The Death Penalty
The Death Penalty
I agree with jwolf. If you do the crime, be willing to pay the price. I seriously doubt that it deters a sick mind; they will do the murder, etc. no matter what. I would think noone murders a person and plans to get caught though. In some cases, I believe lethal injection is too humane. The mother that drowns her children should be drowned, the mother that starves her child to death should starve to death herself. Their children didn't die humanely, why should they?
The Death Penalty
Most murderers know their victims and are unlikely to kill again, our law takes in to account intention and distinquishes between a cold blooded act and one in the heat of the moment. The death penalty does not deter an act carried out in a heat of anger.
It may deter professional criminals but the ones that are likely to kill don't think they will be caught and it doesn't deter.
It doesn't deter the odd serial killer.
It doesn't deter terrorists and executing them makes them martyrs as the British found out in Ireland. Some terrorists you end have to end up talking to be it Nelson Mandela (have at look at what american administrations had to say about the ANC, british as well come to that)or the IRA if you execute the ones you catch the killing goes on and how do you stop it? . Alqueda I'm not so sure you want to talk to but at some point you will have to talk if not to them then to someone else because some day the killing has to stop.
I don't as you have probably gathered think the death penalty is a deterrent. Punishment is a different matter but what place does an eye for an eye have in a christian society. How can you call yourself christian and take vengeance?
The mother that drowns her children should be drowned, the mother that starves her child to death should starve to death herself. Their children didn't die humanely, why should they?
If she's insane and not responsible for her action then what are you if you kill her?
A cold blooded killing is a cold blooded killing whoever does it.
Here in the UK we don't have the death penalty if we had there are also a number of people jailed erroniously who would now be dead. Our society is also considerably less violent than yours, I think, I've never been to the US so I am only going on second hand impressions, a lot of posters in this and other forums i've looked at seem convinced everybody is out to get them.
By the same token most americans find our attitude to guns bizarre in that we won't tolerate anyone having one. I have seen sites where they seem to think we have been deprived of our means of self defence by an oppressive government. Not so.
As a deterrent it's value is dubious, as punishment its moot that it's justified as it means you are perpetrating the same act that you condemn them for.
When we were setting up our police force and amending the justice system one of the tenets was that it wasn't the scale of punishment that was a deterrent but rather the certainty of being caught. The solve rate of UK murders is in the high 90 because most murders are commited on people known to the murder, random killings are very rare indeed which is why they get attention when they occur.
It may deter professional criminals but the ones that are likely to kill don't think they will be caught and it doesn't deter.
It doesn't deter the odd serial killer.
It doesn't deter terrorists and executing them makes them martyrs as the British found out in Ireland. Some terrorists you end have to end up talking to be it Nelson Mandela (have at look at what american administrations had to say about the ANC, british as well come to that)or the IRA if you execute the ones you catch the killing goes on and how do you stop it? . Alqueda I'm not so sure you want to talk to but at some point you will have to talk if not to them then to someone else because some day the killing has to stop.
I don't as you have probably gathered think the death penalty is a deterrent. Punishment is a different matter but what place does an eye for an eye have in a christian society. How can you call yourself christian and take vengeance?
The mother that drowns her children should be drowned, the mother that starves her child to death should starve to death herself. Their children didn't die humanely, why should they?
If she's insane and not responsible for her action then what are you if you kill her?
A cold blooded killing is a cold blooded killing whoever does it.
Here in the UK we don't have the death penalty if we had there are also a number of people jailed erroniously who would now be dead. Our society is also considerably less violent than yours, I think, I've never been to the US so I am only going on second hand impressions, a lot of posters in this and other forums i've looked at seem convinced everybody is out to get them.
By the same token most americans find our attitude to guns bizarre in that we won't tolerate anyone having one. I have seen sites where they seem to think we have been deprived of our means of self defence by an oppressive government. Not so.
As a deterrent it's value is dubious, as punishment its moot that it's justified as it means you are perpetrating the same act that you condemn them for.
When we were setting up our police force and amending the justice system one of the tenets was that it wasn't the scale of punishment that was a deterrent but rather the certainty of being caught. The solve rate of UK murders is in the high 90 because most murders are commited on people known to the murder, random killings are very rare indeed which is why they get attention when they occur.
The Death Penalty
the bible says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a took the death penalty is needed.the death penalty
The Death Penalty
I'm curious? as a christian (which I am assuming you are) do you think JC would have approved? If you think he wouldn't how can you call yourself a christian that follows his teachongs and yet support the death penalty?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The Death Penalty
jaycee wrote: In theory, I think the death penalty is an extremely good idea. It's not much of a deterrent now but I think that is because those people who commit the crimes it should be used for know quite well it's not a foregone conclusion it will be carried out even if that is what they are sentenced to. Why have Death Row? I've never understood that concept - if a crime has been committed & the death sentence given, then just do it!
This was normally the case here in Great Britian.
I think that if people knew that certain offences were capital, it would be a
deterrent. Obviously it would not deter nut-cases, or crimes of passion
carried out on the instant.
jaycee wrote: The remit of a jury in a criminal trial is to find the person on trial guilty or innocent 'beyond all reasonable doubt' & therein lies the problem. Doubt.
Reasonable doubt. This does not include the possibility that pigs might fly,
for instance!
jaycee wrote: You cannot sentence someone to the death penalty based on the opinion of 12 people - which in essence is what the guilty/not guilty decision is - based on whether you believe the defence or the prosecution.
I don't see why not, but....
jaycee wrote: Until we have a judicial system that leaves absolutely no room for doubt, how can you kill someone? As someone else has already said, there have been a number of cases in the UK where people have been wrongly convicted & freed - the one coming most easily to mind is Sally Clarke, convicted of murdering her children & spending 3 years in prison until the supposed professional evidence was exposed as incorrect. She may have lost 3 years of her life & undoubtedly gone through a terrible time but hey, she's not dead!
There are certain cases where guilt has been determined absolutely - the one coming to mind is Myra Hindley & Ian Brady. I truly believe those two should have been killed & not by any of this lethal injection stuff - I feel a firing squad would have done the job just fine. I find it incomprehensible that those 2 people should have committed the atrocities they have & be kept in prison for a long time at my expense. I work hard for my money & don't see why I should pay to keep someone who has confessed to doing what they did.
Circumstances alter cases... in some cases death could be commuted to life
imprisonment, or something else, as used to happen.
jaycee wrote: Now the other offence I would have no problem with the death penalty over is paedophilia. I may be wrong but I don't recall any incorrectly convicted paedophiles in Britain & statistically it is the crime with the most repeat offenders upon release. So I have no understanding as to why they are released. I don't see why I should keep them so I would be quite happy for them to be shot.
Why stop there? Rape? Ayny other serious physical assault? Sexual relations
with a sheep?
jaycee wrote: An eye for an eye may be in the Bible but that is not justice, that is revenge.
Revenge is an important part of sentencing, isn't it? What offends society...
I favour public hanging, mesel'. For higher crimes, such as treason, bring back
the axe!!!!
This was normally the case here in Great Britian.
I think that if people knew that certain offences were capital, it would be a
deterrent. Obviously it would not deter nut-cases, or crimes of passion
carried out on the instant.
jaycee wrote: The remit of a jury in a criminal trial is to find the person on trial guilty or innocent 'beyond all reasonable doubt' & therein lies the problem. Doubt.
Reasonable doubt. This does not include the possibility that pigs might fly,
for instance!
jaycee wrote: You cannot sentence someone to the death penalty based on the opinion of 12 people - which in essence is what the guilty/not guilty decision is - based on whether you believe the defence or the prosecution.
I don't see why not, but....
jaycee wrote: Until we have a judicial system that leaves absolutely no room for doubt, how can you kill someone? As someone else has already said, there have been a number of cases in the UK where people have been wrongly convicted & freed - the one coming most easily to mind is Sally Clarke, convicted of murdering her children & spending 3 years in prison until the supposed professional evidence was exposed as incorrect. She may have lost 3 years of her life & undoubtedly gone through a terrible time but hey, she's not dead!
There are certain cases where guilt has been determined absolutely - the one coming to mind is Myra Hindley & Ian Brady. I truly believe those two should have been killed & not by any of this lethal injection stuff - I feel a firing squad would have done the job just fine. I find it incomprehensible that those 2 people should have committed the atrocities they have & be kept in prison for a long time at my expense. I work hard for my money & don't see why I should pay to keep someone who has confessed to doing what they did.
Circumstances alter cases... in some cases death could be commuted to life
imprisonment, or something else, as used to happen.
jaycee wrote: Now the other offence I would have no problem with the death penalty over is paedophilia. I may be wrong but I don't recall any incorrectly convicted paedophiles in Britain & statistically it is the crime with the most repeat offenders upon release. So I have no understanding as to why they are released. I don't see why I should keep them so I would be quite happy for them to be shot.
Why stop there? Rape? Ayny other serious physical assault? Sexual relations
with a sheep?
jaycee wrote: An eye for an eye may be in the Bible but that is not justice, that is revenge.
Revenge is an important part of sentencing, isn't it? What offends society...
I favour public hanging, mesel'. For higher crimes, such as treason, bring back
the axe!!!!
The Death Penalty
I am for (The Death Penalty). some need to be put to sleep for their crimes, take anothers life, your going down too, why not? criminials should know the consequences, it depends on the case. i have a heart too, but - what about O.J. Simpson, has the killer been found yet? no, it didn;t think so, we all know he did it, & the Peterson case, i think Scott killed the 2? should he be able to live after that? 
Charles Manson, in for life, well he's interesteing enough to save? get rid of these killers, they only set examples for the bad. :-2
Charles Manson, in for life, well he's interesteing enough to save? get rid of these killers, they only set examples for the bad. :-2 Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
The Death Penalty
I am for (The Death Penalty). some need to be put to sleep for their crimes, take anothers life, your going down too, why not? criminials should know the consequences, it depends on the case. i have a heart too, but - what about O.J. Simpson, has the killer been found yet? no, it didn;t think so, we all know he did it, & the Peterson case, i think Scott killed the 2? should he be able to live after that? Charles Manson, in for life, well he's interesteing enough to save? get rid of these killers, they only set examples for the bad. :-2, Lennons killer wants out too, he took away a great person from us all, keep him behind bars, or put him to sleep...thats what i recommend.
Charles Manson, in for life, well he's interesteing enough to save? get rid of these killers, they only set examples for the bad. :-2, Lennons killer wants out too, he took away a great person from us all, keep him behind bars, or put him to sleep...thats what i recommend. Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
The Death Penalty
I agree, people do kill when they are not aware, and on and on, you are correct in that matter, it is difficult to determine what constitutes use of the death penalty? There are cases where it is approriate, we all have different opinions about it. I know Michael Ross is looking for the death penalty, do you know anything about him? i tell you why i asked, please comment.. 
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The Death Penalty
gregady wrote: ahhh the death penalty....you cannot really answer this question on a generic level as each case has special circumstances, i agree with the death penalty if someone has been killed for the sake of killing or a criminal act was being portraid leading to the murder, but a crime of passion is surly not a death penalty charge, love is the human races strongest quality but on that note love of money can drive some to murder which could be argued as a crime of passion....
Death sentences can be commuted.....
gregady wrote: in hind sight i agree with the death penalty, public hangings and beheadings is what kept my country dicaplind.
Hurrah! Cut 'em down and hang 'em up to dry! What were those cages called?
Aha! The gibbet! See: http://www.cambridgeparanormal.co.uk/caxton.html -
sorry about the carp web-site. "Also, heads on pikes for specials".
Death sentences can be commuted.....
gregady wrote: in hind sight i agree with the death penalty, public hangings and beheadings is what kept my country dicaplind.
Hurrah! Cut 'em down and hang 'em up to dry! What were those cages called?
Aha! The gibbet! See: http://www.cambridgeparanormal.co.uk/caxton.html -
sorry about the carp web-site. "Also, heads on pikes for specials".
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The Death Penalty
Heroine wrote: There was also a lovely thing called a brank...
I think I prefer that than being gibbeted alive....
I think I prefer that than being gibbeted alive....