Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« January 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Wednesday, 4 January 2006
The death penalty.
Topic: Politics
This is a puzzle. A site devoted to American gang culture tries to argue the case against the death penalty, yet manages to achieve the opposite. Referring to the execution of Tookie Williams, it reports on a voluntary handover of arms by members of the LA Bloods gang, with some members stating: 'If they can do this to Tookie, they can do it to any of us.'

By George! I do believe they've got it!

http://thaspot.thuglifearmy.com/blogs/roberts_blog/archive/2006/01/03/19.aspx

I have conflicting feelings about the death penalty. While I oppose it on the grounds that I fear the execution of an innocent man, I feel strangely envious of those US states where murderers are executed, rather than allowed back on the streets like they are here. It's what the public of those states wants. Contrast their position with that of Britain, where it's likely that popular opinion favours the death penalty, but governments think they know 'best'. Take this for instance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1865864.stm

where a British death penalty opponent says:

"Governments lead by example, so in Europe the government leads by opposing the death penalty," to which the BBC, to its credit, dryly replies: "Of course, British public opinion is actually said to favour capital punishment. It is just that in the UK it has never been a serious election issue."

Exactly. So I find myself in the curious position of opposing the death penalty, while at the same time opposing anti death-penalty campaigners who display such arrogance.

_ DY at 6:30 PM GMT
Updated: Wednesday, 4 January 2006 6:37 PM GMT
Post Comment | View Comments (10) | Permalink

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 3:00 AM GMT

Name: JamesFeeny

David, why are you against the death penatly? Is innocent life the only reason? I agree with you on that point but what if they find someone 100% guilty. Surely it is justified then?

As Stalin said, no man no problem.

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 3:53 AM GMT

Name: David Young

Innocent life is about 95 per cent of it. I suppose that a killer could have genuine remorse and be a totally different person after thirty years, but hardly any killers are going away for that long. I certainly don't think that fifteen years is right. Twenty-five would be my starting point.

I don't know what you mean by "what if they find someone 100% guilty?". When I was on a jury, the options were "guilty" and "not guilty". No percentages were applied.

DY

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 4:41 AM GMT

Name: JamesFeeny

Sorry I mean DNA evidence etc. which is practically solid proof.

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 5:37 AM GMT

Name: David Young

DNA certainly makes it less likely that the wrong person is blamed, though this still relies on the police not planting or contaminating evidence. Science isn't perfect though. Look at the case of Sion Jenkins.

DY

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 10:58 AM GMT


Easy solution.

Life really means life and a prisoner goes behind bars forever.

If they believe themselves innocent then they can pay for further investigations and ask for a retrial if the DPP believes one is needed.

If they know they are guilty and don't feel like spending the rest of their life behind bars then they have the option of euthanasia.

Whilst behind bars the lifer is to perform hard labour at all times to help pay for their incarceration.

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 5:11 PM GMT

Name: JamesFeeny

Or serious criminals could just be executed. Why should my taxes pay for them???

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 5:24 PM GMT

Name: David Young

Don't leap to the conclusion that execution saves a lot of money, or indeed any money. A prisoner on death row is morally entitled to appeal with the aid of highly paid lawyers. His life is on the line! And it's only fair that the legal process should be allowed to run for a long time, to give them time to uncover fresh evidence. In the end, you'll find that three or four years of legal aid is just as expensive as twenty years of food and lodging in prison!

DY

Thursday, 5 January 2006 - 11:28 PM GMT

Name: JamesFeeny

Ok well just kill them because they dont deserve to live. Set an example.

Saturday, 7 January 2006 - 3:09 AM GMT


You don't seem to have followed my "Easy Solution".

To avoid a miscarriage of justice the onus of execution is upon the criminal.

If they did commit the crime then either they show remorse and ask for euthanasia or they do hard labour earning their keep. If they do not earn their keep then a financial point of no return is set and they are executed for not paying their way.

If they didn't commit the crime then the good citizen will work to earn their keep, pay for the retrial and is hopefully released. Why would an honest law abiding citizen not work to survive?

Its win/win.

Tuesday, 14 February 2006 - 10:15 PM GMT

Name: 89TJ
Home Page: http://doublethrough.blogspot.com

I enjoy the total absence of any moral or ethical consideration in this 'discussion'. It's about what I would expect. Meanwhile, those who would have the state provide as little protection for its citizens as possible economically, want as much protection as possible physically.

Anyway, the last comment is wonderfully funny. The criminal should 'show remorse and ask for euthanasia'. I almost split my sides. If a criminal was genuinely remorseful, I would imagine they would want to try to make whatever amends they could for their crime, and live a worthwhile life.

View Latest Entries