Unregistered User
Jimmy I do not like violence of any sort, and to take someone's life is the ultimate act of violence, for a civilised society to take a life as a punishment is wrong.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
For me the death penalty is not a black and white issue that one can be for or against without first considering factors that the courts have to judge.
For me, cold-blooded premeditated murder should be a capital offence without question provided we're talking about a straightforward situation. However, what some might judge as cold-blooded murder others might judge in other ways: euthanasia is an example of this, where 'mercy killing' (a phrase I loathe) may be judged as a way of putting someone out of their misery - and the argument generally put forward about that is that you would be judged as inhumane if you let an animal suffer in such a way, so why should be any different with humans? Again, to me that's too black and white, and I do believe that euthanasia should be legalised in the UK after judgement by a court of law. (As an aside, that would be just about as emotive an issue as one could face, and I most certainly wouldn't be able to work there.)
Those who take a life through drink or drug driving are judged by the Police as taking under their control a murder weapon if they cannot control the vehicle by being under the influence, but again there may be extenuating circumstances whereby a normally sober and responsible human being has erred in such a dreadful way as to kill somebody else, and although the Police do judge harshly, who would be the first to say that taking the perpetrator's life may be fair or reasonable?
What about those who take a life in self-defence, those whose lives are rendered so intolerable by circumstances (such as the victims of wife-beaters) that they are driven to murder, or those whose actions accidentally cause someone else to die? For me, the whole issue is a minefield to which there cannot be a 100% right or a 100% wrong solution; that being the case, a fixed death penalty surely cannot be applicable.
I think the way I would like to see the issue addressed is for a separate new charge of Premeditated Murder to be passed as law, punishable with Capital Punishment. Other death-related charges may be brought against an individual, and I believe we then have to leave the judiciary to pass judgement upon those charged with such crimes according to the circumstances of each individual case.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
MRP, I had your point of view at one time, but as I view it now, we`re not civilised anyway, never have been, a ridiculous phrase. We`re still fighting each other, and the way we treat the animal population is appalling! To some celestial onlooker, we must be the ultimate in barbarism. Many of our species are completely ignorant of life, and completely selfish, and oblivious to life with no respect for any other life form other than it`s own. It`s a reason why I do not believe in a god, and why I don`t believe in a designer, as whoever designed us, made an appalling error.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
"You have killed somebody and that is very wrong and we will now prove how wrong it is to kill by killing you."
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
Good reply Chris, but it can have two meaning`s mate.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the last figures i saw showed that the public were 70/30 in favour of the death penalty for certain categories of murder.
at present when we have a murder trial, if jurors are 95% certain of guilt they give a verdict .that way knowing that if new evidence arises or evidence has not been brought before the court the defendant will eventually be let out of stir.
if there was a death penalty 3 or 4 of the jurors on average would not be able to give a guilty verdict meaning many murderers would be walking free.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Big difference Chris - murder is murder, what I advocate is a fair trial of those who have committed such a terrible crime and only in the worse instances and where proof is completely beyond doubt, they should be executed.
I totally disagree with this moral equivalism, it is not valid. Also murder is an ugly word and it should not be 'prettied up' by downgrading it to 'killing' as so many do these days - call it what it is.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - I dont agree with your logic.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
I never know who the actual public is in these cases Howard. I don`t view the general public as being very educated in many matter`s. I know people who`ve done jury service, thick as two planks!
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
jurors are made up a cross section of the population, no account is made of intelligence, race, colour, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else.
colin
not sure what you mean by "the actual public in these cases".
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
Love my mum Howard, she`s 88, but last year she was asked to do jury service. She got her refusal accepted, but she hasn`t got a clue about law etc, and she jacked it in when she was told Perry Mason won`t be there. She`s a member of the general public. I can mention other`s who are not family.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
'Murder is Murder'. Murder: the taking of anothers life, usually in a premeditated way. You can't get much more 'premeditated than setting a date and time while preparing the means.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
With you Chris. And the prior statement about no doubt about the verdict - shouldn't that always be the way, unless we want more Birmingham Six tragedies.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
colin
your dear old mum would have received an invite to jury service because of the new ageism laws.
she had a genuine reason to opt out, that does not mean that another 88 year old would refuse.
no-one that serves on a jury has to know anything about law or the judicial system, as a veteran of the system i can vouch for that.
when a jury is sworn in the prosecutor and defence lawyer give jurors a lecture on the subject of experience and common sense.
the judge guides the jury on legal points.
i happen to believe that the jury system is the best we have, it is based around 12 ordinary members of the public weighing up what is put in front of them andreaching a decision based on evidence.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
That`s right Bern, there must not be any error of doubt as to the guilty party.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
I don't agree with the death penalty, and have so far found no argument to convince me that it is an appropriate or beneficial response.
In terms of guilt, a problem also is that is also that there is no absolute, in terms of guilt. Would Ruth Ellis have been guilty in the same way under the law today (as opposed to then)? I'm not sure she would.
Regarding selfishness, lack of respect, etc; to me that isn't a reason not to believe in a God/designer. We were designed, if indeed we were designed, with free will. Is it a creator/designer's fault what we choose to do with that free will? Rather, I'd suggest looking at ourselves, and askiing why this free will seems to be bent to purposes that most of us would think not good.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
very good point maggie.
"You have killed somebody and that is very wrong and we will now prove how wrong it is to kill by killing you."
or
"You have killed somebody and that is very wrong and you have to pay the price for your crime".
Ruth Ellis would have been locked up today, guilty as charged.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
"Ruth Ellis would have been locked up today, guilty as charged"....
..........going through, everyday, some of the despair and hopelessness felt every day be the victims family and friends.
Locked up with no hope of release (without the TV, Internet access and educational courses - just working for their keep) and no quick escape.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Frankly, "locked up" says it all. There are no "holiday camp" prisons, no avoiding the fact that there is no escape, no release and no real, true autonomy any more.