Capital Punishment WA current proposal

[lowetania]

Criminals and their rights

I believe that when a criminal chooses to take away anothers human rights through their criminal actions, especially in violent cases, or those of a serious sexual nature that they should waive their personal entitlement to human rights as they did not consider the victims rights when committing their crimes.

Therefore a criminal who is found guilty BEYOND ANY DOUBT (including DNA evidence) that they are then stripped of their own entitlement to Human Rights and should be given rights equal to that of an animal.

Subsequently if a criminal kills or seriously injures another person then they should be treated as would a dangerous dog. Once the case is proven and they are found guilty then they should be put down as we do animals.

It is difficult I know for those who have never suffered crime to grasp just how much it affects the victims but it is VITAL that the victims rights be placed very firmly ahead of the criminals or else the public perception of the criminal justice system and the police force, will be damaged further and more serious crimes will go unreported as the people start saying that it is pointless to even hope for justice and this is a trend that needs changing desperately.

Therefore, in conclusion I call on all members of 10KI to vote AGAINST the upcoming proposal to ban executions and perhaps to even support me in drafting an alternative act that will once and for all time ensure that punishments be toughened to return true justice and deterrent to our legal system. I thank you for your time and your vote.

REMEMBER TO VOTE PLEASE. PROTECT THE VICTIM NOT THE CRIMINAL!

[MPlowsia]

I want my nation to have the right to Capital Punishment, but I'm not for stripping away ANYONE'S total human rights. That's insane.

[lowetania]

Yet you do, by default, allow the victims rights to be stripped away by the criminal ...

[MPlowsia]

That's like saying that it's okay to rape someone, as long as they've committed a rape. You're just creating another rapist.

[Pompadoodle]

People who commit crimes are still people. And all people have human rights. Any ideology which seeks to strip people of their humanity and categorize them as sub-human is both grossly oppressive and morally bankrupt.

[Guy]

Putting down animals is just as disgusting (or even more so) than capital punishment.

Capital punishment is also quite horrible unless in cases of genocide.

[Globexanter]

We don't use capital punishment, if we have someone who deserves it, we either shoot them on the spot ( If only back up by 100 % assure proof ). Or we push them to madness to pay for their crimes, then we either let then die themselfs or we mercy kill them to stop their pain.

[Magthere]

In Magthere the death penalty is an option only for the more severe crimes, and there must be DNA evidence confirming the suspect, even if all the other evidence says a suspect's guilty he/she cannot be executed without DNA proof, until then it is simply life with no chance in hell of parole, unless the DNA comes clean, then we release them and do reparations...

[Magthere]

Criminals should keep their rights whilst there still in trial for their alleged crimes, once they've been found guilty their punishment will reflect their rights lost, be it time in prison, or death.

[Guy]

By the way, had you actually read the WA proposal, you would've seen it just outlaws executing pregenant women, children and persons with disabilities. I hope we can all agree on that.

[La Vida De Sangre]

My views on capital punishment are simple: two wrongs never make a right one.
I believe criminals still have rights, like other people. I don't see what capital punishment exactly changes. It doesn't make any better in already bad situation.

[Enigmatic]

I don't think the goal is to exactly make things "better." Obviously when a crime that may warrant capital punishment takes place nothing is really good about any of it. Still, some people are clear dangers to society. Just as a cancerous growth is cut out of a human being, some times you must eliminate a truly dangerous criminal. Now I don't think we ought to be executing criminal willy nilly, but capital punishment does have it's place.

[Anime Daisuki]

If I had it my way, the type of punishment should be decided by the victim's family, not a judge.

;D

[Harperians]

^ So true, yet some families are a bit 'forgiving', aren't they? The punishment wouldn't be in any way appropriate then, would it?

[Anime Daisuki]

Oh don't get me wrong, there would be a minimum of course, like 20 years without parole. You can't really let mass murderers walk free, after all, have to protect the public.

[mardoe]

All humans, no matter what atrocity they have committed, have rights. No human should be stripped of his rights. Put in prison for a very long time? Yes. Completely lose all of his rights? Certainly not.

In regards to Capital punishment itself I believe that it should not be used on a someone who has murdered one person. They should receive life in prison. If multiple people have been murdered then and only then is capital punishment appropriate in my opinion.

[Unibot]

To penalise a criminal with the decisive ‘punishment’ of death is to also,
● Treat a mortal not as a mortal but as a symbol or a statistic that is void of dignity for the sake of deterrence;
● Accept that to fulfill the sentence, the state must suspend itself of the duties of goodwill which the punishment is supposed to – with much contradiction – enthuse;
● Encourage a morbid culture with the traditional inhibitions towards murder discarded in favour of wolfish retribution, that will only unite people – young and old – with the natural attraction to barbarism, and undermine any of the death penalty’s means of suppression and public security;
● Support a cruelty that offers no ‘punishment’ without the contemplation of the punished’s reformation – a requirement to be a legitimate ‘punishment’ that execution cannot satisfy ;
● Unfairly impose the responsibility of a “grim reaper” to a jury, tribunal, judge or otherwise an individual who could never deserve the burden of such a decision, on their conscience;
● Trust – with the accused’s life – that judicial error does not exist;

[Masonopolis]

I think that every one has human rights, should there be consequences for actions yes, should we descend to the level of the criminals no.
There are no death penalties is my nation. I don't see how you can say it is wrong to kill and then execute someone.

[Enigmatic]

Because it is better to cause one death than to allow for the possibility of more death. Yes, capital punishment is unfortunate. Yes, we should do our best to rehabilitate criminals and make them productive members of society. Unfortunately, that cannot always be done. Some killers are beyond help. Some times it is better to put down the mad dog than lock it away.

[Unibot]

Sept 27, 2010 19:20:09 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

Because it is better to cause one death than to allow for the possibility of more death. Yes, capital punishment is unfortunate. Yes, we should do our best to rehabilitate criminals and make them productive members of society. Unfortunately, that cannot always be done. Some killers are beyond help. Some times it is better to put down the mad dog than lock it away.

Question, Enigmaticnation.. is this "beyond help" because they lack the capacity for guilt? Define who is "beyond help".. if not.

[Enigmatic]

Beyond guilt, beyond remorse, beyond any understanding of good and evil. Beyond whatever it takes to make a man a healthy member of society. A definite desire and inclination to kill again.

[Unibot]

Sept 27, 2010 22:04:25 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

Beyond guilt, beyond remorse, beyond any understanding of good and evil. Beyond whatever it takes to make a man a healthy member of society. A definite desire and inclination to kill again.

Here's a quote from a book called "Ethics of Punishment" by Sir. Moberly.

"No human court can assess moral guilt. It varies from man to man and depends on innumerable delicate circumstances of which no court can take cognizance. Sir Robert Peel, as home secretary, speaking in the House of Commons on Capital Punishment, insisted that the criterion can only be the protection of civil order; it cannot be moral guilt, to estimate which would require superhuman knowledge." (Moberly 57)

If we cannot judge a man for his guilt or his capacity for empathy, and we have to give him the benefit of the doubt for the capacity of reform.. then is incarceration not an adequate method of crime suppression? For it is not justice to treat one man differently on the basis of a discarded criterion..

And indeed how safe are we in a society that encourages bloodlust through its own judicial practices? Capital Punishment undermines the very facet of what it is trying to suppress.

[Enigmatic]

First of all, I don't think execution fits the criteria of "bloodlust." Bloodlust is the desire to see the taking of life. We shouldn't have a desire to see any one die, but that doesn't change the fact that at times death must occur. I do not wish to see war, but if my nation is threatened then there must be war. I do not wish to kill, but if my life or family is threatened then I will kill in defense. I wish we lived in a world where execution was unnecessary, but it does not appear that we do. There should be no enjoyment taken from an execution. It should be tragic, but a tragic thing is not always an unnecessary thing.

Secondly, I will acquiesce to not knowing if a man feels true remorse for an action or not, however that does not mean that we cannot have some idea of his mental state. There have been criminals who have expressed no guilt for an action and stated that they would in fact commit the act again. Certainly, that should factor in to a courts decision.

Thirdly, I never said that imprisonment wasn't an adequate method of crime suppression. I think that the penal system here in the US needs some work, but I certainly don't think that every criminal or even every murderer should be executed. There are, however, some that should be executed. An ideal criminal justice system, as I see it, should incorporate capital punishment, imprisonment, labor, corporal punishment, and shame.

Lastly, should a society not have some concept of moral guilt? Should we not encourage some collective sense of right and wrong? We have determined that murder is an egregious violation of our society's morals. Should we not then demand that an individual who murders be ashamed of his actions? As I said, I think shame should be part of the criminal justice system. Is shame not an integral part of rehabilitation? How can one even begin to reject an incorrect action without first feeling ashamed for committing it?

[Unibot]

Sept 28, 2010 14:34:55 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

First of all, I don't think execution fits the criteria of "bloodlust." Bloodlust is the desire to see the taking of life. We shouldn't have a desire to see any one die, but that doesn't change the fact that at times death must occur. I do not wish to see war, but if my nation is threatened then there must be war. I do not wish to kill, but if my life or family is threatened then I will kill in defense. I wish we lived in a world where execution was unnecessary, but it does not appear that we do. There should be no enjoyment taken from an execution. It should be tragic, but a tragic thing is not always an unnecessary thing.

Nice thought, turning murderers into the tragic cases of unchangeable people.. did you know, only a century or so ago, the same feeling was promoted towards mental patients, that they were tragic cases that just needed to.. to.. go away? *points to Bedlam*

Richard Bernstein in The Abuse of Evil (2005) argues that “ ‘Evil’ is a term that is used to trump serious consideration of alternatives in responding to real dangers.” (Bernstein pg.48)

So are we purging ourselves of a tragedy before it corrupts us? Or letting ourselves off the hook for the social failure to face tragedy with a serious response?

Secondly, I will acquiesce to not knowing if a man feels true remorse for an action or not, however that does not mean that we cannot have some idea of his mental state. There have been criminals who have expressed no guilt for an action and stated that they would in fact commit the act again. Certainly, that should factor in to a courts decision.

You're assuming this is a rational man, an irrational man might simply lie for the sake of irritating you, or more likely to protect his own mind. Guilt and shame is truly an awful feeling as you've stated -- it is much easier to deny you have it by convincing yourself you don't have it than accepting shame. Is it not possible that murderers aren't guiltless, they're just better than the rest of us at lying to ourselves and others? A mental defense mechanism gone wrong?

Which suggests that we're not murdering guiltless people, we're murdering people for seemingly not accepting guilt, or even better, murdering people before they can seemingly accept guilt.

Lastly, should a society not have some concept of moral guilt? Should we not encourage some collective sense of right and wrong? We have determined that murder is an egregious violation of our society's morals. Should we not then demand that an individual who murders be ashamed of his actions? As I said, I think shame should be part of the criminal justice system. Is shame not an integral part of rehabilitation? How can one even begin to reject an incorrect action without first feeling ashamed for committing it?

And how does one feel shame if they're dead?

[Enigmatic]

Sept 28, 2010 15:44:52 GMT -5 Unibot said:

So are we purging ourselves of a tragedy before it corrupts us? Or letting ourselves off the hook for the social failure to face tragedy with a serious response?

Neither. The fact the tragedy(a murderer beyond help) exists is evidence of our corruption. An execution in itself is a serious response to a serious problem.

That is of course in a system more ideal than the current one. I am sure that execution would serve as a useful way to escape facing a serious issue. The fact that a system is abused is not necessarily reason to destroy the whole system, merely reform it.

You're assuming this is a rational man, an irrational man might simply lie for the sake of irritating you, or more likely to protect his own mind. Guilt and shame is truly an awful feeling as you've stated -- it is much easier to deny you have it by convincing yourself you don't have it than accepting shame. Is it not possible that murderers aren't guiltless, they're just better than the rest of us at lying to ourselves and others? A mental defense mechanism gone wrong?

That would depend on your definition of rational. Does a rational man become a serial killer or a child rapist? In any case, the scenarios you mention are possible. It is up to the courts to make a distinction between "mad dog killer," irrational man, liar, and plain fool. Also, there are easier methods of rationalization than denying you experience guilt.

Which suggests that we're not murdering guiltless people, we're murdering people for seemingly not accepting guilt, or even better, murdering people before they can seemingly accept guilt.

I will allow for the possibility that this has occurred. No system is perfect. However, that is not the case in every instance. There are killers and the like who are either incapable of feeling guilt or legitimately do not see themselves as being in the wrong. That said, you are focusing too much on this one issue. The presence of any kind of remorse in an individual is not, nor should it be, the only qualifier for execution.

And how does one feel shame if they're dead?

One does not. The idea is that one becomes ashamed of incorrect behavior before one reaches that point. Any exception is a failure on the part of society. Or perhaps biology, but I won't get in to nurture vs. nature.

[Destroyed Livers]

An "eye for an eye" in my opinion is the only way to actually deter crime. Prisons don't do it, in fact its my belief that they actually encourage people. What's the worse thing a murderer can expect if he/she is convicted? A life in a secure enviroment, three square meals a day, cable, workout facilities, education, and many other amenities that people outside of a cell struggle to obtain the honest way. Oh ya we have the death penalty, but that normally takes years to actually come to fruition. Meanwhile those of us who never break a law or commit a crime are stuck footing the bill. Human rights are lost once you take those same human rights away from another.

[Anime Daisuki]

Sept 9, 2010 21:22:20 GMT -5 @mardoe said:

All humans, no matter what atrocity they have committed, have rights. No human should be stripped of his rights. Put in prison for a very long time? Yes. Completely lose all of his rights? Certainly not.

In regards to Capital punishment itself I believe that it should not be used on a someone who has murdered one person. They should receive life in prison. If multiple people have been murdered then and only then is capital punishment appropriate in my opinion.

Depends on the value of that person.

Ideally, every life costs the same under the law. But not really.

[Thanya]

Oct 7, 2010 16:28:04 GMT -5 Destroyed Livers said:

An "eye for an eye" in my opinion is the only way to actually deter crime. Prisons don't do it, in fact its my belief that they actually encourage people. What's the worse thing a murderer can expect if he/she is convicted? A life in a secure enviroment, three square meals a day, cable, workout facilities, education, and many other amenities that people outside of a cell struggle to obtain the honest way. Oh ya we have the death penalty, but that normally takes years to actually come to fruition. Meanwhile those of us who never break a law or commit a crime are stuck footing the bill. Human rights are lost once you take those same human rights away from another.

I utterly and completely agree with you, especially on the last statement. You said everything I was going to say. If someone intentionally and maliciously takes a human life, then that person should not have claim to any rights of their own.

[Unibot]

Oct 7, 2010 16:28:04 GMT -5 Destroyed Livers said:

Human rights are lost once you take those same human rights away from another.

And what about the people would lose their 'rights', aka, human privileges because they didn't kill someone, but the court thought they had?

We'll just.. you know.. forget about those people.

On the contrary my friend, I'd much prefer getting stuffed with a needle than spending 25 years in a confided space with a bunch of rapists, then spending the rest of my life, I dunno, being isolated from everyone.. even outside of a cell.

How can not having to live with the consequences of your actions be a way to deter murderers? People are capable of making very big errors in long-term judgement, that is why we have suicide and divorce. You're system of deterrence requires a human mind that is more rational than humanity has shown itself to be.

[humanites]

I support the death penalty for criminals that are unsalvagable (psychopaths, peodophiles) or who commit crimes that are unfogivable (Human Trafficking, Child Murder).

As for the part about taking away their rights...

As a Humanite, I beleive that there is more to being human than simply having a humans DNA. Whilst I am willing to grant the initial assumption that an individual has innate humanity, if they demonstrate otherwise, such as psychopaths, that they have no humanity, then they should be considered little more than animals and destroyed.

Minimal rights should be retained until guilt or innocence is proven though.

And yes, I agree with the notion that murderers and rapists never considered or respected th human rights of their victims (in most cases), so it would be unjust and insult to the victim and their family/friends were these monsters granted 'rights'.
I do not subscribe to the 'we'd reduce ourselves to their level' arguement.

Lastly, why wast public money on keeping evil and irredeemable prisoners imprisoned when we could be spending that money on homelessness and youh programs and research?