The Death Penalty

[ub3rman123]

I can't remember if I posted here or not already. I seem to remember posting on a similar topic somewhere. In any-case, I favor the state sponsored slavery option that has been mentioned as an alternative to execution. I feel it is much more humane, avoids the possibility of executing innocent people, and allows for some sort of compensation to society.

I am going to have to assume that this is a droll take on the Death Penalty, but if you are serious how you would propose getting around the 13th Amendment?

 

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

 

 

...That seemed very convenient. Weird.

[Aurielius]

I can't remember if I posted here or not already. I seem to remember posting on a similar topic somewhere. In any-case, I favor the state sponsored slavery option that has been mentioned as an alternative to execution. I feel it is much more humane, avoids the possibility of executing innocent people, and allows for some sort of compensation to society.

I am going to have to assume that this is a droll take on the Death Penalty, but if you are serious how you would propose getting around the 13th Amendment?

 

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

...That seemed very convenient. Weird.

I really should read my amendments more throughly...thanks. :whistling:

[lukertin]

Here is an interesting article on prison labor in the USA: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900003&contentid=255055 Edited October 5, 2011 by lukertin

[Germandeathkittiez]

because i know right from wrong and would leave it to the government to capture someone and not go and kill them myself is your defense on why i can be for the death penalty? because i dont believe in the death penalty enough to go kill someone and go through it myself? ur not making logical sense. someone killed my mother, and they cought him, and his sentence was death, and i was allowed to push the button so to say, damn straight i would.

 

on that note, the death penalty is also a scare tactic. if ppl know the consequence is death, they are less likely to perform the action in question.

 

 

 

and as i said. psychopath or not, idrc. the moment you start giving lenience to some over others is when wars break out. im not saying kill ppl BECAUSE they are mental, im saying kill a mental person if he kills someone else. just the same if they arent mental, or if they are black white or green, male or female, old or young.

 

what do u do to a dog when it attacks someone? without hesitation its put down. whether or not it killed someone. but if a human kills someone, we dont do the same. we pity that person because hes confused. sure we feel bad for the victim, but its the killer who is really suffering here, he needs the real help. he only killed as a cry for help, but how can we help him if hes on death row.

 

 

When did I ever say that? I'm not saying the death penalty makes no sense because the government is the one who is carrying it out and not those supporting it. What I'm saying is that it is wrong because there are better ways to handle people's problems. You can continue to go on and say that they deserve what death comes their way, and regardless if that is true or not, anger is a very powerful emotion. If you use anger to solve your problems, then you're going to get the resulting roundabout. I'm not, on the other hand, saying that those who do support it are bad people themselves for just this sole reason. We all have different opinion's, and just because some of them may annoy another person with conflicting views, does not mean they are wrong to have them.

 

Back to my original argument:

 

Actions speak louder than words. This isn't medieval Europe with the ropes and the later invented Guillotine. You can cover it up with "humane" and "euthanization ", but those don't justify the fact that you just killed someone, who, again, could be honest for all you know. You can't teach a dog not to bark. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can have a psychopath in society, but you can't force him to behave. And when these issues arise, when the going gets tough...we usually just seek the easy way out. And it's easy to kill someone rather than put up with them right? Except, in this unique case, we just call that habeas corpus, the only other excuse to get rid of people we choose not to help, where it wouldn't necessarily be "wrong".

 

It's easy to kill an animal because he was only trying to protect himself, and it's easy to overlook someone's limitations and still give them the fullest extent of the law, no matter if they lack the required understanding. Let's see how easy it is to place one of your friend's or family members in this situation, and still stay true to your word. It would be more difficult to extinguish them as monsters since they exist in your Monkeysphere. It would also be more challenging to accept the death penalty if you suddenly found a loved one in that situation, and even if you still stood firm, then what about the possibility of if you didn't? Why would it not apply to those who are outside it? There are contradictions with these things that can't be ignored and must also be factored. People often change their minds when presented with new problems. More commonly when those problems strike a little closer to home then they would like.

 

You seem to be assuming the majority of murderers in our society are "psycopaths" (not a legitimate scientific word, btw), when in fact the exact opposite is true. "Despite popular misconceptions, most people struggling with anxiety, depression, and even bizarre thinking pose no immediate danger to themselves or anyone else" (Abnormal Psychology, p. 4, Ronald J. Comer). In short, insanity does not play a large part in whether someone is about to go out and kill someone. Instead, it's a scientific fact we're all inherently violent and sexual beings, just like all other animals are. Therefore, when we see someone else on death row, it's in our instinct to know that that person is all of us; thus we fear to be that person so much we scream "put him to DEATH!" This is how we "civilize" our savage instincts. This savagery is in us all, but what really defines it as savagery is when it's the government carrying it out, in my opinion, because in my opinion the government and law should be downright objective and logical in their proceedings. These misconceptions when carried out in law are not creating progress in society, but simply reflecting our most base animal instincts. Beyond instincts, there is no necessary measure to kill those who let loose their inhibitions and kill someone for any reason. It just shows we have a system based on human instincts as opposed to logic, intellectualism and science.

[Nintii]

The very second post of this topic has a ring of truth to it ... "The death penalty just gives power to the state ...", well if it doesn't then it will ... in many countries when a new power arises - especially in third world and Arab countries - this is a brilliant way to get rid of the opposition.

I'm just waiting for the day that this becomes "mainstream" in western culture ... and it will come to that, it's only a matter of time.

Though it might not seem like it now, but control of society is creeping upon us and oneday it's going to be in your face and the very thing which is supposed to remove only the most unrpentant of criminals is going to be used on those who oppose the State.

 

Be that as it may ... cos in the rotten here and now, I support it ...

[Balagor]

If that´s so, @Nintii, I´m happy that there is no such thing as a "psychopath". Then there might yet be hope for me,lol

@The Black Ninja, no "psypaths". Then I wonder who commit all those crimes, so cruel, that a death penalty is required

 

My link

[ginnyfizz]

Excellent link, Balagor, that expert seems to think that there are such things as psychopaths.

 

I am aware of the flaws in the system that could mean an innocent person gets put to death. The recent case in Italy where Amanda Knox has been acquitted on appeal, several years down the line, of the murder of Meredith Kercher is one that is being cited by the anti-death penalty lobby here in the UK. They say that if Italy had the death penalty, Knox would have been unjustly executed. Now whereas my personal view is that Ms Knox still has a lot of explaining to do, with my lawyers wig on I can say that the overturning of the conviction was quite proper, since the prosecution evidence was so flawed that they had not proved their case.

 

It is entirely possible that juries in this day and age with the knowledge of prior injustices and police corruption/incompetence before us, here in the UK at least, would be even more reluctant than they are already to convict if the charge carried a death sentence. Over here, just before he sends the jury out, the judge will exhort them in the following or very similar words;-

 

"Members of the jury, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Therefore unless you are satified beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged, then you MUST find them Not Guilty".

 

In Britain we have had our fair share of miscarriages of justice, almost invariably in high profile cases where there was a massive baying for revenge - two IRA bombings and the brutal murder of a newspaper boy spring to mind as cases where we got the wrong men. However, I suspect that the juries concerned might well have thought differently faced with the prospect of hanging someone on dodgy evidence, or alternatively the Lords Justices of Appeal might have commuted the sentences in those cases.

 

I would certainly say that a unanimous verdict should be required for a death sentence to be passed, on a majority verdict the sentence should be life imprisonment without parole.

 

Also food for thought is this;-

 

The Not Proven Verdict in Scotland

 

The prospect of a third kind of verdict.

[Aurielius]

I would certainly say that a unanimous verdict should be required for a death sentence to be passed, on a majority verdict the sentence should be life imprisonment without parole.

I am unaware of any state that does not require a unanimous verdict in a Death Penalty case, I had thought that it was the same in the UK also. Most District Attorneys usually include lessor charges in the indictment to give a jury something to fall back on if the DA is not sure of a slam dunk verdict.

[Germandeathkittiez]

If that´s so, @Nintii, I´m happy that there is no such thing as a "psychopath". Then there might yet be hope for me,lol

@The Black Ninja, no "psypaths". Then I wonder who commit all those crimes, so cruel, that a death penalty is required

 

My link

or you could just go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath and see how "Until the 1980's, the term formally referred to a personality disorder... The publication of of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders third edition (DSM-III) changed the name of this mental disorder to antisocial personality disorder..." This means that currently no one can be diagnosed as a psychopath. (maybe in DSM-V) that is all I meant by not scientific, not that antisocial PD and other disorders don't exist.

 

You might want to check this out. http://www.livescience.com/640-peace-war-early-humans-behaved.html '"Human groups are much more likely to live in peace than in war," he explained. "What we usually find is that what is reported or emphasized is any violent encounter that takes place. Thus, instead of using the actual statistics, we emphasize the rare events."' (Bisson) People are violent enough to commit these crimes, yes, but it is not as often as we assume.

Edited October 10, 2011 by The Black Ninja

[ginnyfizz]

I would certainly say that a unanimous verdict should be required for a death sentence to be passed, on a majority verdict the sentence should be life imprisonment without parole.

I am unaware of any state that does not require a unanimous verdict in a Death Penalty case, I had thought that it was the same in the UK also. Most District Attorneys usually include lessor charges in the indictment to give a jury something to fall back on if the DA is not sure of a slam dunk verdict.

 

In the days when we did have the death penalty here in the UK, there was no such thing as a majority verdict in either a capital or a non-capital case. Either way the verdict had to be unanimous then.

 

These days a majority verdict is possible.

 

I am therefore saying that should we bring back the death penalty, the judge should not be able to sentence a person to death without a unanimous verdict. Should the jury fail to agree unanimously, then either the jury is discharged and there is a retrial, or there should be a provision where, if just a majority of jurors (by which I mean just one or two dissensions at most) agree on guilt then the option would be a life sentence in prison rather than "three yards of cord and a sliding board."

 

Fortunately (from what I've heard about the shenanigans of some of them) we don't have District Attorneys in the UK. We have the Crown Prosecution Service who are often remarkably reluctant to do much prosecuting these days (probably due to aforementioned miscarriages of justice.) It is sometimes open to the jury to bring in a verdict of manslaughter instead if such a plea has been entered and the mitigating circumstances proved. The real last resort for a defendant facing a charge would to make a plea of Not Guilty by reason of insanity - almost no-one does it in these days of non capital cases as a successful plea of that sort results in detention for an indefinite period anyway - but it would become rather more common if we brought back the death penalty.

 

So Aurelius, I am not really sure what your point is, as I had not suggested that any US states executed anyone on a majority verdict.

 

@Keanumoreira

 

I have only just really caught up with this thread and I am really astounded at this argument;-

 

"Actions speak louder than words. This isn't medieval Europe with the ropes and the later invented Guillotine. You can cover it up with "humane" and "euthanization ", but those don't justify the fact that you just killed someone, who, again, could be honest for all you know. You can't teach a dog not to bark. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can have a psychopath in society, but you can't force him to behave. And when these issues arise, when the going gets tough...we usually just seek the easy way out. And it's easy to kill someone rather than put up with them right? Except, in this unique case, we just call that habeas corpus, the only other excuse to get rid of people we choose not to help, where it wouldn't necessarily be "wrong".

 

First of all, we were actually hanging people here in the UK right up until 13th August 1964 (Peter Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans) and the last guillotining in France was of Hamida Djandoubi on 10th September 1977. So it all went far beyond medieval times, but it is highly debatable as to whether the current method of execution that you mostly use in the USA, the lethal injection that can prove very difficult to administer, is any more humane than calculated long drop hanging or the gruesome but very quick embrace of Madame Guillotine. If someone has an abnormality of mind, then the MacNaghten rules state that they have a defence if the balance of their mind is so disturbed that they do no know the nature and quality of their act, or alternatively that the act was wrong. Thus psychopaths might well fall foul of this since they usually know exactly what they are doing and also that the law says that it is wrong - they just do not feel that the law applies to them.

 

Secondly, I really must correct that misconception about what the meaning of the writ of Habeas Corpus is. The literal meaning of the Latin is "you have the body." A writ of Habeas Corpus is actually the strongest protection we have against unlawful detention, for it demands that an arrested person be brought before a court and charged and either convicted or acquitted as the jury shall decide. Moreover if the custodian does not have the right to detain the person then a writ of Habeas Corpus can compel their release, and it can be brought by a person on behalf of the detainee. The reason that many of us are alarmed at what is being done in the name of the war on terror is because the scope of the writ of Habeas Corpus is being eroded by the use of effective internment without trial (detaining people for 28 days without charge as we do in the UK is just not on in peacetime IMHO).