Would you support limited Capital Punishment?

GombeanMan

It's not often I fell physically ill reading news articles, but this one is an exception. The long drop is a very effective method, was used throughout the world at various times. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0303/ireland/15-years-for-repeatedly-stamping-on-mans-head-185878.html

In cases like this, I would probably agree somewhat with the notion that for disgusting violent crimes of this nature, the death penalty should apply only if there is clear and convincing evidence, otherwise life will be handed out. If you can do that to another human being, you just don't deserve to live as far as I am concerned.

Questions?

MS.ing

yes. some peole deserve to be killed for the crimes they commit

Nodin

GombeanMan wrote: »

Would you support limited capital punishment?

Yes, sort of kill the bastards. That'll teach them.

Mike 1972

Would you support limited Capital Punishment?

Of course I would

Limited to everyone except me !

dvpower

What's limited capital punishment?
You don't fully kill them?

forfuxsake

No ****ing way! limited capital punishment is gayer than a cock-flavoured lollipop

It should be completely unlimited and used on everybody.

We could easily get round the minor inconvenience of it being in direct contravention of EU law by saying 'he hung hisself in his cell'

TiGeR KiNgS

I would support hard labour for serious crimes.

MS.ing

forfuxsake wrote: »

No ****ing way! limited capital punishment is gayer than a cock-flavoured lollipop

It should be completely unlimited and used on everybody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

GombeanMan

When I say limited, I mean it. You could carry out the next Enron and you would not suffer this fate. Something of this nature should only be used in the most heinous of crimes. Mass/grave murder, Treason, child killers etc. Some people are just beyond redemption imo.

John Doe1

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind;)

Chuck Stone

I'm a civilised human being who doesn't have the thought processing ability of an insect.

So no - I don't support the death penalty.

wonderfulname

GombeanMan wrote: »

When I say limited, I mean it. You could carry out the next Enron and you would not suffer this fate. Something of this nature should only be used in the most heinous of crimes. Mass/grave murder, Treason, child killers etc. Some people are just beyond redemption imo.

So 'the next Enron', i.e. the equivalent of 20,000 peoples pensions vanishing due to fraud, a life shattering event, for 20,000 people, is less than 'treason' in your opinion?

And treason merits death?

And what of rehabilitation? Or indeed of punishment? Lucky murder never having to live with what they've done, nice...

MS.ing

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm a civilised human being who doesn't have the thought processing ability of an insect.

So no - I don't support the death penalty.

there is a time and a place for the death penalty. not to be handed out lightly though. as said above it needs to be used for heinous crimes. and also use it for a while on scumbags a generation or so, so that they get the message their kids obviously

also for violent career criminals they run the jails, death for them is better for us in this case. they wont suffer in prision so trade that for a few minutes of suffering while they die

Eric Cartman

serial killers, serial rapists and other people convicted of very serious violent crimes should receive the death penalty

hooradiation

GombeanMan wrote: »

Questions?

Yeah - given that any justice system is flawed and therefore wrongful convictions can occur how do you propose to deal with the scenario whereby the state has just killed an innocent person?

Also bear in mind that "clear and convincing evidence" isn't the water-tight preventative measure you think it to be, given the above.

Marcus_Crassus

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

grindle

GombeanMan wrote: »

Treason.

????

As for rehabilitation, some people don't deserve it, and certain people's punishment should be squalor, torture and a slow, agonising death.

wexie

I think it's a rather long debate frought with difficulties and moral pitfalls.

However I do fully believe there are people in this world that are well beyond any redemption and I'd have to question the wisdom of having them hang around for years to come at huge costs to the taxpayer, all the while potentially ***ing up other prisoners/inmates/scumbags (whichever your choice of terms) who 'might' have been able to be rehabilitated in due course.

be interesting to pose this question over here.

Chuck Stone

MS.ing wrote: »

there is a time and a place for the death penalty

So there's a time and a place for retributive killing is there?

GombeanMan

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

No doubt this is the case. I would argue it should never go ahead without convincing evidence and at least 3 consultations to the superior courts. However, if you have CCTV footage and a sample of the untampered DNA of a person with multiple convictions stamping on the head of a person until it becomes indistinguishable, it's clearer. The system as it stands today in the USA and abroad tends to be highly flawed.

kfallon

MS.ing wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

She had lovely bangers to be fair! Probably a better view here
http://img.karaoketexty.cz/img/artists/6958/unlimited-220919.jpg

angry kitten

I would definitely be against it. Mistakes happen in the judicial system. I think that when a person is given a life sentence they should serve a life sentence. A life sentence should mean that those sentenced to life only leave prison in a coffin. In my opinion it would be a better punishment if those guilty individuals go to prison knowing that there is no possibility of release.

GombeanMan

wonderfulname wrote: »

So 'the next Enron', i.e. the equivalent of 20,000 peoples pensions vanishing due to fraud, a life shattering event, for 20,000 people, is less than 'treason' in your opinion?

And treason merits death?

And what of rehabilitation? Or indeed of punishment? Lucky murder never having to live with what they've done, nice...

Yes it's serious to lose your life savings in that case, but you can sue for that to a limit. Life cannot be replaced. No after life. Nothing. At least in my humble opinion. Treason could be an exception, but as I have stated, life is not eternal. You only get once shot at life, then eternal darkness.

GombeanMan

angry kitten wrote: »

I would definitely be against it. Mistakes happen in the judicial system. I think that when a person is given a life sentence they should serve a life sentence. A life sentence should mean that those sentenced to life only leave prison in a coffin. In my opinion it would be a better punishment if those guilty individuals go to prison knowing that there is no possibility of release.

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

Chuck Stone

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

This is a concern but should not be the reason that the death penalty is not used.

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

wonderfulname

GombeanMan wrote: »

Yes it's serious to lose your life savings in that case, but you can sue for that to a limit. Life cannot be replaced. No after life. Nothing. At least in my humble opinion. Treason could be an exception, but as I have stated, life is not eternal. You only get once shot at life, then eternal darkness.

Not really, not to a meaningful degree in the Enron case, which is the one you cited. Death for 'treason' is a worrying punishment tbh, says a lot about a state and it's view of it's denizens.

If you're of the same beliefs as me, that there is nothing after life, why then do you act as though it is precious to the person who lost it, they don't know, and why do you view it as a punishment, when in your opinion you would be taking away the torment and drudgery of living with the aftermath of such a crime?

And if you see life as irreplaceable, finite, why would you take it from someone intentionally, for any reason?

wexie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

So you believe that someone who is guilty beyond any doubt (lets say video footage, credible eyewitnesses etc. should go on to live a long and healthy life at huge cost to us poor taxpayers, enjoy all the benefits of free healthcare, legal representation etc. ?

angry kitten

GombeanMan wrote: »

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

There was a time when I would have agreed with you but after doing some research on the subject I learned that far too many people are wrongfully put to death. I also think it's going to really screw someone up knowing that once they go through the prison gates they are quite literally there for life.

dirtyden

GombeanMan wrote: »

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

Is keeping a dangerous criminal under lock and key not important? The benefit to society could be considered a 'return on investment'. A working society unfortunately needs prisons.

MS.ing

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a concern but should not be the reason that the death penalty is not used.

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

and look at how much safer and better off we are :rolleyes:

grindle

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

There isn't even an argument in your statements...

"Even if some people were 100% proven to be thieves, the state should not punish them all.

That's why most crimes don't get solved."

That's your logic? Strange.