I'm against the death penalty

JonnyHistory said:
Because you can't make exceptions for individual cases, justice should not be selective.

Murder is murder, wether done by the public or the state. Yes we can try and create a moral argument (eye for eye) but ultimately you are still taking a life. The UK has killed innocent people in the name of justice, as has every other state with capital punishment. Just that risk, that innocents will be put to death is enough for me to warrant not being a capital punishment country.
Click to expand...
Do you think soldiers fighting in a war are murderers?
 
indeedido said:
I do largely accept it not to be a deterrent.
But I also don't believe the 2 people in the OP can or will be rehabilitated.
Or deserve the opportunity to be so.

I do accept that mistakes were made in the past and accept mistakes night be possible in the future.
But there are different penalties and sentences for different definitions/categories of serious crimes.
I ask again why with complete proof of guilt and the obscene extent of their crimes, why could these people not be executed.

atypical's answer intrigues me. They don't deserve to be executed; far tougher to leave them together in an empty room to talk only of what they did.
By definition it leans toward giving them the cruellest penalty.

As I say I struggle to be definitive about the Death Penalty.
Click to expand...
Any conviction is supposed to be done with complete proof. That's what justice is, however it is not perfect and mistakes do and have happened.

As my mum used to say as well on this topic, it's worse they sit and contemplate what they've done with their liberty stripped away than give them a quick out.

But for me, morals and selective justice aside, from a utilitarian point of view we should not risk killing innocents and history has shown with capital punishment that will inevitably happen.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Do you think soldiers fighting in a war are murderers?
Click to expand...
That's a complicated one, they are committing murders but to define them as murderers would be a difficult case to make. They are a weapon of the state so ultimately it would the state responsible not the individuals.

War and justice are different but intertwined subjects and that debate is very complex. I do not think the equivalency you're making is a fair one but get your point.
 
Lock them up and throw away the key. No chance of parole, no perks.

If they top themselves I wouldn't lose any sleep.

But definitely in the camp of can't support state murder for the many reasons already highlighted.
 
For me the question is life in prison a suitable punishment for their crime?

Prison don't get me wrong don't want to be there, but they will be kept away from general population due to nature of their crimes and while not a nice life will still have x3 meals a day, have access to books/TV . is that a suitable punishment for what they have done?

Yes they are now no danger to anyone else, but will be a drain on resource and funding keeping them alive for the next however many years.

Meanwhile a homeless person can be sat on the streets lucky to have a meal a day and no roof over their heads in winter, a much worse life and potentially no crime and certainly not the same level of crime if they did.

Seems like odd justice to me,

Death Penalty I'm not sure but wouldn't be against for this level of crime.
 
indeedido said:
I hear those arguments and agree with some.
Yet I can see absolutely no reason not to have it for the case in the OP.
I'm genuinely interested why you think they are worth supporting for the rest of their lives?

For the record I am not sure where I absolutely stand on DP.
Click to expand...
I don't want to support them.
However it would cost a fortune to execute them.
 
Andythetouch said:
For me the question is life in prison a suitable punishment for their crime?

Prison don't get me wrong don't want to be there, but they will be kept away from general population due to nature of their crimes and while not a nice life will still have x3 meals a day, have access to books/TV . is that a suitable punishment for what they have done?

Yes they are now no danger to anyone else, but will be a drain on resource and funding keeping them alive for the next however many years.

Meanwhile a homeless person can be sat on the streets lucky to have a meal a day and no roof over their heads in winter, a much worse life and potentially no crime and certainly not the same level of crime if they did.

Seems like odd justice to me,

Death Penalty I'm not sure but wouldn't be against for this level of crime.
Click to expand...
Do a quick Google about miscarriages of justice relating to murder and terrorism there has been in the UK since the abolition of CP.

Then ask yourself would the fact all those innocent people would be dead worth it just to satisfy some individuals perceptions of what justice should be?
 
JonnyHistory said:
Do a quick Google about miscarriages of justice relating to murder and terrorism there has been in the UK since the abolition of CP.

Then ask yourself would the fact all those innocent people would be dead worth it just to satisfy some individuals perceptions of what justice should be?
Click to expand...
And that is the crux I guess - and the argument that keeps me wondering.
Every bit as much as how certain I feel that these two deserve to die.
 
I'd put them in a room with people bigger than them and make sure that they have exactly the same injuries that that poor kid did....then walk out and leave them to suffer....exactly how they treated him!
 
indeedido said:
And that is the crux I guess - and the argument that keeps me wondering.
Every bit as much as how certain I feel that these two deserve to die.
Click to expand...

I get the emotion but at the end of the day who are you to say someone deserves death? Do you want to be the one to do it?
 
indeedido said:
And that is the crux I guess - and the argument that keeps me wondering.
Every bit as much as how certain I feel that these two deserve to die.
Click to expand...
Are we really capable of deciding whether someone should die though? Plenty of the population would be morally opposed to it so who is right and who is wrong?
 
Laughing said:
Are we really capable of deciding whether someone should die though? Plenty of the population would be morally opposed to it so who is right and who is wrong?
Click to expand...
I guess the majority should decide.
As a society we effectively condemn people to death by denying them all sorts of things that might save them (drugs, operations, shelter, food etc etc).
I stress I am not absolute in my views, I am torn.
festa5 said:
A surprising amount of faith from some in our justice system given the recent (long overdue) headlines about the post office cases.
Click to expand...
I guess nobody is proposing death penalty for fraud, or for the horrible evasive actions taken by the Post Office hierarchy.
The OP was quite specific.
For the absence of doubt I would be absolutely satisified at taking a risk that somebody would not find some legal loophole and get this murderous duo's verdict overturned. They are guilty without a doubt.
 
Im amazed that this has never been discussed on here before 🤣
You can just predict the same “last thread”
costs more to execute, it’s the easy way out, it’s revenge blah blah blah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top