What crimes would warrant the death penalty ?

[Zigenare]

Sadly even the most enlightened countries see about a 50% recidivism rate by 5 years. Some do have a lower rates.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country

That is the price of civilisation.

[vetran]

That is the price of civilisation.

possibly but it may also be the price of ignoring offender rehabilitation needs. Many expert commentators have mentioned prisoners are normally either

Mad - they aren't mentally capable.
Bad - they don't care about other people enough to behave
Sad - They saw no alternative

I believe we could do things to fix all 3 situations.

The level of psychiatric help is minimal
The literacy level of prisoners is embarrassingly low.

[northernladuk]

Interesting thought, if they do ever bring back the death penalty then surely they will have to bring back euthanasia/assisted suicide. Seems at odds that state can kill someone but you can't kill yourself to end suffering and pain.

[Zigenare]

Interesting thought, if they do ever bring back the death penalty then surely they will have to bring back euthanasia/assisted suicide. Seems at odds that state can kill someone but you can't kill yourself to end suffering and pain.

Bring back?

[NotAllThere]

There's no place for state sanctioned murder in any right thinking society.

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but there's a couple of issues with that statement.

Definition of a right thinking society - would that be one that doesn't have state sanctioned murder?

There's no such thing as state sanctioned murder, since execution is not murder. Murder is unlawful killing.

[vetran]

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but there's a couple of issues with that statement.

Definition of a right thinking society - would that be one that doesn't have state sanctioned murder?

There's no such thing as state sanctioned murder, since execution is not murder. Murder is unlawful killing.

well left thinking societies send you an invoice for the bullet.

[ladymuck]

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but there's a couple of issues with that statement.

Definition of a right thinking society - would that be one that doesn't have state sanctioned murder?

There's no such thing as state sanctioned murder, since execution is not murder. Murder is unlawful killing.

I suppose the inference being, from Ziggy's comment, is that the taking of another person's life - irrespective of the reason or 'lawfulness' - is still murder.

The fact that 'murder' is a definition in law with a specific meaning (like manslaughter, theft, etc) is not the point. The terminology used in law is not the same as the meaning society gives to the term.

[northernladuk]

If they could come up with a solution where people like this can be used to give something back to society through hard work then I doubt there would be as much appetite for the death penalty. Problem is what. If breaking big rocks down to little rocks paid for their incarceration and even put some money back in the coffers then do that. They aren't a burden on the state so maybe no need for the death penalty. Business would be up in arms at any suggestion as it will be impacting someones livelihood whatever it is. And the lefties would call it state sanctioned slavery I guess so still doesn't make debate go away.

[d000hg]

There's no place for state sanctioned murder in any right thinking society.

Easy to make a blanket statement, but what is your argument?

That is the price of civilisation.

It doesn't sound very civilised to have so much crime. A 'right-thinking' society surely wouldn't have such high crime rates and low rehabilitation success.

Interesting thought, if they do ever bring back the death penalty then surely they will have to bring back euthanasia/assisted suicide. Seems at odds that state can kill someone but you can't kill yourself to end suffering and pain.

Well typically the liberals like voluntary euthanasia but hate the death penalty, while conservatives hold diametrically opposite views.

I suppose the inference being, from Ziggy's comment, is that the taking of another person's life - irrespective of the reason or 'lawfulness' - is still murder.

The fact that 'murder' is a definition in law with a specific meaning (like manslaughter, theft, etc) is not the point. The terminology used in law is not the same as the meaning society gives to the term.

In this case, everyone knows murder means what it means. Accidentally running someone over is not referred to as murder in typical societal use, nor is police shooting a terrorist who is attacking a school or soldiers being killed in combat.
Words matter and should be used properly. Mis-using them can be a cynical technique to advance you argument - for instance anti-abortionists say "so you support murdering children?" just as liberals say "state sanctioned murder".

[NotAllThere]

I suppose the inference being, from Ziggy's comment, is that the taking of another person's life - irrespective of the reason or 'lawfulness' - is still murder.

Well of course. And vegans say "meat is murder".

Using the word "murder" in these contexts is to add emotional force to the argument. I find that intellectually dishonest. Even if it's not murder to execute someone, it's still wrong.

I'm still trying to get my head around Ziggy being a left-leaning liberal.