Reforming the Justice System

[jebus]

Been talking about this with a few people lately so wanted to know what people's thoughts are on the current penaltys imposed when found guilty of a crime. Two differing examples I've come across today are (albeit British crimes)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ds/7498225.stm

This is where a couple in their 60s were taking care of their elderly neighbours dog while she was in hospital. The couple in question got drunk one night, started fighting, the dog bit the woman (according to their story), and so they beat the dog and threw him from a balcony 6 floors up and killed him. They've been found guilty of negligence but will probably only get a few months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/7497997.stm

I apologise for inflicting that horror story on all who read it, but it basically details a couple killing a care worker, mutilating her body, and then boasting about it on their mobile phones. They've pleaded guilty to attempted murder, although I fail to see how chopping someone up can be viewed as anything other than murder, and the case is ongoing.

Personally I have no faith in proper punishments being handed down in either case. In case one my gut reaction for a punishment is to have the couple beaten and thrown from a balcony 6 floors up, but that's generally because I see red when I hear/read about cruelty to animals. In reality I would hope that they lose 2-3 years of their lives in some stinking jail.

In case two, well there is no proper punishment for doing something like that. A death sentence would let them off too easily, jail with parole should never be an option in a murder case, jail without parole wastes too much taxes I feel, and penal colonies are a thing of the past. With that said, in very extreme cases like this, I would endorse the death penalty. I used to be very much against it, and I still think the worry about it being abused (imagine a Sun campaign to have some executed?)is high, but sometimes you just have to look at a case and ask yourself what would benefit society more, these people sitting in jail at the taxpayers expense (rehabilitation is out of the question after something like this), or ridding ourselves of what can only be described as pure evil. I think we should just have done with them and execute them

[OneRedArmy]

I strongly believe that emotion has no place in the justice system. Justice is my mind is about striking a balance between punishment, deterrant and the safety of the public (likelihood of re-offending).

Whatever about the first case, in the second case both the violent nature of the crime and the lack of remorse (meaning the likelihood of re-offending is surely high and/or psychological issues) means that the individual should be locked up for life (and by that I mean a lifetime).

PS If you support the death penalty, even in limited circumstances, I would suggest you're not "strongly against it".

[superfrank]

Victim impact statements should have a bearing on the sentence.

There's a case in England at the moment where a girl got run over and the person driving the car was fined £2,200. I don't know if that is all the punishment the driver received but it's a bit dangerous to be putting a price on someone's life like that.

EDIT - Here's the story.

I believe that convincted killers who show no remorse should be executed.

[pete]

The only thing I have against the death penalty is chance of miscarriage of justice. Aside from that I have no qualms of lethal inject to "put someone down". These second case above comes into that category. The idea about reforming such people is idealistic & not practical. Justice must punish offenders as deterrent to others.

[osarusan]

Victim impact statements should have a bearing on the sentence.

Absolutely not.
The law is supposed to be objective, and that certainly isn't.

I'd be against the death penalty in the above case, as I am in every case.
Life without parole, meaning until they die, but not the death penalty. I can accept part of my taxes going to house and feed dangerous criminals who I hope will never be released.

[superfrank]

The only thing I have against the death penalty is chance of miscarriage of justice.

That is the only doubt I would have over the death penalty as well.

Life without parole, meaning until they die, but not the death penalty. I can accept part of my taxes going to house and feed dangerous criminals who I hope will never be released.

I'd rather have them killed then be fed, clothed and taken care of by the State for the rest of their lives.

[jebus]

Life without parole, meaning until they die, but not the death penalty. I can accept part of my taxes going to house and feed dangerous criminals who I hope will never be released.

Whats the point? I've grown weary of hearing of people like the ones in the second case, Ian Huntley and his ilk etc. being locked up for life at the taxpayers expense. There is no chance of rehabilitation with people like this, and we shouldn't bother, they haven't the morals to be included in our race and they will never be apart of it again.

I said in extreme cases such as the one listed, or Huntley and that sort, that it should be used and I stick by it. Where there is the slightest doubt that a miscarriage of justice has taken place then it should never be used. I think this is just coming on the back of reading further reports of the Rwandan genocide recently for me. I read a story of SPOILER: a father made to watch while a Hutu picked his 5 month old baby up by the ankles and swung him like a bat, the baby's head connecting with a tree trunk. He did this repeatedly whilst laughing with his 'friends'* and I'm feeling pretty worn down by tales of our lack of humanity.

* Blacked out for people who would rather not hear a tale from a genocide

[dfx-]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...who.4231720.jp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/7416155.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/6284184.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/ny...prod=permalink

Death Penalty? Yes please.

[dahamsta]

They've pleaded guilty to attempted murder, although I fail to see how chopping someone up can be viewed as anything other than murder, and the case is ongoing.

It says clearly in the article that it's two other people that are accused of attempted murder, presumably because they left before the other fella finished her off. I fail to see what dismemberment after the fact proves.

The death penalty is an idiotic punishment unless you're* the kind of moron that believes in "hell". All killing someone in return does is give you a disgusting form of pleasure and give them an easy way out. If they were actually guilty, of course. Will you still get that perverse pleasure if they weren't, or will you want to kill someone else? Will they be the right person? How about the next one? The one after that?

Lock 'em up with the most basic human rights, and throw away the key. Job done. At least when the justice system screws up, again, we can let them out and compensate them for the incompetence. Until someone figures out how to resuscitate Walt, that's what we're stuck with, and rightly so.

As I'm sure I've said before on the site. Around we go...

adam

* That's the general "you're", not the particular. As in, not you, but everyone.

[mypost]

Completely anti-death penalty, even in the most extreme of cases. It's not a punishment, it inspires people to commit heinous crimes, such as global terrorism, where the offenders wish to be martyred rather than do time. In other cases, there is also the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, or the penalty being abused.

It's also anti-EU law as well, afaik.

[jebus]

The death penalty is an idiotic punishment unless you're* the kind of moron that believes in "hell". All killing someone in return does is give you a disgusting form of pleasure and give them an easy way out. If they were actually guilty, of course. Will you still get that perverse pleasure if they weren't, or will you want to kill someone else? Will they be the right person? How about the next one? The one after that?

Lock 'em up with the most basic human rights, and throw away the key.
[/I]

Where's the point in that? Given a choice between life in a cell or death I'd choose death I think (don't know obviously as I've never been given the choice), so isn't the more humane choice to put them out of their misery? Plus it doesn't drain the tax system of funds. I normally would loathe people who think of human life in monetary terms, but people who commit brutal crimes give up the right to be considered a part of the human race in my eyes. Bar the restoration of hard labour I have no faith in the current prison system to make these people's lives a misery.

As you say though, we usually just go around in circles on this, the death penalty probably wouldn't be the answer given the ease with which it can be abused, but the current system is failing and it needs to be reformed

[osarusan]

Where's the point in that? Given a choice between life in a cell or death I'd choose death I think (don't know obviously as I've never been given the choice), so isn't the more humane choice to put them out of their misery? Plus it doesn't drain the tax system of funds. I normally would loathe people who think of human life in monetary terms, but people who commit brutal crimes give up the right to be considered a part of the human race in my eyes. Bar the restoration of hard labour I have no faith in the current prison system to make these people's lives a misery.

It's more humane to kill them than keep them alive in prison? We're not talking about sick dogs.

Considering with your wish to inflict pain on them yourself (probably idle fantasy, I accept), and your unwillingness to pay part of your taxes to house them, I'm surprised you are concerned whether the treatment of them is humane or not

Especially when you have "no faith in the current prison system to make these people's lives a misery." You're concerned about being humane while wanting to make their lives a misery?

[jebus]

It's more humane to kill them than keep them alive in prison? We're not talking about sick dogs.

Considering with your wish to inflict pain on them yourself (probably idle fantasy, I accept), and your unwillingness to pay part of your taxes to house them, I'm surprised you are concerned whether the treatment of them is humane or not

Especially when you have "no faith in the current prison system to make these people's lives a misery." You're concerned about being humane while wanting to make their lives a misery?

Not at all, I'm arguing against the death penalty being seen as the inhumane option and that being used as an excuse not to bring it back, when to me it is more humane than leaving someone rot in a cell for 30,40, whatever years.

When did I say I want to inflict pain on them in the death sentence? Lethal injection would do just fine, and my argument for it is in the most extreme cases. Crimes so brutal it makes a person physically sick to hear about them. For example I read yesterday that the hunt is still on in Chile for one of the Nazi concentration camp doctors (Dr.Death they called him, can't remember his real name), a man who used to inject gasoline into the hearts of Jews for fun, now if he is found I doubt he will be executed, given that he is now 94 years old (if alive at all), but where would the argument be if he had been caught say, 30 years ago. Does a person like this deserve to live and breathe like the rest of us? Can he ever be rehabilitated? If not then what's the point of keeping him in a cell for his remaining days?

[micls]

In theory Ive always been against the death penalty for a couple of reasons

1) Its not worth the chance that even one innocent person dies
2) Its an easy way out. It may be cruel but I want them to suffer....

But there are times when something gets personal, that Id imagine everyone would imagine/wish the person who committed a crime dead. I have experienced that in recent years, where a man molested and raped people(children) I knew for years.

Now clearly my judgement is being clouded by emotion, but my problem is that this man got 13 years(considered a long sentence). In 13 years while these children will be in their 30s he'l be free, free to do it again. Now over and over again its shown that paedophiles re-offend, that it is almost impossible to 'cure' them. So what do you do is this scenario?

13 years may seem a hefty chunk now, but with 'good behaviour' it's not too long before he's walking the streets again. The girls got a life sentence.

So in this scenario, Id personally rather him dead than walking the streets in 13 years.......but ideally he'l suffer for the 13 years and then have a heart attack the day he is to be released.

......yes Im aware how evil that makes me sound but I'm only human

[jebus]

......yes Im aware how evil that makes me sound but I'm only human

That quote should be made into a t-shirt slogan

Agree with you though. When you look at someone like Gary Glitter, who is practically flaunting the fact he has sex with children in people's faces since his release from prison, you wonder what another sentence would do to him. He clearly has no issues viewing children as sexual beings, and then it's hard to argue for castration if you're against the death penalty in theory.

I'd like to point out again that I'm not some right-wing nut who thinks we should kill people using the 3 strikes rule, I do realise that we probably couldn't bring it back given the amount of miscarriages of justice that happen, a possible overuse of it, and the power the media might have in getting it involved in a case, plus I do think it should only be used in very extreme cases

[osarusan]

Not at all, I'm arguing against the death penalty being seen as the inhumane option and that being used as an excuse not to bring it back, when to me it is more humane than leaving someone rot in a cell for 30,40, whatever years.

Without trying to sound smart, I'm pretty sure your opinion would change if you were the criminal facing one of those two choices.

When did I say I want to inflict pain on them in the death sentence?

You didn't mention pain in relation to the death penanlty (nor did I say you did) but you did say this -

In case one my gut reaction for a punishment is to have the couple beaten and thrown from a balcony 6 floors up, but that's generally because I see red when I hear/read about cruelty to animals. In reality I would hope that they lose 2-3 years of their lives in some stinking jail.

As I said, I assume it is just an idle fantasy. But it does make me question your desire to be humane.

Does a person like this deserve to live and breathe like the rest of us? Can he ever be rehabilitated? If not then what's the point of keeping him in a cell for his remaining days?

In my opinion yes, he does have that right to live and breathe. More accurately, I think no government has the right to take away that right.
No, I'm sure he can't be rehabilitated, but prison is not only about rehabilitation. And, given he's 94, I'm sure the costs won't raise your taxes so much.

[jebus]

It won't raise my taxes at all, I'm not German, that's not the point

[GavinZac]

I'm for the death penalty, but pretty much just in cases of murder or rape. And none of this nancy pancy lethal injections, a good ol stoning or lashing or 10 minutes alone with a nominated representative of the victim should do.

Of course, some would say its unPC to parade through town with the body of dismembered rapist stuck on top of pikes and leaving the pieces around town as a reminder to future rapists. Probably the same people who like Coldplay.

[dfx-]

I'm for the death penalty as I'm sure I've said before, because starving your own three-year old child is inhuman. 19 hour pre-meditated rape and mutilation is inhuman.

Life imprisonment, even solitary confinement with little human rights is a dressed up death penalty. Only drawn out longer.

[osarusan]

Life imprisonment, even solitary confinement with little human rights is a dressed up death penalty. Only drawn out longer.

By that logic, life itself is a death penalty.

I'm for the death penalty as I'm sure I've said before, because starving your own three-year old child is inhuman. 19 hour pre-meditated rape and mutilation is inhuman.

Tying a rope around somebody's neck and dropping them to break their neck. Or, in olden times, strangling them slowly.

Shooting electricity through a person's body until they die.

Severing a person's head from their body with a sword.

Injecting potassium chloride into a person to stop their heart and kill them

Putting somebody in a sealed room and poisoning them to death with gas.

All of these are premeditated acts also, and in my mind, inhuman also.


The people on this thread who support the death penalty have to accept that it introduces the possibility of one of the above inhuman acts being performed on an innocent person. In my opinion, that's a large risk to take.