I just reckon send 'em to work instead (the crims, not the hobbits)- some crappy job that no-one else in their right mind would ever want to do. It'll help pay their way, jobs get done, and there'll be no societal guilt if the guy you executed turns out to be innocent after all. I wouldn't imagine there are that many crims around who qualify for execution status anyway, so the costs can't be all that high.
Turn them all into life time forced volunteers! :twocents:
I'd actually like to see capital punishment on the statute books for use in execeptional circumstances, and then not as a mandatory sentence. I'll admit my thinking is a little muddled on the subject, I've never considered it worth while to come up with a personal list of crimes I think people ought to be executed for having commited.
One thing I am clear on is that it should not be the choice of one judge - In cases where an verdict of guilty is returned in an applicable case I think it should be made clear to the defendant that a panel of 3 senior judges will debate and decide whether or not to impose the death penalty and that following that there will be the right of appeal.
I appreciate that would result in a long and expensive process but in all honesty I think the list of applicable crimes would have to be pretty small.
I could cheerfully have executed Thomas Hamilton who commited the Dunblane massacre had he not beaten me to it - that's the sort of league of crime that I'm talking about.
Yeah! Because newzealand has those big inflatable ball things you can get inside of and race people with=EPIC WIN!
Actually...LFS Should incorpirate them into the game...
(OnTopic) Honestly I hate the death penalty also..Its like why not just deport him somewhere out of the country? Im sure any other country is ALOT better than death.
Guess I will get laughed at then. I don't believe in the death sentance for minor crimes at all but for larger crimes I do. By larger crimes I mean along the lines of mass murder, not stealing a loaf of bread. Also, and this is where i get alot of flaming, I believe that people who either commited an act of terrorism or were going to commit the act should also suffer the death penalty. The delibrate acts of terrorism, say of bombing the UK, is an act against the country and so against the crown and should be counted as treason. Yes treason is usually taken as more directly against the crown and yes after the human rights ask we can't put anyone to death.
Always wanted to visit New Zealand
I thought you were a real man
P.S. Sorry If there are any spelling mistakes, i typed this in a hurry.
I would like to pipe in that, in the right circumstances, with the right crime, I believe that the death sentence is a fair and just punishment. The person who commits these crimes waives all rights to Human Rights, and has voluneered to be considered merely as a sick animal.
Innocent people get guilty verdicts now and again. Always have, always will. Death or no death penalty. Don't overly concern yourselves with the tiny tiny minority that die unjustly. We're only humans, not all that important really (and I mean that with zero sarcasm).
Biology is important when we have to establish what's a man and what's not. This kind of limit cannot be politically or legally overturned, luckily, and calling men animals has already been abused in past persecutions. Let's get rid of this for greater good.
That's really disturbing. Sentencing someone who is not very very clearly guilty to the death penalty is completely retarded. Not that the death penalty itself is not inhumane.
I think American people need to reassess their whole outlook on the law, and that must come from the government and filter down into the people. I wouldn't live anywhere where laws can be taken out of context so that someone can sue someone else for money on principle.
And, I hope theirishnoob's ban is going to be extended a little... 5 days is nothing.
Because we in the UK are really good at identifying potential terrorists. :rolleyes: In fact we seem to foil a terrorist plot (but of course no details can be revealed for "security reasons") each time the government tries to bring in more extreme "anti-terrorism" legislation.
I recommend you turn off your TV for a few weeks until you feel a bit more rational. If you get bored, see if you can catch a production of Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible". You could also watch Terry Gilliam's film "Brazil", which has a hilariously accurate terrorism sub-plot.
It's clear that would necessary to spend considerable time attempting to balance the differences in individual cases with the need for an arbitary understanding of which crimes could be considered "serious" enough to mandate execution, before we even began to consider implementing such sentencing. Would that even be possible? - I'm not enough of a legal expert to know.
All I know is that as I stand on the hilltop composed of my beliefs, my education, my upbringing and my experiences I have a vague desire to see what I consider to be an appropriate punishment for what I consider to be the most hienous of crimes.
Terrorism has been a hot topic longer than I've been around, and it's not going to go away. However you define such a deliberately evocative word there is some truth to what Greboth says - the person who attacks the country of their birth commits treason and until very recently we could at least in principle have executed them for doing so.
Balance that with what Kev quite rightly says about our current vogue for pulling a terrorist rabbit out of the hat every time the government wants us to feel frightened or look the other way and you end up with the usual British muddy thinking.
What is the answer? if you ask me then it's execute those you catch red handed [and by that I mean literally with a spluttering fuse] and imprison the rest for a very long time. However as I said earlier as far as I'm concerned the reason to re-implement the death penalty is not to add yet another weapon to our counter terrosist arsenal it's to punish those who commit the unforgivable whatever their motivation.
Hey, check it out! Right on time. Who the heck is we, anyway? Wait, don't bother looking down your pedestal, you might spoil your immaculate vision.
The way it's practiced is a separate story, it's not about the fundamental ethics anymore. Just like cops will not always conform to their duties. For example, there's been a recent proposal in Michigan to demote 200 felonies to mere misdemeanors.. that means felons convicted of any among 200 felonies will likely be let back as easily as misdemeanor-class criminals into society...
I guess the difference between us is that you think it's ok to let someone whose first reason to live is crime against others, even ok to force (via taxes) law-abiding people to pay for that unrehabilitable criminal's upkeep. We had this debate before (abridged, though) and the critical difference is that your 'side' of the issue thinks it better to pay for the inhumane emprisonment of said criminal, indefinitely if need be, than to save the resources for worthier things like education, etc.
I think last time someone said that the prisoners don't really add up to that much money anyway... that's balloney. Even supposing it didn't add up to much, any amount spent keeping a (deservingly-) death row inmate alive in a tiny cell is better spent educating kids; this leading everywhere but to criminality all on its own.. why would you, instead, leech law-abiding people of their resources to keep criminals who will never re-integrate society anyway? Why do that rather than loose the useless ballast and let the normal people keep their resources?
Sometimes it's argued that since emprisonment (not killing the criminal but only sequestering it to a cage) is less inhumane than execution (killing the criminal but avoiding any burden on the rest of the population (a matter of principle, not financial proportion) and absolutely avoiding any repeat offenses and victims), execution is the only one of the two that deserves to be called inhumane.. that's bogus. They're both inhumane.
The death penalty and life-sentences will be done away with when criminals can be properly rehab'ed, and that means something comprehensive. Not some brute force method like (for example, again) in A clockwork orange.
On that day we can start talking about 'humane' alternatives. Emprisonment isn't humane.
Wow.. just wow.. am I getting this right? The government needs to tell the people what it ought to think?
No, they need to stop giving money to fat kids for suing McDonalds for becoming fat so that the fat kids stop suing McDonalds for becoming fat and take some responsibility.
It's the government that's in charge of the judicial system, after all.
That still doesn't change the fact that I'd not live in a country where it's common for people sue someone because "his cat gave me a mean look" or something on principle.
Well it's not like there is much alternatives. The two party system is ridiculous, there is either the bad or the even worse option, it's not real democracy like they blame.
Axus I agree, but that's not limited to the US. There's plenty of absurd legislature in every other country. And there's plenty of unreported (read: not sexy enough for headlines) cases where ridiculous accusations are treated as they ought to be, in the US.
Blackout, I don't understand what you mean by the last part of your second sentence.
My reply to Axus was meant to say that the government is not who the public ought to look for for advice on who to vote for. More often than not, politicians are more interested in staying in office than actually serving their functions to a tee.
I agree (if you meant that) that a two party setup as polarized as the US' has become is bad news. By and large most politicians have drifted too far away from the Constitution.
Yes, but as you said, people shouldn't be looking for advise from the government who to vote. But as the government is made from two parties it's not like the results are any different if they do, or don't listen what the politicians want them to vote. It's 100% sure you will end up with two parties. With my twisted logic, I was trying to say that thee two party system, nor the voting system works or does any good.
Noticed I made a typo, it should have been real instead read.
