Why specifically hanging? [because it is grotesque, horrific and above all else painful] Does that mean public hanging?[yes 100% why pretend it wouldn�t have an audience? Humans enjoy this sort of thing otherwise why do we all slow down to stare at a car wreck? Actually I am in favour of the event taking place on Prison grounds in the presence of the jail population, and the local borstals (Juve hall)], Why not burn people at the stake - that would be some spectacle.[works for me]
Don't we want to punish criminals anymore? (taken from the Daily Mail!)
No. We want to reform them.[reform works for petty criminals, and seeing some one hang for a more serious crime will be very "reforming" And dangerous criminals need to be kept away from the rest of society, which is what prison is for.[ or you can execute them, which works well too]
Holiday camps for convicts!
Convicts may not get hard labour anymore[and why not? Physical labour is a great way to rehabilitate and allows the prisoners to be productive and learn skills] , but I don't think anyone who has been in prison would liken it to a holiday camp[agreed]. And you can walk out of a holiday camp at anytime - the lack of freedom is what makes being in prison a punishment.[some of the lower security prisons do not have the security to keep the prisoners on site, they are kept there by threat of a more secure prison if they misbehave, which is fine by me]
When you take a life, you loose your right to life yourself.
So ... the government own the "right" to my life, and can take it away from me if I've done something bad? [you betcha, and why the hell not, and don�t give me any "because it can be abused , like Hitler did" bullshit, Im not saying that due process should not be in place, people like Hitler would have floated to the top of the scum regardless of the rules.]
Life should mean life (or "Lock 'em up and throw away the key!")
Unless someone is a danger to society, I don't think they should be locked up until they die.[why the hell not, let them rot what is the benefit to society for letting murderers walk among us?] If you're going to do that, you might as well kill 'em and be done with it [Works for me]. Again, don't even the worst offenders deserve the chance to reform themselves?[errr.. no!]
Murder is murder, no matter which way you look at it!
No it isn't! Someone who assists the suicide of a terminally ill relative is hardly in the same league as someone who goes to a school and guns down loads of kids, is he? [then legalize assisted suicide, and regular suicide for that matter, you have to have laws and you have to enforce the laws there should be no room for interpretation it is unfair to force jurors and judges to rule on compassionate grounds.]
If someone in your family was murdered, you'd want justice done.
If such a thing happened I'd hardly be able to think rationally about the subject, but I think I would at least admit that I wanted revenge rather than use the term justice. Frankly, people who have lost family members in this manner should not have any say in how the murderer is treated. [Agreed ]
The law is the law!
Yeah ... and ...? I mean, eggs are eggs, a porcelain teapot is a porcelain teapot.
I'm never quite sure what point people are making when they say this - perhaps they are trying to say that the law must be obeyed no matter what. [yes that is what I , at least, am saying]The problem is that the laws of the land were not written on stone tablets which were handed down by some god - they were created by people and are capable of - and often are - "wrong". There needs to be flexibility within the law to take into account individual circumstances.[I disagree, the Law is the law, it should be enforced to the letter. ]
Redfred [home] 01.11.2004, 8:15pm
err ... not sure in which parts of all that you are being serious ...
Tim [home] 01.11.2004, 9:57pm
Actually, all of it. I 'm not much of a liberal when it comes to criminals... I think you have a responcibility to know the law and should not be left in any doubt as to the consequences of breaking it. I also have a fairly low regard for the value of a human life(in comparison to others) that is not to say that I don't care about it or that I have a lust for death, just that I don't think that a human life is of paramount importance that otherwise rational thought is suspended . For example it is illeagal to assist a suicide but it is OK to remove a feeding tube to let someone starve to death.
Redfred [home]
02.11.2004, 3:08pm
" ...you have a responcibility to know the law and should not be left in any doubt as to the consequences of breaking it" - but what if the law is wrong? The problem I have is that all people are individuals and what right does one person have to tell another what they can/can't do? Ok, there have to be laws to protect people, but they need to be both straightforward and flexible. The other thing is that a lot of people have the black-and-white- view that there are only law abiding citizens and criminals - nothing inbetween.
Tim [home] 02.11.2004, 4:38pm
If the Law is wrong then it needs to be fixed beforehand. I agree the laws should be simplified but disagree about the flexible part, that just makes loop holes and get outs, personally I'd rather see one innocent man hanged than a guilty one go free
Redfred [home]
02.11.2004, 4:59pm
"personally I'd rather see one innocent man hanged than a guilty one go free" ... are you serious?!? What if you were the innocent man about to be hanged?
Tim [home] 02.11.2004, 6:00pm
Then I would die protesting my innocence!
I'm sorry but The death penalty should be handed out in cases where there is no doubt of guilt and you should have one appeal and then times up. and you know what if a mistake is made once in a while so be it, there are very few instances where people are found guilty enough to be put on death row and then turn out to be guilty, quite frankly I don't put enough value on human life to concern myself with that minority.
Redfred [home]
02.11.2004, 6:42pm
That should have read "there are very few instances where people are found guilty enough to be put on death row and then turn out to be NOT guilty"
Redfred [home]
29.11.2004, 5:22pm
I'd figured that one out! But back to the point, you just don't know for sure, do you? And surely even ONE innocent person killed in this way makes it unethical?
Tim [home] 29.11.2004, 11:07pm
Only if your squemish about death. Perhaps it is because I'm atheist and I don't have the church going on aand on about the sanctity of life in my ear 24/7 but we kill people daily for far less worthy causes. do we stop driving cars because one innocent person is killed in an accident? do we ban guns because one kid accidentally shoots another? do we stop wars because of the first casualty? perhaps if we were so squeemish about those lives i would care more about the odd criminal who was not as guilty Is first thought
Redfred [home]
30.11.2004, 8:56pm
Interesting point - although most people who drive dangerously (for example) don't actually intend to kill people. I believe human life is important BECAUSE I'm an athesit - it's all we've got.
Tim [home] 01.12.2004, 1:26pm
It could be argured that habitual dangerous drivers who know the risks and continue regardless have an intent, at least to some degree. It is not my intent that innocent people be executed, and I would hope that a good deal more care would be taken proving someones guilt than the majority of people take when driving their car.
As for human life, I have a considerable concern for my own life and even that of my family and close friends, it is the rest of humanity that I couldn't care that much for. Just as I would be upset if my pet was put down but I have no sadness for the pig that died to make my breakfast this morning. I know that I sound cold, it is deliberate on my part, I don't wish death on everyone in the world, I just don't see the need to keep people alive who would rather die and when medicine has failed to save them. I don't see the point of saving a fetus from abortion when there are thousands of unwanted children in the welfare system already. Nor do I feel that we should waste resources on the most violent criminals, who prove over and over again that they are beyond reform. I don't have that drive to protect live at all costs. It may well have been an important mechanism in years gone by when mortality rates were higher and surviival of the speicies was in peril, but that is hardly the case now
Redfred [home]
01.12.2004, 2:59pm
Hmm. Intent is not all, culpability is a significant part of it. Ignorance is no defence and if a law is wrong and you break it, you still broke it. Make your point in court, prison, etc.
Personally, I'd have very fews laws indeed (I am 'ultra-liberal' by the standards of most people), however I see no problem with the humane execution of multiple murderers. After all, these people are clearly dangerous and at that point I cease to care about their desire to reform or any "second chance" or other moralistic notion. Practicality says they should die and the sooner the better for all concerned; i.e. no years and years waiting for it to be confirmed. Alongside that I also think there should be a much higher level of proof required to condemn someone to such a fate. It is after all, the only life they will ever have, which is the very reason we are prepared to kill them (the taking of at least two other people's only shot at it). As for most of the other nonsense spouted...
Hanging is silly and only touted because it is "Traditional" conservatives seem to imagine that tradition equates to 'automatically better than an alternative' and also forget that all tradition was once an innovation. Prison life should not be better than life outside it but if life in prison is better than that person's life outside it, the society has already failed in its duty of care to its members. 'Life Imprisonment' is nothing short of torture in a very sick and peculiarly acceptable way. Kill them if you really want them to have no real life, otherwise release them once/if they are no longer a danger to their fellows. Murder versus simply 'killing' is a matter of opinion and often morality. The job of the law, in this regard, is to protect society's members from unwarranted injury or death at the hands of others and attempt to prevent such incidents from recurring at the hands of the same proagonist. Moral arguments about it being 'wrong' to kill are irrelevant, really. Simple pragmatism says we need to deal people who have a tendency to kill others.
Revenge is revenge and 'justice' is a matter of perspective. The job of the law is not revenge and it's not even really 'justice' either. It's to restrict as little as possible the actions of the society it governs and only restrict when safeguarding against something which is a more serious 'restriction' than the restriction it puts in place. Laws are just words unless people believe in them and plenty of laws have been removed in recent years as society at large has reevaluated the issue and decided the law was wrong.
Some one 17.09.2005, 10:58pm