Death Penalty?

[David]

No, because this isn't Nazi Germany.

[think positive]

[Morrigu]

[1061]

[David]

[Morrigu]

[Mugwump]

Meanwhile, back on topic, that great Australian Barry Jones deals well with the death penalty in his fine book, "A Thinking Reed".

I can see an argument that someone so violates the social contract through egregious murder or torture that they put themselves outside normal consideration, so i don't believe that makes capital punishment unthinkable.

The arguments that make sense, however, are that (1) the state has a coercive power over every one of us - probably too much already, in my view; It is best that this coercive power does not include the right to sanction any individual in a manner that is total and irreversible ; (2) in an uncertain world, it is better to lock up 100 people for life than to mistakenly send an innocent person to death ; and (3) it is not necessary to achieve the objective to keepng society safe from savage criminality ; and (4) that the only possible argument for it is that we might be better spending the costs of incarceration on diabetes research, or child cancer or whatever - but that is true of prolonging life in old age, and we simply do not use that calculus.

[stui magpie]

Interesting, I can't find my previous posts on this. So, I'll do it again.

I support the Death Penalty in the following circumstances:

1. Situation of multiple death/rape
2. Standard of proof is "beyond all doubt".

It would be up to the prosecutor to choose whether to go for a gaol sentence under the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" or go for the death penalty with a standard of proof of "beyond all doubt"

if a prosecutor goes for the death penalty and fails to get the required standard of proof, the person walks free. This minimises the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to death.

With the new standard of proof we make it a situation where only a tiny minority qualify.
The motivation for this scenario is simple. People like this aren't able to be rehabilitated, and there is no discernable value from keeping them alive at an ongoing cost to the taxpayer. So put them down and move on,

[Wokko]

Why rape? It's a crime that while horrendous still leaves the victim able to live their life. I can somewhat understand seeking the death penalty for murderers, upon taking a life they forfeit their own 'right to life', but rape, torture or vicious assault causing bodily damage or even permanent disability should surely be handled differently. The criminal working to pay for the victim's treatment and compensation for pain and suffering while remaining imprisoned for an extended period seems more fair and just to me.

I do agree with you that any death penalty would need to be handed down with a burden of 'beyond all doubt' but considering advances in technology end up with people being found innocent decades later of crimes they were 100%, no doubt guilty of still makes me baulk.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

[David]

Although I have some sympathy for your views on this, I think you've got the wrong angle by talking about "keeping them alive". They're not coma patients on life support; you have to actively decide to end their life to make them die. Most of us would agree that that's a grave thing to do to another human being (not a dog, a person), which is why murder is considered such a heinous crime in the first place, no matter the victim's contribution to society. So, I think doing it to even the worst criminal requires strong justification. That's where the burden of argument has to lie.

[Tannin]

[What'sinaname]

Cat haters should be put to death

[stui magpie]

^

nah, just the cats.