Crimes that deserve the death penalty?

[Pies4shaw]

Strictly, it's been a "core plank" since the mid 1970s. It wasn't an express target, initially - the organisation focused originally on freedom of expression and freedom from political persecution. Looking at the question more broadly, the point of Amnesty was always to uphold the values underpinning the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - its original focus was on articles 18 and 19 because they were then thought by the founders to be the most immediate concern. I don't think they went to articles 18 and 19 because they hadn't read articles 1 and 2 - I think they just took it as read that all decent people knew that the death penalty is the ultimate expression of powerlessness by a violent society, not a sensible response to violence. Amnesty started focusing on the death penalty per se after its campaigns against extra-judicial State killings (eg, in Pinochet's Chile).

[Mugwump]

^ Interesting. “Amnesty International” is a strange name for an organization that is dedicated to upholding a wide charter, much of which has no concern with the concept of “amnesty”. It’s a very valid name for an organization dedicated to the release from prison of people who should not be there, however.

Perhaps it was just false advertising, then. Or maybe you’re rewriting history, as you are self-servingly rewriting the concept of “all decent people”. Ca 40% of people agreed with abolition of capital punishment at the time. But yeah, the 60% were not decent people.

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, I agree with that last sentence. Otherwise, no - I was intending to provide a neutral statement about Amnesty’s history, in response to David’s question. I’m not a member and have no view about it. Although, for disclosure, I should admit to buying a copy of The Secret Policeman’s Ball on DVD cheap a couple of years ago. But I haven’t yet watched it.

[think positive]

How many carlscum fans are there?

[stui magpie]

Sigh

On capital punishment, I haven't changed my view from what I've posted in the past.

I support it, but only if we can put a strict framework around it. ie:

1. Only an option for crimes involving severe violence and/or multiple deaths

2. The prosecution has to nominate up front that they're seeking the death penalty. In which case the jury has to find the defendant guilty beyond ALL doubt (different and harder standard of proof). If they don't think they can achieve that, they can just go for regular standard of proof and a judges sentence.

3. Limited appeal options. If they get a verdict beyond all doubt, get it done and done quickly, don't drag it out. Nike time.

There are circumstances where I think it's warranted. Serious crime as above, usually corresponds with zero prospect of rehabilitation, why keep them alive? Charles manson and martin bryant come to mind.

[Mugwump]

[Pies4shaw]

They're entitled to whatever view they like - I just couldn't care less what it is.

[HAL]

Do you like talking to me?

[Mugwump]

[Pies4shaw]

No, silly - I meant about me.

[Mugwump]

[Mugwump]

[think positive]

My 2 SIL went to their parents house yesterday to get clothes to bury their mother, and clothes for their father to wear to the funeral. To find every drawer in the house tossed, jewelry thrown everywhere. So me and hubby went and tidied up, and covered over the doggie door, (they had a fat dog!) as that looks to be the only way they could get in. Seriously, WTF is wrong with people? they didnt take anything we can see, i found a cup of dollar coins, at least $100 worth just sitting in a cupboard.

death penelty? maybe a tad harsh, but give me 5 min with them. scum, utter scum

[Mugwump]

Odd that they didn’t take anything. Normally in these cases you expect it to be drug money, and $100 is worth something. Maybe they just didn’t see it. Or maybe it was mistaken identity and they were looking for something else that wasn’t going to be there.

[think positive]