- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,431
- Location
- East of Suez
so y'all opposed the death penalties carried out at Nuremburg then ?
Yes.
so y'all opposed the death penalties carried out at Nuremburg then ?
so y'all opposed the death penalties carried out at Nuremburg then ?
Surely the point of incarceration versus execution, is that society as a whole can be protected from individuals, who by their actions show they are unable to live according to the simple moral precept (religion aside) of "do not kill others" without lowering society to the same level as them by killing them.
Is it not the natural evolution of civilisation to stop seeking retribution in this way?
The problem is, a life sentence often doesn't mean Life...
Yep. Not sorry they're dead and I don't grieve for them – but my personal belief is that the death penalty is always wrong. I studied German history for three years at university, and we have friends in Germany who lost family members in Auschwitz, so I'm aware of the crimes they were guilty of.so y'all opposed the death penalties carried out at Nuremburg then ?
I don't, no. I think that the hangings of the Germans was justified.so y'all opposed the death penalties carried out at Nuremburg then ?
To be fair, Peter Sutcliffe will likely serve the entirety of his life term.The last time I researched this, the average UK "life" sentence was 12 years 9 months.
Here's a Daily Telegraph feature on the (then) 70 prisoners actually serving "whole life" terms, i.e. "You'll die in prison.":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/25/70-prisoners-serving-whole-life-sentences-uk/
Keen abolitionist eyes will spot a couple of oopses in there, e.g.:
"Paul Glen: A hitman who had previously served life for murder. Killed again upon his release and was given a whole life tariff by a judge in 2004.
Glyn Dix: Jailed for life for murder in the 1970s but after his release killed again. Given a whole life term in 2005.
Michael Smith: Jailed for life for murder in the 1970s and killed again after being released from prison."
Etc.
maximus otter
How will that go with Brexit?
I just woke up and my mind is struggling a bit. What I meant to ask was this: will the UK still be bound by the decisions of the European Court after Brexit?Yes that will also be cruel (and without end).
I just woke up and my mind is struggling a bit. What I meant to ask was this: will the UK still be bound by the decisions of the European Court after Brexit?
After Brexit would the Home Office legally be able to keep someone such as Sutcliffe behind bars forever?
While I have to concede the possibility in an intellectual sense., it is extremely hard to do, and is very rare.The only way you can be sure of that is if the judge and jury witness the crime - video evidence, DNA, confessions...anything can be faked or misjudged, surely?
Interesting. would have thought that once the UK was out of the Union, they would no longer be bound by their laws.At this stage it's unknown.
There are possibilities:
We may enter into an agreement to be bound by the court's future judgments (May is yes-no-yes-no and currently yes on this, but if we don't reach an actual working agreement before departure it's a 'No'). I think those who voted out will be livid if we remain under the court.
We may set up a system whereby judgments are ordinarily enforced and incorporated into law but this is subject to veto.
We may opt out of jurisdiction entirely and have our fairly newly established Supreme Court replace it.
Even if we remove ourselves from formal jurisdiction, British courts already take into account the judgments of foreign courts in their deliberations (I forget the legal term for this). I presume the European Court will simply become another foreign court in this respect.
...fingerprints are totally unique to the individual...
While I have to concede the possibility in an intellectual sense., it is extremely hard to do, and is very rare.
One time a man was convicted of bank robbery in spite of an air-tight alibi, and was imprisoned. He had identified by several eyewitnesses as the culprit, and his fingerprints had been lifted from the crime scene.
Defense counsel countered this by saying that he had been elsewhere and could prove it. If memory serves, it was a wedding or some other celebration.
Air-tight alibi or fingerprints. The jury had to make a choice. and since fingerprints are totally unique to the individual, the jury concluded (and quite reasonably) that they outweigh the air-tight alibi and the man was convicted.
Did the accused do the deed? What do my greatly-esteemed fellow-posters think?
I take the view that the law, such as it is, has to operate from a higher ethical standard than the subjects of it. So if the law prohibits murder, it cannot implement capital punishment from an ethical perspective. That would just be 'an eye for an eye'.I'm always more in favour of a bit more an oubliette approach than a death penalty. With the number of convictions which do get overturned decades later, when new evidence or new facts are brought to light, the death penalty is a poor choice.
Hasn't this recently been disputed? Even if it were true, it's rarely the case that fingerprints left at a crime scene would be immaculate and complete. DNA evidence has, likewise, been shown to be fallible.
Let's take this argument (the one that I highlighted) to its logical extreme, shall we?I take the view that the law, such as it is, has to operate from a higher ethical standard than the subjects of it. So if the law prohibits murder, it cannot implement capital punishment from an ethical perspective. That would just be 'an eye for an eye'.
I would, as you say @CuriousIdent , favour the 'oubliette approach'. One can always release a person when a mistake is made. But I would put people away for all of their lives for wilful murder and I'd sleep soundly for it. Not to do so undermines the value of human life in society and there should be justice.
Its irrevocability is the only really valid argument against the use of the death penalty.I'm always more in favour of a bit more an oubliette approach than a death penalty. With the number of convictions which do get overturned decades later, when new evidence or new facts are brought to light, the death penalty is a poor choice.
If an individual is put to death for a crime they did not commit no amount of ANY kind of remuneration for their family can ever make up for their murder at the hands of the State. The State cannot be punished. The Judge will not be punished. The system cannot be charged with a criminal act.
It doesn't work. Life in prison, in permanence, with no chance of parole has to be the answer.
That's a decent point. However, if the law is simply "the rules" laid down by a government with no moral or ethical component, then surely it's just a tyranny? "Do what we tell you".Let's take this argument (the one that I highlighted) to its logical extreme, shall we?
Kidnapping (the taking and holding of a person against their will) is illegal. In fact, in the USA it was regarded as so serious a crime that it was punishable by death. The death penalty aside, how would you punish kidnapping? The answer that most have would be to imprison them. So, then if the law prohibits kidnapping, your logic would dictate that imprisonment cannot be implemented from an ethical perspective either.
I have heard this from opponents of the death penalty:
"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"
Using the idea that imprisoning people is kidnapping
"Why do we kidnap people who kidnap people to show that kidnapping people is wrong?"
Do you see what I'm doing? What is imprisonment then? It is taking and holding someone against their will.
With all due respect, what you are doing is drawing a false moral equivalency between a criminal and the law. Even though I do support the death penalty in limited circumstances, I also recognize that there are very valid arguments against it. This, however, is not one of them.
OT, but I wish my fellow Americans on the board a Happy Thanksgiving!!
Hasn't this recently been disputed? Even if it were true, it's rarely the case that fingerprints left at a crime scene would be immaculate and complete. DNA evidence has, likewise, been shown to be fallible.
DNA evidence has, likewise, been shown to be fallible.
Yes - there have been cases in which fingerprints have been demonstrated to be judged identical even though obtained from different individuals.
maximus otter
They were his fingerprints. That part is beyond question.While I have to concede the possibility in an intellectual sense., it is extremely hard to do, and is very rare.
One time a man was convicted of bank robbery in spite of an air-tight alibi, and was imprisoned. He had identified by several eyewitnesses as the culprit, and his fingerprints had been lifted from the crime scene.
Defense counsel countered this by saying that he had been elsewhere and could prove it. If memory serves, it was a wedding or some other celebration.
Air-tight alibi or fingerprints. The jury had to make a choice. and since fingerprints are totally unique to the individual, the jury concluded (and quite reasonably) that they outweigh the air-tight alibi and the man was convicted.
Did the accused do the deed? What do my greatly-esteemed fellow-posters think?
Such cruelty to this neolithic colonial!:axem:Wrong day! 4 July is Treason Day.
Thanksgiving is the Day the Indians wish they had slaughtered those colonists.
That's true. I like that the detective thought through the issue and reasoned that if the two pieces of evidence were directly contradictory then one of them had to be wrong, and started checking more closely.I think that it is important to see and admit the weaknesses of your argument and in addition, this was a damned interesting case.