- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I little awkward if someone is later found to be innocent though, wouldn't you say?
and please use their services
I don't understand...
- Thread starter stevewestern
- Start date
I little awkward if someone is later found to be innocent though, wouldn't you say?
magicaxeman
An Idiot
- Messages
- 3,095
- Edit My Images
- No
And in the history of the death penalty here how many times has that happened? 2 possibly 3 times and all of those before modern forensic techniques.
Mahmood
Evans
Bentley - possibly, its a technical point thats dependent on the interpretation of the phrase "let him have it Chris"
The other factor thats often ignored is that jury's and judges required a higher level of proof for death penalty cases, the conviction had to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", judges and jury's held to that and were more cautious/diligent in their deliberations.
Given modern forensics/cctv and direct witness evidence there is no reason to think a miscarriage of justice would take place, especially if judges and jurys acted as they used to and demanded a greater burden of proof.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you then, an atheist?
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
So someone stands before you with a knife to the throat of your child assuring you the child will be slaughtered but only after being raped. He then promises to do the same to your wife and any other children you have. As a true atheist (if indeed that's what you claim to be), you would not raise a finger in defence of your family. You would not take a chance, should it present itself, to kill the perpetrator and save those you love.
If you would, then you're not an atheist.
If you wouldn't, then I pity you and those around you.
There's another word for atheism. ...cowardice.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
That has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
I don't follow your reasoning at all.
Another word for atheism would be realistic... i.e. not basing your life on mythology.
Steve.
I don't follow your reasoning at all.
Another word for atheism would be realistic... i.e. not basing your life on mythology.
Steve.
Gremlin
Houdini
- Messages
- 17,743
- Name
- Ingrid
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually Ruth I would disagree with your interpretation too.
Most people see atheism as not believing in deities
According to religion it is God Almighty that states we should forgive our enemies and not seek revenge
which given many conflicts taking 1000s of lives have been fought in the name of religion in on way or another
is preaching double standards.
And for the record I am agnostic, veering towards atheism more every day
Most people see atheism as not believing in deities
According to religion it is God Almighty that states we should forgive our enemies and not seek revenge
which given many conflicts taking 1000s of lives have been fought in the name of religion in on way or another
is preaching double standards.
And for the record I am agnostic, veering towards atheism more every day
Last edited:
I think killing someone intentionally is an acceptable response to an immediate and ongoing threat to life.
If some kind of Michael Ryan character was wandering the streets I wouldn't blame anyone for shooting him dead. Unfortunate as that would be.
Killing prisoners who no longer present an ongoing threat is morally equivalent to murder, in my opinion.
If some kind of Michael Ryan character was wandering the streets I wouldn't blame anyone for shooting him dead. Unfortunate as that would be.
Killing prisoners who no longer present an ongoing threat is morally equivalent to murder, in my opinion.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Even though you have corrected the word, I am still unsure that you know what it means - pacifism relates more generally as opposition to violence as a means of achieving your aims and often in the context of warfare. Pacifists have been shot and imprisoned for their views - how does that make them cowards? Was Ghandi a coward? Martin Luther King? Being a pacifist does not necessarily exclude the use of violence for emergency defence of self or others.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/pacifism_1.shtml
Cowardice is an interesting choice of word by the way:
"During the periods between World Wars I and World War II, pacifist literature and public advocacy was banned in Italy underBenito Mussolini, Germany after the rise of Adolf Hitler,[85]Spain under Francisco Franco,[86] and the Soviet Union underJoseph Stalin.[87] In these nations, pacifism was denounced as cowardice; indeed, Mussolini referred to pacifist writings as the "propaganda of cowardice".[85]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
By the way, being opposed to capital punishment is not the same as being a pacifist.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I did read it re: "Simon's position that killing someone under any circumstance is wrong" - hence my reply that being a pacifist does not necessarily exclude the use of violence for emergency defence of self or others.
You did not say that your statement "There's another word foratheism [pacifism]...cowardice" only applied to your imagined scenario. Knowing people who were imprisoned and tortured for their conscientous objector status, I disagree with the implication that pacifism = cowardice.
You did not say that your statement "There's another word for
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Viv
Having looked into it, yes, a Judge can direct a finding of Guilty, but only in certain circumstances.
Usually when there is no real defence presented. The example given in what I've looked at is R V Ponting, who leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano. He admitted doing so, but claimed it was in the public interest. The Judge directed a finding of Guilty, and the Jury acquitted him.
The Judges point was that it wasn't a defence for Ponting to decide that he should leak information contrary to the Official Secrets Acts, the offence was absolute, and that was simply not a defence. The Jury clearly decided that they knew better.
Thats the problem or advantage of having a Jury System.
In that case, I don't really care too much, and personally who cares what way the ship was steering at the time, it remained a threat unless it was sat on the sea bed, or holed up in port.
I suppose the point is should Jury's decide with their Heart, or minds?
Having looked into it, yes, a Judge can direct a finding of Guilty, but only in certain circumstances.
Usually when there is no real defence presented. The example given in what I've looked at is R V Ponting, who leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano. He admitted doing so, but claimed it was in the public interest. The Judge directed a finding of Guilty, and the Jury acquitted him.
The Judges point was that it wasn't a defence for Ponting to decide that he should leak information contrary to the Official Secrets Acts, the offence was absolute, and that was simply not a defence. The Jury clearly decided that they knew better.
Thats the problem or advantage of having a Jury System.
In that case, I don't really care too much, and personally who cares what way the ship was steering at the time, it remained a threat unless it was sat on the sea bed, or holed up in port.
I suppose the point is should Jury's decide with their Heart, or minds?
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
They should make their decision based on the cold hard facts presented to them, and if they can't decide what is fact then that qualifies as reasonable doubt and they must either aquit or declare their individual inability to the judge. Gut feeling and suspicion have no place in jury service.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
even if they would present an ongoing threat when released ? and for that matter present an ongoing threat to fellow prisoners, guards, and other prison workers in the meantime ?
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Iver never really understood all the fuss about the belgrano either - argentina carried out an act of war when they invaded the falklands and south georgia, therefore any of their forces anywhere should have been fair game for any of our forces regardless of which way they were heading.
What I meant by an "ongoing" threat was someone who is actively engaged at that moment in time in seriously life-threatening behaviour. A Michael Ryan type of situation, for example.
So, no, I don't think someone who may present an "ongoing threat when released" (the word "ongoing" is a bit redundant there) should be pre-emptively murdered. If there is serious concern that they'd be a threat to life when released then they should be detained indefinitely.
If someone in prison is acting in a manner which is an ongoing and direct threat to prisoners and prison workers and restraint was out of the question then I don't see how that's much different to the same situation on the outside; so, yes, lethal force would be excusable in such a scenario in my opinion.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its not murder if its done within the law - if it was all warfare would be murder, and every police involved shooting.
To my mind execution is a perfectly reasonable final sanction for paedophiles, terrorists, rapists, and murderers - not in every case of course, but judges have leeway when sentencing anyway.
To my mind execution is a perfectly reasonable final sanction for paedophiles, terrorists, rapists, and murderers - not in every case of course, but judges have leeway when sentencing anyway.
Okay. "Morally equivalent to murder". I thought I'd made that clear in the original post you quoted. And I don't see how police shootings or war would apply to my position anyway, given that I explicitly said killing to stop immediate threats to life was morally defensible.
But you're just nitpicking at definitions now, rather than engaging with the point.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
If someone represents a ongoing threat, then they would not be released as their parole would be refused. The most dangerous prisoners (in the UK) are given a whole life term which means they will never be released.
I don't like the idea of whole life tariffs. Who can say what anyone will be like in 20, 30, 40,... years time?
I prefer the idea of indefinite sentences, up to and including whole life if necessary, for those accused of the most heinous crimes.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Police involved shootings are investigated in order to show wether or not the use of force was justified. In any case the use of a firearm by police as an act of self defence or defence of others in response to an immediate threat to is a totally different thing to a state sanctioned killing (execution). In the US the average amount of time spent on death row is 17 years and the total monetary cost of applying the death penalty is apparently higher than keeping the same person in prison for the rest of their natural life (life without parole sentence). If the death penalty was in place in the UK for the crimes you list, then innocent people would have been killed by the state (Birmingham 6 for example).
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
You don't think that there are some crimes so reprehensible, that the perpetrator deserves to never be free again?
Not fundamentally, no. As I've said before, after a certain point and in certain cases you're just exercising pointless retribution to satisfy people's vindictiveness.
If someone can be released and be of some, even slight, utility to society I don't see the point of keeping them banged up for something horrible they did thirty yeara ago.
However, I have nothing against people spending their whole lives in prison if that's necessary to protect the public.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
You don't think then, that someone who, for instance, rapes and sodomises a baby is not already past being of any use to society?
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
On the face of it it goes against the concept of rehabilitation - but perhaps it acknowledges that some people are beyond rehabilitation or that their crimes are so serious that the only punishment should be a whole life term. It's very rare in the UK - I think only around 60 people currently in prison have a whole life tariff?
Personally I do think that some crimes are so serious (with no extenuating circumstances) that the person should spend the rest of their lives in prison, yes.
However I also reject the rather simplistic view that everyone who commits a serious crime is 'scum' and they 'should be locked up and the key thrown away'. I think most (but not all) prisoners are capable of being rehabilitated and the reasons people commit crime are varied and complex - human behaviour is various and complex. If you meet prisoners/ ex-prisoners one of the things that strikes you is how ordinary they are and how varied they are - branding them all as 'evil' or 'scum' or whatever words the tabloids like to use is far too simplistic. That does not mean for one second that I in any way condone their crime or do not think they should be punished!
I think one possible problem with whole life tariffs is the prisoner has no hope of release to work towards and therefore has 'nothing to lose' - therefore, for example they may be more likely to be violent towards guards or other prisoners? I say may as I have no evidence that this is the case or not.
One major advantage may be a sense of 'closure' for the victims families/friends and the knowledge that the person who committed the crime will never be released, parole board hearings and possible release or actual release of a person who committed a serious crime of violence can be very unpleasant and stressful for victims families and knowing that they will not have to go through that at a future date is likely to be a positive thing for them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
In the US there are people who committed crimes while juveniles (under 18) and who were given life without parole sentences. The case of Jennifer Pruitt (who was found guilty of felony murder) is one example. [In some US states, "Felony murder is a guilt-by-association conviction: If a victim dies while a felony is being committed, all the people committing that felony — whether or not they pulled the trigger, had a weapon or were even present at the time of the killing — can be treated as murderers under the law."]
Given that she was present at the crime but not the actual murderer and went to a neighbour for help and to report the crime the following day, I do think that the whole life term in a case like that is excessive. Even the judge who sentenced her now agrees she should be eligible for release. (Incidentally the US law has now changed so that under 18's can no longer be sentenced to life without parole).
http://www.freep.com/article/201301...decades-behind-bars-could-be-coming-to-an-end
http://america.aljazeera.com/featur...yoflifewithoutparoleforjuvenileoffenders.html
Given that she was present at the crime but not the actual murderer and went to a neighbour for help and to report the crime the following day, I do think that the whole life term in a case like that is excessive. Even the judge who sentenced her now agrees she should be eligible for release. (Incidentally the US law has now changed so that under 18's can no longer be sentenced to life without parole).
http://www.freep.com/article/201301...decades-behind-bars-could-be-coming-to-an-end
http://america.aljazeera.com/featur...yoflifewithoutparoleforjuvenileoffenders.html
Last edited:
Again, not fundamentally, no. It might be the case that they remain dangerous for the rest of their life, in which case they should remain in prison. Or they may overcome whatever personal demons led them to commit such an atrocious act and they may become useful and productive in any number of ways. In the latter case would we not just be keeping them in prison out of a mixture of spite and our inability to master our own disgust? And we as a society are more civilised and mature for forgiving them.
I'm an atheist. But I do feel there's a lot to be said for the Christian principle of forgiving even the worst among us.
Gremlin
Houdini
- Messages
- 17,743
- Name
- Ingrid
- Edit My Images
- No
The one thing that always sticks in my mind was talking to and elderly lady who had been badly beaten a robbed.
She felt very bitter about the fact that although the guilty parties were now imprison, they would be enjoying a full 3 course christmas
dinner in a nice warm prison.
She on the other hand could only afford to heat one room on her pension and would be having a small basic meal as once again she
couldn't afford anything else.
Before everyone jumps in and states the obvious, she had no living relatives to help her out and most of her friends were in the same position.
How can keeping prisoners in luxury with all the extra they want be a punishment, when they get out they will have to survive on what
they get, probably from the state (us) so why not keep them to those basic standards inside.
Seems fundamentally wrong to me that they get a better standard of living then their victims, many of whom will never recover from what
they have suffered
She felt very bitter about the fact that although the guilty parties were now imprison, they would be enjoying a full 3 course christmas
dinner in a nice warm prison.
She on the other hand could only afford to heat one room on her pension and would be having a small basic meal as once again she
couldn't afford anything else.
Before everyone jumps in and states the obvious, she had no living relatives to help her out and most of her friends were in the same position.
How can keeping prisoners in luxury with all the extra they want be a punishment, when they get out they will have to survive on what
they get, probably from the state (us) so why not keep them to those basic standards inside.
Seems fundamentally wrong to me that they get a better standard of living then their victims, many of whom will never recover from what
they have suffered
The answer to that isn't to treat prisoners more harshly, it's to treat the poor better. And if you think prisoners live in "luxury", you don't know what you're talking about.
Also, what the victim thinks should be of absolutely no consequence in deciding how we treat the perpetrator.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
People like you truly scare me.
You would rather look after the future of a child rapist than give a single thought to the child in question.
I'm not talking about keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives Out of spite or revenge. I'm suggesting that some....very few, but some, crimes are so sick. ..so inhuman...that the perpetrator should spend the rest of their days in prison.
Overcome their demons? You're dangerous in your own right.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
That is not the case. Loss of liberty is the main punishment in any event - but the 'prisons are like holiday camps' thing is largely a tabloid myth. People who have committed more serious crimes are highly unlikely to be in an open (cat D) prison (most likely likely Cat A or B) unless they have already completed part of their sentence in a higher cat prison.
Gremlin
Houdini
- Messages
- 17,743
- Name
- Ingrid
- Edit My Images
- No
So let me get this straight Ghoti & Applemint, what you are both saying is the rights of the offender are far more important then the effect they have had
on someone and possibly ruined the rest of their lives ?
It's far more important that that offender is set free then anything else ?
Even if it means that their victim then lives in fear of reprisal, and yes it does happen.
Parole boards get it wrong too
You also can't tell me that human rights would allow the prisoners to live in unheated cells etc without decent food ?
Perhaps leisure time should be devoted to education, I bet many of the young offenders can't even read as they have skipped
school, good time to make up for it
on someone and possibly ruined the rest of their lives ?
It's far more important that that offender is set free then anything else ?
Even if it means that their victim then lives in fear of reprisal, and yes it does happen.
Parole boards get it wrong too
You also can't tell me that human rights would allow the prisoners to live in unheated cells etc without decent food ?
Perhaps leisure time should be devoted to education, I bet many of the young offenders can't even read as they have skipped
school, good time to make up for it
No. I'm saying defending the rights of the offender and defending the rights of the victim are not mutually exclusive.
Who said I wouldn't give a thought to the child in question? That's your own projection.
We weren't talking about the child. We were talking about the perpetrator.
It's people like you, who just want vengeance and punishment rather than accept that human behaviour is complex and needs to be treated as such, that scare me. People who live in a simplistic, fairytale world of "good" and "evil".
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Once again...simply because you seem incapable of understanding...I have mentioned nothing of vengeance. Punishment, yes, because when one is guilty of a crime, that's the price. So you too are seemingly adept at bending tjings to your own ends.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd agree 100%, but thats where the system falls down. Jury's don't. I recall a case in Kent, albeit a very long time ago. Man shoots another man with an unlicensed shot gun. He was charged with Attempted murder, and possession of the shotgun. The Jury found him not guilty, although he admitted every element of both offence.
So, while it's while it's often mentioned how much the state got it wrong Juries can equally make a decision based on something other than the evidence. The saying goes that it is better to acquit 10 guilty men than to convict one innocent, but currently, Juries do make some perverse decisions.
That leads onto the death sentence.....
Execute someone and you in effect put them out of the misery. Imprison them for life, and they suffer. So which is better if you want to go down the retribution path?
Ghotis point has a lot of validity, people change. Is it right to bang them up for life, with no possibility of release? Isn't it a bit pointless when they are old and frail and unable to hurt the average flea? All that achieves is to cost all us us money, for no reason that continues to be valid.
I'm afraid playing the peadophile card isn't really going to work. Where do you draw the line? A 20 year old who's having a consensual relationship with a 15 year old? Same crime as a 14 year old, a 13 year old....etc. Thats always the card pulled out of the pack to justify banging up people and chucking the key away. But not every crime is the same, and once you put if buts and maybe's into a sentencing policy, you leave it open for appeal, and as a consequence that policy ends up being pointless.
It's also something to note that not every country has the same age of consent as the UK. In some European Countries it can go as low as 14. In African Countries even younger than that. With a shifting population, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone lawfully married in thier country can come here and be branded a pedophile.
So what makes someone a pedophile? The age thing is simply a convention here, which has been written into law. I'm not defending it, just pointing out that there's more than to your point than a simple he/she's under 16, the other party is a pedophile.
"Paedophile" has no meaning in law. The relevant legislation doesn't mention the word.
Technically, in psychology/psychiatry, a paedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Being attracted to someone who is pubescent or post-pubescent is not paedophilia, even if they are under the (arbitrary) age of consent.
The law in England and Wales actually distinguishes between a sexual relationship with someone below the age of 12 (statutory rape) and sex with someone 12-16 (sexual activity with a minor). The latter charge is open to more nuanced sentencing and legal interpretation, although it can rightly still carry severe consequences. This is pretty sensible given the fact that, as you say, the legal age of consent is arbitrary and varies even within Western Europe.
Last edited: