Things that make you SAD thread.

[Newbridge Wolf]

The state doesn't have and shouldn't have the right to murder anybody. It's barbaric, is proven to not work as a deterrent and we only need to go back a couple of decades to see what would have happened to the innocent convicted killers of Rachel Nickell and Jill Dando.

Wrong convictions aside, would you still say no. What constitutes Justice? Its easy to apply your own standards to people, its what most of us do, but for those who are beyond saving why should they be allowed life.

The Venebles kid had everything chucked at him in an attempt to rehabilitate, he had the best opportunity in life He was still rotten to the core and convicted of God knows what now

*I don't have the answers, nor do I have consistent beliefs on the matter. All I do know is that some crimes are that horrific, and the perpetrators that evil that emotion bypasses cognitive thought on the matter.

 

[Tony Towner]

So you are now executing 10 year olds? What about Thompson, who as far as we know is reabilitated and leading a normal life? Are we killing him as well?

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

So you are now executing 10 year olds?

No, pretty sure I didn't say that anywhere.

I used an example to demonstrate that the best rehabilitation even at an early age can still fail woefully.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

The stuff they did to that poor kid was pretty god damn evil though, 10 or 100. It wasn't normal.

 

[Tony Towner]

You heavily implied it because Venables hasn't been convicted of anything since which could be considered worthy of execution. What about Thompson?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The death penalty is wrong. Any released murderer who then commits a second murder is automatically given a whole life order.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

I didn't, I asked you a question. Would you still be against the death penalty if it were possible to remove all doubt?

I then used an example of rehabilitation that failed, when it shouldn't have done. Thompson I believe is an example of where it worked, similar children, convicted of the same offence. Same levels of rehabilitation yet one is seemingly unable to be corrected.

So, 100% against still?

As I've expressed previously there's a duality in my thoughts on this that I am unable to reconcile.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

100% against for me in all circumstances.

 

[Tony Towner]

Yep 100% against. It's a morality and societal thing for me. That's not the society I want to live in and never will be. If something happened to one of my relatives then I'm sure I'd have a different view and if I could take things into my own hands I probably would, but that's why we rely on the state/legal system not those who've been tragically affected

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That would be barbaric and wrong too.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

100% against for me in all circumstances.

If someone shows such disregard for another life, why should their life be afforded protection.

I guess I'm just interested in people who hold such a strong conviction against and how they reconcile that with the actions of the undefendable.

 

[Tony Towner]

Red Dwarf had the best example of how justice should work with the justice field. Whatever you do to others is done to you.

A surgeon makes a mistake during a life saving operation are you killing him? You get momentarily distracted by a child in the car and have a fatal accident, are we putting you to sleep? It was your fault after all

 

[Tony Towner]

Those are accidents so no, they wouldn't.

That's not what whatever you do to others is done to you though

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

Yep 100% against. It's a morality and societal thing for me. That's not the society I want to live in and never will be. If something happened to one of my relatives then I'm sure I'd have a different view and if I could take things into my own hands I probably would, but that's why we rely on the state/legal system not those who've been tragically affected

Thanks for the reply, it is an interesting point of view. I am unable to square the circle myself as if I look at evidence from countries that do have the death penalty it is far from a deterrent, it is not a logical thing for a society based on law to remove the life of someone and generally I am against it.

Yet, the inate justice we all tend to feel often tells us (or me) they should be punished, and the very worst of crimes, makes me question why they shoukd be kept alive.

Sorry just got a bit deep

 

[WolfMan]

So, we just have collateral damage then? Presumably, not all murderers would be executed, presumably not all murderers wouldn't be given total life sentences? If that is what you are saying then what about those who were convicted as kids or young adults? What about those who have subsequently been released, turned their lives around and contributed to society? What about Dirty Den

I'd set the age limit at 21 and wouldn't retrospectively execute people. For me it's either sent to prison for the rest of your life, or death penalty. Those two options seem to me to offer the most 'natural justice' to the families of the murderers victims who'll be serving their own whole life sentence of emotional agony.

As I said earlier, I'm instinctively against the death penalty, but unless you are keeping murderers in prison forever, I can't see the moral justification in keeping them alive to be released to potentially kill again, which we know does happen. Just been having a look at some more recent stats, between 2007 and 2015, 12 people were murdered by convicted murderers. It's ok saying they then get a whole life term, but that's no comfort for the second families lives they've destroyed is it.

 

[Tony Towner]

I'd set the age limit at 21 and wouldn't retrospectively execute people. For me it's either sent to prison for the rest of your life, or death penalty. Those two options seem to me to offer the most 'natural justice' to the families of the murderers victims who'll be serving their own whole life sentence of emotional agony.

As I said earlier, I'm instinctively against the death penalty, but unless you are keeping murderers in prison forever, I can't see the moral justification in keeping them alive to be released to potentially kill again, which we know does happen. Just been having a look at some more recent stats, between 2007 and 2015, 12 people were murdered by convicted murderers. It's ok saying they then get a whole life term, but that's no comfort for the second families lives they've destroyed is it.

It's a debate we aren't going to come to a concensus over. I think you are fundamentally wrong. It's a right wing argument lacking in any nuance, but it's not something worth going back and forth over

 

[AndyWolves]

I'd really like to believe that prison etc is an opportunity to rehabilitate people but I also understand this to be very difficult, and prison often makes the offender "worse".

I don't really know where I stand on this because fundamentally I believe that if you do something bad you should be punished, but I don't really know why I think that.

I think that for "first degree" murders I'd be more inclined to advocate the death penalty, knowing that it has no effect on future offence rates and everything else. I just don't believe anyone who has done such a thing deserves to be alive. The is the massive issue around being able to prove with even certainty though.

 

[Tony Towner]

We don't have first degree murder in this country. It's just murder or manslaughter. Maybe your distinction is pre meditated? Then you have battered wives who can't take any more though

 

[Alan]

I mean if we're talking about judging the "potential for murder" then we all ought to be locked up now.

Recidivism is an indictment of the current methods used to rehabilitate individuals, not an indictment of rehabilitation as a philosophy.

 

[WolfMan]

It's a debate we aren't going to come to a concensus over. I think you are fundamentally wrong. It's a right wing argument lacking in any nuance, but it's not something worth going back and forth over

Ok fair enough. You're right it's not worth going back and forth, it's such an emotive subject. It is associated with right wing thinking but I can assure you I'm not right wing.

I used to be dead against it, partly for the reason it was associated with right wing thinking so just assumed it must be wrong. And partly because it just felt wrong, en eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that.

There isn't a perfect solution to it whatever you do, both options cause harm in some way. I've just weighed the harms caused by both policies against each other and come to the conclusion that of all the bad options available, it's the least worst. I don't think that's lacking in nuance personally. I wouldn't ever judge someone else who held a different view on it.