Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Smacks wrote:No that's a massive misrepresentation of my position.

It is not in any way a misrepresentation of your position. You don't like the death penalty, so you assert that people who are in favor of it are guilty of wanting mob rule...

I'm sorry, clearly for whatever reason you are in favour of the death sentence. I don't particularly want to clash heads with you on an internet forum over it. I mostly come here to talk about little plastic soldiers. I have no further wish to get dragged into stupid internet arguments. I also have no wish to debate right and wrong with someone who advocates murder, whether it is done by the state or otherwise. We obviously have very different value systems, lets leave it at that. I don't want any further part in this discussion.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
It is not in any way a misrepresentation of your position. You don't like the death penalty, so you assert that people who are in favor of it are guilty of wanting mob rule, and believe that lawmakers should not debate it even though a large chunk of their constituents want them to.

That is a misrepresentation of his position, which is essentially as follows:

1: The right to life is a good thing.
2: The death penalty has a negative impact on the sanctity of the right to life.
3: The government should work to protect rights.
4: the government should consider the will of the people.
5: Where rights and the will of the people conflict, the government should side with rights.
6: To not side with rights is to allow the mob to rule.

He isn't claiming that you, or any other pro death penalty people are in favor of mob rule, but that mob rule is bad, and that instating the death penalty is an example of allowing the mob to rule.

I would argue that the position, as I've presented it, is untenable because proposition 5 leads to a very heavy-handed state, because rights are not empirical principles. And, while a heavy-handed state might be morally desirable, it is practically infeasible in most cases.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Is putting someone in a prison cell a violation of their rights (and bear in mind that you typically don't have the right to free speech or association while in jail)?

Yes, though the reasons why will vary according to your views on rights in particular, and legal philosophy in general.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
It's clearly not dead and buried, no matter how much you want it to be, if a large portion of the population says it's not. That's pretty much a tautology, if a lot of people are interested in an issue and want to change the way things are done, it's an open issue even if the changes they want would be hard to implement. Countries can repudiate treaties, it's not really all that uncommon even if it would be foolish to do in this case.

I suppose it really depends on what "dead and buried" is thought to mean. The US could repeal the 2nd Amendment, and a large group of people would certainly enjoy that, but repealing the Amendment would be very difficult so it is generally not thought of as a matter of open consideration despite both possibility of such an action, and existential support for it.

Honestly, I don't fancy the idea of the state having power over life and death. Besides, people tend to get far too emotional about this particular topic, pointing out heinous criminals who are still alive, but killing them wouldn't do anything except grant personal closure.

If someone murdered a relative of mine, I'd much rather they spend the rest of their days slaving away in prison, being forced to live as subhumans for the benefit of society. Death is too good for people like that.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Honestly, I don't fancy the idea of the state having power over life and death. Besides, people tend to get far too emotional about this particular topic, pointing out heinous criminals who are still alive, but killing them wouldn't do anything except grant personal closure.

If someone murdered a relative of mine, I'd much rather they spend the rest of their days slaving away in prison, being forced to live as subhumans for the benefit of society. Death is too good for people like that.

Actually, i look at it like the criminal made the choice of life or death when he did the crime. it's self-inflicted, imho. as a father of 3, i couldn't agree with Alby more in his example.
not only would it be impossible to live knowing said P.O.S. is still breathing air, i would do all i could to make that person stop breathing.

Well, of course you would. I'm just of the opinion that death doesn't necessarily equate to true justice, regardless of emotional connections to a victim.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Well, of course you would. I'm just of the opinion that death doesn't necessarily equate to true justice, regardless of emotional connections to a victim.

I think you could make the argument that taking revenge (which, at least in this context, seems to be what is meant by "justice") for an injury necessarily involves inflicting suffering on the person who injured you, though. Death is simply a culturally common form of inflicting extreme suffering.

dogma wrote: Death is simply a culturally common form of inflicting extreme suffering.

as well as being what the criminal took, in the example anyway.

Ah, you see, this is why I tend to swing back and forth when it comes to capital punishment. On the one hand, my personal belief is that resorting to 'tit for tat' justice is simply irrational and nobody is responsible enough to handle it properly anyway, but I agree that some crimes are worth the death penalty.

Honestly, sometimes it just seems like it'd be healthier to just bury my head in the sand.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ah, you see, this is why I tend to swing back and forth when it comes to capital punishment. On the one hand, my personal belief is that resorting to 'tit for tat' justice is simply irrational and nobody is responsible enough to handle it properly anyway, but I agree that some crimes are worth the death penalty.

Honestly, sometimes it just seems like it'd be healthier to just bury my head in the sand.

Then you've never tried breathing sand! although that could be used on criminals....

Cheese Elemental wrote:Honestly, I don't fancy the idea of the state having power over life and death.

They do anyway. Why kid ourselves? I mean, im not a major conspiracy theorist who thinks that the government "rub people out" but the state can get away with all kinds of gak. The only reason people who do bad stuff get away with it, is that the state doesnt care if your kids get raped. They care if you feth the state though.

What was dropping $50,000,000 of ordanance on Iraqis in one night? (Other than totally sweet and awesome) If not having power of life and death over people?

Cheese Elemental wrote:Besides, people tend to get far too emotional about this particular topic, pointing out heinous criminals who are still alive, but killing them wouldn't do anything except grant personal closure.

If my kids get raped to death, im allowed to get emotional. I also want some fething closure.

Cheese Elemental wrote:If someone murdered a relative of mine, I'd much rather they spend the rest of their days slaving away in prison, being forced to live as subhumans for the benefit of society. Death is too good for people like that.

Why do people keep saying that?!

They dont "slave away" they dont get "forced to live as sub humans for the benefit of soctiey" they don't. It doesn't happen.

As I said, Im sure prison isnt the cake walk that right wing morons think it is, its not all XBOX 360's, your own gym and conjugal visits, but for an absolute fact it IS comfortable.

It is hot showers, proper mattress, nice unripped serviceable clothes, 3 square meals a day, varied meals. Not bread and water, fruit, vegetables, priority medical care, exercise, books, magazines, tea, and the occasional Sunday fething roast.

If these pricks actually broke rocks for 12 hours a day, I might think you have a point, but you and everyone on here should stop repeating words like "back breaking, soul destroying, inhumane, suffering, demoralising, miserable ect etc etc etc" because prison ISNT THAT.

Look at a modern cell.



The state has a legal duty of care, and the prisoners must legally be given nice pleasant existences. When I was in basic I lived in a 40 man dorm (Full metal jacket style) they cant even legally do that to prisoners.

Im not exactly pro death penalty, but I think its an open discussion because I know the fury I would feel at the rape and death of my 3 year old nephew would never leave me. If I knew he was living a comfy existsnce no amount of councelling would fix me, and I would have to kill him. Id go to court, open his throat in the dock and then spend the rest of my life in prison.

gak, it looks alot nicer than my room in the military. I bet the foods better too.

Im pro making prisons really really suck. 40 man rooms, 12 hours a day working in a fething mine, 3 meals that are nutritional but gak, nothing to drink but water.

But seeing as that wont ever ever happen, If someone kills my children, let me at the bastard.

I dont even need the state to do it, just give me legal clearance, and id even do it for other families free of charge, with a hammer to save the electric bill.

Here's my argument for the death penalty

Bromsy wrote:Here's my argument for the death penalty

An excellent and well presented point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

.. so we would have executed her then yes ?

And presumably the other two women who were found to be innocent and freed would have been killed as well ?

And to clarify an earlier point : I don't see how the death penalty would solve any overcrowding issues either. No one is seriously proposing a cull /similar of prisoners. People are, well the sensible and sane ones anyway, only calling for it in exceptional or extreme or rare cases -- such as a child murderer or somesuch.

And we're not exactly overflowing with people like that, so there's unlikely to be any benefit there.

One could argue there's a deterent factor, but the evidence for that seems scant when you look at the crime rates in places that do have these sort of penalties as well as the mentalities of thsoe who commit the acts.

There's unlikely to be any cost savings, in fact it's likely to be more expensive, assuming we'd follow a proper and organised legal due process. And I don't think there's many here calling for our trials to resemble some of the great company we'd be keeping like China, Syria etc etc is there ?

Plus, given the age in which we live, I really don't see why we should help religious fanatics achieve martydom.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-capital-punishment.html

http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/the-times-we-live-in-bring-back-hanging-dear-gawd-whatever-next/

Plus, I don't actually think there would be a benefical rate with regards to the crime figures. Juries would be less likely to come down with a guilty verdict if the consequences of them being wrong are so final, IMO.

Some good points for, apparently its not that big a deterrent, and of course it wouldn't help with over crowding because kiddie fethers with homicidal tendency's aren't common fortunately.

Which surely cements my point! That rather than have the death penatly, we should make prison really really suck! Make them like the third world ones!

50 man dorms with bunk beds 4 high would fix the over crowding issue, less guards would be needed, worse food saves money, very poor amentities (one toilet per 50 guys?) poorer medical treatment, and forced labour for 12 hours pumps money into the economy!

Its a happy medium too, it will satisfy the hard core death sentence activisits, and also keep the guardian reading pinkos happier because we wont kill anyone directly.

feth me, I should be PM!

There isn't much evidence that 3rd world style gaols prevent crime by deterrence, or reduce recidivism.

Kilkrazy wrote:There isn't much evidence that 3rd world style gaols prevent crime by deterrence, or reduce recidivism.

See, as I said, Im well aware of the pros and cons of capital punishment, nearly everything red said was spot on, but common sense surely dictates the logic behind my statement.

If prison was fething appalling, petty criminals would come out after a 6 month stint and go "feth going back in there" surely? I know some rough blokes and they gob off in the pub about how easy it is in prison. If it was hardcore, then I dont see how it wouldnt be a deterrant, regardless of your lack of evidence.

Whats your stance then KK? You think the current system is great and Ian Huntley should be allowed to read novels and eat steak and watch BBC news?

I think you just need to look at things from a different angle.

Sure, you are legally obliged to feed the incarcerated nutritious, balanced diets. But does it have to taste good? Can the ingredients and that not just be whizzed up into a beige slop? After all, nobody said they had to enjoy what they're eating. Christ knows I don't enjoy half the stuff that I cook for myself, yet I eat it.

My stance is that the the main goal of the criminal justice system should be to reduce crime.

Punishment is a secondary consideration. I think it should be used if it works, however there is a spirit of vengeance which tends to lead us to prefer punishment above other methods of dealing with criminals. We need to be careful not to ignore other methods if they are more successful.

The problem with using tough punishment to deter crime is two-fold. Firstly, it makes recidivism worse, because criminals come out unprepared for dealing with normal society. Secondly, much crime is cause by either economic circumstances or passions, neither of which are addressed by condign punishments.

There are also humanitarian concerns -- e.g. what about wrongful convictions?

Mr Mystery wrote:I think you just need to look at things from a different angle.

Sure, you are legally obliged to feed the incarcerated nutritious, balanced diets. But does it have to taste good? Can the ingredients and that not just be whizzed up into a beige slop? After all, nobody said they had to enjoy what they're eating. Christ knows I don't enjoy half the stuff that I cook for myself, yet I eat it.

Thats what im saying man! The fethers should get nutritonally balanced gruel, nothing to drink but water, sleep in dorms, forced to work, gak like that.

Id be happy with no capital punishment if the prison cells didnt look far more comfortable than the gakky 6 man room I lived in when I was in the service and the pricks actually endured some hardship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:My stance is that the the main goal of the criminal justice system should be to reduce crime.

Punishment is a secondary consideration. I think it should be used if it works, however there is a spirit of vengeance which tends to lead us to prefer punishment above other methods of dealing with criminals. We need to be careful not to ignore other methods if they are more successful.

The problem with using tough punishment to deter crime is two-fold. Firstly, it makes recidivism worse, because criminals come out unprepared for dealing with normal society. Secondly, much crime is cause by either economic circumstances or passions, neither of which are addressed by condign punishments.

There are also humanitarian concerns -- e.g. what about wrongful convictions?

Yeah thats fine, all my point is, blokes like you and red dont seem to be suggesting anything, your just shooting other peoples ideas down without bringing anything to the table!

Ive said, im only kidding when im saying "string em all up" its short sighted and there are many flaws. I concede that.

But the current system sucks.

Rehabilitation is fine for 99% of criminals, we can understand WHY people burgle, and rob and steal and assault and well.. whatever. If you robbed an old lady for crack, we should help that person, we should work to cure mental issues, to get people back into the fold.

But for the absolute worst stuff, the worst of the worst, where the prisoner can never ever be released, how can you expect this current system to satisfy people? Why do Ian Huntley and Levi get to live in relative luxury, they even sue the tax payers and take money from the public! The get perfect medical and dental treatment, they live long comfortable existences with NO hardship at all. No cold showers, no gak food, comfy beds, privacy etc etc..

How can you think this makes people feel any better, when they caused such pain to the families? They will never ever get over it. He will out live them, this isn't something that the majority of people can swallow easily.

My suggestion, make prison really really suck, or shoot the bastards.

Whats yours?

Never thought i'd say this, but i agree with what Matty says.

I know a few people who have spent time in prison (one guy for over 5 years) and all of them had a pretty comfortable time there. The worst thing apparently being bullied by other prisoners/having their cigarettes stolen etc....

I would be completely in favour of bringing back hard labour and reduced living standards: Hard labour so they can put something back into society, and reduced living standards because, well, they did that to someone else to end up in prison in the first place!

Capital punishment can go hang though.... it doesn't work as a deterrant and is barbaric as a punishment.

J.Black wrote:Never thought i'd say this, but i agree with what Matty says.

Huzzah!

mattyrm wrote: Look at a modern cell.

That's a slight mis-representation of a modern cell. That's frrom Halden Prison in Norway, which is the most recent (and therefore expensive, go figure) addition to a very forgiving justice system, aimed largely at treating people nicely, rather than punishment.

To say that that cell is typical of all, if not most, prisons is wrong.

mattyrm wrote:

Whats yours?

The proposal is that the death penalty should be brought back, so I don’t have to offer any alternatives as they are already in place.

If you insist I offer my ideas for improvement, my suggestions are these:

1. Be genuinely tough on the causes of crime, don’t just talk about it.
2. Improve detection rates where needed. (They are very high for murder.)
3. The prison regime should focus on rehabilitation rather than gruel.
4. Appropriate sentencing.

I'm somewhat worried that if the death penalty is introduced we are somehow going to get rid of the appeal process so if there is, for whatever reason, some error whereby an innocent (or slightly less guilty person) is convicted of a capital crime they can appeal against their punishment.

I keep hearing about all these people who were convicted of murder who later had their sentences overturned who would have died instantly (perhaps some kind of gas chamber annex built into the courtroom?) had we had the death penalty...

... not to mention the fact that we are going to be executing everyone who kills someone rather than sentencing on a case by case basis.

Don't worry.

The death penalty cannot be re-introduced in the UK under current law. That's why this whole petition is a waste of time.

Kilkrazy wrote:Don't worry.

The death penalty cannot be re-introduced in the UK under current law. That's why this whole petition is a waste of time.

Ah, you mean because of a treaty that was resolutely rejected by every population who was actually asked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8288181.stm

Whatever people think of it, the treaty is in force and the government is bound by it

Discussion about withdrawal is a separate topic.

It may be worth noting that the UK gave up the death penalty in 1973 (Northern Ireland).

The majority of prison cells look more like this rather than the "hotel room' shown in Matty's post...

...

...Not a hell hole...but hardly the Ritz..

Now, I do agree with Matty to an extent in that repeat offenders should be sentenced to spend their time in harsher conditions, based on the nature of the crimes...
I'm also of the train of thought that white collar criminals who bilk the public of millions should be among the first sent to "labor Camps", why lock up some guy who steals a few hundred dollars in some gak hole but send the rich to soft " detention centers"?

As for as capital punishment...I'm very much in favor of it in certian cases, particularly those involving violent/predatory acts committed against children, I don't care that it won't " bring the victim back"...at least perhaps it will give the parents/loved ones some degree of peace.

And MP's have never changed the law because it suits them... or indeed ignored most of the population (or the law itself )

Withdrawing from that and other treaties are indeed other topics, however, one can still talk about how the death penalty would work, or if it would work without just saying "IT CAN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THIS BIT OF PAPER!".

FITZZ wrote: The majority of prison cells look more like this rather than the "hotel room' shown in Matty's post...

...

...Not a hell hole...but hardly the Ritz..

Now, I do agree with Matty to an extent in that repeat offenders should be sentenced to spend their time in harsher conditions, based on the nature of the crimes...
I'm also of the train of thought that white collar criminals who bilk the public of millions should be among the first sent to "labor Camps", why lock up some guy who steals a few hundred dollars in some gak hole but send the rich to soft " detention centers"?

As for as capital punishment...I'm very much in favor of it in certian cases, particularly those involving violent/predatory acts committed against children, I don't care that it won't " bring the victim back"...at least perhaps it will give the parents/moved ones some degree of peace.

fething hell, en suite as well!?

This is an OUTRAGE!