This one is mainly directed towards the American way of life.
It may be an old and slightly clichéd topic, but it is always a truely moral and ethical debate with a simple question asked.

Is murder by the state (execution) of inmates who, despite having commited heinous crimes, an acceptable practice?

I, Like the majority of you who may/ may not chose to reply, are totally against this, How can this be justified when leaving them to rot in a cell is far worse than putting them out of their mysery.
Granted it may be cheaper to get rid of them, it is still against the teachings of the civilised world. "You killed him, so now WE get to kill you and have a bunch of people watch and cheer it on".

is it not within the rights on an induvidual to call for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I think the media coverage given is uncessary - but this is not a westernised thing, you can go to Saudi and witness a public execution usually beheading with scimitar or a stoning and EVERYONE goes to watch.

It was recently proposed (by one minister, whos views are his own and not that of the party :haha:) that Child molestors and Serial killers should be given death penalities in the UK, given some of the most recent failings of the judicial system within the UK i would want to see it left for at least 20 years before someone was executed - just in case they [police/courts] got it wrong. But then is it right to keep someone in prison waiting to die, i think the few who are "deserving" of being killed are usually tho within the prison system itself.

fireboy spouted:
I think the media coverage given is uncessary - but this is not a westernised thing, you can go to Saudi and witness a public execution usually beheading with scimitar or a stoning and EVERYONE goes to watch.


I agree. I think the media thing is a bit over the top and people that go to the executions--that's sick but I do think people should have to have consequences for their actions and if that consequence happens to be death so be it. I'm not one for supporting the killing of people but if everyone just got a slap on the hand when THEY killed someone everyone would be running around killing everyone. The death penalty doesn't reduce the murder crimes but at least when the murders are gone it's just one less to worry about.

If you look at the death penalty from the point of view of the American Constitution it the we are protected against it.

The 8th amendment is:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

I think death is pretty cruel. I also think that prision should not be intended as punishment but a means of isolating criminals to protect the rights of law abiding citizens.

Do people still insist that no ammendments are being broken?Of course i mean death penalty supporters in government.Or do they want to alter the ammendments?

stupid face spouted:
Do people still insist that no ammendments are being broken?Of course i mean death penalty supporters in government.Or do they want to alter the ammendments?

I think that supporters of the death penalty would have a different interpretation of the eighth ammendment.

Big Neutrino spouted:
I think death is pretty cruel.

No, it's natural. Everyone gets to have some of it. Sooner or later.

The death penalty is brilliant.
You commit a major crime.......you fry!
Where's the problem?
If you don't want to die, don't commit the crime.
It's easy.
And ofcourse people should watch and cheer.....why not?.........I would.

Big Neutrino spouted:
The 8th amendment is:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


There are lots of questions when it comes down to the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the amendment. Some people try to change the amendments so for the "average" person it can be understandable and there would be no questions. But in many cases people have gotten a lesser sentence or have been aquitted because of the cruel and unusual part. This one man (can't remember his name) was punished for, I believe, turning against his country in war or gave them information or something of the sort and he had his US citizenship taken from him and they didn't change his punishment because it wasn't cruel. It was unusual but not cruel. At least that is what was said about the matter

I almost agree with you, Dai, except for the watch & cheer part...if it were say, a duel to the death between death-row convicts, gladiator style, I'd attend.

The problem with the death penalty lies in the legalities. Regardless of how hidious the crime, the accused must be given due course to appeal, because if it comes to light that they really are innocent, and they were put to death for something someone else did, that is a greater crime.

Big Neurtino said:
...I also think that prision should not be intended as punishment but a means of isolating criminals to protect the rights of law abiding citizens.

I tend to agree with that reasoning, but while we're being protected from child molesters, serial killers, etc, who are sitting on death-row for 10-20 years, we are the ones footing their housing bill.
We have prisons for the criminally insane, full of people who have been convicted of atrocities to society. They cannot be cured, or rehabilitated. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment inside hospitals, where they receive better care than the victims of their crimes receive in the free-world, and all paid for by the society they appalled.

There are no answers. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, sounds good, but it all hinges on the truth. Killing an innocent, who's been accused of killing an innocent, makes us the criminals.

Soandso, my eight ammendment arguement is a pretty crappy one. It really does hinge on if you consdier death a cruel punsihment. Our founding father's certainly didn't. I could quote Thomas Jefferson's support of the death penalty as a legimate non cruel means of punishment. I"m just against it because I find it immoral.

We do what's right and wrong according to our beliefs... they are unique to each individual person. One theif would say it's morally ok to steal because people left stuff out in places they knew things could get taken from... another would say it's wrong but I'm gonna do it anyway...

It's all conjecture and opinion.

Big Neutrino spouted:
Soandso, my eight ammendment arguement is a pretty crappy one. It really does hinge on if you consdier death a cruel punsihment. Our founding father's certainly didn't. I could quote Thomas Jefferson's support of the death penalty as a legimate non cruel means of punishment. I"m just against it because I find it immoral.


I know. I was just putting my "two cents" in for the 8th amendment thing...

against stoning,
tosses first stone at ...

dont agree with capital punishment at all, but men or women who have commited murder or serial murders who show no remorse or seek no redemption for there crimes or themselves, then whats the good in there existence.....?

I think that if proven 100% guilty, then death should take place in accordance with the crime committed. Ian Brady would be lying in a shallow grave somewhere in the Moors by now with a spade embedded in his sick head if I had my way. Yes to the death penalty, but only where the golden 100% is true. No room for slip ups.

dEaDfRoG spouted:
I think that if proven 100% guilty

and what time scale is this on ?? there have been so many major miscarriages of justice in which evidence which later became availible proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent, ok in some cases let them out of prison - not much you can do if they were executed is there ??


well ?

Killing is wrong, right?

*Shrugs*

Don't see where the debate is.

Dazzla spouted:
Killing is wrong, right?

*Shrugs*

Don't see where the debate is.

you are married, someone kills your wife, your children. Would you not want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ??

would that not be justice for you ? or is in prisioned for probably the rest of their lives ok ??

Thats were the debate comes in.

"and what time scale is this on ??"

I'm talking about clear cut "don't really need a trial it's so fucking obvious" type cases. Dennis Nilsen, for example, found with dead bodies under his floorboards or Peter Sutcliffe who confessed to everything after trying to hide his murder weapon when the police stopped his car.

The thought of someone being killed for a crime they didn't commit is awful, but some people just have to go.

you are married, someone kills your wife, your children. Would you not want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ??

No. In fact, something similar has happened to me and never once did I think "Death is nasty, brutal and final and I have just seen it up close so I want more of it to happen. That will make me feel better." Had I done so, I would have blood on my hands as much as does the original killer.

If you fight fire with fire, your house will only burn down quicker. Violence begets violence. All that shit.

Bring back Devil's Island.

The thought of someone being killed for a crime they didn't commit is awful, but some people just have to go.

And that's worth the risk of murdering other innocent people?