The Death Penalty

[The Miser 18]

High-profile death row inmate, the 'DC Sniper' John Muhammad, is due to face the music in November.

Frying tonight.

 

 

Even the normally vocal anti-death penalty folks have been fairly muted on this one. Good riddance.

[The Miser 18]

High-profile death row inmate, the 'DC Sniper' John Muhammad, is due to face the music in November.

Frying tonight.

 

 

Even the normally vocal anti-death penalty folks have been fairly muted on this one. Good riddance.

 

DEAD

[deadsox 894]

Although I remain opposed to the death penalty, I do agree that it sometimes constitutes justice. I believe this to be the case with John Muhammad.

[Terminator 13]

 

Kill them!!! Kill them all!!!!............

[honez 79]

Although I remain opposed to the death penalty, I do agree that it sometimes constitutes justice. I believe this to be the case with John Muhammad.

So...

Justice for JM = Death Penalty

Justice for Everyone - JM = - Death Penalty

Justice for Everyone - JM + JM = Death Penalty - Death Penalty

Justice for Everyone = 0

 

So your premise is, given that they executed him, there is no justice.

Discuss, but you must show your workings or equally atrocious and tenuous calculations superbly crafted equations to prove your point.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

High-profile death row inmate, the 'DC Sniper' John Muhammad, is due to face the music in November.

Frying tonight.

 

 

Even the normally vocal anti-death penalty folks have been fairly muted on this one. Good riddance.

I fail to see why opponents of the death penalty should suddenly support it in a case such as this in which:

 

1. There is a certain amount of doubt as to whether he did it and

2. Even if he did do it, he is likely to be suffering from some sort of mental illness.

 

Opponents of the death penalty consider it cruel and immoral and are unlikely to suddenly turn round and support it in any case whatsoever.

 

If he were a white guy and if his name hadn't been Mohammed the whole thing would have looked completely different.

Did you know he was tried specially in Virginia because they are particularly keen on executing (black) people there?

[Josco 49]

If he were a white guy and if his name hadn't been Mohammed the whole thing would have looked completely different.

Did you know he was tried specially in Virginia because they are particularly keen on executing (black) people there?

 

Objection. This is nothing more than conjecture your honour.

[honez 79]

If he were a white guy and if his name hadn't been Mohammed the whole thing would have looked completely different.

Did you know he was tried specially in Virginia because they are particularly keen on executing (black) people there?

 

Objection. This is nothing more than conjecture your honour.

Sustained. There was nothing special about it. Caught, tried and killed sentenced, with as much routine as they'd have done for any (black) person with an Islamic-sounding name in the same circumstances.

[deadsox 894]

I must admit that I have absolutely no idea of what your "calculations" mean honez. My reasons for opposing the death penalty are , among others, that, as articulated in some previous posts, there is sometimes doubt regarding the actual guilt of the condemned. That, however, is not the case here (what could you possibly be basing this upon, nap?). There are also white folks executed in the states that use the death penalty, so it is not solely a racial bias at work (although that may be a factor). John Muhammad's crimes were particularly heinous. The mental illness defense has inherent problems. Couldn't it be argued that anyone committing such acts has a mental defect? Does that mean they should be released when a psychiatrist deems them "cured"? At least we can now be sure that twenty years from now, a bunch of bleeding hearts will not be pleading for his release on "compassionate grounds" after causing so much suffering. Oh yes, and we also know that he won't be a repeat offender.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

This is why I think the death penalty should be reintroduced.

[The Miser 18]

I must admit that I have absolutely no idea of what your "calculations" mean honez. My reasons for opposing the death penalty are , among others, that, as articulated in some previous posts, there is sometimes doubt regarding the actual guilt of the condemned. That, however, is not the case here (what could you possibly be basing this upon, nap?). There are also white folks executed in the states that use the death penalty, so it is not solely a racial bias at work (although that may be a factor). John Muhammad's crimes were particularly heinous. The mental illness defense has inherent problems. Couldn't it be argued that anyone committing such acts has a mental defect? Does that mean they should be released when a psychiatrist deems them "cured"? At least we can now be sure that twenty years from now, a bunch of bleeding hearts will not be pleading for his release on "compassionate grounds" after causing so much suffering. Oh yes, and we also know that he won't be a repeat offender.

 

Not any question of guilt in this case. As to the racial basis, there may be something to that in general. But his name could have been Johnny Applepie in this case and they still would have given him the shot. Tim McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) was lily white and they squared him away.

[Guest Kirk Hargreaves]

The USA is set to execute the 1000th person since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976.

 

What do you think about capital punishment?

 

Personally I'm against it, because miscarriages of justice can occur. A punishment should act as a deterrent, and there's no good evidence that the death penalty does this. It should also attempt to rehabilitate the offender - which execution clearly can't do.

[honez 79]

The USA is set to execute the 1000th person since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976.

 

What do you think about capital punishment?

 

Personally I'm against it, because miscarriages of justice can occur. A punishment should act as a deterrent, and there's no good evidence that the death penalty does this. It should also attempt to rehabilitate the offender - which execution clearly can't do.

No, it can't rehabilitate but it's a pretty sure fire way of guaranteeing they're not going to re-offend.

[To die for 3]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

[Rotten Ali 600]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

Sort of true, BUT, I'd only say the death penalty should be handed down if concrete evidence is available - and that's not just DNA but also with such as video evidence or multiple unshakeable corroborated witness evidence. Too many times innocent people have been jailed, only years later being able to prove the jury verdict wrong.

 

Sadly we could not just return to being able to impose these punishments while within the EU membership framework. That issue would have to be put before the people in a referendum. First if we as a nation were willing to continue membership of such forums - and only if the verdict was a NO answer - then the second part could be entertained - that of re-imposing the death penalty in the most serious of cases.

 

I think the whole topic appealing but with so many pitfalls I can't think any political party (other than UKIP or the BNP) would chose to put any weight behind the idea.

[To die for 3]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

Sort of true, BUT, I'd only say the death penalty should be handed down if concrete evidence is available - and that's not just DNA but also with such as video evidence or multiple unshakeable corroborated witness evidence. Too many times innocent people have been jailed, only years later being able to prove the jury verdict wrong.

 

Sadly we could not just return to being able to impose these punishments while within the EU membership framework. That issue would have to be put before the people in a referendum. First if we as a nation were willing to continue membership of such forums - and only if the verdict was a NO answer - then the second part could be entertained - that of re-imposing the death penalty in the most serious of cases.

 

I think the whole topic appealing but with so many pitfalls I can't think any political party (other than UKIP or the BNP) would chose to put any weight behind the idea.

Good point. Just let them out without the possibility of anonymity and let mob justice prevail. Same result

[CarolAnn 926]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

Sort of true, BUT, I'd only say the death penalty should be handed down if concrete evidence is available - and that's not just DNA but also with such as video evidence or multiple unshakeable corroborated witness evidence. Too many times innocent people have been jailed, only years later being able to prove the jury verdict wrong.

 

Sadly we could not just return to being able to impose these punishments while within the EU membership framework. That issue would have to be put before the people in a referendum. First if we as a nation were willing to continue membership of such forums - and only if the verdict was a NO answer - then the second part could be entertained - that of re-imposing the death penalty in the most serious of cases.

 

I think the whole topic appealing but with so many pitfalls I can't think any political party (other than UKIP or the BNP) would chose to put any weight behind the idea.

Good point. Just let them out without the possibility of anonymity and let mob justice prevail. Same result

 

Enter an agreement with Texas. We need the money.

[Godot 149]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane. Sutcliffe was passed fit to stand trial but was almost certainly bonkers from the off. Too many police, journalists and members of the public, for that matter, were keen to have the full grizzly details of his killings aired in court and I can understand that. It was probably right that people saw justice being done. Had an insanity plea been accepted many people would have seen that as an injustice. But he was bonkers nevertheless. It's a peculiar situation as in most cases you probably have to be damaged mentally to commit murder.

 

The courts, if not Sun readers society, are more forgiving of children who commit murder who tend to be released after a few years with new identities in the belief that they can be redeemed. It happened with Mary Bell and with the killers of Jamie Bolger. Whether this represents justice for the victims is debatable.

 

If I was an MP with a free vote I'd probably vote against the death penalty but wouldn't lose sleep about the welfare of any of the above. When a society begins to concentrate more on the rights of the killer and less on the rights of the victim it's beginning to lose a proper sense of justice.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane. Sutcliffe was passed fit to stand trial but was almost certainly bonkers from the off. Too many police, journalists and members of the public, for that matter, were keen to have the full grizzly details of his killings aired in court and I can understand that. It was probably right that people saw justice being done. Had an insanity plea been accepted many people would have seen that as an injustice. But he was bonkers nevertheless. It's a peculiar situation as in most cases you probably have to be damaged mentally to commit murder.

 

The courts, if not Sun readers society, are more forgiving of children who commit murder who tend to be released after a few years with new identities in the belief that they can be redeemed. It happened with Mary Bell and with the killers of Jamie Bolger. Whether this represents justice for the victims is debatable.

 

If I was an MP with a free vote I'd probably vote against the death penalty but wouldn't lose sleep about the welfare of any of the above. When a society begins to concentrate more on the rights of the killer and less on the rights of the victim it's beginning to lose a proper sense of justice.

 

Point of order. I'm pretty sure that Ian Huntley is still in a mainstream prison and has never spent time in a psychiatric institution. Also, don't forget that Ian Brady was fit to plea at his trial and didn't enter psychiatric care until he'd been behind bars for nearly twenty years.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane. Sutcliffe was passed fit to stand trial but was almost certainly bonkers from the off. Too many police, journalists and members of the public, for that matter, were keen to have the full grizzly details of his killings aired in court and I can understand that. It was probably right that people saw justice being done. Had an insanity plea been accepted many people would have seen that as an injustice. But he was bonkers nevertheless. It's a peculiar situation as in most cases you probably have to be damaged mentally to commit murder.

 

The courts, if not Sun readers society, are more forgiving of children who commit murder who tend to be released after a few years with new identities in the belief that they can be redeemed. It happened with Mary Bell and with the killers of Jamie Bolger. Whether this represents justice for the victims is debatable.

 

If I was an MP with a free vote I'd probably vote against the death penalty but wouldn't lose sleep about the welfare of any of the above. When a society begins to concentrate more on the rights of the killer and less on the rights of the victim it's beginning to lose a proper sense of justice.

 

Point of order. I'm pretty sure that Ian Huntley is still in a mainstream prison and has never spent time in a psychiatric institution. Also, don't forget that Ian Brady was fit to plea at his trial and didn't enter psychiatric care until he'd been behind bars for nearly twenty years.

.....and every day, there he sits rotting away, fighting for the right to die, but we wont let him.

Why should he evade punishment?

[welshman 31]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane. Sutcliffe was passed fit to stand trial but was almost certainly bonkers from the off. Too many police, journalists and members of the public, for that matter, were keen to have the full grizzly details of his killings aired in court and I can understand that. It was probably right that people saw justice being done. Had an insanity plea been accepted many people would have seen that as an injustice. But he was bonkers nevertheless. It's a peculiar situation as in most cases you probably have to be damaged mentally to commit murder.

 

The courts, if not Sun readers society, are more forgiving of children who commit murder who tend to be released after a few years with new identities in the belief that they can be redeemed. It happened with Mary Bell and with the killers of Jamie Bolger. Whether this represents justice for the victims is debatable.

 

If I was an MP with a free vote I'd probably vote against the death penalty but wouldn't lose sleep about the welfare of any of the above. When a society begins to concentrate more on the rights of the killer and less on the rights of the victim it's beginning to lose a proper sense of justice.

 

Point of order. I'm pretty sure that Ian Huntley is still in a mainstream prison and has never spent time in a psychiatric institution. Also, don't forget that Ian Brady was fit to plea at his trial and didn't enter psychiatric care until he'd been behind bars for nearly twenty years.

.....and every day, there he sits rotting away, fighting for the right to die, but we wont let him.

Why should he evade punishment?

If "he wants to die and we don't let him" what greater punishment?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley spring to mind - that they committed the crimes that they received multiple life sentences for. These are the types of criminal that should receive the death penalty, they don't deserve attempts to rehabilitate them and certainly should not be allowed to waste public money appealing for parole/human rights violations/compensation. They should have been sentenced to hang. End.

 

The part I disagree with is keeping prisoners on death row for years, if they've been sentenced to die, get on with it. Years of excuses should not count against the original crime.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane. Sutcliffe was passed fit to stand trial but was almost certainly bonkers from the off. Too many police, journalists and members of the public, for that matter, were keen to have the full grizzly details of his killings aired in court and I can understand that. It was probably right that people saw justice being done. Had an insanity plea been accepted many people would have seen that as an injustice. But he was bonkers nevertheless. It's a peculiar situation as in most cases you probably have to be damaged mentally to commit murder.

 

The courts, if not Sun readers society, are more forgiving of children who commit murder who tend to be released after a few years with new identities in the belief that they can be redeemed. It happened with Mary Bell and with the killers of Jamie Bolger. Whether this represents justice for the victims is debatable.

 

If I was an MP with a free vote I'd probably vote against the death penalty but wouldn't lose sleep about the welfare of any of the above. When a society begins to concentrate more on the rights of the killer and less on the rights of the victim it's beginning to lose a proper sense of justice.

 

Point of order. I'm pretty sure that Ian Huntley is still in a mainstream prison and has never spent time in a psychiatric institution. Also, don't forget that Ian Brady was fit to plea at his trial and didn't enter psychiatric care until he'd been behind bars for nearly twenty years.

.....and every day, there he sits rotting away, fighting for the right to die, but we wont let him.

Why should he evade punishment?

If "he wants to die and we don't let him" what greater punishment?

Exactly my point and why the death penalty is bollocks.

Given a choice, 9 out of 10 people serving a FULL LIFE TERM would take the death option.

Who wants to rot in a prison?

[Godot 149]

There are cases where there is no "reasonable doubt" - Myra Hyndley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley etc etc.

 

 

Three of those, Sutcliffe, Huntley and Brady are locked up in institutions for the criminally insane etc, etc.

 

Point of order. I'm pretty sure that Ian Huntley is still in a mainstream prison and has never spent time in a psychiatric institution. Also, don't forget that Ian Brady was fit to plea at his trial and didn't enter psychiatric care until he'd been behind bars for nearly twenty years.

Aye, right DDT, Huntley was in Rampton before he was judged fit to stand trial and since sentencing has served his time in jail ( with the odd spell in hospital). That seemed a reasonable decision to me. I suppose I was trying to make the point, though probably not very well, that it is very hard to determine the extent to which people are bonkers or not. The bonkers defence saved Rudolph Hess from the rope and I still don't think anyone really knows just how deranged he was.

 

I don't believe in the biblical eye for an eye but the question I was raising is whether the death penalty is right for someone who is "not all there". But a kind of reverse Catch 22 argument is that you have to be wrong in the head to murder someone. There are also degrees of bonkersness in the judicial system. One does not need to be totally off one's rocker to pursue a claim for diminished responsibility.

 

Another argument against the death penalty is the question of whether it is good for society as a whole. Evidence has been presented in the past recording rises in violent crime around the time of executions.

 

It also seems pretty clear that many murderers are products of deprived or violent families and sometimes the origins of this violence were what we might call "state sponsored". Mira Hindley's father was an ex-para in the Second World War when his propensity for violence against the enemy would have been regarded as commendable. But when he applied this violence to the upbringing of his daughter it created a woman not only anaesthetised to suffering but probably also taking pleasure from exercising power and seeing others suffer.

 

Meeting brutality with brutality is not the way to create a civilised society.

[Monoclinic 39]

Meeting brutality with brutality is not the way to create a civilised society.

 

Hear, hear! In my most humble opinion a government cannot show its people that murder is wrong through what is in my eyes state funded murder. Nor can we accept that every verdict is 100% correct. Lock them up, try to rehabilitate and make them work in order to fund the upkeep of the prisons; the last part probably amounts to slavery under the human rights act mind. However on the outside world there are many people who have standards of living below that of a resident of Her Majesty's pleasure (one kinky Queen I dare say!) so I think it is fair that they work a full EU week (or 35 hours if they happen to be French).

[fourty-two 1]

No because human judgement is flawed, even with modern scientific forensics, the intrepretation of data is prone to carelessness, apathy, malice, and all other crazy errors that make humanity such a fun race of screw ups. This is evident in the many products that we make that fail, fatally at times. Such as Planes, Trains and Automobiles. And acts as funny material for very twisted works of art.

 

My personal favorite is when these South Americans tried to make an AI Tank, and it went bezerk firing shells all over the place. It's captured on tape. Or that teenager who stole his dad's penis car (middle aged, car used to impress), and only went mile before totaling it. And living in China...... don't get me started on all the potential Loony Toonesque accidents that can happen.

 

So it's reasonable to assume that such an important decision that a tribunal that determines the continuity of another person's life, must be perfect. And the above examples of the many ways humans F up.....