Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

Sorry I cannot agree with you there.

No human life should be valued above any other.

.... so why did you suggest letting the parents loose on Brady and Hindley?

[Feisty]

Sorry I cannot agree with you there.

No human life should be valued above any other.

.... so why did you suggest letting the parents loose on Brady and Hindley?

Because I didn't say I didn't agree with the death penalty.
I do.

I maybe said it as a gut reaction to Richard's comment that there were miscarriages of justice. A visit to Court 3 at Chester Crown Court is enough to send a shiver down your spine at what they did, and taped themselves doing it.

[Magnus]

I know this is going to make me unpopular, but I actually agree with the death penalty in certain cases. The way I see it, some crimes are absolutely unforgivable and those that commit them stop being 'human beings' the moment they carry their crimes out.

I don't think there can ever be any excuse for paedophiles, rapists and murderers, particularly those that have committed multiple offences. Rather than stick them in a comfortable jail cell for the rest of their lives, I'd just hang them and make a clear example out of them.

Just look at the case of that guy in Austria that locked his daughter in the basement for 20 years, repeatedly raped her and fathered seven children by her (a couple of which he threw into a furnace when they were born dead). What possible value can that 'person' add to society? Why should he be allowed to continue living the rest of his pathetic life in jail at the public's expense?

Obviously, the Iranian government (and others) are taking it to the extreme and are clearly manipulating the law to get rid of political opponents. It's also true that the punishment does not fit the crime in some cases (e.g. sexual infidelity and homosexuality) and most of the accused probably don't even get a fair trial.

But in a society where we can make sure the accused get a fair a trial and a right to an appeal to prove their innocence, why should we just lock them up once they're found guilty? If we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty, then let's get rid of them. It's no loss to society, in fact quite the opposite.

[Novus]

Because no matter how good a court system is, none will ever be perfect and eventually an innocent person will be executed. When an innocent person is executed, it is murder.....murder by the state.

[Feisty]

Because no matter how good a court system is, none will ever be perfect and eventually an innocent person will be executed. When an innocent person is executed, it is murder.....murder by the state.

I absolutely agree with you and having come very close to the workings of the law system over the last 2 years I am absolutely against the jury system.

[GorillaGal]

Clearly it is either not operating as an effective deterrent or as I suspect it is an abused form of punishment.

Iran had over 300 executions in 2007 ... that is more than China and certainly more than the USA.

I don't know how many of those 30 are for illegal relationships, but it could even be as many as 28 (the article does not say).

Even hoping they had a trial does not make it easier to accept. Can you imagine the sort of trial a woman accused of adultery would receive?

maybe a super-power should step in and help them out, you know...make them more civilized.

[Magnus]

Because no matter how good a court system is, none will ever be perfect and eventually an innocent person will be executed. When an innocent person is executed, it is murder.....murder by the state.

This is obviously a valid point, but there are cases where the evidence is truly airtight, like the one that I mentioned invloving the Austrian guy. Not only do they have the testimony of the daughter and the children, they've got DNA tests to prove he fathered the kids and the guy has not shown any remorse. He's even bragged about it.

In these cases, where there is absolute incontrovertible evidence and maybe even a confession to the crimes that proves they are guilty, why not hang them?

Besides, states commit murder all the time. Nobody goes to war expecting it to be bloodless. How can we justify killing other people, especially the 'collateral deaths' of innocent bystanders but let off the proven worst elements in our own societies? We even (quite rightly) give our police officers the means, training and right to take down people that are an immediate threat. Isn't that death by the state in some way?

I'm not saying we should hang anyone and everyone, just those that are proven threats to society and not safe to release or worth incarcerating for the rest of their natural lives.

[Oracle]

Why should he be allowed to continue living the rest of his pathetic life in jail at the public's expense?

Because he is the stuff that psychiatrists and neuroscientists dream of.

He would be invaluable to them for study and observations .... they just have to stop him committing suicide and wasting all that potential for discovery and medical publications ...

[Magnus]

Why should he be allowed to continue living the rest of his pathetic life in jail at the public's expense?

Because he is the stuff that psychiatrists and neuroscientists dream of.

He would be invaluable to them for study and observations .... they just have to stop him committing suicide and wasting all that potential for discovery and medical publications ...

Fair enough, but how about letting some other people perform experiments on him too? Nothing too damaging, maybe just a little surgery?

[Novus]

This is obviously a valid point, but there are cases where the evidence is truly airtight, like the one that I mentioned invloving the Austrian guy. Not only do they have the testimony of the daughter and the children, they've got DNA tests to prove he fathered the kids and the guy has not shown any remorse. He's even bragged about it.

In these cases, where there is absolute incontrovertible evidence and maybe even a confession to the crimes that proves they are guilty, why not hang them?

There is such a thing as false confessions. We have had a lot of convictions in recent years in the US that were overturned even though they had witnesses, a confession and plenty of evidence. The reason we know now they were innocent is because the case was reopened after the DNA was finally tested now that we have the technology.
Not all cases nowadays have DNA in the evidence, and so by going on our past record of so many being really innocent despite what appeared to be incontrovertible evidence at the time, there are bound to be innocents murdered.
Now if there is evidence and a confession and witnesses, that still does not mean they are always guilty. Another thing we discovered here is that some labs testing DNA are incompetent and with one lab they had to revisit hundreds of cases over the years to see how many innocent people were wrongly imprisoned.
One cannot correct the mistake if they are dead. At least with life without parole sentences they still have their life if they are later exonerated. The democratic government should not be taking the lives of its citizens.

Besides, states commit murder all the time. Nobody goes to war expecting it to be bloodless.

Self defense is not murder and the cause for war is claimed to be defense of nation. If the cause is not just, then the war is illegal and the deaths are murder, but if it is legal, then the deaths are killing, not murder.

How can we justify killing other people, especially the 'collateral deaths' of innocent bystanders

Collateral deths in war is homicide or manslaughter, not murder if it was unintentional.

but let off the proven worst elements in our own societies?

Our governments represent us all and our society which is why I am against the death penalty other than for high treason and being reserved for the military. To allow our government to murder an innocent person wrongfully convicted makes us complicit in the crime.

We even (quite rightly) give our police officers the means, training and right to take down people that are an immediate threat. Isn't that death by the state in some way?

One can argue that is "democide", but it is really an act in defense of the people and legitimate "self-defense" is not murder, nor manslaughter.

I'm not saying we should hang anyone and everyone, just those that are proven threats to society and not safe to release or worth incarcerating for the rest of their natural lives.

I understand your sentiment, but the risk of murdering an innocent person in the name of the state which is murdering in the names of the people is too much to risk.

I have another objection to the death penalty, but it do not think it would apply to Cyprus. It is more likely to apply to America and countries like Iran. It has to do with unintentionally teaching the youth already at risk of being a violent criminal to become more callous towards death and value life less.