Thedelldays Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 But how can you (not you personally TDD - people in general) sit in their ivory towers saying murder is wrong. And then condone someone being murdered. Surely 'you' can see that's hypocritical at the very least? then why lock someone up like an animal then...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 then why lock someone up like an animal then...? Well, for a start, nobody should be locked up 'like an animal'. People found guilty of heinous crimes should be deprived of their freedom for the set time and that time should be used to re-educate them, both in life skills and to help them understand the enormity of what they'e done. If they can't understand that what they've done is wrong, then they're probably mentally ill and should be hospitalised (albeit in a place like Broadmoor or Rampton) until they're cured or until they die - for the safety of others. People guilty of less serious crimes shouldn't be locked up (I'm thinking fraud, theft etc) but should be subject to properly controlled community orders. If they're put in prison, the chances are they'll learn how to commit further crimes. But. whatever the crime, there is a possibility of release if either a) doubts are raised about the soundness of the conviction or b) if it can be shown that they have genuinely changed their ways. Murder them and there's no way back for the innocent (thinking of the guy who 'confessed' to killing the barmaid in Southampton all those years ago when he hadn't done it). And murdering them is sinking to their level after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 Well, for a start, nobody should be locked up 'like an animal'. People found guilty of heinous crimes should be deprived of their freedom for the set time and that time should be used to re-educate them, both in life skills and to help them understand the enormity of what they'e done. If they can't understand that what they've done is wrong, then they're probably mentally ill and should be hospitalised (albeit in a place like Broadmoor or Rampton) until they're cured or until they die - for the safety of others. People guilty of less serious crimes shouldn't be locked up (I'm thinking fraud, theft etc) but should be subject to properly controlled community orders. If they're put in prison, the chances are they'll learn how to commit further crimes. But. whatever the crime, there is a possibility of release if either a) doubts are raised about the soundness of the conviction or b) if it can be shown that they have genuinely changed their ways. Murder them and there's no way back for the innocent (thinking of the guy who 'confessed' to killing the barmaid in Southampton all those years ago when he hadn't done it). And murdering them is sinking to their level after all. so, lock em up, drug them if they are mental and maybe some time in solitary till they die.. very humane as for the guy who confessed..what an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 (edited) I do not doubt that gang warefare reflects a large proportion on murders in the US. But look at the states which do not have the death penalty. Vermont makes maple syrup, Maine catch lobsters, Haiwaiians surf, Alaskans **** moose. Yes I am being tongue in cheek, but my point is these places are just so far removed from the ghettos in DC and Detroit that you cannot draw comparisons in this instance. I know my experiment, which is why we could probably argue until the cows come home and never agree. That would however be the only fair way of comparing the situations. To remove all other variables. One final point from my. Can you honestly say 100% that the death penalty has never put ANYONE off commiting murder. If it has, just once, it is a deterant. If that one person who was saved from murder happened to be someone in your family, then you might feel differently. I'm not trivialising her point. This is just my POV. My POV is that murder is wrong and if it can be proved beyond all doubt then death should be the consequence. Murder is a choice. If you chose to murder, you must accept the consequences. You are, indirectly, chosing to die. Why is it morally wrong to kill someone who choses to die? I've never been able to master the multi-quote thingy, so bear with me, if you don't mind. First off, Washington DC does not have the death penalty. Having just worked in the South Bronx, let me also tell you that not all of New York City has been Disneyfied - the Bronx is still officially listed as the toughest set of precincts in the US. New Jersey does not have the death penalty. There are plenty of cities in NJ which fall under the heading of 'no picnic'. New Mexico this year abolished the death penalty. And Massachusetts, which includes some pretty violently gun-ridden cities, does not have the death penalty. Of those that do, two - New Hampshire and Kansas - have not sent anyone to the gas chamber (or whatever delectable method is the choice du jour) since the death penalty was re-allowed by the US Supreme Court in 1976.. So you see your division of milk-and-honey states with no death penalty versus violent-mayhem states with it just doesn't hold up. In a way, I'm not worried one way or the other whether you agree; I'm just telling you the facts. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty in the US is a deterrent. However much you state your opinion, you haven't offered any statistics that decisively or even remotely support your position. You can and will of course continue to believe what you will. I don't need to say that I am 100% sure that the prospect of the death penalty has never deterred anyone from killing - I'm saying that when you look at the evidence, the numbers as a whole say that's not the case. The fact that you could find some near-murderer to say he hesitated doesn't alter the fact that the number of families grieving for the loss of their brothers, mothers, sisters or fathers won't be less. In fact, it seems you are MORE likely to be a murder victim in a state with the death penalty. Isn't that horrifying? And doesn't that make you stop and think - that maybe, just maybe, the death penalty is actually an integral part of the degradation of life in those states like Texas which fry people with such enthusiasm? So if you apply your own test, shouldn't you revise your opposition to the death penalty? Because the figures tell the story as clear as day that there are more grieving families in states with the death penalty than not. If you want to save one innocent person's life, and the evidence goes against your beliefs, what's worth more: your beliefs or someone's life? As for BTF's point, I really think you're talking past her. There aren't many POV's, as you call them, in which murder is right. So we're agreed on that. It's virtually impossible to prove beyond ALL doubt, as you say, that the accused committed the crime (even those who've confessed to capital crimes or murders in the past have been innocent for one reason or another). So you're presumably accepting the effective abolition of the death penalty. What you're left with, after all the arguments you've inadvertently trashed, is a peroration that I'm afraid I don't understand, about how a murderer is really a suicide. I think, on this last point, you may have not left room for the complexity of the human condition. Do you ever go to the movies? It's an almost universal narrative - filmmakers are and always have been deeply fascinated by the incredibly multi-faceted circumstances that lead towards a murder. Besides, I could think of lots of reasons for not killing someone who let it be known they choose to die. For one thing, I don't want to be accused of murder. Edited 20 September, 2009 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 so, lock em up, drug them if they are mental and maybe some time in solitary till they die.. very humane as for the guy who confessed..what an idiot No - treat them in the same way as you would any person with an illness, whether it's physical or mental. But in secure conditions (for their safety and that of others) especially if there's a chance they would reoffend if they were on the outside. It doesn't have to be inhumane at all. The guy who confessed was one of 17 I think. And obviously had some personality disorder or a low IQ. You think that's a reason to murder him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 No - treat them in the same way as you would any person with an illness, whether it's physical or mental. But in secure conditions (for their safety and that of others) especially if there's a chance they would reoffend if they were on the outside. It doesn't have to be inhumane at all. The guy who confessed was one of 17 I think. And obviously had some personality disorder or a low IQ. You think that's a reason to murder him? no..as i have said time and time and time again, only the purest of evil..ala, shipman, hindley, brady, the wests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 no..as i have said time and time and time again, only the purest of evil..ala, shipman, hindley, brady, the wests... It doesn't matter how many times you say it - you don't get to choose. The way legal systems work is by defining categories of crimes, not by some populist sense of how awful they are. Murder is murder. In the US, they measure this by 'degrees'. First degree murder usually involves intent, the use of weapons, other aggravated factors (it varies from state to state). Second degree murder is non-premeditated, and may even include cases where the accused risked being killed themselves (as in an assault which they too successfully repulsed). Self-defence is not necesarily a defence against this charge. Then there's voluntary manslaughter, which is intentional killing with mitigating cirumstances. And involuntary manslaughter, which is killing without intent. (eg a fatal car crash resulting from road rage). Except for some very special circumstances, you only get the death sentence for first degree murder. These are by no means the cases that attract the highest degree of public approbrium. Since Brady was sent to Broadmoor, it's highly likely, as in the US, that he couldn't have been sentenced to death. As I say, you don't get to choose. 'Evil' is not a legal concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 no..as i have said time and time and time again, only the purest of evil..ala, shipman, hindley, brady, the wests... Define, in legal terms, 'the purest of evil'. What test has to be made ? How does that test get written down such that lawyers and judges understand it, and such that it can be robustly challenged on appeal. What if you get a case, as with the Teresa de Simone and Lesley Mulseed murders, or the Guildford & Birmingham pub bombers, where, on the balance of the evidence submitted to the courts, it is quite clear that the perpetrators have been found guilty of 'foul' or 'depraved' crimes, and there may well even be accompanying calls for the death penalty to be re-instated, ( as happened with the Mulseed case ). Such a case would probably come close to 'passing' your test. Problem is, with all those cases, evidence was either suppressed, altered, or fabricated. How does your 'test' ensure that ALL the relevant evidence is brought to light at the trial, and not up to 27 years later ? ( Which presumably would be about 26 years too late to save the innocent convict ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 What we need is some sort of cryogenic storage system for convicts. Pop them on ice until their natural age would be 80 or so, then finish them off if their conviction has not been overturned by then. We could even power their 'cells' using solar power or something so the costs are minimal. If new evidence overturns their conviction simply defrost and put back in society. So easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 What we need is some sort of cryogenic storage system for convicts. Pop them on ice until their natural age would be 80 or so, then finish them off if their conviction has not been overturned by then. We could even power their 'cells' using solar power or something so the costs are minimal. If new evidence overturns their conviction simply defrost and put back in society. So easy. Great idea. Or we could just top the b@st@rds and be done with it. Oh shyte, right back to square one...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 20 September, 2009 Share Posted 20 September, 2009 (edited) The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, it is revenge pure and simple. Edited 20 September, 2009 by hamster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Read so many replies it has made me laugh, people actually supporting murderers. For those that support the guilty ones, ever thought about the victims? Seems some on here are more interested about the the safety of those that commit the crime as opposed to someone who has suffered from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Read so many replies it has made me laugh, people actually supporting murderers. For those that support the guilty ones, ever thought about the victims? Seems some on here are more interested about the the safety of those that commit the crime as opposed to someone who has suffered from it. Having read the very same thread, I'd say people are more concerned with protecting the safety of those who haven't committed the crime, rather than that of those who have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 September, 2009 Share Posted 21 September, 2009 Read so many replies it has made me laugh, people actually supporting murderers. For those that support the guilty ones, ever thought about the victims? Seems some on here are more interested about the the safety of those that commit the crime as opposed to someone who has suffered from it. If the system, and the people involved in it, were perfect, then you might have a point; but it isn't, and nor are they. Try reading the article here, maybe you will have a damascene moment http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:11E7EyPoYAoJ:truenorth-armagh.blogspot.com/2009/09/better-that-one-hundred-guilty-men-go.html+better+bad+men+go+free+than+innocent&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now