Shard

Say you have a massacre person, and they are caught red-handed after the deed (witnesses, video, police, DNA, cell phone, etc etc) and they openly admit at the time (recorded of course, there are police cams) that they alone committed this tragedy and want to go meet Satan. Millions would not need to be spent. No need to erect obstacles were none exist.

My argument is not based on the US experience, on the contrary, your argument seems to be informed by that (for example citing lack of deterrence in US states as refutation). My argument is based on the idea that current technology and current crime evolution (school massacres, medieval style terrorism) permits/warrants a harsher solution that currently exists.

Hertha

The criminal standard of proof is 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', rather than 'No Doubt'.

Returning to Kiszko, and the Irish cases, that standard had been reached and the accused sentenced accordingly. It was years later before new evidence came to light. Given advances in science, things that may seem 'proven' today, may be disputed in the future. Also, and this came to light during the Kiszko case, you can never completely dismiss the idea of police chicanery. These guys were under enormous pressure to get their man and Kiszko fitted the profile. Whatever the background, Kiszko was innocent, but would have been hanged had the death penalty been available. It's also worth considering that Kiszko's death would have ended the case, and the actual guilty party would have gone free.

In answer to another poster, the ECHR has already ruled that time spent on death row can amount to inhuman treatment (Söring v UK).

mikelincs

But the killers of Lee Rigby wanted just that, the ran at the police still with a gun and Machete in their hands. The police just shot to wound them in their legs, and they went to hospital and are now in jail, no chance to become the martyrs they really wanted to be.

iaink

Well, if you are eliminating risks then who's next definitely is part of the picture. Why not lock up likely miscreants before they have a chance to pop anyone off

Its a slippery slope, and no matter how much you talk of only executing those who are 100% guilty and no mistake, and how this is going to save some money to fix old peoples cataracts (or whatever), you have not offered any evidence that any of this is possible in the face of an avalanche of evidence to the contrary based on the US experience of Capital Punishment.

And none of that even gets close to the central point that killing is just wrong, its wrong for killers to kill, and its just as wrong for society to kill killers.

dbd33

This person isn't very clever, that person only has one leg, they're of less value to society; get rid of them.

Canada used people of "less value" for horrific medical experiments (some European countries too). I'm not at all comfortable with that measure being applied.

iaink

I dont wish to kill the mentally ill, that seems barbaric to me.

I use the US evidence because it is a society broadly analogous to our own, with judicial standards and requirement broadly similar to our own, but with the exception that some states have CP and others do not, so its possible to compare results.

Why would you ignore such evidence, other than because it does not fit in with your views?

jwtimmon

Yep, thats the slippery slope alright.

Shard

Because my views are not based on deterrence.

Shard

Just wrong. Just wrong wrong wrong. Just so. Why's that?

Christian's can at least refer to their commandments, but why is it wrong for society to kill a person who wants to injure or destroy society.

dbd33

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, wrong. But, I don't trust the government and I don't trust the procedure, the wrong people will get offed.

Oakvillian

neither, it appears, are they based on any sort of evidence.

And you said yourself up-thread that you felt there was a deterrent effect. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Oakvillian

And is your "massacre person" rational? Sane? Able to mount a defence in a court of law in order to meet your "beyond any doubt" burden of proof? Is the doubt, always, going to be that this person is not of sound mind, and therefore not liable to criminal prosecution at all? In which case doesn't your position crumble before it's even built?

If you still think such an individual should be executed, then there's a very, very small step from there to a eugenics program. Remove all the mentally ill, they might become "massacre people." Think of all the money that would be saved on psychiatric care.

iaink

Right, they are based on cost, that seems to be your justification.

The death sentence is far more expensive than life imprisonment. That is irrefutable based on the numbers from the US, and the US is a relevent base for gathering facts for all the reasons outlined up thread about it being an analogous society with broadly similar judicial standards.

iaink

You need me to explain why taking a life is wrong? I give up.

We were talking about executing people here because they took a life, right? So it must be wrong or we wouldnt be going to the trouble of punishing anyone.

Then in your view its even more heinous to premeditate such an act and yet premeditated cold blooded life taking is exactly what you are proposing to do to those found to be guilty of the act

Shard

Nice try.

I think it's best that we revert to agreeing to disagree.