One of the main arguments people use on here against the Death Penalty is the risk of the innocent being executed. What about when it's cut and dried - such as when the offenders post a You Tube video of themslves committing their crime? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbery.html Fair treatment or not?

One of the main arguments people use on here against the Death Penalty is the risk of the innocent being executed. What about when it's cut and dried - such as when the offenders post a You Tube video of themslves committing their crime? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbery.html Fair treatment or not?

Killing people for killing people is not a good argument.

Barbaric.



I guess you think it's fine ?

Sharia law!



Good idea to follow Irans example, who killed the masked security guards?

So it would not be OK to do the same to these Jihadists in Algeria?

If you're stupid enough to post a video of yourself committing armed robbery you're going to end up dead sooner or later anyway.

Look at the comments. The Daily Mail demographic approves of Iranian justice.

love it

The Daily Mail themselves seem to approve too, emphasising the hi-tech nature of the execution ceremony and how the criminals were "dead in seconds", its almost like they were promoting the gig.



Really ?



Its hi-tech to hoist someone up on a mobile crane ?



They die in seconds when you effectively strangle them to death ?



Is that why the "drop" method of hanging was in wide use when such things were more acceptable, because "the drop" made the death much slower and more painful, or was it the strangulation method of dispatching criminals that was deemed to be inhumane, I can't quite remember now, maybe The Daily Mail could do some research and let us know.

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.

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 [ikill[/i someone. It is against the law to [imurder[/i 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.