I'm against the death penalty

Laughing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry should have been clearer Taking a life has different level within the law. Murder and manslaughter at a very basic level.

The punishment for these can also be different and righty so. No two crimes are the same and should all be judged by the individual cases.

I’m pleased they were given the most serve sentence possible in this case.

I’m not saying they should have DP but still doesn’t feel like justice has been served to me but I don’t know what the answer is.

It’s a highly emotive subject and I’m not looking to argue.
 
Andythetouch said:
Sorry should have been clearer Taking a life has different level within the law. Murder and manslaughter at a very basic level.

The punishment for these can also be different and righty so. No two crimes are the same and should all be judged by the individual cases.

I’m pleased they were given the most serve sentence possible in this case.

I’m not saying they should have DP but still doesn’t feel like justice has been served to me but I don’t know what the answer is.

It’s a highly emotive subject and I’m not looking to argue.
Click to expand...
I agree that it doesn't feel like justice has been done.

What I don't agree with is that we ask someone to execute them. That isn't justice either.

I don't have an answer. Our current legal system with full life terms is probably the best we can hope for.
 
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...
Life in prison, as is set out in our justice system.
 
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...
You are conflating several issues and if you can't see the moral dilemma then I don't know what else to say.

What you are saying (if I understand correctly) is because criminals exist then there is no moral issue in bringing all of society down to their level ... sorry but that stance for me is just glat out ignorant.

Edit to add, we are predominantly a civilised society. Yes evil exists but the vast majority would not commit the crimes you have described. it is a very small minority.

Justice cannot be emotive, but it has to come from a moralistic point of view, just because evil exists does not take the morality from the subject of state sponsored murder or justice in general.

I guess what I am saying is justice without morality is just vengeance!
 
Laughing said:
I agree that it doesn't feel like justice has been done.

What I don't agree with is that we ask someone to execute them. That isn't justice either.

I don't have an answer. Our current legal system with full life terms is probably the best we can hope for.
Click to expand...
I fear people would be queuing up. We could probably break viewing records with 'Strictly Come Hanging'.
 
JonnyHistory said:
You are conflating several issues and if you can't see the moral dilemma then I don't know what else to say.

What you are saying (if I understand correctly) is because criminals exist then there is no moral issue in bringing all of society down to their level ... sorry but that stance for me is just glat out ignorant.

Edit to add, we are predominantly a civilised society. Yes evil exists but the vast majority would not commit the crimes you have described. it is a very small minority.

Justice cannot be emotive, but it has to come from a moralistic point of view, just because evil exists does not take the morality from the subject of state sponsored murder or justice in general.

I guess what I am saying is justice without morality is just vengeance!
Click to expand...
You don't understand correctly.
 
It won't stop people like those quoted from doing what they did.
It's just emotional vengeance and revenge.
Isn't there enough of that in the world, without justifying another way to legally sanction state murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top