Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[rebalious]

IMO one innocent wrongly put to death is one too many. Also how would criminals suffer less than spending life in a box?

IMO life in a box>death in terms of punishment. Of course it would be if they couldn't manipulate the human rights act. Wait I just undermined my own argument... :unsure:

[Deleted54170User]

I say no.

 

A punishment shouldn't be like that, and if you want to stop someone to do that again, put him in maximum security.

 

With the following I can conclude variations of thinking from any viewpoint. Whether I make myself clear is the issue. Read on.

 

The words defined as law are references that are common associations of hunam behavior. They were written as a reference to the various thng's that are considered incorrect behavior or correct behavior. The laws gave us all a point of view to determine the base problem so we could then determine with the aide of a group of how basic or how complex a persons violation was in respect to the root means of the law.

 

A jury is assigned the task of determining if in fact a person has broken the law, and also, if they decide that a person has, just how serious the law was broken by the offending person or persons.

 

To sentence a person to death takes a great deal of consdiration so as to conclude what the circumstances which drove the offender to act as a criminal; and just what level they held of intent. Was it premeditated or did they act out of self defense?

 

The law was written as a definition of people's act's. The law was not written just as a legal reference for bad behavior, it also defined the range of good behavior as well.

 

What one person comprehends as good and bad is upon their individual awareness via those who raised them from childhood to adulthood. In some of the organized groups it is considered that if a child does not know the difference between good and bad by the time they are five years of age the views of those they encounter afterward makes for a legal dispute in and of itself.

 

In some worldly places a child cannot be held responsible for their acts until they are considered mature. If a child knows the difference between correct behavior and incorrect behavior when they are five years of age they are a responsible citizen if they carry on amongst their companions reasoning within their groups means. In another group a child is expected to take responsibility for their actions after they had experience from that age when they began to realize they knew a difference of correct and incorrect. One group enforces it at thirteen and deems that after that the individual should be held responsible for their acts from then on while another nearer to my own suggests that eighteen years of age be the defining age that the adult bodies should expect no further freedoms to experiment with commonalities.

 

If you don't find a job in the castle of your King by then you're in trouble because you are obviously a rogue, or worse, a malcontent. If you do something that is considered an act of wrong or incorrect the entire community will call for a judgment as to what level of your actions can be defined. The juries acts are to define the seriousness of the crime.

 

Sentencing someone to Death is a serious decision to make and evidence must be amassed to conclude that a person deserves it first or justice is just another method of sending Socrates some Hemlock for being a powerful influence on weak minds.

 

If my words give you a better understanding of what Law is I suggest you review your written statements and edit your opinions as you now deem correct. Otherwise, when jury duty calls, at least consider the evidence of the offense presented for and against their behavior carefully, rather then, to conclude the offenders acts were against your own groups opinions or if the written law is, sadly, mental opinions outside the written laws that only a gangs thought's were conceived of aiming to get rid of a person with a mingling of cash passed under the table.

 

How much are your opinion's worth now?

[Balagor]

My opinion is still "worth" a lot.

I still stand by my statements in Post #76, where I claim we have to deal with social injustice,

before we start killing criminals as thee only solution.

 

Laws are made for the people to give them a clue on how to behave (in case they don´t know),

and they are made for the people so we can rehabilitate the ones who break it.

 

Laws are also made for the people to make a community/society run properly.

Goverments (elected by the people) make laws thats dictates welfare for all, social justice

for all, security if unemployed for all, when these goverments lie again and again, they break

the law too, thus having responsibility in a great deal of at least the social related crime which

will be the outcome of their failed politics.

 

I still recommend that we look carefully through each case, and use rehabilitation for most cases.

There will probably be some, as I have mentioned before, who can not be rehabilitated.

Let them work for society, in a secured prison. If it´s a mean drugdealer who cuts of finges, abuses

women, children, etc., I wont miss him, should he die.

[Deleted54170User]

My opinion is still "worth" a lot.

I still stand by my statements in Post #76, where I claim we have to deal with social injustice,

before we start killing criminals as thee only solution.

 

Laws are made for the people to give them a clue on how to behave (in case they don´t know),

and they are made for the people so we can rehabilitate the ones who break it.

 

Laws are also made for the people to make a community/society run properly.

Goverments (elected by the people) make laws thats dictates welfare for all, social justice

for all, security if unemployed for all, when these goverments lie again and again, they break

the law too, thus having responsibility in a great deal of at least the social related crime which

will be the outcome of their failed politics.

 

I still recommend that we look carefully through each case, and use rehabilitation for most cases.

There will probably be some, as I have mentioned before, who can not be rehabilitated.

Let them work for society, in a secured prison. If it´s a mean drugdealer who cuts of finges, abuses

women, children, etc., I wont miss him, should he die.

 

You pointed to a fact which seems to illude social groups who live by their own structured law. They have their own laws, just as if they were on a planet all together without any outsiders. The legal systems who are the political minded are unto them selves another colony or group. Again they have the way they see the law and how it works best for them. Send a drug dealer packing back to his or her own kind who think alike and their practice is common amongst their group. If any one of the groups members moves into another township, city, colony where their laws are unacceptable or they move into a neighborhood where their common traits are horrid it is the groups responsibility to reject them and their clients to be rid of them for good. If the mass whose laws are broken do nothing about the politicians lying, or the drug dealers finger cutting, woman and men beatings and such, as a people against lying politicians, then their own legal system is weak or a farce like the group in the story about Socrate's.

[species5478]

So what are the circumstances for permitting death? I mean...what separates let's say...the serial killing of 50 people, from the bombing of Hiroshima?

 

Circumstance?

The right for protection, perhaps?

 

Some might say the serial killer acts mindlessly, but isn't all death mindless? Does death care about circumstance, right and wrong, laws, or anything other than taking life. Of course not. It devours any and all, for any and all reasons.

 

But the big question is does the law have the right to put someone to death?

 

Well, if the law represents the will of a group of people, than aren't we really asking, do we as human beings, have the right to kill other human beings...because acting like a "law" is killing people, would be to dissociate ourselves from the grisly, and personal act of taking life. Well...

 

I believe there are three laws. Religious law, military law, and civilian law. I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye". And in the military, there should absolutely be a death penalty, considering the scope of military function, which is that of a war machine. In the civilian courts...I think the death penalty should be used not only in well documented convictions, but for those who have committed outstanding crimes. An individual like Berny Madoff for example, a man who stole billions of dollars from investors, should not be allowed to live.

[RebelOConner]

I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye".

not in christianism.

the ten commandments say: You shall not murder.

without limits.

 

and i could quote Ghandhi: An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

[Balagor]

You pointed to a fact which seems to illude social groups who live by their own structured law. They have their own laws, just as if they were on a planet all together without any outsiders. The legal systems who are the political minded are unto them selves another colony or group. Again they have the way they see the law and how it works best for them. Send a drug dealer packing back to his or her own kind who think alike and their practice is common amongst their group. If any one of the groups members moves into another township, city, colony where their laws are unacceptable or they move into a neighborhood where their common traits are horrid it is the groups responsibility to reject them and their clients to be rid of them for good. If the mass whose laws are broken do nothing about the politicians lying, or the drug dealers finger cutting, woman and men beatings and such, as a people against lying politicians, then their own legal system is weak or a farce like the group in the story about Socrate's.

 

I simply try to point out, that we are all a product of the society we live in + the family we where raised in(or lack of same)

Thus we are not always guilty in our acts.

But yes, some has chosen their way fully aware of what they are doing, thats why the issue is sensitive, and must be looked on carefully.

 

 

So what are the circumstances for permitting death? I mean...what separates let's say...the serial killing of 50 people, from the bombing of Hiroshima?

 

Circumstance?

The right for protection, perhaps?

 

Some might say the serial killer acts mindlessly, but isn't all death mindless? Does death care about circumstance, right and wrong, laws, or anything other than taking life. Of course not. It devours any and all, for any and all reasons.

 

But the big question is does the law have the right to put someone to death?

 

Well, if the law represents the will of a group of people, than aren't we really asking, do we as human beings, have the right to kill other human beings...because acting like a "law" is killing people, would be to dissociate ourselves from the grisly, and personal act of taking life. Well...

 

I believe there are three laws. Religious law, military law, and civilian law. I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye". And in the military, there should absolutely be a death penalty, considering the scope of military function, which is that of a war machine. In the civilian courts...I think the death penalty should be used not only in well documented convictions, but for those who have committed outstanding crimes. An individual like Berny Madoff for example, a man who stole billions of dollars from investors, should not be allowed to live.

 

Hiroshima was not selfdefense, but a final test of 8 years work by Oppenheimer and Bohr.

And I do agree with your last line. In DK we also have unscrupulous swindlers, who ruin inonncent peoples lives.

I would not miss such persons, should they die.

[Deleted54170User]

You pointed to a fact which seems to illude social groups who live by their own structured law. They have their own laws, just as if they were on a planet all together without any outsiders. The legal systems who are the political minded are unto them selves another colony or group. Again they have the way they see the law and how it works best for them. Send a drug dealer packing back to his or her own kind who think alike and their practice is common amongst their group. If any one of the groups members moves into another township, city, colony where their laws are unacceptable or they move into a neighborhood where their common traits are horrid it is the groups responsibility to reject them and their clients to be rid of them for good. If the mass whose laws are broken do nothing about the politicians lying, or the drug dealers finger cutting, woman and men beatings and such, as a people against lying politicians, then their own legal system is weak or a farce like the group in the story about Socrate's.

 

I simply try to point out, that we are all a product of the society we live in + the family we where raised in(or lack of same)

Thus we are not always guilty in our acts.

But yes, some has chosen their way fully aware of what they are doing, thats why the issue is sensitive, and must be looked on carefully.

 

 

So what are the circumstances for permitting death? I mean...what separates let's say...the serial killing of 50 people, from the bombing of Hiroshima?

 

Circumstance?

The right for protection, perhaps?

 

Some might say the serial killer acts mindlessly, but isn't all death mindless? Does death care about circumstance, right and wrong, laws, or anything other than taking life. Of course not. It devours any and all, for any and all reasons.

 

But the big question is does the law have the right to put someone to death?

 

Well, if the law represents the will of a group of people, than aren't we really asking, do we as human beings, have the right to kill other human beings...because acting like a "law" is killing people, would be to dissociate ourselves from the grisly, and personal act of taking life. Well...

 

I believe there are three laws. Religious law, military law, and civilian law. I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye". And in the military, there should absolutely be a death penalty, considering the scope of military function, which is that of a war machine. In the civilian courts...I think the death penalty should be used not only in well documented convictions, but for those who have committed outstanding crimes. An individual like Berny Madoff for example, a man who stole billions of dollars from investors, should not be allowed to live.

 

Hiroshima was not selfdefense, but a final test of 8 years work by Oppenheimer and Bohr.

And I do agree with your last line. In DK we also have unscrupulous swindlers, who ruin inonncent peoples lives.

I would not miss such persons, should they die.

 

 

The premise in most cases it to be judged by our peers.

What rules/laws do you practice in your life, in your home, and amongst your firm friends and community that you actually adhere to with commitment. How can you judge someone else who is not from your group if they do not live by the rules/laws you profess are yours?

 

Judged by their peers means that: your rules/laws are in fact their rules/laws without question.

 

Justice can not rule this as fact without fully examining the accused to determine if the party being judged comprehends the same rules/laws as you and your members do. They criminal can not be judged fairly if their own rules/laws differ from the people who are the jury if those in the jury have different rules/laws.

Also a jury also may find inconsistencies in favor or against the others who are in the jury making it more difficult to find a verdict without solid evidence to convict.

Point: A confession is not always sound enough evidence even when other solid 6 points of views of the scene of the crime points to the accused to prove more guilt in show the criminal has premeditated the crime.

 

Unless the peers are in agreement with the rules/laws of the community and the person being judged is of the same mind a verdict is very difficult to achieve.

 

Deciding who should live or die in the various legalities can be moved to favor public opinion and if a person is not from the group who is likened to them in their way of thinking rules/laws they cannot be judged fairly.

 

If in the reference to a person who sells drugs, cuts fingers, and beats people up is judged by those who would be deemed their peers do you think the judgement passed by their peers would be any less demanding? Would a group of drug dealing, finger cutting, and people beating peers see their group member who was being challenged for bad behavior as too threatening if the peers too committed all the known acts and would they be able to judge a person like them selves to let them continue to live or sentence them to death?

[roguim]

I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye".

not in christianism.

the ten commandments say: You shall not murder.

without limits.

 

and i could quote Ghandhi: An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

 

Well not entering too much in an religious debate ,but there is a plenty example in Bible of death penalty ( since a group of kids because they mock a prophet to thief ' family stoned to Death )

.

 

 

 

I simply try to point out, that we are all a product of the society we live in + the family we where raised in(or lack of same)

Thus we are not always guilty in our acts.

But yes, some has chosen their way fully aware of what they are doing, thats why the issue is sensitive, and must be looked on carefully.

 

 

 

 

Hiroshima was not selfdefense, but a final test of 8 years work by Oppenheimer and Bohr.

And I do agree with your last line. In DK we also have unscrupulous swindlers, who ruin inonncent peoples lives.

I would not miss such persons, should they die.

 

I agree that we are product of society we live + family + many others facts ( not all poor kid's who lives in a favela and have a drug addicted family will become a criminal, and not all wealthy family member will be an exemplar citizen) But i think in the majority of cases we are guilty in our acts. What it's should happen it's see if the person wants to have a second change, regrets his acts so lighter his punishment

 

 

And about Hiroshima we must take in account the situation in the world, the Fear about the Japanese fanatism, and the Cold war approaching in horizon. they don't need a Atomic Bomb to destroy a city, search about Dresden, Tokyo, Osaka and Hamburg Bombardments (among others) to see the horrible and absurd capacity of destruction they had this time.

The bomb was only to show "we can destroy a city with only one airplane instead of hundreds".

 

and i also agree with species5478's last line.

 

 

EDIT

@Pagafyr

IF you take in account that the Law is the same for all the people who lives in a country the judge are all by their law.

if someone disagree well there democracy, but it's not excuse to committed acts like, selling drugs, raping, download pedophiles photos etc...

And also a Judge must be (at least in theory) neutral.

[Balagor]

@Pagafyr

I have a little difficulty to follow you, or maybe we misunderstand eachother. I never talked about crimals being judged by peoples from their own group.

Besides that I think we agree. :rolleyes:

 

@species5478

I hope I did not offend you with my sarcastic remarc about the Hiroshima-bomb

But I think you know me enough by now, that this is just my usual Danish sarcasm. :thumbsup:

 

@roguim

Once again you remind me about the little important points I forget. And this time a very imortant one:

Does the criminal deeply regrat his/her crime, and is ready/willing for rehabilitation

Thank you :thanks: