*****philes should be executed if there is conclusive DNA evidence. There is nothing more evil. Rape is more of a problem, as though DNA can be used to identify, it can't be used to determine whether sex was consensual or not, whereas sex with a child can never be consensual. Not sure about murder to be honest. If some psycho raped and killed your whole family, and you stumbled upon the scene and killed the murderer in a blind rage, do you really deserve to die too?
But why execute? Is there anything wrong with just keeping them in gaol until they die? As for those other things you mentioned, I fully agree. I think the majority of the populace probably don't see the need to send as many folk to prison, as we do.
What if they escape? Or somehow get parole years down the line? Then they'll probably ruin somebody else's life.
We have the ability to lock them away for good. Laws can also be enacted to keep them locked away for good.
Executed by being broken on the wheel used to be popular.Lashed to a wheel and the executioner begins to break your bones from the feet up with a big **** off iron bar.Dont think it deterred anyone but it was a helluva public spectacle!
Some say all taking of human life is murder, but is law enforced execution murder? It's said that murder lies outside the laws of the land, but is that just hair splitting?
You'd have to have irrefutable DNA proof. Like I said earlier, it's not like rape when you have the issue of whether or not sex was consensual, which can be difficult to prove. If a bloke's spunk is found in some kid's arse, he should be executed.
Fair enough. Not too likely, but possible. But what do you propose for sex offenders? They're basically incurable, so you either lock them up for life or you release them and potentially have them ruin some other poor ****er's life.
What of the brutalisation of society, which is enhanced by execution. Surely the object of a just society, is to curtail violence. From (former) Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun On their face, these goals of individual fairness, reasonable consistency, and absence of error appear to be attainable: Courts are in the very business of erecting procedural devices from which fair, equitable, and reliable outcomes are presumed to flow. Yet, in the death penalty area, this Court, in my view, has engaged in a futile effort to balance these constitutional demands, and now is retreating not only from the Furman promise of consistency and rationality, but from the requirement of individualized sentencing as well. From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than twenty years I have endeavored—indeed, I have struggled—along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.1 Rather than continue to coddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved [*10]and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. The basic question—does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants "deserve" to die?—cannot be answered in the affirmative.
I've never understood the outright hypocrisy of so called experts. It's perfectly acceptable for a nation to wage war, often killing hundreds of thousands, even millions of innocent civilians as they're just 'collateral damage', but to exectute a man who knowingly and deliberately robs another of their innate right to freedom by killing them, or emotionally/psychologically damages for life another, due to rape/*****phillia, is somehow wrong. These people need to gain a perspective on life, life IS cheap, you just need to watch any documentary on the starving millions in Africa, the abandoned/killed babies in China/India etc. to realise this and at the very bottom of the ladder in terms of humanity are those who commit the most heinous crimes, like the animals they are, it's better for EVERYONE if they're removed from society permanently and the best way to do this is by execution.
oops, didn't mean to post without finishing off by saying: The most important thing in ANY society is the wellbeing of the whole group and as soon as an individual breaks this covenant by murder, rape etc. they degrade the whole group, they need to be removed permanently for the sake of everyone elses safety.
Thank you for the contribution RR. As you say, life is cheap. We do indeed live by double standards, we have to or society would probably fall apart. We subvert one principle to let another give us what we hope will be, a better life for the greater populace. But I don't believe that we shouldn't strive for the betterment of man. If the cost of putting a person to death is more the cost of a life time of incarceration, then shouldn't we take the latter option? If we lock someone away for life, they can't re offend. If that's the case, then surely the act of killing another human being comes off as an act of revenge? Again, is that justice? Sure I have the same feelings for the victims and their families as anyone else, they more than anyone deserve justice, but justice must be for all, even the most callous among us. This is why the death penalty is slowly beginning to fade from the first world. I'm not European, but is it not illegal for a EU member to execute it's citizens?
