Corporal Punishment

Jak

In light of more extensive coverage of violent attacks on the news lately. My already limited tolerance for these crimes has plummeted even further.

I believe that any proven aggressive attack involving a weapon/vehicle that results in the death of another should mean death.

The cases I refer to are,

1. The Jeep which drove over the young man on S.Circular road.

2. The fatal stabbing of a young man in England when he tried to intervene to help some girls being harrassed at a funfair.


In the latter case, the video footage shows one of the gang punch a blade into the lung or thereabouts of the young man who walked up to help.

I see no reason why that piece of scum should be allowed to live.

The risk aversion factor for these scum is not enough to deter them or force them to think.

Death is the answer.

JAK.

ps- I have different views on attacks not involving weapons which i will get to later.
Hence the title is Corporal .. rather than exclusively Capital punishment.

[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-10-2000).]

Bard

I have to disagree. Death is not the answer.

This eye for an eye, life for a life attitude simply lowers the institution of law which is punishing the criminal right down to that criminals level.

Life imprisonment? Neutering? You decide... I'm not going to debate it really - I don't want to suggest an alternative, just want to say that the death sentence is just plain wrong in my humble opinion.

---

C B

You believe that the death penelty is harsh and cruel but suggest neutering orb a life in a cage as alternatives

the real problem with the death penalty is not that it is an unfair punishment but that the justice system is imperfect. Innocent people have, are and will be killed. those who can't afford competent lawyers will be convicted and killed in disproportionate numbers. It is a simple fact that in the US (in states with the penelty) that public prosecutors seek the death penelty more often when the defendant is in receipt of legal aid!!

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

Jak

Noted Bard.

But in the absence of a working alternative, Death is the answer. Interestingly, I have the exact opposite view with regards to lowering the law to criminal level. I believe that is the way it should be.

What is a few years in prison ... for some, a chance to meet up with old friends and make some new contacts. What is the point of a life sentence, when they can get out in under 20 years?

Fear is a strong deterrent. Death is final .. there is no comeback .. even the 'toughest' of criminals will realise that.

Weapons and excessive aggression need to be taken off the streets. The only way to do that is through fear - It is something criminals understand well.

The benfits of removing extremely aggressive assaults and weapons from the streets, would lead to an immeasurable improvement in the quality of life for those in the city.

Fear can be everywhere ... Police cannot.

JAK.

ps- CB - There is a caveat above which states proven - The law system requires improvement but that is another matter.


[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-10-2000).]

Bard

Originally posted by C B:
You believe that the death penelty is harsh and cruel but suggest neutering orb a life in a cage as alternatives

Incorrect. I was kidding whe I said "Life imprisonment? Neutering?" - I went on to say that I don't have a suggestion for an alternative.

---

C B

Another matter??

do you mean we should introduce the death penalty first and then try and deal with the imperfections of the criminal justice system?

This would be insane even if the imperfections were correctable which the blatantly aren't.

Also given our jury system it would be unworkable. If lets say 70% of the population supported the death penalty (a very high level of support) then juries would be likely to contain people opposed. If faced with the option of putting a man to death or freeing a murderer many of these people would do the latter.

This is why DA's in the states don't seek the death penalty when they know the defendant has a half decent lawyer.

Could you please clarify one point for me, do you think the death penelty should be brought in for all those who use weapons or just those who kill? its not clear from your original post.

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

Jak

Originally posted by Jak:
I believe that any proven aggressive attack involving a weapon/vehicle that results in the death of another should mean death.

What exactly is unclear about the above?

You use a weapon .. someone dies .. death for you.

---

As regards the other matters, I believe that the death penalty needs to be considered.

It should be implemented when the case is clear cut. In both my examples there is conclusive evidence.

1. The passenger in the car + all the friends will testify.

2. There was video footage, and a number of witnesses.

In both cases, there is no ambiguity. The accused is guilty.

Kill them both.

[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-10-2000).]

C B

In order to sentence somebody to death the state must enact enabling legislation this can then be applied to far less clear cut cases.

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

Bard

Originally posted by Jak:
What exactly is unclear about the above?

You use a weapon .. someone dies .. death for you.

With better interpretation and clearer definition of the legal meaning of the word "weapon", your arguement may have more merit. As it stands, it's hard not to see the gaping holes in it.

Would you consider an assailants own body (fists, feet, etc.) to be a weapon?

If I punch someone in the nose and the cartilage of said nose gets shoved up into the frontal lobe of their brain, killing them, should I then be killed, even though the act of killing the person was accidental?

...and does your ethic here exclude from the death penalty those who batter someone with a weapon but don't kill them, - rather maim them for life?

What happens when someone kills someone (with, say - a baseball bat) in the act of defending themselves from an attack?

Sorry, but the arguement you are putting forward in favour of a straight death for death policy is flawed and needs to be more thought-out.

---

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 13-10-2000).]

Kavo

Howyiz!

So say if I battered some fella and he died, would I have to kill de witnesses too!? Jaysus.

Annyway. I ain't afraid of nothin'. I was brought up to be hard. It's dem politicians an' suits in de banks who are de real criminals.

An' for your information de death penalty is capital punishment. Corporal punishment is just y'know, gettin' a few slaps like.

DeVore

<small point>
I believe this is called Capital Punishment rather then Corporeal Punishment (which is more usually associated with floggings, and/or the Conservative Party...
</small point>

DeV.

Jak

I am trying to contain this discussion to the case I initially put forward. The below should clarify.

A proven Armed and unprovoked attack resulting in the death of another. Imo should mean death.

Armed - Even when skills mean that one's hands are considered weapons it does not legally constitute armed.

Unprovoked - Not acting in defence.

Resulting in the death - Whether intentional or not.

Jak

There has been a PS at the top of the first note since before the last few posts .. explaining why I have it down as Corporal rather than Capital punishment.

As initially stated I intend to move on to discuss other forms of corporal punishment.

Capital punishment would indicate only the death penalty.

Corporal can encompass both the death penalty and beatings/slaps etc.

Bard

Originally posted by Jak:

Unprovoked - Not acting in defence.

Can't be proven without a witness, - sometimes there are no witnesses, sometimes the so called "witnesses" tell outright lies to protect the attacker, and so innocent and guilty parties alike fall through the cracks.

It has to be remembered that the law is the law - i.e.: the law is not ABOVE the law, it IS the law, and I believe that if the law states that it's unacceptable for someone to kill someone else, then that not only applies to the citizens but also to the makers of the law itself. The police and the courts are there to uphold the law, but they are also bound to stay within the law themselves. If the law says no killing, then that includes 'no executions'.

---

Jak

This isn't really getting very far ...

Read the criterion more carefully.

For the purpose of this discussion I am using two recent examples. In one, the video footage clearly identifies the attacker, and shows it was not an act of defence.

In the other, there are two unlinked groups (the passenger and the friends of the victim) who can identify and testify against the murderer.

There is no question about the guilty parties. In order to try and move this discussion .. what should happen in these two specfic cases?

My point is simple - They should die.

As regards your final paragraph Bard, what I am suggesting (in earlier predefined circumstances) is that the LAW says you will be killed if you kill.

By your final argument it should be legal then for people to imprison other people. Or should the LAW be alowed to do this even?

[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-10-2000).]

C B

I think this boils down to the same question I asked on the Siamese Twins issue (it wasn't answered then by anybody so I'll try again)

How would a legislative authourity frame such a well intentioned law so as not to result in the difficulties I have outlined?

Would the law always require video evidence?

Draco

Originally posted by Bard:

Would you consider an assailants own body (fists, feet, etc.) to be a weapon?

Well, I know in England that if you headbutt someone, it is considered Assult with a deadly weapon rather than GBH.

If the person knew some martial art and was *good* at it, they probably shoul have their hands and feet considered weapons, I supose.

C B

Jak,

you continually assert the word prove as though it were an absolute. Nothing can be proven with 100% certainty therefore the death penalty is simply to risky.

Pretty much end of story.

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

Jak

My topic then refers to what you would consider a hypothetical situation where guilt was established. Should they die?

C B

First of all humans will never be able to prove beyond any doubt. that is why we have the term reasonable doubt.

There is no comeback.

But to answer your question my gut reaction is yes they should die. Now can you show me an actual situation where a neutral judge/jury can know anything with 100% certainty?

---

Some interesting articles on the issue: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=380642&CFID=68477&CFTOKEN=53085427
http://web.amnesty.org/__802568f7005c4453.nsf/747054d7fd43f9328025693e00500113/cedf67daaa89ba39802569500071f631?OpenDocument
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=315416&CFID=68477&CFTOKEN=53085427
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/themes/indxdp.htm
http://www.dnai.com/~mwood/deathpen.html

---

Some interesting facts:
(a) Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4.(4)

(b) Use of the death penalty in a given state may increase the subsequent rate of criminal homicide in that state. In New York, for example, between 1907 and 1964, 692 executions were carried out. On the average, over this 57-year period, one or more executions in a given month aided a net increase of two homicides to the total committed in the next month.(5)

(c) In neighboring states -- one with the death penalty and the others without it -- the one with the death penalty does not show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between 1972 and 1990, the homicide rate in Michigan (which ha s no death penalty) was generally as low as or lower than the neighboring state of Indiana, which restored the death penalty in 1973 and since then has sentenced 70 persons to death and carried out 2 executions.(6)

(d) Police officers on duty do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in states that have abolished the death penalty than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1973 and 1984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more or less frequent in abolition states than in death-penalty states. There is "no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment."(7)

(e) Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states.(8) Between 1984 and 1989, seventeen prison staff were murdered by prisoners in ten states; of these murders, 88 percent (15 of 17) occurred in death penalty jurisdictions -- just as about 88 percent of all the prisoners in those ten states were in death penalty jurisdictions.(9) Evidently, the threat of the death penalty "does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist state."(10)

Jak

I am well aware that empirical evidence does not conclusively support the functionality of the Death penalty as a deterrant.

But what I was hoping to see here, was whether people think the guilty should die for this sort of crime.

From a vengeful PoV, I think they should.

Bard

But what I was hoping to see here, was whether people think the guilty should die for this sort of crime.

That's exactly what I thought you were trying to find out, and I still say 'NO'.

By your final argument it should be legal then for people to imprison other people. Or should the LAW be alowed to do this even?

That would be 'citizens arrest', wouldn't it?

---

Canaboid

Kill em all and let God sort them out.

Jak

Originally posted by Bard:
I believe that if the law states that it's unacceptable for someone to kill someone else, then that not only applies to the citizens but also to the makers of the law itself. If the law says no killing, then that includes 'no executions'.

Therefore if the law says no locking people up in a cage in your bedroom ... No Jailing people.

[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-10-2000).]

C B

But I think Jak is arguing the law should be changed to allow the state to kill. Of course death is a fair punishment for murderers but it is too risky for an imperfect justice system.

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 16-10-2000).]

Bard

Originally posted by C B:
But I think Jak is arguing the law should be changed to allow the state to kill.

And I'd argue against that.

Of course death is a fair punishment for murderers

That's pure opinion, and at the same time, a very sweeping statement. There are many types of murders and many types of murderers. Not all warrant a death sentence.

but it is too risky for an imperfect justice system.

Exactly why it cannot be implemented- the system has too many flaws, - too many cases would fall through the cracks either way.

---

Hobbes

Originally posted by DeVore:
<small point>
I believe this is called Capital Punishment rather then Corporeal Punishment (which is more usually associated with floggings, and/or the Conservative Party...
</small point>

DeV.

I was going to say that too, only I believe it's Corporal punishment not Corporeal.

ThunderingMike

Having thought it over for a while, I think yes, when the evidence is there, the guilty must die. Although he would likely plee insanity and be on the streets in 5 years.

---

So the pope puts down the Badger and leans over to me and says , " My son , sometimes you talk a lot of ****. Knock it off." Before I could speak in walks Christopher Lloyd with a time machine under his arm and just then...it started to get weird...

LoLth

Just a quick comment or two:

<minor niggly point removed 'cos I didn't see Dev's small point...post I mean...>

Anyway,

Argument against the Death Penalty:
1. There's no going back once it's carried out
2. Does killing someone make us as bad?
3. there is *always* the possibility of corruption and/or ineptitude.

Argument for:
1. It would be a deterrant.
2. Some people act like animals and as such should be put down. Society has to suffer them in the first place, why should they have to pay to rehabilitate them, a process which has been shown not to work time and time again.
3. We all elect our leaders because we believe they know, and will do what's right for us, and will make wiser decisions. Shouldn't we trust their judgement?

A little problem:
1. Where do you decide the cut off point of the death penalty lies? I kill someone by shooting him, clean kill. I go to death row. You torture a guy to withing an inch of his life, leave him crippled, sightless, deaf and dumb.... you DO NOT kill the victim.. which is worse? It isn't really that easy to decide where the line is drawn. Bob tortures a guy and leaves him crippled, deaf and dumb but not blind... does he get the same treatment as you? Or is that where the line is?
2. What about premeditated, and justifiable murder? (shock horror! No murder is justified! try telling that to a man who hunts down the people that raped and tortured his daughter to death in front of him (Canada I think, early eighties), or the Croat who poisoned the squad of Serbian troops that nailed all the newborn babies in his home town (including his son) to trees (the recent Bosnian conflict).). In some cases you *can* see why it was done. But where is the line of justification? Murder isn't always clear cut.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I can see it's benefit in terms of dissuasion but I can also see how it could be the worst idea ever. For me, at least, I'm still not sure about this one, but definitely leaning to the "No" side of the argument.

I read a Sci-fi book once (forget which one) where the guilty, if self confessed without duress, were given over to the relatives of the victim (or the state if there were no relatives) and they were allowed to inflict exactly the same injuries on the offender as the victim suffered while the technology of the time kept him alive and ensured he would continue living. It was an interesting concept (later picked up by star trek voyager - the *******s!). Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there.

---

[This message has been edited by LoLth (edited 16-10-2000).]

C B

Originally posted by LoLth:

3. We all elect our leaders because we believe they know, and will do what's right for us, and will make wiser decisions. Shouldn't we trust their judgement?

I don't know what kind of psuedo-totalitarian state you wish to live in but I tend to elect people who i believe will act as I would in most issues!! The reason we elect people is not because they are better than us but because we can't all be consulted on every issue. political leaders are the agents of the electorate not their overlords, something which and unfortunate amount of people in this country fail to appreciate.

---

What about China? Have you seen the great wall?

All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall!

Jak

... I thought i explained the reason why it is down as corporal not capital.

Anyhows.

In the case of the man who hunted down and killed the attackers. I would consider him justified, however that moves the discussion to vigilantism, which would not be necessary, if the law were to kill the killers.

The reason why this man went after the killers himself was likely because he wanted to ensure justice was done.

With regard to the man who tortured and maimed. I think his punishment should (a la eye for an eye) match the crime … then kill him afterwards. I understand that extreme torture will never openly be part of any justice system. But what do any of you think? Should a person as sick as this really be allowed to live? Is he a loss? (remember we are assuming proven guilt)

My belief here is quite simple.

If the guilty party is known (just try and stretch your disbelief that someone could be proven guilty) then the punishment should match (or preferably outweigh) the crime.

You attack a woman on the street and rob her ... instead of 6 months in a low Sec prison - You get a thorough beating .. some time in jail and a fine.


At present I see a justice system which flees from any form of corporal punishment, be it the extreme of Capital punishment or just beatings etc. Forms of corporal punishment such as caning etc. should be considered.

I personally find it distasteful that such measures might be required, but I find the thought of certain crimes going unpunished even more distasteful.



[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 16-10-2000).]

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by LoLth:


Argument for:
1. It would be a deterrant.

The death penalty in no way whatsoever deters killers - the death penalty is of course available in 37 states of the US yet they have over 10,000 murders a year there.

Ok, they have a much larger population etc. etc. but it still doesn't seem to be putting many people off.

if you consider, around 75 per cent of murders are committed in a moment of rage and are not pre-meditated, and much of the remainder may be carried out for personal gain or some other advantage to be had by the victim being removed. The first gang are considering the death penalty as they strangle or beat their victim to death in a blind rage, and the second lot think they won't be caught - no deterrant.

Jak

Agreed Castor,

As I said earlier empirical studies don't show it to be much of a deterrent.

However ... personally I believe there are too many factors involved in levels of violent crime for these studies to be worth very much at all.

I can however guarantee that Dead people will not reoffend and if given a choice most criminals would likely choose a prison sentence over death.


[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 16-10-2000).]

Bard

Originally posted by Jak:
Therefore if the law says no locking people up in a cage in your bedroom ... No Jailing people.

My argument may not have been perfect - but no argument on this topic is. I was simply stating that the gardaí, etc. are not above the law. The law as it stands prohibits any person from killing any other person and so it should be. I'm not talking about jailing, I'm talking about killing. There's a world of difference, and just because I don't believe the authorities should be allowed execute someone as they are not above the law, that doesn't mean I don't believe they should be allowed jail someone. The law allows for jailing, it does not allow for killing.

---

Jak

To look at this from another PoV so ...

If you saw a man beating a girl to death and you were armed. The only chance to save her in time would be to kill the man. Would you kill him to save her?

As a lesser extreme, If you saw a young man being severley beaten on the ground by another man, and it was in your abilities to attack the attacker and save the other man ... would you?

IMO ... yes.

And if it is acceptable in these cases to use physical force, then why is it that a guilty party may be excused from this punishment after the crime and damage has been done?

JAK.

pepperkin

Life imprisonment is only an option when the prison system has room...which it is quickly running out of. Been a big issue around here, people are walking on severe charges because there's simply no room left in the prisons. Child molestors (WHICH in my humble opinion SHOULD be neutered or given to the family of the child...or both...), rapists, those whom are not convicted of murder charges are walking free months or years before they should, early parole, due to an overcrowded system...
And why should the inmates try and get out? They can sue anytime they like, anyone they like, for free. Three hots and a cot. Cable TV, because to keep them in cages like the animals they are is "cruel and unusual punishment". (Never mind what they did to OTHERS that was cruel, unusual, or just plan terrifying...). Then there are those in for stealing, (non violent) and other non death related or violent crimes... they are given little if any classes, intensive therapy, remedial courses, etc to make it in the outside world. They come out only knowing how to steal, etc. This is not based on movies I've watched, folks, this is based on people I know or have known in the past. The prison system sucks.

I support the death penalty.

Wholeheartedly.

If someone *INTENTIONALLY* kills someone else, that person should be put on death row with a VERY short chain. And yes it's true, people fall through the cracks, and an innocent man will die for the crimes of another. That's a regrettable loss, and I really wish it didn't happen. But in the removal of 100 psychopaths who get off on fingerpainting in bodily fluids, if you remove 1 innocent, I say it was worth the risk...because of the lives SAVED by getting rid of said psychopaths. Is the good of the one more important than the good of the many?

True sociopaths (IE Manson) cannot BE rehabilitated, they do not want to be. I myself BELIEVE (key word, there, believe, not know) that they are scum of the earth and should be put down like rabid dogs instead of wasting my taxpayer money an living to dream of murdering again. They are usually above average intelligence, 150 IQ or better, so they can run circles around any shrink you throw at them. To them, it's all a game. Why give them even a ghost of a chance to go out murdering again?
And while I'm on my rant, I wanna add that I think at any time a convicted child molestor, murderer, or rapist moves into a neighborhood, the neighborhood should be alerted in fairness to the people who live there, but so far the "privacy act" prevents this...grrr!