OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

-

It's not clear from your precis whether Hitchens P is actually advocating the return of capital punishment. If he is, then I would disagree for two reasons - the danger of miscarriages of justice, and the simple fact that it is inhumane. I would agree, however, with the fact that something has gone badly wrong in this case. There are people who should never be released from jail, and this charmer is one example.

 

Isn't that the point I was making?

This thread has degenerated at a rate of knots. I'm sorry guys but I just can't believe what I'm reading here.

 

Yes, he is an advocate of the return of capital punishment, arguing that it is more inhumane than incarcerating somebody for life. Unfortunately, life seldom means life these days, unless your proven to be insane or whatever. He also argues that capital punishment may offer a deterrent to would-be murderers, thus potentially saving lives. This would be, of course, impossible to measure, but there is an historical precedent for this...

Back in the 1950s (I believe) all criminals involved in (say) a robbery, in which somebody was murdered, could face capital punishment regardless of whether they were actually the murderer. The "let him have it" case of Derek Bentley was an example of this (although the actual murderer in this case did not face it because he was underage, but Bentley wasn't). I am given to understand that there were recorded cases of criminals actually physically searching each other for weapons prior to going on a job, for the sole purpose of ensuring that there were no means for their partners in crime to commit murder and they themselves hang for it. The law served as a deterrent.

I'm pretty sure that when the law was changed such that only the murderer could be hanged - and I think the Bentley case was integral to this - the instances of murder during robberies increased, presumably because there was no longer the incentive to search your cohort.

Yes, there is always a risk of executing an innocent person. But I'm willing to bet that C/P would subsequently save more innocent lives than it might end. Also, such are the advances in forensics, DNA and other criminal technology that I reckon a threshold of evidential certainty could be set, below which C/P could not be applied.

None of that addresses your inhumanity argument, although there are 'humane' ways to end a life - but that may depend on one's definition of humane, particularly if the notion of ending a life is so abhorrent that nothing would fit it.

 

My word, we've moved on to capital punishment, this thread will never end.

I am a completely self contradictory on this one.

Intellectually I am against capital punishment for all the bleeding heart liberal reasons, plus the fact that I think suitably unpleasant life imprisonment may actually be a bigger punishment (of course neither the life nor the unpleasantness would be likely to happen here). I suppose I might waiver if in some fantasy world you could guarantee that there were no miscarriages of justice, it was only used for particularly heinous crimes (don't ask me to define them), the mentally ill and those of clinically restricted intelligence would be protected etc.

And yet every night when I see what certain scumbags have done on the news, and not just murder, I know that the world would be better off without them. The only thing which stops me really wanting the option is the certain knowledge that I could not press the button, administer the injection or pull the lever myself (though that might change if the victim were someone close to me). And I don't think you should ask someone else to do something you are not prepared to do yourself (I'm sure this is an easy argument to pick holes in).

Should be easy enough to check out deterrence argument by comparing crime rates in various US States.

Not a very useful contribution I'm afraid.

 

It's a very honest and human contribution, Stan.

 

There you go again, Travis, jumping in with both feet. I think we've got to the point where we have all accepted what the true events were more like as far as Rorke's Drift was concerned. I don't believe any us are or were fighting soldiers, so to rid ourselves of the romantic notion of honour on the battlefield has been an interesting process. Do pay attention and keep up, we've moved onto capital punishment.

 

Fair enough mate. I don't want to seem like I'm always having a pop at COL. He's one of the best on here for sure. Its simply that I almost always find myself totally at odds with his opinions and sometimes, like above, find them outrageous. Just the way it is.

So we've finally agreed that Zulu was tarted up for a particular audience just like Braveheart? Good. That's all I were sayin'.

However, may I say that as a threesome of ultra-Conservative Tory boys, yourself, COL and Stan ain't so crazy really. In fact, beside some tea-party members, the three of you would look like a bunch of pot-smoking, "save the whale" Greenpeace hippies.

Everything is relative isn't it?

 

Travis, I'm a free market PC anarchist, any fool should spot that.

 

Has the law actually been changed? I thought that 'common purpose' was still an accepted legal concept? Could be wrong.

I'm not sure that the deterrent argument is valid. I believe murders are less frequent now than they were when CP was in place. CP is commonplace in the US, but the murder rate there is way higher.

I consider that that the deliberate ending of a life, whatever the justification or means, is inhumane.

 

They may all deserve the death penalty, Nines, but I just believe it's wrong.

 

Nines/Stroller, do you boys know what this Travis thing means?

 

I missed it, Swords, but maybe Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver)?

 

The Bobby DeNiro character?!!!!!

And there was me Googling like a chimp and the best I came up with was an Australian ex (male) underpants model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Fimmel

 

Nines, as stated above I am genuinely torn on this. But it is a fact that between 1996 and 2006 138 people convicted of murder had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. A further 106 were cleared on retrial. It is entirely conceivable that some of these would have been wrongfully executed under a different system (some had been in prison a long time before the evidence to clear them/make their convictions unsafe came to light). People like the the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Bridgwater 4 etc would certainly have been executed long before the miscarriage of justice was revealed. All those you list, vile as they are/were, are either in prison or died in prison, whatever punishment they deserved, You would have to convince me that a system that would have executed these people like them would not have executed any innocent people. You would also have to be upfront that the only reason for executing them would be punishment for crime/revenge, as deterence clearly does not come into the picture with serial killers, child abusers/killers etc - they have personality disorders which they can't/won't control (I am not saying that is an excuse in any way, I'm also not saying that revenge is not a justifiable motivation).

 

So far I'm a psycho or a tramp.

Any more takers?

 

I'm assuming it was Travis Bickle, based on your profession, or former profession, of cab driving. Shame, was hoping that you would be in the dark a bit longer.....

 

That is fu*king brilliant!!!

I suppose I should be flattered that I wasn't likened to DeNiro himself after that thread last night about how dismal he was on the Norton show.

Now, what does Travis think of Capital punishment?

Well I think we should thank God for the rain as it washes all the garbage and the trash off the street. All the animals come out at night: Whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

Know what I mean?