There have been cases were convicted people were found innocent years later... and then what? Who's fault is it if an innocent person was executed? Should his/her executer be executed as well then?
falloutchik said it beautifully simple and true in only one line: "you should not become the monster to defeat the monster". I agree to that.
I would be for the death penalty in certain cases if there was 100% certainty of guilt, but that's not often the case. If the perpetrator requested death as a sentence I think they should be obliged.
I'm still surprised by the amount of seemingly reasonable people who go all caveman and absolutist in relation to issues like these.
I interpret this poll to be a great argument against democracy.
Execution isn't humane. Euthanasia is. Your argument depends on your definition of justice.
I'm sad to read you're prepared to damn someone and never allow her the chance to redeem herself. Even if they're intelligent and premeditative in their actions, it's nobody's place to deny redemption. Executing brings no opportunity of hope, no opportunity for a good thing to result from a very bad thing.
Otherwise Evil wins.
caz
In addition, in the UK there would be no long, drawn out appeals process. The idea is that it is the Jury who decide guilt, and then at a later point in time the jury also decide on whether to impose the death penalty or life in prison. The idea being that if there were any doubts in the case, the jury would be instructed to go with life in prison. In the event that the death sentence is passed, the punishment would be carried out within 30 days and only the Home Secretary would have the power to grant a stay of execution (e.g. if new evidence emerged).
In terms of potential for miscarriages of justice, not sure if the British model would be any better than a US model, but at least it would be more humane, since its the months and years of waiting on death row which I found the most barbaric aspect of the death penalty.
If proven on both rape and murder, he should get the capital punishment, if the law applies. What do you think?
And that's before we get into whether we actually have a right to make this decision and question whether we can possibly have any moral high ground if we take a life in this manner.
So, in the UK, if a boy of 16 has sex with a girl of 15, then he has committed statutory rape, even though she may have been perfectly willing. He couldn't be convicted of "rape" in any other sense. But it's highly unlikely charges would be brought. Otherwise half the under-16 population in the UK would be in jail. hmmm. Though with Castro's regime, it would reduce the number of teenage pregnancies dramatically.
But if a man of 40 has sex with a girl of 15, then he's in trouble, even if she was perfectly willing, as the law holds that she's not old enough to decide. The greater the age difference, the more serious the crime.
Now, having sex with someone who isn't past puberty is definitely more serious, and probably worthy of the death penalty.
Serial rapists Serial murders Crimes of a heinous and extreme nature
Personally I would support a death penalty in those circumstances. I don't think a multiple child rapist or murderer should have any option for redemption, I think they lose that right the moment they put a child through that level of torture... again and again. I also think we are FAR too soft on hardened criminals now as it stands. Xboxes, TV's, Christmas dinners... you can say that being locked up is punishment in itself, but they should have the most minimal of creature comforts in my opinion. Jail should be something that no-one looks forward to going back to.
It doesnt matter how much you dress it up, the problem is with death there is no way back. So if you enable death as a punishment then everntually someone who doesn't deserve it is going to have their life ended. The possibilities are endless - how about definitely did it but has severe learning difficulties - should they still go ? Just as an example.
Of course this is already in place, in America and a number of other countries and innocent people do die. It's just whether Britain wants to adopt that approach. Of course most of the time the guilt will be 'correct' but because its the one punishment that is irreversible (all the others you can wiggle out of with compensation and the like to the victim of the miscarriage of justice) then you just shouldnt do it.
Mike