EU under fire at U.N. death penalty debate

[Lov3ll]

UNITED NATIONS (*******) - A bid to have the U.N. General Assembly call for a moratorium on the death penalty drew charges on Wednesday that the European Union was trying to impose its values on others in a throwback to colonialism.
Eighty-seven countries, including EU member states as well as more than a dozen Latin American states and eight African countries, jointly introduced a draft resolution calling for a moratorium with a view to abolishing capital punishment.
The representative for Singapore, which has been criticized by human rights groups for implementing a mandatory death penalty for most drug offences, warned that the move would "poison the atmosphere between us."
"We are about to embark on a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight," Singapore's Kevin Cheok told the General Assembly's human rights committee,

Two similar moves in the 1990s failed in the 192-member assembly, whose resolutions are non-binding but carry moral authority. This time, the text of the resolution stops short of an outright demand for immediate abolition.
Instead, the draft calls for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty."
It says the punishment "undermines human dignity," that "there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty's deterrent value" and "any miscarriage or failure of justice in (its) implementation is irreversible and irreparable."
Opponents of the move, ranging from Botswana to Barbados, Iran, China and Egypt, said more than 100 countries retain the death penalty on the books and argued it was a criminal justice issue clearly within the bounds of national jurisdiction.

They presented 14 amendments seeking to remove the call for a moratorium and instead affirm the sovereign rights of states to decide their own punishments for the most serious crimes.
The first 10 amendments were rejected on Wednesday by around 80 votes to around 70. But up to 22 countries abstained in various votes and another 20 or so did not vote at all, leaving the outcome of a vote on the final text in doubt.
If the resolution is passed by the committee on Thursday, it is expected to go to the full assembly in mid-December where it would need to be approved by a simple majority.

"SENSE OF SUPERIORITY"

Singapore said the European Union was imposing its will.
"We have seen this trait before," Cheok added.
"There was a time when our views were dismissed. Most of us here struggled for years against this. So how ironic it is that we're now being told once again that only one view is right and that all other views are wrong."
Botswana's representative, Rhee Hetanang, said the amendments were aimed at protecting "some small countries such as our own" against growing interference in internal affairs.
He expressed concern about "increasing trends in this committee which demonstrate the sense of superiority of some in this house who seem to believe their political, cultural and legal systems are better than those of others."

Several speakers from Caribbean states made similar arguments, adding that such interference could stir resentment and have the unintended effect of strengthening the hand of those in favour of the death penalty in national debates.
Italian ambassador Marcello Spatafora rejected the charges, noting that General Assembly resolutions do not impose any action on states, and that it was a cross-regional effort.
"We don't want to pick a fight," he said, during a testy exchange with the Singaporean representative.
The United States has signalled it would oppose the resolution and kept a low profile in the debate.
China, Iran, Iraq, the United States, Pakistan and Sudan account for about 90 percent of all executions worldwide.
Among backers of the moratorium are the Philippines, Australia, Brazil, Gabon, Angola, Turkey and Venezuela.

http://uk.*******.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1423839620071115?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

[Litti]

Moral relativism is a shaky road that hardly leads to any positive results. We have a responsibility to speak about our values.

We dont murder our own citizens, that's the example we want to set for the whole community. Period.

[Weasel]

^^^ Well said.

[muck]

Completely right.
Although I think it is about time to tighten our penalty code, I'm very glad that more and more nations including mine oppose death penalty. The others may do whatsoever they please and we are not allowed to judge about that, but I think there should be at least some binding regulations for all nations which want to keep the capital punishment in their laws - because it is not acceptable if children are executed or women solely because they had been raped.

However, I wonder why there was such an outrage at all if the resolution would not have been obligatory for the UN members anyhow.
:roll:

[mas-36]

Moral relativism is a shaky road that hardly leads to any positive results. We have a responsibility to speak about our values.

We dont murder our own citizens, that's the example we want to set for the whole community. Period.

Absolutely. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123310

[Weasel]

Completely right.
Although I think it is about time to tighten our penalty code, I'm very glad that more and more nations including mine oppose death penalty. The others may do whatsoever they please and we are not allowed to judge about that,

Why not?


but I think there should be at least some binding regulations for all nations which want to keep the capital punishment in their laws - because it is not acceptable if children are executed or women solely because they had been raped.

Have a look at what you posted above. "we are not allowed to judge about that" - then why should we judge about the execution of children and women?

Consequently say "No" to death penalty. No "if"s.

[muck]

Absolutely. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123310
Means what? Sarcasm I am failing to recognise?

[muck]

Why not?
...If we don't want them to judge about us, we simply can't!


Have a look at what you posted above. "we are not allowed to judge about that" - then why should we judge about the execution of children and women?
There is a difference between a cold-blooded murderer capable of full criminal responsibility by law and the latter two examples, isn't it?
If needs must, murder should the one and only crime that to be punished with death penalty.


Consequently say "No" to death penalty. No "if"s.
Unfortunately, the world is not such black and white. Look, if we want to stand for worldwide abolition of death penalty, wouldn't it be a success to push this proposal through firstly in areas where capital punishment is far more than worse? I mean, we all know these stories like from Iran: A 16 years old girl has been hung there recently for being raped.

[Litti]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=123310 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123310)

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[mas-36]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?


Yes, that is sarcasm. For the record, I AM against the death penalty, for the same reason I'm against abortion, but you wouldn't want some Christian-crazy nation like the USA lecturing you on abortion, would you?

[Weasel]

...If we don't want them to judge about us, we simply can't!

Agreed. But that doesn´t mean we should shut our mouth.


Unfortunately, the world is not such black and white. Look, if we want to stand for worldwide abolition of death penalty, wouldn't it be a success to push this proposal through firstly in areas where capital punishment is far more than worse? I mean, we all know these stories like from Iran: A 16 years old girl has been hung there recently for being raped.


The world is not black and whit. But you can´t be half-pregnant. You are against or for death penalty.
I am glad to live in a civilized country without this kind of punishment.

[Litti]

Christian-crazy nation like the USA lecturing you on abortion, would you?Not when there's only God behind the argument.

But I'm more than happy when they try to tell why freedom of choice, speech and other such things are important. p-)

[muck]

The world is not black and whit. But you can´t be half-pregnant. You are against or for death penalty.
I am glad to live in a civilized country without this kind of punishment.
You don't get my point. I don't support death penalty either, but our make-or-break attitude won't lead to satisfying results, it will just annoy those who advocate this sort of punishment and therewith entrench the fronts.

[Litti]

We should not be shushing about these things we hold important either. Same with womens rights, individual freedoms in general and so on. We need to send a strong message to these countries constantly.

[Weasel]

You don't get my point. I don't support death penalty either, but our make-or-break attitude won't lead to satisfying results, it will just annoy those who advocate this sort of punishment and therewith entrench the fronts.

I am with Litti. What do you propose to do? Nothing?

[mas-36]

Not when there's only God behind the argument.

God or nor God, do you feel it is morally wrong to take another person's life? I would argue that the EU accepts a certain degree of double standards in the very same way that many in the US feels the death penalty is acceptable yet abortion is not, which reinforces my belief that on this particular issue, the EU has no more right to put forward a resolution against the death penalty than the US has on the abortion issue.

[Litti]

It's pointless to take the easy way out so that we dont "offend anyone".

Sugar coating dictatorships and saying nice words to fanatics, countries have done that kind of BS long enough and the results haven't really been great....

[Litti]

Equating abortion with murder is a religious argument and (going by experience) starting to argue about it will only give us one clear result = angry moderators.

[mas-36]

Equating abortion with murder is a religious argument and (going by experience) starting to argue about it will only give us one clear result = angry moderators.

I disagree. I think it's a way to avoid having to give an answer for fear of making one appear inconsistent, or worse yet a hippocrite (BTW - I'm not jumping on you, just for the sake of arguement). Can one discuss a moral issue without invoking something religious? I believe one can show great moral standing, conviction and integrity by remaining consistent with his/her beliefs. Both issues involve taking a life, why should one be different from the other?

However, I do agree with you that I hope this doesn't result in angry moderators.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Moral relativism is a shaky road that hardly leads to any positive results. We have a responsibility to speak about our values.

We dont murder our own citizens, that's the example we want to set for the whole community. Period.

Isn't the relativist/absolutist argument supposed to be applied to the motivations behind killing, and not the actual act of killing? We don't take an absolutist stance on any other crime. We kidnap kidnappers and hold them in confinement against their will. We steal time and money from thieves, etc. We don't hold that the act is absolutely wrong - or we could not impose the same act as punishment. Instead, we look at the act, coupled with motivation, to grant ourselves the permission to commit the same crime in reverse as a means of punishment. Why is killing any different?

If we decide to take an absolutist stance on killing alone - then how can police remain armed? How can EU armies continue to exist? Isn't killing people what all those pointy things are for? How can one abolish the death penalty by saying that all killing is always wrong, then somehow make exceptions when it's convenient?

To me, the relativist/absolutist argument is to be applied to motivations. Individuals killing for personal gain is always wrong. Democratic societies killing (via consensus, through the law) for protection or punishment can be right (I say "can" because each must be evaluated/judged on an individual basis...which they are).

Therefore, I'm an absolutist when it comes to the death penalty, and I see the EU's view of -as you say- equating individual murder for gain with society killing for protection both as "murder" as a morally relative stance.

[mas-36]

Isn't the relativist/absolutist argument supposed to be applied to the motivations behind killing, and not the actual act of killing? We don't take an absolutist stance on any other crime. We kidnap kidnappers and hold them in confinement against their will. We steal time and money from thieves, etc. We don't hold that the act is absolutely wrong - or we could not impose the same act as punishment. Instead, we look at the act, coupled with motivation, to grant ourselves the permission to commit the same crime in reverse as a means of punishment. Why is killing any different?

If we decide to take an absolutist stance on killing alone - then how can police remain armed? How can EU armies continue to exist? Isn't killing people what all those pointy things are for? How can one abolish the death penalty by saying that all killing is always wrong, then somehow make exceptions when it's convenient?

To me, the relativist/absolutist argument is to be applied to motivations. Individuals killing for personal gain is always wrong. Democratic societies killing (via consensus, through the law) for protection or punishment can be right (I say "can" because each must be evaluated/judged on an individual basis...which they are).

Therefore, I'm an absolutist when it comes to the death penalty, and I see the EU's view of -as you say- equating individual murder for gain with society killing for protection both as "murder" as a morally relative stance.


Well sh*t 2Sheds! I disagree with you on a LOT of things, but that was just beautiful. Have an imaginary beer on me.

[Litti]

I feel as if you are taking the point too far 2Sheds. Killing a defenseless person is not acceptable and one should only use violence as a last resort. This is the message our government wants to send to its citizens. EU does accept, there are times when there might not be viable substitutes for lethal force but judicial system is out of the question. Execution means that society has failed and takes the easy way out.

Add the fact that you can not reverse capital punishment, it is very costly and nothing but revenge so it's a big no no for us.

[muck]

I still disagree with you 2Sheds_Jackson, but I must admit you've brought some very good points which are hardly refutable!

Just a question: Which crimes should be avenged with death penalty in your opinion?

[joka]

Absolutely. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123310
That's really, really low.

[mas-36]

That's really, really low.

what is really low, is the incredibly naive statement that "we don't murder our own citizens" in the wake of a tragic shooting by a trouble young man which resulted in a someone's death - murder. I'll assume that Litti probably meant this in terms of the State, but still....

Other than that, I'll grant you that we may have a different sense of sarcasm.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Killing a defenseless person is not acceptable and one should only use violence as a last resort. This is the message our government wants to send to its citizens. EU does accept, there are times when there might not be viable substitutes for lethal force but judicial system is out of the question. Execution means that society has failed and takes the easy way out.

I'd say that if one of your citizens has murdered another, then society has already failed, to some extent. Demonstrating that they can do so without severe punishment is another failure, no? And allowing that person the opportunity to do it again, and fail more of your citizens, is just compounding the error, isn't it?

I don't see whether a person is defenseless or not as being germane to the argument. If I break into somebody's house, and kill a guy, it's still murder whether or not he manages to arm himself. I mean this isn't a question of sport, it's justice. People that the state kills have not been picked off the street at random - they've been proven to have killed other citizens.



Add the fact that you can not reverse capital punishment, it is very costly and nothing but revenge so it's a big no no for us.

No, it's not reversible - and that's a good thing in my view. The entire point is to remove the person from our temporal plane. All death penalty cases should require positive dna IMHO. It's only costly because of the way we've implemented it - we could make it as inexpensive as we'd like. And calling it revenge is just an emotional appeal in place of substance. When we put down dogs who we know have attacked people, is that revenge, or simply a common sense safety measure?


I still disagree with you 2Sheds_Jackson, but I must admit you've brought some very good points which are hardly refutable!

Just a question: Which crimes should be avenged with death penalty in your opinion?

I'd only use it in murder cases - and like I said there should be an unimpeachably high level of proof required (i.e. dna). Everybody else gets a lesser sentence, and we can deal with them again...y'know, once they're out of prison, with new criminal skills and contacts, and nothing to lose. :|

[muttbutt]

Stop being smart and just do as we say or the puppy gets it....









p-)

[Litti]

The society has failed if it can only respond to violence with more violence and to killing with more killing. The European Union places more weight on rehabilitation.

I dont see the point in spending more tax payers money just to have someone killed? It's actually more cost effective to keep serial killers behind bars for the rest of their lives instead of chopping their heads off (or giving them injections if you want to be "humane") Because that is what capital punishment would do, you have to be absolutely certain before applying it unless you want to adopt China's cheap method and start murdering people left and right without giving it too much consideration.


People that the state kills have not been picked off the street at random - they've been proven to have killed other citizens.
That would be true if there are no mistakes. But there are. And once the state executes an innocent inmate, the action is no better than that of the person who robbed some old lady and stabbed her for the laugh of it.

[Litti]

And just to be clear. I'm all for tough penalties, keep them locked up for a long time and make them work but that's the end game for me.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The society has failed if it can only respond to violence with more violence and to killing with more killing. The European Union places more weight on rehabilitation.

So..success to you would be defined by the treatment of offenders, not preventing crime against the population?



I dont see the point in spending more tax payers money just to have someone killed? It's actually more cost effective to keep serial killers behind bars for the rest of their lives instead of chopping their heads off (or giving them injections if you want to be "humane") Because that is what capital punishment would do, you have to be absolutely certain before applying it unless you want to adopt China's cheap method and start murdering people left and right without giving it too much consideration.

It would be as cost effective as we decide to make it, right? Take two people, both of whom go through the same trial process, costing the same money. Person one is allowed one appeal within 1 year, and if turned down, is executed within the next 3 months. Person two gets the same appeal, but remains in jail for the next 50 years, at a cost of over $100k a year. Which is cheaper? (btw I'm using that figure because I remember hearing that's what it costs for the average supermax prisoner in the US).



That would be true if there are no mistakes. But there are. And once the state executes an innocent inmate, the action is no better than that of the person who robbed some old lady and stabbed her for the laugh of it.

Well I'd argue with you there (it goes back to intent) - but if you make DNA and other physical evidence a requirement, you virtually eliminate errors. And isn't the state just as culpable for mistakes it makes when it keeps people in prison for life?

[RxOnco]

Well, I'm from Texas. Around here, most believe that if you take a life...be prepared to have yours ended via the needle.
My only complaint is that leathal injection is a bit too humane.

[Litti]

It would be as cost effective as we decide to make it, right? Take two people, both of whom go through the same trial process, costing the same money. Person one is allowed one appeal within 1 year, and if turned down, is executed within the next 3 months. Person two gets the same appeal, but remains in jail for the next 50 years, at a cost of over $100k a year. Which is cheaper? (btw I'm using that figure because I remember hearing that's what it costs for the average supermax prisoner in the US).
Death penalty cases cost a lot more already during the trial. I think it's about $400,000 or so just for the prosecutor. Then you have the defense lawyers, court personnel and every individual who is out there to make a quick buck for themselves.

One appeal is very expensive, much more so than in non-capital punishment cases.

You might be able to optimize a bit from here and there, without fear of risking a fair trial. But at the moment it's about $ 1,300,000 for one case. That's a lot of money to kill someone.

[RxOnco]

So you're saying the process to lock someone up and throw away the key would cost less? I'm sure that there would still be regular occurances of appeal, if not for an automatic appeal in the case of a life sentence.
Once you get through the same legal process, you'll now have to provide housing, healthcare, food, guards, etc...for this particular person for the rest of their life. How much does that cost? If you're bent on cost; get the legal process done...spend about $20 on the pentothal/KCl combo...and you're done.

[Litti]

That's right. I've read some articles concerning the subject and I think non-capital punishment cases were about 40% less expensive when you add up the numbers after the end of incarceration (meaning the inmate has died or gets out after a substantial sentence).

The only thing that is cheaper (50% to be precise) is the incarceration(+carrying out the execution) which is pretty logical of course.

[RxOnco]

If you do away with execution in favor of, say, a life imprisonment; you're still talking about a very lengthy criminal trial. I believe that the criminal advocates would still want an automatic appeal. Therefore, rendering the whole process not much cheaper than a capital punishment proceeding. Once you get past the trial aspect...I don't see how one could argue that it would be cheaper to house a criminal for 10-50+ years versus putting them down in one or two.

[pgm]

Isn't the relativist/absolutist argument supposed to be applied to the motivations behind killing, and not the actual act of killing? We don't take an absolutist stance on any other crime. We kidnap kidnappers and hold them in confinement against their will. We steal time and money from thieves, etc. We don't hold that the act is absolutely wrong - or we could not impose the same act as punishment. Instead, we look at the act, coupled with motivation, to grant ourselves the permission to commit the same crime in reverse as a means of punishment. Why is killing any different?

If we decide to take an absolutist stance on killing alone - then how can police remain armed? How can EU armies continue to exist? Isn't killing people what all those pointy things are for? How can one abolish the death penalty by saying that all killing is always wrong, then somehow make exceptions when it's convenient?

To me, the relativist/absolutist argument is to be applied to motivations. Individuals killing for personal gain is always wrong. Democratic societies killing (via consensus, through the law) for protection or punishment can be right (I say "can" because each must be evaluated/judged on an individual basis...which they are).

Therefore, I'm an absolutist when it comes to the death penalty, and I see the EU's view of -as you say- equating individual murder for gain with society killing for protection both as "murder" as a morally relative stance.

I do agree. Totally. Each point.
And just to say more than just expressing my affinity of opinion, let me make out some points:

"there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty's deterrent value"
NOT TRUE. Here are some studies (I quote):

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at EmoryUniversity. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

So the most important thing that some pious abolitionists who cloak their ideas as humanitarianism should know is that not killing a culprit simply means to kill other innocents.
I could add a long list of philosophers - even Fathers of the Christian Church (Thomas Aquinas besides others) for those who believe in God - who were strongly in favour of the death penalty. But still, the best quote on the matter is from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:
"Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill"

"

[Litti]

I'm sorry but your sources are so invalid that it's FUBAR. Yes I have heard about these studies that only make comparisons between homicides and executions without taking into account any other important factors.

There was a good article a year ago about this sort of stuff, trying to find deterrence value by any means necessary. In the Economist I believe, have to find it. What was funny was that they used exactly the same data and properly examined it and the conclusion was completely different - the opposite.

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalized by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime" - Oscar Wilde

[pgm]

The society has failed if it can only respond to violence with more violence and to killing with more killing. The European Union places more weight on rehabilitation. First of all, capital punishment is not "killing", otherwise you should maintain that imprisonment is kidnapping. And since I suppose whe are talking about murder, this is the definition of "murder" from the vocabular:
1. crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

The key passage here is "not recognised by law". THIS is "killing".
But I suspect that what we still have here is the old sociological bias, the idea that murderers (and wrongdoers in general) are always the product of a failure of society. It's a simple, self evident concept, but it seems too hard to accept for someone: evil is a part of human nature and no society whatsoever will prevent the commission of murders by evil individuals. I can only say that I live in a country were the average punishment for murder is seven and half years' imprisonment: do you really think this is the right way to go?




Originally Posted by Litti http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2876533#post2876533)
Add the fact that you can not reverse capital punishment And if you sentence someone to life imprisonment and you find out that he was innocent after, say, some thirty years, are you sure that this is can be "reversed"? Anyway I think this is simply a paralogism: we are not talking about judicial errors, but about the fairness (moral, legal, etc.) of the capital punishment. A judicial error is a bad thing whatever the punishment: so this argument can't be used di per se against the death penalty.

[pgm]

[quote=Litti;2876904]I'm sorry but your sources are so invalid that it's FUBAR.
Really? Well, at least I mentioned some sources: I usually do so when I sustain a thesis. Which are your non-FUBAR sources about the deterrence value of death penalty?


Yes I have heard about these studies that only make comparisons between homicides and executions without taking into account any other important factors.
Have you "heard" about these studies? When I try to rebut a study I usually READ it. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.


"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalized by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime" - Oscar WildeIn favour of death penalty (philosophers alone):

Plato
Aristotle
Thomas Aquinas
Bernard of Clairvaux
Augustine of Hippo
Rousseau
Kant
Hegel
Nietsche
...
ecc.

Try again, but I'm afraid I have good chances to win the quotation game.
Anyway, if you want a little help I can point out for you a famous personality who declared himself against the death penalty: Robespierre, the man responsible for the Terror during the French Revolution. Such are your travelling companions.

[Kilgor]

Agreed. But that doesn´t mean we should shut our mouth.

The world is not black and whit. But you can´t be half-pregnant. You are against or for death penalty.
I am glad to live in a civilized country without this kind of punishment.

I hope that makes you sleep soundly at night, knowing that your society is civilized because it doesn't put barbaric criminals to death.

Some others have no problems if cancers are cut out of the body.

[Litti]

I was writing a reply but I'm too bored to continue. In the end it's a moral question.

This is how it boils down in my oppinion :

1. A serial killer gets caught and goes to jail. During his incarceration we open a dialogue and try to make him understand why the actions were wrong. In the end we reach a moment where he agrees and repents for all those lives he took. And at the same time we might learn about the reasons behind those acts.

That's one for the good guys.

2. The same but the killer laughs evily and dies of old age.

Atleast we tried.

And that's the most important thing, that the society tries to make an example to its citizens that we aspire to be more...better...above that endless cycle of violence where no one wins.

ps. http://freenet-homepage.de/dpinfo/writers.htm

[Kilgor]

You might be able to optimize a bit from here and there, without fear of risking a fair trial. But at the moment it's about $ 1,300,000 for one case. That's a lot of money to kill someone.

Do you know how much it costs to house a maximum security prisoner per year?, and considering they might live 40-50 years after they committed the offence ?

Do the math.

[Litti]

Yes I know how much the median cost is, I already said it. 40% less.

[RxOnco]

...3. We chop his head off.

Violence wins.

At least he won't live to kill another day. Frankly, I don't care to "open a dialogue" and find out "why" someone did such an act. I don't care "why", only that he did it. Murderers don't need to be reformed, they need to be punished and taken out of society so as not to harm and disrupt the law abiding portion of our population. There's no better punishment than an "eye for an eye." When a dog is found to have attacked and harmed/killed another person...that dog is deemed to be dangerous and put down. This is what we must do to killers who happen to be humans.

[pgm]

[quote] 1. A serial killer gets caught and goes to jail. During his incarceration we open a dialogue and try to make him understand why the actions were wrong. In the end we reach a moment where he agrees and repents for all those lives he took. And at the same time we might learn about the reasons behind those acts.Yes, and the wolf shall lie with the lamb. Amen.



2. The same but the killer laughs evily and dies of old age.

Atleast we tried.
Wrong: after some years the killer comes out because some humanitarians say it's immoral to keep a human being in jail for all his life, and he kills someone else. One more for the bad guys - wasn't the attemp a bit too costly?


3. We chop his head off.

Violence wins.
Wrong again: justice wins.

And above all, this is not a moral question. It's a matter of justice (morally and legally) and safety.

P.S.: Hugo Adam Bedau (?), Dario Fo (the ex fascist converted to communism) and Roger Chesley (?), etc.: is this your answer to Plato, Thomas, Kant, Hegel etc? Come on, try again.

PPS: Google can't be a surrogate for culture and study.

[Litti]

....and you listed Nietzsche.

How about we skip the part with people who made statements about this issue? Just so I dont need to own your ass with Jesus Christ. p-)

Seriously though, I think this subject wont resolve itself based on its own momentum. Deadlocked.

[pgm]

....and you listed Nietzsche.
? So what? I hope you know who he is...


[quote=Litti;2877027]
How about we skip the part with people who made statements about this issue?

Once again, you should read a bit more and "hear" a bit less: at least you should read the sources you propose. In fact, many statements are not related to death penalty (e.g. Bacon, who talks about "revenge" and Montesquieu, who talks about tyranny)


Just so I dont need to own your ass with Jesus Christ.
Not sure to have understood your English. But if you want to say that Jesus objected to death penalty, I again invite you to read: this time the Bible. There isn't a sole Jesus's word against death penalty, which is completely accepted by him as a punishment for the sins of mankind.

Try one last time.

[WarriorMonk]

I don't particularly like the idea of capital punishment - we should just use solitary confinement - and people who don't like capital punishment should take care of them for free.

This way its cheaper to keep a mass murderer alive, the anti-death penalty activists are appeased, and they get a chance to let their real "altruism" shine through.

My two cents.

[RxOnco]

I don't particularly like the idea of capital punishment - we should just use solitary confinement...

Only if it involves not feeding them.

[Litti]

Yes very clever WarriorMonk.

Or how about : Let those who support the death penalty pay the extra amount of money that goes to the whole process. That would be $600,000-$1,500,000 per person. Small price to pay for rightneousness, right?

[WarriorMonk]

Yes very clever WarriorMonk.

Or how about : Let those who support the death penalty pay the extra amount of money that goes to the whole process. That would be $600,000-$1,500,000 per person. Small price to pay for rightneousness, right?

I'm not saying I supported capital punishment but I'm not particularly against it - yours is a good sticking point but then again mine drives more into someone's heart than yours.

[joka]

what is really low, is the incredibly naive statement that "we don't murder our own citizens" in the wake of a tragic shooting by a trouble young man which resulted in a someone's death - murder. I'll assume that Litti probably meant this in terms of the State, but still....

Other than that, I'll grant you that we may have a different sense of sarcasm.

Nah, I'm pretty sure the definition of sarcasm is constant. Obviously we have a different sense of decency though. For example, I wouldn't gloat over American school shootings to argue a point.

[pgm]

Only if it involves not feeding them.

That's a good idea that could solve the matter...

[haze99]

So what is the bottom line litti? Is it really about carrying out justice for the society? Or that to much money is spent in the process? Hell, we could bring up any number of subjects, that any given nation wastes money on. This can't be what you driving at, is it?
What you have failed to consider is justice being served for the family who has losted their loved one. I do hope you never lose a loved one to a murderer. (I think your outlook would change real quick!)
PGM posts are excellant, he stated what I believe and said it better than I could have typed it!

[RxOnco]

I can't really believe that anyone's argument is really based on money. Our government is going to waste money no matter what the issue at hand is. What it boils down to is a fundamental question of do you...or do you not...believe in the death penalty. Most in our country do, that's why we have it.

[Litti]

Actually in the states 48% of the respondents would choose life without parole instead of capital punishment (47%).

There has been a steady drop in the support so at this rate it's only a matter of time before it is removed from the whole country.

[RxOnco]

Actually in the states 48% of the respondents would choose life without parole instead of capital punishment (47%).

There has been a steady drop in the support so at this rate it's only a matter of time before it is removed from the whole country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News) survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favor of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#_note-9)

[Litti]

Very well. I suppose it depends how you ask the question.

That figure has gone down by 15% or so in the last 10 years though. Declining, just like it did in Europe before the form of punishment was removed.

[funnlander]

Its much more fruitful to keep the sickos alive (in controlled enviroment)
for examening the reasons behind the act it self, than "curing the symptom" before any knowlage of the illness it self.

If you can't cope with that, it just usually means that you got too much.
It would also be on the "easy budget cut" list if you would be having
some troubles within world you live in.

no numbers.. no percents..

the Finnish take on it is different from the US.

I don't blaim aither one. they are both right.
the fact is that we are not so many...
and in the US there are loads of people..
some of thease have mental disorders
and some here have em too.

The difference would be the precision of the
conduct. Its easier to seek a consensus among
5 million people than 301 million..
EU being a gathering of the nations who have
their own respected populations with their opinions.

keeping one or two serialkillers alive behind bars is not a task of grate
burden. and the knowlage gained is often very cost-effective.

when one goes to numbers which USA holds its hard to
condemn the use of capital punishment.

in the civvie enviroments..
no i dont like it.

[loganinkosovo]

Actually in the states 48% of the respondents would choose life without parole instead of capital punishment (47%).

There has been a steady drop in the support so at this rate it's only a matter of time before it is removed from the whole country.

Possibly because they never git rid of the scum.

With DNA evidence these days showing just who is guilty and who is not I'm more in favor of the death penalty then ever. But I think it needs to go a bit further. I think all testimony should be give under sodium penithol or some over "Truth" drug in conjunction with a "Lie Detector". We should be using the technology to perfect the process of "Truth" and "Justice".

With a trial and three appeals you should be able to prove your innocence these days. Murders get many more appeals these days then three. Hell, they put themselves through Law school on the taxpayers dollar while spending 20 or 30 years on Death Row.

You are guaranteed a swift and speedy trial. I think society should be guaranteed a swift and speedy execution of your sentence what ever it may be.

The "Legal" system has failed our society. We need to go back to a "Justice" system.

[loganinkosovo]

Its much more fruitful to keep the sickos alive (in controlled enviroment)
for examening the reasons behind the act it self, than "curing the symptom" before any knowlage of the illness it self.

If you can't cope with that, it just usually means that you got too much.
It would also be on the "easy budget cut" list if you would be having
some troubles within world you live in.

no numbers.. no percents..

the Finnish take on it is different from the US.

I don't blaim aither one. they are both right.
the fact is that we are not so many...
and in the US there are loads of people..
some of thease have mental disorders
and some here have em too.

The difference would be the precision of the
conduct. Its easier to seek a consensus among
5 million people than 301 million..
EU being a gathering of the nations who have
their own respected populations with their opinions.

keeping one or two serialkillers alive behind bars is not a task of grate
burden. and the knowlage gained is often very cost-effective.

when one goes to numbers which USA holds its hard to
condemn the use of capital punishment.

in the civvie enviroments..
no i dont like it.

The problem with that is that thanks to bleeding hearts on parole boards they eventually get back out and kill again. The death penalty is the only sure way to keep them from killing again.

If they are "Mentally Ill", and I don't see how a pre-meditated murder could be anything but, when they become well wouldn't they want to die for what they have done? Or do you want them to keep using the excuse they have been using for decades to cheat the hangman and society out of Justice?

People are spending decades on Death Row trying to get off on a technicality of their trial and still cannot prove their innocence.

I say good riddance.

[Litti]

Yes, well I prefer not to live in a police state even if it means that a suspect can lie during a trial.

It would be possible to analyse brain waves in order to read the suspect as well but there are good reasons why we dont do such things.

[funnlander]

The problem with that is that thanks to bleeding hearts on parole boards they eventually get back out and kill again. The death penalty is the only sure way to keep them from killing again.

If they are "Mentally Ill", and I don't see how a pre-meditated murder could be anything but, when they become well wouldn't they want to die for what they have done? Or do you want them to keep using the excuse they have been using for decades to cheat the hangman and society out of Justice?

People are spending decades on Death Row trying to get off on a technicality of their trial and still cannot prove their innocence.

I say good riddance.

Just another way to say that you got too much and you can't cope with it.

And i bet you wouldn't say "good riddance" if you would find your self on death row trying to get out by anymeans.

The "fun" part of this is that we all are quite capable in the thing called murder. The real challence of life is to keep keep the bad things from happening. If you fix the unfixable with the act it self is just bad.
not just the people who get convicted but the fact that it indeed
is inversable. The mere fact of it eats up the foundations of
the so called "freedom" people hold dear.

this concerns especially western style nations where people are too
busy collecting cash instead of stopping for a bit and really thinking
about it. The fact is that you dont really have to do much to
get people to go your way. death penalty is more of an political tool
than punishment. the vast majority of the people who would
be found guilty of the act would do it anyways. and inmates
can cover some their own expenses with work. when you take
thease two facts and think it trough.. you just
find out that many nations justice system is preventing it self
from happening with the death penalty. cost effective?

"Joey honey... the car is leaking again.."
"No worries Selma.. I got bubblegum."

[loganinkosovo]

What a crock.

The Old West had it right.

We Know you're Guilty. You know you're Guilty. And the Rope Knows you're Guilty. Lets get it done.

Thank God Texas has it right. They even have an express lane.