Jump to content
IGNORED

The Death Penalty

gater2

By gater2
in General Chat

Recommended Posts

gater2

gater2

Posted
Posted

Is anyone for this travesty against human rights? I am beginning this topic now, having learnt that last night in the USA, Stanley "Tookie" Williams has been executed in California by that oh so great 'politicial' Governor Schwarzenegger.

If anyone does not know the story, it goes something like this: Williams used to (in the 70's) be part of a big gang in Los Angeles which was responsible for a lot of trouble. He was in fact quite far up in the gang (like a godfather). In 1981 he was convicted (on already flimsy evidence) of killing 4 people, something he totally denied till his dying day. But the most shocking thing about the execution is as follows: In the subsequent 24 years of his life in prison, he was entirely changed and became nothing less than a saint. He wrote numerous books on gangs in USA, warning children in particular against them, as well as drugs and voilence in general. He has been a fantastic ambassador for peace, and has probably stopped a lot of crime through his work. This even culminated in his numerous nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. His high profile support even included Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

However obvious it may seem to the average sane human being that this man has turned around and repented, Governor Schwarzenegger 'could not find sufficient evidence to grant this man clemency' and he was thus executed by lethal injection last night (probably the most (or at least one of the most) inhumane method of ending a human's life, bar possibly crucifixion). Only in America my friends could the state get away with this atrocity (please don't think I am stereotyping the Americans like the other thread has done about the French - of course there are millions of Americans who are perfectly normal and can see reason when they see it, it's just Schwarzenegger is not one of them (and yes I know he's not actually American, but he should be representative of them if he has been elected). I am just saying that there are huge problems with a lot of the USA legal system and no matter how much people argue racism is still rife and if people have money they have a huge advantage, which surely goes against fairness)!

The travesty of Schwarzenegger and the death penalty

That is just one example of how the death penalty can go horribly wrong. The very fact that adversaries of the death penalty miss: the law can never hope to be 100% effective and therefore there will always be that element of doubt. And I don't know if you feel the same as me, but is it not wrong to fill that final void with assumption? Can we really commit such a huge crime when we are not 100% sure? A prime example of this can again be found in the USA: Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death (I mention the USA lot because it is one of the last 'democratic' countries of the west to employ this policy. The vast majority of the other countries in the world who employ it are either dictatorships or are developing and will hopefully give it up when their society developed ebough).

A seemingly strong argument in favour for the death penalty is the deterence argument. However this has major flaws as well: The facts show that a great number of the crimes committed which are 'worthy' of death are in the 'heat of the moment' (some say up to 80%), therefore how can the death penalty work as a deterent? If people commit murder in the heat of the moment, they aren't going to take a few seconds to think what their penalty might be if they get caught. So for this 80% or so, it would make NO difference if there was a death penalty in the law or not. For the other 20% or so who's crimes are premeditated, how many do you actually think plan their crimes on the assumption that they will get caught? No criminal plans on getting caught, so again, penalty cannot act as deterent.

Another argument is cost of prisons, keeping prisoners there etc. Well to people who argue this, I put it to them that to put money before sacred human life is wrong. I for one would be prepared to pay a little bit more to keep mass murders in jail (where they cannot harm the rest of society). How can we seriously think we can 'get rid of the problem' of money and jails, by just killing just enough people so thatwe don't have overcrowded prisons?

I could go on and on (there are a lot more arguments against the death penalty), but if you are interested in fighting against this inhuman practice, rooted in the middle ages, please visit amnesty international and see how you can make a difference so that this heinous crime can be wiped off the face of the Earth. Sorry this has been quite long, it's just something I feel very strongly about. Please feel free to air your views, and lets keep it clean: Lets have a civil debate, not a scrap where forum members are just trying to get one over their fellow members...

My final argument if you have disagreed with everything I have said thus far is simply this: why should civil people like us show the rest of society that killing is wrong by killing? For me, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Amnesty International

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Ronmeister

Guest Ronmeister

Posted
Posted

I think the "life for a life" idea is very simple-minded, I mean in the civilised world we live in today, if someone shoots someone else then it's ok for someone else to shoot the first person. It just doesn't follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Markman

Markman

Posted
Posted

This debate is futile because whatever anyone argues there can be a counter argument. It is also impossible not to take your personal sentiment out of such a question.

I follow the argument against Capital Punishment - Civilisation and all that - and I am sure there are some who feel this way and would feel the same if something happened to someone in their family - but not many.

If my son or daughter were attacked and killed/raped (and I am not delving into all the various categories of murder/assualt - it is actually fairly obvious when the crime justifies the ultimate sanction) then, I am very sorry to offend thoses who feel life is a divine right, I do not want that attacker to live, repent and become a reformed person - I feel that person should lose their life for the atrocity of their action. I know I would feel that way and so I understand why others who have tragically faced such events wish the perpetrators to pay the penalty of death.

There are crimes that are extreme and for which the penalty should be death (we can all think of some) and it is fairly obvious that although society has many faults - most people feel that some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bransonmo

bransonmo

Posted
Posted

Does that include the military? I refer to killing specifically, though I'm sure they dabble in raping and mugging as well.

Thats a good point, should the front line infantry be tried for murder. If so we would still be going through the back log from world war two. Should we not have had soldiers defending England over the centuries, when invaded should countries just lay down their arms and say sorry we just don't kill.

I served the Royal Australian Regiment Infantry in Vietnam, 1965-66 and 68-69. I saw enough killing to have an opinion, but no raping or mugging. I cannot answer for other wars or eras, only my experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hilltop red

hilltop red

Posted
Posted

If the death sentence is not used than prison life for killers should be intolarable.

Bare minuim food and water. empty cell except bed and bucket. and bright pink jumpsuits with " murderer on.

life should be life. serial rapists and serial murderers and pedos should never set foot outside of prison again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest revkev

Guest revkev

Posted
Posted

If the death sentence is not used than prison life for killers should be intolarable.

Bare minuim food and water. empty cell except bed and bucket. and bright pink jumpsuits with " murderer on.

life should be life. serial rapists and serial murderers and pedos should never set foot outside of prison again.

I agree with this post. The argument against the death penalty is that there have been too many miscarriages of justice. One innocent person executed is one too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cinker

cinker

Posted
Posted

If the death sentence is not used than prison life for killers should be intolarable.

Bare minuim food and water. empty cell except bed and bucket. and bright pink jumpsuits with " murderer on.

life should be life. serial rapists and serial murderers and pedos should never set foot outside of prison again.

I think that one thing was overlookedlthough he wrote those books he never repented his sins. He did not show any remorse for the 4 remaining families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimtastic

jimtastic

Posted
Posted

Let me throw a few facts back at you:

- Stanley Williams (I refuse to use the media-friendly "Tookie") shot a storekeeper at point-blank range in the back with a shotgun for $100, and didn't stop laughing about it for an hour.

- Stanley Williams shot an entire family for the contents of their till - $150.

- Stanley Williams has never apologised for his crimes, nor assisted the state in any way.

- Other recipients of Nobel Peace Prize nominations include Adolf Hitler (who won it) and Slobodan Milosevic.

I don't care how long ago it was, or what he's done since. If he was indeed responsible for the crimes listed above, I don't think that he deserves any pity.

What I don't get is why these people appeal. If it was me, I think I'd rather die than be locked in a hamster cage for the rest of my life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
annanimo

annanimo

Posted
Posted

I think that one thing was overlookedlthough he wrote those books he never repented his sins. He did not show any remorse for the 4 remaining families.

Yes, but he's always maintained his innocence. If you were innocent would you confess your "sins" just because it suited others?

I don't know if he committed those acts or not. He certainly wasn't a nice character though. This does not mean that those of us who consider ourselves to be "better" citizens have the right to judge him for his former lifestyle. The fact that he was an unsavoury character does not mean he's not entitled to the same legal rights as others.

Now, to go through gater2's points (he's put forward his argument well enough, he deserves a reply):

Is anyone for this travesty against human rights? I am beginning this topic now, having learnt that last night in the USA, Stanley "Tookie" Williams has been executed in California by that oh so great 'politicial' Governor Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger is pretty irrelevant. You don't hide your contempt for him very well, but he's a typical US republican. Democratically elected, I might add. He represents a strain of opinion widely supported by the church and the belief system you personally accept.

he was convicted (on already flimsy evidence) of killing 4 people, something he totally denied till his dying day. Yes, I accept this, but denial isn't necessarily synonymous with innocence. To be honest, I don't know if he was innocent or guilty. Many people have their opnions, usually based on some kind of prejudice. Which is the real point I want to make. How can the death penalty be reasonably practiced when there is so much doubt about the very "facts" that lead to conviction?

In the subsequent 24 years of his life in prison, he was entirely changed and became nothing less than a saint. He wrote numerous books on gangs in USA, warning children in particular against them, as well as drugs and voilence in general. He has been a fantastic ambassador for peace, and has probably stopped a lot of crime through his work. This even culminated in his numerous nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. His high profile support even included Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Great, I applaud his efforts. There have been others liked him who have genuinely reformed. But does this, ethically and morally speaking, mean that he should escape justice? Surely justice demands that the consequences of a crime remain, however regretful one may be of a former lifestyle?

However obvious it may seem to the average sane human being that this man has turned around and repented

Get real, many people refuse to accept that men like him can actually turn about. Now, Iknow your Christian faith tells you differently, as does my work with people suffering mental health related problems. But I'm sure there are many across the world, not just the US, that feel justice has been done now. And, as I said above, does repentance necessarily equate with deserving a lesser punishment? Does justice not mean all should be treated equally?

Governor Schwarzenegger 'could not find sufficient evidence to grant this man clemency' and he was thus executed by lethal injection last night (probably the most (or at least one of the most) inhumane method of ending a human's life, bar possibly crucifixion). It worries me that it's Schwarzeneggar and not the judicial system that makes such a decision. In regards evidence for clemency, this usually takes into account whether someone has verbally expressed remorse for their crimes, rather than the evidence of a repentant lifestyle. Rightly or wrongly, that's the way it works. And in this case guilt was never admitted, let alone an admission of feeling remorse. As for lethal injection - I'm glad you mention it as inhumane because the general perception is the opposite. It's not a way I would like to die, anyway.

Only in America my friends could the state get away with this atrocity (please don't think I am stereotyping the Americans like the other thread has done about the French - of course there are millions of Americans who are perfectly normal and can see reason when they see it, it's just Schwarzenegger is not one of them Only in America? Really? Also, what are you considering normal? I have my own concerns about the US political and legal systems, not to mention its religious "right", but of course normality is relative to one's culture. American politicians have for decades viewed and interpreted events through a very narrow prism of understanding and we are now seeing this in regards home affairs. Perhaps it is the evangelical culture that demands interpreting ethical issues along black-and-white lines, but Schwarzeneggar and his ilk represent quite a "normal" school of thought in America.

That is just one example of how the death penalty can go horribly wrong. The very fact that adversaries of the death penalty miss: the law can never hope to be 100% effective and therefore there will always be that element of doubt. And I don't know if you feel the same as me, but is it not wrong to fill that final void with assumption? Can we really commit such a huge crime when we are not 100% sure? This is the usual argument against the death penalty. Of course, this can also be true in our own country, when, on flawed evidence people are sentenced to life imprisonment only to have the conviction quashed years later. Which is a better representative of justice? Neither, in both cases an innocent person gets what they don't deserve. The difference with the death penalty however is that the consequences are more final.

The way forward is to have more open and accountable judicial system, to prevent these miscarriages of justice happening at all or at least to seriously reduce the possibility of such happening. You mention racism in the US, but if we take in our own nation, the case of the Birmingham Six - there was no way they were going to be found innocent. The fact they were not guilty was a minor inconvenience. We need to develop systems of justice which are able to rise above such prejudices. It would also help if the police force could be trusted in this regard, but they're struggling at the moment trying to overcome the "institutionally racist" tag.

A seemingly strong argument in favour for the death penalty is the deterence argument. There is no evidence to suggest it acts as a deterrent. Actually I would be more deterred by the prospect of being locked up for the remainder of my life than the death penalty. Bearing in mind the high ccrime rate in areas of America which use the death penalty, I think this argument is extremely limp.

Another argument is cost of prisons, keeping prisoners there etc. Well to people who argue this, I put it to them that to put money before sacred human life is wrong. I for one would be prepared to pay a little bit more to keep mass murders in jail (where they cannot harm the rest of society). How can we seriously think we can 'get rid of the problem' of money and jails, by just killing just enough people so thatwe don't have overcrowded prisons? Your ethical argument is one I accept, but the counter-argument would be that such human lives are worthless anyway. The financial argument is not a telling one because such a tiny percentage of the prison population of the US are on death row that it is pretty irrelevant. Very little in real terms would be saved, especially given that many spend years in prison prior to being executed. besides, justice dictates that people should be executed because they deserve it, not for reasons of financial pragmatism.

I broadly agree with you gater2, at least on the wider issue of the death penalty. It is a primitive lust for revenge expressing itself as legal justice. But there are some issues you raise about consequences of crime that I don't go along with. I don't accept that "good behaviour" should necessarily have any bearing on someone's sentence, however genuine the change.

I could go on and on ...yes, and so have I! Hope it makes some sense though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rednready

Rednready

Posted
Posted

Let me throw a few facts back at you:

- Stanley Williams (I refuse to use the media-friendly "Tookie") shot a storekeeper at point-blank range in the back with a shotgun for $100, and didn't stop laughing about it for an hour.

- Stanley Williams shot an entire family for the contents of their till - $150.

- Stanley Williams has never apologised for his crimes, nor assisted the state in any way.

- Other recipients of Nobel Peace Prize nominations include Adolf Hitler (who won it) and Slobodan Milosevic.

I don't care how long ago it was, or what he's done since. If he was indeed responsible for the crimes listed above, I don't think that he deserves any pity.

What I don't get is why these people appeal. If it was me, I think I'd rather die than be locked in a hamster cage for the rest of my life...

Jimtastic.......I'me in my 60's and could not have said it better.

When you arrive in jail you learn two distinct facts. Everyone is innocent, and keep your mouth shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest WillsbridgeRed

Guest WillsbridgeRed

Posted
Posted

Who are WE to make comment on the legal system of another country?

I notice a big fuss is made when a gangster is killed in the States, but nothing is said about Saudi, China, Iran; The list is a long one.

As normal this fuss is made by the sneering liberals, oh so content in their view of a world that they could create if only those nasty nazis (anyone that has an opposing viewpoint) would go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CGS RED

CGS RED

Posted
Posted

Who are WE to make comment on the legal system of another country?

I notice a big fuss is made when a gangster is killed in the States, but nothing is said about Saudi, China, Iran; The list is a long one.

As normal this fuss is made by the sneering liberals, oh so content in their view of a world that they could create if only those nasty nazis (anyone that has an opposing viewpoint) would go away.

For one so young that is a very accurate incisive comment. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Markman

Markman

Posted
Posted

Don't support it: in my opinion the risk of putting to death an innocent person far outweighs all other arguments. End of.

Consider the Birmingham 6 for instance. If capital punishment was an option back then, do you think that they would have had a chance of any other sentence?

Cannot agree - there are some circumstances when guilt is BEYOND doubt (The Yorkshire Ripper, The Wests etc) - there is no doubt and in those circumstances why should they live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dagest

dagest

Posted
Posted

Traitors, and child killers should be put to death.

Otherwise, i'm not in favour, as its too open to abuse

"Traitors"? Is that anyone who refuses to follow the policy dictated by the govt? What if you refused follow Hitler in Nazi Germany? Does that also apply to any one who protested against the Iraq war?

Do bomber pilots who dropped bombs and killed children count as child killers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...