Chinahand Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Ans, you are creating a false dichotomy. It is not execution or "sitting them down on pink beanbags and trying to get in touch with their feelings." What do you do with people who are incapable of being in society - or who have committed such crimes that the punishment is that they should be excluded from society - you exclude them from society. Whole life terms are not an easy option, but they are based far less on retribution. I pretty much agree - these type of people are beyond the pale. But that isn't a reason to descend to their level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 then I don't really have an issue with them being murdered by the state, ideally in a long, drawn out and horrific way. And what happens when it comes to light that there was a mistake and the wrong person was convicted and sentenced to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 About 18 states in the USA plus the District of Columbia have done away with executions. The others, plus the US Federal Government and military retain it. We (UK and by extension the Isle of Man) cannot extradite someone to a US state if they have the death penalty and if we extradite someone to the USA for a Federal issue the USA has to agree that they will not be executed. I fail to see why we cannot extradite someone to a state if it agrees not to execute them but apparently there are constitutional difficulties or maybe they just will not agree? Or maybe the state unlike Uncle Sam has not the authority? Under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act "We" have to secure the human rights of those in our jurisdiction and the death penalty has been abolished now for everything in the sense that judicial execution has now ceased even for treason, spying, setting fire to dockyards & etc. This comes under "The right to life" which is an absolute right under the ECHR/Human Rights Act whereas the others are fundamental but sort of variable in application. Remember the man Entwhistle who shot his wife and baby in Massachusetts? We could only send him back for trial there because Massachusetts has no death penalty and it was a crime committed within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to things I have heard on BBC World Service the mixture used to carry out some of these lethal injections is made up in the UK. I am not sure why they can't do it over there but apparently some American pharmaceutical supply companies don't want to get a reputation for being involved. This is what I have heard said. Reportedly for a while there were delays in at least Texas because they could not get supplies of "the mixture" for the lethal injections and because some that was sent over from the UK was found to be faulty! Maybe a UK supplier has made a mess of the mixture once more? It would seem that "We" cannot send you to America for trial and potential execution but it is ok to allow our pharmacists to supply the lethal mixture for injection. Funny old world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 There was some fella on newsnight last night saying the yanks are taking a much more liberal approach to imprisonment of late No sure I believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Barrie - The article originally quoted says "US states have encountered increasing problems in obtaining the drugs for lethal injections, amid an embargo by European pharmaceutical firms". That suggests to me that the European companies no longer want any involvement with the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The state is basically run by politicians. They can be elected, they can be despots or even the children of the previous dictator. My feeling is that no politician should have the power to take a life. Yes, of course you can say the courts in developed countries are separate from the politicians. But that argument fails because it's the politicians who make the rules. But the simple fact is, no matter how bad the crime, the politicians of the moment will potentially gain popularity from it. Imagine if Cyril Smith had been in a position to sign death warrants. Maybe there could be a law that says relatives of the victim would be immune to prosecution if they kill the killer. That is sensible, but not too far away from Sharia law that everyone is so terrified off. We could have mob rule, and just lynch the culprit. But thankfully we don't have that. Police want a quick resolution? No problem. Frame some guy, hang him fast and sweep it all under the carpet. That's what they do in many countries. We have to remember America is still executing people for crimes committed before we had the meticulous evidence gathering and forensic science we have today. Evidence from those days can be tainted. Anyway. As you can see, I am against it. I follow the Texas death row page. Interesting stuff on here. I have a look every few months during my tea break to see who the latest victim of blood lust is: https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.html Death by speadsheet. Very civilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverAgain Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Quite simple really, they failed by not having a back up measure, as soon as they could see the lethal injection didn't have an affect within the allocated time limit, they should've shot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 When Baroness Ilora Finlay came to the Island to give a talk on assisted suicide she touched on the abolition of the death penalty in Britain. Apparently one of the reasons it has to be abolished at that time was because of the issue of hangings that didn't kill the accused. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. It is a barbaric practice. The state should never have the power to end a life other than in war. The state these days takes far too many decisions about individual people. Many of these decisions are flawed. It would be the same if the death penalty were restored. Innocent people would be hung, or nearly hung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The guy went to an execution and was killed. Job done in my book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 They should murder them in the same way they murder cows and pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 When Baroness Ilora Finlay came to the Island to give a talk on assisted suicide she touched on the abolition of the death penalty in Britain. Apparently one of the reasons it has to be abolished at that time was because of the issue of hangings that didn't kill the accused. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. It is a barbaric practice. The state should never have the power to end a life other than in war. The state these days takes far too many decisions about individual people. Many of these decisions are flawed. It would be the same if the death penalty were restored. Innocent people would be hung, or nearly hung. I agree with everything you say, except the bold part. It's really rediculous that the state pays people to kill people, when killing people is against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 They should murder them in the same way they murder cows and pigs. Aye, and then they can be processed into burgers and fed to obese people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 They should murder them in the same way they murder cows and pigs. Aye, and then they can be processed into burgers and fed to obese people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 When Baroness Ilora Finlay came to the Island to give a talk on assisted suicide she touched on the abolition of the death penalty in Britain. Apparently one of the reasons it has to be abolished at that time was because of the issue of hangings that didn't kill the accused. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. It is a barbaric practice. The state should never have the power to end a life other than in war. The state these days takes far too many decisions about individual people. Many of these decisions are flawed. It would be the same if the death penalty were restored. Innocent people would be hung, or nearly hung. I agree with everything you say, except the bold part. It's really rediculous that the state pays people to kill people, when killing people is against the law. So what is your stance on national defence of a country? Flower arranging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 When Baroness Ilora Finlay came to the Island to give a talk on assisted suicide she touched on the abolition of the death penalty in Britain. Apparently one of the reasons it has to be abolished at that time was because of the issue of hangings that didn't kill the accused. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. It is a barbaric practice. The state should never have the power to end a life other than in war. The state these days takes far too many decisions about individual people. Many of these decisions are flawed. It would be the same if the death penalty were restored. Innocent people would be hung, or nearly hung. I agree with everything you say, except the bold part. It's really rediculous that the state pays people to kill people, when killing people is against the law. So what is your stance on national defence of a country? Flower arranging? Don't be ridiculous. Pillow fighting,and the first to draw feathers wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.