We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
War justifies execution?
Of course. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.
It's just moral stupidity, a kind of moral myopia, which allows us to tolerate our own lethal bombing of innocent kids while getting all het up about the possibility of hanging convicted serial killers.
But then, this is hardly a revelation. Liberal lefties are stupid. Who knew!
Perhaps some of us don't tolerate "our own lethal bombing of innocent kids"?
The key difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that if there is a miscarriage of justice in life without parole you have a good deal longer to sort it out.
I don't see how - someone imprisoned improperly can, to some albeit inadequate degree, be compensated for the mistake that was done to them, whereas someone executed improperly could not be. Even if someone thinks it is not the best argument, or it does not sway someone from being in favour of the death penalty, it doesn't seem like one of the worst as I see it, unless people are using really crappy arguments on this one.
It is absurd to argue that anything could compensate a person who did 25 years in a Category A prison for a crime that they didn't commit. Not a judgment and verdict of acquittal, and certainly not a cheque from the Secretary of State for Justice.
I am against the death penalty under any circumstances, there have been too many miscarriages of justice.
I am against the death penalty, but the miscarriages of justice argument is one of the worst made against capital punishment. It is an argument for never executing a sentence of imprisonment.
Surely imprisonment is reversible while capital punishment is not?
We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
War justifies execution?
Could you do us all a favour and flounce off again.
The key difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that if there is a miscarriage of justice in life without parole you have a good deal longer to sort it out.
Convictions in cases of murder where a capital sentence was executed have subsequently been quashed. There is no rule of law preventing an appeal against conviction by a deceased appellant.
One in 10 Ukip supporters would 'strongly approve' of convicted murderers being beheaded http://i100.io/qVOkFSJ
Amazingly they did still in France up to 1977
I see absolutely no logical reason why beheading is any worse than strangulation (i.e. hanging). Both are hopefully instantaneous, by severing essential nerves, arteries and other tissues, yet both can go wrong - though hanging is perhaps more likely to go awry (a writhing body dangling for many minutes) than death by guillotine, which is quite difficult to screw up.
Face it, you're killing someone. It's not going to be pretty. Seeing one as better than the other is sentimental gibberish.
Beheading and hanging (the long drop) are the two most humane methods of execution.
Agreed. By the end the British had perfected hanging, so that it was pretty much instant, at least according to Albert Pierrepoint, the last hangman. A good hanging needs lots of expertise, adjusting weight of the culprit to the height of the drop.
But the French, with the guillotine, were equally logical. Death by guillotine left the victim conscious for mere seconds, and oblivion was guaranteed.
It is bizarre, in that light, that America has adopted such cruel and unusual techniques - lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber - they are all prolonged, and more complicated, and prone to go wrong. I cannot see any justification for them. Death itself is deterrent enough - death IS the deterrent. Anything beyond that is pointless torture, and absolutely wrong.
I remember a programme by Portillo who somewhat bizarrely was investigating the different forms of execution to find the most humane (I believe the suffering aspect was what was putting him off the principle - but I may have misremembered).
Anyway the best method and the one he would recommend (as he was taken to the edge himself in an experiment) was simple oxygen starvation (in his case in a decompression chamber). It induced a quiet, pleasant sense of euphoria and well being - and then you died.
Fascinating programme on BBC2 about how Germany stoked Jihad against the British in WW1.
'Greenmantle', by John Buchan. It is staggering that the novel was written and published at the height of WW1. I read it recently, having been an avid Buchan fan when I was in short trousers (a long time ago!) and it's a fascinating read from an adult's perspective a century after it was written.
One in 10 Ukip supporters would 'strongly approve' of convicted murderers being beheaded http://i100.io/qVOkFSJ
Really? It says 6/100 on the one I am looking at
Given that you have to be a headless chicken to vote UKIP this statistic does seem spookily appropriate. Is there anything about these fundamentalist kippers wanting to cut off the hands of thieves?
MD Indeed, would need to read the full context of the interview.
1183/Felix Poor timing as usual by DD, just as polls swing to No. Though he did agree with Redwood's recent comment there should be English votes for English laws
Have people not worked out yet that 'DD' stands for 'Double Dealing'? What a sad pathetic self serving shambles he has turned into.
I don't see how - someone imprisoned improperly can, to some albeit inadequate degree, be compensated for the mistake that was done to them, whereas someone executed improperly could not be. Even if someone thinks it is not the best argument, or it does not sway someone from being in favour of the death penalty, it doesn't seem like one of the worst as I see it, unless people are using really crappy arguments on this one.
It is absurd to argue that anything could compensate a person who did 25 years in a Category A prison for a crime that they didn't commit. Not a judgment and verdict of acquittal, and certainly not a cheque from the Secretary of State for Justice.
I agree it would be absurd to suggest that, so it is a good thing I did not. I assume you did not see the words 'albeit inadequate' in my post?
It is absurd in my view to suggest that inadequate recompense for improper imprisonment is equal to being dead as a result of a miscarriage of justice, that was my only point. I have no doubt many if not most or all who have suffered such grievous miscarriages of justice and imprisoned for short or lengthy periods regard any compensation as token and hollow and they are right to do so, but you don't think that bleakness is better than being dead as a result of a miscarriage of justice? I find that baffling, quite frankly.
I simply do not understand your contention that the fact someone suffering a miscarriage of justice with a non-lethal punishment is at least alive at the end and as such that is better than the death penalty, is somehow arguing against 'ever executing a sentence of imprisonment'. I can understand someone arguing for the death penalty very easily, but that avoiding lethal miscarriages of justice as a reason to not execute at all is arguing against the very concept of a custodial sentence? Bizarre. Someone in such a situation might well say that they would rather have died that suffer that, but they would be alive to make that argument themselves.
FOR ALL THAT IS HOLY CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME DECENT LEFTIES HERE ON PB.
Perhaps we could put an ad in Guardian Media or something?
Please.
What exactly would constitute a decent lefty? They'd need to have a fiery temperament and a lot of perseverance, no question, but how lefty would they actually need to be? A fiery and resolute centrish lefty would, I think, be less interesting that a proper old school socialist.
Dan Hodges and Tony Blair - they seem decent lefty sorts.
We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
War justifies execution?
Of course. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.
It's just moral stupidity, a kind of moral myopia, which allows us to tolerate our own lethal bombing of innocent kids while getting all het up about the possibility of hanging convicted serial killers.
But then, this is hardly a revelation. Liberal lefties are stupid. Who knew!
Perhaps some of us don't tolerate "our own lethal bombing of innocent kids"?
Deaths like this are unavoidable unless you believe in total pacifism? Do you? If so, good luck living under the next dictator who fancies invading a pacifist Britain which will offer no resistance whatsoever.
If you're not a pacifist, then you accept we will kill the innocent along with the guilty as we defend ourselves and our values, at home and abroad.
Once you've accepted the fact that we will kill kids, in that scenario, getting all hysterical and hoity-toity about the death penalty is a moral absurdity. An absurdity which is cultivated assiduously on the left.
We should do all we can to avoid "deaths like this".
We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
War justifies execution?
Of course. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.
It's just moral stupidity, a kind of moral myopia, which allows us to tolerate our own lethal bombing of innocent kids while getting all het up about the possibility of hanging convicted serial killers.
But then, this is hardly a revelation. Liberal lefties are stupid. Who knew!
Perhaps some of us don't tolerate "our own lethal bombing of innocent kids"?
Deaths like this are unavoidable unless you believe in total pacifism? Do you? If so, good luck living under the next dictator who fancies invading a pacifist Britain which will offer no resistance whatsoever.
If you're not a pacifist, then you accept we will kill the innocent along with the guilty as we defend ourselves and our values, at home and abroad.
Once you've accepted the fact that we will kill kids, in that scenario, getting all hysterical and hoity-toity about the death penalty is a moral absurdity. An absurdity which is cultivated assiduously on the left.
Come again? I thought you were horrified by Israeli actions in Gaza, but now you say it is inevitable that innocents will die in war.
Rather than the death penalty, I would suggest lifetime sentence to a penal colony in South Georgia.
It is a good deterrent, possible to reverse, annoy the Argies. Hard to fault apart from the cruelty to penguins aspect.
I have treated a few murderers in my time. Gartree prison is full of lifers. They are an interesting bunch, but on the whole not ones who are very adept at understanding the consequences of their actions, which is fundamental to the idea of deterrence. Basically they are too thick, or enraged or evil to be deterred, however murder is punished.
FOR ALL THAT IS HOLY CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME DECENT LEFTIES HERE ON PB.
Perhaps we could put an ad in Guardian Media or something?
Please.
What exactly would constitute a decent lefty? They'd need to have a fiery temperament and a lot of perseverance, no question, but how lefty would they actually need to be? A fiery and resolute centrish lefty would, I think, be less interesting that a proper old school socialist.
Dan Hodges and Tony Blair - they seem decent lefty sorts.
Now thats what I call trolling! Could we add Gordon to the list?
I am against the death penalty under any circumstances, there have been too many miscarriages of justice.
I am against the death penalty, but the miscarriages of justice argument is one of the worst made against capital punishment. It is an argument for never executing a sentence of imprisonment.
Surely imprisonment is reversible while capital punishment is not?
Hmm, could have saved myself 500 words and just gone with that myself I think.
But apparently because you cannot make up for the injustice of a false conviction and imprisonment, that is the same as not being able to make up for the injustice of a false conviction and execution. Somehow. If you cannot make up for an injustice completely, why even try, right?
LIAMT - I do apologise if my response to your point seems unreasonably flippant or provocative btw, as it stems not from a passionate desire to rebut your arguments (which is all good fun) but because I genuinely cannot (at time of writing) figure out the logic behind them, whereas I usually feel I can at least understand a position I disagree with intensely. Perhaps enlightenment will come to me in time. Or at least within 25 minutes when I go to sleep.
A point made by OGH and others is that the electoral system is biased against the Conservatives because it requires rather more Tory votes to elect MPs than Socialist votes to elect Labour MPs. Or, as he usually puts it, the Tories will probably be behind on seats even if [slightly] ahead on votes. I crunched some numbers from the last election to look at the impact of Scottish independence on this. I apologise if somebody has already run these numbers on PB, as I am sure they have. I hope I am not violating any poster's copyright!
In 2010 it took 10.7m Conservative voters to elect 306 MPs, an average of 34,980 votes per MP. It took 8.6m Labour voters to elect 258 MPs, an average of 33,358 votes per MP. So far, so well known: Labour has an advantage in that >1,500 fewer votes are needed to elect each of its MPs.
Then I looked at the figures for England only. In England, 9.91m Conservative voters elected 297 MPs, an average of 33,360 votes per MP. The 7.04m Labour voters elected 191 MP, an average of 36,871 votes per MP. In England, therefore, the first-past-the-post electoral system works very much in favour of the Conservatives, and to an even greater extent than it does GB-wide against them.
Of course, none of this is remotely relevant until either a) Scotland and Wales become independent or b) we get an English Parliament with FPTP or EV4EL.
@kle4 I have no idea whether the destruction of the soul of the individual imprisoned for a lengthy period pursuant to a wrongful conviction is worse than death or not. There is also the risk that a person will die in prison while under sentence for a crime they did not commit; their life expectancy having been materially reduced by the fact of their detention. What is clear is that executing a sentence of life imprisonment always carries with it the risk of irreparable damage to an innocent individual. Given that the death penalty does the same, and there is no way of quantifying which is more damaging to the individual (as you appear to accept), I find the argument that capital punishment should be avoided in case of wrongful execution to be unconvincing.
Edit: Just seen your more recent post. No offence taken!
One in 10 Ukip supporters would 'strongly approve' of convicted murderers being beheaded http://i100.io/qVOkFSJ
Amazingly they did still in France up to 1977
Beheading and hanging (the long drop) are the two most humane methods of execution.
I remember a programme by Portillo who somewhat bizarrely was investigating the different forms of execution to find the most humane (I believe the suffering aspect was what was putting him off the principle - but I may have misremembered).
Anyway the best method and the one he would recommend (as he was taken to the edge himself in an experiment) was simple oxygen starvation (in his case in a decompression chamber). It induced a quiet, pleasant sense of euphoria and well being - and then you died.
Some years back I was on a grand jury and we were charged with evaluating different methods of execution, as the electric chair was viewed as cruel and unusual. It can also be very painful and require several jolts to kill.
Long drop hanging is the most humane if done properly - in terms of lack of pain to the person being killed - but it requires much expertise to do properly, otherwise the victim either strangles slowly or is decapitated.
Firing squads depend on the squad being expert shots. That is a problem too.
Gas chambers are utterly barbaric. The victim just asphyxiates slowly and in agony in full view of those watching.
Lethal injection in theory offers a painless way of killing. But much depends on the drug mix and the placement of the IV. All drug companies will not allow their products to be used in executions now. This has led to back street outfits mixing drugs and selling them to states via shell companies, and the quality is dubious. A recent execution took almost 2 hours.
Oxygen deprivation is more humane than long drop hanging, but is not being considered because the victim just goes to sleep, and is utterly pain free. There is nothing to see, and it takes much too long.
Executions in the US are witnessed by both the victim's family, a press pool contingent, and the family of the person he (or occasionally she) killed. Therefor there has to be an element of theatricality - the sentence is read out, the condemned asked if he has a last statement etc - whch prolongs the agony.
@kle4 I have no idea whether the destruction of the soul of the individual imprisoned for a lengthy period pursuant to a wrongful conviction is worse than death or not. There is also the risk that a person will die in prison while under sentence for a crime they did not commit; their life expectancy having been materially reduced by the fact of their detention. What is clear is that executing a sentence of life imprisonment always carries with it the risk of irreparable damage to an innocent individual. Given that the death penalty does the same, and there is no way of quantifying which is more damaging to the individual (as you appear to accept), I find the argument that capital punishment should be avoided in case of wrongful execution to be unconvincing.
Edit: Just seen your more recent post. No offence taken!
Phew. I would say, as a final note to this argument then, that I do now understand why you and others might find the argument unconvincing, even if I would personally probably take issue with categorizing it as one of the worst arguments in favour of abolishing the death penalty (or retaining its ban), as I'm sure people can come up with far worse arguments in favour of the ban as much as they can come up with terrible ones against that position!
Rather than the death penalty, I would suggest lifetime sentence to a penal colony in South Georgia...
I have treated a few murderers in my time. Gartree prison is full of lifers. They are an interesting bunch, but on the whole not ones who are very adept at understanding the consequences of their actions, which is fundamental to the idea of deterrence. Basically they are too thick, or enraged or evil to be deterred, however murder is punished.
Isn't a penal colony on South Georgia BNP policy?
In any event, that the death penalty may not be a deterrent is not a convincing argument against it. A denunciatory sentence for the purposes of pure punishment is entirely justifiable. As you observe, there is little evidence that the sentence for murder, which has increased substantially since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has a deterrent effect. That is no argument for not imposing such a sentence.
Mr. Easterross, I fear if No wins the devolution will be carving up England to try and prevent an English Parliament, the only really acceptable solution (English votes for English laws would be an improvement but not sufficient move, in my view), emasculating Westminster.
And what an abomination if would be. England has been a state and a nation since about 925. Who has the right to carve it up just because it's inconveniently " too big ". Can you imagine carving Wales or Scotland into bits and the uproar that would. ( rightly ) ensue?
Yes! A federation of States. Even if the Independence Referendum is Yes, it seems that the Northern and Western isles will be allowed a new separate referendum to see whether they wish to remain under Holyrood, stay with Westminster, go to Norway or go alone? This implies that the other regions and cities of Scotland can do the same.
What ever happens, people in the regions and cities of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are already considering alternatives to the status quo. Cornwall, North East and North West of England, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc., etc..
If No, a federal government based in a new State near York (near enough the Center of the UK) similar to Camera or Ottawa to run the UK or rUK.
Just to think, not so long ago, that many people on this site were lauding Alec Salmond's leadership. One man, one thought, ended in the total disintegration of the UK.
We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
actually, Pierrepoint thought it was humane, and spent his career honing his craft to spare the condemned as much as possible. It was his life's calling, and he shared his skills with executioners in several other countries. In Austria, for example, they still had two executioners pulling on the miscreant's legs, until Albert showed them the way.
Pierrepoint's record was 7 seconds, from the time he unlocked the cell door - job done...
Rather than the death penalty, I would suggest lifetime sentence to a penal colony in South Georgia...
I have treated a few murderers in my time. Gartree prison is full of lifers. They are an interesting bunch, but on the whole not ones who are very adept at understanding the consequences of their actions, which is fundamental to the idea of deterrence. Basically they are too thick, or enraged or evil to be deterred, however murder is punished.
Isn't a penal colony on South Georgia BNP policy?
In any event, that the death penalty may not not a deterrent is not a convincing argument against it. A denunciatory sentence for the purposes of pure punishment is entirely justifiable. As you observe, there is little evidence that the sentence for murder, which has increased substantially since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has a deterrent effect. That is no argument for not imposing such a sentence.
If the penal colony idea is a BNP one then finally they have a policy that I can support.
Deterrence is a poor reason for punishment, for the reasons above, but not the only one.
There is some evidence that swiftness and certainty of punishment have a deterrent effect, but little on the severity of the punishment. Basically crooks do not plan ahead very well. Perhaps part of the reason they developed that way in the first place, and are stupid enough to think that they will not get caught.
We kill people all the time - in war. In defense of the realm. In liberal interventions. Even, arguably, in allowing abortion. We bomb places and kill innocent children. Our hospices are full of the very old and very ill who are quietly and mercifully finished off with opiates.
Yet we quail at the thought of topping a murderer?
Pfft.
War justifies execution?
Of course. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.
It's just moral stupidity, a kind of moral myopia, which allows us to tolerate our own lethal bombing of innocent kids while getting all het up about the possibility of hanging convicted serial killers.
But then, this is hardly a revelation. Liberal lefties are stupid. Who knew!
Perhaps some of us don't tolerate "our own lethal bombing of innocent kids"?
Deaths like this are unavoidable unless you believe in total pacifism? Do you? If so, good luck living under the next dictator who fancies invading a pacifist Britain which will offer no resistance whatsoever.
If you're not a pacifist, then you accept we will kill the innocent along with the guilty as we defend ourselves and our values, at home and abroad.
Once you've accepted the fact that we will kill kids, in that scenario, getting all hysterical and hoity-toity about the death penalty is a moral absurdity. An absurdity which is cultivated assiduously on the left.
We should do all we can to avoid "deaths like this".
Which means not executing people at home.
As I said, cue moral absurdity on the left.
Avoiding needless killing is "moral absurdity"?
I was against the Iraq war, am in favour of intervention against IS, am appalled by Isreal's actions, and against the death penalty - because I'm in favour of avoiding death and suffering best as possible.
You're over (or is it under?) thinking the whole thing in your rush to rant at "lefties".
I don't mind people who are against the death penalty because they really believe in that point of view. But I can't help feeling some people (not on PB of course) are just following fashionable opinion, and would have been enthusiastic supporters of it 150 years ago because it was accepted opinion at that time.
Looking at the headline figures, by my reckoning, and it's not a strict comparison, but since the last survation, poll, there's been a swing to Yes, amongst women.
Very minor, around 1% to 1.25%.
Within the margin of error, so statistical noise.
Even with that swing, the Nats need to make bigger inroads in to woman vote, or they won't win.
I don't mind people who are against the death penalty because they really believe in that point of view. But I can't help feeling some people (not on PB of course) are just following fashionable opinion, and would have been enthusiastic supporters of it 150 years ago because it was accepted opinion at that time.
I'm sure that's true, cultural zeitgeist and all that. I don't think you'd even have to go back that far to see such a sea-change from what otherwise would the same type of people, and on any number of issues they, and I in all liklihood, would hold an opposite view from those regarded as normal or trendy now if raised in a different time.
Perhaps that is why despite a majority quite liking the idea of reintroduction it doesn't seem to be sparking much debate at the highest levels yet, as even though people like it it is still seen, in some way, as belonging to a different era. With so many nations, including developed nations culturally similar to us, persisting in its use, I can see that turning around in time and more prominent campaigning for reintroduction.
The thing I don't get about the death penalty is that the State should effectively "murder" murderers.
But by that logic, should the State, um, "rape" rapists? "Fondle" gropers? "Steal" from shoplifters and burglars? "Defraud" fraudsters and con-men? "Beat up" those convicted of ABH and GBH?
What about those who are against abortion, because all life is sacred, but pro-death penalty?
I guess it is wrong to judge life at that early stage and terminate it through no fault of its own, but murderous criminals by their own actions have made their own lives less sacred? I hold the opposite stances to those you suggest above, but I feel like it does not require too much mental gymnastics to reach those two positions, depending on how fervently one believes in the sacredness of life of course.
The thing I don't get about the death penalty is that the State should effectively "murder" murderers.
But by that logic, should the State, um, "rape" rapists? "Fondle" gropers? "Steal" from shoplifters and burglars? "Defraud" fraudsters and con-men? "Beat up" those convicted of ABH and GBH?
Sounds like the Justice Zone in Red Dwarf. I guess people have limits to how far an eye for eye should extend
One in 10 Ukip supporters would 'strongly approve' of convicted murderers being beheaded http://i100.io/qVOkFSJ
Amazingly they did still in France up to 1977
I see absolutely no logical reason why beheading is any worse than strangulation (i.e. hanging). Both are hopefully instantaneous, by severing essential nerves, arteries and other tissues, yet both can go wrong - though hanging is perhaps more likely to go awry (a writhing body dangling for many minutes) than death by guillotine, which is quite difficult to screw up.
Face it, you're killing someone. It's not going to be pretty. Seeing one as better than the other is sentimental gibberish.
Beheading and hanging (the long drop) are the two most humane methods of execution.
Agreed. By the end the British had perfected hanging, so that it was pretty much instant, at least according to Albert Pierrepoint, the last hangman. A good hanging needs lots of expertise, adjusting weight of the culprit to the height of the drop.
But the French, with the guillotine, were equally logical. Death by guillotine left the victim conscious for mere seconds, and oblivion was guaranteed.
It is bizarre, in that light, that America has adopted such cruel and unusual techniques - lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber - they are all prolonged, and more complicated, and prone to go wrong. I cannot see any justification for them. Death itself is deterrent enough - death IS the deterrent. Anything beyond that is pointless torture, and absolutely wrong.
I remember a programme by Portillo who somewhat bizarrely was investigating the different forms of execution to find the most humane (I believe the suffering aspect was what was putting him off the principle - but I may have misremembered).
Anyway the best method and the one he would recommend (as he was taken to the edge himself in an experiment) was simple oxygen starvation (in his case in a decompression chamber). It induced a quiet, pleasant sense of euphoria and well being - and then you died.
IIRC Portillo was put off hanging, because in the experiment the dummy's head came off, allegedly the fate suffered by Saddam's brother at his execution...
The simulation involved a ludicrously long drop however. With expert executioners, it should never happen.
The last such instance in the UK was in 1885 at Norwich, long before the Pierrepoints perfected the craft...
What about those who are against abortion, because all life is sacred, but pro-death penalty?
I guess it is wrong to judge life at that early stage and terminate it through no fault of its own, but murderous criminals by their own actions have made their own lives less sacred?
The problem with this is that you acknowledge that humans determine what is sacred instead of the almighty.
This is a use of the term 'sacred' that is unfamiliar to most,
What about those who are against abortion, because all life is sacred, but pro-death penalty?
I guess it is wrong to judge life at that early stage and terminate it through no fault of its own, but murderous criminals by their own actions have made their own lives less sacred?
The problem with this is that you acknowledge that humans determine what is sacred instead of the almighty.
This is a use of the term 'sacred' that is unfamiliar to most,
Doesn't "The Almighty" Himself cause a certain percentage of abortions? We call it "miscarriage".
It is often said that one cannot be 100% certain that someone is guilty of murder. This isn't true IMO. The evidence that someone is guilty can be completely watertight and their intention to commit the murder can be proved completely as well.
For example a terrorist who openly commits murder in front of many people and security cameras etc, who makes it clear they intended to do it beyond any doubt, and who has been assessed by numerous experts and found not to be insane or suffering from any other mental illnesses.
What about those who are against abortion, because all life is sacred, but pro-death penalty?
I guess it is wrong to judge life at that early stage and terminate it through no fault of its own, but murderous criminals by their own actions have made their own lives less sacred?
The problem with this is that you acknowledge that humans determine what is sacred instead of the almighty.
This is a use of the term 'sacred' that is unfamiliar to most,
I am only guessing, but I would have thought people with such a view on the sacredness of life could determine that god has determined when someone has voided the sacredness of their own life, if such a thing is even possible, as evidenced by their actions. It is not 100% consistent, but people often hold positions passionately which do not, on reflection, marry up to each other perfectly, and feel like that kind of internal explanation would be the type of thing going on.
What about those who are against abortion, because all life is sacred, but pro-death penalty?
I guess it is wrong to judge life at that early stage and terminate it through no fault of its own, but murderous criminals by their own actions have made their own lives less sacred?
The problem with this is that you acknowledge that humans determine what is sacred instead of the almighty.
This is a use of the term 'sacred' that is unfamiliar to most,
I am only guessing, but I would have thought people with such a view on the sacredness of life could determine that god has determined when someone has voided the sacredness of their own life, if such a thing is even possible, as evidenced by their actions. It is not 100% consistent, but people often hold positions passionately which do not, on reflection, marry up to each other perfectly, and feel like that kind of internal explanation would be the type of thing going on.
This is the essence of the problem - now folks are assuming what god thinks based on not very much.
The key difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that if there is a miscarriage of justice in life without parole you have a good deal longer to sort it out.
Convictions in cases of murder where a capital sentence was executed have subsequently been quashed. There is no rule of law preventing an appeal against conviction by a deceased appellant.
I am sure that is of great comfort to the deceased.
The key difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that if there is a miscarriage of justice in life without parole you have a good deal longer to sort it out.
Convictions in cases of murder where a capital sentence was executed have subsequently been quashed. There is no rule of law preventing an appeal against conviction by a deceased appellant.
I am sure that is of great comfort to the deceased.
Comments
Perhaps some of us don't tolerate "our own lethal bombing of innocent kids"?
Anyway the best method and the one he would recommend (as he was taken to the edge himself in an experiment) was simple oxygen starvation (in his case in a decompression chamber). It induced a quiet, pleasant sense of euphoria and well being - and then you died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenmantle
Much implausible derring-do, of course, but the echoes of Al-Quaeda in particular are simply astonishing.
Is there anything about these fundamentalist kippers wanting to cut off the hands of thieves?
It is absurd in my view to suggest that inadequate recompense for improper imprisonment is equal to being dead as a result of a miscarriage of justice, that was my only point. I have no doubt many if not most or all who have suffered such grievous miscarriages of justice and imprisoned for short or lengthy periods regard any compensation as token and hollow and they are right to do so, but you don't think that bleakness is better than being dead as a result of a miscarriage of justice? I find that baffling, quite frankly.
I simply do not understand your contention that the fact someone suffering a miscarriage of justice with a non-lethal punishment is at least alive at the end and as such that is better than the death penalty, is somehow arguing against 'ever executing a sentence of imprisonment'. I can understand someone arguing for the death penalty very easily, but that avoiding lethal miscarriages of justice as a reason to not execute at all is arguing against the very concept of a custodial sentence? Bizarre. Someone in such a situation might well say that they would rather have died that suffer that, but they would be alive to make that argument themselves.
Which means not executing people at home.
Rather than the death penalty, I would suggest lifetime sentence to a penal colony in South Georgia.
It is a good deterrent, possible to reverse, annoy the Argies. Hard to fault apart from the cruelty to penguins aspect.
I have treated a few murderers in my time. Gartree prison is full of lifers. They are an interesting bunch, but on the whole not ones who are very adept at understanding the consequences of their actions, which is fundamental to the idea of deterrence. Basically they are too thick, or enraged or evil to be deterred, however murder is punished.
But apparently because you cannot make up for the injustice of a false conviction and imprisonment, that is the same as not being able to make up for the injustice of a false conviction and execution. Somehow. If you cannot make up for an injustice completely, why even try, right?
LIAMT - I do apologise if my response to your point seems unreasonably flippant or provocative btw, as it stems not from a passionate desire to rebut your arguments (which is all good fun) but because I genuinely cannot (at time of writing) figure out the logic behind them, whereas I usually feel I can at least understand a position I disagree with intensely. Perhaps enlightenment will come to me in time. Or at least within 25 minutes when I go to sleep.
Isn't beheading something that Jihadists indulge in?
Edit: Hope you like link 15.
I have no idea whether the destruction of the soul of the individual imprisoned for a lengthy period pursuant to a wrongful conviction is worse than death or not. There is also the risk that a person will die in prison while under sentence for a crime they did not commit; their life expectancy having been materially reduced by the fact of their detention. What is clear is that executing a sentence of life imprisonment always carries with it the risk of irreparable damage to an innocent individual. Given that the death penalty does the same, and there is no way of quantifying which is more damaging to the individual (as you appear to accept), I find the argument that capital punishment should be avoided in case of wrongful execution to be unconvincing.
Edit: Just seen your more recent post. No offence taken!
More than 1,200 migrants have entered Spain illegally by sea over two days amid Spanish denials that Morocco failed to carry out patrols.
Apparently a very busy year for Frontex, inasmuch as I was not aware of it existing prior to this year at least.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28770346
Long drop hanging is the most humane if done properly - in terms of lack of pain to the person being killed - but it requires much expertise to do properly, otherwise the victim either strangles slowly or is decapitated.
Firing squads depend on the squad being expert shots. That is a problem too.
Gas chambers are utterly barbaric. The victim just asphyxiates slowly and in agony in full view of those watching.
Lethal injection in theory offers a painless way of killing. But much depends on the drug mix and the placement of the IV. All drug companies will not allow their products to be used in executions now. This has led to back street outfits mixing drugs and selling them to states via shell companies, and the quality is dubious. A recent execution took almost 2 hours.
Oxygen deprivation is more humane than long drop hanging, but is not being considered because the victim just goes to sleep, and is utterly pain free. There is nothing to see, and it takes much too long.
Executions in the US are witnessed by both the victim's family, a press pool contingent, and the family of the person he (or occasionally she) killed. Therefor there has to be an element of theatricality - the sentence is read out, the condemned asked if he has a last statement etc - whch prolongs the agony.
In a non-shocking development Western special operations forces are most definitely running about in Kurdistan.
That includes British units.
In any event, that the death penalty may not be a deterrent is not a convincing argument against it. A denunciatory sentence for the purposes of pure punishment is entirely justifiable. As you observe, there is little evidence that the sentence for murder, which has increased substantially since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has a deterrent effect. That is no argument for not imposing such a sentence.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-robin-williams-jumanji-isis-jihadis-favourite-movie-144544892.html
My first choice was going to be the 67th anniversary of Pakistan gaining independence....
What ever happens, people in the regions and cities of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are already considering alternatives to the status quo. Cornwall, North East and North West of England, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc., etc..
If No, a federal government based in a new State near York (near enough the Center of the UK) similar to Camera or Ottawa to run the UK or rUK.
Just to think, not so long ago, that many people on this site were lauding Alec Salmond's leadership. One man, one thought, ended in the total disintegration of the UK.
Another glass of wine and then to bed.
Pierrepoint's record was 7 seconds, from the time he unlocked the cell door - job done...
They would vote No 50%, Yes 34% DK 16%
Without undecideds it's Yes - 40%. No - 60%.
Salmond viewed as Arrogant, Ambitious, Dishonest
Darling viewed as Intelligent, Principled, Arrogant
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu8uxdzIQAAClal.jpg
Deterrence is a poor reason for punishment, for the reasons above, but not the only one.
There is some evidence that swiftness and certainty of punishment have a deterrent effect, but little on the severity of the punishment. Basically crooks do not plan ahead very well. Perhaps part of the reason they developed that way in the first place, and are stupid enough to think that they will not get caught.
I was against the Iraq war, am in favour of intervention against IS, am appalled by Isreal's actions, and against the death penalty - because I'm in favour of avoiding death and suffering best as possible.
You're over (or is it under?) thinking the whole thing in your rush to rant at "lefties".
Very minor, around 1% to 1.25%.
Within the margin of error, so statistical noise.
Even with that swing, the Nats need to make bigger inroads in to woman vote, or they won't win.
(Assuming the polls are accurately reflecting VI)
Perhaps that is why despite a majority quite liking the idea of reintroduction it doesn't seem to be sparking much debate at the highest levels yet, as even though people like it it is still seen, in some way, as belonging to a different era. With so many nations, including developed nations culturally similar to us, persisting in its use, I can see that turning around in time and more prominent campaigning for reintroduction.
But by that logic, should the State, um, "rape" rapists?
"Fondle" gropers?
"Steal" from shoplifters and burglars?
"Defraud" fraudsters and con-men?
"Beat up" those convicted of ABH and GBH?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/China-Appears-Ready-to-Dump-its-U-S-Treasury-Bonds
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/antitrust-china-europe-idUSL4N0QJ3KB20140813
The simulation involved a ludicrously long drop however. With expert executioners, it should never happen.
The last such instance in the UK was in 1885 at Norwich, long before the Pierrepoints perfected the craft...
This is a use of the term 'sacred' that is unfamiliar to most,
For example a terrorist who openly commits murder in front of many people and security cameras etc, who makes it clear they intended to do it beyond any doubt, and who has been assessed by numerous experts and found not to be insane or suffering from any other mental illnesses.
'and against the death penalty - because I'm in favour of avoiding death and suffering best as possible.'
Including the animals that murdered Lee Rigby?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/12/less-half-britons-support-reintroduction-death-penalty-survey
No manufacturer will let their products be used for judicial execution.