Life's murderers - could you flick the switch to put an end to them?

NIMAN

I know many are not in favour of the death penalty, and perhaps crime figures in the US shows that its no great deterrent, but if it came to the crunch, could you flick the switch or pull the trigger to get rid of a child rapist, or mass murderer or serial killer?

Assuming guilt is proven beyond any doubt, and it was one of my family members was the victim, I would have to give it serious thought.

tomwaterford

Ya...no bother

Esp for child rapists

One eyed Jack

I couldn't, but life in solitary confinement in a coffin sized cell is an idea worth considering.


(stack them like catacombs, be grand)

Your Face

Good Morning.

Barry Badrinath

If someone has zero regard for other peoples lives, I have none for theirs.

In the scenario outlined above, guilty beyond all reasonable doubt then yes.

hungry hypno toad

Don't see why not.

NIMAN

In agreement so.

How do we go about having a referendum?

tomwaterford

NIMAN wrote: »

In agreement so.

How do we go about having a referendum?

There's no death penalty allowed in the eu afaik??

NIMAN

ah ffs.

Bloody spoil sports in Brussels.

hungry hypno toad

tomwaterford wrote: »

There's no death penalty allowed in the eu afaik??

Time to leave then.

tomwaterford

NIMAN wrote: »

ah ffs.

Bloody spoil sports in Brussels.

I'm guessing the British can start executing again??

lazybones32

NIMAN wrote: »

ah ffs.

Bloody spoil sports in Brussels.

"Bloody spoil sprouts in Brussels".

I don't know how or why but I'm sure that's racist

Chuchote

No. A close family member was executed.

Execution doesn't just satisfyingly wipe out one life. It has an effect that resonates out through family and friends. This goes on for many years and through many people, always in a harmful way.

D0NNELLY

1st, Irexit. Then, Death Penalty.

But only for serious crimes like not paying your tv licence or serial killing etc

hungry hypno toad

tomwaterford wrote: »

I'm guessing the British can start executing again??

They could do worse than starting with Merkel.

I'd do it no bother.

hungry hypno toad

Chuchote wrote: »

No. A close family member was executed.

Execution doesn't just satisfyingly wipe out one life. It has an effect that resonates out through family and friends. This goes on for many years and through many people, always in a harmful way.

The point is removing someone from society who has no place in society based on their actions. It should be cheap compared to the cost of life in prison.

What crimes did your close family member commit to have been executed?

I could do it without any remorse. I would prefer a Hunger Games type scenario though where the guilty person is let loose in a forest then we all get to hunt them down.

Senna

Chuchote wrote: »

No. A close family member was executed.

Execution doesn't just satisfyingly wipe out one life. It has an effect that resonates out through family and friends. This goes on for many years and through many people, always in a harmful way.

Was your close family member executed for one of the crimes mentioned in the OP and were they guilty of it?

tomwaterford

D0NNELLY wrote: »

1st, Irexit. Then, Death Penalty.

But only for serious crimes like not paying your tv licence or serial killing etc

Or water charges :pac:


Do they still send bills?

Samaris

Nope. I don't agree with the death penalty anyway and it'd be hard for me to consider that there is a minute chance "x person" could actually be innocent. Also, no, partially because I don't think I actually -could- kill someone in cold blood. And finally, if the State is putting a citizen to death, it should be the State based on rules broken to the extent that a person cannot be rehabilitated. It shouldn't be the family. Revenge should have no place in justice.

So overall, no. The moment's satisfaction wouldn't be worth the lifetime of living with it.

ford2600

Steve Earle wrote about the effect of working on Death Rows has on the guys flicking switch.

https://youtu.be/-1G3k4iF094

It easy to say you would do it but it would probably be horrible in reality.

My experience of the aftermath of violence, is just that horrible.

I've put down dogs and other animals, shot deer etc. Instinctively it's really unpleasant in the main.

My uncle was killed by a hit and run drunk driver many years ago. The effect of that death, 40 years plus later is still felt on both sides. Neighbours still talk about it in whispers.

I'd be prepared to kill to protect family but I'd expect to pay a heavy price for the rest of my days. I'll really rather never have the decision or ask others to do it for me

mad muffin

I would have them do a deadly obstacle course and fight against our nations most powerful heros, and televise it. If they survive they can go free.

I'd call it something like, deadly obstacle course of doom!!!

osarusan

I'd do it no bother, let me at 'em, I'm such a hard case.

hungry hypno toad

mad muffin wrote: »

I would have them do a deadly obstacle course and fight against our nations most powerful heros, and televise it. If they survive they can go free.

I'd call it something like, deadly obstacle course of doom!!!

Sounds like something from a science fiction film.

Barry Badrinath

Samaris wrote: »

And finally, if the State is putting a citizen to death, it should be the State based on rules broken to the extent that a person cannot be rehabilitated

So, if I intentionally plan to and kill someone belonging to you, you would be ok with me undergoing some sort of "rehabilitation" programme? Maybe life in prison and potential early release if I have learned my lesson?

All in the hope I am not a repeat offender in the future?

Drumpot

I still think there is merit to discussing the death penalty. It should be kept for very severe cases...

Ok, so one argument is that it's not a deterrent. That's not the only reason to have punishments in society. What about people who will continue to kill or rape? Where exactly is it beneficial for society to keep putting other people (including prison guards and other prisoners) in danger?

Then there are some who say it's not civalised.. but locking somebody up for life in a cage is which is a form of torture is the height of civility?

Where I do agree is that one would have to be comfortable the state could make objective rulings and ones exempt from populism. Given the current climate I wouldn't be over confident that would be the case.

mad muffin

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

Sounds like something from a science fiction film.

One me get have thought so since Trump became POTUS. Anything is possible.

xLisaBx

I don't think the death penalty should be legal anywhere. If you're twisted enough to be raping or killing or whatever, you need psychological help and medication and treatment because there's something up. But you shouldn't be killed.

Even life imprisonment and solitary confinement seems unfair to me. People change, especially with help and support, and they have a chance of becoming civil and joining society. However, suicide should certainly also be an option if they don't want imprisonment and/or treatment.

Sleepy

Zero qualms whatsoever. Human life isn't something I see as valuable in and of itself: it's what an indidvidual does with that life that gives it value imo.

Tayschren

Only if they harmed my loved ones, the rest you lot can sort out yourselves

biko

I'd flick the switch on the guy who cut me off in traffic this morning.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Anyone who says they'll be able to flick the switch with zero bother are deluding themselves.

Let me explain why you are deluding yourselves.

To intentionally kill someone is not nearly as easy as you would think it is because the majority of people are actually good.

There are only two types of people who would intentionally kill someone. Psychopaths and men who had to become "adults" early in their life. I'm not sure what the term for them is. Imagine a family with 4 children and the father dies and the oldest son had to become the man of the house overnight. Those are the other types of people who would have no compunction to kill someone but, NOT for the same reason as a psychopath.

Che Guevara is well known for enjoying the execution of people. Yet you will notice in the photos of him executing someone is that he was never looking at their faces before shooting them. He did it from behind. This is an important distinction.

It is incredibly hard to look at someone and see utter terror in their face. They're completely defenseless and at your mercy and then still proceed to kill that person without any emotion. Only those two types of people I previously mentioned are capable of that.

Your psyche will eventually be destroyed and you will end up in the looney bin.

This excludes blackout rage killing which is something different.

Steve F

No ONE person is ever ENTIRELY responsible for executing someone
Hanging :- One person ties the hands,another legs,someone else the hood over the head,someone else puts the rope around the neck,hangman pulls the lever
Electric chair...same scenario(watch The Green Mile)
Lethal injection...different people trigger the infusion of the separate drugs
They are just carrying out an act of law

Answering the question in post 1, Yes I could easily participate in an execution and sleep soundly in my bed

stimpson

NIMAN wrote: »

Assuming guilt is proven beyond any doubt, and it was one of my family members was the victim, I would have to give it serious thought.

This is the problem though. How do you prove it beyond any doubt? The judge in the Guildford four case expressed regret that they had not been charged with treason as it still carried the death penalty back then.

Since 1976, 1,348 people have been executed in the US, but in that time 136 people have been exonerated from death row on the grounds that they categorically could not have committed the crime for which they were sentenced to death. In other words, for every ten people on death row who are executed, at least one person on death row is innocent.

DrPhilG

How many of those exonerated death row inmates were recent? I was under the impression that most of those who escaped death row did so because of the advent of DNA evidence. Which would mean that there would be very few since then.

.......

This post has been deleted.

stimpson

DrPhilG wrote: »

How many of those exonerated death row inmates were recent? I was under the impression that most of those who escaped death row did so because of the advent of DNA evidence. Which would mean that there would be very few since then.

It's actually 157 since 1973. Only about 20 are due to DNA evidence

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

Dr Crayfish

A member of my family was murdered randomly walking home one night. There were 2 responsible. I still don't believe in the death penalty. It's barbaric. I wouldn't want us to lower ourselves to that level. Lock them up, the c*nts deserve to live and reflect on what they've done. In our case the f*ckers got away with it on a technicality, there were no other suspects. May they rot in hell.

RWCNT

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

The point is removing someone from society who has no place in society based on their actions. It should be cheap compared to the cost of life in prison.

What crimes did your close family member commit to have been executed?

Interestingly, I've read that studies have shown that it's actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to execute them, based on the US system. pretty mad but there ya go. I suppose there is the possibility that the figures are manipulated to support an anti-death penalty narrative.

Links :

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#1ac1098664b3

I probably wouldn't want to do it, although if they'd killed/abused one of my loved ones I may change my tune, I'd hope not.

Drumpot

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

A member of my family was murdered randomly walking home one night. There were 2 responsible. I still don't believe in the death penalty. It's barbaric. I wouldn't want us to lower ourselves to that level. Lock them up, the c*nts deserve to live and reflect on what they've done. In our case the f*ckers got away with it on a technicality, there were no other suspects. May they rot in hell.

So you don't want to "lower to their level" but you want them to "rot in hell" ?!! Do you see anything at all a bit contradictory in that statement?

I believe its barbaric to lock somebody up for the remainder of their lives. Putting them down quickly is more humane but it means you have to face up to the consequences as a society, as opposed to letting somebody die slowly that allows society to forget its responsibility.

This ties in with the whole "look at the twin towers", how horrible and disgraceful those terrorists were, rabble rabble rabble. Thousands of people die daily through tragic circumstances and many more thousands were killed or injured as a result of the war after Sep 11. But because its not slap bang wallop in our faces, as a society we don't have to take responsibility or really care about it.

Broadly speaking, people are unaware of the hypocrisy or delusional aspect of their morals/ethics. In many cases, they simply convince themselves of what is acceptable based, not what is right/wrong, but what is convenient to believe based on the lives they are afforded.

Lady Spangles

NIMAN wrote: »

I know many are not in favour of the death penalty, and perhaps crime figures in the US shows that its no great deterrent, but if it came to the crunch, could you flick the switch or pull the trigger to get rid of a child rapist, or mass murderer or serial killer?

Assuming guilt is proven beyond any doubt, and it was one of my family members was the victim, I would have to give it serious thought.

Although rapists, murderers and child abusers do test the limits of my abhorrence of the death penalty, I still couldn't do it.

I remember watching "India's Daughter" about the woman who was raped and murdered on a bus in Delhi and thinking they (the men responsible) really did deserve to die for what they did. But the law can't be about revenge. Killing them won't bring that girl back to life. What really sickened me was other people's reactions to what happened: the guy who said she shouldn't have fought back etc. Real justice would involve educated such people.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Dr Crayfish

Drumpot wrote: »

So you don't want to "lower to their level" but you want them to "rot in hell" ?!! Do you see anything at all a bit contradictory in that statement?

It's an expression, I don't believe in the afterlife, you f**king wanker.

Lady Spangles

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see where you're coming from. Ian Brady is probably another example (I'm not overly familiar with Ted Bundy). In Brady's case, he's clearly not going to divulge where the last of his victims are buried, he clearly enjoys tormenting the surviving family members of the children he murdered and he must be as old as the bloody hills these days. But on the flip side, he's tried to kill himself so many times and been on so many hunger strikes that I'm also tempted to let his mortal suffering continue. Death is too easy.

It's difficult and, as I said, such cases test my limits.

JupiterKid

No, the death penalty is always wrong. No ifs, no buts.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My question to you is: For what reason did they kill? What type of person do you believe kills?

You are purposefully mixing things that I clearly stated are different.

Killing in an emotional rage is something else, the person has "blacked out" from their rage and then kills. I am not talking about this.

I'm talking about making a rational, calm, non-emotional decision to end someone. Whether it's pressing a button or pulling a handle or putting a knife through their neck.

There are many cases during war where belligerents could see the enemy but did nothing simply because they were not an immediate threat.

There is an enormous difference between "This (^"^"%*& cut me off in the road and then brake checks me and gives me the finger. F**k this person", then proceeds to climb out of their vehicle and pummel the person to death with a bat.
V.S.
Dear person, I do not see you as a human being, I do not hate you but I have decided that you must die for reasons and well, it's fun (for a psychopath). Then proceeds to kill the person and goes off to eat a sandwich.

It takes a special kind of person to do the latter.

freshpopcorn

I don't think I could to be honest and I know some people say they'd do it easily and I know some would but I wonder how some would feel after doing it. Especially if you found out the person was innocent.

.......

This post has been deleted.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I used to think I would but not anymore.

Staunchly anti death penalty these days.

Live65a846d0ee

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

If someone has zero regard for other peoples lives, I have none for theirs.

In the scenario outlined above, guilty beyond all reasonable doubt then yes.

I would do the same for you then as you would be the murderer. I would have 0 remorse to execute you too if you did that.