Reply to: Should women get the death penalty?

[Scruff]

Wimp.

OK, OK - hang 'em all. No, better, shoot 'em all. Mmmm, on second thoughts, Shark-Bait!

After a week, noone will care!

[Ticktock]

Wimp.

[Scruff]

Thankfully, I have retracted what I actually meant to post... perhaps the Pinot made me contemplate before clicking "Submit Reply".

I am becoming more moderate, in my dotage...

[Ticktock]

I get you. The thing which angers me is the constant talk of human rights etc. What about the human rights that the perpetrators took? What about all the lives that have been destroyed? It's easy to forget the actual victims.

Yes, rights can seem unfairly weighted (and in some cases possibly are). However, what we have is a system where human rights are applied universally, and so cannot be removed because of someone's actions, even if those actions are seen as inhuman - they are protected by their genetic membership of the species.
The "sell" is the concept that no matter how badly someone behaves, we're better than them because we respect the rights they deny others.
And then, once you take the step of deciding that you can deny a human right to certain humans, where do you draw the line?

Again, in the US things are different. Take the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Of course, these are not unalienable, as all three can be stripped by the courts, and regularly are, sometimes from people without the mental capacity to judge their own action, sometimes for crimes we may feel undeserving of the punishment, e.g. the length of sentences for possessing minor amounts of cannabis vs other drugs.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Of course - however the agreement appeared to be that there was no question of the Lee Rigby case being murder, as so many people saw what happened. They were being used as an example of a case where their guilt (and the right to execute them) was "beyond doubt".

I get you. The thing which angers me is the constant talk of human rights etc. What about the human rights that the perpetrators took? What about all the lives that have been destroyed? It's easy to forget the actual victims.

[Ticktock]

Of course - however the agreement appeared to be that there was no question of the Lee Rigby case being murder, as so many people saw what happened. They were being used as an example of a case where their guilt (and the right to execute them) was "beyond doubt".

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

It could be beyond doubt if you think that they be mentally ill, and a doctor gives that opinion. You know they did it, but don't know whether they are sane.

Or are you in favour of executing the mentally ill? It's happened in the US, by the way, if that sways you either way.

Do you draw a line that says a certain level of mental illness, so perhaps schizophrenics get a pass, but someone with learning difficulties gets killed? Or only those with a mental age above a certain limit?
What about temporary insanity?

It's never cut and dried, even if you know for certain that the person killed another.

You have the same issues with any execution of justice - the same considerations need to be taken into account naturally. Ultimately a British soldier has been killed in cold blood and the necessary justice needs to take place - provided all the parameters are met.

[Ticktock]

Beyond doubt would relate to the British soldier killed by two religious fanatics. How could the situation not be BEYOND DOUBT as there were enough witnesses to fill the Albert Hall?

It could be beyond doubt if you think that they be mentally ill, and a doctor gives that opinion. You know they did it, but don't know whether they are sane.

Or are you in favour of executing the mentally ill? It's happened in the US, by the way, if that sways you either way.

Do you draw a line that says a certain level of mental illness, so perhaps schizophrenics get a pass, but someone with learning difficulties gets killed? Or only those with a mental age above a certain limit?
What about temporary insanity?

It's never cut and dried, even if you know for certain that the person killed another.

[d000hg]

Beyond doubt would relate to the British soldier killed by two religious fanatics. How could the situation not be BEYOND DOUBT as there were enough witnesses to fill the Albert Hall?

It's not beyond doubt that they might be considered crazy, or under the influence of some drug, or were 'programmed' - very unlikely. You have to define your false positive tolerance, must it be absolutely zero or is there a point where one falsely killed person is better than letting 1000 live who shouldn't? Or 10000? Our culture currently holds individual life as virtually sacrosanct - maybe a good offshoot of hooman rights and PC nonsense - but there's no guarantee that will stay the case.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Beyond doubt would relate to the British soldier killed by two religious fanatics. How could the situation not be BEYOND DOUBT as there were enough witnesses to fill the Albert Hall?

I would agree with that. It is as clear as day that those guys committed a disgraceful crime. What is to be respected (and I find it perfectly in line with the universal values I talk about) is that they are put to trial in a fair and just process. No doubt some aspects of the legal system have evolved to such a high level of principle and value.

Also just to clarify that I would agree with the idea of forgiveness being a central tenant to any universal truth. But that does not discount somebody's right to justice - an eye for an eye being a right but not necessary to carry out - as humanity evolves and grows it will see there is no need for individual vengeance. When it comes to terrorists, mass murderers, criminals on that level then the death penalty is a very reasonable punishment.

[darmstadt]

Does the 'Universal Truth' also give you 'Universal Credit'? Is this the holy grail of 'Universal Truth?' (just don't look at pages 120-123 as you might go blind)

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

If it were my job, then yes. But if it were my job, that would mean I didn't have a problem with it... but it's not my job and nowhere have I indicated any support for the death penalty.

It's not an issue I've ever given much consideration to because we don't have it in the UK. From an objective/logical point of view, there appears nothing inherently wrong with removing individuals who threaten the safety of the species. And forcibly detaining people for the majority of their adult life doesn't really seem more moral or even less extreme. With no "ultimate truth" taking a life is not of any cosmic significance, any more than killing a cow to eat it is of cosmic significance, one might argue. Killing a hardened, irredeemable criminal used to be viewed as quite normal but these days we're raised in a different society. We like to call it progress (we like to call all change progress, ever noticed?) but is it better, or merely different, to lock someone up and forget about them instead?

But I'm thinking out loud really, like voluntary euthanasia and abortion these are important topics but not ones I've ever had personal connections to or any particular reasons to delve into deeply .

WHS

Agree with that on so many levels. To add to that - people who come with a view of the world using theological reasoning are somehow viewed as inferior by those who don't. Why at the very least can they not say it is a valid point of view rather than disregarding it as some kind of religious extremism. Our aim seems very similar - the betterment of man kind, the evolution of our thinking, respect and dignity. Instead we could approach things in an academic way and understand the reasoning of others.

[darmstadt]

Innerestingly, Britain still had a capital offence on the statute books until as recently as 1997 - that of High Treason.

You can see why Blair prioritised the repealing of that particular law a priority on reaching office

'98 I believe that the death penalty was finally abolished although it was actually earlier put into law but was debated each year. It was also for other crimes such as piracy and the military had some extra ones. In fact it was bought up again in 2013 with the Capital Punishment Bill: Capital Punishment Bill 2013-14 — UK Parliament which so far has only had one reading (*) and was introduced by one Mr Philip Hollobone, a Tory who also introduced a National Service Bill and a 'ban the burqa' bill. Seems like a nice chap




(* I now see the following: This Bill has been withdrawn and will not progress any further.)

[Brussels Slumdog]

But we don't have a "beyond any doubt" benchmark for crime - how would that work? Who defines NO doubt WHATSOEVER? Even if we were able to define such a definition, how many cases do you realistically think would fall into it? And even in the US, it costs many times more than the cost of a quiet prison sentence in the end.

Beyond doubt would relate to the British soldier killed by two religious fanatics. How could the situation not be BEYOND DOUBT as there were enough witnesses to fill the Albert Hall?

[d000hg]

If it were my job, then yes. But if it were my job, that would mean I didn't have a problem with it... but it's not my job and nowhere have I indicated any support for the death penalty.

It's not an issue I've ever given much consideration to because we don't have it in the UK. From an objective/logical point of view, there appears nothing inherently wrong with removing individuals who threaten the safety of the species. And forcibly detaining people for the majority of their adult life doesn't really seem more moral or even less extreme. With no "ultimate truth" taking a life is not of any cosmic significance, any more than killing a cow to eat it is of cosmic significance, one might argue. Killing a hardened, irredeemable criminal used to be viewed as quite normal but these days we're raised in a different society. We like to call it progress (we like to call all change progress, ever noticed?) but is it better, or merely different, to lock someone up and forget about them instead?

But I'm thinking out loud really, like voluntary euthanasia and abortion these are important topics but not ones I've ever had personal connections to or any particular reasons to delve into deeply .