Civilised Countries do not have the death penalty?

Just because I oppose the death penalty, it does not automatically follow that I am:

a) a 'bleeding heart liberal' or b) a champion of criminal rights over those of the victim, or even c) that I oppose justice and punishment for wrongdoers.

Nothing could be further from the truth on all counts.

I believe that if a person is truly guilty of the crime to which they have been convicted - and no stone must be unturned in determining this as the system is certainly not beyond making an error - then life must absolutely mean life.

And by life I don't mean 15 years inside and then released back into the wide world to pursue a life of freedom and liberty. That doesn't make sense to me. After all, in what universe does a decade and a half equal life?

So, if someone has been tried (fairly) and convicted (fairly) then they should have their free life taken away from them - just as they did to their victim.

But I draw the line at murdering them, too. And, let us be in no doubt, that is what it is. Why else would the cause of death on the certificate be listed as 'homicide'?

To be clear, the death penalty is not a credible solution at all. It is far more costly than locking people up for life - what with the numerous appeals that inevitably accompany it - and it is proven to be an unsatisfactory deterrent to murder.

In fact, when you start to break it down, the facts of the death penalty serve to strengthen the case for its abolition.

For example, the U.S.A. - which retains the death penalty in 33 states - still has more gun crime than any other country in the world. And, just to stoke that up, the murder rate in those execution States is considerably higher than in the States which have abolished capital punishment completely.

Those 33 states and by inference the U.S.A. are not civilised in my opinion.

we font have a death penalty here in Australia and we seem to do... ok

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
we font have a death penalty here in Australia and we seem to do... ok

taking a decade away from someone is onething, if they are re offenders then take their whole life and keep them locked up and even less freedom

I don't think many people, even in the US, argue the death penalty is a deterrent any more- it wasn't when it was applied en masse and clearly it is still less so in its relatively rare modern use. People committing crimes of that level of seriousness are not in the rational, civilised mode where that sort of forethought comes into play.

So instead the argument is now over whether the death penalty is justice.

Not particularly interested in going in-depth on this one, but in short I definitely do not think any vague notion of retributive justice justifies the moral wrong of taking someone's life in pre-planned cold blood as an execution does. When you add that to the all too real danger of a mistaken conviction, I am very much in favour of abolition in those countries that still use it. I think abolition of the death penalty is an important marker of a nation's civilised progress.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think many people, even in the US, argue the death penalty is a deterrent any more- it wasn't when it was applied en masse and clearly it is still less so in its relatively rare modern use. People committing crimes of that level of seriousness are not in the rational, civilised mode where that sort of forethought comes into play.

So instead the argument is now over whether the death penalty is [b]justice.

Not particularly interested in going in-depth on this one, but in short I definitely do not think any vague notion of retributive justice justifies the moral wrong of taking someone's life in pre-planned cold blood as an execution does. Very much in favour of abolition in those countries that still use it- I think abolition of the death penalty is an important marker of a nation's civilised progress. [/B]

Pretty much how I feel. It's not Justice it's Revenge.

I think the only argument for the death penalty is that a small proportion of criminals are so dangerous and incapable of rejoining society that you either lock them away for life and keep paying for their upkeep for all that time or kill them. Unfortunately the way death row works this isn't really a good argument because it ends up incurring huge costs anyway to keep them on death row.

Nothing civilized about letting a known killer grow fat off the state until they die of natural causes, probably well into their 60's or 70's.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the only argument for the death penalty is that a small proportion of criminals are so dangerous and incapable of rejoining society that you either lock them away for life and keep paying for their upkeep for all that time or kill them. Unfortunately the way death row works this isn't really a good argument because it ends up incurring huge costs anyway to keep them on death row.

The problem is we let people continually appeal and appeal and appeal. You ever hear of the subhuman who killed her kid via putting her in a microwave? Why did she do this? The father DARED question if the kid was his, so she put the kid in the microwave and then threw the body into the bed with him. She admitted she did it.

What happened? If you said "dumb ***** has been given at least 4 retrials" you'd be correct. We allow subhuman slime to manipulate our system, and this is what costs us money. Some ***** admits to killing her kid and gets 4 retrials? This is how we do in America. So a person can say the death penalty isn't civilized. But what I just typed? Is like an "Over 9000!" on the "not civilized" chart. Nobody protested when this subhuman was given a bunch of retrials. Nobody seemed to have an issue.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nothing civilized about letting a known killer grow fat off the state until they die of natural causes, probably well into their 60's or 70's.

The problem is we let people continually appeal and appeal and appeal. You ever hear of the subhuman who killed her kid via putting her in a microwave? Why did she do this? The father DARED question if the kid was his, so she put the kid in the microwave and then threw the body into the bed with him. She admitted she did it.

What happened? If you said "dumb ***** has been given at least 4 retrials" you'd be correct. We allow subhuman slime to manipulate our system, and this is what costs us money. Some ***** admits to killing her kid and gets 4 retrials? This is how we do in America. So a person can say the death penalty isn't civilized. But what I just typed? Is like an "Over 9000!" on the "not civilized" chart. Nobody protested when this subhuman was given a bunch of retrials. Nobody seemed to have an issue.

Originally posted by Newjak
Because those retrials and appeals are an extremely important part of our justice system's checks and balances against killing innocent people.

Exactly and well said.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nothing civilized about letting a known killer grow fat off the state until they die of natural causes, probably well into their 60's or 70's.

The problem is we let people continually appeal and appeal and appeal. You ever hear of the subhuman who killed her kid via putting her in a microwave? Why did she do this? The father DARED question if the kid was his, so she put the kid in the microwave and then threw the body into the bed with him. She admitted she did it.

What happened? If you said "dumb ***** has been given at least 4 retrials" you'd be correct. We allow subhuman slime to manipulate our system, and this is what costs us money. Some ***** admits to killing her kid and gets 4 retrials? This is how we do in America. So a person can say the death penalty isn't civilized. But what I just typed? Is like an "Over 9000!" on the "not civilized" chart. Nobody protested when this subhuman was given a bunch of retrials. Nobody seemed to have an issue.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nothing civilized about letting a known killer grow fat off the state until they die of natural causes, probably well into their 60's or 70's.
.

Actually that is more civilized than killing them- by an enormous margin.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually that is more civilized than killing them- by an enormous margin.

Indeed.

I'm also amazed at anyone thinking the criminals are "growing fat" in prisons that are barely up to human standards.

Such is the way of the humane American 👆

I don't think many people, even in the US, argue the death penalty is a deterrent any more- it wasn't when it was applied en masse and clearly it is still less so in its relatively rare modern use. People committing crimes of that level of seriousness are not in the rational, civilised mode where that sort of forethought comes into play.

So instead the argument is now over whether the death penalty is justice.

When you add that to the all too real danger of a mistaken conviction, I am very much in favour of abolition in those countries that still use it. I think abolition of the death penalty is an important marker of a nation's civilised progress.

Pretty much how I feel. It's not Justice it's Revenge.

Considering how many times retroactive investigations have shown we've killed innocent people, the appeals process is appropriate.

Indeed.

I'm also amazed at anyone thinking the criminals are "growing fat" in prisons that are barely up to human standards.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think this was always the argument, and it wasn't so much that the death penalty was a deterrent, it's the entire appeals process that's a joke. I've said it before though, if legislature comes in and says "the death penalty will be carried out within a year of conviction," I sure as hell believe it will become a deterrent. And "civility" and death penalty have nothing to do with one another. I believe the only way to indicate the severity of a crime is the punishment, and keeping someone in jail and allowing them to breathe every day, even in jail/solitude, is the opposite of justice.

I just want to say executions have never been a deterrent. We've had the death penalty for a long time now. Even when it was quick executions like what you are saying it has never been a proven deterrent ever.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You mean when we had hangings and shootouts in the early 1900s? There's no statistical data for that so we'll never know. But it IS justice.

Originally posted by Newjak
Throughout history of civilization is what I mean. There have always been murders and there have been executions and latter has not decreased the former.

Only an diot would argue with your logic here.

Throughout history of civilization is what I mean. There have always been murders and there have been executions and latter has not decreased the former.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Only an "diot" would use that as a rebuttal.

Honestly, do we have any statistics for swift executions? And that's if I was using the deterrent argument, which I'm not. It's definitely justice.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah we do have plenty of evidence of swift executions carried out within the year span you've said. Many much quicker than that requirement.