death penalty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not often I'm serious but with the recent cases of "whole life terms" been imposed on some murderers do we need the death penalty to be reintroduced?

Undoubtedly yes.

In the interests of justice and the economy.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have always believed that people can forfeit their basic rights.

People don't have any rights, and that is the whole point to me. You have an opportunity to contribute to society positively or otherwise, which is different to a right to anything, and anyone undertaking an act of killing a human being must face a similar consequence. That is justice and sends a clear message out that we are a community and no one will tolerate contributing to the community in such a destructive fashion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm all for it in the most obvious cases & we can all think of one recently. No point in paying for 60 odd years to keep scum like that alive in good conditions.

On another note its a pointless debate as the EU will not allow it. Poland had it up until 1990 but were told they will never join the EU until they get rid of it. They soon got rid of it to join.

Game over people.

Did you know that in every poll undertaken in England the majority are for the death penalty? Not by much, granted, say 55/45.

[GUT]

G'Day Fleetwood Mac

In the interests of justice and the economy.

In the interests of economy I'll grant you.

But don't the interests of Justice require that we keep them alive so that if evidence comes to light to show them innocent we can undo the wrong that the Justice system caused?

More cases seem to come to light every year that show someone was wrongly convicted, how is it Justice if we can't remedy the stuation because we have murdered the person wrongly convicted?

[Fleetwood Mac]

G'Day Fleetwood Mac



In the interests of economy I'll grant you.

But don't the interests of Justice require that we keep them alive so that if evidence comes to light to show them innocent we can undo the wrong that the Justice system caused?

More cases seem to come to light every year that show someone was wrongly convicted, how is it Justice if we can't remedy the stuation because we have murdered the person wrongly convicted?

'Fraid not, GUT.

Once convicted that's it. Guilty. No system of doing anything is flawless, of course, and there is no doubt that innocent people would hang by virtue of the aforementioned system issue. But, these innocent people would be one in a hundred thousand and principle is everything. You have to stand by your principles when you know it's the right thing to do, even though you know someone will be on the wrong end and you wouldn't like to be in that position; and the one in one hundred thousand is just going to have to live with it (or die with it).

For every one in one hundred thousand that hangs unjustly there will be one in fifty thousand who are deterred from killing.

[GUT]

G'day Fleetwood Mac

I wonder if you would take the same view if you or someone close to you was falsely convicted.

I also don't believe that it is as small as 1 in 100,000. Just look at reports out of the U.S. every year that someone has been cleared, even after execution.

[Fleetwood Mac]

G'day Fleetwood Mac

I wonder if you would take the same view if you or someone close to you was falsely convicted.

I also don't believe that it is as small as 1 in 100,000. Just look at reports out of the U.S. every year that someone has been cleared, even after execution.

Similarly, would you feel the same were it a member of your family murdered?

There is an ongoing case here in Sunderland at the moment. Three young lads were raped, strangled and battered with bricks in the early 1990s. A young girl of 7 was battered with a brick and stabbed 37 times by her killer. The man who killed those young boys has just been arrested on suspicion of the murder of the young girl. The young girl was murdered back in 1992. Can you imagine the fear they all faced? and the Mother of the young girl just can't find peace.

For every trial that is unjust there are far many more that are just and so your argument here doesn't really hold water.

I can guarantee you that if a member of my family was murdered I'd want revenge and if I didn't get it I'd take the law into my own hands.

[Ginger]

I also don't believe that it is as small as 1 in 100,000. Just look at reports out of the U.S. every year that someone has been cleared, even after execution.

Most of those are 'cleared' for reasons having more to do with political expediency than with the facts of the case.

[Errata]

People don't have any rights, and that is the whole point to me. You have an opportunity to contribute to society positively or otherwise, which is different to a right to anything, and anyone undertaking an act of killing a human being must face a similar consequence. That is justice and sends a clear message out that we are a community and no one will tolerate contributing to the community in such a destructive fashion.

I think human rights are inalienable. I have the right to not be tortured or murdered. I have the right to live my life free of harassment. I have the right to control my own mind and body. Nobody gets to beat me up, ransack my house, take my stuff, etc. Essentially, if I don't hurt anyone, I have the right to be left alone to my own peaceful non destructive devices.

Societal rights can be forfeited. And they are all the time. I don't have the right to regard from my peers, despite the fact that it is a basic human need. I have to earn that. I don't get to do whatever I want whenever I want. I agreed to the social contract long ago, and I get police, EMS, firefighters, electricity, running water, traffic lights and sidewalks in return for obedience. If I want to be disobedient, my duty is to remove myself from society to do so. If I do not, I will be punished by society in the agreed upon methods. And I did agree to them, as did everyone else. When I found out what they were, I stayed. Thats agreement. That's how societies work.

But many societies thrive without the death penalty. It's clearly not a deterrent, not is it especially cheaper than life in jail. Never mind the divide every executions causes between pro and anti death penalty people. It's just one of those things that for some reason does not operate in the same world as us. You and I would be frightened enough of being put to death that it would keep us from killing someone. But you and I aren't likely to kill someone. Something that would be a deterrent to us is not a deterrent to the people we need to deter. We can't even successfully manage to convey to these people that they might actually get caught. They don't learn the lesson we want them to learn. Personally, I'm a fan of maiming, but somehow that cruel and unusual, where Ole Sparky is not. I think losing both of your hands is much more... specific and horrifying that the threat of death. Especially when most of these people don't even have any regard for their own life. Crippling is always scarier than death, but nooo... that's a mean thing to do to some guy who beat his kid to death.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think human rights are inalienable. I have the right to not be tortured or murdered. I have the right to live my life free of harassment. I have the right to control my own mind and body. Nobody gets to beat me up, ransack my house, take my stuff, etc. Essentially, if I don't hurt anyone, I have the right to be left alone to my own peaceful non destructive devices.

I don't think so.

What you talk of is political theory.

In practice, I could quite easily harass you and rob your home. A right, by definition, is something which can't be taken away from you. You don't even have a right to a life.

As such, we are relying on the generosity of the community, and like minded people, to build a community that is prosperous, safe and peaceful. We have an opportunity to so this, but certainly no one has the right to it. It takes hard work, generosity and justice.

It's a principle not too unlike war where soldiers have no option but to silence those losing their bottle, as it will spread throughout the ranks where unchecked. In the context we're talking of, we have a situation in our country, possibly your country (couldn't say), where a situation has gone unchecked and that is that those unwilling toe the line in search of a prosperous and peaceful community, have gone unchecked. Sentences are far too lenient; the deterrent simply isn't enough these days.

Put simply, we are not firm with the community in the sense that the message is this: kill someone and we'll pay for you to sit in jail, clothed fed and warm - in fact, you may even enjoy it more than your previous life outside of the big house.

[Robert]

"I think human rights are inalienable. I have the right to not be tortured or murdered. I have the right to live my life free of harassment. I have the right to control my own mind and body. Nobody gets to beat me up, ransack my house, take my stuff, etc."

Well, if someone kidnapped you and held you in a small cell for 23 out of every 24 hours for thirty years, you might call that torture. But if the State does it, you probably won't - it's simply a punishment. You may have the right to not be murdered, but not the right to not be killed (at least in some US states where executions occur - such executions are not deemed murders). You won't lead your life free of harassment if you are convicted of a major crime. You won't control your mind or body. You will be beaten up if you resist arrest, and your house might be ransacked in the search for evidence.

I've got no quarrel with having police, and prisons etc. I just think that instead of maintaining the existence of these weird metaphysical inalienable human rights, it's best to just forget about them.

[Ginger]

All rights, without a single exception, are societal in nature. "Human rights" aren't a result of being human, but rather a result of being under the jurisdiction and control of a western society that believes that such rights should be universal. North Koreans don't have human rights, nor did cavemen, nor, for that matter, did the Ripper's victims when they were alone with him. "Human rights" depend not on the fact of one's humanity, but rather on the fact that the majority of one's fellows are decent people who don't like to see others hurt, and the minority who feel otherwise are deterred from acting upon their desires by fear of the consequences. When we remove those consequences, we disable the deterrence, with predictable results.

[Errata]

I don't think so.

What you talk of is political theory.

In practice, I could quite easily harass you and rob your home. A right, by definition, is something which can't be taken away from you. You don't even have a right to a life.

Human rights are not that which cannot be taken away. It is that which cannot be bestowed. If they could not be taken away there wouldn't be human rights violations, genocides, hell maybe 50 perfect of the human experience. Of course they can be taken away. What they cannot do is prevent these things in their absence. Which is why human rights are also called natural rights. No one can give you permission to live. You're going to do that anyway. They can take that right away, but they cannot bestow it.

Legal rights may be natural rights, but they can all be taken away. It's the social contract we all abide by. They can be taken away because we allow them to be taken away. Human rights occur in a vacuum. They are the rights you would still have if you were living as a hermit in a cave in the Himalayas.

Example: continued existence is a human right. In most legal codes (though not all) it is a legal right that the state can forfeit but no one else can, the difference between execution and murder. Ironically, you can't even forfeit your own life. Suicide has been illegal in Western societies. Life and death are human rights. Life is a legal right that can be forfeited. Death is not a legal right except in extraordinary circumstances. We have the right to life, but we don't get to choose to die. Death requires action. Life does not.

Of course it's theory. It's all theory. Our entire legal system is based on theory. The practice is what we deem it to be. We have a ridiculously complicated system that says that murderers can have their right to life taken away, but violent serial rapists cannot. Which means that a victim of a violent serial rapist who hunts down her attacker and kills him can be executed, but the guy who hurt her and dozens of other women is allowed to live. Only the jury system and compassion keeps that kind of thing from happening.

If we didn't realize that the entire system was essentially unfair we wouldn't allow for variations in sentencing. We know the theories only actually apply to about 10 percent of the crimes. The problem is that we also had the theory that once we made a decision we were never going to change our minds. So it's comically hard to get rid of a law. We have to alter it to death, and that's a: not easy and b: results in a lot of legal challenges and appeals. And still nobody tries to pass a law making it easier to dump previous laws. Because we stick to the the theory that we won't change our minds.

Legal systems are Gordian knots. All are based on theories and assumptions that evolve over time. There are precious few facts that back up what we choose to do to our citizens. And many of the ones we have contradict the theories behind any number of laws. So yeah. I'm talking political theory. But we all are.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of course it's theory. It's all theory.

No it's not.

The law is based upon the law being an arbitrator in individual disputes.

It's a practical measure which is needed for any society to function with any degree of reason.

Your idea of 'inalienable rights', and I'm aware that Americans cling to this in a way that I cling to the right to buy good sausage, is a pipe dream. A monumental misreading of human behaviour.

I don't have a right to anything, but I do have the opportunity to work with my neighbours to make things work. And that is how the law has come about: three neighbours resolving disputes (me and the bloke next door who isn't happy because my dog has **** in his garden, and the bloke down the street who is neutral and acting as judge and jury who is like all of us in that he has a vested interest in resolving the issue and making things work).

Your idea of an 'inalienable right' is the product of an age where science was usurping magic and countries were shedding monarchy. It belongs in the age of the enlightenment where grand ideas of Liberalism and Democracy were taking shape and so these types of grand statements sounded like heaven. In practice, it means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It means about as much as the wisdom of a sub-standard Haitian witch doctor still learning her trade in the art of nonsense.

[Errata]

No it's not.

The law is based upon the law being an arbitrator in individual disputes.

It's a practical measure which is needed for any society to function with any degree of reason.

Your idea of 'inalienable rights', and I'm aware that Americans cling to this in a way that I cling to the right to buy good sausage, is a pipe dream. A monumental misreading of human behaviour.

I don't have a right to anything, but I do have the opportunity to work with my neighbours to make things work. And that is how the law has come about: three neighbours resolving disputes (me and the bloke next door who isn't happy because my dog has **** in his garden, and the bloke down the street who is neutral and acting as judge and jury who is like all of us in that he has a vested interest in resolving the issue and making things work).

Your idea of an 'inalienable right' is the product of an age where science was usurping magic and countries were shedding monarchy. It belongs in the age of the enlightenment where grand ideas of Liberalism and Democracy were taking shape and so these types of grand statements sounded like heaven. In practice, it means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It means about as much as the wisdom of a sub-standard Haitian witch doctor still learning her trade in the art of nonsense.

The idea of inalienable rights are a pipe dream. But a valuable one.

The idea that the law is based on arbitrating between two individuals in dispute is... not really correct. I mean sure, that's what some law is for. Most law doesn't get anywhere near that. Most law is based on the idea that a large amount of people need to agree on a way to behave and control each other.

And anyway saying that is the same as saying that superstition is based on a person's need to believe in something. Which is certainly a facet, but has nothing to do with why people are superstitious, or what superstitions most people believe, or even the actual why of superstition.

Laws are based on theories. Even the idea that there is a guilty party and an innocent party is a theory. Who gets priority, what is a crime, how we sentence, what we sentence people to do.. all based on theories. In fact competing theories often make it into the law.

The ability to come together to work for a mutual good isn't the law. It's in fact the definition of society. It's why we form them. It's why all societies form codes of conduct, that eventually may lead to laws and governments. But that has nothing to do with what laws people have or don't have. Nor does it have anything to do with natural rights. It's a bargain we make to make our lives better. We can opt out. Most people don't, but some do. Societies don't have natural rights. Individuals do. For all the good it does them, but they do. Laws on the other hand are based on arbitrarily assigned values. Like, manslaughter deserves 15 years in jail. Based on what? It's not a science. It's all based on theories and whims.