Is it Right to Hang a person in the name of Justice ?

[praveen]

Is it Right to Hang a person in the name of Justice?

In INDIA , one criminal is going to be hanged on 14th Aug as a punishment for a crime.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/10kolkata.htm

what my concern is ...is human mind irreversible ? Cant we change a human mind? Is “death sentence” an ultimate solution to eliminate dangerous criminals from society ?

 

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

The answer is YES...

He deserves to be hanged...

Every criminal must be executed if we are to live safely..

Think about this (I dun intend to offend you here), if it was the same person who brutally murdered someone you loved a lot, what wud you say?

A man who has taken the life of another doesn't deserve to live at all...

 

[praveen]

Thanks for the response...

however...looks like u didnt understand my question...

is Human brain something rigid ? can't it be put in right path ?

is hanging a person a failure of humanity in making a radical change in human mind ? we vote for death sentense becaz we r not capable of putting a disorder mind in order ?

if this incident happens to someone in my family , i won't probably turn introvert abt death sentence . i agree...

i am not showing any sign of pity on the hanged person by posting this question. but somehow i feel like we r lost in handling a issue.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe some criminals cannot be rehabilitated. Therefore, I am in favor of the death penalty.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

In general I believe the death penalty is a bad idea. Some criminals are genetically predisposed to do things, while others can be rehabilitated.

I believe humanity as a whole should strive to achieve the great amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain, by working together. If this person can spend a life in a prison cell then perhaps he'll get pleasure. While prison isn't an ideal place for self-enjoyment I think he should be able to choose life in prison or death.

When the death penalty is executed it shouldn't be seen by anyone but the executioner. It's barbaric to watch someone die for the pleasure of a so called justice. That's my opinion at least. I don't even know if I support the death penalty at all. I'd have to think it over for awhile.

 

[Averagesupernova]

The answer is YES...

He deserves to be hanged...

Every criminal must be executed if we are to live safely..

When you get hungry enough you will commit crimes in order to obtain food. Shall we hang you when the time comes? Let us know...

 

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

When you get hungry enough you will commit crimes in order to obtain food. Shall we hang you when the time comes? Let us know...

What a joker..Do u think criminals commit crimes in order to get a living? Thats one of the biggest jokes man...So if a criminal murders someone, he's actually doing it for food, if he rapes a woman, he's is actually doing it for food..huh?

 

[Marijn]

In a lot of cases i find the deathpenalty to be to soft.
For instance a person like Marc Dutroux (for the non europeans, this man has been sentencedto life emprisonment for raping and murdering several young girls).
In the Us (some states at least) he would have been sentenced to death.
Whitch in fact would shorten his punishment.
I'm in favour of complete solatairy confinement in those cases, to go even further, people who commit crimes as hideous as this should be locked away in a lightless room without ever in their lives being alowd to see or hear another human being.
This in IMO is the ultimate punishment.
Death penalties are to humane for some crimes.

Ok of to the changing of brains.
In a lot of cases it can be done, provided you can give all the support and counseling for possibly a long time.
Ofcourse there are some ppl who i shall refer to as evil, they embody the tiny group of ppl who are indeed evil cold harted and emotionless, thank god little of them exist.

In practice i don't think it is realistic to try and change all criminals.
You get the best chance with young offenders and small timers.
No country has the recources to help all criminals.

 

[vanesch]

Therefore, I am in favor of the death penalty.

What about when justice makes mistakes then ? There are many examples of people having been executed, only to find out, 10 years later, that they were innocent because the true criminal was found.
Recently, someone who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of 2 children, was released AFTER 15 YEARS, because a well-known serial raper and killer, who had been arrested much later, admitted those crimes, and even put forward some material elements of it (showing that at that moment, he was very near the place etc...).
Of course, for the person who has been released, he lost 15 years of his life etc... but at least, he now gets a (huge) indemnisation and can make something of the rest of his life. For information, the person is Patrick Dils.
If they would have hung him, what would justice have to say now to his family ?
This is just one example, but there are many. Death penalty is too irreversible when the slightest doubt remains.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[brewnog]

Since the death penalty was abolished in the UK, there have been a number of convicts (serving life sentences) who have since been pardoned and cleared of their previous convictions due to new evidence, often arising from the development of forensic techniques which have since become available. If the death penalty had been in place when these people had been sentenced, they would not be alive when pardoned. That seems to me like an opportunity missed to say the least.

 

[brewnog]

Hah, yes Vanesh, point seconded...

 

[kcballer21]

I don't see how anyone can support the death penalty if it is imperfect as it has been proven to be. I would like to hear some of you in favor of the death penalty propose a fail-safe way to convict and sentence a person to their death (absolutely certain of guilt). What crime deserves the death penalty (there appear to be obvious answers, but think about circumstances)? Do you think it is possible that you could be erroneously convicted and sentenced to death (wrong place, wrong time)?

There is one thing I will concede, an imperfect justice system is something we all must deal with, but people falsely imprisoned is a far cry from people falsely put to death.

 

[vanesch]

There is one thing I will concede, an imperfect justice system is something we all must deal with, but people falsely imprisoned is a far cry from people falsely put to death.

Exactly. In fact, I do not have many moral oppositions to death penalty in that certain criminals have done such attrocious things that by all standards, they'd deserve to die. I do not talk about simple murder ; this to me is not sufficient, but I'm talking about "human monsters" like serial killers, merciless mafia leaders and so on.

However, as I pointed out, the idea that an innocent person is put to death is so unbearable, that I think it is a sufficient reason not to have capital punishment. But then what in those cases that guilt has been proven beyond any doubt ?

I think that even in these cases, there are reasons for not applying the death penalty. Indeed, one should avoid at all cost that the legal system is abused as a political means of oppression. The big difference between someone in prison and someone executed, is that the person in prison can still TALK. So having your political opponents thrown in prison, will, sooner or later, come out. Having them killed makes them shut up for always.
Even for justice, it is probably more interesting to have a criminal in jail, than under the ground, because you can always interrogate him concerning other crimes he might be aware of. This is, btw, how this case of Patrick Dils was resolved.

Another example: many years ago, a dead body with knife wounds was found in a basement, and on the wall was written in blood: "Omar killed me!" Omar was quickly found, and a popular jury sentenced him to life inprisonment for the murder. Years later, when DNA tests and so on became available, it was however found out that the blood on the wall had nothing to do with the blood of the victim or the blood of Omar. So Omar is (in the process of being) released.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[K.J.Healey]

What is our meaning of Justice? Is it not just righteous revenge? I constantly hear the argument of "If this had happened to you, would you not want them executed?", but the fallacy to that is, in my eyes, the law should be a logical system that is separate and uneffected by emotion.(Can you tell I am a physicist yet?). There are only a finite number of types of crimes, with certain permutations and circumstances. Eventually over time I believe we should focus more on what punishments fit which crimes (we sort of have this now). Unfortunately the lawyer/jury relationship used now is completely based on emotion and the ability to easily sway a persons decision using it(emotion).

I guess for my current standing on the death penalty is that we should not have it. I don't believe we have the right to take someone else's life based on their decisions. I DO believe that, due to the society influence our free will has, we have the right to punish people for crimes that we,as a society, agree are crimes. But, since we decide that we have the right to punish, we must accept the financial responsibility of carrying out their punishment (be it inprisonment or service).

The problem with a logical approach without emotion is that it would lead us to execute anyone who commits severe crimes or shows an inability to reform their behavior. There is also the argument that it is obvious we need a population control, and society can be better without criminals, and it costs us money to inprison them, so we might as well just kill the criminals. This would also, presumably, deter would-be criminals due to the harshness of punishment.

Its a tough call that can go both ways.

PS : My car cd-player was stolen this morning; I would love to find them and give them a good beating.

 

[Robert Naugle]

Sword Of Damocles Based Capital Punishment

Consider:

1. The jury system can and does make mistakes

2. There is some evidence (though small) for the idea that some people are genetically pre-disposed to violence.

3. There is very little evidence that an actual murderer can be re-habilitated.

4. The concepts of justice and punishment are arbitrary human constructs that have no bearing on the safety of society

5. Punishment is meant to convince someone not to repeat an offense

6. A dead person has not been convinced of anything

7. Justice is fallible (See #1 above

8. Society will not and probably cannot afford the risk of a convicted murderer remaining in contact with society

Based on the above ideas I propose a change to capital punishment.
If a person is sentenced to capital punishment the execution should be held in abeyance indefinately. The person convicted should be held in high security conditions until one of the following occurs.

1. The person proves his innocence in which case he is freed.
2. The person dies
3. The person commits and is convicted of a felony including an attempted or successful escape in prison in which case the execution is conducted immediately.

This allows the person if he is actually innocent to continue to try to prove it and to avoid death by avoiding bad behaviour and is a sort of Sword Of Damocles Based Capital Punishment.
What do you think?

 

[eringj]

IMO people spend too much time thinking on the nature of the criminal, not enough on the nature of the punisher. When a person is sentenced to death and the sentence is carried out, the government has killed someone.

The state is not merely an abstract concept. It is made up of people. Those people have killed someone.

And in a democratic nation, it's no great exaggeration to say that the citizenry has conspired to kill someone.

Does that person deserve to die? Maybe. But I would not want to be ruled by people who think they have the right to kill. Do you?

It's not 'justice'. It's blood on our hands.

 

[Dagenais]

How does the US even decide whether a person deserves the death penalty or not?

We see on the news that I person who murders 2 people gets the death penalty. While 1 other guy rapes and kills 30+ women, and he gets life - the same as a person who murdered 1 person.

How is this fair and just?

 

[pace]

Yeah, "Do not kill!" ; and then we kill him. uhhhhh
It's also wrong because everyone can change.
And who is this new eringj person. You're very smart :)


"in the name of Justice " I think it's not about justice when people excecute others, it's then of Practical reasons, or because they just want revenge. And I don't believe in revenge.
Punishments should be there because we want to set people in place. And our laywers and prisons are here so that we can put dangerous people aside to protect others. Even the prison can be a hopeless situation because it often doesn't teach them what they've done wrong, and then they get out.

 

[mikeee]

the death penalty should be used only if somebody is unable to be rehabilitated or if their crime was extremely horrific. Some people really do deserve to die. I am not sure of the statistics of how effective it is as a detterent, but I would think that it would be, which may save many innocent lives as opposed to the lives of murderers.

 

[mikeee]

Pace, let's say the authorities caught those resposible for the russian school tragedy... would it not be justice for those involved to be given the death penalty? I bet you they would prefer this punishment as opposed to being locked up all their lives and most likely being murdered in jail. Instead of taxpayers paying for these people to live in our jails without any chance of ever getting out, why not just end it right then?

Might be wrong, but it makes the most sense to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.
- Winston Churchill

"Make no judgments where you have no compassion." - unknown

 

[russ_watters]

How does the US even decide whether a person deserves the death penalty or not?

We see on the news that I person who murders 2 people gets the death penalty. While 1 other guy rapes and kills 30+ women, and he gets life - the same as a person who murdered 1 person.

How is this fair and just?

Its a state crime (unless you kill someone in a post office), so its up to each state - some don't even have a death penalty. Then there are a lot of factors that come into play (motive, multiple offenses, mental illness, etc.), but basically its a matter of if the prosecutor wants it and thinks s/he can get it and if the jury awards it.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The answer is YES...

He deserves to be hanged...

Every criminal must be executed if we are to live safely..

So I should have been hanged for stealing that toy from K-Mart when I was 10?

edit:

The use of natural resources could be considered stealing (from those humans who inhabited the land before, from future generations, from other species). Wouldn't we all need to be hanged, then?

 

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

So I should have been hanged for stealing that toy from K-Mart when I was 10?

edit:

The use of natural resources could be considered stealing (from those humans who inhabited the land before, from future generations, from other species). Wouldn't we all need to be hanged, then?

Did I ever say that?

I justify the use of death penalty as a punishment for murder, rape & kidnapping & organ trading..Just imagine if you were the victim..tell me now?

Dunno about you, but here in India, there are several cases in which an ordinary thief escaped punishment, then he rapes a woman then he goes on to kidnap children & then he commits a murder..So should we let this man develop as a criminal? He must have been executed when he commited the rape or kidnapping..

There are cases where these criminals kidnap children & take out their organs & sell them..Dont they deserve execution?

 

[olde drunk]

unfortunately, we have never done away with violence and/or crime with violence. it also seems that our prison systems do not re-habilitate, they only isolate and refine the criminal trade.

the root cause seems to be poor early education and the absence of affection during the formative years. this will raise a ruckus, but if those with advantages were more willing to share and truly help the unfortunate, they might not need to spend so much in taxes to protect themselves and their possessions.

we must try to prevent the criminal attitude from forming. this is the only long term solution. for those currently incarcerated, we must move to smaller, less 'number identity' warehouses. with a smaller population, we should be able to make inroads for psychological counseling and rehab. we spend more on guards than qualified professional staff.

what good is revenge? violence begets violence.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Robert Naugle]

Hello... anyone there...

Are there no opinions on my previous post.

Is it something I said,
Is it that I use my real name,
Am I inhabiting a reality 90 degress to the south

hello... hello...


Maybe it's my breath,

 

[blizeach]

Reply to Robert Naugle

It’s got potential only if there is doubt I think. Let's say some one was walked in on while committing something like rape on a child. Should that person not be put to death immediately? (Forgive me if I took your #3 out of context. I took it as death only if the crime occurred while in prison.) I do believe this type of people need to die or worse whether it’s in their genetics or not. They are no of use to any society and do nothing but destroy lives whether they actually kill or not.

As far as the original question of this thread, that of is it the right way for humans to go to use capital punishment or is it possible to turn someone like this on the right path?
The only thing I can say here is I agree with Olde Drunk’s opinion that we must try to prevent the criminal attitude from forming. I think it’s possible to reform some but I don’t think we should bother. I don’t think we should waste our time or our pity on them. If a person has killed or raped or what ever equivalent then that person has committed a crime on humanity and is of no use to it anymore.

Now I realize I have some pretty strong convictions here. But what they are based on is that we have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that this person we are condemning has committed this crime. It’s an ideal. Like just about all of you have said already “no justice system is perfect.

All that being said, I still believe in keeping capital punishment.


blizeach over and out! KCHHHH!

 

[Integral]

Most executions in the US are of poorly represented poor people. It has been proven that in the US a well represented rich person can get away with murder. Clearly our judicial system is not one of justice but of economics. So, essentially, it is a capital crime to be poor in the US.

 

[BoulderHead]

"Just-us" system

It's not simply a Justice System but, rather, a Criminal Justice System.

 

[Integral]

Notice that I did not call it a Justice system, but a judicial system.

 

[Philocrat]

IMO people spend too much time thinking on the nature of the criminal, not enough on the nature of the punisher. When a person is sentenced to death and the sentence is carried out, the government has killed someone.

The state is not merely an abstract concept. It is made up of people. Those people have killed someone.

And in a democratic nation, it's no great exaggeration to say that the citizenry has conspired to kill someone.

Does that person deserve to die? Maybe. But I would not want to be ruled by people who think they have the right to kill. Do you?

It's not 'justice'. It's blood on our hands.

I think you guys should join this debate and vote here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45493

The arguments and some useful links provided there are very much related. What is suggested there also covers what this thread demands to know.

 

[blizeach]

Straying from the original question here.

Forgive me but I think we are deviating from the original question of this thread. Not that I don’t agree with you guys about the proper representation of the poor or rich. Praveen asked “Is it right to hang a person in the name of justice?” and “Is the human mind reversible?” I don’t think this has anything to do with whose judicial system is erroneous. The question here is, is it right? Or should we try reform for every case. We need to look at this as a for instance. For instance we no beyond the shadow of a doubt that this person did this unspeakable crime. We all seen the video tape.

blizeach over and out! KCHHHH!

 

[Philocrat]

Forgive me but I think we are deviating from the original question of this thread. Not that I don’t agree with you guys about the proper representation of the poor or rich. Praveen asked “Is it right to hang a person in the name of justice?” and “Is the human mind reversible?” I don’t think this has anything to do with whose judicial system is erroneous. The question here is, is it right? Or should we try reform for every case. We need to look at this as a for instance. For instance we no beyond the shadow of a doubt that this person did this unspeakable crime. We all seen the video tape.

blizeach over and out! KCHHHH!

In fact the question should also ask: what other way, other hanging, could you get a first-degree murderer to contribute to the very society from which he or she took heavily?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Some murderers might reform. Others are that way essentially, and we should just lock them up for life, to keep them from murdering again.

 

[blizeach]

In fact the question should also ask: what other way, other hanging, could you get a first-degree murderer to contribute to the very society from which he or she took heavily?

I agree. But take Manson for example or Dahmer do you really think that there is anyway that this man can contribute. I think in these case all they do is keep taking from society, as long as they are alive in their air conditioned cells and we are feeding them and taking care of their medical bills. You know?

 

[Philocrat]

I agree. But take Manson for example or Dahmer do you really think that there is anyway that this man can contribute. I think in these case all they do is keep taking from society, as long as they are alive in their air conditioned cells and we are feeding them and taking care of their medical bills. You know?

Just think, what do you think the society could get out of them? Most murderers are very intelligent creatures ... could they not earn while keeping them alive in prison for life, given that the institution concerned opted for this option instead of hanging?