Hanging

Remove all ads!

Of course rape is a crime... or do you mean she gets punished for being raped? What you said is confusing, even though I understand, because of background information...

To add to your point, in some countries, if a man does something that the government doesn't like, the government will send out a group to rape the offending man's wife or sister, just to bring him disgrace...

But we don't know if that tax money would go to buying medicine for children. Perhaps the money gets wasted on Bush's war, or perhaps not. If it were guaranteed that the child would die unless this criminal (and by criminal, i don't mean petty thief, I mean mass murderer, etc) would die, then absolutely, the child deserves life over him. But we aren't choosing life over life necessarily. However, I do see your point.

And when I said immoral greed, I was talking about greed in general: it is immoral.

 

*somewhere a nail winces and rubs its head*

There is no appealing solution. Even reprogramming would be controversial at best. Imprisonment takes money, murdering the criminal "back" takes your soul, etc. No matter what method you can come up with, there will always be a great downside to it, and the lesser evil is not always a clear choice.

@Saber:

Sadly, yes; I believe that tradition is still practiced in some places.

Nope. I could give you several pages worth of explanation as to why you're wrong if I could just find that damn paper I wrote, but I guess I'll have to settle for opening a new topic where we and the rest of SP can discuss it.

 

Well, yes...but reprogramming is more appealing than killing the criminal. At least in my opinion. And it might be more economically efficient too. If only it could be reasonably possible...which it will never be. Might as well define the perfect human being, right now.

Bringing the problem to calculations might solve it, but it might not make us happily agree with the solution.

 

Mercy cannot rob justice. When a man murders another man, then that man has deprived another man of life. The ony just solution would be to end that person's life. Hanging, as has been put forth is cost effective and relatively quick and painless. Besides, what is the point of life in prison with no chance for parole?

 

Well, that's a bit of a problem, so far as coming to a common consensus goes. I'd have to say that

A: Some people are like rabid dogs, and need to be put down (yes, I mean killed) for their own good and for the good of everyone they might conceivably come into contact with.
B: Execution as retribution is not necessarily a bad thing. The worst of offenders can and do merit such punishment; after all, the system can hardly expect to rehabilitate them. Keeping them alive is a risk, however minute.

Not that those points apply to our esteemed, hanged heroin delear. As I said earlier, I'm not in favor of a system executing heroin dealers, but in cases such as this, well...the term Darwin Award comes to mind.

 

It is still "life".

 

That's debatable. I could never live like that without the hope of release (or escape), and I'd take my own life if they wouldn't do it for me. Even death by strangulation seems kind in comparison.

 

Yes, I agree with you there Fel. I'd prefer to take my own life than to rot in a jail cell for life. But, that's just me, I'd at least give them the option, instead of just killing them...

 

In these circumstances, is not execution more humane than locking them in a hell hole forever?

Further, when it comes to that point, Money does enter into it. Why pay over $100 k per year to keep a prisoner where you get no return when for a few bucks worth of rope, you can string them up and pay little to nothing. Or simply rig up a giand paper cutter to chop their head off to kill them quicker...

 

*Raises eyebrow* Gnarff, I thought you were always a pro-lifer guy... perhaps I was wrong. To answer your question, it depends on the crime:

If they commit a lesser crime, no they shouldn't die. Murderers (who are convicted for premeditated murder, not for selfdefense murder, or any murder that is not done on purpose) and drugdealers (IIRC, Nyguen was not a dealer, just caught with it?) are the only people who can be considered for death. In most cases, I would say no to death. However, obviously, there are exceptions in which there is no redemption.

 

@ Felinoid,

There are plenty who feel the same way - that's why modern prisons get designed without hanging points, amongst other things. The sort of person who gets a life sentence, never to be released, is typically the sort who deserves to rot in jail anyway.

@ AMaster,

If you're going to use possible recidivism as a justification for capital punishment (in conjunction with the offence, of course), you have crossed a dangerous threshold. In essence, while that form of "risk-management" approach to sentencing is certainly relevant to the protection of the community, it tramples any sense of proportionality, concept of essential rights or prospect of rehabilitation.

I don't assume you'd prefer that except in the most extreme cases; I'm just highlighting what I see as a fundamentally flawed basis to that line of thought.

Killed for their own good? I understand where you're going with that (I think), but who decides that? On what grounds? Who stands in judgement over someone and says, "You have forfeited your right to exist"? And how arbitrary is that decision to end a life?

Sure, protect people from them, by all means - but I don't recognise that it is legitimate to kill except in self-defence. This concept stretches that a little too far and is much too elastic for me to be comfortable with it. After all, in a month's time, I could conceivably kill someone - what should be done about it?

On the latter point, I would disagree. Killing is never a good thing; at best, it's the lesser of two evils, IMO. I guess it's an "agree to disagree" situation. Then again, my country stopped killing people before I was born.

@ Gnarff,

You're right - mercy should not rob justice. However, justice is not (and should not be) just mob justice or victim justice. Without mercy, justice is usually little more than officially-sanctioned vengeance.

As for the cost-effectiveness line of thought, well, I've argued that already, and my opinion remains unchanged.

 

Saber: I believe in the right to life, but when someone kills another, then they have deprived someone of that life. Under those circumstances, they forgo that right to life. That's why I accept the death penalty.

Non Sequitor: At what point is capital punishment more merciful than the alternative? I believe that in the case of our herion smuggler, Justice would demand that he learn what it's like to be addicted then die from an overdose when the last of the 14 ounces was exhausted, but Hanging was more merciful...

 

I assert that with truly heinous offenders, or truly flagrant ones, that the only way we can ensure they do not re-commit is to kill them.

In the case that you postulate, Sabre, it would be great if he could pay society back for the cost of housing his criminal butt, but what if he kills someone else while paying off the first debt? What efforts has the society taken to protect the life of this second victim? The Judiciary needs to protect society from the acts of people who have already proved they are killers.

 

@ Gnarff,

I can understand your reasoning (both on the pro-capital punishment and mercy arguments), but I don't believe that justice is as simple as retribution. Killing is never justified; it can only ever be excusable, IMO. If such a technically precise killing as Nguyen's was carried out by anyone other than the state for the same reasons, it would be considered cold-blooded murder or a payback killing. It serves virtually no purpose except revenge. I believe that is also true for the proposed justice you consider appropriate for Nguyen's case - it's quite cruel and unusual punishment, IMO (though certainly ironic, given that there is no evidence that Nguyen was a drug user himself).

Also, re: capital punishment possibly being more merciful - the sort of person who earns themselves a death sentence probably deserves to languish in prison for 20+ years (such as multiple rapists and mass/serial killers). I say "probably" because I am strongly opposed to any form of mandatory sentencing, particularly when it involves execution. That is my biggest problem with the recent hanging of Van Nguyen in Singapore - not that he was found guilty and punished, but because there was no room for judicial discretion in the law.

No matter what the judge thought, or what other factors could have been relevant, according to the law Nguyen had to be hanged. To me, that is utterly unjust. Should Nguyen have been jailed? Yes. Punished? Undoubtedly. Automatically executed? Certainly not.

@ LKD,

That's true - the only way to be 100% certain is to kill them. However, recidivism isn't the only consideration, IMO. Yes, I'm very happy that some prisoners will be held for the term of their natural life and will die in jail. I still don't support killing them; life in prison with no hope of release is probably less merciful than a bullet or a rope, and it is 100% effective unless they escape.

 

Then can capital punishment be excusable killing?

But the State would be the one giving this order. Only the state can legitimately be allowed to do this.

That's where the cost effectiveness arguement comes in. Why pay for someone that should never see the outside again anyway?

There should be that, but if Singapore doesn't have the drug problems that the rest of the world have, then other countries may adopt this law too...

 

*shrug* The judicial system. So, that would be judges. I'll admit I haven't put all that much (read, any) thought into the way in which such a system would be implemented, but since I don't expect it to be, and further don't expect to be responsible for its implementation if is, well...

Sure looks that way.

I'm pretty sure Australia's armed forces have been deployed abroad within the last few decades.

That wasn't what you meant, but still.

 

In my opinion - and this is one of those few cases I'm completely stuborn on and cannot be swayed - no matter the costs, people have NO right to decide who lives and who dies. To me, using an arguement like this is just like a parent killing off their children when they can no longer financially afford to support them. I believe capital punishment is murder - maybe not murder in its purest form, but muder none the less. So who is worse, the murderer or the murderer who murders the murderer?

 

Why kill the innocent? I'm advocating killing those guilty of the most greivous offesnes against the law and society in general.

 

Really? So, for example, you don't believe a police officer has the right to use lethal force to subdue someone who is threatening and/or taking civilian lives? You don't believe there are situations (WWII comes to mind) in which the use of military force is necessary?

You are, in short, a complete pacifist?

 

The person who would indiscriminately kill another is worse that those who seek retribution. Period.