Do You Support the Death Penalty? (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

my mum made an interesting point today, on the issue of how they try make it so the executionors dont know which one has actually done it. if the people actually doing executions need that kind of peace of mind, should they even be doing it in the first place?
i would be interested to see how many juries gave the death penalty if the actual jury themselves actually had to administer it.

That's a pretty flawed argument, Alex. Would you eat beef if you had to kill it? What about chicken? Would you wear clothes if you had to make them? Would you drive if you had to capture a bunch of Asian kids to construct it for you?

(No, no, yes (but you'd do a shit job) and no, I'd imagine...)

Also, note that we wouldn't have one juror - how would you propose that 12 different people kill a person 12 times? I doubt that would work out. Also, you'll note that jurors are a general sample of our moralistic population - they've never been trained to cope with that kind of guilt. Since our society condemns killing and the jurors are killing someone, they'd be ridden with guilt. Note that our customary laws of killing=bad is a premise which should just be left for the moment.

Like you said: nowadays, they do try, primarily, to stop an executioner from knowing whether he killed someone for reasons of guilt.

I'd doubt that that's actually the ONLY reason, otherwise, why would we have had such a great history full of mob-lynchings and decapitations, where the actual killer is certainly known??

Like I said, it's a function of modern times and allowed a person (a soldier, when firing-squads were first invented) to say to his colleagues 'I didn't kill him, the institution did' in EXACTLY the same way that a judge can say 'I didn't put him to gaol, the institution did'. This mechanism also gives judges/jurors/firing squad members the right to a certain safety - what could they have done, anyway?

Judge-figures have tough decisions to make, and I'd guarantee that a lot of them knew they'd made the morally wrong decision, but had to uphold whatever principles.

Also, there's the matter of perspective - I doubt vengeance killers in places like the Near East are struck with a pang of guilt. In that case, does the fact that they have 'peace of mind' make it right?

 

[towny]

why should they be free from guilt, they killed some1, they should feel guilty, if jurors arent prepared to accept liability, then they shouldnt impose such a cruel punishment

 

[davin]

they didn't kill someone, though. or do you feel that jurors should feel guilty for any punishment they carry out, be it imprisoning someone or fining them or what not?

 

[volition]

I don't really see where this problem with the jury is coming from... The jury doesn't decide the penalty, its the judge isn't it? The jury members just have to decide guilty/not guilty. They shouldn't be feeling bad about delivering a guilty verdict if they actually thought the guy was guilty.

They aren't supposed to think "oh if i say he's guilty the judge might send him to gaol" are they?

 

[davin]

well, example being american system, where first they decide guilt, and then there is a second sentencing phase where they decide the punishment

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yeah but the jury in Australia im pretty sure doesnt pass sentencing only verdict. So technically they should be thinking about the possible sentence when they give their verdict but its inevitable that if we had capital punishment they would.

 

[xeuyrawp]

why should they be free from guilt, they killed some1, they should feel guilty, if jurors arent prepared to accept liability, then they shouldnt impose such a cruel punishment

That's the point, Alex. Judge-figures sometimes have to make decisions despite them feeling guilty.

For example, a mother and a father in a court battle over custody. The father wins because of some legal technicality. The father is shown to be abusive and an alcoholic, yet the lawyers find something wrong with the mother's case. Oh noes! Despite the judge's moral beliefs, he has to act within his place as a legal institution, not his (fickle, subjective, whimsicle) place within society. The law will be shown to be abusable, and the system will move on. The judge can't say 'well, this law doesn't work, sorry, father' because law > judge.

If you'd suggest that morality should be allowed to influence law in such a basic way, I'd tell you to go back to the stone age with the other non-positivists and non-formalists.

Are you suggesting that ONLY jurors in capital punishment cases feel guilt? If not, where do you draw the line, Alex? 'Well, this lady's crying. The punishment isn't just' 'This lady here is only blinking a lot. It's a just law.'

An alternate example: The father and mother are actually both equally meritorious. You decide in favour of the mother, because you come to the arbitrary decision through your legal reasoning. As you enter into the court, the father breaks down and you feel bad.

Obviously you would then find in favour of the father, wouldn't you! If you're feeling bad, you're wrong, right? Wrong.

Also note that judge-figures should not have to accept liability for the freaking obvious reason of retaliation, influence, etc, etc. Hence, judges and jurors aren't scrutinised or at all held accountable.

edit: Also note that no single juror 'killed someone' (are they supposed to say 'well, I only did 1/12 of the damage. I'll only let my guilt run at 1/12...') - in fact, none of the jurors 'killed someone' - the state killed them. Remember that jurors are selected to represent and act for the state.

 

[Adam1987]

Despite what many think, solidary confinement for life is a greater punishment than death. It also prevents martyrs.

 

[dagwoman]

This is an issue that I really struggle with. On one hand, I don't believe in "an eye for an eye", nor do I believe anyone has the right to determine whether a person lives or is killed. On the other hand, there are cases where there are individuals who have done hideous crimes and will never be rehabilitated. Also, I know if someone killed my siblings or children or parents, I would probably want them dead.

There is also the point that execution is less expensive than tax-payers paying to keep people living in jail, however someone said execution is more expensive. I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, could someone give some evidence for this?

 

[P_Dilemma]

Yes, only in extreme cases.

Examples - Mass murder, immoral/unethical behaviour resulting in great loss (eg, paying 3rd-world workers extremely low wages, abusing them, etc), terrorism...

-P_D

 

[goony]

rofl i liked this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crushing_by_elephant

 

[Armani]

Does everyone feel guilty for every sin they have committed? Then what use does a life imprisonment have for a murderer who feels no remorse? What purpose does it serve to detain an existentialist when life is without meaning?

 

[dagwoman]

Cheers exphate. Just wondering, why is execution that expensive? What does that money go towards?

 

[Scanorama]

Cheers exphate. Just wondering, why is execution that expensive? What does that money go towards?

I guess most of the money goes to legal costs, the actual execution process is not that expensive.

 

[hazaar]

no never. the thought sickens me.

 

[ccc123]

Hmm. I've had this very debate with some of my friends and have discovered that this topic can be debated ad nauseum. The thing is, where you stand in this debate is determined by your mentality and how you think the judicial system should work. Should we adher to the adage 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'? Or is Capital Punishment, in fact, merely legalised murder? Can murder ever be justified? Or does no one but god himself have the right to take another person's life?

Quote: "It is better to let twenty guilty men run free then to punish one innocent man"

The thing with Capital Punishment, is that it would be devastating if the person was actually innocent. So how can it been ensured that a person is guilty? It is very difficult to have definative evidence these days; witness accounts are so often unreliable, ambiguous and misleading. Even evidence that was once considered rather conclusive, such a phototgraphic evidence, cas so easily be manipulated or even fabricated entirely with todays technology. So how can we ensure that a person is guilty? That clearly, is one potential flaw in Capital Punishment.

But on the other hand, lets try to empathise with the family of someone who has been brutally murdered. Put yourself in thir shoes. Would you not be repused by the person responsible for the demise of your loved one? Would you not want them dead? What if the murderer shows no remorse, but goes gets away with a slap on the wrist as the lawyer argued they were "temporarily insane"? How would you feel then?

Ultimately, there is no real solution to this debate. However, personally i feel that even with evidence agaist a defendant, without extracting genuine confession from the accused, we can almost never be sure that someone is gulity "beyond all resonable doubt". I believe that there is always a chance, albeit slim; that a terrible and irreversable mistake can be made with Capital punishment, and we just end up taking another innocent man's life. Hence, i am compelled to conclude, that Capital punishment can not have a place in our judicial system.

 

[wuddie]

honestly, i think the law should be tough and be implemented without the obstacle of human emotions, or sympathy. if a government has indicated that the death penalty applies in a specific circumstance, and it is written in black and white, then i think it is an effective punishment for the offenders.

laws are laws. how can we let our human emotions ruin the judiciary system? let me tell you an example that you might have heard of.

mid 2006, DIFA found an old chinese woman has been living in aust without a proper visa or residency document for the past eight years. accordingly, this lady should be deported back to china, where she came from. the twist came when this lady pleads that she's too old to fly and wants to stay here. when this story was leaked to the media and as the media always does, it beats up the story to get ratings, but the public has shown sympathy to the 100 year old woman, and the DIFA was pressured to grant this woman residency.

the point i am making with this example is that law can somehow be bent or ignored because an offender (in this case, the old woman) was deemed unfit to carry out this penalty. where is the justice? how can our federal laws, written down black and white, clear as glass, can be changed overnight because one particular person?

i know some of you might think to execute the penalty in this instance will be immoral, so is the death penalty. yes, taking one's life is never right, but make no mistake, the law is there to be obeyed by all, with NO exception. if one chooses to disobey the law, he/she has to pay for the consequences. if death is the consequence, so be it.

if you don't like the death penalty, live somewhere else where it doesnt have it. like here in aust

peace out

 

[Optophobia]

honestly, i think the law should be tough and be implemented without the obstacle of human emotions, or sympathy.

So you've never broken the law?
Would you like it if a police man was driving behind you EVERY time you drove? Writing out tickets EVERY time you did something wrong?
Are you saying you've never done a depraved disgusting act? Think of the most disgusting thing you have ever done. Now imagine it being shown on Today Tonight. Would you like to be shown no sympathy?

if a government has indicated that the death penalty applies in a specific circumstance, and it is written in black and white, then i think it is an effective punishment for the offenders.

Not everyone is a rational thinker. Your view on this issue is pre-19th century. It's known as classicism. Just because something is written in black in white doesn't mean that the law applies to all fairly. A tough law would see a shop lifter whipped and thrown into jail. What about if a homeless 13 year old steals?

laws are laws. how can we let our human emotions ruin the judiciary system?

The law is man. Its made by humans, it's run by humans. Why should it lose human qualities?

mid 2006, DIFA found an old chinese woman has been living in aust without a proper visa or residency document for the past eight years. accordingly, this lady should be deported back to china, where she came from. the twist came when this lady pleads that she's too old to fly and wants to stay here. when this story was leaked to the media and as the media always does, it beats up the story to get ratings, but the public has shown sympathy to the 100 year old woman, and the DIFA was pressured to grant this woman residency.

If she does not want to go back to China then why should she be forced to go? What difference does it make to you whether she is staying here in Australia or not?

the point i am making with this example is that law can somehow be bent or ignored because an offender (in this case, the old woman) was deemed unfit to carry out this penalty. where is the justice? how can our federal laws, written down black and white, clear as glass, can be changed overnight because one particular person?

The law wasn't changed. The administrative decision to deport her was changed to allow her to stay.

i know some of you might think to execute the penalty in this instance will be immoral, so is the death penalty. yes, taking one's life is never right, but make no mistake, the law is there to be obeyed by all, with NO exception. if one chooses to disobey the law, he/she has to pay for the consequences. if death is the consequence, so be it.

Absolute enforcement of the law is unattainable and undesirable. I know i've committed some crimes in my time, which, if observed in a court room would probably see me imprisoned. if you say the law should be so rigid then you can never commit an offence. And to do that you would have to be a nun living in a coventry or something.

 

[Optophobia]

However, personally i feel that even with evidence agaist a defendant, without extracting genuine confession from the accused, we can almost never be sure that someone is gulity "beyond all resonable doubt". I believe that there is always a chance, albeit slim; that a terrible and irreversable mistake can be made with Capital punishment, and we just end up taking another innocent man's life.

Even if the person is guilty of the crime, who are we to say that it is a crime worthy of the death penalty?

What is considered a crime in this country may not be considered a crime in others. Drug dealers are executed in south east asia, yet they are given a pat on the back in the Netherlands.

Men who kill adulterous women in Australia are jailed, in the middle east the law helps men kill the women. Society's values are always changing. A decision to kill someone cannot be undone.

What you consider today to be worthy of killing someone for cannot be ever classified as eternal.

Look at this:

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1690s/t16950828-53.html

This person was charged with being a homeless person. This occured in England on the 28th August, 1695.

The penalty you ask? DEATH!

And so, you can see the class based nature of what is considered crime as well.

Peter Lawman of the Parish of St. Mary Islington, was Indicted for Felony; for that he, being above the Age of 14 years, was seen to wander up and down, calling himself an Egyptian, from the 10th day of June last, to the 12th of June following . The Prisoner alledged for himself that he was a German, and no Egyptian; nor that he did say at any time he was an Egyptian; but the Evidence for the King being very positive against him, the Jury brought him in guilty of Felony.

Punishment Type: death

(An 'Egyptian' in England at that time, translates roughly to "Gypsy" today. 'Gypsy' meaning "without residence" or a place to stay).

 

[bshoc]

Optophobia, having read a few of your posts, you really make me fearful for the future of law enforcement in this country, lets hope you're a minority.