I am not sure why you feel the need to call me sick.

As I understand what you have written:

In a hypothetical democratic society that has a death penalty, no member of that society has any responsibility for the deaths that occur under that system even when they may have supported and even voted for them; because the criminal knew the system. I disagree with this.

While, if I had to jump, I would go against the death penalty, I am not entirely sure of that position, but what I am sure about, is that if a society has a death penalty, then that society should take ownership and responsibility for it. Not hide it away and claim it has nothing to do with them. If there is a death penalty then I think it should be public, and I think there should not be a state executioner, there should be a lottery from the society, like there is for jury duty, anyone can be called upon to pull the lever or press the button or pull the trigger. I think that would make a society consider if the death penalty is truly just and under what circumstances. You can not just shy away from the taking of a life.

Or alternatively if found guilty and given an option of death or imprisonment, a member of the victims family decides and if death is chosen they carry it out themselves as a group or individual. They also decide the way of death.

Sorted

I confess to not having followed the whole of this thread, but those who are advocating the death penalty, please read Ludovic Kennedy's book on Timothy Evans : 10 Rillington Place.

English justice, acting on behalf of the public, hanged an innocent man and refused to admit it for 4 decades, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For me, society cannot condemn murder and then commit the same crime, no matter how repulsive and offensive the criminal act.

Ok...here is a simple question, how will hanging MAGNOTTA, a proven killer even by his own confession, be a bad thing?

I can put my house on it that surely the parents of the victim won't think so

I know we cannot answer with certainty unless actually in a situation but I have a couple of questions out of pure I interest. Yes both are extreme but...

For those against death penalty.

If your wife or daughter was raped and the murdered while you were made to watch, where you knew exactly who the killer was having witnessed it, which option would you choose.

1, have them found guilty and put to death
2, have them serve 20yrs before being released on good behavior and then moving to live in your neighborhood where you see them every day enjoying life with their family?


For those for the death penalty

If your wife or daughter was incorrectly arrested and sentenced to death even though they were innocent, would you still agree with the death penalty?

Because its in direct contravention of the UN declaration on Human Rights for starters.

Mountains are worn down to sand over time. Human Rights are eroded one person at a time.

Once you start killing one guy you are ABSOLUTELY sure is guilty as hell, then next time its a tiny little bit easier to pursuade society to execute a guy you are 99.99% sure about, and before you know it you are Saudi Arabia, excecuting people for witchcraft (2011 was the last time that happened) or homosexuality.

Extreme? Perhaps. How much do you trust public officials with the power of life and death.


One persons death in my name is one too many.

Quite a number of societies do. What is more "incorrect" keeping somebody in a small cell until they die, or killing them?

What about the Norwegian currently going through the Court system there. He says that, if found guilty, he wants to be killed, he does not wish to be incarcerated. What would you do with him and why?

Hypothetically I have no desire to see them dead, I dont see how that makes my loss any easier to bare. Your choices are flawed though aint they? There is also the option that they do their time and make a life elsewhere afterwards.

20 years is a long time, I absolutely believe that people make mistakes and that people can change (some will, some wont), and that there is room in the world for forgiveness. However I would be extremely uncomfortable with them in my neighbourhood, but I expect there are ways to avoid that in reality.

I agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances. One of them being that there being a fair trial/appeal process. One has to assume that such a process would sort the wheat from the chaff and I would still agree with the death penalty in those circumstances. As you know, I only advocate for the death penalty when there is no doubt. In such circumstances, the innocence of those to be killed would not be an issue.

Are they serial killers? or fit any of the catagories (mentioned earlier) that I considered using the death penalty for? or a one off crime? (not of the Magnotta magnitude)

Why do they have to change? I don't care if they change, if they killed a member of my family, I would want them dead. I don't have to apologise for my stance, just as you don't have to apologise for yours.

You seem to have missed Hawkmoons point. .

Its infinitely easier to release someone from a small cell if it turns out they were not as guilty as you were convinced they were than it is to bring them back from the dead.

Well then you are a way better person than I could ever deem to be as if it were my wife (husband) or daughter, I would personally pull the switch and not lose any sleep over it.

The very last words they would hear would be rot in hell you barsteward, and may God, if there is one, never forgive you your sins.

The whole "I would rather see 10 guilty go free than one innocent incorrectly convicted" is flawed. What if the figures are 1000/1, what about 100,000/1?

What about Mr. Breivik? No doubt there, he accepts he did it. One doesn't need to worry about bringing him back from the dead.

In the case of Brevik, as any guilty killer, I would imprison them to protect the rest of society from harm. One could argue that imprisonment is a more appropriate punishment as the families of the murdered have to live with their loss for years, a swift and merciful execution gives the killer minimal time to contemplate their crimes.

Incarcerating somebody gives a chance for miscarriage of justice to be overturned, as IainK points out, I point I agree with. It also gives the killer a chance to express remorse.

For the religious there is the simple commandment "Thou shalt not kill"

A far wiser man than me, Ghandi once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Capital punishment has no proven impact on prevention of murder and is in itself merely an act of retribution. I can wholly sympathise with victim's friends and family feeling this way, but I cannot condone it.