It's not because the vast majority of us do value our lives above all else, even murderers. Once you have been consigned to oblivion for all eternity there's no way back, and that is something we all fear at a base level. Self-preservation is probably our most primal instinct. It's the ultimate punishment. There's a quote Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven that sums it up for me:-
"Hell of a thing killing a man. Take away everything he's got, and everything he's gonna have"
It's not because the vast majority of us do value our lives above all else, even murderers. Once you have been consigned to oblivion for all eternity there's no way back, and that is something we all fear at a base level. Self-preservation is probably our most primal instinct. It's the ultimate punishment. There's a quote Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven that sums it up for me:-
"Hell of a thing killing a man. Take away everything he's got, and everything he's gonna have"
The only surprise here is that the Clint Eastwood film you've quoted from isn't a Dirty Harry movie.
Those with religious faith wouldn't believe you take away everything he's going to have.
To lose one innocent AND 999 sick , depraved murderers seems like a good deal in my view.
That's a very cold hearted way to look at it. You cannot, cannot love someone and then not mind that they were the 'odd mistake' when the guilty one was still walking free.
who was? I can give you a few examples where police made up evidence and tortured people to get a conviction just to keep the press and public of their backs yet when the convicted people were released the corrupt police officers walked away with not as much as a slap on the wrist, thankfully the death penalty was not in place at the time.
That's the disgusting bit in your post. They ruin an innocent man's life through corrupted ways and yet go on living their lives as normal.
It would force more diligence in prosecution if the outcome was know to be terminal - as is evidenced in the USA where death row cases have more money and time spent on them and require a greater level of certainty - thus resulting in fewer miscarriages of justice.
Additionally I think it is more humane to peacefully end the life of a person than it is to lock them away from society forever. You have only to look at the number of instances where those wrongly locked up for life and later released have taken their own lives.
It also completely removes the chance of re-offending.
And finally, I will posit that we DO have the death sentence currently - just not for our own criminals. We are quite happy to bomb foreign terrorists, or dispatch our armed forces to kill them.
And to those who say we can't bring it back I remind them that the laws preventing us from doing so were put in place by politicians and can just as easily be changed by politicians.
First go and see one done and then say the same thing , when we hung people I had the misfortune to attend three and it is not nice
While I agree it's probably not a nice thing to see I am sure there are plenty who would happily do it.
Working in a slaughter house is probably worse but plenty do it. We have 200K soldiers in the British Armed forces - even though war is not particularly pleasant.
There will always be people who are happy to serve their countries needs regardless of how unpleasant it may be.
The poster you replied to may, or may not be one of them - but I wouldn't make a judgement on a single post.
It would force more diligence in prosecution if the outcome was know to be terminal - as is evidenced in the USA where death row cases have more money and time spent on them and require a greater level of certainty - thus resulting in fewer miscarriages of justice.
Additionally I think it is more humane to peacefully end the life of a person than it is to lock them away from society forever. You have only to look at the number of instances where those wrongly locked up for life and later released have taken their own lives.
It also completely removes the chance of re-offending.
And finally, I will posit that we DO have the death sentence currently - just not for our own criminals. We are quite happy to bomb foreign terrorists, or dispatch our armed forces to kill them.
And to those who say we can't bring it back I remind them that the laws preventing us from doing so were put in place by politicians and can just as easily be changed by politicians.
That's actually the opposite of what happens.
One aspect that increases innocent people being convicted is plea bargaining. There have been numerous instances of suspects directly involved in murders pointing the finger at someone else - like an accomplice who only drove the car - and testifying against them to get a custodial sentence for themselves and the death penalty for the accomplice.
You're also predominantly more likely to put to death if your skin is black rather than white and you're poor. Lawyers appointed to death row cases have frequently found to have been incredibly lax in doing even basic work in defending their clients.
Why? I would be overjoyed at ridding this planet of people like Ian Huntley, Stuart Sutcliffe, Ian Brady etc...
I'd consider it an honor, to be honest.
Scum who break in to old ladies homes and rape and burgle them should not be allowed to breathe oxygen and I would be happy to see them off this planet.
One aspect that increases innocent people being convicted is plea bargaining. There have been numerous instances of suspects directly involved in murders pointing the finger at someone else - like an accomplice who only drove the car - and testifying against them to get a custodial sentence for themselves and the death penalty for the accomplice.
You're also predominantly more likely to put to death if your skin is black rather than white and you're poor. Lawyers appointed to death row cases have frequently found to have been incredibly lax in doing even basic work in defending their clients.
I've posted this before, but these threads happen a lot, so apologies to those who have seen this already...
Doing my family history I found this very thing, a scenario very similar to the 1950's 'Let Him Have It' case, happened to two of my great great uncles.
One of them set light to some buildings, in the 1840s. No-one died but some livestock were killed. The one who physically held the match in his hand, turned Queen's Evidence and got off scot free. The one who was with him, but not holding the match and who didn't start the fires but was seen as the older and more intelligent one, therefore the initiator - got a death sentence.
Both were teenage boys but the one who was to be hung lied about his age, telling the prison and courts he was 19 when in fact he was only 17.
The judge had tears rolling down his face when he gave the death sentence on my ancestor. But he said there was "no hope of mercy" because incendiarism had just been made into a capital offence.
But luckily for my grt grt uncle, he committed the crime in the final quarter of the year and at xmas, there were always a few commutations of death sentence. His sentence was commuted to transportation. He spent the rest of his life in Tasmania. The other one, the one who actually committed the crime, went home and continued on with his life.
I am talking the 1840s, not the 1950s - but the newspapers were up in arms, pleading for an end to the death sentence. The judge himself said the lad was 'godless' and uneducated so it should be society's fault, not his. It took an hundred more years to happen, but as early as the 1840s many, many people were already finding death sentences arcane and barbaric.
Look at the countries in the world who still execute their own citizens and draw your own conclusions about whether these are advanced societies.
ETA: The story had a happy ending as the families stayed in the same area and my grandmother - whose uncle had been the incendiarist - married my grandad - whose sister married the son of the victims' family.:D
Ha, yeah I did realise that. I was trying to do five things at once when I typed that post. I did mean Peter Sutcliffe, though some people on this thread took it that I did not know what or who I was talking about.
First go and see one done and then say the same thing , when we hung people I had the misfortune to attend three and it is not nice
Gladly. I would expect to have to witness an execution or two before I was allowed to carry one out.
Though hanging is not nice, I would prefer to see the electric chair brought in.
The criminals I would execute would be the most horrific people in society who had no care or thought for their victims and the fear, pain and terror they put them through so why should I care how these criminals feel?
It would force more diligence in prosecution if the outcome was know to be terminal - as is evidenced in the USA where death row cases have more money and time spent on them and require a greater level of certainty - thus resulting in fewer miscarriages of justice.
The dozen or so sentenced to death in Illinois, after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence available at the time, who were later found to be innocent, may well disagree with that statement.
Comments
It's not because the vast majority of us do value our lives above all else, even murderers. Once you have been consigned to oblivion for all eternity there's no way back, and that is something we all fear at a base level. Self-preservation is probably our most primal instinct. It's the ultimate punishment. There's a quote Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven that sums it up for me:-
"Hell of a thing killing a man. Take away everything he's got, and everything he's gonna have"
Those with religious faith wouldn't believe you take away everything he's going to have.
That's a very cold hearted way to look at it. You cannot, cannot love someone and then not mind that they were the 'odd mistake' when the guilty one was still walking free.
DNA is not 100% proof. It's only an extremely high possibility that they committed the crime. There's a tiny percentage that it wasn't them.
That's the disgusting bit in your post. They ruin an innocent man's life through corrupted ways and yet go on living their lives as normal.
It would force more diligence in prosecution if the outcome was know to be terminal - as is evidenced in the USA where death row cases have more money and time spent on them and require a greater level of certainty - thus resulting in fewer miscarriages of justice.
Additionally I think it is more humane to peacefully end the life of a person than it is to lock them away from society forever. You have only to look at the number of instances where those wrongly locked up for life and later released have taken their own lives.
It also completely removes the chance of re-offending.
And finally, I will posit that we DO have the death sentence currently - just not for our own criminals. We are quite happy to bomb foreign terrorists, or dispatch our armed forces to kill them.
And to those who say we can't bring it back I remind them that the laws preventing us from doing so were put in place by politicians and can just as easily be changed by politicians.
First go and see one done and then say the same thing , when we hung people I had the misfortune to attend three and it is not nice
Why did you have to attend three?
While I agree it's probably not a nice thing to see I am sure there are plenty who would happily do it.
Working in a slaughter house is probably worse but plenty do it. We have 200K soldiers in the British Armed forces - even though war is not particularly pleasant.
There will always be people who are happy to serve their countries needs regardless of how unpleasant it may be.
The poster you replied to may, or may not be one of them - but I wouldn't make a judgement on a single post.
Ah right. So they made you witness it? That's a bit horrible.
One aspect that increases innocent people being convicted is plea bargaining. There have been numerous instances of suspects directly involved in murders pointing the finger at someone else - like an accomplice who only drove the car - and testifying against them to get a custodial sentence for themselves and the death penalty for the accomplice.
You're also predominantly more likely to put to death if your skin is black rather than white and you're poor. Lawyers appointed to death row cases have frequently found to have been incredibly lax in doing even basic work in defending their clients.
I'd volunteer to do it.
Got one of the first 3 executions a little wrong.
Doing my family history I found this very thing, a scenario very similar to the 1950's 'Let Him Have It' case, happened to two of my great great uncles.
One of them set light to some buildings, in the 1840s. No-one died but some livestock were killed. The one who physically held the match in his hand, turned Queen's Evidence and got off scot free. The one who was with him, but not holding the match and who didn't start the fires but was seen as the older and more intelligent one, therefore the initiator - got a death sentence.
Both were teenage boys but the one who was to be hung lied about his age, telling the prison and courts he was 19 when in fact he was only 17.
The judge had tears rolling down his face when he gave the death sentence on my ancestor. But he said there was "no hope of mercy" because incendiarism had just been made into a capital offence.
But luckily for my grt grt uncle, he committed the crime in the final quarter of the year and at xmas, there were always a few commutations of death sentence. His sentence was commuted to transportation. He spent the rest of his life in Tasmania. The other one, the one who actually committed the crime, went home and continued on with his life.
I am talking the 1840s, not the 1950s - but the newspapers were up in arms, pleading for an end to the death sentence. The judge himself said the lad was 'godless' and uneducated so it should be society's fault, not his. It took an hundred more years to happen, but as early as the 1840s many, many people were already finding death sentences arcane and barbaric.
Look at the countries in the world who still execute their own citizens and draw your own conclusions about whether these are advanced societies.
ETA: The story had a happy ending as the families stayed in the same area and my grandmother - whose uncle had been the incendiarist - married my grandad - whose sister married the son of the victims' family.:D
Ha, yeah I did realise that. I was trying to do five things at once when I typed that post. I did mean Peter Sutcliffe, though some people on this thread took it that I did not know what or who I was talking about.
they dont. thats a ridiculously over the top extreme conclusion youre jumping to just because we dont agree that killing criminals is the answer.
Gladly. I would expect to have to witness an execution or two before I was allowed to carry one out.
Though hanging is not nice, I would prefer to see the electric chair brought in.
The criminals I would execute would be the most horrific people in society who had no care or thought for their victims and the fear, pain and terror they put them through so why should I care how these criminals feel?
Precisely. I think there's quite a bit of bravado going on at times in this thread.
The dozen or so sentenced to death in Illinois, after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence available at the time, who were later found to be innocent, may well disagree with that statement.
The mistake you're making is believing that nonsense to be true.
Julie68 says the same type of thing every time.
If you don't agree with the death penalty then you support murders, child killers, rapists and such like.
Completely lazy argument, lazy debating and a completely ridiculous conclusion to come to, but she does it in every thread.
But clearly not as horrifying as throwing acid over a innocent young woman .