When Skies Are Grey Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Oh, well! If you're going to be sensible.....! Dontcha hate it when threads descend in to common sense...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It’s not killing, it’s euthanizing a creature who has jeopardised his human rights to life by his actions. The ONLY problem I have with the death penalty being available and used for a number of crimes is that in some cases it would be an easy out for the perp. There are some offences that should entail a prolonged period of imprisonment in harsh conditions, not just loss of freedom, to make the perp suffer and THEN top the scum. Offences such as child abuse for one. I'm with Rog on this one with the caveat if you believe in it, you must be prepared to do it yourself and not leave others to do the wet work on your behalf. State Sponsored killing is perhaps an ambiguous term open to many definitions eg: Lockerbie - state sponsored terrorism and killing ( allegedly ) - South American Death Squads - Extra Judicial Kilings as defined by Amnesty and so on, as opposed to perhaps state sanctioned as a punishment within a defined legal system. Anyway - Null vote from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 it crushes me to see people voting for the death penalty despite its obvious flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Crime is a symptom of a broken society I have to disagree - crime is a symptom of being human. No matter how perfect the society there will always be someone who tries to circumvent its rules for whatever reason/purpose. we cannot give life, should we be quite so ready to metre out death in judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Crime is a symptom of a broken society I have to disagree - crime is a symptom of being human. No matter how perfect the society there will always be someone who tries to circumvent its rules for whatever reason/purpose. we cannot give life, should we be quite so ready to metre out death in judgement? i actually agree with the sentiment. i was talking about crime as a social concept, transgressions that require punishment. i didnt mean to imply that crime was a construct of society, nor that such a thing as a perfect society could exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Ref the recent TV "trial" of kiddy-fiddler Paul Gadd a very thought-provoking piece here from my Grauniad on a paedophile who killed his victim. It has quite a twist to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Apparently back a bench Essex MP has called for the ducking chair to be re introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 State Sponsored killing is perhaps an ambiguous term open to many definitionseg: Lockerbie - state sponsored terrorism and killing ( allegedly ) - South American Death Squads - Extra Judicial Kilings as defined by Amnesty and so on, as opposed to perhaps state sanctioned as a punishment within a defined legal system. State sponsored terrorism? Afghanistan would be a pertinent one, or Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Edited for brevity --- My objectivity is based on the principle that while great attention is given to Human Rights little to no attention is given to Human Responsibilities. I would dearly like some charter to be drawn up on Human Responsibilities, maybe opening with words such as “There are certain undeniable human responsibilities that affect us all and out of which come certain Human Rights”. Amongst those responsibilities would be not to harm others to the extent that their rights were jeopardised in spite of them holding to their responsibilities. If as person did take the life of another person without just cause then under such circumstances his right to life would (should) be removed or at the very least that option exist. Similarly if a person harmed another as to significantly unjustly damage the future life of another that same person should loose the right to his life or that option exist. He is either very angry on a personal level because of a particular event in his life, or a sociopath who sees many of the human race (other than his choosen few) to be nothing more than cattle. Who are the chosen few? And why cattle? Seems strange phrases to use. But no, not damaged and not a sociopath, simply someone who would like to see measure for measure in the provision of justice on behalf of the injured party. We deny the right of an injured party to obtain revenge for injury themselves and instead have a process whereby the guilt of a person accused of an offence is determined and if proven a punishment then metered out. By doing so we should ensure that there is a component of any punishment that satisfies society for a crime being committed in our midst, and also includes a component of punishment that is revenge-by-proxy for the injured party. The latter is missing and the former is totally inadequate at present. Revenge has its place. It helps heal. It is repayment of a debt. In the same way that you would not allow a family member of the victim of a crime to do jury duty or decide the punishment of the accused, rogs opinion should be considered bias. I can see good cause to exclude someone closely related to an offence to sit on a jury, but I totally disagree that the injured party should not be represented when a punishment is being decided upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 People who genuinely support the idea of passing a death sentence frankly deserve the crime and violence that they see around them. You can't accept murdering people in retribution and recognition of the State's authority and then whinge about crime as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 As always you're talking out of your arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Read one of my previous posts re society relieving itself of any responsibility in accepting the death sentence and allowing something else to deal with it Where I said with the caveat if you believe in it, you must be prepared to do it yourself and not leave others to do the wet work on your behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I don't think so. If we live in a society that professes the value of life and then resorts to killing those commit murder then we are talking out of arse. And then there is the matter of society relieving itself of any responsibility in accepting the death sentence and allowing something else to deal with it (the State, rather than even minimal community input). Most of the pratts who I heard talk of capital punishment always resort referring to the good ole days and the deterrent effect. They don't even realise what tripe they are talking. At least Rog completely accepts revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chunkylover Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 i'm with Rog - I do think we should have the death penalty for certain crimes. And I am confident that I would be able to pull a lever/inject a poison/flick a switch if required. I only have to think of Rose West, Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting and I know that I could sleep at night if I was responsible for their deaths - why should these people be kept in prison and live to a ripe old age with three square meals a day, a tv, exercise facilities, the chance to study for a degree and visits from their loved ones - all the things that they denied their innocent victims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 i'm with Rog - I do think we should have the death penalty for certain crimes. And I am confident that I would be able to pull a lever/inject a poison/flick a switch if required. I only have to think of Rose West, Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting and I know that I could sleep at night if I was responsible for their deaths - why should these people be kept in prison and live to a ripe old age with three square meals a day, a tv, exercise facilities, the chance to study for a degree and visits from their loved ones - all the things that they denied their innocent victims Not to forget that some law abiding citizens do not have such luxuries, so why should someone who has taken anothers life!!! Its all fooken nuts, i have said it before and i will say it again....Where is the deterrent to such crimes or any crimes for that matter? Some people do what they want regardless of who and how many peoples lives are affected. Our softly softly approach to sex offenders and murderers is a disgrace. Questions for LDV, How do you think Ian Huntley should live the rest of his life? How do you think Jesicca and Holly's parents/other family members and friends are living their lives? To have those kinds of feelings to hurt either your own or somebody elses children is not normal and should not be tolerated, in my opinion the sentences handed down are not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.