[John_D]

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:56 am  

Dally wrote:

One of the main arguments people use on here against the Death Penalty is the risk of the innocent being executed.

It's an argument, but it's not the main one. The main one is that it is inherently hypocritical for the state to denounce killing by the individual when the state kills individuals.

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:20 am  

John_D wrote:

It's an argument, but it's not the main one. The main one is that it is inherently hypocritical for the state to denounce killing by the individual when the state kills individuals.

This old chestnut crops up every time. But the comparison is entirely bogus.

The state does not denounce killing individuals, the state denounces killing individuals in circumstances which are against the law. It is not, necessarily, against the law to kill someone. It is against the law to murder someone.

There are circumstances where it is not an offence to kill someone, for example self-defence, or armed police. That's ignoring the armed forces, who legally kill people all the time. Whatever the death penalty is, it's absurd to equate it with murder. It is legalised killing, but it is not unique, and in no way hypocritical. The true question is whether execution should join the ranks of legal homicide, or not.

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:53 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

The death penalty is obviously not a deterrent in such a case.
If you want to remove the offenders from society, imprisonment serves that purpose.
Which leaves punishment (aka revenge), which is emotion out of control.

The death penalty is a part of the cheapening of life, part of the downward spiral to acceptance of murder and violence as acceptable everyday occurrence (e.g. USA).
State-sponsored revenge murder makes us as bad, in some cases possibly worse, than the offenders.

So as a society we incur considerable cost to store these individuals for many years - how much has it cost to house and try and sort Abhu Hamsa etc, we also run the risk of them being viewed as martyrs which in the end could lead to further bloodshed.

If a soldier had killed them you would consider that to be OK but execution is off your moral compass!! Did you think the Americans were correct in killing Osama?

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So as a society we incur considerable cost to store these individuals for many years - how much has it cost to house and try and sort Abhu Hamsa etc, we also run the risk of them being viewed as martyrs which in the end could lead to further bloodshed.

Lol

Sal Paradise wrote:

If a soldier had killed them you would consider that to be OK but execution is off your moral compass!!

You don't have the choices on a battlefield that you have in a courtroom. I have no problem with the state, through the armed forces, killing people who pose a threat and are armed and so cannot be arrested such as Taliban fighters. The state has little to no choice in that regard. The state does have a choice when it already has someone in custody.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Did you think the Americans were correct in killing Osama?

Due to the unique circumstances of that case then yes I do, I think it was the only realistic option. I'd have preferred him to have been found and arrested by the Pakistanis and then extradited, in which case he could have stood trial, but as that wasn't possible I think the Americans were correct.

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:46 am  

I see they used the old "Newgate Jig" on those two criminals.


From memory. One of the things about Iran is that is has a huge Heroin problem. Only recently overtaken by Russia in stats. I wonder if drugs were to blame?

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:10 pm  

Leave the death penalty in the past where it belongs.

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:29 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So as a society we incur considerable cost to store these individuals for many years - how much has it cost to house and try and sort Abhu Hamsa etc, we also run the risk of them being viewed as martyrs which in the end could lead to further bloodshed.

Even by your patently poor standards of comprehension, that statement is plumbing new depths.

Please explain how you can create a martyr by NOT killing them

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:20 pm  

Looking at the Daily Mail article: I see they have carefully selected from the many photos to ensure maximum distress: the writing certainly approvs of the executions.
But then it is the Mail!

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:21 pm  

approves

Re: Death Penalty : Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:42 pm  

Him wrote:

Lol

You don't have the choices on a battlefield that you have in a courtroom. I have no problem with the state, through the armed forces, killing people who pose a threat and are armed and so cannot be arrested such as Taliban fighters. The state has little to no choice in that regard. The state does have a choice when it already has someone in custody.

Due to the unique circumstances of that case then yes I do, I think it was the only realistic option. I'd have preferred him to have been found and arrested by the Pakistanis and then extradited, in which case he could have stood trial, but as that wasn't possible I think the Americans were correct.

The state plans and kills people outside of battlefield action - you consider that appropriate yet executing someone which is also state planned is not OK?