The Death Penalty: Do/would you support it?

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi kennas

Bull, Philosophically your argument fails when you use the 'except in self defence' clause.

'Thou shall not kill' does not say 'Thou shall not kill, except in self defence'. You are making an exception which means your premise is contradicted.

You can either kill another human or you can't.

If you really believe life is sacrosanct then you wouldn't even kill someone else in self defence!

I disagree - imo the meaning behind 'Thou shalt not kill' is that human life is sacrosanct and if someone is about to murder someone else and if the potential victim is in a situation where they can, in self defence, prevent that from happening then it is totally justifiable to do so using 'reasonable force'....especially since in all probability either the attacker or their target will die anyway.

Basically, given that every life is sacrosanct it is totally justifiable, however unfortunate it may be for the attacker and potential victim, for a person whose life is being threatened to save their life by killing their attacker provided it is the only way the threatened person can save their life.

The only question then is whether the person whose life is being threatened has an option other than killing their attacker to save their life.....but that's a whole new ball game and thread

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Julia]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Julia, I think there's a couple of issues with human development related to this topic.

Have you ever played the management/learning game where there is a boat full of people and you have to choose someone to go so the boat stays afloat? One person is old, one a doctor, one a young female, one a military person etc. Each person brings something to the table but a decision has to be made about who is going to be the best for their survival. Certain people will bring prosperity to the rest of the world, some do not.

Those that are natuarally intelligent, moral, ethical beings and are not physically flawed are probably the ones we want in order that the human race continues to progress. If we continue to allow the weakest genes to spread then we will not develop any further, or our condition may actually degenerate.

So, I think that's what I'm alluding to.

We are not perfect specimens by a long shot. Who knows where we are going, but maybe gene therapy will fix all our flaws and develop a more ethical race of beings who will be happier to live side by side.

Agree entirely. Whether or not the social and/or political will could ever exist to change the status quo is another question.

Does anyone think we could find it acceptable to sterilise, say, a drug dependent person who has already had two children who have been removed to the care of Family Services?

Julia

 

[visual]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

off topic,
as it turns out, my eldest son (doing a psychology course at university) has taken an interest in this subject and wished to make a clever statement.
Hitler's idea of the perfect race were strictly aesthetic, blonde hair, blue eyes, 6 ft tall and athletic.
turns out this "Aryan" race was not as perfect genetically as Hitler wanted them to be, studies have shown that people with blue eyes are at a greater risk of developing cataracts or even becoming blind when older while people with blonde hair have a higher chance of developing melanoma when compared to the "Lesser" race of brown featured people.
currently, our class has discussed this matter (relating to something else, but still relevant). there has been no irrefutable evidence linking genes with criminal behaviour.
you can claim the "Nature or Nurture" argument, and call it quits, but at some point, the individual, and not his DNA, must answer for his actions.

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Visual I think it can be related, but not always as you say.

Follow this line of thought: Someone of a lower socioeconomic group, on average probably a lower IQ, mother or father more likely to be abusive, hangs out with other members of the same class, doesn't finish high school, gets girlfriend pregnant early, gets married and then divorced probably a couple of times, gets sacked from low paying job or the coal mine closes, moves to the city, gets hopelessly in debt on the credit card, robs a bank and in the subsequent police chase kills a cop.

The perfect specimen is by NO MEANS the 'good looking' one but the FUNCTIONAL one. Good looks are only a means of attracting the opposite sex to procreate and ultimately survive. It's obviously important then, but it must be functional.

Your son will study part of this in evolutionary psychology.

 

[visual]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Kennas,arent you then agreeing with the nurture argument.
Are rich people not getting into the same mess as those from the poor class?

The point I think my son made is that you cant rely on genes to obliterate bad behaviour.Which is the point that you made.

Now back on track,in the herald sun,a lawyer is defending someone who killed a 3 year old,apparently the defence goes like this,he had sex with the three year old but didnt torture him,no he electrocuted him in a bid to revive him.Its these human garbage we should clear from the bench,without these scum animals like him would not be able to come up with these lovely defences and therefore would be put so far out of sight that no one would ever hear from them again.

And when in the hell do 3 year olds have sex?this was clearly a sexual assault.
Heres the article http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19591936%5E1702,00.html

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Terrible story visual. How sad for the family etc.

Back to the nurture thing, my little story was meant to show that it's both genes and environment that put people in these circumstances. It's the genes that actually place people in a particular environment and class system which is very hard to get out of. It's a viscious cycle. The guy in my story has kids who marry someone else from the same town and the cycle continues. People can get out of it, but it's a low % I reckon. I call this situation 'The Moe Syndrome'. Apologies to anyone from Moe.

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi visual

...................Now back on track,in the herald sun,a lawyer is defending someone who killed a 3 year old,apparently the defence goes like this,he had sex with the three year old but didnt torture him,no he electrocuted him in a bid to revive him.Its these human garbage we should clear from the bench,without these scum animals like him would not be able to come up with these lovely defences and therefore would be put so far out of sight that no one would ever hear from them again.

And when in the hell do 3 year olds have sex?this was clearly a sexual assault.

Reading the article clearly shows that the accused pleaded guilty to the sexual assault charges and not guilty to murder.

So, as in all cases, everyone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty and that is the way it should be

And so while obviously not condoning what the accused is alleged to have done, it is the job of the defence lawyer to ensure the accused gets as fair a trial as possible by putting up a defence that is at least plausible if not proveable and the job and onus of proof of the prosecuting laywyer is to provide evidence that proves the charges 'beyond reasonable doubt' (and that could be the tricky bit)

So in general, when accused are found not guilty then that means either:

1) they are innocent

2) the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges for whatever reason....ie...lack of evidence, poor laws etc etc.

So it's no good blaming defence lawyers when people are found not guilty, blame either the prosecuting lawyers and/or the law makers for not having robust enough laws in place.

It'll be interesting to see if the prosection in your example can prove the intent was premeditated murder or someone doing something absolutely silly and stupid, whilst still obviously wrong but that only makes them guilty of lesser charges than murder......it looks to me that the only issue here is the intent behind the accused's actions.

But at the end of the day, even if he is found guilty of murder, imo it does not justify a death penalty in this case for the reasons I posted earlier. Imo, if no genuine remorse is shown and if it is felt that rehabilitation is unlikely then you simply lock the accused up for the term of his natural life.......because, whose to say that in say 15, 20 or whatever min years sentence you like to impose as a deterrent to others, he might not repent, be genuinely remorseful and so could be rehabilitated.

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Sean K]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

If proved guilty there is no rehab possible for this animal. And even if possible, Justice should probably be the priority. Although, I understand inmates aren't kind to these sort of people. He'll be getting some of his own medicine at least.

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

ok no prob kennas

If proved guilty there is no rehab possible for this animal. Justice should be served.

that is where we differ and I think we are starting to go round in circles now - imo rehabilitation could still be possible and if it turns out that it isn't after whatever the appropriate minimum custodial sentence is, then you leave him locked up for the term of his natural life.
cheers

bullmarket

 

[emma]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Gosh its great to be so sure - try this site http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/4205/dp.html to read a few other stories.

 

[visual]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Kennas,a while back people thought that they had the criminal gene isolated,wrong!
are you saying that you are being influenced by this fallacy.

My link illustrates that this horror of a human being is aided and abetted by society to the extend that he is able to present his story in court,if it were not for the do gooders who would have us believe that how he grew up has any relevance to his behaviour later on,we would not have to put up with the Moe syndrome as you put it.People behave as you let them!

The only reason people from lower socio economic backgrounds are more often in the papers has to do with who ever controls the media.

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi visual

Kennas,a while back people thought that they had the criminal gene isolated,wrong!
are you saying that you are being influenced by this fallacy.

My link illustrates that this horror of a human being is aided and abetted by society to the extend that he is able to present his story in court,if it were not for the do gooders who would have us believe that how he grew up has any relevance to his behaviour later on,we would not have to put up with the Moe syndrome as you put it.People behave as you let them!

The only reason people from lower socio economic backgrounds are more often in the papers has to do with who ever controls the media.

It seem to me that you are suggesting the accused in the link story should not be allowed to present his side of the story.

Everyone should be allowed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and then it is up to legal system as broadly described (in an earlier post) by the respective roles of the defence lawyers, prosectuting lawyers, law makers and juries to decide who is guilty of whatever charges and to take into account any mitigating circumstances........and that is the way it should be imo

Otherwise you would potentially get people like us in chatrooms deciding who is guilty and who isn't

cheers

bullmarket

 

[visual]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Bullmarket if you read the story,his defence is saying that he had sex with the three year old,therefore allowing him to minimise the torture,when in the hell has it ever been acceptable to have sex with a three year old.Would this sexual assualt have been presented as having sex if he had not tortured the little boy and killed him.I dont care how stupid you are putting a 240 volt to a childs body is not trying to save his life.Stop making excuses for this low life thats why we are even having this argument because people allow these low lifes so many exuses.

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi Visual

If you read the story again you will see:

1) the accused pleaded guilty to the sexual assault charges....and so that is not an issue anymore.

2) the autopsy could not establish the cause of death and so there may be some other factors in the child's death that the general public are not aware of.

Therefore, the onus of proof is correctly on the prosection to prove guilt and not on the accused to prove innocence...and that is the way it should be imo

As I said earlier, the prosecution has to prove that the intent of the accused's actions was murder and unless the prosection can do that then the accused is most likely still guilty of lesser charges.

But either way, even if found guilty of murder, as I said before this case (like any case) does not justify the death penalty imo for the reasons I posted earlier.

cheers

bullmarket

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Gosh its great to be so sure - try this site http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/4205/dp.html to read a few other stories.

spot on emma

cheers

bullmarket

 

[robots]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

hello,

i have voted to support the death penalty

it would be great to lock them up for there entire life, but this does not happen

the private companies running the prisons dont want them there, so they give them a good report and bang there out on parole

numerous criminals re-offend once released from prison

look at that guy in Melb who killed two sisters in Altona (i think) just recently, his run sheet was huge

thankyou
robots

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

hello,

i have voted to support the death penalty

it would be great to lock them up for there entire life, but this does not happen

the private companies running the prisons dont want them there, so they give them a good report and bang there out on parole

numerous criminals re-offend once released from prison

look at that guy in Melb who killed two sisters in Altona (i think) just recently, his run sheet was huge

thankyou
robots

I thought that locking up offenders for their natural life doesn't occur because the laws currently don't allow for those types of sentences....and if that is the case then maybe the sentences allowed by law need to be changed and increased.

If current laws do allow custodial sentences for the natural life of an offender then maybe judges need to be encouraged to impose them on more serious cases where no rehabilitation is possible,

Also maybe the way prisoners are assessed to see if they are fit to be released after their minimum sentences needs to be improved rather than taking the easy way out and murdering them (at least in the moral sense).....this may require changes to current laws.

 

[visual]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi Visual

If you read the story again you will see:

1) the accused pleaded guilty to the sexual assault charges....and so that is not an issue anymore.

2) the autopsy could not establish the cause of death and so there may be some other factors in the child's death that the general public are not aware of.

Therefore, the onus of proof is correctly on the prosection to prove guilt and not on the accused to prove innocence...and that is the way it should be imo

As I said earlier, the prosecution has to prove that the intent of the accused's actions was murder and unless the prosection can do that then the accused is most likely still guilty of lesser charges.

But either way, even if found guilty of murder, as I said before this case (like any case) does not justify the death penalty imo for the reasons I posted earlier.

cheers

bullmarket

Bullmarket,knowing a miniscule amount of how these things work,I can tell you that more than likely his guilty plea was more than likely a deal with the prosecutor,time and money wouldve been contributing factors.However this advice wouldve come from his lawyer,obviously a sexual assualt would attract a lesser sentence,My point remains however his lawyer is now defending his use of the electrical volt,and using words that are revolting for the sexual assualt.

Without him,he would never have taken the easy way out.Pleading guilty to the lesser charge.Justice is about money and a long queue.
The fact remains that these people ,the courts represent us and we should hold them accountable for how they represent us,but instead too many people forget that,and go on and on about proving this proving that,the onnus.Plase this guy killed the three yearl old,the only thing to discuss should be in my opinion how long to lock him up,and how much oxygen he should be allowed to use,no if or buts.

 

[bullmarket]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Hi visual

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the autopsy did not find the cause of death and so, in theory at least, maybe it wasn't the electric shock that killed the child.........that is for the jury to decide based on ALL the evidence that is presented in the court and not for you or I or anyone else to decide waffling on in chatrooms making judgements based on what is reported in newspapers which may or may not be factual......and even if it is assumed that the electric shock killed the child, the prosecution then has to prove to the jury that the intent behind the shock was premeditated murder and not something else....which would make the accused guilty of lesser charges.

I still maintain that ANY accused person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Based solely on the contents of the story you posted, I personally could not convict the accused of murder simply because there are too many unknowns with the main unknown being the cause of death......but I am sure there has been and there will be more evidenced presented to the jury to decide how the child died and if it was murder or not.

Re your comment:

Plase this guy killed the three yearl old,the only thing to discuss should be in my opinion how long to lock him up,and how much oxygen he should be allowed to use,no if or buts.

I don't see how you can be so certain atm when firstly the autopsy did not find the cause of death and secondly you haven't seen all of the available eveidence

I agree the accused did probably kill the child but based solely on newspaper story I am not convinced it was murder......but as I said earlier, even if it is proved to be murder then that still does not justify the death penalty and the penalty imo should be what I described in earlier posts.

cheers

bullmarket

 

[BSD]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Setting aside the emotional stuff - how about some maths.


1. How many innocent people should we kill annually to kill all those convicted of rape?

2. How many innocent people should we kill annually to kill all those convicted of murder?

3. How many rapes/murders does one need to be guilty of before being killed by the government?

4. How much heroin do you need to get caught with before death? Is one gram too much or do you need a kilo?

5. Ecstacy kills fewer people than bee-stings, but should we still kill all ecstacy shippers or possessors or should we kill all bees?

6. How many of your own children would you be prepared to kill if they were caught with five "deadly" ecstacy pills?

7. How many cigarette company salespeople should we kill per annum seeing they kill 10,000 times as many as the heroin dealers?

8. How fast do you have to be going before you are up for the death penalty for killing someone in a car accident?

8. How many years before we start killing retards or dumb people because they are a potential threat and/or cost us too much to house in care or on welfare?

Just some simple numerical answers are required.

No more emotional stuff.