I'm against the death penalty

Legz said:
I'd put them in a room with people bigger than them and make sure that they have exactly the same injuries that that poor kid did....then walk out and leave them to suffer....exactly how they treated him!
Click to expand...
I agree with this…only, if they survived that then they should be put down.
 
indeedido said:
I guess the majority should decide.
As a society we effectively condemn people to death by denying them all sorts of things that might save them (drugs, operations, shelter, food etc etc).
I stress I am not absolute in my views, I am torn.

I guess nobody is proposing death penalty for fraud, or for the horrible evasive actions taken by the Post Office hierarchy.
The OP was quite specific.
For the absence of doubt I would be absolutely satisified at taking a risk that somebody would not find some legal loophole and get this murderous duo's verdict overturned. They are guilty without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Don't really do shades of grey of do you?

Because apparently I need to spell it out for you, I'm not saying anyone is advocating the death penalty for fraud. My point, which shouldn't need spelling out, but apparently does, is that miscarriages of justice occur. Depressingly easily.

If you could say with 100% certainty every conviction was correct, then it's maybe a different debate. But we're nowhere near.

And the OP is against the death penalty by the way. His point is this case is so shocking and emotive, it makes him want to make an exception. Which I very much get.
 
You’re either for it or not, killing someone in retaliation doesn’t allow for a grey area.

Giving it the old “I’d stick them in a room and do x, y and z to them” is absolute dribble. Grow up.
 
Then a distraught Mrs Kiszko, alone at home with tears streaming down her face, said: “Stefan never committed such a crime. The jury was wrong.”

At the time, though, there seemed to be few who shared her opinion.

When the DP is discussed, this always comes case always comes to mind.
Stefan Kiszco a man with learning disabilities and vulnerable himself was found beyond any reasonable doubt, guilty of murdering a child, and without doubt there would be people on here clamouring for his execution for such a crime, I aways remember his poor mum battling for so long to prove his innocence.

And as we know there are many more cases too. I guess what people are saying, I wouldn't mind taking the chance on the state killing an innocent person when they have been found guilty as long as its not me or someone I love, be careful what you wish for, imagine being in that situation.
 
I’m sure in certain cases if we introduced the death penalty it would lead to more acquittals as a jury wouldn’t want the responsibility of effectively ending another’s life and it would mean that some lawyers wouldn’t want to be involved in a case either.
 
Angus said:
I’m sure in certain cases if we introduced the death penalty it would lead to more acquittals as a jury wouldn’t want the responsibility of effectively ending another’s life and it would mean that some lawyers wouldn’t want to be involved in a case either.
Click to expand...
Not to mention lethal injection drugs cost more than a life time of jail.
 
indeedido said:
I guess the majority should decide.
As a society we effectively condemn people to death by denying them all sorts of things that might save them (drugs, operations, shelter, food etc etc).
I stress I am not absolute in my views, I am torn.

I guess nobody is proposing death penalty for fraud, or for the horrible evasive actions taken by the Post Office hierarchy.
The OP was quite specific.
For the absence of doubt I would be absolutely satisified at taking a risk that somebody would not find some legal loophole and get this murderous duo's verdict overturned. They are guilty without a doubt.
Click to expand...
Your first point is excellent. Not sure it's equivelant though.
 
JonnyHistory said:
What would that say about that person?
Click to expand...
In a previous job I have worked with a lot of victims of crime. Mainly sex offences. Some of them feel absolutely terrible about their feelings of hatred towards the defendant. I say to them that no one has any right to judge you. No one has been through the things you have been through.

After the 7/7 bombings I recall reading about one poor woman who lost her son. She was a vicar. She had to jack that in because she could not reconcile her lack of forgiveness for the bombers with her faith.

We forgive crimes against others to satisfy our own wish to be a good and moral person, holding this above a victims wish for revenge, deeming it barbaric, and not suitable for a civilised society. But we are not a civilised society. A civilised society is not one which contains murderers and rapists.

But like I said. It's not practical. You couldn't put that burden on the staff of the justice system or the jury. And then there's areas like mental capability. And the justice system is massively fallible. And so on.

I just reject the absolute idea that it is morally incorrect.
 
JonnyHistory said:
Do a quick Google about miscarriages of justice relating to murder and terrorism there has been in the UK since the abolition of CP.

Then ask yourself would the fact all those innocent people would be dead worth it just to satisfy some individuals perceptions of what justice should be?
Click to expand...
I don’t live under a rock, I’m well aware of the level of miscarriages of justice in the past and still.

Murder has different levels and cases can be subjective others can be proven without doubt.

Also people act like we don’t already give people the power to take lives. Army and police all have to make decisions that can result in taking lives, without trials taking place.

A terriost carrying out an attack gets killed by a police officer, the police office would be praised.

A mother murders her child, possibly the worst crime possible. She gets a trial and can live to potentially an old age with roof over her head and 3 meals a day. Is that right? I’m asking what is justice for that crime?
 
They should live long long long lives, sobered by the guilt of what they have done.

They should live in misery and torture for as long as possible.
 
Angus said:
I’m sure in certain cases if we introduced the death penalty it would lead to more acquittals as a jury wouldn’t want the responsibility of effectively ending another’s life and it would mean that some lawyers wouldn’t want to be involved in a case either.
Click to expand...
It can also lead to more deaths as violent criminals attempt to avoid arrest - shootouts etc
 
A mother murders her child, possibly the worst crime possible. She gets a trial and can live to potentially an old age with roof over her head and 3 meals a day. Is that right? I’m asking what is justice for that crime?
[/QUOTE]

Murdering someone else's child , of child age, is probably worse.
 
festa5 said:
Don't really do shades of grey of do you?

Because apparently I need to spell it out for you, I'm not saying anyone is advocating the death penalty for fraud. My point, which shouldn't need spelling out, but apparently does, is that miscarriages of justice occur. Depressingly easily.

If you could say with 100% certainty every conviction was correct, then it's maybe a different debate. But we're nowhere near.

And the OP is against the death penalty by the way. His point is this case is so shocking and emotive, it makes him want to make an exception. Which I very much get.
Click to expand...
Quite the arrogant one aren’t you?
I have repeatedly made clear I don’t think it is black and white and that I am torn on the general subject of DP.
I have also acknowledged points made opposing the DP.
On the specific circumstances of the OP, I am personally not torn.

For future reference don’t feel you need to spell anything out to me.
 
outoftown said:
A mother murders her child, possibly the worst crime possible. She gets a trial and can live to potentially an old age with roof over her head and 3 meals a day. Is that right? I’m asking what is justice for that crime?
Click to expand...

Murdering someone else's child , of child age, is probably worse.
[/QUOTE]

Murder of any child is horrific but for the Mother to murder her own child who is dependent on her is for me is marginally worse.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
In a previous job I have worked with a lot of victims of crime. Mainly sex offences. Some of them feel absolutely terrible about their feelings of hatred towards the defendant. I say to them that no one has any right to judge you. No one has been through the things you have been through.

After the 7/7 bombings I recall reading about one poor woman who lost her son. She was a vicar. She had to jack that in because she could not reconcile her lack of forgiveness for the bombers with her faith.

We forgive crimes against others to satisfy our own wish to be a good and moral person, holding this above a victims wish for revenge, deeming it barbaric, and not suitable for a civilised society. But we are not a civilised society. A civilised society is not one which contains murderers and rapists.

But like I said. It's not practical. You couldn't put that burden on the staff of the justice system or the jury. And then there's areas like mental capability. And the justice system is massively fallible. And so on.

I just reject the absolute idea that it is morally incorrect.
Click to expand...
I am not sure being against the death penalty has anything to do with forgiving the perpetrator.

You raise some excellent points, otherwise.
 
Andythetouch said:
I don’t live under a rock, I’m well aware of the level of miscarriages of justice in the past and still.

Murder has different levels and cases can be subjective others can be proven without doubt.

Also people act like we don’t already give people the power to take lives. Army and police all have to make decisions that can result in taking lives, without trials taking place.

A terriost carrying out an attack gets killed by a police officer, the police office would be praised.

A mother murders her child, possibly the worst crime possible. She gets a trial and can live to potentially an old age with roof over her head and 3 meals a day. Is that right? I’m asking what is justice for that crime?
Click to expand...
This post is so full of inaccuracies.

Let's start with murder has a different level of guilt applied. No it doesn't. All criminal cases are beyond reasonable doubt.

Giving a policeman the right to take life can only be used if the officers life or another is in immediate danger.

The justice for the crime of killing your own child is life in prison, we already know the answer to this.
 
indeedido said:
Quite the arrogant one aren’t you?
I have repeatedly made clear I don’t think it is black and white and that I am torn on the general subject of DP.
I have also acknowledged points made opposing the DP.
On the specific circumstances of the OP, I am personally not torn.

For future reference don’t feel you need to spell anything out to me.
Click to expand...
It's an emotive subject and should be dealt with a bit more sensitively than Festa has. Apologies Festa. No insult meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top