News Should we bring back Capital punishment for premeditated murder?

[rede96]

Its my first time posting in this part of the PF, so just thought I’d say hello!

I live in the UK where the death penalty was abolished in the 60’s. (Well I think it was actually abolished in the 90’s but the last hanging was in the 60’s.)

I don't know if it is just me, but it seems that I am reading more and more about brutal and premeditated murders in today’s society.

The latest one, about a boy who murdered his girlfriend of a ‘free breakfast’ was probably one of the most brutal and upsetting I’d read in a while, particularly as I have a daughter her age.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-joshua-davies-is-pure-evil-115875-23391730/"

Where there is clear evidence of such a premeditated act, I can’t see any reason why this person should not be put to death.

I don’t really believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but I do think the punishment should fit the crime and that death penalty would also save a lot of tax payer’s money in keeping someone ‘comfortably’ in some prison for life.

I know some may argue that we have a duty to rehabilitate, but to me that ‘right’ is lost when one commits such a heinous crime.

So I was just wondering what others thought?

 

[Char. Limit]

Note that I live in the northwestern US.

Personally, I support the death penalty for certain crimes that I consider heinous. There aren't many crimes that fit this description, but the few that do include premeditated murder and violent rape. However, I can see the counter-arguments now, and they are reasonable. It's true that we sometimes convict the wrong person, and a death sentence is somewhat irreversible.

 

[rede96]

Note that I live in the northwestern US.

Personally, I support the death penalty for certain crimes that I consider heinous. There aren't many crimes that fit this description, but the few that do include premeditated murder and violent rape. However, I can see the counter-arguments now, and they are reasonable. It's true that we sometimes convict the wrong person, and a death sentence is somewhat irreversible.

Yes, convicting the wrong person is a very valid point. However with some cases, as with the one mentioned above or the shootings in Norway for example, there is no doubt. So in these cases that argument is irrelevant.

I also think with advances in technology and forensics that in some cases it can be proven beyond doubt.

So although I believe that it may not be possible to prove in every case, those that are should apply also.

 

[Pythagorean]

So glad I don't have to stress over this dilemma. I just don't give a copulation.

Whenever I do think about it (like when somebody makes a thread) it stresses me out for a second while I do care. What a horrible decision to have to make.

 

[Evo]

Well, let's bring Breivik into this. No question of his guilt, no question of his premeditation, no question about his cold blooded killing method. Improbablbe that someone this demented can be rehabilitated. No question that a sentence to a Norwegian prison spa is too much a reward for what he's done. No question that the death penalty is too good for him.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's not really an argument developed there Evo, just assertions.

If somebody is threatening my life, I have no moral dilemma putting them down. If the damage is already done and there's no immediate threat, it's just vengeance/justice, whatever those mean.

 

[micromass]

Well, let's bring Breivik into this. No question of his guilt, no question of his premeditation, no question about his cold blooded killing method. Improbablbe that someone this demented can be rehabilitated. No question that a sentence to a Norwegian prison spa is too much a reward for what he's done. No question that the death penalty is too good for him.

I'm a very harsh believer of nonviolence. I don't believe that we have the right to put somebody to death or to torture somebody. Sure, Breivik deserves to be tortured to death. But I think we should stand above those primitive feelings of hate and vengeance.

I'm not even capable of hurting a fly (really, I always try to catch them and put them outside). Why should I want a human to die?

Breivik should be locked away so that he doesn't provide harm to the rest of the people. He should never be allowed to be released. But that doesn't mean that he should die.

I realize I'm not saying anything rational here. But I'm just saying how I emotionally think about the subject.

 

[Evo]

There's not really an argument developed there Evo, just assertions.

If somebody is threatening my life, I have no moral dilemma putting them down. If the damage is already done and there's no immediate threat, it's just vengeance/justice, whatever those mean.

Isn't the law about justice?

 

[Evo]

I'm a very harsh believer of nonviolence. I don't believe that we have the right to put somebody to death or to torture somebody. Sure, Breivik deserves to be tortured to death. But I think we should stand above those primitive feelings of hate and vengeance.

I'm not even capable of hurting a fly (really, I always try to catch them and put them outside). Why should I want a human to die?

Breivik should be locked away so that he doesn't provide harm to the rest of the people. He should never be allowed to be released. But that doesn't mean that he should die.

I realize I'm not saying anything rational here. But I'm just saying how I emotionally think about the subject.

I believe that the death penalty is not enough in such cases, but life in a condo isn't punishment either. So yes, I do believe that such people should be punished. The man that killed that girl in the OP should be punished *according to the crime*. Her life was worth a free breakfast?

I have had people close to me brutally murdered for no reason, so I am probably more emotionally invested than most here.

 

[micromass]

Isn't the law about justice?

No, the law is about protecting the innocent. We shouldn't punish people out of vengeance/hate.

That said, there is no justice in this world.

 

[micromass]

I believe that the death penalty is not enough in such cases, but life in a condo isn't punishment either.

Why would you want to punish them?? What effect will this punishment have? They won't change their mind. The victims don't get back what they lost. What good is punishment?

 

[arildno]

Well, let's bring Breivik into this. No question of his guilt, no question of his premeditation, no question about his cold blooded killing method. Improbablbe that someone this demented can be rehabilitated. No question that a sentence to a Norwegian prison spa is too much a reward for what he's done. No question that the death penalty is too good for him.

He has to live with IKEA furniture, though..

 

[arildno]

Why would you want to punish them?? What effect will this punishment have? They won't change their mind. The victims don't get back what they lost. What good is punishment?

To inflict an act upon a criminal that would be criminal to inflict upon the non-criminal, but no longer is so towards the criminal because he, through his criminality, has stripped away some subset of his citizen rights.

The only way to make such an inferior status of righthood apparent is by doing an action towards the criminal we generally call a punishment.

 

[arildno]

As for Breivik, he was so calculating in his evil that he actually brought cans of gasoline to Utøya with the intent of setting on fire locations where possible youths might barricade themselves during his murder spree.

And, he was of course right:
One such barricaded cabin held 47 terrified youths.
He has admitted it was his intent to set fire on this building, but he was apprehended by the police before he got around to do so.

He ought to be executed, but he can't, best thing I hope for is that the other inmates kill him at some point.

 

[Evo]

No, the law is about protecting the innocent. We shouldn't punish people out of vengeance/hate.

That said, there is no justice in this world.

Why would you want to punish them?? What effect will this punishment have? They won't change their mind. The victims don't get back what they lost. What good is punishment?

Penal system means punishment.

pe·nal   /ˈpinl/ Show Spelled[peen-l] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or involving punishment, as for crimes or offenses.
2. prescribing punishment: penal laws.
3. constituting punishment: He survived the years of penal hardship.
4. used as a place of confinement and punishment: a penal colony.
5. subject to or incurring punishment: a penal offense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penal

 

[micromass]

Penal system means punishment.

pe·nal   /ˈpinl/ Show Spelled[peen-l] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or involving punishment, as for crimes or offenses.
2. prescribing punishment: penal laws.
3. constituting punishment: He survived the years of penal hardship.
4. used as a place of confinement and punishment: a penal colony.
5. subject to or incurring punishment: a penal offense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penal

Well, then I guess I don't believe in punishment But I'm sure everybody will disagree with me here...

 

[arildno]

No, the law is about protecting the innocent.

No, it is not.
The law is about treating everybody according to his or her rights.

The criminals have FEWER rights than others, due to their criminality, and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[rede96]

Why would you want to punish them?? What effect will this punishment have? They won't change their mind. The victims don't get back what they lost. What good is punishment?

Although I do have some very strong feelings about this, my original thought was not about justice per se or revenge for that matter. (It is probably much colder than that!)

For cases beyond doubt I just don't see the point of expending valuable resources on keeping these people fed and sheltered. They have no place in our society at all and therefore should be removed permanently, with the least burden on the people who would otherwise fund a life's worth of prison and all the other costs typically associated once they are released.

Obviously, I also see this as a guaranteed way of ensuring that they don't re offend.
As for how we do it, I’m with Evo, the punishment should fit the crime. I don’t know if that is about justice or revenge or what, but I do think the victim's family have a right to decide.

 

[Pythagorean]

Isn't the law about justice?

I still find that a meaningless statement. If justice isn't just a euphemism for vengeance then I must not have the emotional or intellectual apparatus necessary to understand the difference. I've heard no reasonable argument for why justice is beneficial, but I will propose one:

To reduce public unrest. But this is still basically saying that justice is a means to sate the thirst of vengeance in the masses. Otherwise you get people killing random people thinking they're Casey Anthony because they're so emotionally disturbed that there's no "justice" (i.e. sating of the thirst for vengeance).

It appears to me that the judicial branch's current goal is to mitigate vengeance in a controlled way to reduce the apparent alternative: "street justice" (i.e., uncontrolled vengeance).

The only people who actually have an effective approach to preventing crime are parents, teachers, and philanthropists who recognize how important childhood development is, not just for your own kids, but for your friend's and enemy's kids too.

 

[Jack21222]

Well, let's bring Breivik into this. No question of his guilt, no question of his premeditation, no question about his cold blooded killing method. Improbablbe that someone this demented can be rehabilitated. No question that a sentence to a Norwegian prison spa is too much a reward for what he's done. No question that the death penalty is too good for him.

There have been innocent people freed from death row where the jury was just as 100% convinced about their guilt as you are about Breivik's.

That's the only reason I need to vehemently oppose the death penalty. I'd rather keep every single murderer in jail for the rest of their lives than kill one innocent.

 

[Evo]

There have been innocent people freed from death row where the jury was just as 100% convinced about their guilt as you are about Breivik's.

That's the only reason I need to vehemently oppose the death penalty. I'd rather keep every single murderer in jail for the rest of their lives than kill one innocent.

You have doubts of Brievik's guilt?

 

[Jack21222]

You have doubts of Brievik's guilt?

How the heck did you get that out of my post?

 

[Evo]

How the heck did you get that out of my post?

From this

There have been innocent people freed from death row where the jury was just as 100% convinced about their guilt as you are about Breivik's.

 

[flyingpig]

Yes we should, kill them all! HAHAHAH

The government is already killing innocent people, let's take advantage.

 

[Jack21222]

From this

I still don't see how that follows.

Of all of the innocents that were released from death row (or from a charge that would have carried the death penalty had it been an option), do you think that none of the juries were 100% convinced that the person was guilty?

I can't think of a less clumsy way to phrase that, so I hope you can parse that previous paragraph correctly. Perhaps an example would be appropriate.

Do you think the jury in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gell" in the United States that were exonerated? Do you think any of them were 100% sure of the suspect's guilt?

I am 100% sure Brievik is guilty. I'm sure at least one of the juries that convicted those 139 innocents were also 100% that the defendant was guilty.

I cannot devise a system to differentiate between a case like Brievik and a case like Alan Gell. Can you?

 

[Evo]

I still don't see how that follows.

Of all of the innocents that were released from death row (or from a charge that would have carried the death penalty had it been an option), do you think that none of the juries were 100% convinced that the person was guilty?

I can't think of a less clumsy way to phrase that, so I hope you can parse that previous paragraph correctly. Perhaps an example would be appropriate.

Do you think the jury in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gell" in the United States that were exonerated? Do you think any of them were 100% sure of the suspect's guilt?

I am 100% sure Brievik is guilty. I'm sure at least one of the juries that convicted those 139 innocents were also 100% that the defendant was guilty.

I cannot devise a system to differentiate between a case like Brievik and a case like Alan Gell. Can you?

Circumstantial evidence isn't 100% sure. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The cases aren't even remotely similar.

 

[Jack21222]

Circumstantial evidence isn't 100% sure. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The cases aren't even remotely similar.

Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Bloodsworth" then.

If you have no idea what point I'm trying to make, that's your problem, not mine. I've taken great pains to be very clear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point seems clear to me

I cannot devise a system to differentiate between a case like Brievik and a case like Alan Gell. Can you?

It is one thing to argue about one particular crime or another, but the problem of creating a law to cover all situations is another matter.

How should a law read so that it would only apply is cases of certainty; and certainty according to whom? How do we legally distinguish between strong evidence, and relative certainty?

 

[Evo]

It is one thing to argue about one particular crime or another, but the problem of creating a law to cover all situations is another matter.

How should a law read so that it would only apply is cases of certainty; and certainty according to whom? How do we legally distinguish between strong evidence, and relative certainty?

As for me, I have said before that I am only for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt. It can't be having the finger pointed by someone, it can't be circumstantial, so it would be very rare.

And it would have to be heinous, pre-meditated murder. Not a battered wife snapping, never for a crime that wasn't murder, etc... I merely state a personal opinion and you keep going "so how would go about making this law, yada, yada? I haven't said anything about creating laws. If and when I do, then you can ask me for specifics.

If that's not clear enough, it would be this scenario "if there was a death penalty, and if I saw the details, and if I was asked if I thought that case deserved the death penalty, it would depend on what they used for evidence to find the person guilty of murder", not that my opinion would matter.

 

[Bobbywhy]

I contribute this to our discussion:

Thirteen reasons Against Death Penalty:

1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
2. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
3. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
4. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
5. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
7. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
8. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
9. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
11. Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
13. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

Nine reasons in favor of the Death Penalty:

1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.
2. It creates another form of crime deterrent.
3. Justice is better served.
4. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.
5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.
6. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.
7. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.
8. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.
9. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

From http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm

I will post my personal view later.

 

[ThomasT]

Its my first time posting in this part of the PF, so just thought I’d say hello!

Hello and welcome to these parts.

I don't know if it is just me, but it seems that I am reading more and more about brutal and premeditated murders in today’s society.

The latest one, about a boy who murdered his girlfriend of a ‘free breakfast’ was probably one of the most brutal and upsetting I’d read in a while, particularly as I have a daughter her age.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-joshua-davies-is-pure-evil-115875-23391730/"

Wow, he got a whole 14 years.

Where there is clear evidence of such a premeditated act, I can’t see any reason why this person should not be put to death.

Nor can I.

I don’t really believe the death penalty is a deterrent ...

How would we know if it was a deterrent? It's certainly true that it can't be a deterrent if it isn't used. It's also certain that it's a deterrent to those upon whom it's inflicted.

... but I do think the punishment should fit the crime ...

It's hard to say what that means. Better, I think, to realize that we're not capable of rehabilitating people, of predictably changing a convicted felon's attitude(s). They might change for the better, but we have no way of engineering that change and no way to ascertain if it has happened.

... and that death penalty would also save a lot of tax payer’s money in keeping someone ‘comfortably’ in some prison for life.

Logically, from the standpoint of societal order, control, and efficiency, if we're going to keep someone in prison for life, then we might as well kill them once their valid appeals have been exhausted.

I know some may argue that we have a duty to rehabilitate ...

That's an empty argument as long as we're unable to determine if someone has been rehabilitated.

The status quo now is that prisons go through some motions under the auspices of 'rehabilitation' without the slightest idea of whether or not those programs are actually rehabilitating anyone. Hence, a rather high rate of return wrt many sorts of felonies.

Prisons are full of people doing life sentences on the installment plan.

... but to me that ‘right’ is lost when one commits such a heinous crime.

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

 

[Evo]

Hello and welcome to these parts.

Wow, he got a whole 14 years.

Nor can I.


How would we know if it was a deterrent? It's certainly true that it can't be a deterrent if it isn't used. It's also certain that it's a deterrent to those upon whom it's inflicted.

It's hard to say what that means. Better, I think, to realize that we're not capable of rehabilitating people, of predictably changing a convicted felon's attitude(s). They might change for the better, but we have no way of engineering that change and no way to ascertain if it has happened.

Logically, from the standpoint of societal order, control, and efficiency, if we're going to keep someone in prison for life, then we might as well kill them once their valid appeals have been exhausted.

That's an empty argument as long as we're unable to determine if someone has been rehabilitated.

The status quo now is that prisons go through some motions under the auspices of 'rehabilitation' without the slightest idea of whether or not those programs are actually rehabilitating anyone. Hence, a rather high rate of return wrt many sorts of felonies.

Prisons are full of people doing life sentences on the installment plan.

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

Excellent post. I don't believe in killing even all muderous felons. I hate to admit that I think it's not a punishment, they simply go to sleep, then oblivion. They might have tortured, terrorized, and killed their victims in unimaginably horrific ways, yet they just get to go to sleep.

Maybe I am a terrible person, but as I have said, people close to me were murdered.

 

[Jack21222]

As for me, I have said before that I am only for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt. It can't be having the finger pointed by someone, it can't be circumstantial, so it would be very rare.

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

 

[Evo]

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

Never said it doesn't happen and never said I had a plan to stop it. Why on Earth are you adressing these things to me? Reading comprehension problem?

 

[rede96]

Hello and welcome to these parts.

Thank you.

Just to cover some of the good points you raised...

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

True, but I was only considering just one type for the purpose of this post and that was premeditated murder. Mainly because I do not think it is possible to have one system that works in all cases for all crimes.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Again, for me the criteria is simple. Any case where premeditated murder is known beyond any reasonable doubt.

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

But what is 'right' and 'wrong', other than what individuals or societies define?

I would argue that there is no such natural concept as right and wrong other than what the powers that be define.

So we can decide very easily that the ‘right’ thing to do is to look at the problem from the standpoint of the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals.

Also, without going too deep just what is ‘individual freedom’? For me this concept does not exist if you are living as part of any society. Whether explicit or implied, there are rules that one agrees to adhere to by living as part of any society. So I would suggest that one is only ‘free’ to live within these constraints.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Although that is another good point I think the issues of how we administrate legislation is a different problem than the one being discussed. So I'll politely ignore that point for now

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

I would argue we do have the capability to decide who lives and who dies. Governments are doing it daily. Just look at all that has happened in Iraq, Syria, etc. Many innocent people have been killed in the name of our ‘fight on terror’.

So I think the issue comes down to how we justify making the decision. And being my cynical self, this often comes down to what governments think they can get away without jeopardizing the next election campaign.

Anyway, some good points to consider, thanks. But for me I have read nothing so far that would convince me that we should not have the death penalty for clear cases of premeditated murder. Nor that this would not be more beneficial to society in the long run.

 

[rede96]

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

I would agree, however we are not talking about all cases. Just the ones where there is no doubt. The two cases mentioned in this thread are good examples. Proven serial killers, people caught in the act, people who admit their crimes would be other examples.

So I am not suggestion that every murder should or could lead to the death penalty nor that some guilty people would get off with lighter sentences.

 

[rede96]

The point seems clear to me

It is one thing to argue about one particular crime or another, but the problem of creating a law to cover all situations is another matter.

How should a law read so that it would only apply is cases of certainty; and certainty according to whom? How do we legally distinguish between strong evidence, and relative certainty?

I would suggest by the fact the Brievik was caught on tape, identified by scores of people, was caught at the scene and admitted his guilt.

I don't think there is any discussion of guilt here.

 

[rede96]

As for me, I have said before that I am only for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt. It can't be having the finger pointed by someone, it can't be circumstantial, so it would be very rare.

And it would have to be heinous, pre-meditated murder. Not a battered wife snapping, never for a crime that wasn't murder, etc... I merely state a personal opinion and you keep going "so how would go about making this law, yada, yada? I haven't said anything about creating laws. If and when I do, then you can ask me for specifics.

If that's not clear enough, it would be this scenario "if there was a death penalty, and if I saw the details, and if I was asked if I thought that case deserved the death penalty, it would depend on what they used for evidence to find the person guilty of murder", not that my opinion would matter.

I thought that was perfectly clear. So I would say that there are two types of 'guilt' we are talking about here.

1) Where guilt is beyond doubt. (e.g. caught in the act or admitted to it with supporting evidence.)

2) Where guilt needs to proven though trial.

I didn't see #2) leading to the death penalty, although I think there may be cases where the evidence is so over whelming that it might be?

 

[Jack21222]

Never said it doesn't happen and never said I had a plan to stop it. Why on Earth are you adressing these things to me? Reading comprehension problem?

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent. I'm addressing these things to you because you seem to be arguing that we should have the death penalty for cases like Brievik's. It's a natural follow-up question to ask how you think it can be implemented without killing innocent people.

I thought that was perfectly clear. So I would say that there are two types of 'guilt' we are talking about here.

1) Where guilt is beyond doubt. (e.g. caught in the act or admitted to it with supporting evidence.)

2) Where guilt needs to proven though trial.

I didn't see #2) leading to the death penalty, although I think there may be cases where the evidence is so over whelming that it might be?

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

 

[MarcoD]

Well, then I guess I don't believe in punishment But I'm sure everybody will disagree with me here...

I don't believe in punishment either. And I am pretty hard-core on that too.

 

[arildno]

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

 

[Jack21222]

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

You live in a country that doesn't even have regular life imprisonment, let alone the death penalty. I live in a country where innocent people are sentenced to death. It seems like every year we hear of another case where an innocent person was released from death row.

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

 

[MarcoD]

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

The question is whether the public, or individuals hurt have any right to vengeance.

The Sharia has the 'eye-for-an-eye' principle, which leads to interesting cases. For example:

A woman who was thrown acid into her face by a man pleaded at a Sharia court that on basis of that principle, she had the right to do similar. The court subsequently, after a readmission, agreed that she had that right, and she was allowed to trickle acid into one of the eyes of the convict (in a hospital after local sedation). The woman, after some months, waived that right.

Interesting, no?

EDIT: What is even more interesting is that anti-Islam populists in my country, actually want laws which are more into accordance with Sharia than our traditional law.

 

[rede96]

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

Well there is an interesting thought... No that was not what I meant, sorry my bad. (Although I’d obviously prejudged him in my own mind.)

I was trying to make a distinction between knowing guilt and having to prove guilt, which I admit needs a bit more thought on my part.

I think arildno summarised it better here:

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

 

[rede96]

I don't believe in punishment either. And I am pretty hard-core on that too.

So do you believe that there should be no consequences for breaking the law?

 

[Evo]

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent. I'm addressing these things to you because you seem to be arguing that we should have the death penalty for cases like Brievik's. It's a natural follow-up question to ask how you think it can be implemented without killing innocent people.

Are you unaware that we have the death penalty in 35 states in the US right now? In those 35 states whether to go for the death penalty is an option on any first degree murder conviction. It is not always requested. That's the real world.

The UK does not have the death penalty, and seems doubtful they will bring it back.

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

What the heck are you talking about? Are you aware that the death penalty is a sentence not a conviction. Do you know that a sentence comes AFTER the conviction?

 

[MarcoD]

So do you believe that there should be no consequences for breaking the law?

No, but there's the question about the right for individual, or public, vengeance. Our judicial system evolved out of the 'witch hunt,' i.e., it was largely fueled by human emotions - primarily existential fears and vengeance.

I think people, the ones hurt - not the public, have a limited right to vengeance [not 'eye-for-an-eye'], and justice takes that into account, and there is the case that retribution has an educational effect, but other than that, I don't believe in punishment as the guiding underlying principle of justice.

EDIT: It's actually interesting that Gaddafi thought that law isn't necessary since he was a firm believer in traditions and the 'emergence of the free will of the people'. I found that a fallacy, it leads to a medieval form of anarchy. I.e., you're never sure of anything, and for some reason, you might end up being shot for stealing an apple (or worse, have been thought of stealing an apple). [Though I have no idea how justice actually worked in Libya.]

 

[MarcoD]

You live in a country that doesn't even have regular life imprisonment, let alone the death penalty. I live in a country where innocent people are sentenced to death. It seems like every year we hear of another case where an innocent person was released from death row.

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

Well, to be honest, he can. I might not agree with him, but that would be his democratic right.

It is actually a case where I don't know whether some 'superior' humanist moral principle should outweigh democracy, but I nudge to democracy here. (Apart from that, I'll also admit that I just don't care about what happens to the dude.)

Thing is you could also look at what the consequences to society would be if the death penalty would have been in place.

The man turned himself into the police. I find him an idiot and a coward for that, but I sometimes also wonder whether he isn't just mocking the Norway judicial system there. (The guy thought everything through, why no that?)

Question is: Would he not have committed his crimes this way, or would he have fought himself to death with more human cost?

I think he would have done similar but just not have made himself public. (I.e., more bombs - no shooting.)

Another question: What if you introduce the death penalty. Will that, on a long run, cost more human lives? (We have all seen the US movies where criminals are pretty certain of the law, and just continue shooting after their (2nd, not sure) murder.

The cost of capital punishment doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits. But I might be mistaken.

 

[Willowz]

I doubt Norway will go bankrupt over holding Brevik in jail.

 

[Jack21222]

Are you unaware that we have the death penalty in 35 states in the US right now? In those 35 states whether to go for the death penalty is an option on any first degree murder conviction. It is not always requested. That's the real world.

The UK does not have the death penalty, and seems doubtful they will bring it back.

What the heck are you talking about? Are you aware that the death penalty is a sentence not a conviction. Do you know that a sentence comes AFTER the conviction?

Evo. You're making no sense in this thread. You usually make pretty clear arguments, but here, the things you're saying seem to have no connection to the things I'm saying.

Everybody else, even if they disagree with me, seems to at least understand my points.

What in my post lead you to believe that I thought there was no death penalty in the US?