Stopping an execution because the victim had died (horribly)

[wrighty]

I'm perfectly comfortable with the state exacting a "revenge killing" on someone who raped and murdered an 11 month old child. Sorry you don't agree, but I don't think sitting them down on pink beanbags and trying to get in touch with their feelings to understand them is really fair and just.

I agree. Were it my own 11 month old I'd be perfectly comfortable doing it myself. Some people don't deserve to be kept alive, locked up or not.

 

The anti-death penalty crew are now using an economic argument to further their cause (it costs more in lawyers fees for appeals from death row etc than it does to keep someone in prison for the rest of his life). I take on board the arguments stating the possible execution of an innocent, but if evidence of the crime is irrefutable (eg some paedophile videoing himself raping and then killing a baby) then the economics would suggest a swift bullet in the base of the brain being far cheaper than either life imprisonment or death row for decades.

[ScotsAlan]

 

 

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?

 

Some countries have big guns. They tell other countries to do as they say, or they will shoot them.

 

Some countries with big guns tell small countries without countries that they need to buy more guns.

 

Countries without guns tell people to strap bombs to their backs and run into the countries with big guns. Because the small countries with no guns don't want to be bullied.

 

There are two problems here. There are guns, and there are countries.

 

My stance is, we should convert the guns and warships and war planes into things to help humanity. Not to destroy it.

 

Get that done, then we can start to break down borders.

 

Stupid idealist? Yes of course I am.

 

But When I sing "Imagine" in a KTV, I mean it. You just sing it because it's a catchy tune

 

I find it amazing how aggressive the west is towards the world. The east is all rhetoric. The west is bullets and guns and an eye for an eye. The middle east is desperation, stuck between the politics of both.

 

America insists the world follows their lead. But how can we when they are stuck in the dark ages with their stupid death sentence?

[ScotsAlan]

 

I'm perfectly comfortable with the state exacting a "revenge killing" on someone who raped and murdered an 11 month old child. Sorry you don't agree, but I don't think sitting them down on pink beanbags and trying to get in touch with their feelings to understand them is really fair and just.

I agree. Were it my own 11 month old I'd be perfectly comfortable doing it myself. Some people don't deserve to be kept alive, locked up or not.

 

The anti-death penalty crew are now using an economic argument to further their cause (it costs more in lawyers fees for appeals from death row etc than it does to keep someone in prison for the rest of his life). I take on board the arguments stating the possible execution of an innocent, but if evidence of the crime is irrefutable (eg some paedophile videoing himself raping and then killing a baby) then the economics would suggest a swift bullet in the base of the brain being far cheaper than either life imprisonment or death row for decades.

Interesting.

 

As someone who has sworn the hippocratic oath, could you administer the drugs?

 

Or should the death sentence be carried out by the military?

 

Edit to add: You prescribed a bullet. Are you allowed to inject it?

[Lisenchuk]

I don't think the hippocratic oath really counts with the circumstances Wrighty has described.

 

It's a difficult one because I can see both sides of the case here.

[wrighty]

Interesting.

 

As someone who has sworn the hippocratic oath, could you administer the drugs?

Firstly, I haven't.

 

Secondly, another principle of medical ethics is 'first do no harm' - from Galen, I think, but I'm sure Wikipedia can correct me if I'm wrong and anyone can be bothered to look. For me, this principle applies to society as a whole, not just a particular individual. I don't believe society would be harmed by the execution of a proven rapist/murderer of a baby, and in fact could be helped. Perhaps the mental anguish of the dead baby's family would be alleviated by knowing that particular individual could never do the same again.

 

As to the question of who should administer capital punishment, I don't know. It's not a job I would apply for, and I certainly wouldn't accept it being a clause in my contract that I could be asked to carry out state executions from time to time. But there are certainly cases you see in the news where I personally would have no qualms about injecting a ventricle full of potassium chloride.

[ScotsAlan]

I don't think the hippocratic oath really counts with the circumstances Wrighty has described.

 

It's a difficult one because I can see both sides of the case here.

Yup. Me too. He is a doctor but he is also a man.

 

I was out of order to bring it up.

 

His profession should not dictate his opinion.

 

Sorry. Me wrong

[ScotsAlan]

Here goes with another of my points.

 

I am against the death penalty. I am a bleeding heart liberal. Well no, actually I am a loony lefty.

 

I live in China. A country that is apparently famed for having no human rights. I am told it's oppressive. My own country tells me it's court system is not just nor fair.

 

Execution is rife here. Sentence passed, next day... bang and gone. According to the BBC it is anyway.

 

Who am I to believe? Am I letting the side down by living in such a despotic country as China, or should I come home and celebrate some guy dying a horrible death at the hands of the state.

[thommo2010]

In all this nobody remembers the victim. I watched a programme a few weeks ago about juveniles in USA who were done for murder and sentenced to life without parole. I started thinking these guys have done 10 12 years and they seem to have changed maybe they should be given another chance but then I think they took someones life they have deprived a family of growing up with their children or loved ones.

 

In todays society everyone forgets about the victim this guy shot an unarmed 19 year old girl then stood by and watched her get buried alive. I take no joy in the fact he has been executed or suffered but in my opinion you commit a crime like this you lose any claim to "human rights".

 

The family should have a say on what the punishment is.

 

As for keeping them alive to find out why they did what they did, did that work with Myra Hindley and Ian Brady or Ted Bundy, Ian Huntley? they do it because they are evil and like it.

[Albert Tatlock]

The family should have a say on what the punishment is.

I disagree entirely. Emotion should always be removed from the legal process, and it should just concentrate on the law.

 

You get very aggressive families and very forgiving families. The law should protect us from both types, and set out to deliver what is simply prescribed for the offence.

[ScotsAlan]

 

The family should have a say on what the punishment is.

I disagree entirely. Emotion should always be removed from the legal process, and it should just concentrate on the law.

 

You get very aggressive families and very forgiving families. The law should protect us from both types, and set out to deliver what is simply prescribed for the offence.

Good point. And well said Albert.

[thommo2010]

Not enough emotion in my opinion, look at the Oscar Pistorius trial, it's all a game everyone has forgotten about the poor girl killed I agree when it comes to decision making on the verdict it should be based on the facts presented but at the sentencing stage families should have a say on what they would like to have happen, they produce victim impact statements about how the crime has affected them why can they not be asked what do they think the punishment should be? not saying the judge goes with it but what harm is there hearing from them?

[Lonan3]

Too many people talking about 'the state' and what 'it' does - without realising that we, the people, actually are the state.

Those people who are executed for a crime? We execute them.

Those people who were slaughtered when their countries were illegally invaded by the state? That was us - we did that.

The people who suffer or die in underfunded hospitals? That's right... it's us again. We're the ones who won't agree to pay more in the form of taxation because we and our families are clearly much more important than anyone else and we won't vote for anyone who wants us to contribute more.

Everything the state does is done in our name - that's the responsibility that comes with being enfranchised.

[Aquarius]

 

I'm perfectly comfortable with the state exacting a "revenge killing" on someone who raped and murdered an 11 month old child. Sorry you don't agree, but I don't think sitting them down on pink beanbags and trying to get in touch with their feelings to understand them is really fair and just.

I agree. Were it my own 11 month old I'd be perfectly comfortable doing it myself. Some people don't deserve to be kept alive, locked up or not.

 

The anti-death penalty crew are now using an economic argument to further their cause (it costs more in lawyers fees for appeals from death row etc than it does to keep someone in prison for the rest of his life). I take on board the arguments stating the possible execution of an innocent, but if evidence of the crime is irrefutable (eg some paedophile videoing himself raping and then killing a baby) then the economics would suggest a swift bullet in the base of the brain being far cheaper than either life imprisonment or death row for decades.

Cheaper...... But too clean and easy.

The killer no longer suffers but gains sweet release, while the family and friends of the murdered live their lives being tortured by thoughts and imaginings.

It's a cop out being executed. Why should they be allowed to move on in that way? They should be made to live out their natural lives suffering.

I am anti violence and anti the death penalty - but I do believe karma prevailed here.

He buried a girl alive! Imagine her suffering. Imagine what her parents must have gone through and what they must still go through.

So why should the killer be dispatched cleanly and swiftly and painlessly. It's not fair!

What goes around, comes around.

[Barrie Stevens]

The point about the death penalty is often missed. In the case of the UK and Isle of Man and some of the EU member states the issue is not the killing of a criminal by way of retribution and punishment. It is the issue of Judicial Execution.

 

In the context of our (UK and IOM) adversarial legal system, and where the accuses pleads "Not guilty," we then embark on a performance with one side versus the other. Prosecution and Defence Counsel embark on a tournament. A sort of play complete with costumes conducted according to a set of rules presided over by the Judge.

 

It does not necessarily produce an exact and precise result. It does of course depend on evidence and law. But the evidence can often be faulty. Witnesses can be misguided or deluded and of course right! Expert witnesses, whose duty is to the court, can often be "dodgy" to say the least and we have seen evidence of that and of fixed evidence in recent years.

 

It is a judicial process played out by paid professionals for whom it is a showy game indeed. They aim to win and are competitive. Although they too have a duty to the court as officers of that court.

 

Generally speaking, the accused is found guilty or not guilty by way of our adversarial legal process. It is not that it might get it wrong and an innocent person executed. It is more that in the old days a person was not executed because they had done murder but because they were found guilty by way of a showy legal process that depended almost entirely on the Advocates' ability to convince a jury.

 

In other words it was not reality. It was the artificial trial process involving people unrelated to the alleged incident that caused many to want to abolish Judicial Execution. This then got converted by other groups into wanting to keep or retain "Hanging", the "Death Penalty," and others who did not see the matter as Judicial Execution but simply barbaric legalised murder and revenge. etc...But the main cause amongst the deep thinkers was the nonsense of Judicial Execution by way of a stage managed performance by paid legal professionals possessed of massive ego.

 

You were not "topped" because your were Guilty or released because you were Innocent, it was all about the opinion of the Jury after watching the trial Attorney's seeking to outdo each other.

 

MP Sidney Silverman's abolitionist bill , I think it was he, was much discussed in my schooldays and we had a talk from the then Chief Constable of Essex...A Mr Nightingale...who was not so much opposed to killing murderers but saw the whole legal process as a sham and he was one of those opposed to Judicial Execution.

 

I am not interested in what they do in other states or countries outside of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU. But whereas some are for or against the death penalty and think only of the methods used, the more thoughtful continue to oppose Judicial Execution consequent upon a public show in court.

 

As a result, although we do not allow Western Frontier type executions or revenge by victims in the heat of the moment, the European Convention on Human Rights/Human Rights Act does allow the State to kill someone within the context of Article One "The Right to Life"... but very broadly it has to be in order to defend, uphold and protect the rights and freedoms of others" (That is to simplify it!)...Thus an authorised armed police officer may shoot to kill within the limits of their authority in order to defend themselves, their colleagues, the public etc...This is an over simplification of course!

 

Much of the above can be confirmed by ploughing through the judgement and cases held on line on the web site of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

[Barrie Stevens]

Correction: That Should be Article Two not Article One...