Death Sentence [Archive] - Cyber Tech Help Support Forums

TJolly

December 2nd, 2005, 12:11 PM

Hey TJ, the information that I posted was a result of my colleagues collective feedback. Are they wrong?

British Executioner, William Marwood introduced the 'long drop' in the 1800's. He realised that each person required a different drop, based on weight, age and physical condition which would dislocate the cervical vertebrae resulting in instantaneous death. The victim still died of asphyxia but was completely unconscious during the process.

One of the most famous of British Executioners is Albert Pierrepoint. His period in office was between 1932 and 1956. During that time he executed 433 men and 17 women. He was an expert in calculating the 'long drop' and is credited with the quickest hanging on record when he executed James Inglis in only 7 seconds on the 8th of May 1951 at HMP Strangeways, Manchester.

Edit... Maybe your colleagues are getting confused with those people who commit suicide by hanging. Basically they put a noose around their neck and 'kick the chair away' so to speak resulting in their death being somewhat of a long process. Not very nice at all. On the other hand the Executioner has a large knot to his noose. It's the placing of that knot that is important, normally under the left jaw directly below the ear.

Willhippy

December 2nd, 2005, 12:15 PM

So who is the judge in PA? Has anyone ever made a mistake that cost an innocent persons life?
Therre is a trial by jury. Too many appeals, and then more appeals. I don't think there are any mistakes with all the technoligy today and all the appeal processes.

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 12:29 PM

Super Willhippy and what happens if they cannot afford a decent lawyer after their resouces have been drained? Are they stuck with a law clerk?

British Executioner, William Marwood introduced the 'long drop' in the 1800's.

You have to remember TJ that William Marwood was an expert in his field. Check out this (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328201.html) link to study the difference.

Snurfen

December 2nd, 2005, 12:31 PM

It would appear the legal systems in most of the Western world are a farce. Appeals and counter appeals etc are quite ridiculous.

The principle of execution for the taking of innocent life does seem like justice to me. The two big problems I have with it is firstly, where do you make the distinction between an outrage that deserves execution and another that doesn't and secondly, there have been quite a few well documented cases where they plain and simple hung the wrong person.

There are no absolutely right or wrong answers in this argument.

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 12:36 PM

The principle of execution for the taking of innocent life does seem like justice to me

Are you sure Snurfen or are you still having a happy birthday? :D

TJolly

December 2nd, 2005, 12:45 PM

Hi Annie

I don't think that the writer of that article has witnessed any hangings and is writing whilst refering to other official records. Thus, adding the gruesome detail of any botched hanging.

Who is to say that the Executioner in Singapore was not an expert in his field and new exactly what to do?

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 12:53 PM

Nguyen hangman sacked (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17371477-2,00.html)

Not sure but I think he did the job.

TJolly

December 2nd, 2005, 12:57 PM

Getting back to the point of this discussion.

Nguyen Tuong Van took a chance by smuggling drugs within Singapore. He was caught and paid the penalty under the laws of that country. It is common knowledge that this type of crime in Asian countries normally results in the death penalty. If Nguyen did not know this then that is a pity. But, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Annie,

Maybe you should have included a poll in this discussion.

Tj

jililan

December 2nd, 2005, 12:59 PM

I don't believe hanging is the best way to carry out an execution. I believe lethal injection is better. I think execution could help cut down crime if it was used more often. The way it is now a murderer knows there isn't much chance of being executed, if they knew maybe they would think before commiting the crime. Lots of killings are of the heat of the moment type and that should be taken into consideration, but a person who plans a murder (Charles Manson types) should be put to death.

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 01:07 PM

Nguyen Tuong Van took a chance by smuggling drugs within Singapore. He was caught and paid the penalty under the laws of that country. It is common knowledge that this type of crime in Asian countries normally results in the death penalty. If Nguyen did not know this then that is a pity. But, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Yes TJ and I do not really disagree with one word you have said (except for the penalty which in my opinion, has nothing to do the crime)

How many Western counties have a mandatory death sentence for possession of drugs?

Shoot, if this was the case, just in your own country, Kate Moss would have her head on the block (or noose) and we wont talk about the US candidates.

Harrie

December 2nd, 2005, 01:29 PM

I do not know the answer to this. But I'll tell my personal feelings. There was a time when I absolutely did not believe in the death penalty. There was no possible way, no matter what the circumstances. Why, I was even called to jury duty at criminal court long, long ago and they always asked how you felt about it, and when I said how I felt, bang zoom, I was a goner, it was a sure thing I wouldn't be sitting on the jury.

Then I got called again not that long ago. Beforehand, it was interesting, because I knew I had changed. Well, I thought I had changed, but still wasn't quite sure if I could condemn a person to death. I did know it would have to be the most extreme of crimes, it would have to be pre-meditated, not a crime of passion, and well, everything would have to "fit" for me. I suspected that there was only a slight chance I'd vote for the death penalty if such a case came along, but I also knew that this time, I wouldn't say absolutely no, I could never go for it. And that is what I said and what do you know, I was chosen as a possible juror.

So along comes the case. (I think it was unusual in that we got to hear a bit about it before the trial actually started, can't remember why or the details of that.) Oh...my...God. It was unbelievably gruesome, what this man did, and he did it to a child. So funny that after hearing about it, I not only knew I could vote for it, I didn't even have qualms about it. Now, I'm not saying I knew I would have voted for it, but I knew that I could "do it" if all the circumstances were right. I still would have listened to the whole case and I don't know whether I would have or not, but it's possible.

As it turns out, I think the defense could so easily tell, after explaining the case, that this man was going to get the death penalty, that they decided the next day to forego the trial and let the judge handle it. So no jury trial.

I could never do it lightly. I could never do it for the majority of cases. But I can believe it's right for some and I can believe I could do it. Do we have the right to? I really don't know. I don't even pretend to understand God and religion and its teachings.

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 01:52 PM

Harrie, I can understand how you felt (and lets hope that person was truly guilty if they nuked him). But if the crime was possesion of 4.4lbs of marijuana, would you still condemn him to death by hanging?

Yes/No, well how about possession of 396.2 grams of heroin? Paris Hilton would fall over laughing or fall over anyway (or was that Kimberley?)

Harrie

December 2nd, 2005, 01:55 PM

Oh...I should have said, this was witnessed by a crowd of people coming out of a church, in fact! Now why they didn't run over and stop him is another story!

No way, I would never consider the death penalty for anything but murder. Absolutely not.

dammit

December 2nd, 2005, 02:11 PM

Now this IS a justified case!!

http://www.tca2000.co.uk/CRAZY_FROG.jpg ;)

AnnMarie

December 2nd, 2005, 02:14 PM

Ah well, as I said:

All intelligent discussion is invited.

w1che

December 2nd, 2005, 02:42 PM

We all have a Death Sentence... If you don't believe me just look at your childhood pictures & look at a picture you took just last week.. It ain't pretty what's happening... :surprised :evillaugh

lufbra

December 2nd, 2005, 03:03 PM

Yes/No, well how about possession of 396.2 grams of heroin? Paris Hilton would fall over laughing or fall over anyway (or was that Kimberley?)

I don't think anyone here would say that hanging someone for such an offence is right. But as sickening as it may be, if you're going to commit a crime in any country and get caught, you have to take the punishment that that country has, that's what laws are made for, why should a "foreigner" be exempt, which is the reason why this has been made so public. What about those countries whereupon if you're caught stealing you have a hand cut off! What about countries that still have "stoning" as a punishment!

I guess to fully understand the reasons why such countries have these inhumane laws, you'd have to live in that country. As for the laws in those countries, it surely must be up to the people of those countries to vote for stopping such laws, or for a world organization to step in and try stopping them.

TJolly

December 2nd, 2005, 03:09 PM

But if the crime was possesion of 4.4lbs of marijuana, would you still condemn him to death by hanging?

Well, let's also consider the harm and suffering, including death that results in the taking of and being addicted to hard drugs. If you didn't have the smugglers, dealers/pushers etc then this form of suffering including death may not occur.

Maybe the Asians have the right idea in an attempt to deter the use of drugs and us in the West are a little too soft.

Nick Grana

December 2nd, 2005, 04:17 PM

HANGING (http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hanging2.html) Perhaps more than you would want to know, but it pertains to the subject here.

Do innocent people get put to death? Sometimes but other factors include:
Yes, there is a difference between the truly "I had no connection to the murder" cases and "I did it but I got off because of legal error" cases.

Singapore has the highest rate of death per capita with their 'legal' system than any other country.

Does capital punishment deter crime? I think not. A person is going to do what they do without any regard to the consequences.

Yes, there is a difference between the truly "I had no connection to the murder" cases and "I did it but I got off because of legal error" cases.

Crime is the name, money is the game. If you have money, you have a much better chance of getting a better deal. The poor just 'hang' around and await their fate which leads to other matters, like jury selection. Jurors can be stacked, especially for the prosecutor.

Do I believe in the death penalty. Not a cop out, but sometimes it's justified.
Death should only be used to punish for a caused death intentionally.

Hanging is barbaric and is better left to the old horse thieves days.
If one wants another to really suffer, then chop off an arm or leg and let them bleed out.

And speaking of appeals, if the process takes too much time, like 15-20 years, then the execution should not take place when the accused has demonstrated a changed behavior.

God lives in jails and prisons. It seems everyone in there finds Him there.
But if released, most inmates forget where God lived and go to no lengths to find where He really lives.

If it's justified, proper trial recognized, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appeal process runs it's course (reasonable time only), then yes, I believe some should not remain on Earth to commit another crime of that nature ever again.

Will we be always right? Unfortunately, no. But by far, the proper people not deserving to live among humans, should be terminated.

Rant over.:wave:

Snurfen

December 2nd, 2005, 04:31 PM

Well a sensible debate so far. Well done folks.

In places where there is a death sentence on the books - have these crimes that qualify for the sentence stopped or reduced? Probably not.

If you are going to execute someone, surely the quickest way would be firing squad. Gassing, hanging and lethal injection seem to fit the cruel and unusual punishment tag. OK, bullets could miss etc etc, but you know what I'm getting at.

Snurfen

December 2nd, 2005, 05:03 PM

Right, the mogadon has worn off now.

String em all up. Lets watch 'em dance. I'd shoot parking offenders myself.

oracle128

December 2nd, 2005, 05:22 PM

There are actually several issues being debated in this discussion:
1) The death penalty is justifyable under certain circumstances.
2) Van Nguyen should be charged under Singaporean law.
3) Drug smuggling should be an offense punishable by death.
4) Hanging is a humane method of implementing corporal punishment
5) The Crazy Frog should be hanged.

Issue 1: FOR. For crimes that result in the death of one or more others, that are proved not simply 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which in many legal systems simply means most/all jury members concur), but which are determined 100% provable (to be clarified by the law-writers, eg. situations where there are more than a few witnesses, the murder is clearly pre-meditated and/or in cold blood, and for cases where the defendant shows no remorse), then definitely.

The cost of losing such a life are outweighed by the cost of keeping them in prison, and enhanced by the increased deterrance (whether or not that lowers the crime rate is a different story).

Issue 2: FOR. As a visitor/guest of a country, it is your responsibility to know that country's laws. Van Nguyen knew what he was getting in to, and even if by some chance he didn't, he should have. He was doing something that is wrong even here in Aus, but he tried to do it in a police state, and when he gets caught and tried, we Aussies are meant to rally behind him or something like he's an innocent young boy. Bull****. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Issue 3: AGAINST. I've thought a bit about this one, and can't reason to myself why that kind of crime should bring about a death penalty. Drug rehab and a long stay in a federal 'pound me in the ass' prison, being some Singaporean transvestite's biatch, for sure. However, I'm fairly close to the border on this one.

Issue 4: FOR. It is by no means the most humane method of death, but it certainly isn't a 20 minute operation. When you are hanged, one or more of the following can happen (from what I've heared from reputable sources):
-Spinal cord is severed, resulting in unconsciousness, and permanent full paralysis (with current medicine, anyway).
-Major veins/arteries in the neck are broken, resulting in a loss of blood to the brain, causing unconsciousness withing seconds, permanent brain damage a few seconds later, and death within 1-2 minutes.
-Breaking and/or constraining of the Trachea (sp?), causing choking and resulting in loss of consciousness in about 3 mintues, permanent brain damage within about 5 minutes, death at about 7 minutes (from what I remember of first aid, anyway).
-If all the above fail and the being is still consciousness, the pain alone would temporarily paralyse them and probably cause unconsciousness.
They usually happen due to the nature of hanging (eg. kinetic forces on the fragile neck, neck bones breaking into other areas), or as TJolly said the positioning of the knot is important too.

Now, it is possible for some, or even all (this has happened before, at least once that I know of), of the above situations to fail. What happens is then left to loopholes in the law; if the punishment is defined as 'death', they will be hanged again, or another method used. However if the punishment is defined as 'hanging', they may be able to legally argue their way free.

Here's another little fact: someone who has been hanged, even if all of the above do occur, can still be revived and go on to live. However, they'll likely be paralysed from the neck down, and probably have a good amount of permanent brain damage too. In other words, you're better off leaving them to die.

On the logistical side though, I can't see a reason for hanging. It is inefficient, prone to failure, and requires a relatively large amount of preparation. As Snurfen put it, a firing squad might be the most efficient way to execute someone. The cost of the bullets is minimal. However, death by projectile weapon is not as effective, death/unconsciosness doesn't come on as quickly, and this method is also prone to failure.

Issue 5: AGAINST. Hanging is too good for that damned frog. The little b@stard needs to be tortured, then stabbed repeatedly, ensuring to leave vital organs for last. Anyone who's seen a re-enactment of Caeser being overthrown by the senate will know how inhumane that can be.

EDIT: As for the debate going on between TJolly and AnnMarie, the link AM gave was definitely written with a bias, and thus cannot be relied on for a true source. Also, I was under the impression the executioner was fired because his identity was revealed?

TJolly

December 2nd, 2005, 06:42 PM

Here's another little fact: someone who has been hanged, even if all of the above do occur, can still be revived and go on to live.

Wouldn't have happened in the Uk when hanging was in place. Part of the sentencing speech by a Judge was, 'You will be hung from the neck until you are dead'.

Willhippy

December 2nd, 2005, 08:23 PM

There is always a lawyer who will take the case. We have had cases where people with money got off (OJ) I believe in the system. I think if they used it more it might stop some of the deaths of children.

z1p

December 2nd, 2005, 09:31 PM

If you are going to execute someone, surely the quickest way would be firing squad. Gassing, hanging and lethal injection seem to fit the cruel and unusual punishment tag. OK, bullets could miss etc etc, but you know what I'm getting at.Why do you think "lethal injection seem to fit the cruel and unusual punishment tag."? It seems that it is one of the more humane means and most likely the least error prone. A firing squad seems a bit dramatic in my view, though in some cases appropriate.

Do I believe in capital punishment? I have 3 children... when I hear what happens to other children and think of mine, I'd have to say yes.

Do I think Singapore's law is extreme? Yes, but it is a known risk for someone that chooses to smuggle drugs through the country.

Pi rules

December 2nd, 2005, 10:30 PM

I really do not agree with the death sentence. I don't think that killing someone can be justified for whatever crime they may have committed. I could maybe understand it if there was an extremely dangerous person who could somehow escape from even the highest-security prison and go out and kill hundreds more people each time. I just don't like the idea of taking someone's life just because that person did something wrong. Nearly everyone has an idea of right/wrong, and a possibility for change. Some people might not due to their brain chemistry or something, so they should be put somewhere where they can neither harm nor be harmed; they shouldn't be killed for doing something they don't/can't think is wrong (you know what I mean, I just didn't say it well after two tests in two AP classes).

Why do you think "lethal injection seem to fit the cruel and unusual punishment tag."? It seems that it is one of the more humane means and most likely the least error prone. A firing squad seems a bit dramatic in my view, though in some cases appropriate.
I really don't consider lethal injection humane (no offense meant, and I'm not trying to say I'm right). It may be the most humane out of what I consider all inhumane acts, but I still don't really like it. I still couldn't imagine making one mistake and ending up waiting to be executed, knowing the exact day and time I'm going to be killed by another person. That would be a pretty bad nightmare if you ask me.

uripyores

December 2nd, 2005, 11:18 PM

[imo]
Hanging is barbaric as are all forms of capital punishment. The only excuse for implementing it is revenge. And as for hanging for smuggling drugs, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. It has been done away with here in the UK partly due to the fact that several 'later proved to be innocent' people had been hanged. This continues in many other "civilised" countries.
Furthermore, if I wanted someone punished harshly, I would rather they were kept in prison forever.....seems a lot worse than hanging to me.
So, definately against capital punishment.

dammit

December 2nd, 2005, 11:40 PM

That would be a pretty bad nightmare if you ask me.

GOOD!! Surely people that have commited hideous pre meditated crimes shouldn't expect anything else!!!!

I still agree with my first post

I beleive in capital punishment for proven beyond any doubt pre-meditated murder..by whatever method. Some methods may seem a bit barbaric in this day and age though I do agree.

The "beyond reasonable doubt" has always worried me. There have been instancies of innocent people being put to death..
__________________

As for drug related offencies.. in other countries .. a big NO.

lufbra

December 3rd, 2005, 01:22 AM

I don't think that killing someone can be justified for whatever crime they may have committed.

Tell that to the family of the 11 year old Florida girl, who was abducted, raped and brutally murdered, by a man who was just awarded the death penalty from the same jury who found him guilty without any doubt!!

Pi rules

December 3rd, 2005, 01:29 AM

Tell that to the family of the 11 year old Florida girl, who was abducted, raped and brutally murdered, by a man who was just awarded the death penalty from the same jury who found him guilty without any doubt!!
I know. Crimes like that absolutely disgust me completely, but I still think that people who do terrible things like that should get life in prison, or possibly out early if they have some astonishing turnaround if the family agrees. I still don't consider it right to exchange 1 life for another.

GOOD!! Surely people that have commited hideous pre meditated crimes shouldn't expect anything else!!!!
I see your point, but I was trying to say that, while it may be a deterrant to people like me, most who consider it a deterrant wouldn't ever conceive of ever harming or killing anyone. I was more going for a little sympathy for what no human should go through, even if that human made someone else go through something worse.

uripyores

December 3rd, 2005, 01:36 AM

Tell that to the family of the 11 year old Florida girl, who was abducted, raped and brutally murdered, by a man who was just awarded the death penalty from the same jury who found him guilty without any doubt!!Personally I can understand the need for revenge, but for me a better revenge would be to lock him up forever.....without the soft privileges they all seem to get.:eek:

As for people like the murderer of John Lennon, they should never get any publicity or even be named. Just give them a number, lock 'em up and forget 'em. I reckon that would stop that type of fame-seeking murderer.

z1p

December 3rd, 2005, 02:15 AM

I see your point, but I was trying to say that, while it may be a deterrant to people like me, most who consider it a deterrant wouldn't ever conceive of ever harming or killing anyone. I was more going for a little sympathy for what no human should go through, even if that human made someone else go through something worse.But for the person that is executed its the ultimate deterent. You can be sure they never commit such a hideous crime. Personally, I think the convicted criminals get to many rights privileges (at least in this country). The should not me mistreated, but they should not expect to live a life of comfort. And as far those that have commited hideous crimes (beyond a doubt) they should not be allowed to burden society.

BuzWeaver

December 3rd, 2005, 03:19 AM

Typically the Chinese execute people via firing squad, however since they wouldn’t be able to charge the family for the bullet (receive payment), they hung Mr. Nguyen Tuong Van instead.

uripyores

December 3rd, 2005, 03:39 AM

Typically the Chinese execute people via firing squad, however since they wouldn’t be able to charge the family for the bullet (receive payment), they hung Mr. Nguyen Tuong Van instead.He was hanged in Singapore by the Malaysians I think, a good distance from China; he and his family were Australians so I would imagine although maybe not rich, they were not poor peasants.

lufbra

December 3rd, 2005, 03:47 AM

I know. Crimes like that absolutely disgust me completely, but I still think that people who do terrible things like that should get life in prison, or possibly out early if they have some astonishing turnaround if the family agrees. I still don't consider it right to exchange 1 life for another.

Personally I can understand the need for revenge, but for me a better revenge would be to lock him up forever

I'm sorry, but to me this attitude is totally wrong. A person commits a hideous crime and you say he/she should be just locked up. Just think how much this is going to cost the likes of you and I to pay for his/her being locked up.......bare in mind that because of the hideousness (if that's such a word), he/she would have to be in a tight security set up, cos we all know how prisoners feel about such crimes. So basically, although the offender is behind bars, he/she's going to "supposedly" get the best security that can be given in order to keep him/her alive. Plus the fact that he/she will be fed and treated better than many folks out in the real world, at the tax payers expense!!!

So it all boils down to this, the offender does his/her evil, and you're pretty much giving him/her a slap on the wrist, have you ever even considered the side of the "victims"?

The death penalty is made for a reason, if this guy in Florida wasn't awarded it (and bare in mind that during the court case it was proved beyond any doubt, heck, he even admitted to it), what would be the point of having a death penalty law?

uripyores

December 3rd, 2005, 04:07 AM

Yeah well, I see the need for something to be done, I just don't think it's fundamentally right to kill in revenge.
There should be an alternative, maybe in this florida case it's proved etc etc but how many times have they been wrong in the past [and in those cases they were convinced of the guilt]....nothing can justify executing the wrong person and there's only one way to be sure.
I don't consider locking someone away in a cell forever a "slap on the wrist" by any means...better to be executed but I agree they shouldn't have it so easy in jail.

I do consider the victims, of course. If I was one, or a relative, I would like the person to be locked up forever with no parole...the cost would make hardly any difference to taxes.

oracle128

December 3rd, 2005, 04:46 AM

He was hanged in Singapore by the Malaysians I think, a good distance from China; he and his family were Australians so I would imagine although maybe not rich, they were not poor peasants.True that Singapore != China. I don't know if they do use a firing squad, and then charge the cost of the bullet/s to the family, but assuming they do, I think BuzWeaver was referring to Van Nguyen's family being out of Singapore's jurisdiction, thus they couldn't charge them for the bullet.
But for the person that is executed its the ultimate deterent. You can be sure they never commit such a hideous crime. Personally, I think the convicted criminals get to many rights privileges (at least in this country). The should not me mistreated, but they should not expect to live a life of comfort. And as far those that have commited hideous crimes (beyond a doubt) they should not be allowed to burden society.Agreed.
I do consider the victims, of course. If I was one, or a relative, I would like the person to be locked up forever with no parole...the cost would make hardly any difference to taxes.It's difficult to imagine what it would be like to be in that situation, but as for the difference in taxes...well it depends on the country's population, and how liberally the death penalty is used, but surely the savings would run into the millions of dollars. Then there's also the emotional relief given; family of victims, I imagine, would much rather see the murderer brought to death, than have them be a continuing burden to society, even if the 'burden' only works out to be a few cents per person (of course governments wouldn't lower the taxes because of this, they'd just take more for themselves).

I'm still waiting for someone to challenge me on my earlier arguments. Surely someone has seen something wrong with what I said, considering I didn't bother reasearching any of it.

BuzWeaver

December 4th, 2005, 12:13 AM

dammit

December 4th, 2005, 12:23 AM

AnnMarie started this thread... and has her own opinions.. have any of your opinions changed with the replies AM? Not exactly sure what they were in the first place.

Snurfen

December 4th, 2005, 12:46 AM

Dunno about how AM feels, but I've certainly found it interesting hearing them.
I'd like to hear any views of people who have been directly involved. The post about being on a jury was enlightening.

AnnMarie

December 4th, 2005, 12:47 AM

Hi dammit, it has been very interesting to read everyones responses and I have to congratulate everyone for keeping their cool. It can be a very emotional issue.

Some really good arguments have been stated and I respect everyone's point of view but I still have some problems with the thought of killing another human being, irrespective of the crime. I also find it especially difficult to accept as a reasonable punishment in the case of drug possession.

Perhaps in the case of a premeditated and/or very brutal murder and the person had confessed (prior to trial), I could accept it but when the decision rests with a jury, no. Juries have been wrong so many times that it does not sit comfortably with me. Of course if that was the case, no-one would ever confess but when this does happen, they very often get "Life" rather than a "Death sentence" There seem to be anomalies that are hard to reconcile.

uripyores

December 4th, 2005, 01:37 AM

There has also been a few executions of people who had confessed, for whatever reason, but later discovered to be false. Too late of course.:eek:

Vercades

December 4th, 2005, 02:04 AM

I believe the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth concept. It's in bibles though..

The way I see it is if you have forensic science proving that your DNA is around the victim or is the missing link to the crime then you should be sentenced on deathrow or life in prison. Death penalty should only be considered if the person convicted has done more then enough crimes in society murder, serial killings. Of if the criminal hanged the victims, he should be treated to the same.

These sentences aren't carried out swiftly as I hear it usually takes months if not years to fully instate the death penalty. If it were me, I'd punish them with the same the convict did to the victim.

Punishment isn't the real problem or issue, it's trying to know who's guilty or not is what really matters.

uripyores

December 4th, 2005, 02:14 AM

Here's a story about DNA.
In the UK if you are charged with a motoring offence [and presumably any real crime too] they take a DNA swab for their records.
Sometime over the following months they have it checked against their database of DNA evidence collected at crime scenes and one would assume any match would leave no doubt as to the guilt thereof.
Well, I had a collision in a car and ended up being done for careless something or other. [complete fit-up, but thats a different story] They did the swab thingy on me which I took little, if any, interest in.
Ha, three months later I had three huge CID cops from Tottenham knocking [hah!] at my door, took me off to the local cop shop, and told me my DNA had been found on cigarette butts [I don't smoke] in a warehouse where a robbery occurred a few years previously in London. They told me they only wanted to "clear the books" and would not be charging me with the robbery.....whether this was their interrogation technique I don't know, but when I was able to convince them that I had been living over three hundred miles away from the warehouse in question for the last ten years they just about believed me. I was so lucky I was able to prove my whereabouts at the time it happened or I would probably be writing this from jail.

I have a fear of false allegations and how easy they can be made to look true.

lufbra

December 4th, 2005, 02:46 AM

I still have some problems with the thought of killing another human being

I think we all have problems with this situation, and heck, nothing like this is an easy decision/choice of what to do that may be right.......In fact, whatever's decided, it's probably not right. But while still having problems with the thought of killing another human being, consider the human being who's life was taken away so drastically. That human being had no choice, he/she didn't face a court jury to determine his/her outcome!

Do you have any other alternative to having a jury decide upon someone's future after commiting a crime? I've never done jury service, and probably never will so long as I stay living in the US and not being a citizen. But I can just imagine what kind of thoughts Harrie went through, and the same for anyone else, it must be one of the hardest things to deal with. Having said this, a jury is a group of folks that are basically "picked off the street", simply because they are like you or anyone else who posted here, meaning they have their own opinions on such things like this. To be honest, I really can't see any other way that's fair, of having folks deciding upon another human beings fate.

As for making mistakes, yeah I agree there has been mistakes along the way, but that's life (pardon the pun), there's mistakes in everything we all do as human beings, and many Lawyers chomp at the bit for such mistakes. Having said this, the Florida guy who was awarded the death penalty this past week (it's not a final decision yet, it was the choice of the jury, but still remains as being up to the Judge to choose if the decision was right or wrong) will probably live on death row for numerous years, plenty of time for evidence to crop up that could possibly "get him off the hook". It's not like he's be awarded the death penalty, and a few days later he's put to death.

Nick Grana

December 4th, 2005, 05:34 AM

I believe the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth concept. It's in bibles though..
Can't go there, man. Too many contradictions. Vengeance is Mine and turn the other cheek and so on and so on.....One excerpt from the bible can not be taken without taking the whole book into consideration. Context you know.

Maybe that would be an alternative to death. Have the perpetrator convicted for life and make him/her memorize the bible. They will have plenty of time to do this and be rewarded slightly with every progressive step they make.
Well, some were asking for alternatives, right?
Just a random thought.:blush:

P.S. I venture to say nothing is these fine posts will change any minds.
Some Right to Life people kill for their convictions. Been done twice here in my home town.

A mind may be changed if it happens to you or yours and even then the conviction is so strong, some will forgive before a life is taken.

Great thread, AnnMarie. Very thought provoking.:michaelan

Vercades

December 4th, 2005, 06:29 AM

Can't go there, man. Too many contradictions. Vengeance is Mine and turn the other cheek and so on and so on.....One excerpt from the bible can not be taken without taking the whole book into consideration. Context you know.

I said Bibles. ;)

bAdWaYz

December 4th, 2005, 07:43 AM

To me there are way worse things than death in this world. So if you really wanted a person to suffer for a crime why kill them? I recall reading a history of the prison system in the UK where if they caught you stealing from the kings garden they would bash your teeth out with a hammer. Then on top of that they would parade you about the town and let the locals throw things at you. So do I believe in a sentence of death? The answer is no because its not very creative and it doesn't give the person that did the crime time to refelct on his or her mistake. Trust me if they bashed your teeth out with a hammer, dressed you in a funny hat and drug you around town you would think about things the whole time.

oracle128

December 4th, 2005, 09:59 AM

Here's a story about DNA...The thing about DNA is, we need a better testing method, and we need law enforcement to be better educated on what exactly DNA evidence can and can't give. Just because your DNA was at the crime scene doesn't mean that's evidence of you committing the crime, that part is obvious. What isn't so obvious to people is the accuracy of DNA testing. There's a reason tests usually end up as being a "99% chance of a match", and that's because DNA testing isn't 100% accurate. When you have a global database of, say, 10 million people's DNA, the chances are pretty slim that you'll accidentally end up charging the wrong person because their DNA is 99% similar to the crime scene sample, and they live within a feasible distance from the crime scene. Slim enough to charge someome with.

But when you start to get governments who want everybody's DNA on a database, the chances of charging an innocent person multiplies. So if you're on a jury, don't let the words "99% match" fool you into thinking that's pretty good evidence, because when you consider the 6.5+ billion people on earth, "99% match" doesn't quite cut it.

Acrobaze

December 4th, 2005, 11:19 AM

Snurfen

December 4th, 2005, 01:34 PM

I believe that in all our Western countries, the law doen't allow anyone to kill. If you kill, that's called a murder.
Then how the law could allow itself to kill ? With the death penalty, the law becomes itself a murderer. It is not better than that who it condemns.
"Eye for eye, touth for touth"...They are the considerations of ancient people. Don' forget that us, we are now in the 21th century. We say that some are savages because they apply the sharia...

Hear hear. Well said Acro. Taking of life is murder, unless it is to end suffering.

I believe a Doctor has to be present at an execution for various reasons. Surely that contradicts the Hypocratic oath?

lufbra

December 4th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Taking of life is murder, unless it is to end suffering.

Oh I see, you're now setting a standard for what's considered murder and what isn't murder. So your saying it's fair to end someone's life who is suffering, but for someone who brutally murders another person causing much suffering to that person before he/she dies, just gets sent to jail, lives the rest of his/her life eating three square meals a day, exercises each day, and does lord knows what other "freedom" things can be done in a prison.

Ending someones life who is suffering : Remember Terri Schiavo earlier this year? What did they do to end her life? What they didn't do was give her a lethal injection that would have killed her almost instantly. No, they unplugged everything so's that she could die "of natural causes". Can you just imagine what suffering she went through after everything was shut down!!

I'm not saying that Terri shouldn't have been put to sleep, in fact I agree that a suffering life should be ended, but it's the callous way that it was done, leaving her to suffer her last few hours rather than ending her life quickly once it was determined she should die.

To be honest, I don't think there should be a comparison between someone commiting a murder, and someone being put to sleep for suffering. To me both scenario's are totally different.

Snurfen

December 4th, 2005, 03:29 PM

Oh I see, you're now setting a standard for what's considered murder and what isn't murder. So your saying it's fair to end someone's life who is suffering, but for someone

No. I'm giving my personal view.

I had an uncle who led a full and honourable life and died a slow protracted death in great suffering. The look in that man's eyes coloured my personal feeling on the matter.

Thank goodness I'm not in the position of a law maker or ethical guardian. It's decisions such as those described throughout this thread that to me are the most difficult to pass judgement on.

Each must make their own judgement and live with the cosequences.

Ned Seagoon

December 4th, 2005, 04:09 PM

I believe that no one has the right to take another's life. If society kills its criminals, then society (that means you and me, folks) is no better than the criminals that are killed.

I have similar thought about going to war for peace.

One might just as well bonk for chastity.

It just doesn't add up folks.

DELTREE

December 4th, 2005, 04:23 PM

The way I look at it is: If a person murder's a child, I don't care if they drop them from a 20 story building on their head.
Killing and murder are two different things.
Hanging them in different cases is to good for them.

I believe that no one has the right to take another's life. If society kills its criminals, then society (that means you and me, folks) is no better than the criminals that are killed. I don't understand this kind of thinking???

The sooner we get them out of this world the better off we are!
Have a great day!

TJolly

December 4th, 2005, 04:27 PM

Acrobaze:

Then how the law could allow itself to kill ? With the death penalty, the law becomes itself a murderer. It is not better than that who it condemns.

UK definition of murder as I know/knew it:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied and death occuring within a year and a day.

Important word is unlawful. The sentence of a court is lawful so they can't be classed as a murderer.

A person who kills in self defence cannot be classed as a murderer. Depending on the circumstances this could be classed as a lawful killing.

During war the killing of an enemy is not classed as murder. That is why 'Under the Queen's peace' is included in the definition.

Malice aforethought is the intention to kill.

'Death occuring within a year and a day' was abolished a few years ago.

The sentence for murder in the uk is life imprisonment and the judge cannot give any other sentence. However, he/she can recommend the minimum period of time that should be served in prison before the murderer is released on licence.

oracle128:

The thing about DNA is, we need a better testing method, and we need law enforcement to be better educated on what exactly DNA evidence can and can't give.

This is the only testing method presently available that is accepted by a court. The odds for using DNA evidence is extremely high, thousands and thousands to one for another person to have the same DNA as someone else. It has also been quoted as being billions to one which is far more than the worlds present population.

By law enforcement I presume you mean, Police. The Police do not have to be better educated. It is not they who prove/disprove the DNA evidence. This is done by the Forensic Scientists. In any case DNA evidence without corroboration is insufficient evidence to convict. Something else has to be there. Therefore nobody can be convicted on DNA evidence alone.

renegade600

December 4th, 2005, 04:50 PM

I believe in the death penality also but only after guilt is proven without a shadow of a doubt. In the states there are innocent people sitting on death row because of the rules of evidence. There have been too many cases where innocent are set free because of dna testing. There are other cases out there where there were witnesses on the defense side that were not allowed to testify for one reason or another.

Personally I think there should be one more step in the appeals process. I believe some panel should look at the jury trial and any and all evidence that were not allowed in the trial before a person is put to death.

As far as this specific case, if the knot is place right in the throat, hanging would not be a cruel punishment. It would be quick, however most countries that have hangings do not have a hangman that is experience enough to prevent a cruel punishment. That said, I am glad some guilty will get a long and painful prelue to death. They deserved that.

oracle128

December 4th, 2005, 04:52 PM

The odds for using DNA evidence is extremely high, thousands and thousands to one for another person to have the same DNA as someone else. It has also been quoted as being billions to one which is far more than the worlds present population.I have no doubt that the possibility of one person having the same DNA as another are many billions to one. There are, after all, so many possible combinations of DNA. The problem is that the current method of DNA testing isn't 100% accurate; the possiblity of one person having identical DNA to another may be in the billions to one, but the possibility of 2 people being 99% similar significantly heighten the possbility of having the wrong person, even less for 98% or 95%, which often happen. The current method of DNA testing doesn't determine whether or not 2 samples are a match or not, they generate a probability that one may be the same as the other.
By law enforcement I presume you mean, Police.
As for 'law enforcement', that includes both government law enforcement parties (CIA, military, ASIS) and civillian law enforcement (police, judges, and even juries could be classified as law enforcement for the duration of their jury duty).
In any case DNA evidence without corroboration is insufficient evidence to convict. Something else has to be there. Therefore nobody can be convicted on DNA evidence alone.
While that's true, there is no doubt that having a forensic scientist testify the results of DNA samples would incorrectly persuade decision makers, unless they are educated on all the relevant probabilities and unreliability of the methods used for such "evidence", and that doesn't just apply to DNA as evidence.

Polygraphs have long been determined unfit to act as evidence in any trial because of their lack of reliability, and yet DNA, being as unreliable as it is, is accepted. That's where something needs to change.

Snurfen

December 4th, 2005, 05:07 PM

DNA testing is just one tool used to try and unravel a sequence of events.
Loads of other evidence should be taken into account in each case.

Oracle, if your dad wore your coat into a room, it is reasonable to expect that when he took it off, some of your skin particles and strands of hair, as well as some bodily secretions would be transferred to that location.

"Expert" witnesses are often discredited after the event. Bit of a horror if some poor innocent has done the long drop on the "experts" evidence alone.

uripyores

December 4th, 2005, 05:25 PM

.....could be classed as a lawful killing.It may be "legal/lawful" but is it morally justified? Maybe - maybe not.
Not being religious myself, but weren't the ten commandments a form of law.....I don't think it says "though shalt not kill [not murder] ....unless they do it first"
With self-defence the circumstances are out of your control; likewise in war so I would personally consider that acceptable. For the worst possible kind of murders and when there is one hundred percent no doubt and no remorse, then it would seem the best action for everyone would be to rid the world of the person. Maybe if they were sentenced to death sometime in the following year and gassed one night in their sleep it would be more humane.
Don't think that I'm soft on crime blah blah etc.....it simply serves no purpose to torture or kill people in the way they do presently. The odds for using DNA evidence is extremely high, thousands and thousands to one for another person to have the same DNA as someone else. It has also been quoted as being billions to one which is far more than the worlds present population.So in my case [as in my other post] do you think someone made a mistake somewhere with my DNA or do I have a double???? [At that time I overheard the police seriously criticizing the reliability of DNA evidence]

I couldn't ever be in favour of execution for drug smuggling or drug use. [note:I am not in favour of allowing smuggling either]

Snurfen

December 4th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Not being religious myself, but weren't the ten commandments a form of law.....I don't think it says "though shalt not kill [not murder] ....unless they do it first"

Great point uri.
Funny how the places in the West where executions are common, also purpote to be very Christian. Dubya plays the God card a lot, yet he seems keen to put the ink on death warrants.

TJolly

December 4th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Very true Snurfen and well said.

The problem with DNA is the possibility of cross contamination. Nobody can say for definate where the cell originally came from.

As for 'law enforcement', that includes both government law enforcement parties (CIA, military, ASIS) and civillian law enforcement (police, judges, and even juries could be classified as law enforcement for the duration of their jury duty).

While that's true, there is no doubt that having a forensic scientist testify the results of DNA samples would incorrectly persuade decision makers, unless they are educated on all the relevant probabilities and unreliability of the methods used for such "evidence", and that doesn't just apply to DNA as evidence.

The education process during a trial is the job of the Barristers. That's what they get paid to do. The prosecution Barrister for example, relies upon the DNA evidence and the defence attempt to discredit. It is then the decision of the juror to decide on whether he/she accepts the DNA evidence.

Nobody else but a qualified Scientist can give the evidence. He/She is the 'expert witness' in that field. I believe that you may be unknowingly discriminating. Put simply, my interpretation of what you are saying is that people will always believe the smartly dressed, clean shaven and articulate witness other than to believe the scruffy/untidy inarticulate witness or vice versa. Just because the witness happens to be a Scientist does not make any diference at all. It's the quality of the evidence given that counts.

DNA is not always accepted. Sometimes it is discredited and that has happened on numerous occasions. Nobody has said that it is 100 per cent accurate, but it is a tool that can be used to corroborate another piece of evidence. It has also been used to prove a persons innocence. Therefore, at this moment in time it's here to stay until something better comes along or someone proves it to be totally unreliable.

TJolly

December 4th, 2005, 06:09 PM

uripyores:

So in my case [as in my other post] do you think someone made a mistake somewhere with my DNA or do I have a double???? [At that time I overheard the police seriously criticizing the reliability of DNA evidence]

I can't comment upon that because I do not know the full circumstances of that particular investigation.

uripyores

December 4th, 2005, 06:31 PM

I can't comment upon that because I do not know the full circumstances of that particular investigation.
He he, are you a solicitor or a politician?:D

TJolly

December 4th, 2005, 06:32 PM

Neither

Nick Grana

December 4th, 2005, 06:50 PM

Not being religious myself, but weren't the ten commandments a form of law.....I don't think it says "though shalt not kill [not murder] ....unless they do it first":rotflmao:
So you see how this if futile. No one will change their minds.
My fav, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...except do it first."
So in a murder case (which I believe capital punishment is called for) the murderer gets to do it first. But then we have a responsiblity to "do it first" to not allow this to ever happen again.;)

Next....

oracle128

December 4th, 2005, 06:55 PM

Funny how the places in the West where executions are common, also purpote to be very Christian. Dubya plays the God card a lot, yet he seems keen to put the ink on death warrants.Before the capture of Saddam, Iraqis were executed too, and most of the time they weren't even criminals. I don't think Iraq is a very Christian country though. However, that doesn't mean Dubya isn't a moron.
Not being religious myself, but weren't the ten commandments a form of law.....I don't think it says "though shalt not kill [not murder] ....unless they do it first"
With self-defence the circumstances are out of your control; likewise in war so I would personally consider that acceptable.It's simple - we all live by a moral code, and with that code comes the chance we will at some point have to prioritize our morals where this is a conflict (even moral codes are prone to ambiguity). Here's a scenario that I once saw suggest during a talk on ethics, it's not word for word but you can get the gist of it:
Two students are sitting in chairs, among others, listening to the speaker. The speaker then shapes his hand into a gun, and looks at Student A.
Spkr: "Let's say I come into the room and say to you, 'Tell me where Student B is, I'm going to kill him. What do you say?"
Stdnt A: "I don't know where he is."
Spkr: "Exactly, correct. But then, you've just broken a broken a moral code, that lying is wrong, and you've lied to me. And yet, that is acceptable. Why? Because you've prioritized your ethics. You've broken your ethical code and lied to me, but you did it to save the life of another person, which has a higher priority than not lying to people."

That's one of the things that I remember from a talk given by some professor of ethics in the field of computer science, unfortunately I can't remember his name or his position. Don't know if you can relate that to the death penalty, but interesting nevertheless.

EDIT:Do unto others as you would have them do unto youThere's something I didn't think of. Even the 10 commandments can result in conflict and ambiguity. Does that commandment thus make it acceptable to kill a killer? What about the killers of the killer? Where does it end? How does one prioritize the moral rules thrown upon us by a supposedly perfect entity? Also consider Isaac Asimov's 3 'perfect' laws of robotics, they too suffer from many flaws, as those who've seen/read "I, Robot" would know.

END EDIT

Nobody else but a qualified Scientist can give the evidence. He/She is the 'expert witness' in that field. I believe that you may be unknowingly discriminating. Put simply, my interpretation of what you are saying is that people will always believe the smartly dressed, clean shaven and articulate witness other than to believe the scruffy/untidy inarticulate witness or vice versa. Just because the witness happens to be a Scientist does not make any diference at all. It's the quality of the evidence given that counts.That's exactly the problem; they're deemed to be an 'expert' in their field, which influences decision makers, who wouldn't see past their credentials to notice the huge inaccuracy of DNA testing. Discrimination? Not on my part, but probably.

Let's say you interview two people for a job, they both have exactly the same abilities, personality, etc, but one comes in wearing a fancy business suit, and another comes dressed in rags. Which one are you going to hire? Of course that's discrimination, but it's a fact of life. Substance is important, but appearance always plays a part, even subconsciously. If it didn't, we wouldn't live in a society that actually values appearance over substance.
DNA is not always accepted. Sometimes it is discredited and that has happened on numerous occasions. Nobody has said that it is 100 per cent accurate, but it is a tool that can be used to corroborate another piece of evidence. It has also been used to prove a persons innocence. Therefore, at this moment in time it's here to stay until something better comes along or someone proves it to be totally unreliable.That's what they said about Polygraphs, too, until common sense came along, and word got out about how stupidly unreliable they were. However, I must admit you have to draw the line somewhere. Even supposedly 'hard' evidence can't be 100% accurate.

Miz

December 4th, 2005, 07:53 PM

Using the Bible to support an argument is dangerous. The Bible says a lot of things and it's not difficult to cherry pick enough passages to support practically any argument put forth.

While the ten commandments don't address criminal punishment, there are plenty of passages in the Bible that do. In the Old Testament, which is where the ten commandments are found, there were two approved punishments for crime...restitution and death. There were no other choices.

In Old Testament days the death sentence was a sentence carried out not by society but by the individual members of that society. Stoning was the method of choice. In order for that to happen, people had to show up to throw the stones. Executing criminals required personal participation. (Crucifixion was a Roman innovation).

In western socieites, executions are carried out in private, removed from the public eye and, therefore, from the public conciousness and conscience. Approving of something that has a small chance of affecting you personally is generally quite easy.

We Americans also have the leisure to debate the moral issue of the death penalty. Spending tens of thousands of dollars per year per convict ($40,000 per year is the last figure I saw) to keep them imprisoned for life while society wrestles with the issue does not threaten our economic well-being. We can afford to keep debating.

So, to me the real question is: If a society can afford to keep criminals incarcerated for life, should it have a death penalty?

I believe that if Americans had faith in their criminal justice system; i.e., that people who commit the most heinous crimes would be incarcerated for life with no chance for release in any way, shape or form; eliminating the death penalty would most likely happen. In my opinion, Americans have no such faith and support of the death penalty continues.

I also believe that life imprisonment is a far worse punishment than death. Think about living the rest of your life in a cage. Every minute of every day until the day you die guarded, watched, regulated and out of your control. If you don't think that's a fate worse than death, try it for a week in the comfort of your own home...if you can find somebody willing to act as jailor, that is.

Please note that I have not said whether I was in favor of the death sentence so railing at me for supporting it or not supporting it is pointless. ;)

Nick Grana

December 4th, 2005, 09:55 PM

I believe that if Americans had faith in their criminal justice system; i.e., that people who commit the most heinous crimes would be incarcerated for life with no chance for release in any way, shape or form; eliminating the death penalty would most likely happen. In my opinion, Americans have no such faith and support of the death penalty continues.

I'm afraid, Miz, that the above has nothing to do with the death penalty and having faith in the criminal justice system. We have faith, most times, in the system but it also gets flawed sometimes as does anything else. For the pro-death penalty, that faith assures one that everything was done right and the guilty is processed by whatever means.:dizzy:
The anti-death have the same faith in the system but just take a different view as to what the guilty should get as a penalty.:dizzy:
Please note that I have not said whether I was in favor of the death sentence so railing at me for supporting it or not supporting it is pointless. ;)
Oh, but from your remarks I have a pretty good idea. Right or wrong, it's just my opinion and I wouldn't for a moment try to get in your head to prove myself right or wrong.;)
This is almost driving me to drinking again......NOT.:michaelan (almost 8 years now)
Flame me, baby, I can take it.;)

Loved your statements on the bible and commandments. (trying to ease my blow.:michaelan)

Miz

December 4th, 2005, 11:17 PM

If you have decided that I am either in favor of or against the death penalty, you decided wrong. ;)

I haven't taken a position on the issue that lasts more than a few weeks, at most. I can see and understand both sides of the issue and both sides have valid points.

"Kill the worst of the worst and remove all possibility they will kill or rape or torture or assault or whatever again" is easy enough to say and even believe in so long as you never expect to know anyone sentenced to death or have to have any personal involvement in the execution.

"It's not right to take a life no matter what they've done" is also easy to say when it's not your father, mother, brother, sister, good friend or anyone you know who was brutally tortured, raped, butchered or otherwise deprived of the life they knew.

So I'm one of those people unable to take a hard and fast stand on a couple of difficult social issues...the death penalty being one of them.

dammit

December 4th, 2005, 11:39 PM