The Death Penalty

[dagest]

They are pilots that have a job too do. women and children are not the target. Accidents happen in war zones.

So, if someone goes out into the street and shoots a kid in the head they should be executed, but if you're dropping bombs or whatever for the military and you kill a kid then that's ok?

Why is it ok to kill someone as a punishment for a crime as well?

All in all, some killing is fine and ordinary (in the name of the state etc), but not other types of killing.

[bucksred]

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

You, sir, are a prat of the highest order. Get a bloody life outside your silly little socialist utopian dream fantasy.

Oh, and do feel free to report me, cos last time I looked we can still post, because of military skills and suffering, not socialist claptrap-NOW that causes problems.

So, if someone goes out into the street and shoots a kid in the head they should be executed, but if you're dropping bombs or whatever for the military and you kill a kid then that's ok?

Why is it ok to kill someone as a punishment for a crime as well?

All in all, some killing is fine and ordinary (in the name of the state etc), but not other types of killing.

So, we can all abandon your sorry ass, if a war comes to our back door, because we're all killers.

jeeeeeeeeeeeezuz, you are one twisted sucker, you really are.

I thought the babykiller mentality among you socialists died in thew Vietnam era, thankfully along with all hippies

[hilltop red]

So, if someone goes out into the street and shoots a kid in the head they should be executed, but if you're dropping bombs or whatever for the military and you kill a kid then that's ok?

Why is it ok to kill someone as a punishment for a crime as well?

All in all, some killing is fine and ordinary (in the name of the state etc), but not other types of killing.

I take it your a pacifist(sp)

If a pilot has to bomb a bomb making factory and a civillan is caught up in the resulting explosion than thats just bad luck. And is a risk the goverment takes everytime we go to war.

[bucksred]

"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?

Traitors: Defined as someone who betrays his or her country to the enemy. simple. Thousands of anti nazi Germans, stayed loyal to their country, right or wrong. hitler did kill anti nazis. I am against the Iraq war.

No, because they were acting under military law, ie given a legal order by their superiors, as opposed to a trigger happy bunch of mercanaries who clearly aint, or a bunch of political troops, acting against the rules of war, ie the SS, and the NKVD/KGB.

Clear?

We all undertake instruction of our duties, rules of engagements, rights, and what is not classified as a leagal order, but then Guardian/Observer/Independant readers don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant at the military/police/secret service, rather than question their sacred cows eh?

[One Team In Keynsham]

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?

My argument is that capital punishment should not be made available for the very risk that undoing an error, miscarriage of justice, what have you, is impossible at a later date. I am more than prepared to have the likes of Sutcliffe and the Wests rotting in prison to their last day on earth if it means that someone innocent doesn't get executed. You have a different opinion, fine, I don't agree with it.

[dagest]

I take it your a pacifist(sp)

If a pilot has to bomb a bomb making factory and a civillan is caught up in the resulting explosion than thats just bad luck. And is a risk the goverment takes everytime we go to war.

What about the bombing of Dresden in WWII? What about the bombing of the Al Jazeera building in Iraq? Don't forget possibly up to 30000 people died as a result of bombing in Iraq. All for what? To punish a dictator who will probably be well ooked after in a high security prison. Or was it the other reason?

[hilltop red]

What about the bombing of Dresden in WWII? What about the bombing of the Al Jazeera building in Iraq? Don't forget possibly up to 30000 people died as a result of bombing in Iraq. All for what? To punish a dictator who will probably be well ooked after in a high security prison. Or was it the other reason?

london, coventry, bristol lets not forget they got bombed in war time aswell.

hiroshima and nagasaki forced the japanese into into submission

[dagest]

You, sir, are a prat of the highest order. Get a bloody life outside your silly little socialist utopian dream fantasy.

Oh, and do feel free to report me, cos last time I looked we can still post, because of military skills and suffering, not socialist claptrap-NOW that causes problems.

So, we can all abandon your sorry ass, if a war comes to our back door, because we're all killers.

jeeeeeeeeeeeezuz, you are one twisted sucker, you really are.

I thought the babykiller mentality among you socialists died in thew Vietnam era, thankfully along with all hippies

With all due respect you know nothing about my life. Firstly, I am not a Socialist and I don't have utopian dreams. Anyway, I don't know how Socialist claptrap causes problems (perhaps it is economic inequality that causes Socialism?). Besides I thought we lived in a free country (or at least we used to) where people are free to express their views.

I'm sure if war comes to this country my ass and yours will be some of the last the govt. will be worried about. Generally, they're more interested in saving their own, which is why they build themselves underground bunkers that only they know about. In any case, I imagine you'll happily sign up as you imagine you'll be doing your patriotic duty whereas I'll probably be coerced.

As far as I'm concerned killing is killing, whether you're hacking your neighbour to death or ripping someone's guts out with a bayonet you're still actively taking someone's life. It sounds like you've got some demons to exorcise my old fruit.

[hilltop red]

With all due respect you know nothing about my life. Firstly, I am not a Socialist and I don't have utopian dreams. Anyway, I don't know how Socialist claptrap causes problems (perhaps it is economic inequality that causes Socialism?). Besides I thought we lived in a free country (or at least we used to) where people are free to express their views.

I'm sure if war comes to this country my ass and yours will be some of the last the govt. will be worried about. Generally, they're more interested in saving their own, which is why they build themselves underground bunkers that only they know about. In any case, I imagine you'll happily sign up as you imagine you'll be doing your patriotic duty whereas I'll probably be coerced.

As far as I'm concerned killing is killing, whether you're hacking your neighbour to death or ripping someone's guts out with a bayonet you're still actively taking someone's life. It sounds like you've got some demons to exorcise my old fruit.

that dagest is an insult to every man and woman who has given there life for there country, people who fought for there country to keep you and me free, to allow us to be able to express these differing views.

[B-Rizzle]

I don't think that the death penalty is right, because i don't feel we have the right to take someone elses life!

Thats what these people are doing i here you cry, but when we put the murders etc. to death we are all stooping to their level!

Has anyone ever heard of forgiveness? Remorse? these people often change over periods of time and yet are still punished!

People say the guy who walks away from fight is more of a man!

People who forgive rather than looking for revenge are more of a man!

[WTFiGO!?!]

Yeah definately. Surely the person who carries off the death of a murderer becomes a murderer themselves and should therefore be murdered themself. It would be and endless spirall and we'd all end up dead!

[Ruffus T Firefly]

With all due respect you know nothing about my life. Firstly, I am not a Socialist and I don't have utopian dreams. Anyway, I don't know how Socialist claptrap causes problems (perhaps it is economic inequality that causes Socialism?). Besides I thought we lived in a free country (or at least we used to) where people are free to express their views.

I'm sure if war comes to this country my ass and yours will be some of the last the govt. will be worried about. Generally, they're more interested in saving their own, which is why they build themselves underground bunkers that only they know about. In any case, I imagine you'll happily sign up as you imagine you'll be doing your patriotic duty whereas I'll probably be coerced.

As far as I'm concerned killing is killing, whether you're hacking your neighbour to death or ripping someone's guts out with a bayonet you're still actively taking someone's life. It sounds like you've got some demons to exorcise my old fruit.

Word!

[scootered]

What are they then?

I've answered the question you asked Richard, would an explanation make a bit of difference to your rather naive logic.

[bucksred]

With all due respect you know nothing about my life. Firstly, I am not a Socialist and I don't have utopian dreams. Anyway, I don't know how Socialist claptrap causes problems (perhaps it is economic inequality that causes Socialism?). Besides I thought we lived in a free country (or at least we used to) where people are free to express their views.

I'm sure if war comes to this country my ass and yours will be some of the last the govt. will be worried about. Generally, they're more interested in saving their own, which is why they build themselves underground bunkers that only they know about. In any case, I imagine you'll happily sign up as you imagine you'll be doing your patriotic duty whereas I'll probably be coerced.

As far as I'm concerned killing is killing, whether you're hacking your neighbour to death or ripping someone's guts out with a bayonet you're still actively taking someone's life. It sounds like you've got some demons to exorcise my old fruit.

You spout utter bilge, my little friend. By that stattement, both sets of grandparents, my parents, and my little brother are killers by your definition. I got no demons to exorcise as you put it, other than to dispute dangerous lunacy like your statement about killers. If my grandparents, and parents didnt kill, we would not exist, and your freedoms would not exist, and my family aint killers, THAT I can faithfully promise. I and millions of people resent your entire disreputable argument.

And err yep come a war my ass is the Governments, and peeople like you would bitch like hell if we didnt do our duty protecting the likes of you, eh? or more likely try and stab us in the back wirth treachery.

[dagest]

You spout utter bilge, my little friend. By that stattement, both sets of grandparents, my parents, and my little brother are killers by your definition. I got no demons to exorcise as you put it, other than to dispute dangerous lunacy like your statement about killers. If my grandparents, and parents didnt kill, we would not exist, and your freedoms would not exist, and my family aint killers, THAT I can faithfully promise. I and millions of people resent your entire disreputable argument.

And err yep come a war my ass is the Governments, and peeople like you would bitch like hell if we didnt do our duty protecting the likes of you, eh? or more likely try and stab us in the back wirth treachery.

You talk utter s h i t e. Look at what you write:

You spout utter bilge, my little friend. By that stattement, both sets of grandparents, my parents, and my little brother are killers by your definition.

So you're not from a family of killers then?

Oh hang on, then you say:

If my grandparents, and parents didnt kill, we would not exist

You're not even aware of your own contradictions are you?

Sweet dreams fruit cake.

That dagest is an insult to every man and woman who has given there life for there country, people who fought for there country to keep you and me free, to allow us to be able to express these differing views.

Do you want to qualify that? I'm my opinion, we have only fought one war in the last 200 years that was justified. That was WWII. Why should I give a damn about a load of blood thirsty soldiers who created the British Empire on the end of their bayonets?

Also I don't recall saying that killing wasn't justified in some circumstances. I was questioning why it is considered legitimate to kill at the state's behest, but not through your own will.

Yeah definately. Surely the person who carries off the death of a murderer becomes a murderer themselves and should therefore be murdered themself. It would be and endless spirall and we'd all end up dead!

Finally, someone understands why it doesn't make sense to punish death with death.

[scootered]

Yeah definately. Surely the person who carries off the death of a murderer becomes a murderer themselves and should therefore be murdered themself. It would be and endless spirall and we'd all end up dead!

Can't believe that you Richard agreed with that statement, it's probaly the worst arguement against capital punishment i've ever read!!

[North Bristols Cider Army]

If someone murders someone else, then I'm afraid that they deserve to also die, just like if someone ends up being mentally scared for life because of rape or anything just as bad, then the person who did that should be killed.

It's much easier to prove someone is guilty now then ever before because of DNA, and IMO it's a case of an eye for an eye

[bucksred]

You talk utter s h i t e. Look at what you write:

So you're not from a family of killers then?

Er no, my family SERVED their country, Grandad at Jutland, grandmother in Base Hospitals, the other Grandad a Royal Marine, and the other Grandmother, also in hospital. My dad served in Artic covoys, Malta Covoys, The Battle of The Atlantic, and D Day, and me mum before serving lived in East London during the blitz. They did their duty as good citizens of their country, specially as me dad was second generation African, and didnt have to serve. My little brother served in Gulf War 2. Any killing done by any of them was justified, and done for a reason, and legally sanctioned. People like the SS, and KGB, NOW they are killers. The ordinary soldier, sailor or airman is not, repeat not a killer

Oh hang on, then you say:

You're not even aware of your own contradictions are you?

Sweet dreams fruit cake.

Do you want to qualify that? I'm my opinion, we have only fought one war in the last 200 years that was justified. That was WWII. Why should I give a damn about a load of blood thirsty soldiers who created the British Empire on the end of their bayonets?

Tough mate, those blood thirty soldiers helped protect your country, and one of them even helped set up the UN. world War 1, was justified, as Britain, France & Germany all garanteed Belgiums nuetrality, Britain & France were honour bound to respond to German agression in violating that treaty. The Napoleonic wars were justified to stop Britain being occupied, by an agressive dictator, same as WW2. Cant argue over the others, know nowt about most. after all I'm a descendant of those nasty colonists. We didnt fight many wars..left that to the mother country.

Also I don't recall saying that killing wasn't justified in some circumstances. I was questioning why it is considered legitimate to kill at the state's behest, but not through your own will.

Finally, someone understands why it doesn't make sense to punish death with death.

Jeeezus, smell the coffee and join the real world. There will always be war, and therfore killing. This country has a very good clean record, unlike the Germany, Russia, france, Italy, Spain, China, Japan, and theUS.

Christ, a British soldier almost has to be shot, before he can respond, and we get threatened with court martials if we do. We do our jobs with PRIDE, DISCIPLINE, and HONOUR, because we know our role, our history, and our place in the system

As to the death penalty,read my comments earlier

With all due respect you know nothing about my life. Firstly, I am not a Socialist and I don't have utopian dreams. Anyway, I don't know how Socialist claptrap causes problems (perhaps it is economic inequality that causes Socialism?). Besides I thought we lived in a free country (or at least we used to) where people are free to express their views.

Just look at the socialist paradises of Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for two prime examples of Socialist claptrap, at its very finest.

Both countries have the dubious honour of being more backward now at least twenty years after independance, than they were in colonial times- quite an acheivement in the case of DRC, the Begians were hardly good masters, beleive me!! And ask yourself why all the formewr socialist states of the Eastern Bloc have fallen over themselves to join the capitalist system- they had a choice, in the genuine democracies which work there now.

[gater2]

I have been away for a while and unfortunately havn't been able to participate in the debate, but now I'm back and have read what you have put I'd like to take up some points. It all makes very interesting reading.

You seemingly have failed to mention that this man was the founder of the LA crips, a gang who still operate today and have been assigned to thousands of murders in the past 30 years.

Of course, he never denied that, but surely the crucial point is that he denounced his affiliation with completely and all other gangs, and even wrote literature against such gangs. He was, in fact, being helpful to society, stopping many young americans joining such organisations.

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

I am afraid you have assumed that killing and murder are the same thing. That is fundamentally wrong. I see the quote from Voltaire on your signature says the same thing. Killing is not necessarily evil. Surely you don't call Allied forces killing the Nazis in the 2nd World war evil? Surely it would have been worse to let the Nazis take over the world and keep murdering the Jews and anyone who opposed them? Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", and that is contradictory to your Voltaire quote, and I know I'd rather side with Burke.

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.

That is exactally what Governor Schwarzenegger said and I will tell you why it is wrong: He did not show any remorse for the 4 remaining families because he always maintained that he did not commit the crimes! How and why would he say sorry for something that he said he didn't do? Schwarzenegger missed the point totally; he's almost saying: "If he says sorry for the things he's done I'll let him off, but as he has not said sorry, I have no option but to execute him." But again, why should he say sorry for something he claims not to have done (whether he actually did it or not is an entirely different matter). Schwarzenegger presupposes that Williams acknowledges that he was directly responsible for the crimes of which he was being convicted, which he just didn't.

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.

Find me concrete evidence of this and I'll believe you. The fact is, as I mentioned before, that the evidence was already flimsy and he has never admitted it (I'm not saying he didn't do the crime, just that you CANNOT kill someone with less than 100% certainty - surely even pro-capital punishment people think that).

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

Sorry, what??? Please if you bring facts into the argument, make them real. Hitler never won the Nobel Peace prize. He was nominated by E.G.C. Brandt, member of the Swedish parliament, but this nomination was later withdrawn. Find Hitler or Milosevic on this list and I'll give you a tenner: Peace Prize winners

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?

Again, the most sophisticated and constructive reply, thank you very much. Just want to raise a few things though.

This goes back to my original point: Williams never said he did the crimes, and it has NOT been proved to nearly a satisfactory degree that he was responsible, so what kind of justice would that be? My idea of justice does include, at least to a certain extent (even if it may be just letting someone live) the possibility to change. It's a very hard question, but in my opinion (maybe biased due to my faith, but I do know many atheists who agree with me), it would take a very sick individual to condemn such a good man to death. When you are talking in these terms, it seems to me, it is more 'revenge' than pure justice which is fuelling the response, and these are certainly merky waters.

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?

Just becasue many people refuse to accept that men like him can turn about does not suggest to me a civilized society should execute all people who 'deserve it'. This case was actually raised to me by a non-religious friend of mine doing Law at King's College London, and his arguments have no 'higher moral law' involved, he just looked into the case and commented on the huge miscarriage of justice. I do believe justice means all should be treated equally, but as I've made it quite clear, justice does not need to be death, and I do believe the law should take repentance into account. It is proven that many criminals who have committed lesser crimes (who, before going into prison were definately detrimental to society) have come out of prison reformed and actually added to the wellbeing of society, so I don't accept that this cannot happen to even those who commit the worst crimes (yes it is more unlikely, but dismissing it is naive in my opinion).

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.

I agree totally. I think right wing evangelical Christians are to blame for a lot of problems in USA, even though I share the same faith as them. I too am evangelical, and have no extreme prejudices against the centre right wing (many people at my Church are centre-right like a lot of these Americans), but for some reason, if one adds an almost unhealthy dose of nationalism that these Americans possess, it can turn rather sour.

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

It definately does, your answers are always intelligible and accessible, and I appreciate it.

It's much easier to prove someone is guilty now then ever before because of DNA, and IMO it's a case of an eye for an eye

It may be easier, but it's still not foolproof. Like with this case I mentioned above. It does say an eye for an eye in the Bible, yes, but Jesus seemingly contradicts this in the New Testament by saying: Love your enemies and forgive those who wrong you. I don't want to get into this, as it is a theological argument rather than political (which is what i intended to keep this debate - yes, I know I have included a bit of theology, but this merits a whole other thread if anyone wants to take it up).

[dagest]

I am afraid you have assumed that killing and murder are the same thing. That is fundamentally wrong. I see the quote from Voltaire on your signature says the same thing. Killing is not necessarily evil. Surely you don't call Allied forces killing the Nazis in the 2nd World war evil? Surely it would have been worse to let the Nazis take over the world and keep murdering the Jews and anyone who opposed them? Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", and that is contradictory to your Voltaire quote, and I know I'd rather side with Burke.

I have assumed no such thing. I was responding to a post that said that all killers should be killed. I have not said that killing was evil either (please don't put words into my mouth). I recognize the difference between killing and murder; it is a difference distinguished by legality. To kill someone at the state's behest is legal. To murder is to kill without the state's authority.

If you kill with the state's authority it is justified and occasionally results in a slap on the back. If you murder (again wthout state authority) the state will punish you for the act in itself and for questioning the state's monopoly on killing. However, can you defend the execution of state criminals? And can you defend killing in a war of state aggression (like the war on Iraq for example)? The state is the biggest killer of all. But here's the crux, the state isn't an abstract conception, the state is humanity.

And to qualify my earlier comments, I think some killing is justified. In my opinion it is justified to kill/murder to protect my family. Also it is justifed to kill for defensive reasons like WWII.

[gater2]

And to qualify my earlier comments, I think some killing is justified. In my opinion it is justified to kill/murder to protect my family. Also it is justifed to kill for defensive reasons like WWII.

How do you justify your Voltaire quote then?

[annanimo]

Again, the most sophisticated and constructive reply, thank you very much. Just want to raise a few things though.

Thank you!

This goes back to my original point: Williams never said he did the crimes, and it has NOT been proved to nearly a satisfactory degree that he was responsible, so what kind of justice would that be? My idea of justice does include, at least to a certain extent (even if it may be just letting someone live) the possibility to change. It's a very hard question, but in my opinion (maybe biased due to my faith, but I do know many atheists who agree with me), it would take a very sick individual to condemn such a good man to death. When you are talking in these terms, it seems to me, it is more 'revenge' than pure justice which is fuelling the response, and these are certainly merky waters.

I'm sure you will appreciate that I was not arguing for the death penalty, which I find morally abhorrent. It's just that ethical arguments have to be more then merely emotional or doctrinal, and I was trying to open the argument up (obviously unsuccessfully) from the point of view of what justice represents and demands.

As you say revenge should never be the justification for state murder, which is what Williams' execution amounts to. As I said in my previous post, I am not convinced of Williams' guilt in this case, and I am concerned that an infamous previous lifestyle condemned him rather than any evidence. Which raises serious questions about US justice, the role of the jury/judge and the purpose served by the death sentence. For me nobody has adequately answered the question: why execute him? And that is crucial. Because unless that can be satisfactorily explained, there should be no reason to be having an argument as to why he should not be executed.

I would find it difficult to condemn anyone to death, even someone who was not perceived as a "good man". I also agree that human nature has the potential to change. I am not speaking from naivity but from experience. Admittedly, many people do not change but why should they be seen as typical.

However, this should not have any effect on the way justice is delivered. Justice as I perceive it is individuals receiving what they deserve for having had committed a crime. This is not relative to any lifestyle they had before, nor any action they take afterwards. A man who commits a crime and repents is equally as guilty as a man who commits a crime but remains unrepentant. The sentence should be the same.

The difficulty in the US with people like Williams is that we are uncomfortable with ending a life that has gone from criminal to productive. Which is one reason to oppose the death penalty. Williams no longer had the potential to do anything destructive to society but could and did do much that was positive. For me it made no sense to kill this man, whatever his past. The death penalty makes no attempt to reform an individual, or even to reform society. It is, when stripped of intellectual pseudo-justification, an expression of humanity's basest instincts for revenge. Not exactly the most secure basis for social justice!

[Rutland Red]

Bucks Red, ignore the prat and his rantings. He is only on a wind up mission or he clearly hasn't a clue about current affairs overseas and history of the WW2.

Anyway.........

My views on the death penalty are as follows:

Serial killers should be put to death. This way people who are found beyond any doubt that they are guilty should face the maximum penalty.

Britain does not need another Derek Bentley case.

Also, does anyone remember the documentary, 14 days in May?

[annanimo]

Bucks Red, ignore the prat and his rantings. He is only on a wind up mission or he clearly hasn't a clue about current affairs overseas and history of the WW2.

Anyway.........

My views on the death penalty are as follows:

Serial killers should be put to death. This way people who are found beyond any doubt that they are guilty should face the maximum penalty.

Britain does not need another Derek Bentley case.

Also, does anyone remember the documentary, 14 days in May?

14 Days in May...heard of it but don't remember much about it. Enlighten me.

Understand your view on the death penalty, the difficulty is of course in being absolutely sure that guilt is beyond doubt. My own view is really that justice has to be the same for everyone, so if judges finds a number of people guilty of similar crimes they should all be receiving the same punishment, regardless of either how "good" a person they are seen to be or the nature of the evidence. I don't see how it is consistent with a fair system of justice that either some are executed and some not, or that all convicted murderers should be executed bearing in mind the likelihood that some will in fact be innocent.

Will say that there is a world of difference between a discussion about the death penalty for convicted criminals and the tangent some people have gone off on suggesting that people who served their country during WW2 and defeated fascism are murderers. I'm not one for glorifying war, neither was my grandfather who served in WW2 and witnessed first hand the atrocities at Belsen, nor my brother who served in Bosnia. But on occasion wars are necessary and the troops who were committed, like my grandfather, to defeating Nazism deserve a bit more respect than to be labelled killers.

The many young people who fought for our country and for freedom deserve recognition for their courage and commitment. It is both shameful and simplistic to argue these people should be categorised alongside McVeigh, Williams and other convicted murderers.

[dagest]

14 Days in May...heard of it but don't remember much about it. Enlighten me.

Understand your view on the death penalty, the difficulty is of course in being absolutely sure that guilt is beyond doubt. My own view is really that justice has to be the same for everyone, so if judges finds a number of people guilty of similar crimes they should all be receiving the same punishment, regardless of either how "good" a person they are seen to be or the nature of the evidence. I don't see how it is consistent with a fair system of justice that either some are executed and some not, or that all convicted murderers should be executed bearing in mind the likelihood that some will in fact be innocent.

Will say that there is a world of difference between a discussion about the death penalty for convicted criminals and the tangent some people have gone off on suggesting that people who served their country during WW2 and defeated fascism are murderers. I'm not one for glorifying war, neither was my grandfather who served in WW2 and witnessed first hand the atrocities at Belsen, nor my brother who served in Bosnia. But on occasion wars are necessary and the troops who were committed, like my grandfather, to defeating Nazism deserve a bit more respect than to be labelled killers.

The many young people who fought for our country and for freedom deserve recognition for their courage and commitment. It is both shameful and simplistic to argue these people should be categorised alongside McVeigh, Williams and other convicted murderers.

I can only presume the latter part of your argument is directed at me, though you have chosen to label me as "some people". You have obviously paid as much attention to my name as you have my argument.

I began my argument without their being any moral attachment whatsoever. I never said killing was wrong. And I have said quite clearly that some killing in my opinion is justified. I said that WWII was justified. I ahve siad that defending my fmaily is justified. Why don't you read my posts properly instead of indulging in your sanctimonious, pompous waffle? Anybody could write long sententious sentences if we liked.

Why can't you accept that soldiers kill/murder? "Kill" by Dictionary.Com Perhaps you would prefer some Blairite PC term like enemy resource eliminators? It's an issue of justification isn't it? In some circumstances it is, but more often than not it isn't. Now I ask you, what label is appropriate for US soldiers in Vietnam? What label is appropriate for Chinese soldiers in Tibet? What lable is appropriate for Indonesian soldiers in East Timor? And lastly what label is appropriate for occupying soldiers in Iraq? And to repeat my central point: why is it ok for any of these soldiers to kill or murder? It's ok because they do it in the name of the state. As I have said the state (some humanity) has a monopoly on legal/legitimate killing. Why can soldiers go to foreign countries kill and be rewarded? Whereas, if you killed your neighbour (say he slept with your wife for arguments sake) you would be tried, convicted of murder and very likely incarcerated for a lenghty time.

Isn't it all completey absurd to make pronouncements about the issue when human existence is full of so much contradictory behaviour? The ultimate absurdity is punishing killing by killing. Perhaps we should rape rapists too?

And to the person who called me a prat, I would have 1% more respect for you if you could have at least put an argument to me rather than engaging in child-like name calling. Let's see what your made of.

[annanimo]

I can only presume the latter part of your argument is directed at me, though you have chosen to label me as "some people". You have obviously paid as much attention to my name as you have my argument.

No, I stand by what I say. Some people on here have gone of on a complete tangent from the origninal argument, which I thought was irrelevant to the issue of the death penalty. Discussing the ethics of war and the ethics of capital punishment are entirely different. On the other hand you are correct, looking over it again you are the only person to directly put forward the argument that those involved in killing during conflicts are as guilty as serial killers like Dr Shipman.

However, I don't like to get personal on this forum. But I have paid attention to your argument. It's just I find it too simplistic.

I began my argument without their being any moral attachment whatsoever. I never said killing was wrong. And I have said quite clearly that some killing in my opinion is justified. I said that WWII was justified. I ahve siad that defending my fmaily is justified. Why don't you read my posts properly instead of indulging in your sanctimonious, pompous waffle? Anybody could write long sententious sentences if we liked.

Why can't you accept that soldiers kill/murder?

Why don't you read my post properly? I never said you claimed killing wasn't necessary. What I was actually disagreeing with was that you seem to consider these killers to be murderers. There is a huge difference betwwen murder as Dr Shipman committed and what troops were forced to do to defend their country.

This is actually probably the only point I disagree with you on. The ethics of killing for one's country is a complex issue. To be honest, I find the idea of any form of killing abhorrent. But as you correcdtly say these people are killing on the part of the state.

For me this is where the difference is, and a crucial one. My brother since leaving the army has struggled with his role in the Balkans. As someone who has particular moral principles, he found his role contradictory to say the least. One thing he struggled with was of course killing people. The way he has dealt with this by accepting that the Army themselves were not killers, merely the agent of killers, i.e. the government. Which makes sense. Who is guilty of the killings of innocent Iraqis: the troops on the ground or Messrs Bush and Blair?

Perhaps you would prefer some Blairite PC term like enemy resource eliminators?

Please don't assume that because someone disagrees with you on one point they are tantamount to being a Blairite. I'm not remotely PC. I just think issues like this are complex and sensitive and should be treated accordingly.

Now I ask you, what label is appropriate for US soldiers in Vietnam? What label is appropriate for Chinese soldiers in Tibet? What lable is appropriate for Indonesian soldiers in East Timor? And lastly what label is appropriate for occupying soldiers in Iraq? And to repeat my central point: why is it ok for any of these soldiers to kill or murder? It's ok because they do it in the name of the state.

I gather you're suggesting it's not OK. And I agree. I protested against the Iraq war as did of course many others. There are many people who think too that it is not acceptable to use this excuse as a cover-up for what would otherwise be called murder. I honestly don't have the answers to all the questions you ask. As you say, sometimes it is about justification. Britain going to war in 1939 was more justified than going into Iraq. But I would ask you two questions: why is it necessary to label these people at all? and when does "killing" become "murder"?

When is it OK to kill? Only when being attacked? Or to defend others as in 1914 (Belgium) or 1939 (Poland)? As we saw in the aftermath of the Hutton Report, there was significant debate as to whether the war was actually legal. Presumably an "illegal" war would render all killing associated with it murder? Which just goes to show how meaningless these labels are.

The reality is that whatever label we use to define killing and however we perceive it the results on the ground are the same. People in Iraq who have lost families don't care about the irrelevant debates we were having here as to the legality of the war. War produces suffering. However, the suffering my grandfather experienced first hand in a German concentration camp for him entirely justified a war he himself found morally objectionable. Should he be considered a murderer, or a saviour? I know how the inmates of Belsen considered the British army, anyway.

Another question: what is the dividing line between hero and killer? Take for example Arthur Harris: was he a hero deserving of more recognition for his efforts or a brutal murderer? I know what I think but in the context of a war absolutes become blurred. I understand the pressures Harris was under and the requirements of his position at a time when Britain was most vulnerable. While it doesn't change my view that his actions were unnecessarily barbaric, I appreciate that other people will have a different perspective because they will take the view that in WW2 such actions were justified in bringing Germany to defeat more quickly.

I ask myself what would I have done in WW2? I would like to ask you the same. Would I have willingly become as you say, a murderer? I honestly don't know. But it's only in the context of that kind of situation that the argument we're having now becomes relevant on a personal level.

As for my brother, he joined the army when his life was going nowhere - he thought it would be a good idea to meet people and travel the world. He honestly never thought he would see action. How then can unwilling killers be considered murderers?

I don't entirely disagree with you dagest and in fact generally agree with most of your posts! It's just that on this issue I don't see that our war veterans should be equated with the horrific crimes committed by Dr Shipman or Tim McVeigh. There has to be a difference betweeen killing and murder?

[Flaxbourton Red]

Yeah definately. Surely the person who carries off the death of a murderer becomes a murderer themselves and should therefore be murdered themself. It would be and endless spirall and we'd all end up dead!

er no. capital punishement in not murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with the intent to kill.

Capital punishement is the legal killing of somebody who has been found guilty of a crime in which their legal system warrents this response.

Hang them high. Imagine your loved ones had been brutely murdered, why let the perp spend the next 14 years at taxpayers cost playing on his playstation and watching tv in prision?

[dagest]

No, I stand by what I say. Some people on here have gone of on a complete tangent from the origninal argument, which I thought was irrelevant to the issue of the death penalty. Discussing the ethics of war and the ethics of capital punishment are entirely different. On the other hand you are correct, looking over it again you are the only person to directly put forward the argument that those involved in killing during conflicts are as guilty as serial killers like Dr Shipman.

However, I don't like to get personal on this forum. But I have paid attention to your argument. It's just I find it too simplistic.

Why don't you read my post properly? I never said you claimed killing wasn't necessary. What I was actually disagreeing with was that you seem to consider these killers to be murderers. There is a huge difference betwwen murder as Dr Shipman committed and what troops were forced to do to defend their country.

This is actually probably the only point I disagree with you on. The ethics of killing for one's country is a complex issue. To be honest, I find the idea of any form of killing abhorrent. But as you correcdtly say these people are killing on the part of the state.

For me this is where the difference is, and a crucial one. My brother since leaving the army has struggled with his role in the Balkans. As someone who has particular moral principles, he found his role contradictory to say the least. One thing he struggled with was of course killing people. The way he has dealt with this by accepting that the Army themselves were not killers, merely the agent of killers, i.e. the government. Which makes sense. Who is guilty of the killings of innocent Iraqis: the troops on the ground or Messrs Bush and Blair?

Please don't assume that because someone disagrees with you on one point they are tantamount to being a Blairite. I'm not remotely PC. I just think issues like this are complex and sensitive and should be treated accordingly.

I gather you're suggesting it's not OK. And I agree. I protested against the Iraq war as did of course many others. There are many people who think too that it is not acceptable to use this excuse as a cover-up for what would otherwise be called murder. I honestly don't have the answers to all the questions you ask. As you say, sometimes it is about justification. Britain going to war in 1939 was more justified than going into Iraq. But I would ask you two questions: why is it necessary to label these people at all? and when does "killing" become "murder"?

When is it OK to kill? Only when being attacked? Or to defend others as in 1914 (Belgium) or 1939 (Poland)? As we saw in the aftermath of the Hutton Report, there was significant debate as to whether the war was actually legal. Presumably an "illegal" war would render all killing associated with it murder? Which just goes to show how meaningless these labels are.

The reality is that whatever label we use to define killing and however we perceive it the results on the ground are the same. People in Iraq who have lost families don't care about the irrelevant debates we were having here as to the legality of the war. War produces suffering. However, the suffering my grandfather experienced first hand in a German concentration camp for him entirely justified a war he himself found morally objectionable. Should he be considered a murderer, or a saviour? I know how the inmates of Belsen considered the British army, anyway.

Another question: what is the dividing line between hero and killer? Take for example Arthur Harris: was he a hero deserving of more recognition for his efforts or a brutal murderer? I know what I think but in the context of a war absolutes become blurred. I understand the pressures Harris was under and the requirements of his position at a time when Britain was most vulnerable. While it doesn't change my view that his actions were unnecessarily barbaric, I appreciate that other people will have a different perspective because they will take the view that in WW2 such actions were justified in bringing Germany to defeat more quickly.

I ask myself what would I have done in WW2? I would like to ask you the same. Would I have willingly become as you say, a murderer? I honestly don't know. But it's only in the context of that kind of situation that the argument we're having now becomes relevant on a personal level.

As for my brother, he joined the army when his life was going nowhere - he thought it would be a good idea to meet people and travel the world. He honestly never thought he would see action. How then can unwilling killers be considered murderers?

I don't entirely disagree with you dagest and in fact generally agree with most of your posts! It's just that on this issue I don't see that our war veterans should be equated with the horrific crimes committed by Dr Shipman or Tim McVeigh. There has to be a difference betweeen killing and murder?

Firstly, I apologise for any misunderstanding that has arisen between us. I was getting a bit tetchy at being personally abused for offering an alternative viewpoint or for questioning people's views.

I agree with much of what you say and I certainly don't equate WWII veterans with serial killers. As you say many WWII veterans are reluctant soldiers. There's a vast chasm in intent. However, I did earlier explain that I recognised the difference between killers and murderers. As I said above, it is distinguished by legality. The point I was trying to make is that the state is not always a reliable arbiter. I was trying to apply this to the context of state executions. Anyway, as you rightly say we could easily become bogged down in a semantic argument.

Anyway, on to the next debate. I hope no personal offence was caused.

[Redhyde]

firstly the sentances should be longer and the prisons should be alot tougher otherwise there isn't really much of a deterent anyway as we are seeing now.

Murderers (depends on circumstances), Child molesters and Rapists should get life sentances because once demonstrating these capacities it's not worth the risk to society to let them out to reoffend

Then the arguement for a death penalty comes into play. Prison is meant to be hell. It's cruel to keep people in poor conditions so if they want a way out why not let them choose the death penalty. Hey it's cheaper for the tax payer too.

[bucksred]

I can only presume the latter part of your argument is directed at me, though you have chosen to label me as "some people". You have obviously paid as much attention to my name as you have my argument.

I began my argument without their being any moral attachment whatsoever. I never said killing was wrong. And I have said quite clearly that some killing in my opinion is justified. I said that WWII was justified. I ahve siad that defending my fmaily is justified. Why don't you read my posts properly instead of indulging in your sanctimonious, pompous waffle? Anybody could write long sententious sentences if we liked.

Why can't you accept that soldiers kill/murder? "Kill" by Dictionary.Com Perhaps you would prefer some Blairite PC term like enemy resource eliminators? It's an issue of justification isn't it? In some circumstances it is, but more often than not it isn't. Now I ask you, what label is appropriate for US soldiers in Vietnam? What label is appropriate for Chinese soldiers in Tibet? What lable is appropriate for Indonesian soldiers in East Timor? And lastly what label is appropriate for occupying soldiers in Iraq? And to repeat my central point: why is it ok for any of these soldiers to kill or murder? It's ok because they do it in the name of the state. As I have said the state (some humanity) has a monopoly on legal/legitimate killing. Why can soldiers go to foreign countries kill and be rewarded? Whereas, if you killed your neighbour (say he slept with your wife for arguments sake) you would be tried, convicted of murder and very likely incarcerated for a lenghty time.

Isn't it all completey absurd to make pronouncements about the issue when human existence is full of so much contradictory behaviour? The ultimate absurdity is punishing killing by killing. Perhaps we should rape rapists too?

And to the person who called me a prat, I would have 1% more respect for you if you could have at least put an argument to me rather than engaging in child-like name calling. Let's see what your made of.

Dagest.

RE killing by the military. In our democratic touchy feely tree hugging pc world of the free world, a serviceman to be virtually shot first before he can return fire, to satisfy your concerns. , in your ideal world, this may well be possible. However in the real world of tyrants, meglomaniacs, racism, religious bigotry we cannot follow these ideals. Bin Laden, and his Iraqi sidekick, are hellbent on the destruction of the world as we understand it.

Mugabe is carrying out avengeful destruction of his people. Serbija Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia Hertzogovina all descended into moral bankruptcy with their (un)civil war. Throughout history this type of lunacy has taken place. Someone has to defend their country (right or wrong) Thats the military. Easy target in peacetime. We ALWAYS have to pick up the pieces after inept political judgement, appeasement, and downright treacherous actions by the people we have sworn oathes to defend.

This means fighting, and by definition killing. A disciplined body of men will kill as few as possible to acheive the aim. This in the British case always, and the professional armies in almost all other cases. However when you go to war, you see things no civilian ever normally will see, and conscipts get called up Discipline is then even more draconian. There are murders carried out by soldiers, in the heat of battle, but it is neither policy, or the right of soldiers to do this. We leave that to the SS, NKVD/KGB, and similar political troops. It is an insult comparing my Ancestors, indeed any military personnel, with these killers.

Remember Lt Calley was court martialled by the US Army over Mai Lai, and similar cases in all armies all over the world. They are killers. The overwhelming majority of us, no matter who we serve are NOT. There are a load of dangerous fanatics out there, whom civilised debate, constructive dialogue, are seen as a sign of weakness. Adolf saw the cave in over Czechoslovakia in 1938, as exactly that, leading to the invasion of Poland, and WW2. German generals were planning a coup, to coincide with the expected British rejection of Adolfs demands. They were petrified of breaking the law to do so, and that anticipated rejection, would have been their legal cue

Annanimo:As to the death penalty, if someone is a proven traitor, or has sexually assaulted, or worse killed a child, and is proven beyond doubt, then that person should pay with their life. Iundestand your well expressed view, and I have clarified, What IMHO should be thw law.