The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[john eden]

It's not a sudden thing, I've always thought this. Cases like this just reinforce my feelings about it. In any case, jurors don't decide on the penalty and they don't make the law, so it's neither here nor there really.

Well fair enough, but the main point (about influence) still stands. Editing the posts is probably a good idea.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK, well I've just deleted a few posts and I'm sorry if this is all sounding a bit hysterical but I'd really appreciate it if people edited their posts to remove the quoted bits from mine. By all means carry on the discussion in general terms, of course.

I just felt I had to get some of this stuff off my chest and it really doesn't make for light office banter.

Edit: cheers y'all.

 

[john eden]

yeah I figured there was a bit of catharsis involved which is totally fine, not something to be taken lightly all that stuff.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Before anyone gets the idea I'm some sort of draconian law'n'order mentalist, I should probably say that I think we're locking far too many people away (and not because "we should be stringin' em up instead!" ) - there are shitloads of people in jail who'd be much better off (and probably much less likely to go straight back to crime when they're let out) if they were on a mental ward instead of a prison wing, there are probably loads of people who'd never have ended up inside in the first place if there had been some early mental health intervention before they went that far off the rails and there are many people doing time for nicking stuff to pay for drug habits who wouldn't have had to take that particular career option if they'd been able to get their gear on prescription - or even if the establishment had a less patronising and authoritarian (to say nothing of inconsistent and illogical) attitude to drugs in the first place.

But then you've got the small minority of criminals whose actions (I think) just cannot be explained, excused, mitigated or in any way morally contextualised.

 

[crackerjack]

do we really want, as a society, to vengefully kill or imprison someone?

Vengeance is such an ugly word and implies there's something petty and pointless about it, but I do think it's right that people are punished for wrongdoing, not just for deterrence or protection, but because societies need rules.

 

[IdleRich]

"Vengeance is such an ugly word and implies there's something petty and pointless about it, but I do think it's right that people are punished for wrongdoing, not just for deterrence or protection, but because societies need rules."

Well, obviously vengeance is a loaded word but - what exactly is the point of killing someone?

 

[crackerjack]

But then you've got the small minority of criminals whose actions (I think) just cannot be explained, excused, mitigated or in any way morally contextualised.

I agree with this. I'm not in favour of capital punishment in general, though there are a few cases, once a decade or so e.g. Shipman, where it's justified (although i do fucking hate the 'cost' argument - seriosusly, you wanna exxecute people to save a few tax bucks?)

 

[crackerjack]

Well, obviously vengeance is a loaded word but - what exactly is the point of killing someone?

That sounds a very utilitarian approach. The 'point' I guess, is that society draws a line between the merely disgusting and the flat out (and I know some peolpe have a problem with this word, but I don'[t) evil.

 

[john eden]

I agree with this. I'm not in favour of capital punishment in general, though there are a few cases, once a decade or so e.g. Shipman, where it's justified (although i do fucking hate the 'cost' argument - seriosusly, you wanna exxecute people to save a few tax bucks?)

Apparently if you factor in all the appeals, machinery, waiting in prison and all that it works out to be more expensive to kill people with due process than it is to keep em locked up for life.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Apparently if you factor in all the appeals, machinery, waiting in prison and all that it works out to be more expensive to kill people with due process than it is to keep em locked up for life.

That applies in America, where the chair/injection gubbins is probably contracted out to ExeCon Miscreant Neutralisation Solutions Inc. :slanted:

 

[IdleRich]

"That sounds a very utilitarian approach. The 'point' I guess, is that society draws a line between the merely disgusting and the flat out (and I know some peolpe have a problem with this word, but I don'[t) evil."

Utilitarian? I guess it is if asking for a reason for doing something is utilitarian. I'm just asking, if you have someone securely locked away where they can't hurt anyone, why would you go a step further and kill them?

 

[Mr. Tea]

(which would mean every murderer would be killed, including the hangmen themselves)

Not at all: murder is defined as the deliberate, culpable, premeditated and unjustified killing of a person. Or something to that effect, anyway. Point is, a country's legal system that institutes the death penalty would obviously consider the killing of a murderer justified.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Utilitarian? I guess it is if asking for a reason for doing something is utilitarian. I'm just asking, if you have someone securely locked away where they can't hurt anyone, why would you go a step further and kill them?

A desire, on the part of the relatives of the victim (and perhaps the State itself? if that makes any sense) to 'see justice done'. Justice, in this sense, being more or less equivalent to vengeance, I suppose.

 

[crackerjack]

A desire, on the part of the relatives of the victim (and perhaps the State itself? if that makes any sense) to 'see justice done'.

I also don't like this idea that justice should be primarily tailored to the victim (or relatives of, in the case of murder). It should be for society as a whole, as determined through the laws and the courts.

This, I think, is the case in Sharia and leads to rich murderers being forgiven because their families can pay off the relatives of the victim.

 

[IdleRich]

"A desire, on the part of the relatives of the victim (and perhaps the State itself? if that makes any sense) to 'see justice done'. Justice, in this sense, being more or less equivalent to vengeance, I suppose."

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying really, how do you make the distinction?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I also don't like this idea that justice should be primarily tailored to the victim (or relatives of, in the case of murder). It should be for society as a whole, as determined through the laws and the courts.

This, I think, is the case in Sharia and leads to rich murderers being forgiven because their families can pay off the relatives of the victim.

Hm, in principle I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that the wishes of the victim or his/her relatives should have some bearing on the degree of punishment meted out to the perpetrator. This has been common in lots of cultures (like 'weregild' in Anglo-Saxon or Viking law, whereby a murderer could buy his own life by offering suitable compensation to the bereaved family - although he may well still have been banished or served some severe corporal punishment as well, I'm not sure). The big problem with this, as you say, is that very rich defendants can basically buy a pardon from a poor family. You could also have people acting on behalf of the defendant making threats to get them to drop it (although I guess that can happen anyway in cases where the complainant has the power to drop charges).

I dunno, it's a tricky one. I think there is some case to be made for the wishes of the victim or their representatives to be taken into account in sentencing. This wouldn't necessarily result in aggrieved mothers pleading for the death penalty; in fact you quite often get people saying they forgive the defendant, believe he's genuinely remorseful and can't see any purpose in his being incarcerated. Just a thought.

 

[crackerjack]

Hm, in principle I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that the wishes of the victim or his/her relatives should have some bearing on the degree of punishment meted out to the perpetrator. This has been common in lots of cultures (like 'weregild' in Anglo-Saxon or Viking law, whereby a murderer could buy his own life by offering suitable compensation to the bereaved family - although he may well still have been banished or served some severe corporal punishment as well, I'm not sure). The big problem with this, as you say, is that very rich defendants can basically buy a pardon from a poor family. You could also have people acting on behalf of the defendant making threats to get them to drop it (although I guess that can happen anyway in cases where the complainant has the power to drop charges).

I dunno, it's a tricky one. I think there is some case to be made for the wishes of the victim or their representatives to be taken into account in sentencing. This wouldn't necessarily result in aggrieved mothers pleading for the death penalty; in fact you quite often get people saying they forgive the defendant, believe he's genuinely remorseful and can't see any purpose in his being incarcerated. Just a thought.

But what about those of us with liberal, non-vengeance seeking family? You're putting us at risk man.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But what about those of us with liberal, non-vengeance seeking family? You're putting us at risk man.

Did you not read the last couple of sentences?

Lol, 'sentences'.

 

[IdleRich]

What if the murderer is the family? "Hmm, on due consideration I've decided that in this case the court should show clemency".

 

[Mr. Tea]

What if the murderer is the family? "Hmm, on due consideration I've decided that in this case the court should show clemency".

What, the whole family? I'm picturing mum, dad, grandpa and the kids all chipping in together to bump off a childless, particularly obnoxious and also loaded great-aunt. And good luck to them, I say.

Edit: sounds a bit like the plot of an Ealing comedy.