In light of certain recent events...

[spankythehippo]

When a guy kills a ginormous amount of people, should he get life, or death (heheh, geddit?)?

Isn't it a waste of resources and money to keep someone alive that will never be released? People argue that it is unethical to take away human life, but the same people wouldn't say that when they are directly affected by a mass murderer.

Anders Breivik killed a huge amount of people, and he did it willingly. So, what is the reason for keeping him alive? I can see certain reasons, namely psychological profiling. But this does not warrant a criminal to be kept alive until they die of natural causes.

I say execute criminals that wont get out. If they have a chance of being paroled or released, then gaol them.

Capital punishment, yes or no?

[Husar]

Getting killed is a relief for them, a life of boredom is the bigger punishment.

To think that life in prison is somehow better is the fallacy.
Plus in cases that aren't as clear cut as Anders Breivik's, what if you got the wrong guy and only find out 10 years later?

What if the government frames you?

[spankythehippo]

WHOA! So many double posts.

How dare a government frame it's own denizens. Her her her.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, Husar just really wanted to emphasize his points.

[spankythehippo]

That, I can believe.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you hit the post reply button and it hangs, go back to the main page and see if your post is there instead of hitting the button again, always works for me anyway.

[CountArach]

The thread has been cleaned

[Husar]

If you hit the post reply button and it hangs, go back to the main page and see if your post is there instead of hitting the button again, always works for me anyway.

I don't think I hit it again for exactly that reason, or maybe I did?
I just got out of bed and it hung up completely, couldn't go back to the thread until now or I would've deleted all double posts myself.

And thanks CA.

Now back on topic, the government has to be afraid of it's prisoners, not the other way around.

And the death penalty usually effectively costs more than life in prison anyway, maybe if there were a quick method like a deathmobile or roving death squads it would be cheaper than letting people wait 10 years for their execution, just kill them before they can even appeal and you save even more money if money is the only concern.

[spankythehippo]

I don't think I hit it again for exactly that reason, or maybe I did?
I just got out of bed and it hung up completely, couldn't go back to the thread until now or I would've deleted all double posts myself.

And thanks CA.

Now back on topic, the government has to be afraid of it's prisoners, not the other way around.

And the death penalty usually effectively costs more than life in prison anyway, maybe if there were a quick method like a deathmobile or roving death squads it would be cheaper than letting people wait 10 years for their execution, just kill them before they can even appeal and you save even more money if money is the only concern.

Deathmobile. That sounds like the cure for all the worlds problems.

If only prisoners on death row were summarily killed in the most basic, cost effective way. And their appeal could cost less, but that would be denying them their final plea, in the case that they think they're innocent. What happened to the simple bullet to the head?

[Centurion1]

You cannot see inside a mans mind. Some people may legitimately believe a life in prison is preferable. So no i do not buy that argument personally, plus Norwegian prisons are a joke (running off that specific case).

The only valid one is the what if they were innocent. Personally, while that would be a tragedy, in most murders and rapes it is usually pretty clear. I'd stick the needle or pull the trigger myself. And I'd save everyone some money and do it quickly instead of keeping them on death row for ages.

[rory_20_uk]

There are cases where the Death Penalty is valid. Certainly, any murderer deserves death.

HOWEVER, the threat of convicting an innocent man is a very real one. What does anyone get from the death penalty, besides some vague sense of peace of mind? Is that worth an innocent man's life? The answer is no.

Unless you can trust your government to be right 100% of the time, the Death Penalty is unethical. Vengeance is a petty excuse to run to the risk of killing innocent people.

Unless you think that Anders Breivik was innocent or framed by the Government I think that he illustrates the rare time when someone can be fast tracked in front of a wall and given a blindfold. He would also make a good organ donor. He can never make amends for all he did, but pieces of him can help quite a few people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are cases where the Death Penalty is valid. Certainly, any murderer deserves death.

HOWEVER, the threat of convicting an innocent man is a very real one. What does anyone get from the death penalty, besides some vague sense of peace of mind? Is that worth an innocent man's life? The answer is no.

Unless you can trust your government to be right 100% of the time, the Death Penalty is unethical. Vengeance is a petty excuse to run to the risk of killing innocent people.

The last man executed in the UK was innocent, as were several before that. Suspicions over the validity of our hangins was part of the reason for abolition - we were quite quick on the drop and generally exoneration came only after the fact.

Then you have the hangman who tried (and failed) to kill him self.

The biggest problem with the death penalty, though, is that is "very murdered deserves death" you have to execute your executioners or the law is an Ass.

[rory_20_uk]

The biggest problem with the death penalty, though, is that is "very murdered deserves death" you have to execute your executioners or the law is an Ass.

One that the Armed Forces manages to deal with. And many clandestine Intelligence Services. In fact, it is a non-issue.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The death penalty is great in theory, more difficult in practice.

At the same time I would consider life in prison with no hope of release to be a lot worse than a quick death. It amounts to torture IMO and so for that reason I'm still on balance for the death penalty.

Prison is just a disaster on so many levels. The torturous conditions, breeding of criminals, hefty costs, destruction of families etc. We managed without them (generally speaking) up until a couple of hundred years ago, they aren't the only practical way to deal with crime. Rates of incarceration in a lot of the developed world (especially the USA) are ridiculous when you look at the rest of the world or even the developed world a few decades ago. I know the war on drugs has a lot to do with that but still.

[HoreTore]

ABB does have a chance at both parole and ending his prison time before he dies, so by your opinion he should not get capital punishment.

Thread over.

Edit: even more so, he may be found insane, and in that case he isn't sentenced to anything. So a double nono on capital punishment.

[rory_20_uk]

Prison is just a disaster on so many levels. The torturous conditions, breeding of criminals, hefty costs, destruction of families etc. We managed without them (generally speaking) up until a couple of hundred years ago, they aren't the only practical way to deal with crime. Rates of incarceration in a lot of the developed world (especially the USA) are ridiculous when you look at the rest of the world or even the developed world a few decades ago. I know the war on drugs has a lot to do with that but still.

Rather dramatic. And the real hike is well after drugs were criminalised. The relative rates based on ethnicity makes for scary reading.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One that the Armed Forces manages to deal with. And many clandestine Intelligence Services. In fact, it is a non-issue.

Most of the stuff "clandesine services" do isn't legal or sanctioned by the legislature or judiciary, and as for the armed forces - pull the other bleeding leg!

Soldiers fight, in WWII only about one in ten of our soldiers fired their weapons and we still won with the majority of people not killing anybody! War is a blinking game, hopefully one side blinks before somebody dies, but often not. Even so, that is completely different from having a civilian execute someone by judicial order.

[rory_20_uk]

Most of the stuff "clandesine services" do isn't legal or sanctioned by the legislature or judiciary, and as for the armed forces - pull the other bleeding leg!

Soldiers fight, in WWII only about one in ten of our soldiers fired their weapons and we still won with the majority of people not killing anybody! War is a blinking game, hopefully one side blinks before somebody dies, but often not. Even so, that is completely different from having a civilian execute someone by judicial order.

A lot of what the clandestine services do is legal and was sanctioned I think it was in the '70s the USA stopped doing assassinations. What's changed? They've changed the terms, not the actions.

Completely different in what way, exactly? In the case of the Armed forces, people are killed indiscriminately. For a war to be legal this has to be under a law. In the latter one person is killed under a law. And in most wars tens of thousands of people end up dead at the very least. Even if most didn't do the killing, someone did.

If it is the problem a civillian is doing the executions, then by all means get a member of the Armed Forces to do it if that makes all the difference.

[Husar]

You cannot see inside a mans mind. Some people may legitimately believe a life in prison is preferable. So no i do not buy that argument personally, plus Norwegian prisons are a joke (running off that specific case).

And because some may prefer it (before they experience it usually, most of the cases I heard of don't like it after having served the first few years), we'll just kill all of them? What kind of logic is that?

Norwegian prisons serve a completely different purpose than American ones and I'm pretty sure any crime statistic will show that Norway has much less of a problem with crime in general than America does, so why should they change their system?

The only valid one is the what if they were innocent. Personally, while that would be a tragedy, in most murders and rapes it is usually pretty clear. I'd stick the needle or pull the trigger myself. And I'd save everyone some money and do it quickly instead of keeping them on death row for ages.

So the feds should make you a travelling executioner?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A lot of what the clandestine services do is legal and was sanctioned I think it was in the '70s the USA stopped doing assassinations. What's changed? They've changed the terms, not the actions.

Completely different in what way, exactly? In the case of the Armed forces, people are killed indiscriminately. For a war to be legal this has to be under a law. In the latter one person is killed under a law. And in most wars tens of thousands of people end up dead at the very least. Even if most didn't do the killing, someone did.

If it is the problem a civillian is doing the executions, then by all means get a member of the Armed Forces to do it if that makes all the difference.

You let it slip your self, "end up dead" is not the same as "executed."

[spankythehippo]

ABB does have a chance at both parole and ending his prison time before he dies, so by your opinion he should not get capital punishment.

Thread over.

Edit: even more so, he may be found insane, and in that case he isn't sentenced to anything. So a double nono on capital punishment.

Even if he does have a shot at being released, is it really worth it? And when he does get released, he'll be on death's door. There should be a benchmark to what is the bare minimum before you get the death penalty. And I think Breivik is eligible.

[Dîn-Heru]

A lot of what the clandestine services do is legal and was sanctioned I think it was in the '70s the USA stopped doing assassinations. What's changed? They've changed the terms, not the actions.

Completely different in what way, exactly? In the case of the Armed forces, people are killed indiscriminately. For a war to be legal this has to be under a law. In the latter one person is killed under a law. And in most wars tens of thousands of people end up dead at the very least. Even if most didn't do the killing, someone did.

If it is the problem a civillian is doing the executions, then by all means get a member of the Armed Forces to do it if that makes all the difference.

The problem as I see it is that you specifically have to ask someone to be the executioner. As PVC says most soldiers (before modern training) avoided or fired because they were in a situation where it was shoot or be shot. Humans do not kill each other easily when they can look each other in the eyes. This means that if you find someone who wants to be an executioner it is probable that it would be the same kind of person who was to be executed, except one's pleasure in killing is state sanctioned while the other's is not.

It is all so fine and dandy when it is someone else who do the dirty work and you do not see the result of your decisions first hand.

If you insist on having the death penalty then it should be as with the Starks in Game of Thrones, the one who passes the verdict should also swing the blade.

[spankythehippo]

War should be an act of last resort. Deaths in war are comparable to killing someone in self-defense. A tragedy that could not be helped, and that was justified.

Now, whether the war itself is justified is a whole different story. Most aren't. But that's not the fault of the soldiers.

Soldiers that fight in wars know what's coming. If they believed war is an atrocity, they would not have enlisted. The fault lies with their commander-in-chief.

@Din. Hmmm, Game of Thrones. I might read it now.

[Strike For The South]

Rather dramatic. And the real hike is well after drugs were criminalised. The relative rates based on ethnicity makes for scary reading.

White kids go to rehab, black kids go to prison and they come out sans their humanity.

It's a sad joke

[Centurion1]

So the feds should make you a travelling executioner?

Just saying I wouldn't care. And there is still some sort of bizarre public stigma regarding executioners. They are not and never should be considered murderers, ethically or literally. They are not really ENDING that individuals life, that is the Justice system, the executioner is simply a tool.

White kids go to rehab, black kids go to prison and they come out sans their humanity.

It's a sad joke

Your constant apologist nature towards blacks is a sad joke. You do realize there are other repressed minority groups for you to apologize too if you really find a necessity to do so right?

Great Gran pappy must have had one helluva a plantation for you to feel this badly about it still

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your constant apologist nature towards blacks is a sad joke. You do realize there are other repressed minority groups for you to apologize too if you really find a necessity to do so right?

Great Gran pappy must have had one helluva a plantation for you to feel this badly about it still

The Yankee is telling the Dixie Man to stop feeling bad towards the blacks. You can't ever tell me that America hasn't changed from the 1860s.

[Greyblades]

Edit: nvrmind, misread.

[Strike For The South]

Your constant apologist nature towards blacks is a sad joke. You do realize there are other repressed minority groups for you to apologize too if you really find a necessity to do so right?

Great Gran pappy must have had one helluva a plantation for you to feel this badly about it still

The hard data for incarceration rates, arrests, and length of sentencing speak for themselves, I am hardly an aplogist.

There is plenty of well sourced literature on mass incarceration.

Or you could spend your entire life being a blathering idoit, as opposed to some of it