The death penalty

[DeletedUser]

I am thinking you not understanding differences between execution (which involves a trials) and murder/manslaughter which happening before trials. if person get to trial in europe they do not get executed not like amerika.

Thats the point.

In police killings and executions an agent of the state ends a life using powers given to them by the legislative body of that state.

Therefore the concept of state sponsored murder is not anathema in any country

Depending on your interpretation of the death penalty it can be argued that a death penalty (albeit a summary one) is used anywhere where the state allows lethal force to be used. Which is everywhere.

In the UK current legislation, Article 2 section 2 of the HRA 1998, condones the taking of life where is it absolutely necessary:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998..._19980042_en_3

The argument gets interesting when defining "absolutely necessary". Can this statement be viewed to encompass a scenario where a killer is convicted beyond reasonable doubt and is highly likely to reoffend?

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, the act supports the use of killing:
a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

None of these support the use of execution, which is commited after being sentenced in a proper trial. Police killings are allowed to an extent because they may be used in self defence (ie protecting others from death). But when you already have the criminal contained and controlled behind bars, often for life, such action is unnecessary.

 

[DeletedUser]

Again, the act supports the use of killing:
a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

None of these support the use of execution, which is commited after being sentenced in a proper trial. Police killings are allowed to an extent because they may be used in self defence (ie protecting others from death). But when you already have the criminal contained and controlled behind bars, often for life, such action is unnecessary.

Are police killings and execution so far removed?

Look at the BBC report I linked above re Mr de Menezez. Was this self defence? Was this necissary?

To me it seems the only difference between these types of lawful killings is the motivation behind them; on the one hand you have perceived revenge on the other protection.

If Police killings are morally right then surely it is possible to entertain the notion that executions would also be morally right if they were done for the protection of society at large?

 

[DeletedUser]

they coulda used those shot-gun stun-bullets >.> not the ones that kill T.T I'm against police's extreme use of power, ie: killing

 

[DeletedUser]

Are police killings and execution so far removed?

yez

Look at the BBC report I linked above re Mr de Menezez. Was this self defence? Was this necissary?

In hindsight no but equating a paniced response and, for want of a better word, a fowl (apparently male chicken is unnaceptable here)-up, to South American police death squads is ridikulus.

To me it seems the only difference between these types of lawful killings is the motivation behind them; on the one hand you have perceived revenge on the other protection.

and is that a bad thing? What if he had been wired with semtex?

If Police killings are morally right then surely it is possible to entertain the notion that executions would also be morally right if they were done for the protection of society at large?

Police killings in this context can be defined as being in self (or the public's) defence. It wasn't an execution. Frankly your argument has a whiff of cheese about it. Swiss I believe.:laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying it's acceptable for them to kill someone as long as they haven't been convicted of anything yet?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying it's acceptable for them to kill someone as long as they haven't been convicted of anything yet?

who?

 

[DeletedUser]

You. I assume I'm misreading what you're saying, but I decided to check with you since my assumptions aren't always right.

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Bendos

When people are killed either by the Police or the courts legitimate powers are used to do this. (unlike South American death squads who have no legal standing)

ok, so you agree that in certain situations police killings are justified and acceptable. This is because the police are removing a threat to society.

You seem to be suggesting that summary execution by the police is fine because of the immediacy of the threat.

The question I'm asking is that what is the moral difference between a police marksman killing or someone being put to death after trial as both remove a threat to society?

 

[DeletedUser]

The moral difference is that someone who is incarcerated for life isn't a threat to society (other than the society within the prison facility.) If it were possible to be 100% sure that a prisoner would never escape, I'm sure there would be fewer people approving of the death penalty.

I personally know one person, and my brothers know another, who was accused of murder and came close to a conviction based on false evidence. Even though both of them were involved in the same case, I have no doubt that there are others who weren't lucky enough to be acquitted (as one was) or given 25 years (which the other was) based on fabricated evidence. Just as many people say that abortion is wrong because there's the possibility that someone who could have been a great asset to the world will never exist, is avoiding the possibility that a guilty person could someday escape worth the possibility that even one innocent person might be executed?

 

[DeletedUser]

When people are killed either by the Police or the courts they are using legitimate powers granted to them by the people via the peoples representatives.

ok, so you agree that in certain situations police killings are justified and acceptable. This is because the police are removing a threat to society.

The people's representative's give the policemen the right to kill an offender of the law if they are an immediate threat to themselves and/or others (ie wielding a loaded gun). The justice system would rather have the criminal captured and taken to court for a proper trial and does not want policemen to kill criminals that are subdued or not an immediate threat to anyone; killing them is a last resort.

The difference between a police marksman killing and an execution after a trial is the immediacy of the threat.

You said it yourself.

The question I'm asking is that what is the moral difference between the two?

If an offender is released and goes on to kill again would society not have been better served if the offender was executed?

What happened to life in prison? That'll keep him/her from going out in society and killing again. And, if the criminal is later found innocent, they can be released, while the death penalty is irreversible for obvious reasons.

EDIT: AG beat me to it

 

[DeletedUser]

@Ollieman & Artemis Gordon
In many countries a life sentence does not mean life.
In Europe the ECHR forbids this under Article 3 - freedom from torture and inhumane treatment (which unlike the Art 2 right to life is an absolute right)
So these convicted killers will be released. Further to this if a person is found to be of diminished capacity they could be charged with a lesser crime or even sent to a secure hospital where they can be released in a very short period of time

On this basis I would have to question whether the criminal is contained and controlled. Recent cases in the UK would suggest not http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857

 

[DeletedUser]

So you're saying that those who are sentenced to lesser crimes "because of diminished capacity" should be executed rather than sent to hospitals? Perhaps we should also execute drunk drivers because they may someday kill someone while under the influence?

 

[DeletedUser]

No, I'm saying that being sent to prison doesn't mean they throw away the key.

These people are released. A shocking proportion go on to reoffend. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/reoffending-adults-2008-cohort.pdf

I don't understand the link detween drunk driving and premeditated murder. Are you saying we should lock up drunk drivers for life?

 

[DeletedUser]

@Ollieman & Artemis Gordon
In many countries a life sentence does not mean life.
In Europe the ECHR forbids this under Article 3 - freedom from torture and inhumane treatment (which unlike the Art 2 right to life is an absolute right)
So these convicted killers will be released. Further to this if a person is found to be of diminished capacity they could be charged with a lesser crime or even sent to a secure hospital where they can be released in a very short period of time

On this basis I would have to question whether the criminal is contained and controlled. Recent cases in the UK would suggest not http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857

Article three states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Nowhere have I found a ruling by the court that stated that the the provisions of the article applied to life sentences. The provisions are almost exactly the same as those of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the US Constitution, and we obviously allow life sentences. Of course, Article Two of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights prohibits the death penalty, but other than that it's the same. If you are opposed to European courts not subjecting criminals to life sentences appropriately, fine, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty.

 

[DeletedUser]

People keep saying that the US is the only Western country that still has the death penalty, but we also have life with no chance of parole. I'm not saying that drunk drivers should be locked up for life, but I also don't believe that your example of people convicted of lesser crimes should have been included.

 

[DeletedUser]

This might help:

Life imprisonment laws around the world.
Blue indicates those countries where life imprisonment laws have been abolished.
Red means the country retains it.
Green means life imprisonment may only be imposed by certain restrictions.
Grey means status unknown, presumed legal.

You see, only a handful of European countries have abolished life sentences. Most of them, including the UK, France, and Germany have the same status on it as us. And, as stated before, the European Courts of Justice and Human Rights haven't ruled against it to my knowledge.

 

[DeletedUser]

Article three states:

Nowhere have I found a ruling by the court that stated that the the provisions of the article applied to life sentences. The provisions are almost exactly the same as those of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the US Constitution, and we obviously allow life sentences. Of course, Article Two of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights prohibits the death penalty, but other than that it's the same. If you are opposed to European courts not subjecting criminals to life sentences appropriately, fine, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty.

Soering v United Kingdom (Application 14038/88) relates to extraterritorial application of Art 3.
Although the defendant would have been on death row it was not the execution that was the issue it was the manner in which the defendant would be kept.

In this case it was held that:

On a true reading of Article 3 of the Convention it was considered that a Contracting party could not be absolved from their obligations under Article 3 for all and any foreseeable consequences of extradition suffered outside their jurisdiction. It would not be compatible with the underlying values of the Convention were a fugitive to be surrendered where there were substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In the instant case, having regard to the length of time a death row inmate spent in extreme conditions and to the personal circumstances of the applicant including his age and mental state at the time of the offence, there was a real risk that if he were extradited he would be exposed to treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3. Moreover, in the particular instance, the legitimate purpose of extradition could have been achieved by means of sending the applicant to Germany, who had also requested extradition to try the applicant for the same offences. Accordingly, it was considered that were the decision to extradite the applicant implemented it would have given rise to a violation of Article 3.

Is life imprisonment a viable alternative given this judgment?

 

[DeletedUser]

People keep saying that the US is the only Western country that still has the death penalty, but we also have life with no chance of parole. I'm not saying that drunk drivers should be locked up for life, but I also don't believe that your example of people convicted of lesser crimes should have been included.

I included the people who have been convicted of lesser crimes as part of the "life doesn't mean life" package which I think clouded the point.

In reality in the UK there is no crime for which you can be sentenced to more than 25 years. There is a possibility of parole, there is a possibility ,however unlikley, of escape.

You state that there may be a miscarrage of justice that can not be reversed, essentially a situation where an innocent is killed.
Equally there can be the situation where an innocent is killed by a person who has rightfully been convited of a crime and then released.

Which of these victims is less derserving of life?

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Bendos
ok, so you agree that in certain situations police killings are justified and acceptable. This is because the police are removing a threat to society.

Didn't knowz that I was disagreeings with that point.

You seem to be suggesting that summary execution by the police is fine because of the immediacy of the threat.

You use the word execution erroneously and in an inflammatary manner. nuf said.

The question I'm asking is that what is the moral difference between a police marksman killing or someone being put to death after trial as both remove a threat to society?

You changing the question now but, whatever. Yez there is difference and former has a retrospective trial (inquest) that can lead to formal criminal proceedingz so in the end both iz accountable. Happy nowz?