The Law The Death Penalty

[Power Raid]

There are loads of crimes that justify the death penalty but there are loads of examples demonstrating investigating police, department of prosecution, judges and juries who have not acted in good faith. As such we should always allow criminals the right to appeal until they die of natural causes (whilst incarcerated and post release).

 

[Crankyhawk]

Well, if you believe that society has the right to kill people rather than remove them from society. go ahead and lobby the politicians to make the relevant changes to legislation.

Of course, you will volunteer to perform the deed?

How are you going to kill him?

Obviously championing hanging; Do you recommend the short drop or the distance recommended in the hanging tables? The traditional brass ring or a slip knot?

Maybe excecutioner shold be part of expectations of society ,like voting, paying taxes, performing jury duty and killing people? If you are over 18 letter arrives one day for you to present yourself to present yourself to execute this person

Bring back the public hangings so that the crowd and the hanged man can also get an erection?

Maybe the foreman of the jury that convicts the murderer should be the executioner?

The possibilities are endless, thinkt it through and start a movement

Interesting that with the photo and naming him you acknowledge him far more than the victim and the crime he committed

Personally, I believe that a convicted murderer gives up his name whilst in custody and society should only refer to them by the victims name. If they die in custody, buried in an unmarked grave in unconscrated ground

How would I do it? Massive injection of fentanyl and propofol. Can add in suxamethonium too after then fentanyl and propofol take effect to ensure breathing stops after awareness does

 

[rank and file]

How would I do it? Massive injection of fentanyl and propofol. Can add in suxamethonium too after then fentanyl and propofol take effect to ensure breathing stops after awareness does

Don't even need a massive dose of fentanyl,just little bit that is easily sourced.
Take your word on the other ones,seems like a lot of red tape.
Even if it's quick and humane it is definitely a slippery slope that will never get reintroduced
here.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Don't even need a massive dose of fentanyl,just little bit that is easily sourced.
Take your word on the other ones,seems like a lot of red tape.
Even if it's quick and humane it is definitely a slippery slope that will never get reintroduced
here.

If we are talking for government, all the drugs I have mentioned are in common use in hospitals around the country

 

[Power Raid]

I support reasonable force response by individuals to protect themselves, their families and others which may result in a "death sentence" being administered as a result.

I do not support a government carrying out a "death sentence" despite delivering the same result.


The key difference is the government is the overseeing body which can hold "the individual" to account. Where is the government gets a "death sentence" wrong, who holds them to account? The best we get is a few scape goats but the machine continues its merry way.

 

[GrayRanga]

If we are talking for government, all the drugs I have mentioned are in common use in hospitals around the country

A "hot shot" works for crims in drug disputes with addicts.

I was just asking the question as all the big strong men and women that propose the death penalty for any infraction of the Law always imply that the State should do it.

I'm just suggesting that they take personal responsibilty for their stated beliefs and actually do it themselves.

Causing someone's death with the intent to kill or causing grievous bodily harm meets the Common Law definition of Murder.

Proponents of the death penalty want to murder people.

Fair enough, but at least have a bit of honesty about it.

Do we stop at being the punishment for only murder or extend it to other crimes?

 

[Crankyhawk]

A "hot shot" works for crims in drug disputes with addicts.

I was just asking the question as all the big strong men and women that propose the death penalty for any infraction of the Law always imply that the State should do it.

I'm just suggesting that they take personal responsibilty for their stated beliefs and actually do it themselves.

Causing someone's death with the intent to kill or causing grievous bodily harm meets the Common Law definition of Murder.

Proponents of the death penalty want to murder people.

Fair enough, but at least have a bit of honesty about it.

Do we stop at being the punishment for only murder or extend it to other crimes?

I had it is punishment for certain egregious crimes - repeated (as in found guilty, served time, then reoffended) of crimes of nature such as murder, aggravated rape, child rape, massive fraud and financial gain (more than say $10 million in embezzlement).

 

[Gough]

How would I do it? Massive injection of fentanyl and propofol. Can add in suxamethonium too after then fentanyl and propofol take effect to ensure breathing stops after awareness does

I think pharmaceutical companies are a little bit jumpy about supplying the drug that's used to kill an otherwise healthy human which is a touch unusual for an industry that otherwise has little sign of a moral compass.

 

[IlovethePies]

At the last minute, Robert Roberson's impending execution has been delayed, and evidence will be heard which attests to his innocence.

The Texas Supreme Court has blocked Robert Roberson's execution for now

An unusual legal move has bought more time for a Texas man who was set to be executed Thursday evening.

www.tpr.org

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think pharmaceutical companies are a little bit jumpy about supplying the drug that's used to kill an otherwise healthy human which is a touch unusual for an industry that otherwise has little sign of a moral compass.

Oh yeah that affected the supply of thiopentone (another induction agent I recall using in early 2000s) has been replaced by propofol generally

 

[Episode IV]

I think pharmaceutical companies are a little bit jumpy about supplying the drug that's used to kill an otherwise healthy human which is a touch unusual for an industry that otherwise has little sign of a moral compass.

Not unusual at all. A pharmaceutical company will make far more money in the long run supplying drugs to people in prison than it will supplying the drugs to execute one or two of them.

 

[Episode IV]

Most of my thinking here is derived from the criminology I studied as an undergrad. I wasted a truly incredible amount of time in my twenties in that I did enough subjects to major in a a number of them; criminology was one of those subjects.

I am willing to declare myself not an expert. I know that I don't really have enough information - and what information I do have is memory based from a good 10+ years ago - but I remember that from a purely statistical standpoint crime as punishment doesn't work to reduce the level of crime; if anything it increases the levels of unreported crime, because people inherently do not want to be punished. Then, you have the sorts of crime in which capital punishment is levied: sex crimes, drugs and murder.

Sex crimes are largely committed by someone familiar or close to the victim. It is hardly in the best interests of a SA victim to have their communities blame them for the death of their attacker, and SA victims frequently are blamed and gaslighted by those around them (and police) anyway. I don't remember enough concerning murder to make a specific argument there (you still have the general potential issue of a more systemic structural discrimination leading to poor people and minorities being subject to the death penalty through institutional biases) but the death penalty for drug trafficking is - IMO, rather than a fact based exercise - a poor choice.

If you drive an industry into a criminal sphere, then you choose to murder those who work in that industry, you make what they're willing to do to hide themselves much worse. There would still be a drug trafficking trade in Singapore, but those engaged in it must be willing to kill themselves to protect their business. Then, you have that those that are caught, tried and killed are never the big fish; you might get an inconvenient street trader or international mule, but you're not going to get to the suits. The war on drugs has created cartels with massive resources; those resources come to bear in protecting their profits, and in a jurisdiction where their trade is criminalised at that level they need be willing to meet the challenges posed to continue to profit.

That is just capitalism at work.

Now, I'd argue that the above is more pragmatic than it is moral. If the Death Penalty worked to disincentivise the crimes mentioned above more than its unintended consequences lead to other issues, then it'd be a good deal more valid a method of societal consequence. I also really don't think overmuch of justice as punishment; that's rather too atavistic for me. If the point of society is that we lose rights in order to gain something, we need to have rules and structures to hold society together; the broader the possible viewpoints pooled to provide solutions, the better off we are. Underground networks have always provided necessary supply chains to those who have been unable to provide for themselves or in situations of crisis; the kind of experiences criminals have as an underclass is useful knowledge.

But, I've also said in the past that logic is the system we use to justify what we were already thinking. To say that there is no moral dimension at play here would be dishonest: I don't like the state's monopoly over violence, and I never have.

We're sort of vacillating between capital crime and other crime here, which is understandable given the examples already discussed, particularly where what constitutes a capital crime might vary from society to society. I've been doing the same thing myself, when looking into recidivism rates and wotnot under different prison systems.

One thought did strike me, though, with regard to recidivism.
The argument has been made here that even one innocent person executed is too many, therefore the death penalty should not be applied. Counter to that, one might say that one murder committed by a person who was previously incarcerated and then released is one too many as well.

I liked this comment: "But, I've also said in the past that logic is the system we use to justify what we were already thinking." We're both in the no camp, but the reasoning processes diverge in some respects.

 

[IlovethePies]

The case of Robert Roberson is very stark in how it reveals that the basis of capital punishment at a fundamental level has nothing to do with the actual innocence or guilt of the victim.

In the hours before his death, Roberson's lawyers' appeal for a stay in the execution bounced back and forth between various courts, one court allowing a stay only for the next court to deny it.

Roberson sat in his cell for hours, not knowing whether he would live or die that evening until 4:30pm, 90 minutes before the scheduled execution.

Now Roberson will actually get the chance to present his case for innocence (which is overwhelming) at a hearing that had been arranged for October 21 - ie, three days after his execution!!

Texas governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton have been leading the truly vicious and barbaric campaign to execute Roberson before he got the chance to present his evidence.

This clearly proves that they had absolutely no interest in whether Roberson was innocent, nor even whether a crime had been committed.

So one must ask, what then is the fundamental motivating principle for capital punishment, if it is not to punish nor to deter?

It is clear that it is used as a bludgeon against not only those who pay the ultimate price, but as a reminder to the entire population of who is in charge.

 

[_Mike_]

Opinions on the application of the death penalty is & always will be subjective, proven a number of times to be wrong in its application. The death penalty is driven by cultural values, intertwined with religions belief, it's not a popularity driven policy as many may think it is.

Looking back at the US style of punitive punishment vs our own restorative approach Capital Punishment wont come back any time soon, or even in the next generation or so. Supporting the application of the death penalty on people like Martin Bryant, Julian Knight, Ted Bundy, & McVeigh (Oklahoma bomber) when it comes to the amount of damage done is one thing, how do you support the death penalty against someone on a case built solely on circumstantial evidence?

Difficult indeed.

 

[IlovethePies]

I support the death penalty for no one, including Julian Knight, Martin Bryant and other mass murderers.
And yes, if one of the victims had been my son or daughter I would still oppose any execution.
How would an execution bring back the lost loved one?

The state has no right to execute any citizen. The state is what presides over the economic and social inequality which in the final analysis creates the objective conditions in which individuals commit their crimes.

The state is morally deficient in every sense of the term. Currently, the Biden government and the associated state structures throughout the US all support Israel in its genocide in the Middle East.

The Biden Administration is supplying Israel with the weapons to carry out the genocide, and giving Netanyahu full political backing.

No one in the Republican party challenges him. Trump is on record having said: "Israel needs to get the job done".

How can anyone agree that such an institution, which backs open genocide, has any right whatsoever to murder its own citizens, for crimes of an incomparably less significant scale than its own?

 

[Seeds]

I support the death penalty for no one, including Julian Knight, Martin Bryant and other mass murderers.
And yes, if one of the victims had been my son or daughter I would still oppose any execution.
How would an execution bring back the lost loved one?

The state has no right to execute any citizen. The state is what presides over the economic and social inequality which in the final analysis creates the objective conditions in which individuals commit their crimes.

The state is morally deficient in every sense of the term. Currently, the Biden government and the associated state structures throughout the US all support Israel in its genocide in the Middle East.

The Biden Administration is supplying Israel with the weapons to carry out the genocide, and giving Netanyahu full political backing.

No one in the Republican party challenges him. Trump is on record having said: "Israel needs to get the job done".

How can anyone agree that such an institution, which backs open genocide, has any right whatsoever to murder its own citizens, for crimes of an incomparably less significant scale than its own?

I dont think absence of commiting other crimes makes it ok to commit the death penalty as the end of your post implies.

I.e. The dealth penalty is not only wrong because the republicans are strongly on the side of israel in its war and forcing democrats politically to adopt the same position. Its wrong because the death penalty doesnt achieve anything beneficial for society and can lead to the death of innocent people or people who may not be innocent but may be redeemable.

 

[IlovethePies]

I dont think absence of commiting other crimes makes it ok to commit the death penalty as the end of your post implies.

I.e. The dealth penalty is not only wrong because the republicans are strongly on the side of israel in its war and forcing democrats politically to adopt the same position. Its wrong because the death penalty doesnt achieve anything beneficial for society and can lead to the death of innocent people or people who may not be innocent but may be redeemable.

Absolutely, and I did not mean to convey such an impression.
The death penalty is morally indefensible and barbaric at every level, and I was simply trying to explain one aspect when there are a myriad of aspects also to support the abolition of the death penalty.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Im opposed to the death penalty by state but if someone killed my wife or or children then yeah I'd want to kill them.

Problem is that's emotional. It should not apply at government level. I can't support the right of a state sanctioned death

 

[ferball]

Im opposed to the death penalty by state but if someone killed my wife or or children then yeah I'd want to kill them.

Problem is that's emotional. It should not apply at government level. I can't support the right of a state sanctioned death

But would you kill them?

 

[Sinjin Smith]

But would you kill them?

Yes.

 

[GrayRanga]

Yes.

Interesting; you would kill somebody and expect not to be punished in kind?

One of the last murderers convicted of murder prior to the abolition of the death penalty in Victoria was sentence to the mandatory sentence of death, but with a strong recommendation for mercy

The Court's recommendation was the result of the parents pleas to the Court that they did not wish to have another death to impinge upon their child's memory

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Interesting; you would kill somebody and expect not to be punished in kind?

One of the last murderers convicted of murder prior to the abolition of the death penalty in Victoria was sentence to the mandatory sentence of death, but with a strong recommendation for mercy

The Court's recommendation was the result of the parents pleas to the Court that they did not wish to have another death to impinge upon their child's memory

I'd expect I'd be punished.

 

[GrayRanga]

I'd expect I'd be punished.

Ahhh, but not hanged!

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Ahhh, but not hanged!

I'd think I'd cop a lengthy jail sentence.

 

[GrayRanga]

Im opposed to the death penalty by state but if someone killed my wife or or children then yeah I'd want to kill them.

Problem is that's emotional. It should not apply at government level. I can't support the right of a state sanctioned death

Such noble sentiments; seeking revenge upon the deaths members of your family

A scenario to consider: the wife announces that she wishes a divorce because she has formed another relationship and will move interstate with her new partner and the children. Access will only be determined after a long and costly Court battle

The life partner is gone and, for all intents and purposes, the children will grow up with another father.

Do you want to kill the wife or her partner with which she cuckolded? Who's going to to the dad for the kids cause their standard head sentence for murder is 25 years.

Death of a marriage and death of the relationship with the kids and the kids are in the house?

Don't think this scenario doesn't happen, minor variations of this is the cause a number of DV murders annually