' thing. As far as what happened in Iceland in Norse times I have no idea what you're talking about...I might look it up. You say "judicial punishment must be certain, measured, and proportionate..." which doesn't contradict my submitted idea. You go on to say that "it must be imposed dispassionately." I agree. Just because I feel it is justice in the truest sense for an offender to endure his own offense does not mean I believe that the punishment should be given out of passion, and I never mentioned anything about the family being able to influence the sentence. So it really seems like your definition of justice is not too much different than mine. You just disagree that an offender should endure his own offense.

Your arguments seem to be that if such a sentence were imparted, it would be a passionate rather than an objective one; that such a sentence would not cancel out the crime and therefore not a valid punishment; that such punishments could "lead to counter-retaliations and blood-fueds"; and that the victim or victim's family would have some influence in such a sentence.

-->I disagree that such a sentence would inherently be passionate. That argument would have to extend to the death penalty as well, saying that if the death penalty were to be imparted then the sentence would have been one of feelings and not merit.

-->No sentence cancels out a crime. The fact that this punishment wouldn't says nothing either way about the validity of the punishment...show me a punishment for which this argument doesn't apply.

-->I can't speak to your Icelandic example until I have some idea what you're talking about.

-->Lastly, why do you assume that the victim/victim's family would have influenced the punishment if one such punishment were to be imparted?

[DuncanONeil]

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?


Perhaps! If the criminal tortures their victim.
Prison in America is more of an enforced vacation than anything else. The only punishment that exists is meted out by the other prisoners. Although it is a crime on their part.

[DuncanONeil]

That is one of the difficulties of the American system of governance. We have codified that no punishment can be cruel or inhumane. That holds even when the crime is both cruel and inhumane. On the basis of that we can, in many cases, not provide a punishment that actually fits the crime. That is why in response to the torture question my answer is perhaps.
The measure of "cruel and inhumane" has be fixated upon to create the "luxury" prisons that now are de rigueur. There is no real punishment in prison, merely an inconvenience.



As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

[DuncanONeil]

You said he did it. That's the same as saying he's guilty!

The more just punishment is life (and I agree that must mean life).

As for your reference to "trash" it is objectionable in this context.


Yes he did say that but he also said he expected him to plead guilty. There has to be a reason for coming to that conclusion.

[DuncanONeil]

First of all in US prisons inmates do have access to compensated work.
As for the objection to the "right" based picture of prisons coddleing. The description that you present with the added comment; "The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire."
Is itself somewhat self serving. The description you present is very similar to the way the US military lives. Save for one thing, the military does not get locked in at night. Save for that your description also paints military life as "a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire." I guess the pay makes a difference as well.


A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

[DuncanONeil]

life is sweet, so they will choose life. And so they will serve their sentence.


maybe!

[DuncanONeil]

If the cliche "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is what we consider justice, then I don't understand why you feel a punishment that mirrors a crime is justice.


Surely this originates in the Code of Hammurabi. But it does appear in the Bible, twice. Once as law in the Old Testament. Again in the New Testament; "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" But this does not deal with punishment for having committed a crime but for individual actions between people.

[MMI]

At one time in history, punishments were public and brutal, and intended as a lesson for aspiring criminals. While I don't propose making executions brutal, I sometimes wonder if making them more public might not benefit society more than putting criminals away where people can forget they exist.

As noted above, England no longer has the death penalty, and its restoration is highly improbable. If calling for its return is futile, how much more so is suggesting public executions be brought back.

These events eventually became repugnant to English society, as far back as the seventeenth century, and executions began to take place within the prison walls rather than outside, in front of milling crowds, sometimes running into tens of thousands ... a spectacle at times as gory and hideous as the Roman arenas. Public executions appeal to our basest instincts, and encoursge behaviour I can only call depraved. Imagine the Sun Life Stadium filled with over 75,000 people braying for the blood of some convict or other, or, hopefully, more than one. They can't all be grieving relatives, so why would they be there? Just to watch a man die ... dangling on the end of a rope ... simply that ... disgusting!

Imagine the dvds on sale afterwards: $10.99, plus an interview with the hangman.


Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.

[SadisticNature]

The difference in the military is that you make a voluntary choice to give up some rights to the control of the country/president/your superior officers in order to serve ones country. A prisoner is not doing anything of benefit by serving their sentence. They don't have prestige or respect. They also don't have the pay. A voluntary choice to temporarily give up some rights to better serve a cause you believe in is a far cry from giving up rights for an indeterminate and possibly lifelong period for no noble reason at all. Making noble sacrifices is often personally rewarding and can make up for the consequences of losing some rights.

On the other hand when the choice is taken away the military is often a miserable existence. Look at draft dodging (particularly during Vietnam) and the horrors of risking your life against your will for a cause you don't believe in.

So I do think my earlier point stands regardless of your somewhat inaccurate attempt to compare the rights of a prisoner to the rights of a soldier.

[IAN 2411]

As noted above, England no longer has the death penalty, and its restoration is highly improbable. If calling for its return is futile, how much more so is suggesting public executions be brought back.

These events eventually became repugnant to English society, as far back as the seventeenth century, and executions began to take place within the prison walls rather than outside, in front of milling crowds, sometimes running into tens of thousands ... a spectacle at times as gory and hideous as the Roman arenas. Public executions appeal to our basest instincts, and encoursge behaviour I can only call depraved. Imagine the Sun Life Stadium filled with over 75,000 people braying for the blood of some convict or other, or, hopefully, more than one. They can't all be grieving relatives, so why would they be there? Just to watch a man die ... dangling on the end of a rope ... simply that ... disgusting!

Imagine the dvds on sale afterwards: $10.99, plus an interview with the hangman.


Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.

In this case i really have to agree with you, and on all points in your post.

[MMI]

... I never mentioned anything about the family being able to influence the sentence.

I got that idea from earlier posts in the thread and continued to think that way when responding to you. I understand now that you were suggesting this kind of punishment be inflected deliberately and cold-bloodedly by people who are completely disconnected from the original crime. In front of cameras.

I deny there is any kind of justice in the system of punishment you propose.



... So it really seems like your definition of justice is not too much different than mine. You just disagree that an offender should endure his own offense.


I can see why you say that, but I actually believe that the offender should receive the degree of punishment prescribed by the law. The law does not need to submit the offender to the same treatment he gave his victim, and it does not have to be led by his actions. Modern society can protect itself without resorting to such brutal, primitive conduct, and it can exact retribution without taking an eye, or a tooth, or a hand or a foot, or even a life. We left that behind in the Dark Ages, and it is well that we did. In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation.



Your arguments seem to be that if such a sentence were imparted, it would be a passionate rather than an objective one; that such a sentence would not cancel out the crime and therefore not a valid punishment; that such punishments could "lead to counter-retaliations and blood-fueds"; and that the victim or victim's family would have some influence in such a sentence.

-->I disagree that such a sentence would inherently be passionate. That argument would have to extend to the death penalty as well, saying that if the death penalty were to be imparted then the sentence would have been one of feelings and not merit.


That is what I am arguing. I do not believe a sober-minded dispassionate person would stipulate that the crime of murder be subject to the death penalty when he considers the alternatives available. Only if influenced by emotion would he say that hanging was appropriate because there is not a single benefit to be gained from executing the murderer other than to satiate disturbed passions.




-->No sentence cancels out a crime. The fact that this punishment wouldn't says nothing either way about the validity of the punishment...show me a punishment for which this argument doesn't apply.


I agree. Crimes, once committed cannot be cancelled out or nullified. Yet an "eye for an eye" has every appearance of saying one bad deed can be cancelled out by another, and a "life for a life" carries exactly the same implication.


I can't speak to your Icelandic example until I have some idea what you're talking about.


In Iceland, during Norse times, there was no-one to enforce the laws made by the Alþingi, and those who sought redress for some offence against them were obliged to obtain it themselves, by force if necessary. Icelandic society became riven by feuding families, and was unable to develop as a result. This, I suggest is actual evidence of what happens when justice, equated with revenge, is left to individuals to enforce. It ceases to be even-handed, measured or certain and becomes haphazzard, excessive and random.


Lastly, why do you assume that the victim/victim's family would have influenced the punishment if one such punishment were to be imparted?

I was working on the premise that a punishment based on revenge could only be imposed by those who had been directly affected by the crime - the vicitm's family. Where the death sentence is to be imposed, I believe it is an act of revenge rather than a dispassionate judicial punishment.

It is common these days for victims to be allowed to address courts nowadays in an attempt to secure a harsher penalty for the accused, which can only be pandering to the revenge motive.

Why not allow the killer's family to submit special pleas on how badly they will be affected if he is hanged?

[MMI]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, and that debate might still rumble on for a while, what do people think about convicted murderers being allowed to commit suicide? Should tghis be permitted? I've started a new thread to discuss this possibility. I have no trenchant views on this, although I do incline towrds the belief that suicide is not to be encourged. Remember, replies on the other thread http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21985

[13'sbadkitty]

in my state the last govenor reinstated the death penalty. i personally am against it for the reasons so well said above. i just don't see how we spend years telling our kids not to retaliate unless absolute necessary and then do the opposite. i don't see how violent is defined consistently either. as was mentioned above drunk driving with regard to vehicular manslaughter, but isn't a person who is driving drunk already willing to commit the same thing? does not taking a cab to the bar indicate premeditation? How about domestic violence cases where the abused premediates killing of the person who beat them for years? Here they often get lifelong sentences because it seems that beaten women aren't allowed to fight back for real. it has been shown that our criminal justice system is flawed, as did the discovery of DNA for forensics free falsly incarecerated people. what do we say to their kids? oops? life in prison in NYS is horrible and imo death is easier. when my ex husband was in county jail things were bad although he belonged there. rats and mice all over the place. guards who treated me like a criminal because i showed up for an inmate who wasn't even convicted and for all they knew was innocent and poor. here poor people and minorities have a much higher rate of being jailed and is it always because they did it? like the guy in "To Kill a Mockingbird"? i have long wondered why non-violent criminals go to jail instead of community service like cleaning the damn parkways and leave the violent people together to exact vengeance. atleast in my country we can't seem to decide if its rehabilitation or revenge we want. lets all imagine that if i was accused of a crime and my Masters toys were discovered what would happen with that jury

[Thorne]

Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.
Yeah, I have to agree. I wasn't advocating that we bring them back, just musing about it.

[MMI]

I agree that the criminal justice system is flawed, and injustices are far more common than is realised or admitted. I also agree with your observation that the system is loaded against particular sections of society: black youths, the working classes and the unemployed, abused women and so on. This has been illustrated in this very thread, where whole sections of society have been labelled "trash" and "yobs" (instinctively, I believe, not maliciously) for which the harshest penalties must be used to punish their crimes.

Murder is not a black or working class crime. It is certainly not a female crime. While more murders occur among the lower classes, they are usually committed in the heat of the moment, whereas, when a killing takes place among the higher social classes, power or money is usually the motive. It might be cynical of me, but I suggest that working class killers use murder where they see no other option, or where they lose control, while upper class killers see murder as the most expedient way to achieve their purposes, after calculating the pro's and con's and concluding that a person's death is necessary. Such people would never be called yobs or trash.


... lets all imagine that if i was accused of a crime and my Masters toys were discovered what would happen with that jury

I have no doubt at all that his toys would be used to smear your character and to suggest this is indicative of your guilt (and possibly implicate him too).

[SadisticNature]

Since a sizable percentage of murders in the lower classes are gang related I'd suggest your premise above is false MMI.

If anything the economic motive is more commonplace in the lower classes, where a sizable percentage of killings are related to the drug trade. A crack dealer in the inner city has a 25% chance of surviving the next 5 years. Three in four crack dealers will die over that five year period, the vast majority in gang related homicides (aka turf wars). Rival gangs protecting territories related to the drug trade is without a doubt an economic motive.

[MMI]

Murder is not a black or working class crime. It is certainly not a female crime. While more murders occur among the lower classes, they are usually committed in the heat of the moment, whereas, when a killing takes place among the higher social classes, power or money is usually the motive. It might be cynical of me, but I suggest that working class killers use murder where they see no other option, or where they lose control, while upper class killers see murder as the most expedient way to achieve their purposes, after calculating the pro's and con's and concluding that a person's death is necessary. Such people would never be called yobs or trash.




Since a sizable percentage of murders in the lower classes are gang related I'd suggest your premise above is false MMI.

If anything the economic motive is more commonplace in the lower classes, where a sizable percentage of killings are related to the drug trade. A crack dealer in the inner city has a 25% chance of surviving the next 5 years. Three in four crack dealers will die over that five year period, the vast majority in gang related homicides (aka turf wars). Rival gangs protecting territories related to the drug trade is without a doubt an economic motive.

You could be right - I have no way to refute or confirm what you say, and I cannot support my assertion with any meaningful facts or statistics: it is an impression I have.

However, I still think that turf wars take place as a result of an inability to deal with the "invasion" of a patch in any other way, whereas, if the gangs were run by ... ummm - let us say "business men" ... there might be a meeting around a long polished table, where compromises would be sought, deals would be cut, and concessions would be made. Only if these "negotiations" failed, would any deaths follow, and then on a selective basis. (I'm hypothesising ... tell me to get real if you like, but it seems to me that people with working class backgrounds resort to violence much more quickly than people from middle class backgrounds.)

[13'sbadkitty]

what about the separate justice systems for the wealthy from the middle and working class? A Kennedy can allow a woman to drown and die a respected member of society, or bash in a girls head with a set of golf clubs and nothing really happens. i can try and not offend people by keeping my beliefs about some things that continue to go on in this country and get little to no penalties. i won't even go down the road of why is it that certain celebrities seem to get away with things i would have gotten a lethal injection for? the death penalty has been proved to NOT be a deterrent, costs more than life in prison and makes society guilty of murder imo. are there ever cases where i would like someone killed as i am disgusted by what they have done? of course. My Master and i were discussing this issue last night and He is pro death penalty. He brought up serial killers. i don't even think they would stop for a second, in fact might be encouraged at the notoriety.
it has been shown that treatment is more cost effective than prison, and no one wants the money to treat. Very wealthy men fund all these street level crack dealers and gangs and never get caught. We seem to accept a certain futility as a society with regard to the drug and gang problem and solely react to clean up the mess rather than deal with the problem. It seems to me its an us and them problem for most people who would rather see the drug problem as a them problem. i live on long island in New York. There are articles now in the newspapers addressing our heroin and crack problem as its now seen as a white kid problem. Crying mothers interviewed about kids dead or in jail. I find it to be disgusting that it wasn't even viewed as a real issue for everyone until some idiot figured out white suburban kids do drugs. perhaps when people figure out white kids kill kids in turf wars too it will be dealt with.

[MMI]

Good points well made, badkitty.

[IAN 2411]

I agree that the criminal justice system is flawed, and injustices are far more common than is realised or admitted. I also agree with your observation that the system is loaded against particular sections of society: black youths, the working classes and the unemployed, abused women and so on. This has been illustrated in this very thread, where whole sections of society have been labelled "trash" and "yobs" (instinctively, I believe, not maliciously) for which the harshest penalties must be used to punish their crimes.

Murder is not a black or working class crime. It is certainly not a female crime. While more murders occur among the lower classes, they are usually committed in the heat of the moment, whereas, when a killing takes place among the higher social classes, power or money is usually the motive. It might be cynical of me, but I suggest that working class killers use murder where they see no other option, or where they lose control, while upper class killers see murder as the most expedient way to achieve their purposes, after calculating the pro's and con's and concluding that a person's death is necessary. Such people would never be called yobs or trash.

I do agree with you on the points that you have mentioned about the two classes of murder or shall we say killings. There is a third however and you have only hinted at it by mentioning other members posts, and that is the gang related murders. These gangs roam our Cities and towns in the UK looking for other gangs, and it is just to show face and protect their teritory, and when these gangs fight each other and a member gets killed, that is premeditated and should be rewarded with a harsh and long imprisonment. One other point i would like to make, and that is a person should never kill as the last resort unless it is accidental in self defence, or could not be avoided in self defence. This is not an argement against what you say, but just my personal feelings.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.

[IAN 2411]

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.

I'll answer that from experience of that era, i was up in Glasgow in 1968-9 doing a keeping the army in the public eye tour, it was just another name for recruiting. There was a notorious gang on the Gorbles estate, [im am not sure if that is spelt right] and i believe they were called The tongs, and their name was in gaffiti all over Glasgow. there was a book writen on the notoriosness of the gang and its leader, called i believe, The Razor King. On leaving Glasgow on friday morning, there was a newspaper sitting on the seat that i picked up, it was the daily record, and the front page picture that took the whole of the page except the headlines, was of a baby, no more than a few months old. She/he had a slash from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth, it was a razor cut, and it was done while the mother was pushing a pram with the baby in. That picture haunts me now even after all these years later. In answer to your question,; no thank heavens, they are nothing like the razor gangs.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

You do this quite often! Just who are you responding to with this post?????????

I think it is me but without the original reference you message make no sense.
Although I do not it does not support your original comment!


The difference in the military is that you make a voluntary choice to give up some rights to the control of the country/president/your superior officers in order to serve ones country. A prisoner is not doing anything of benefit by serving their sentence. They don't have prestige or respect. They also don't have the pay. A voluntary choice to temporarily give up some rights to better serve a cause you believe in is a far cry from giving up rights for an indeterminate and possibly lifelong period for no noble reason at all. Making noble sacrifices is often personally rewarding and can make up for the consequences of losing some rights.

On the other hand when the choice is taken away the military is often a miserable existence. Look at draft dodging (particularly during Vietnam) and the horrors of risking your life against your will for a cause you don't believe in.

So I do think my earlier point stands regardless of your somewhat inaccurate attempt to compare the rights of a prisoner to the rights of a soldier.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree that the criminal justice system is flawed, and injustices are far more common than is realised or admitted. I also agree with your observation that the system is loaded against particular sections of society: black youths, the working classes and the unemployed, abused women and so on.


I have to take exception to the characterization above. Much of the support for the claim is the "fact: that a larger percentage of these people are actually in prison.

Perhaps that is because more crimes are actually committed by these groups.

Now I know I do not have data. While I was refilling my tea I thought about the data. It has to exist somewhere but I have to devlop the question to ask in order to find it.
I have to find data on arrests vs convictions somehow.

[DuncanONeil]

Capone was a businessman!!


You could be right - I have no way to refute or confirm what you say, and I cannot support my assertion with any meaningful facts or statistics: it is an impression I have.

However, I still think that turf wars take place as a result of an inability to deal with the "invasion" of a patch in any other way, whereas, if the gangs were run by ... ummm - let us say "business men" ... there might be a meeting around a long polished table, where compromises would be sought, deals would be cut, and concessions would be made. Only if these "negotiations" failed, would any deaths follow, and then on a selective basis. (I'm hypothesising ... tell me to get real if you like, but it seems to me that people with working class backgrounds resort to violence much more quickly than people from middle class backgrounds.)

[MMI]

I guess you have a point about the knife gangs you refer to, but are they as bad as the razor gangs that terrorised Glasgow between the wars, or the gangs in Liverpool and Sheffield? It's not a new problem, and it'll take a helluva lot of rope to hang them all. Remember, they had hanging back then.


I'll answer that from experience of that era, i was up in Glasgow in 1968-9 doing a keeping the army in the public eye tour, it was just another name for recruiting. There was a notorious gang on the Gorbles estate, [im am not sure if that is spelt right] and i believe they were called The tongs, and their name was in gaffiti all over Glasgow. there was a book writen on the notoriosness of the gang and its leader, called i believe, The Razor King. On leaving Glasgow on friday morning, there was a newspaper sitting on the seat that i picked up, it was the daily record, and the front page picture that took the whole of the page except the headlines, was of a baby, no more than a few months old. She/he had a slash from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth, it was a razor cut, and it was done while the mother was pushing a pram with the baby in. That picture haunts me now even after all these years later. In answer to your question,; no thank heavens, they are nothing like the razor gangs.

Regards ian 2411

I think I might remember that incident.

I also think I made my point above badly: I shouldn't have compared today's knife gangs with pre-war razor gangs because they are/were both just as bad as each other. I'm quite sure that a baby's face could be slashed today: psychopaths will never go out of fashion.

What I really meant to point out was that this is an age old problem, and I don't see us ever getting on top of it, no matter how we punish them.

[SadisticNature]

I have to take exception to the characterization above. Much of the support for the claim is the "fact: that a larger percentage of these people are actually in prison.

Perhaps that is because more crimes are actually committed by these groups.

Now I know I do not have data. While I was refilling my tea I thought about the data. It has to exist somewhere but I have to devlop the question to ask in order to find it.
I have to find data on arrests vs convictions somehow.

While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.
You move from the general to the specific quite quickly here. You have referred to "assumptions", yet you are doing just that in the above statement. Said assumption being that police are intrinsically suspicious of black people. No one can provide empirical evidence that such is the case. Why does the border matter or is that meant to be a lead in to the following paragraph?


I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.Yes it is anecdotal. And as previously stated there is no empirical data. If one of four, all guilty, were searched it seems reasonable to suggest there was some trigger, yes you would like to say color, it could be as simple as being nervous, or the manner in which questions are answered, or even a general manner of presentation.


So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias.
Not sure about the "level of crimes". That could mean nature or quantity. However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general. Your issue of bias here is either poorly thought out or poorly stated. As written it presupposes a strong bias in any random sampling. In terms of the stats on crime we have at least three sets of data. Crimes committed, criminals arrested, and criminals convicted. Neither of these sets represents a random sample. They are the complete set!


Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.
While the following are in fact my words they are a compiled sets of understanding of what you wrote. Happens that my daughter dropped by and read what you had to say in this scenario. Her opinion is that your entire scenario is biased.
She feels it is important to know what type of crime occurred. And further notes that in each case that you "assume" the black is the person chased.
In the description you have the officer presented with a crime scene with two people fleeing. That act by its nature makes both parties suspicious. In every point after that you "assume" the officer chases only the black. Can you not see that as a bias on your part. I know what I would do but, the officer on the scene is most likely to focus on the closer suspect than a specific factor of that suspect. Also in such situations decisions are made in a manner and speed that determination of why, can not be made, even well after the event. I have seen video of a person fleeing from the police make a high jump onto a wall that appears to be at least five feet high, sorry I am not going to try and chase him, no matter what he looks like.
It is so easy to dissect an officers actions after the fact. But such usually totally ignores the fact that every decision, in chases, must be made in fractions of seconds.


So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.
A police force responding to a chase does not respond with a single unit. Multiple units will automatically negate your "assumption" that only the black will be chased. Also every case you posit has the non black getting away. Not only from the scene but with the crime. You really think that an accomplice caught by the police is going to take all the blame on themselves and let someone else walk free?

[SadisticNature]

You move from the general to the specific quite quickly here. You have referred to "assumptions", yet you are doing just that in the above statement. Said assumption being that police are intrinsically suspicious of black people. No one can provide empirical evidence that such is the case. Why does the border matter or is that meant to be a lead in to the following paragraph?

Yes it is anecdotal. And as previously stated there is no empirical data. If one of four, all guilty, were searched it seems reasonable to suggest there was some trigger, yes you would like to say color, it could be as simple as being nervous, or the manner in which questions are answered, or even a general manner of presentation.


Not sure about the "level of crimes". That could mean nature or quantity. However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general. Your issue of bias here is either poorly thought out or poorly stated. As written it presupposes a strong bias in any random sampling. In terms of the stats on crime we have at least three sets of data. Crimes committed, criminals arrested, and criminals convicted. Neither of these sets represents a random sample. They are the complete set!


While the following are in fact my words they are a compiled sets of understanding of what you wrote. Happens that my daughter dropped by and read what you had to say in this scenario. Her opinion is that your entire scenario is biased.
She feels it is important to know what type of crime occurred. And further notes that in each case that you "assume" the black is the person chased.
In the description you have the officer presented with a crime scene with two people fleeing. That act by its nature makes both parties suspicious. In every point after that you "assume" the officer chases only the black. Can you not see that as a bias on your part. I know what I would do but, the officer on the scene is most likely to focus on the closer suspect than a specific factor of that suspect. Also in such situations decisions are made in a manner and speed that determination of why, can not be made, even well after the event. I have seen video of a person fleeing from the police make a high jump onto a wall that appears to be at least five feet high, sorry I am not going to try and chase him, no matter what he looks like.
It is so easy to dissect an officers actions after the fact. But such usually totally ignores the fact that every decision, in chases, must be made in fractions of seconds.


A police force responding to a chase does not respond with a single unit. Multiple units will automatically negate your "assumption" that only the black will be chased. Also every case you posit has the non black getting away. Not only from the scene but with the crime. You really think that an accomplice caught by the police is going to take all the blame on themselves and let someone else walk free?

Your standards on data set here are the same standards that justified a lot of discriminatory laws, and pointed to studies that showed blacks were less intelligent then whites and hence needed to be treated differently, for their own good. The particular data in this case was data showing that blacks scored lower than whites on IQ tests. In fact this data was biased because it contained cultural references familiar to whites of the day but less common among blacks (in particular nursery rhymes). By accepting that data as accurate and using it to inform policy many problems were created.

Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country. This was part of police culture for a long time, leading to riots in several cities and other such problems. I find it hard to believe that this behaviour vanishes the second we find it no longer appropriate. In my own city one of our former chiefs of police spoke out in favor of racial profiling, saying that it lead to more arrests and convictions. I don't have the data to dispute whether racial profiling leads to more arrests or convictions, but even assuming this claim is true, the fact is it leads to more arrests and convictions of non-whites.

So given that the police use methods (Racial Profiling for instance) that they argue are effective and result in higher arrest rates and higher conviction rates, but work against specific minorities, why should I believe the police have an equal chance of catching a white person as catching a black person if they both commit the same crime.

Even if racial profiling is not in use, this assumption could still be problematic.

Consider for instance a border security officer who processes vehicles. The person is required to search and suspicious vehicles. They happen to dislike rap music and think it is associated with gang activity, and hence search every vehicle of someone wearing rap attire.

To simplify the data lets assume that 40% of blacks are wearing rap related attire and 10% of whites are. Furthermore lets assume that an equal number of whites and blacks are carrying drugs across the border, and that the attire of the individual is independent of whether or not they carry drugs.

Over the long run this security officer will catch 4 black people for every white person even though they aren't being racist, and even though equal numbers of blacks and whites are committing crimes.

I'd argue the onus is on you to show the data actually shows what you claim it shows, given that I've presented both a plausible way in which the data can be inaccurate which you are unable to account for and a history showing that the bias has been present in the past.

The statement in your argument I have the most problem with is this: "However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general.".

There are a lot of reasons to believe the set of criminals caught doesn't represent the set of criminals in general. For starters different types of crimes are caught at different rates, so if whites are committing more of a certain type of crime that gets caught less (say white collar crime) and blacks are committing one of the crimes (say armed robbery) that gets caught at a higher rate then there are problems in the data. Even if you focus in on a particular crime, you introduce all sorts of new biases, in particular the choice of crime to focus on (given that different crimes have different race data).

Lastly, even if you manage to reduce the data to a single crime without introducing bias, you still don't have evidence showing the arrest data mirrors the committed crimes set. Racial profiling is effective at catching criminals, but results in a higher rate of catching blacks than of catching whites. If police are using methods that are better at catching specific races then that introduces bias in the data. As argued above, they have historically used such methods so the onus is on you to prove they aren't using them anymore.

[DuncanONeil]

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!


Your standards on data set here are the same standards that justified a lot of discriminatory laws, and pointed to studies that showed blacks were less intelligent then whites and hence needed to be treated differently, for their own good. The particular data in this case was data showing that blacks scored lower than whites on IQ tests. In fact this data was biased because it contained cultural references familiar to whites of the day but less common among blacks (in particular nursery rhymes). By accepting that data as accurate and using it to inform policy many problems were created.

Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country. This was part of police culture for a long time, leading to riots in several cities and other such problems. I find it hard to believe that this behaviour vanishes the second we find it no longer appropriate. In my own city one of our former chiefs of police spoke out in favor of racial profiling, saying that it lead to more arrests and convictions. I don't have the data to dispute whether racial profiling leads to more arrests or convictions, but even assuming this claim is true, the fact is it leads to more arrests and convictions of non-whites.

So given that the police use methods (Racial Profiling for instance) that they argue are effective and result in higher arrest rates and higher conviction rates, but work against specific minorities, why should I believe the police have an equal chance of catching a white person as catching a black person if they both commit the same crime.

Even if racial profiling is not in use, this assumption could still be problematic.

Consider for instance a border security officer who processes vehicles. The person is required to search and suspicious vehicles. They happen to dislike rap music and think it is associated with gang activity, and hence search every vehicle of someone wearing rap attire.

To simplify the data lets assume that 40% of blacks are wearing rap related attire and 10% of whites are. Furthermore lets assume that an equal number of whites and blacks are carrying drugs across the border, and that the attire of the individual is independent of whether or not they carry drugs.

Over the long run this security officer will catch 4 black people for every white person even though they aren't being racist, and even though equal numbers of blacks and whites are committing crimes.

I'd argue the onus is on you to show the data actually shows what you claim it shows, given that I've presented both a plausible way in which the data can be inaccurate which you are unable to account for and a history showing that the bias has been present in the past.

The statement in your argument I have the most problem with is this: "However with police located throughout the city there is no real reason to presume that criminals caught does not represent the set of criminals in general.".

There are a lot of reasons to believe the set of criminals caught doesn't represent the set of criminals in general. For starters different types of crimes are caught at different rates, so if whites are committing more of a certain type of crime that gets caught less (say white collar crime) and blacks are committing one of the crimes (say armed robbery) that gets caught at a higher rate then there are problems in the data. Even if you focus in on a particular crime, you introduce all sorts of new biases, in particular the choice of crime to focus on (given that different crimes have different race data).

Lastly, even if you manage to reduce the data to a single crime without introducing bias, you still don't have evidence showing the arrest data mirrors the committed crimes set. Racial profiling is effective at catching criminals, but results in a higher rate of catching blacks than of catching whites. If police are using methods that are better at catching specific races then that introduces bias in the data. As argued above, they have historically used such methods so the onus is on you to prove they aren't using them anymore.

[SadisticNature]

You make even less sense here than usual!You make an awful lot of assumption! then proceed as if they were fact!

I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

[DuncanONeil]

Race, Crime and Justice in America
The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA 22124

Second, Expanded Edition
Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes
against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs.
Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139
to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39
million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are
three times more likely.
Just a beginning! The data supports the make up of prison population, however.


I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

[DuncanONeil]

"Furthermore, my claims of potential for bias are based on a long history of bias and racial profiling in many police forces around the country." Sorry but this statement makes an assumption and assumes it is correct within itself.


I make specific assumptions to demonstrate one example. This is a common technique to show problems with data.

My point is not that the people are biased against rappers, and that leads to a higher conviction of blacks. My point is that if they were it could lead to biases in the data.

As for racial profiling itself it has been used for a long time. It is effective at catching people of certain races.

On what basis do you assume police have an equal chance of catching a culprit regardless of their race/background? To me that seems a massive unsupported assumption that you need to conclude that the arrest/conviction data reflect the crimes committed data.

[Gladius]

Oh no! Why UK need's a death penalty? You have ban gun's and knives. There can not be violence any more. They tell me gun's and knives make murder. Not peoples. What shall we ban next? Cut the arms off peoples? Then they can not push the trigger or knife edge. ;)

[MMI]

We didn't abolish the death penalty simply because we abolished violence through gun control, because we haven't. I read recently that GB is the most violent country in Europe, and is worse than USA (!) and even South Africa (!!). I have no reason to doubt the statistics, although it comes to me as a surprise and a shock to learn that we rank among the worst societies in the world.

Perhaps there are special situations to take into account - for example, perhaps the statistics include terrorism in Northern Ireland - but perhaps I am looking for excuses or am in denial. I find it hard to believe that the streets of London are more dangerous than those of Washington DC or Jo'burg.

Maybe I must face facts. After all, wasn't it only a month ago that a taxi driver went on a murder campaign in Cumbria, and killed or injured 37 people, using legally held weapons, while a fortnight later, four people received gunshot wounds in Birmingham. Even as I write, BBC 1's News at Six is full of reports about a Tyneside gunman who, just out of prison, has shot his girlfriend, her lover, and a police constable, and who has "declared war" on the Northumbria Police, is being stalked by armed police toting semi-automatic weapons. A village has been locked down and a 5 mile exclusion zone set up around it, as they search for this killer. It is being suggested that this man has chosen to "commit suicide by cop," a nasty phrase reflecting insidious conduct by the "victim" (by choice). And so the violence escalates.

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.

... well that would require a radical rethink of all my principles, and I am not prepared to rehearse all the arguments for and against capital punishment on this board (Thank God! I hear you chorus). Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.

So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves? I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?

[Thorne]

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.
Despite my being an advocate for the death penalty, I can honestly say that, No, the death penalty is not the answer. It is only a small part of the answer. While it may seem inhumane to some, I think you may be learning that there are some people for whom the only true defense for society is the death penalty.


Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.
There is ample evidence that the death penalty is not a valid deterrent to violent crimes. Most such crimes are done in the heat of passion, with little or no thought given to punishment. The only true justification I can give for having it is that it eliminates the possibility of a truly dangerous person ever committing another crime. Far too often people who are given a life sentence are released for "good behavior" and allowed back into society. Perhaps most will not relapse. But it only takes one.


So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves?
This is the core of the problem, I believe. You really can't protect yourselves. I have seen reports of victims trying to defend themselves against criminals receiving higher penalties than the criminals. That's not justice!


I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?
Surprisingly, the answer actually is in deregulation. In those areas of the US where people are able to get licenses to carry concealed weapons, street crimes are down, as are home invasions. When the criminals don't know if they are going to be met by meek victims or armed defense, they think twice about committing the crimes. I think you'll find that the great majority of gun crimes committed in the major cities of the US are gang and drug related. Sadly, too many of their victims are innocent bystanders, but few law-abiding citizens will mourn the deaths of drug dealers.

A well-armed, and well-trained, citizenry can do more to cut down on violent crimes than anything else, surprisingly. With few exceptions, the store owner who shoots the person trying to rob his store will be far less likely to have to shoot anyone else once the word gets around.

I am sorry to hear about your crisis of faith, though, MMI. I'll try not to say, "I told you so." ;)

[MMI]

It's not a crisis of faith, nor an epiphany, and I haven't recanted yet, Thorne. I am simply questioning my position in the light of information I was previously unaware of, and, to be honest, am having difficulty accepting.

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry? Are you advocating another law like the one in the C16th suppressing the playing of cricket in favour of compulsory target practice on the village green? What's the American experience here?

(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)

I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?

[Thorne]

You say that a "well-armed and well-trained citizenry" would do more good than anything else. But what about a well-armed but poorly-trained citizenry?
First of all, this is only my opinion.I have no hard facts to back it up. But I definitely mean a well-trained citizenry. I believe every registered gun owner should be required to pass certification tests in the handling, maintenance and safety of weapons. Those who cannot pass the tests should not be granted a permit.


(In fact, it was necessary for that law to absolve archers from the crime of murder if they killed someone during archery practice! Would it be necessary to have a modern law making a similar provision?)
Not at all! Those who apply for permits to own and carry concealed weapons should not be considered part of the militia unless they are actually called into service by their government. Given proper gun safety and licensed practice ranges there should be no problems with such incidents.


I wonder if crime in America has fallen in areas where concealed weapons can be carried because the criminals fear their "marks" could be dangerously incompetent gunmen. Or does that not matter, because crime has fallen and the end justifies the means?
I don't know the reasons for it, only that it does seem to be the case. I would think that a dangerously incompetent gunman might be more dangerous to himself than to any potential criminal.

Does the end justify the means? I don't know the answer to that. Sometimes it might. But the death of one innocent person by an armed civilian who thinks he is only defending himself would negate any good that has been done. ANY death or even injury occurring during a criminal attack would have to be investigated by the police, but with the prevalence of CCTV cameras virtually everywhere, that should be far less of a problem than in the past. And an armed civilian who killed an attacker without just cause would have to be charged and tried just as any criminal would be.

As I've said in the past, I don't claim to have all the answers. But it is my strong belief that disarming civilian populations only makes them more likely to be targets of criminals, not less. As GB is learning, it's impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Not allowing citizens to defend themselves only makes the criminals bolder.

[MMI]

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself, and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself. Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law. OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did? Raoul Moat would've got a gun regardless of what the law said, but maybe Derrick Bird would not; and if he hadn't, 12 lives would not have been pointlessly wasted. Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.

[denuseri]

So we are going from death penalty to gun control?

Cuase Im all about good gun control.

You know, the kind that lets me hit what I aim at.

<<is perfectly willing to eaither break out the links or start pulling quotes from the last gun control thread for ammunition here if we are planning on having a lil shootout...lol.

[Thorne]

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.
I knew I could drive you back into your shell! :)


The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying.
Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.


There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets.
Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.


There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties.
One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!


No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself,
What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!


and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself.
And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.


Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.
All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.


And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.
Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.


It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law.
These controls already exist. They are ineffective.


OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did?
Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.


Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.
But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

[MMI]

I only introduced gun control as an alternative to imposing capital punishment, den. I'll debate the merits of gun control with anyone till the come home, but that wasn't my purpose in the last message.

[MMI]

One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.

Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance. Perhaps they weren't as silly as the white ones the French used to wear.

As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you (1) that the French and the indians won your little revolution for you, while the treacherous woodmen who had turned on their own kin just tagged along for the reflected glory and (2) the Canadians won the war of 1812 as the Americans tried to turn their northern cousins against the homeland again. Canada understands the true meaning of loyaly, however. That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.

Meanwhile, although the French won a minor victory in America, we took them apart in every other theatre of that global war, as well as defeating the Dutch, the Russians, the Swedes and the Spanish. So, while it hurt to lose the 13 colonies, it's to be expected if you only send your least competent officers. And it didn't amount to much when you look at the big picture. Plus we did get all of the French Canadian possessions to make up for the loss. So, well done you ...!

[Thorne]

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.
Well, it did take you two tries against the US, and this is only the second try in Afghanistan, so....


Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance.
That may be true, but it certainly made it easier to see where the troops were.
You might enjoy this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGYoCNU5es). Trust me, it's relevant.


As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you...
Yeah, yeah, I got all that. But still, the British Army had to leave, didn't it?

That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.
Perhaps a topic for another thread. But remember, the US did provide material support before actually getting involved, both times. And US volunteers fought in both wars long before the government decided to get involved.

[DuncanONeil]

You are presenting yourself with a quandry. You see the killing of others as wrong and uncivilized. But at the same time realize that there are those that do not, and in fact deliberately do so.
Now it is to determine what is to be done with these people? At least we must be certain that they can not continue to kill! The only sure way is to make it impossible for them to do so. A life term in prison, that is not solitary confinement, does not even provide that certainty. Further is it proper to ask society to support a demonstrably non-productive member for life?


We didn't abolish the death penalty simply because we abolished violence through gun control, because we haven't. I read recently that GB is the most violent country in Europe, and is worse than USA (!) and even South Africa (!!). I have no reason to doubt the statistics, although it comes to me as a surprise and a shock to learn that we rank among the worst societies in the world.

Perhaps there are special situations to take into account - for example, perhaps the statistics include terrorism in Northern Ireland - but perhaps I am looking for excuses or am in denial. I find it hard to believe that the streets of London are more dangerous than those of Washington DC or Jo'burg.

Maybe I must face facts. After all, wasn't it only a month ago that a taxi driver went on a murder campaign in Cumbria, and killed or injured 37 people, using legally held weapons, while a fortnight later, four people received gunshot wounds in Birmingham. Even as I write, BBC 1's News at Six is full of reports about a Tyneside gunman who, just out of prison, has shot his girlfriend, her lover, and a police constable, and who has "declared war" on the Northumbria Police, is being stalked by armed police toting semi-automatic weapons. A village has been locked down and a 5 mile exclusion zone set up around it, as they search for this killer. It is being suggested that this man has chosen to "commit suicide by cop," a nasty phrase reflecting insidious conduct by the "victim" (by choice). And so the violence escalates.

I have argued on these threads that countries that do not have the death penalty are in some way better than those that do; I would write smug messages asserting that the British or European approach to crimes of violence - particularly murder - demonstrates a higher level of civilisation which should be emulated by all other countries, and I would hear no rebuttal. I was right and I knew it. But now I see that Britain is no better, no safer, no more peaceful than anywhere else, rather, it is worse, more dangerous, and more violent than most places, and I ask myself if the death penalty really is the answer.

... well that would require a radical rethink of all my principles, and I am not prepared to rehearse all the arguments for and against capital punishment on this board (Thank God! I hear you chorus). Instinctively, I still feel it is wrong, and I still feel it reflects a higher level of social standards not to have the death penalty than to have it ... but just because most of us behave one way, there's no proof that it will make others, who are less inclined to, behave the same way.

So, if GB is such a violent place to live in, and guns and other weapons are strictly controlled, how can we protect ourselves? I don't think there is any popular desire for guns to be de-regulated so we can protect ourselves, and I don't think there is enough evidence to support the re-introduction of the death penalty. What other options are there?

[DuncanONeil]

First I trimmed your post because You are entited to personally held beliefs. But I feel constrained to respond to the view of Every random Joe Blow running out and getting a firearm, and carrying it around, because it is allowed.
Every law permitted Concealed Carry (CCW) mandates training and a permitting process. There are two different languages in the law; one is "shall" issue and the other is "may" issue. In either case the permit is controlled by law enforcement. Certain categories are prohibited in the law. All such laws require training. But all that aside there is only a small percentage of the people that will avail themselves of the right to carry. It is the uncertainty that offers deterrence. Currently there are only two states in the US that do not allow CCW, I happen to live in one and the President comes from the other. Think on this for a moment, while it is illegal to CCW where I live it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an open fashion! That means I could strap on a holster, put my 9mm Bersa in it, go out and conduct my daily chores and be perfectly legal!



The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.

[DuncanONeil]

Thank you Thorne!


I knew I could drive you back into your shell! :)


Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.


Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.


One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!


What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!


And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.


All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.


Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.


These controls already exist. They are ineffective.


Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.


But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

[DuncanONeil]

The problem here is that there is gun control and then there is GUN CONTROL.

Much of what Thorne had said in regard to training and the permitting process is a form of gun control. Too often "gun control" is understood to mean a limit on ownership. This is actually illegal in the US.

"Monday, June 28, 2010

Supreme Court rules Second Amendment applies to states
Hillary Stemple at 11:15 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court ... on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in McDonald v. Chicago ... that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment ... right to bear arms applicable to the states as well as the federal government. The case arose over a city of Chicago ordinance effectively banning the possession of handguns. ... Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the opinion of the court, cited the court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller ... and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating:

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.(http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/06/supreme-court-rules-second-amendment-applies-to-states.php)


I only introduced gun control as an alternative to imposing capital punishment, den. I'll debate the merits of gun control with anyone till the come home, but that wasn't my purpose in the last message.

[Thorne]

Too often "gun control" is understood to mean a limit on ownership.

I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.
30758

[MMI]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt

2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).

[Thorne]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt
Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.


2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).
I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[MMI]

I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.
30758

Amusing, and illustrates precisely the false logic used to undermine gun-control. The question is not, would the dead woman be alive if she'd had a gun (my own view is that 80% of the time, she probably wouldn't have had time to pull the gun and shoot it), but, was the dead man really a rapist?

Furthermore, if the maximum penalty for rape is (say) lifetime in prison, what gives a woman the right to summarily execute men she is afraid of, or over-possessive fathers the right to murder kids whom they suspect of taking advantage of their innocent daughters?

[denuseri]

Everyone should have a right to defend themselves from an attacker!

[MMI]

True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.

[Thorne]

True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.
So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?

No, in the US, at least, everyone has the right to defend himself and his property at all times, even if it means the death of an attacker. There are limits, certainly, but a general rule of thumb is that the criminal is responsible for all actions occurring during the commission of a crime. The victim, or a good Samaritan coming to the victim's aid, cannot be held liable if the criminal is killed.

And the threat of violence is enough. There is no possible way to expect a victim to accept rapes, beatings, serious injuries, anything short of death, without defending herself to the max. And one thing is certain: a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender.

And for the record, any convicted rapist, or home invader, or mugger, is likely to leave prison long before the emotional damage done to his victims has passed. Those who survive, at least.

[denuseri]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) is a more generalized term. Various states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar, with at least one exception, Tennessee, which issues a "Handgun Carry Permit," since state law does not require a person with a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008[update], 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, increasing the chance that it will be stolen.

Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

[denuseri]

Additonally:

The "turn the other cheek'/ satyagahra method of dealing with those who would harm us is unfortunatly only as effective as the compassion of the aggressor permits.

Which is probabely why actual statistics from the DOJ involving the resistance or a lack there of during the commission of a violent crime reflect that, one who resists with a gun is far more likely to survive an encounter unscathed compared to other forms of resistance by a ratio of 4 to 1 (martial arts, other types of weapons etc) or no-resistance at all by a ration of 2 to 1.

In other words, resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.

[Thorne]

Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.


resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.
This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.


Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.
This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.

Thanks for the info!

[denuseri]

Thank's Thorne!

Just some tidbits I picked up after surviving a violent crime myself and deciding to get and maintain my own concealed carry lisence.

[MMI]

So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

[MMI]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person.

...

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

...



Thank-you, den. I accept the facts you have set out above. My only comment is in response to the section I have quoted, but it applies to the whole post.

In a sentence, the CCW laws are to me an incitement to violence as a first resort, not a last resort, and if that is the attitude of the authorities, then all of the "liability issues" are probably focused on avoiding penalties if you kill by mistake.

What does "training" include? Target practice? What about how to avoid confrontation?

[MMI]

Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.


This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.


This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.

Thanks for the info!


It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

[Thorne]

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply.
Reasonable certainty is certainly ... reasonable. I have no argument with that. But who gets to define "reasonable"? The intended victim (turned killer) or the criminal's family?


Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe?
A holstered weapon, while it might make you uncomfortable, would not in and of itself be threatening. It will make you more aware of the person, though, which isn't a bad thing either. The man with the knife I described was in fact threatening. My scenario was intended to imply that he was displaying the knife in a threatening, aggressive manner, such as pointed at you, or slashing in your direction. I would consider that to be threatening, with reasonable certainty.


Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.
Fortunately, the look in someone's eye cannot be considered grounds for self defense. Unless he actually draws his weapon, or strikes you even without the weapon, his actions cannot be considered threatening. Unnerving perhaps, but not threatening.


I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.
I don't intend to imply any such desire myself. I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.


But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.
I agree with you. Even in the act of self defense we have to be held responsible for our actions. That's why I think mandatory training, real training not just lip service, should be a requirement. And why I think any shooting, whether self defense or not, should be fully investigated.


(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)
And again, I disagree. While any weapon can be lethal, even a baseball bat, carrying that weapon does not necessary show a desire or willingness to kill. It only shows a desire for self defense. If threatening my attacker with the weapon suffices in driving him off, I'd be quite happy not to have fired a shot. Bullets cost money, you know!

[Thorne]

you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.
No, of course not. As I have said, ALL such incidents must be investigated as crimes. But imprisoning the surviving victim for defending himself, even lethally, is not the answer, either.


In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.
What is considered an "offensive" weapon? A knife? What about a sword? Or a cricket bat?


OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.
And yet, by your own admission the crime rate in the UK is higher than here in the US. And some things I've read suggest that the incidence of gun crimes in the UK have been rising steadily since the gun ban went into effect. Can you confirm or deny this?

[MMI]

I cannot give conclusive facts, and have no time to do the research. Perhaps someone else is better able to provide unbiased data for us. In yellow would be nice.

I did find this, from the Gun Control Network (I mistyped that as "Gin Control ... a whole other debate!) - which obviously has an agenda to pursue:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.

I could not help noticing the banner over its home page, which quoted Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa when he was giving evidence to the Cullen Inquiry in 1996: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival

[MMI]

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.

I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.



I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.


But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"

(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)

[MMI]

In Britain anything that is capable of being used as a weapon, will be treated as a weapon, if the circumstances indicate that it will be used as such. Thus, a milkman carrying a bottle, or a mother carrying an umbrella is unlikely to be charged, but aggressive and posturing youths outside a pub on a Friday night carrying the same items are highly likely to be arrested.

[Thorne]

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.
Except you aren't advocating gun controls. You're looking for gun bans! A different subject altogether.


"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
The key word in that quote is should. I wonder if that's true? From what you've been saying about the crime rates in England rising I tend to think that it's not.


I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Despite a total ban on civilian gun ownership. Gee, why am I not surprised?

Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
This isn't surprising either, given the modern "macho" culture perpetuated on the TV and movies.

Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Pretty common wherever you go. Those who don't have much tend to want more. And some will take it however they can.

Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
This one surprised me at first, but after thinking about it, here in the US I think most gun crimes are gang and/or drug related, so it does make some sense.

Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Not surprising. Guns are intended to kill, not to wound.

Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival
If you give the knife a good twist before yanking it out, it should cut down those odds considerably. ;)

[DuncanONeil]

I only have one problem with your post.

"In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation."

Government is still imposed by force. The democratic process serves to choose the enforcers!


I got that idea from earlier posts in the thread and continued to think that way when responding to you. I understand now that you were suggesting this kind of punishment be inflected deliberately and cold-bloodedly by people who are completely disconnected from the original crime. In front of cameras.

I deny there is any kind of justice in the system of punishment you propose.




I can see why you say that, but I actually believe that the offender should receive the degree of punishment prescribed by the law. The law does not need to submit the offender to the same treatment he gave his victim, and it does not have to be led by his actions. Modern society can protect itself without resorting to such brutal, primitive conduct, and it can exact retribution without taking an eye, or a tooth, or a hand or a foot, or even a life. We left that behind in the Dark Ages, and it is well that we did. In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation.




That is what I am arguing. I do not believe a sober-minded dispassionate person would stipulate that the crime of murder be subject to the death penalty when he considers the alternatives available. Only if influenced by emotion would he say that hanging was appropriate because there is not a single benefit to be gained from executing the murderer other than to satiate disturbed passions.



I agree. Crimes, once committed cannot be cancelled out or nullified. Yet an "eye for an eye" has every appearance of saying one bad deed can be cancelled out by another, and a "life for a life" carries exactly the same implication.



In Iceland, during Norse times, there was no-one to enforce the laws made by the Alþingi, and those who sought redress for some offence against them were obliged to obtain it themselves, by force if necessary. Icelandic society became riven by feuding families, and was unable to develop as a result. This, I suggest is actual evidence of what happens when justice, equated with revenge, is left to individuals to enforce. It ceases to be even-handed, measured or certain and becomes haphazzard, excessive and random.



I was working on the premise that a punishment based on revenge could only be imposed by those who had been directly affected by the crime - the vicitm's family. Where the death sentence is to be imposed, I believe it is an act of revenge rather than a dispassionate judicial punishment.

It is common these days for victims to be allowed to address courts nowadays in an attempt to secure a harsher penalty for the accused, which can only be pandering to the revenge motive.

Why not allow the killer's family to submit special pleas on how badly they will be affected if he is hanged?

[DuncanONeil]

I have seen that three case senario here before. As to the data I was looking for I found some and am in the process of putting it in a form that willo be readable here. Some of the numbers may be surprising.
Still looking for convictions, think I have someplace to pick them out.


While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

I bet I know what that link says without going there!
"Gun control means using two hands!"


I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.
30758

[DuncanONeil]

What else has Canada to offer? Um ... oil sands?


Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.


I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!


Everyone should have a right to defend themselves from an attacker!

[DuncanONeil]

The law on the use of lethal force is quite clear. "In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger."

To require a person to prove that had they not taken action would have been killed it tantamount to being asked to prove a negative.


True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.

[DuncanONeil]

Me!!! Thanks a lot! I upset you that much? Holstered, no you got no right. But with a draw of that weapon you might have a case.

It is not the act of killing that makes murder it is intent!


No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

[DuncanONeil]

Here is an example of the requirements to secure a CCW permit, selected at random.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm

If you wish to check out others then you need to use this site.
http://www.carryconcealed.net/

Just in the spirit of fair play; State Department Locations:

Attorney General
123 West Washington Ave.
PO Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
Phone: 608-266-1221 Fax: 608-267-2779
Permit Costs & Info:
N/A
Click Here for CCW Permit Form
Open Carry Information:
Wisconsin is an open carry state. They have complete state preemption for firearms laws. However, you may not openly carry a firearm in a vehicle. http://opencarry.org/ Facts for my state.


Thank-you, den. I accept the facts you have set out above. My only comment is in response to the section I have quoted, but it applies to the whole post.

In a sentence, the CCW laws are to me an incitement to violence as a first resort, not a last resort, and if that is the attitude of the authorities, then all of the "liability issues" are probably focused on avoiding penalties if you kill by mistake.

What does "training" include? Target practice? What about how to avoid confrontation?

[DuncanONeil]

You know the first time I went to Japan and interacted with the people there. like anywhere else they asked where I came from. When I told them they would immediately put there hands up one behind the other with the lead hand index finger point out away from. they then swung this configuration back and forth accompanied by the vocalization rat-ta-tat-tat-tat. Giving the implication that they understood that drive-by machine-gunnings continued to occur in Chicago in spite of the fact that it was 1969.

You present the same kind of misunderstanding with comments like;

you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers,
perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.


Even the old frontiers were not as wild as is believed. And the NRA is not scaremongering. NRA Mission: To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms.
Founded: In 1871, by a group of Union veterans of the American Civil War. The first NRA president was Ambrose Burnside; the eighth, Ulysses S. Grant. I was actually surprised to see that the organization is that old!


It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

[DuncanONeil]

I just looked at the numbers for 2008. In that year there were 14,180 murders and non-negligent homicides. Of these 67% or 9,500 were a result of firearms. There is even a problem with that term as that includes anything that throws a bullet, rifle, shotgun, whatever. This produces a rate of 3.08 per 100,000 (9,500/308,000,000 = X/100,000). That is down 30% from your 2001 figure.
However if I use my source to check your numbers the results are different. 2001 is 8664/307000000 = X/100000 or 2.82 per 100,000 meaning an increase of 9%.


I cannot give conclusive facts, and have no time to do the research. Perhaps someone else is better able to provide unbiased data for us. In yellow would be nice.

I did find this, from the Gun Control Network (I mistyped that as "Gin Control ... a whole other debate!) - which obviously has an agenda to pursue:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.

I could not help noticing the banner over its home page, which quoted Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa when he was giving evidence to the Cullen Inquiry in 1996: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival

[DuncanONeil]

Kind of hard for me to evaluate effectively but I can agree to an increase in crime for what I believe is the London Metro area. This site does show a substantial increase in personal crime.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

Does not get very much more specific than that except that sexual crimes is a separate entry.


I cannot give conclusive facts, and have no time to do the research. Perhaps someone else is better able to provide unbiased data for us. In yellow would be nice.

I did find this, from the Gun Control Network (I mistyped that as "Gin Control ... a whole other debate!) - which obviously has an agenda to pursue:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.

I could not help noticing the banner over its home page, which quoted Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa when he was giving evidence to the Cullen Inquiry in 1996: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival

[DuncanONeil]

Again you always assume the worst. This assumption appears to be based solely upon the presence of a firearm. By your analysis I should have been engaged in several shootings. I am continually upset while at home by the actions of others and there are handguns and rifles in my house.


The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.

I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.


How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.



That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"

(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)

[DuncanONeil]

Answer Part One
Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t412008.pdf

Table 4.1.2008

Estimated number of arrests a

By offense charged, United States, 2008

Offense charged
Total b 14,005,615

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12,955
Forcible rape 22,584
Robbery 129,403
Aggravated assault 429,969
Burglary 308,479
Larceny-theft 1,266,706
Motor vehicle theft 98,035
Arson 14,125
Violent crime c 594,911

aData are based on all reporting agencies and estimates for unreported areas.
bBecause of rounding, figures may not add to total. Total does not include suspicion.
cViolent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault.
dProperty crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United
States, 2008, Table 29 [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/


While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

Answer Part Two
Total arrests
American
Indian or Asian or
Alaskan Pacific
Total White Black Native Islander

TTL 10662206 7382063 3015905 142908 121330


Murder 9859 4721 4935 99 104
Rape 16847 10990 5428 198 231
Robbery 100525 41962 56948 681 934
Assault 328736 208081 112325 4453 3877
Burglary 235407 157252 73960 2077 2118
theft 979145 666360 286844 12684 13257
GTA 74881 44674 28510 795 902
Arson 10734 8139 2331 132 132

Viole \b\ 455967 265754 179636 5431 5146
Prpty \c\ 1300167 876425 391645 15688 16409

Percentages to follow


While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

Answer Part Three
American
Indian or Asian or
Alaskan Pacific
Total White Black Native Islander

100.00% 69.20% 28.30% 1.30% 1.10%


Murder 100 47.9 50.1 1 1.1
Forcible rape 100 65.2 32.2 1.2 1.4
Robbery 100 41.7 56.7 0.7 0.9
Assault 100 63.3 34.2 1.4 1.2
Burglary 100 66.8 31.4 0.9 0.9
Larceny-theft 100 68.1 29.3 1.3 1.4
GTA 100 59.7 38.1 1.1 1.2
Arson 100 75.8 21.7 1.2 1.2

Violent crime\b\ 100 58.3 39.4 1.2 1.1
Property crime\c\ 100 67.4 30.1 1.2 1.3

\a\Because of rounding, percents may not add to total.
\b\Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaugh-
ter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
\c\Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson.



While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

I suspect that data on so-called random stops would be next to impossible to produce short of actually getting the specific police logs or radio logs.


While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

This may also be of some interest.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5572004.pdf


I suspect that data on so-called random stops would be next to impossible to produce short of actually getting the specific police logs or radio logs.

[IAN 2411]

MPs May Be Forced To Vote On Death Penalty

MPs could be forced into a landmark vote on the restoration of the death penalty because of a new e-petitions scheme.

Commons leader Sir George Young has already said they should not ignore voters and shy away from debating the issue.

Sir George warned it would damage democracy to ignore strong opinions among members of the public "or pretend that their views do not exist".

He spoke out ahead of the publication of the first submissions to the new e-petitions scheme, which could see the most popular appeals discussed in Parliament.

Among the most prominent is one calling for legislation allowing child killers and those who murder on-duty police officers to face execution.

It has been presented by Paul Staines, who writes the libertarian Guido Fawkes blog, and has already been backed by several MPs.

If it is signed by the required 100,000 supporters or more, then the cross-party Backbench Business Committee will decide whether it will be debated.

Sir George played down fears about airing the subject - which was effectively abolished as a sentence for murder in the UK in 1965.

"The site has been widely welcomed as a realistic way to revitalise public engagement in Parliament," he wrote in the Daily Mail.

"But there have been some who have been concerned by some of the subjects which could end up being debated - for example, the restoration of capital punishment.

"The last time this was debated - during the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998 - restoration was rejected by 158 votes.

"But, if lots of people want Parliament to do something which it rejects, then it is up to MPs to explain the reasons to their constituents. What else is Parliament for?

"People have strong opinions, and it does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist."

Conservative MP Priti Patel said such a debate was long overdue and that she favoured restoring capital punishment "for the most serious and significant crimes" - a position echoed by party colleague Andrew Turner.

Another Tory, Philip Davies, told the newspaper he would like to see all murders punishable by death.

.................................................. ....

I can only say that my voice must have been heard.


Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.
...
That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Fortunately, it isn't that simple. To quote one relevant American law:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

I for one wholeheartedly concur. I would far rather have a dead burglar than a burgled home. Never mind limiting the use of deadly force, I very much support the idea of criminals dying in the commission of their crime whenever possible. Criminals' rights should essentially begin once in custody and all resistance to arrest has ceased; until that point, any injury they may sustain is entirely their own fault.

[MMI]

Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.

I cannot imagine how grand a home must be to weigh heavier than the life of a person, however mean and humble he be.

But if I'm wrong, hell - let's go and shoot some 11 year-old shop-lifters pinching sweeties. A pound of humbugs is more valuable than a couple of naughty rascals.

No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.

[js207]

Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.

No, I'm not. I distinguish between the value of innocent life and that of a criminal engaged in the commission of a crime. I don't expect anyone to sacrifice their own life defending property - whether fighting crime or fires - but I'm more than happy to see criminals' actions backfire on them badly.


No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.

No, by definition you are a criminal when you are committing a crime, whether you are convicted of it or not - and the core of our disagreement lies in the line above: you apparently distinguish between a criminal injuring himself and another person causing that injury, while I distinguish between that criminal and innocent bystanders or victims. If you steal a car, crash it and die, does it matter whether you crashed it because you were high or drunk, the car was faulty or it had been booby-trapped as a Darwinian security measure?

[MMI]

I cannot see how the dreadful law you quoted, which allows a person to execute a robber (not a killer) trying to escape with some property by shooting him in the back, enables that person (the killer) to say, the robbery backfired! The robbery would have backfired if the thief left empty-handed, or got caught up in a gun-fight, or if he shot himself by accident, but for a property-owner to shoot a man on the run, and who is no threat, is nothing less than a deliberate killing carried out in cold blood and without fear for one's own life. That law licences murder ... provided it is done at night time. Why night time? Perhaps the lawmaker realised the shamefulness of the wicked act it was legitimising. Or perhaps it is designed only to protect cowards.

Give me Sharia Law. At least an Imman has to decide the man's guilt according to some sort of process.

If you are a criminal who has not been convicted, you will not be punished, and therefore unconvicted criminals are irrelevant to this discussion. If you are convicted by due process of law, you deserve whatever the law decrees. If you have not been convicted, no-one, high or low, has the right to exact retribution. That right disappeared in the Dark Ages. Or was it the Stone Age?

To my mind, whoever framed that law was advocating Gun Law and anarchy. Maybe he was about to start a vendetta against the poor or the immigrants or something. Or maybe he was a psychopath who wanted to stay on the right side of the law.

I still cannot balance the equation Property = Life, so, in answer to your final question, yes it does matter. If I crash a stolen car and die through my own fault, or because I am drunk, that is an unfortunate accident that prevents justice running its course. If I die because the car is booby-trapped, then the owner will have murdered me. He will have contemplated a situation where an unauthorised person sits in the car and he will then have taken steps to kill that person: intention and act.

Only the obnoxious, retrograde law you have praised so highly can protect him.

[js207]

I cannot see how the dreadful law you quoted, which allows a person to execute a robber (not a killer) trying to escape with some property by shooting him in the back, enables that person (the killer) to say, the robbery backfired!

I'd say ending up dead as a result is just about the ultimate in backfiring. Most of the US has a law of 'felony murder', that a death which occurs in the commission of a felony (for example, someone you run over while making a getaway in a stolen car, or someone gets shot in your armed bank robbery) is legally considered to have been murdered by the perpetrators, because the original cause of the death was the crime itself, even if otherwise the death would have been a less serious charge (run someone over while driving your own car legally, it isn't classed as murder unless you actually drove at them deliberately). England and Wales had this rule too, but weakened it in 1957 to apply only to crimes of personal violence.


If I crash a stolen car and die through my own fault, or because I am drunk, that is an unfortunate accident that prevents justice running its course.

I neither see that as unfortunate (as long as nobody else is harmed: as I've said, I have no objection to criminals dying from their crimes) nor as having prevented justice from running its course. As for the booby-trapped car, if you hadn't stolen it nobody would have been harmed, so why is it the owner's fault rather than your own? My booby-trapped car is entirely safe, as long as nobody tries stealing it!

Much like the idiots every year who illegally obtain display-grade fireworks, not knowing that the fuses on them are non-delay ones (designed for remote triggering, or having a separate delay fuse attached), or indeed the IRA bombers who started experimenting with radio controlled detonators - then learned the hard way that anyone can send radio signals, not just the person assembling the bomb. Do you object to terrorists getting blown up by their own bombs thanks to radio jamming, too?

On a relevant footnote, I was relieved to see the Crown Prosecution Service declining to bring any charges over the stabbing of the burglar John Bennell in Salford this June. At the very least, one less burglar out there - and it wouldn't surprise me if burglary rates in the area fell afterwards too.

[Thorne]

MMI,

You and I have had this discussion before, and I see little has changed. However, in the situation described, a victim killing a robber AFTER the fact, while the robber is running away, that certainly does seem to me to be unjustified. By that time there is no threat to your life, or the lives of anyone else, and you would then be killing someone for the price of a few possessions. If I were on a jury on such a case I would have no problem with convicting the killer of manslaughter, at least.

However, there is still the situation of killing a robber while in the act! If you come upon a person robbing your home, or you are accosted by someone on the street, I maintain that you have a right to defend yourself and your property by any means, up to and including lethal force. You have no way of knowing the intentions of the burglar/robber, no way of knowing whether or not he is armed, and a reasonable fear of being injured or killed. I see no problem with stopping the robber, even if it means killing him.

As for booby-trapping your property, as far as I know it's illegal here in the US to do something which is deliberately fatal, or reasonably can be considered to be life-threatening. That doesn't prohibit you from trapping your property in such a way that the robber will be caught but not killed. It's just considered bad form to actually kill them in this manner. Too much chance of an innocent person setting off the trap accidentally.

[MMI]

JS

The robbery would have backfired if there was something about the way it was carried out that caused the robber to die. But for a man to assassinate a thief after the robbery had been executed is an entirely different thing, and, as Thorne says, the killing is unjustified because it takes place "after the fact" and is caused by something other than a desire to protect life or property. The law is disgraceful.

As for the "felony murder" you describe, I don't have too much of an issue with making an accidental killing during the commission of a crime, murder, but I see that as entirely separate from the situation where a householder kills a burglar to prevent escape. As you say, the death was caused by the crime in the first instance, but it was a separate act that was not caused by the crime in the second. The householder had a choice and chose to take justice into his own hands. He was free to let the police do their jobs and apprehend the thief later.

Your statement that if a car thief dies during the theft, that is neither unfortunate nor a prevention of justice is revealing. I am tempted to cease this discussion immediately, because I doubt there is any point continuing it. I cannot accept that death has any role in a civilised penal system - not even where genocide has been committed, or where the killer is a compulsive serial killer who if let loose will repeat his crimes over and over until he dies of old age. These people should be removed from society, but they need not be killed. So to say that a person's death in a car accident is "justice" because the car was stolen is abhorrent to me. There is nothing "just" about a quirk of fate, however satisfying you might find it to be.

Your argument about the booby-trapped car verges on the ludicrous. To answer your question quite simply, there are many alternative and effective ways of protecting a car from theft, so to make it a death trap is unnecessary to stop it being stolen. You have many other choices, but you choose to use a method that kills indiscriminately. That is deliberate murder, and the pretence that you are protecting your property is fatuous.

Yes I do object to the killing of terrorists by remote jamming in the same way as I would object to ending a hostage situation by tossing in a hand grenade. It is indiscriminate. The chances of success are low. The chances of innocent victims being killed at the same time as the terrorists are high. There is absolutely no connection with the administration of justice, even where the jamming is done to prevent a crime. There are better alternatives.

With reference to your footnote, I suspect the only reason the CPS did not proceed with the prosecution was because it felt it could not secure a guilty verdict, not because it felt Bennell got what he deserved. As for your hope that his example would serve as a deterrent, have you seen the news from Salford tonight? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14467588

[js207]

I am tempted to cease this discussion immediately, because I doubt there is any point continuing it. I cannot accept that death has any role in a civilised penal system - not even where genocide has been committed, or where the killer is a compulsive serial killer who if let loose will repeat his crimes over and over until he dies of old age.

You're welcome to that belief, but study after study shows that, in the UK at least, that unconditional rejection puts you in quite a small minority: to assert that something is inherently 'wrong' simply because a minority disagrees with it is shaky ground indeed - moreover, you seem to be getting confused between the penal system, an artificial construct intended to inflict retrospective punishment as an approximation to justice, and justice itself.


To answer your question quite simply, there are many alternative and effective ways of protecting a car from theft, so to make it a death trap is unnecessary to stop it being stolen.

I never argued that it was necessary, making that a flawed rebuttal. Yes, of course there are other options - so what?


There is absolutely no connection with the administration of justice, even where the jamming is done to prevent a crime. There are better alternatives.

I didn't say it was about administration of anything, but about soldiers defending themselves by destroying devices used to attack both them and civilians - in much the same way the RAF would shoot down Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. No doubt some of those shot down bombers harmed people on the ground, despite the RAF's efforts - do you think that wrong as well, that those bombers should have been allowed through unobstructed in case their pilots get harmed? The idea our troops should refrain from interfering with IRA bombs in case those planting them and those accompanying them get hurt by their own attack strikes me as beyond absurd.

[MMI]

I have never minded being in a minority, but I do not accept that minority views are inherently dubious, and I reject the idea that they should not be acted upon because they are minority views, in the same way that I reject the notion that, because the majority supports a particular policy, that policy is necessarily right.


moreover, you seem to be getting confused between the penal system, an artificial construct intended to inflict retrospective punishment as an approximation to justice, and justice itself.

I confess to being confued by that comment. First of all, "system of justice" and terms like it are frequently used to mean "penal system", and that has happened often in this thread. Next, we are discussing whether a legal system should impose the death penalty for certain crimes: should the death penalty be available under English Law (see OP)? I have expressed my opinion that it should not. Others have expressed a different view, but both arguments are relevant to the original question. To use your words, we have stated what we believe is an appropriate retrospective punishment to inflict upon killers; and we have expressed those views based upon our individual philosophies about justice.

So, I'm afraid I have missed your point.


Regarding the booby-trapped car, the fact that there are other ways to prevent it being stolen makes the deliberate choice to install a booby-trap an act of pre-meditated murder, if the thief is killed thereby - and, for all I know, one of attempted murder if he survives. It can never be legitimate to attempt to prevent a crime by the unlawful killing of the perpetrator. That's what.

What is more, in this example, the destruction of the car while the thief is being killed demonstrates that the motive is to kill rather than to stop theft.

I do not think it is appropriate to compare acts of war (which are not crimes) with criminal acts. Meanwhile, I think you will find that most national armies are under rules of conduct that prohibit them from using lethal force where there is a chance that innocent non-combatants will be harmed, unless they are themselves under immediate threat. Speculative jamming in order to detonate bombs and kill their manufacturers breaches that rule in that the effects on others cannot be assessed and the immediate threat to the troops is not present.

(Detonating a bomb while the bomber is planting the device might be justifiable if there is no danger to others, but, serendipity aside, if you know when and where a bomber is going to be, you can intercept him before he plants it, at which time it might be unnecessary to kill him.)

[Thorne]

I have never minded being in a minority, but I do not accept that minority views are inherently dubious, and I reject the idea that they should not be acted upon because they are minority views, in the same way that I reject the notion that, because the majority supports a particular policy, that policy is necessarily right.
While being in the majority doesn't make one automatically right, being in the minority doesn't either. However, in our societies what is "right" is more often determined by the majority. Allowing the minority to decide what is right is tantamount to a dictatorship.


Regarding the booby-trapped car, the fact that there are other ways to prevent it being stolen makes the deliberate choice to install a booby-trap an act of pre-meditated murder, if the thief is killed thereby - and, for all I know, one of attempted murder if he survives. It can never be legitimate to attempt to prevent a crime by the unlawful killing of the perpetrator. That's what.
Governments and industries will frequently protect their properties with high-voltage fences, sometimes lethally high. The only reason these are considered acceptable is because they post warnings. So could you accept the idea of protecting your own property by such a system, one which might not be lethal but could be, as long as warnings are posted?


What is more, in this example, the destruction of the car while the thief is being killed demonstrates that the motive is to kill rather than to stop theft.
Not necessarily. You're assuming the trap is designed to kill after the theft, but I can conceive of a thief being injured while stealing the car and, perhaps, passing out while driving away, causing the destruction.


I do not think it is appropriate to compare acts of war (which are not crimes) with criminal acts.
Tell that to the War Crimes Tribunals. Criminal acts during war happen all the time. Usually only the losers are punished for them, though.


Meanwhile, I think you will find that most national armies are under rules of conduct that prohibit them from using lethal force where there is a chance that innocent non-combatants will be harmed, unless they are themselves under immediate threat.
A rather idealistic view. Think of Dresden, or London during the blitz, or Hiroshima, or Nanking. All acts of war which were AIMED at civilians, not at military targets.


Speculative jamming in order to detonate bombs and kill their manufacturers breaches that rule in that the effects on others cannot be assessed and the immediate threat to the troops is not present.
So you're saying that only immediate threats should be acted upon? Or should we accept the methods of most police organizations and only act AFTER the fact? Can we not make a reasonable determination of a threat and act to prevent that threat, as early as possible?


(Detonating a bomb while the bomber is planting the device might be justifiable if there is no danger to others, but, serendipity aside, if you know when and where a bomber is going to be, you can intercept him before he plants it, at which time it might be unnecessary to kill him.)
Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

[MMI]

While being in the majority doesn't make one automatically right, being in the minority doesn't either. However, in our societies what is "right" is more often determined by the majority. Allowing the minority to decide what is right is tantamount to a dictatorship.

So we agree that what is right does not necessarily depend upon how many people think so

Governments and industries will frequently protect their properties with high-voltage fences, sometimes lethally high. The only reason these are considered acceptable is because they post warnings. So could you accept the idea of protecting your own property by such a system, one which might not be lethal but could be, as long as warnings are posted?

I suggest that the reason they use high voltage fences is to protect the public more than the property. Banks don't protect their safes with such things, nor do gun shops protect their stock that way. Electric fences are usually found where dangerous materials are stored. It is certainly not the intention of the government or of industry in general to eliminate intruders. That's why they post warnings


Not necessarily. You're assuming the trap is designed to kill after the theft, but I can conceive of a thief being injured while stealing the car and, perhaps, passing out while driving away, causing the destruction.

A trap designed to injure and maim indiscriminately is just as bad as a trap designed to kill, and I make no distinction.

Tell that to the War Crimes Tribunals. Criminal acts during war happen all the time. Usually only the losers are punished for them, though.

Criminal acts committed during times of war are still criminal acts. I say again, acts of war are not crimes.

A rather idealistic view. Think of Dresden, or London during the blitz, or Hiroshima, or Nanking. All acts of war which were AIMED at civilians, not at military targets.

I seem to recall some rather famous trials took place in Nuremburg. Maybe the bombing of London was not on the charge sheet. Perhaps because there were other more important charges to dispose of. Perhaps because the leaders of the Allies did not want to draw attention to their own acts of genocide.

I believe I am on record in these threads as denouncing Hiroshima and Nagasake as war crimes. I remember I have said the same about Dresden.

Sometimes it might be difficult to draw that line between a legitimate act of war and a war crime ... on which side did Blitzkrieg fall? ... but the responsibility for deciding falls on the War Crimes Tribunal, not on individuals with axes to grind.

So you're saying that only immediate threats should be acted upon? Or should we accept the methods of most police organizations and only act AFTER the fact? Can we not make a reasonable determination of a threat and act to prevent that threat, as early as possible?

If the methods being employed present a risk of death or injury, then I most certainly am saying that. Who in their right minds advocates detonating bombs at random without regard to the consequences? Terrorists. That's who.

Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

And that, Thorne, as you well know, is murder
...

[Thorne]

It is certainly not the intention of the government or of industry in general to eliminate intruders. That's why they post warnings
If I put up an electrified fence around my house, with proper warnings posted, how is that any different from what governments do? I'm only protecting the public from the pitfall traps dug in my yard, after all.


I seem to recall some rather famous trials took place in Nuremburg.
Yes, with the loser's on trial, as I said. I don't recall reading of any trials condemning the Russians for the depravities inflicted upon civilians by their soldiers, or the enslavement of prisoners of war. But then, they were on the winning side, weren't they?


Sometimes it might be difficult to draw that line between a legitimate act of war and a war crime ... on which side did Blitzkrieg fall?
Blitzkrieg was a type of warfare, utilizing the speed and maneuverability of armored units. It has nothing to do with war crimes. Allied forces used the same techniques, once they saw how effective they were.

With very few exceptions, actions performed by the winners in the war are not generally treated as war crimes.


Who in their right minds advocates detonating bombs at random without regard to the consequences?
Why do you assume there would be no regard for the consequences? If you assume that the bombs will NOT be found before they are placed at their targets, and you can only prevent that by randomly broadcasting radio waves that MAY detonate some of the bombs, isn't it likely that any damage, and casualties, will be far less than if the terrorists hit their planned target? Plus you are more likely to kill the bomb maker. Another plus.



Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

And that, Thorne, as you well know, is murder
Is it? Isn't making a bomb a terrorist act? Basically, an act of war? So killing the terrorist is also an act of war, is it not? Especially if the shooting is done by the police or the military.

[IAN 2411]

Although i find the last ten posts very interesting i believe that you have sidestepped the OP question, and the debate that is being carried out should be in a thread of its own about the morals and justification of murder and premeditated murder.

No disrespect to the content intended.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Yes, with the loser's on trial, as I said. I don't recall reading of any trials condemning the Russians for the depravities inflicted upon civilians by their soldiers, or the enslavement of prisoners of war. But then, they were on the winning side, weren't they?

I did accept that point in my last post. But the losers were tried for criminal acts, not for prosecuting the war. There is a distinctio

Blitzkrieg was a type of warfare, utilizing the speed and maneuverability of armored units. It has nothing to do with war crimes. Allied forces used the same techniques, once they saw how effective they were.

A genuine act of war, then, and not a war crime.

With very few exceptions, actions performed by the winners in. The war are not generally treated as war crimes.

See above. Generally speaking, genuine acts of war by the losing side are not treated as war crimes either. There is a distinction between acts of war and criminal acts by the combatants

Why do you assume there would be no regard for the consequences? If you assume that the bombs will NOT be found before they are placed at their targets, and you can only prevent that by randomly broadcasting radio waves that MAY detonate some of the bombs, isn't it likely that any damage, and casualties, will be far less than if the terrorists hit their planned target? Plus you are more likely to kill the bomb maker. Another plus.

If you don't know where the bomb factory is, how can you possibly make that calculation? Chances are it will be a house in the middle of a residential area, or in a high-rise block of flats.

Is it? Isn't making a bomb a terrorist act? Basically, an act of war? So killing the terrorist is also an act of war, is it not? Especially if the shooting is done by the police or the military.

Bomb-making by terrorists is in no legal sense an act of war: it is an act of terrorism, which is a crime. American law defines war as conflict between nations. "War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces. War is that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." Quoted by Justice Hays in Pan American World Air., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 505 F. 2d 989 (1974). Countering terrorism is law enforcement, not war, and you glorify the terrorists' actions if you elevate them to acts of war. Consider how fondly many Americans regard the IRA as a noble, patriotic organisation, when it is, at best, a group of murderers, pimps, extortionists and drug dealers. But the IRA had a good press over there.

[MMI]

Although i find the last ten posts very interesting i believe that you have sidestepped the OP question, and the debate that is being carried out should be in a thread of its own about the morals and justification of murder and premeditated murder.

No disrespect to the content intended.

Be well IAN 2411

I think we are still on topic, but as I am so strongly opposed to the death penalty, my views have been tested with regard to victims of crime who kill protecting their property, and now with regard to wartime situations.

I am also unsure whether life should mean life, but I find it incongruous that robbers can be incarcerated longer than killers.