The Death Penalty In China

[Passing Time]

If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours. We have enough crime on the streets of the uk where innocent people are mugged robbed and murdered by drug dealers and their ilk. Even if they are caught the sentences are so lenient as

to be laughable. Bet they don't get too many repeat offenders in China do they

 

So what is your view if someone is subsequently found to be innocent, after they've been shot?

Presumably you would think it fine if the Birmingham six had been executed, only to be cleared of the crime a year later?

 

You obviously have trouble reading CP, the woman has offended several times so hardly innocent. You obviously also realise that China does not do appeals so they are not likely to be found innocent are they. I am just commenting

that we have no right to decide how other countries deal with their offenders.

Maybe not..... But we are entitled to an opinion - yes? I think the Uk are too lenient and should be stricter, but am I not allowed to say that if I live on the Isle of Man? With all due respect - it's a blinkered person that doesn't look outside their own personal space.

Not quite sure who this is aimed at Aquarius. Everybody is entitled to their opinions. Where have I said otherwise

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Wouldn't really matter - I tend to switch off the minute I see your name

I think you switched off when you started posting, I mean, what a stupid comment to make about people outside of China minding their own business just because this issue relates to a legal matter and we are not citizens of that country. How can you possibly justify it?

[guzzi]

.....

So what about the numerous other victims of "innocent" people being let off in court or the sentence not being anywhere near what it should be

 

Firstly, the thread is about the death penalty, but you seem to be writing about situations where the justice system acquits people wrongly, and sentencing not being harsh enough. To the extent that those things are happening, I completely agree with you. But do you know how often people are wrongly acquitted? I would genuinely be interested to know. On sentencing, I agree that the punishment element is often not given enough weight, and I feel that for any premeditated crime of violence, the sentence ought to involve loss of liberty for many years, or life in the case of premeditated murder.

 

With regard to the death sentence, I am mindful of the rabbinical teaching that it is better to free a thousand guilty prisoners than to put to death one innocent one. So, seen that way, capital punishment should carry such a high burden of proof that it would work against conviction of the guilty.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Capital punishment should not be adopted by any country at all, nevermind for people who sell or do drugs.

[Aquarius]

[quote name=cheesypeas'

timestamp='1323010396' post='661955]

If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours. We

have enough crime on the streets of the uk where innocent people are mugged robbed and murdered by drug dealers and their ilk. Even if they are caught the sentences are so lenient as

to be laughable. Bet they don't get too many repeat offenders in China do they

 

So what is your view if someone is subsequently found to be innocent, after they've been shot?

Presumably you would think it fine if the

Birmingham six had been executed, only to be cleared of the crime a year later?

 

You obviously have trouble reading CP, the woman has offended several times so hardly

innocent. You obviously also realise that China does not do appeals so they are not likely to be found innocent are they. I am just commenting

that we have no right to decide how other countries deal with their offenders.

Maybe not..... But we are entitled to an opinion -

yes? I think the Uk are too lenient and should be stricter, but am I not allowed to say that if I live on the Isle of Man? With all due respect - it's a blinkered person that doesn't look outside their own personal space.

Not quite sure who this is aimed at Aquarius.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions. Where have I said otherwise

You asked what business is it of ours? If this is not our business then whose is it?

[wrighty]

Death penalty has 2 main functions - to prevent re-offending and to deter others.

 

For drug dealing it is mainly a deterrent - anyone should think twice before taking a couple of grams of coke through Singapore. For murder it is mainly a prevention of re-offending, as I don't think most murderers would be deterred.

 

I really don't know where I stand on the issue - Some, such as that Norwegian guy who shot all those kids should just be killed (and for me that's whether the head-crackers say he's insane or not), but crimes of passion, minor(ish) drug offences - I'm not sure. Life imprisonment, without parole (unless retrial proves innocence) would be better.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

We know the reasons why it is implemented but whether it should be or not would be the relevant issue.

 

People may think twice because of such a punishment. But it clearly doesn't stop people. It's deterrence value is very limited.

 

But what is most important is that a community and certainly the State has no adequate justification to carry out the slaughter of a person in a society where killing people is only condoned by self defence or when the person's needs assistant to die. Capital punishment devalues the importance of someone's life and thus devalues moral systems we have surrounding killing other people.

 

The prevention of re-offending sounds an illogical argument if you mean it is to stop a murderer from murdering someone again.

 

Curious as to why you think an insane murderer should be killed. Is that solely to make the victims families feel a little better? Pure revenge against those who are deemed irresponsible for their acts.

[wrighty]

The prevention of re-offending sounds an illogical argument if you mean it is to stop a murderer from murdering someone again.

 

Curious as to why you think an insane murderer should be killed. Is that solely to make the victims families feel a little better? Pure revenge against those who are deemed irresponsible for their acts.

 

Don't see why prevention of re-offending is an illogical argument. Capital punishment is clearly the best prevention there is.

 

As for your second (quoted) point, I'll offer this. If a wild animal was rampaging down the high street killing people it would be shot, not captured, declared insane and put in a secure zoo. Personally I don't see the value for society in keeping mass murderers alive. I understand the 'devaluing all of us' argument, I just don't agree with it. As for insanity - you are your brain. I don't buy this 'diminished responsibility' argument - your brain, and therefore you, are still responsible for your actions, even if malfunctioning at the time. And as far as I know most insane murderers have personality defects rather than temporary mental illnesses, so they would be untreatable anyway.

 

Back to the initial part of the thread however, I do not agree with executing drug dealers in China, but I can understand why the Chinese authorities have death as the penalty for doing so.

[Chinahand]

If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours.

 

I've never understood this attitude.

 

We are all people - we all have ideas and thoughts, and sharing them and listening to a diversity of views and opinions allows us to better gauge the consequences and reactions our deeds will cause.

 

If someone can provide some insight into my society, does it matter if they are from another - can I not reciprocate and provide some thoughts on theirs?

 

Certainly my opinions are just that, and no one need adjust their own behaviours due to my views - but in open dialogue a society's attitudes can change, and social trends are not respecters of international borders.

 

A part of me thinks that national sovereignty and law-making are all so much line drawing and an excuse for chauvinistic power. If a state behaves in a such a way so as to make people comment on their behaviour what right is it of them to demand I shut up just because I am not subject to their power?

 

I can debate and wonder about the humanity of a country's policies where ever I live, and when people say that is none of my business I feel it denies my humanity as well as those who suffer the consequences of the policy.

 

Surely eing deaf to outside opinions is not a way to find what is the best.

[Aquarius]

If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours.

 

I've never understood this attitude.

 

We are all people - we all have ideas and thoughts, and sharing them and listening to a

diversity of views and opinions allows us to better gauge the consequences and reactions our deeds will cause.

 

If someone can provide some insight into my society, does it matter if they are from another -

can I not reciprocate and provide some thoughts on theirs?

 

Certainly my opinions are just that, and no one need adjust their own behaviours due to my views - but in open dialogue a society's attitudes

can change, and social trends are not respecters of international borders.

 

A part of me thinks that national sovereignty and law-making are all so much line drawing and an excuse for chauvinistic power. If a state

behaves in a such a way so as to make people comment on their behaviour what right is it of them to demand I shut up just because I am not subject to their power?

 

I can debate and wonder about the humanity of

a country's policies where ever I live, and when people say that is none of my business I feel it denies my humanity as well as those who suffer the consequences of the policy.

 

Surely eing deaf to outside opinions is not a way

to find what is the best.

That's exactly what I meant, though you put it so much better!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Don't see why prevention of re-offending is an illogical argument. Capital punishment is clearly the best prevention there is.

Your specific comments on re-offending murderers and capital punishment seemed illogical.

 

And what makes you think capital punishment is the best prevention? Do you mean the prevention that exists or any possible method that could be used?

 

There isn't much evidence to show that it deters others. And it does prevent re-offending for that specific individual in the sense that it removes their life and thus prevents them from re-offending, but that is clearly a narrow-minded attempt at dealing with crimes. The vast majority of murders are one-off events, not serial murders. And capital punishment is not a method that deals with the causes of social problems and eradicates them, but simply removes those individuals who constitute the 'fall-out' of society's problems.

 

As for your second (quoted) point, I'll offer this. If a wild animal was rampaging down the high street killing people it would be shot, not captured, declared insane and put in a secure zoo.

A specious analogy. We are not wild animals.

 

Personally I don't see the value for society in keeping mass murderers alive.

Who is talking about mass murderers? Are you referring to the Norwegian case where the person is insane? Not all mass murderers are determined to be insane.

 

I understand the 'devaluing all of us' argument, I just don't agree with it. As for insanity - you are your brain. I don't buy this 'diminished responsibility' argument - your brain, and therefore you, are still responsible for your actions, even if malfunctioning at the time. And as far as I know most insane murderers have personality defects rather than temporary mental illnesses, so they would be untreatable anyway.

You may disagree with the 'devaluing argument. But you have not explained why.

 

As for the issue of responsibility, can you please state how much responsibility you afford to a person's action? Do you think people are completely responsible for all their actions regardless of their form and reasons for occurrence?

 

Back to the initial part of the thread however, I do not agree with executing drug dealers in China, but I can understand why the Chinese authorities have death as the penalty for doing so.

I understand it. Only in the sense that they have a poor way of dealing with the social problems in their society. It's cheap, it's easy, it scares some people in recognising the power of the State and may frighten some people away from drugs. It isn't enlightened and isn't moral though.

[wrighty]

Don't see why prevention of re-offending is an illogical argument. Capital punishment is clearly the best prevention there is.

Your specific comments on re-offending murderers and capital punishment seemed illogical.

 

And what makes you think capital punishment is the best prevention? Do you mean the prevention that exists or any possible method that could be used?

 

If a murderer is killed, he can't do it again. If he is imprisoned for 25 years, he may do so on release. Is that difficult to understand, or are you just making a fatuous point that a murderer can't re-offend as his victim is dead, and I should have been specific in that on release he could kill someone else.

 

There isn't much evidence to show that it deters others. And it does prevent re-offending for that specific individual in the sense that it removes their life and thus prevents them from re-offending, but that is clearly a narrow-minded attempt at dealing with crimes. The vast majority of murders are one-off events, not serial murders. And capital punishment is not a method that deals with the causes of social problems and eradicates them, but simply removes those individuals who constitute the 'fall-out' of society's problems.

 

I agree, when the crime is murder, and I think that is fairly well established. For non-homicide crimes however it may have more of a deterrent effect - no evidence for that I know of, just seems fairly logical to me.

 

As for your second (quoted) point, I'll offer this. If a wild animal was rampaging down the high street killing people it would be shot, not captured, declared insane and put in a secure zoo.

A specious analogy. We are not wild animals.

 

I'd argue that mass murderers forfeit their human rights by their actions and should be treated accordingly.

 

 

I understand the 'devaluing all of us' argument, I just don't agree with it. As for insanity - you are your brain. I don't buy this 'diminished responsibility' argument - your brain, and therefore you, are still responsible for your actions, even if malfunctioning at the time. And as far as I know most insane murderers have personality defects rather than temporary mental illnesses, so they would be untreatable anyway.

You may disagree with the 'devaluing argument. But you have not explained why.

 

If my position was that capital punishment was wrong, without exception, then I could accept the 'devaluing' argument, but as my position on capital punishment is not so clear cut, I don't agree that executing certain classes of criminals devalues the rest of society.

 

As for the issue of responsibility, can you please state how much responsibility you afford to a person's action? Do you think people are completely responsible for all their actions regardless of their form and reasons for occurrence?

 

Unless they have been drugged/poisoned/otherwise forced then they are responsible for their actions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If a murderer is killed, he can't do it again. If he is imprisoned for 25 years, he may do so on release.

You're right.

Is that difficult to understand, or are you just making a fatuous point that a murderer can't re-offend as his victim is dead, and I should have been specific in that on release he could kill someone else.

I thought you meant something quite different altogether to do with imposing capital punishment FOR re-offenders

 

I agree, when the crime is murder, and I think that is fairly well established. For non-homicide crimes however it may have more of a deterrent effect - no evidence for that I know of, just seems fairly logical to me.

I can some logic in that. I cannot see anything moral about it, however. You are talking about a subject which has many possibilities and factors to consider. Murderers aren't some class of people who are very bad and just do that sort of thing. A murder can occur for all sorts of reasons. You could deter some murders and most certainly could not deter others.

As for lesser crimes, you could reach a point, possibly with capital punishment, where people are so afraid of the consequences that they question their behaviour. But the evidence from China doesn't show this to be the case nor in the United States. Besides, setting aside killing someone for murdering someone, what is moral about ending someone's life for crimes that did not involve murder? How would it be right to murder someone for stealing a book, for example? Where is the matter of proportionality that you would apply?

 

I'd argue that mass murderers forfeit their human rights by their actions and should be treated accordingly.

But it doesn't work that way. You can't concentrate and then have some mass murderer turn into a big, nasty wolf or some other fearsome animals. They are people. They will remain people no matter what they have done. It is simply a natural process by which bystanders distance themselves from the person committing the act when they give reference to the assailant or murderer being an animal.

 

As for withdrawing human rights, you could argue this. But removing someone's life is not an essential entirely dependent on a question of rights. Setting rights aside, the pertinent issues are protection of the community, possible application of a punishment, and preservation and application of the morality of the community in dealing with the matter.

 

If my position was that capital punishment was wrong, without exception, then I could accept the 'devaluing' argument, but as my position on capital punishment is not so clear cut, I don't agree that executing certain classes of criminals devalues the rest of society.

And that's the basis of my questioning, why don't you think it devalues it. Although I meant more specifically that it devalues the importance of life and is rather hypocritical stance for society to take.

If ending someone's life against their will is wrong then doing the same for whatever reason seems to me to be still wrong and contradictory.

 

Unless they have been drugged/poisoned/otherwise forced then they are responsible for their actions.

And what if you suffered a traumatic event that caused you to lose rational thinking and ended up killing people? What if you become a paranoid schizophrenic because of particular circumstances out of your control that resulted in you killing someone? You think you should accept blame and complete blame for the murder?

[wheels]

Those who advocate a death penalty should have the strength of conviction of that belief and be prepared to apply it themselves

 

Not leave it to someone else

 

I wonder how many would?

 

I suspect it would probably strongly appeal to some inadequate little power freaks

[guzzi]

Those who advocate a death penalty should have the strength of conviction of that belief and be prepared to apply it themselves

 

Not leave it to someone else

 

I wonder how many would?

 

I suspect it would probably strongly appeal to some inadequate little power freaks

 

I agree, but more than that, as they support the death penalty despite the very real risk of miscarriage of justice, they should be prepared to be executed wrongfully, or to have that happen to one of their loved ones.