Category: News and Views
I am flying to england in April of next year, but i refused to fly Singapour Airlines, even though they had a very cheep deal. I don't wish to support that country after they executed one of our citizens last month. There are many others who think the same way. After seeing how that poor man was treated it made me want to cry. Not only that, but how his family was treated.
What makes me really mad is that there are several countries around the world that still employ this method of justice. Most disturbingly, the United states. Wich is the only Western country that actively uses this form of punnishment. Not only that, their track record for getting things wrong is quite frightening. it has gotten to a point where journalism students are getting inosent people off. Surely there is a point in wich realisation occurs. Admittedly, the U.s uses a far more humain method of execution [with the acception of the 5 states still using the electric chair] but we learned our lesson long ago. We executed a man who we had very little evidence against. He was the last.
The boards are a great way to get to know people, so I'm interested to find out what you think on this subject. It's one i feel very strongly about right now.
Gal
I have a comment to make
Capital punishment is a pile of shit. I don't care what country, or part of the world you live in. People are people, they make mistakes. Two wrongs don't make a right. As for the Americans still having capital punishment, it's never going to go away. There governments feel that they are on top of the world, and they will continue to kill inocent people as well as there own. Don't get me wrong, if someone commits a bad crime such as premeditated murder, that person should spend the rest of there lives in a prison cell, not on death row. This way they will suffer more, and maybe actually think about there actions, and perhaps change.
Thats only what I think though. Love it or hate it, it's the truth.
I do believe that there are certain instances where capitol punishment should be used, such as in horrific murder cases where there is no doubt what so ever that the defendant is guilty. Cases such as myra Hindley and Ian Brady, who took several children out on to the moors, tortured them, in some cases even recorded them being tortured, and then murdered them and buried their bodies on the moors. 30 years later, one of the bodies has never been discovered. And Fred and Rosemary west, who lured at least 18 young women to their house, tortured them, murdered them, and buried their bodies under their house and in surrounding fields, one of the young women was Fred West’s own daughter. There was no doubt that in these two cases, the people involved were guilty of horrific crimes, and I believe that in such cases, they cannot be rehabilitated, and I therefore feel that the punishment should fit the crime, and that they should lose their life. I don’t however believe that, as happens in America, convicted criminals such as the ones mentioned above should sit on death row for several years, I believe that if you are sentenced to death, then the sentence should be carried out immediately. However, I only believe that capital punishment should be carried out if there is absolutely no doubt that the individual is guilty, and that it should only be carried out in cases of horrific crimes such as the ones mentioned above.
As for the Australian citizen who was executed in Singapur, whilst it is unfortunate, the reality is that countries such as Singapur, Saudi Arabia, to name just two, are renouned for their crime fighting policies, and people are generally aware of the penalties for crimes when they visit these countries. If you visit a country that has the death penalty for crimes such as drug trafficking, which is the crime the Australian was convicted of, then you bring it on yourself. I don’t see why someone shouldn’t be put to death in a foreign country purely because they are a foreigner, in short, if you don’t want to be put to death in an eastern country, then don’t go there and commit crime!
Firstly, this Australian who got the death penalty should have known the law before he visited the country and if he didn't, then he's only got his own stupidity to blame. Secondly, if the guy was from Tartarstan, the author of the first post wouldn't be so bothered, and thirdly, by giving criminals food that could be given to poor people, we are resigning some of those poor people to the death penalty, even though they've done nothing wrong.
I hate capital punishment. It's worthless. How's it helping by taking a life for a life? Or a life for any other crime? I believe the person guilty should rot in prison to think about what they had done. Let guilt eat them alive... that is if they have guilt.
I think that prison is honestly the best solution in America. To convict someone, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, but that system is not always right, obviously. That way, if the guilty party is really innocent, he can actually live out the rest of his life happily.
to the author of post four, i care about any citizen of this earth who has to die, that is why i sponser a child and give to various chareties over the world. so, i don't think it's fair to make asumtions like that. You don't know me. I use the Australian sitizen as an example of the death penalty actually comming near to our country for once. wich it hasn't in a long time. And yes, we as people who live lives of relative prosperaty condemn many to death day by day, but like the death penalty, this is preventable. Yet, countries with greater wealth insist on bringing in legislation that further inhibits the economies of those countries. and forcing them further down into the pit of debt. What i believe is wrong about the death penalty however is the reasons for its justification. especially in countries like the united states. There two biggest points in its favour are
1 It acts as a deterrent against crime.
and
2 it is what God preaches in the bible. and so it is perfectly ok.
Both Canada and australia have lower crime rates than the united states, and we do not have the death penalty, and would not resort to such methods.
As for religion, if you read the new testament of the bible, you would discover that Jesus said that we should turn the other cheek, and not take an eye for an eye and learn to forgive our fellow man. And, forgive my ignorance, but he was the son of god wasn't he? wouldn't he know what god wanted? rather than the interpretation of some polititions in the white house. And if any of their relatives ever committed murder, would they sit on death row for ten or more years? no, money can get you out of anything. That's not right.
to have a crime committed and to find that person either inocent or guilty is very difficult. I've sat on a dury and it's very very tricky to have a conviction with absolutely no doubt at all. half the problem is the loyers that defend these people, they try and imotionally trick the jury into believing their cliant to be inocent when infact they are probably guilty. that's just my experience.
the issue with defence in the United states is that poor people who can't afford a good lawer are given overworked public deffenders who really don't have the time that is necessary to pay the propper attention that is needed in the case of crimes that are punnishable by death. Often these lawers are found asleep, not prepared and in a few cases drunk at the time of trial, and this is what is wrong with that particular legal system.
well i don't know much about that, but no legal system is perfect, no system is fool proof, especially when there's a jury concerned. that's why there's so much indecision when it comes to capital punnishment.
A lot to answer in post 6, firstly, some people who get the death penalty have taken a life in the first place, so surely that is worse if the person who got murdered did nothing wrong. A lot of people criticise governments for using the death penalty. The point about the US is absolutely right. However, it's very interesting that people who are against killing will always put pressure on governments, but what about gangsters? a lot of people in developed countries are killed in gang warfare, and who's publically condemning specific leaders of such organisations? I've never heard anyone. As for what you say about the rich countries making the poor countries poorer, a lot of these poor countries have rich leaders, How come most of them go unmentioned when they're benefiting from riches the citizens they govern could be benefitting from them instead? There are advantages to killing people rather than making them live and do nothing in a prison cell for the rest of their lives. It may be inhumane, but the actions of them are inhumane. The Australian who was killed in Singapore was posessing drugs which could potentially kill other people, so surely if you're against the death penalty because you're against killing, you won't fly Australian airlines because you're against the Australian governments support for a man who helped kill people by trading drugs.
people who take any kinds of drugs have noone to blame but themselves if they take too much and overdose.
I'm sorry, but i have very little sympathy for people who start a habbit wich is life threatening in the first place. They're only doing it to themselves.
I don't think any country should have the right to say weather a person lives or dies. No government should have that much power, for where there is power, there is curruption.
Power is open to abuse by those who claim it. why do you think communism never worked?
As for gangs, i'm deffinetly against them. and, i don't think medias such as films and music should be promoting them as readily as they do. I think in many cases that it's a lack of education when criminals are younger. This could be reguarded as obvious. The population of prison systems are generally black, mexican or native american. their i.q is often below average and they come from broken backgrounds. i'm not saying that that's any excuse and that they shouldn't be punished, but, there is a need for a massive overhall of this particular legal system. and also with the education system. and, come to think of it the family services system,...wich in the u.s, is basically non-existent.
My reasons for not condoning the death penalty have more to do with political matters. wich i have already stated.
Countries with rich governments who do not spare a thought for their citizens are a different story. i have no real solution apart from overhalling their governments as well, in many cases, this wouldn't be a bad idea.
So if power corrupts, should we make sure noone has any power? then noone will be corrupt. As for everything else, well I agree with most of it. The legal system should only be overhalled in the US if it results in more criminals reguardless of their ethnicity been sent to prison, and the education system there needs to be completely unsegregated. As a humanitarian, surely you don't condone putting people in prison, afterall, they're denied freedom, and also they're been held against their will.
i condone punishment, but, i believe punishment goes hand in hand with rehabilitation. i'm not saying some of these criminals should be ever let out...but, it's still important for them to learn from their experiencesl
As for the power issue, how about we get a big multy tasking computer to run the world. then it wouldn't be run by humans.
Good idea with the computer. I think that it's good to rehabilitate people and forcibly change them into deesent individuals, such actions would make the world a better place, societies more productive, and prisons less crowded.
hmmm, force people to rehabilitate? i don't actually think that that is possible. in the end, it has to be the persons choice, you can never force something like reform on anyone. i'd like to know how you prepose such a thing? i don't think it's actually possible to inforce such beliefs without turning the world into 1984.
hipnotic suggestion? certainly a form of hipnosis can be used in the treatment
again, this is insisting upon another persons mind that reform should be the path they take...how does that help them to reach that conclution on their own? that is just one small step away from brain washing them. In short, prison would not even be necessary. you would just send them down to the local hhypnotherapyst for treatment....somehow that doesn't scan with me...
however, such methods can be employed once a person has agreed and shown willingness to reform themselves, it could be quite helpful.
but people don't want to be killed for a crime they commit, so what do you do? on 1 hand it's right to punnish criminals, but the criminals themselves don't want that punnishment so you could say that they are being corrected against their will. well alot of the time. but the point is, what do you do, kill people, or try a more humain way of correction? i'm not against it, i'm just playing the fence so to speak.
i'm not saying that punishment isn't a bad or inhumain thing, i'm saying that sometimes the punishment isn't affective, wich the death penalty is not. It doesn't deter criminals, because people aren't thinking of the punishment when they commit the crime. I condone the existence of prisons, i think they could be places in wich people are rehabilitated, i don't condone the death penalty because it is so final. there is no way of taking it back...you can't bring someone back to life.
You can't appologise to a dead man.
I do believe in second chances, i know many convicted criminals, some of whom are murderers, and, they are nice people with social skills and they wouldn't even think of committing crime such as murder again,.
If they had been killed, they wouldn't have a chance to feel the way they do and make good of their lives.
tell that to the families of those lives they have taken? am sure that if anybody found said person then they would exact their own punnishment. you can't blame them for that, whether vengence is right or wrong isn't an issue, all am saying is that that sort of thing does happen. i think that in certain cases capital punnishment is necessary. the Mira Hindly case for example, the yourksheer mores murderess she should have been terminated long ago. instead she lived with out remorse in prison. nobody came to her funeral, in actual fact i know that the only real reason she was kept in prison was to keep her alive. if they had let her out then someone would have had an eye for an eye so to speak. but with people like that, why waste tax payers money, it's just not well spent.
"an eye for an eye and we'd all be blind" and then the zone would be over crowded.
And then what happens to the people who exact their revenge? surely if you support the death penalty then those sorts of people should be put to death also? for, what could be more premeditated?
am not saying that i support vengence i don't. what i'm saying is that it has some degree of chance of happening. well it did she was allowed to die a natural death. but yes in some cases i think the death penalty is needed. if it was publicised more then it would be more effective as a deterrent.
I am very opposed to the death penalty. As it has been mentioned, the government of any country should not have that much power...well, I don't really feel comfortable speaking for other countries somehow, but I don't feel as though the death penalty accomplishes anything. as Crazy pointed out, two wrongs don't make a right. its as simple as life and death. we try to make it more complicated than that, but I don't see how it could be. I do believe that someone convicted of a huge crime should be in a prison sell, but to think that we as humans can take the life of another human and feel okay with it? Were all human, and life is the only thing we have. its harder to really fully practice this I realize, but what is the difference between an innocent person and a guilty person? they both live under different circomstances, as they should. however they're both people. thats my simplistic view, I'm sure there's much more to it than that, i just don't think its right. plus, it doesn't limit crime. countries enforcing the death penalty do not have a lower crime rate than countries that do not practice the death penalty, and maybe if it did lower the crime rate I may consider thinking differently, but it doesn't. its pointless.
Ok here goes my thoughts. I totally agree with the death penalty. If they did it, they are goign to die. And I don't like the fact of them just sitting there in prison and die on their own, they need to be murdered. If you let them sit there in prison you are just wasting money. free shelter for them, free food for them, hell they can even get a degree in there! As for the rehabilitation thing. Not gonna work. Ever noticed the people that go to prison, not on death row, when they get out they are worse than they were when they went in? They may have went in for stealing but then when they get out they have learned so much stuff from their cell mates they get out and do rape or something. Then you have it in the prisons there are fights and murders all the time within the cell. People killing others with anything they can find. So what's better about that? I think if the death penalty was used more there wouldn't be as much crime. The reason it hasn't worked yet is because there are people going against it so it's delaying. if the prisons would ignore everyone and do their own thing and kill the prisoner anyway, damn right people would think twice before they did a crime because they wouldn't want to end up like that. I had a friend that lived in Sadi and she said there wasn't much crime at all compared to here. If you steel something they cut your hand off. You only have one hand left, steel again and see what you get? If there was someone stupid enough to steel again, garentee he wouldn't do it again. No hand to do it with. see how effective that is? an eye for eye totally. Call me a bitch but I support it.
My opinion about this subject tends to change each time I hear about innocent people being wrongly convicted. But then again, we have those Bundy's and Mansons roaming our neighborhoods, buncha bastards!. I think it's hard for any correctional or judicial system to faultlessly operate, I mean, if it isn't emotions or hysteria impeding upon a jury's or judge's reasoning, then it's just simple human error that makes the whole death penalty thing seem dangerous. And I
don't see any need for us to point out the obvious though, that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent nor do I think it should have ever been viewed as such because the only way a murderer is going to ever be deterred from acting out his crime is if the punishment for it is staring him in the face. Most murderers operate on chance anyway, just like any other criminal; they're thrill-seekers who know that their next victim might be their last and they don't give a damn if they're caught. The bible says something that rings true
about this subject and that is that: Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil (Ecc 8:11). I'm not quoting the bible to somehow add support to my argument, I just like the way it sounds (lol) and I'm just pointing out that it's true that laws, punishments, or prisons will never be (and should never be viewed as) deterrents to crime. Murderers are going to keep on killing people, punishment or no punishment.
I think that the death penalty is necessary and that it shouldn't be viewed as vengeance because it isn't the relatives of the victims who are carrying it out. It's necessary for the simple fact that a murderer took it upon him/herself to eliminate the existence of a fellow human being. I mean, I think everyone will agree that to premeditatedly take someone's life is the ultimate crime a person can commit against another. And yes I know it's scary to accept but there are actual monsters roaming our streets, preying upon vulnerable people, and they do this as a way to make themselves feel powerful. I mean, how do you think a person who is twice the size of and ten times stronger than his/her victim should be punished?But not all crimes have the same motive; there are crimes of passion, crimes that bring intrinsic reward, crimes that are committed as a way of escape from adversity such as a poor man stealing to feed himself. In other words I think that crimes have varying degrees of seriousness and that each case should be addressed with appropriate severity. I think it was Socrates who said that for a man to appeal to the judge for mercy was actually forcing the judge to make a present out of justice or something like that, that the judge would be committing perjury if he granted mercy to a man condemned to die. Why the heck am I putting all this here? I don't know, I'm just bored, and it sounds nice doesn't it? lol
But if we consider the family of the victim, the pain; the pain the victim experienced at his/her moment of death, I don't know but it just seems fair to me that the murderer should pay for what he did. He/she was hoping to get away with killing someone. But then again, not even this brings closure to the family. I also find it somewhat confusing that people would think the death penalty gives the government some kind of evil power over a murderer; because on the one hand, the murderer's motives aren't those of the government, and on the other hand, the experience of the victim and the condemned is not the same. I guess that's all I have to say for now. But I don't want to seem like I'm right; my opinion can always change.
one hand, the murderer's motives aren't those of the government, and on the other hand, the experience of the victim and that of the condemned comes nowhere near to being the same.
Damned preview didn't work, ruined my masterpiece. lol