The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[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.

[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]

... 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Ozme52]

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

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