If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
:yes: However, due to break throughs in forensic science, this isn't as likely to happen now as say 30 years ago.
The problem is that a lot of innocent people on death row can't get their case re-opened.
I agree with Shy Boy in that you seem to be basing most of your arguments on the beliefs and dogma of a major religion rather than any fundamental concepts of ethics or human rights and thus I think it's invalid. It's not wrong because an intangible parent figure says it is (whom a large portion of people in the world don't believe in).
Though I do agree with your argument that if murder is wrong, then surely execution should be too. That is logic and I like logic. Though I don't necessarily agree that murder is wrong per se and thus don't necessarily agree that capital punishment is wrong per se but hey, that's just me.
You dont think that murder is 'wrong?!' Unless you are using 'murder' in the generic sense then that is quite a comment! Murder means to cause the intentional death of another human being. Self defence or other mitigating circumstances would make the offence manslaughter. So I'm dying to hear a reasonable example of where murder could be considered right! (Excuse the pun
So, is the execution of a single innocent person acceptable?
Firstly, read my post. Equating what I said, which is that murder is wrong per se to murder isn't wrong is silly. I'm not that stupid though I do occasionally like to play the Devil's advocate.
You've mentioned self-defence which is the biggie. What about killing people in war? Because it's sanctioned by the Government, an organisation of men ie. subject to the same fallacies as everyone else on the planet, does that make it morally right that a soldier kills another man in battle? It may fall under the category of self-defence - 'well I had to kill him as he was going to kill me'. Is this manslaughter or murder? Does it matter? You've still willingly taken another person's life.
You see the difference in the majority of manslaughter cases (with the notable exception of the element of attempt) is the concept of murder being both a legal term (ending another person's life) and a moral one. Now since all morals are ultimately subjective and since you can't get inside someone's head to understand whether there is intent or not, surely one must define murder in such crude terms as the termination of another person's life since we are unable to plug ourselves into the subject's head and since all morals are ultimately subjective and relative.
I'd be interested to hear what exactly you define murder as.
This is all quite pedantic really eh?!
say, the person would like to no longer be alive, and you kill them as painlessly as possible
also the person who talked about forensic science being more accurate these days, it is, but the circumstances of a person bodily sample being on someone or on a weapon can only be speculated still most of the time, almost all murder convictions come from confession, not from proving a not guily plea since most murders are statistically carried out by someone who knows them, meaning that forensic evidence is bloody difficult to prove who done it and under what reason (which determines the sentence in most cases ie nalmost self defence > planned)
Nope .. it wouldn't you'd spent year on death row instead, waiting for appeal after appeal.
The only problem is the issue of false conviction - and if you only advocate the death penalty when backed up with incontrovertible evidence such as DNA, that would create a fucked up situation with "definites" and "maybes" - which contradicts the necessity for conviction only when guilt is beyond possible doubt.
And what do you think gives you the right to decide that taking someone's life is worth taking to make amends for their crimes? Let him without sin cast the first stone. Plus why do child molestors always get dragged into this? I'm not going to argue in favour of them but I'm just curious as to why everyone always lumps them in with murderers and rapists?
Pedantic? Perhaps but since we're dealing with issues where the slightest difference is potentially important. Small point? No. The element intent often is the deciding factor between murder and manslaughter so no, it's not a small point at all.
I ask you again to define the term 'murder' and how it is any different from killing someone in war. Now this is where I bring up my original argument that it's not wrong per se to kill (murder?) someone. Your argument seems to hinge on the difference you make, yet fail to explain, between 'murder' and 'killing'. I'd quite like to know what difference you draw between the two. I'm not having a go, just interested to see how they're different in your eyes.
If you want a simple difference between killing and murdering then this is one quite simple example... (murder is simply an extension of killing, clearly in both cases you are 'killing' the person)
You accidentally hit a drunk guy wandering around the streets in your car = killing
Stabbing a guy in the chest, or perhaps gunning him down whilst he is in a park playing with his children = murder
OBVIOUSLY there is a grey area between these two black and white examples which you are arguing about but what I originally said was simply that 'murder' was the wrong word to use in the context of your post! That was IT.
Well, what gives anyone the right to decide any sort of punishment for a given crime? What gives people the right to imprison others for robbery? Assault? Fraud?
As for why people lump child molesters in with rapists and murderers is because...well, what is a child molester who rapes and kills his victim if he isn't a rapist and a murderer?
so the state has the reight to decide who lives and who dies? would you press the button to kill them?
Also rapist and people who sexually abuse children if they show no remorse in what they have done..but maybe death is a bit too much
But it is. The Home Secretary had the final say on whether the death penalty would be carried out. In the US the final say is with state governors (or the President for Federal crimes).
Now I don't think people who support the death penalty are heartless, I just don't think it works and the risk of misscarriages of justice is too high for something which makes no difference to crime figures...
So you're in favour of the death penalty because you want revenge, rather than because you want to try and prevent crime in the first place?
There is a logical argument that says that a one-time murderer (not serial killer) is actually far less likely to reoffend than any other type of criminal, because their motive has already been fulfilled. A thief with continue stealing as long as the circumstances drive him or her to that. Someone guilty of assault will continue to get into fights as long as they don't deal with their anger management issues. A murderer has already killed the (often one and only) person they wanted to kill, so the risk to society is minimal.
On the main question, of course it shouldn't be brought back. There is no evidence that it has an effect on homocide figures, one mistake is one mistake too many, and in America a death penalty court case is infinitely more expensive than a non-death penalty court case, even including the cost of life in prison. So life in prison is cheaper, simple to put right if you make a mistake, and makes no difference to the crime occurring in the first place. It's not difficult to see why people come to the conclusion that death penalty supporters are simply after revenge.
Not "can be." More like "always is by a long shot."
Above sums it all for me ..
You can't go around saying killing is wrong and then say but it's OK if the State kills then it's OK.
actually no, because you said anyone who can show they are capable of killing, the same should happen to them, and thus the executioner CAN kill, that's why i was asking ie it's a contradictory argument
So unelected judges have the power of life and death instead? who are they accountable too.
except their's no evidence it decreases crime in the slightest