Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:41 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What on earth does "forms part of any reason" mean?

It means it forms part of the reasons for it.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with what I am discussing. It doesn't form part of the judicial process and that is all I am talking about. You can't show me an example, and that's because there isn't one. Do you somehow have this notion that in the sort of places I am referring to, where the death penalty exists, the laws which govern when the death penalty can be given are in fact a sham, because "really" it is secretly about "vengeance"? This is emotive and conspiracist rubbish. A judge imposing the death sentence has to do so judicially, and even if he feels personally "vengeful" (or indeed personally opposes the death penalty).

No im saying vengeance is one of the reasons for having the death penalty as punishment. Not any of the strawmen you have built about a judges personal vendetta. But ‘revenge’ on the perpetrator being a big part of the reason that a state would have the death penalty as a sentence.

The defendant will die if the factors laid down in the relevant law are made out, and not otherwise. Unless "Vengeance" is a legally permissible factor written in some relevant law, your neo-conspiracist "vengeance" theory is an irrelevance.

And revenge is a reason why a states law would facilitate the death penalty.

Legally, in the jurisdictions under discussion, it indisputably does have that right. Otherwise nobody would be executed

As I said many countries have many crazy laws, they aren’t relevant to me.

Also, you skate over the point that in several situations, the state or the individual DOES, indisputably, have the right to take away life. That fact destroys both this argument, and your "inalienable" argument. The "right to life" is not a 100% guaranteed indisputable thing, it has exceptions, and so what we are in fact discussing (or should be) is the extent to which a death penalty is or is not added to the list of exceptions. To pretend that exceptions don't already exist doesn't help your case.

Only when there is a clear and immediate threat to safety.

But as you are either too dim to accept the point, or being deliberately obtuse, let's take a concrete example.

The state has discovered a plot by Mr. X to detonate a bomb at Wembley during the Cup Final; a police marksman finds Mr. X, poised with his finger above the detonator button. The marksman has Mr. X's head in his sights, and his finger on the trigger. He and asks the relevant representative of the state, his commanding officer, whether or not he should take the shot. In your view, does the state have the right to take away Mr. X's life, or should the state let him press the button, killing large numbers and maiming more, and then arrest him once he's done it and prosecute?

Here there is a clear and immediate threat to safety, here it is justified as a necessary evil, where other non-lethal attempts to protect the safety of others have been exhausted.

If either the police marksman or his commanding officer, couldn’t justify the killing on that basis then they would be guilty of, and charged with, and go through the legal process for murder.

You're becoming totally submerged by emotive claptrap. You're trying to convince me that a judicially imposed death penalty after due process of law is the same as the murder/s which the defendant carried out. You are confusing the outcome (bothe defendant and victim/s end up dead) with the process (the defendant, knowing if he murdered, may be subject to the death penalty, nevertheless with no justification and intentionally murdered some victim; the court, under due process of law, does not murder anyone, it carries out the law which that jurisdiction requires it to do. It does end his life, but it isn't a murder, as even you must surely see.

Individuals are obliged to follow the legal process. The state decides the legal process. The individual executing on order of the state (including the sentencing judge) are not guilty of murder. A state which obliges a judge to sentence death is..

Would the marksman, or the commander, be hypocrites if the shot is fired?

If they are protecting the safety of innocent parties no. If they pull the trigger for any other reason. Yes.

Well, I'll confess I did know this. When you are on one of your crusades, you wouldn't agree with me even if I said today was Wednesday.

I doubt you would argue today was wednesday.

Risible nonsense.
a) fines do not go to the victim, they go into the judicial pot
b) if an order for financial compensation to the victim is made, that is separate and apart from the penalty imposed
c) it does not "put the victim back to where they were". If you want an example of naivete, read your claim again. Being mugged, robbed or burgled is a very distressing experience and can have significant psychological effects, even down to sometimes leaving some people changed forever. I reckon your claim that if caught, giving the victim their money back "puts the victim back where they were" is about as asinine and ill-considered a remark as even you have ever made.
But it indisputably does restore the sort of parity between victim and perpetrator for which you seem to be arguing?

It seems you have spent quite a lot of time here writing something just to agree with the principle of what I put, just disagreeing with the description I gave, which seems pretty pointless to me.

But yes, a fine for a burglar or mugger is an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator. The death penalty isn’t. Because the victim is already dead, they no longer exist so there is no-one for the perpetrator to have parity with. It acheives nothing, it gives no lessons, it rehabilitates nothing. It needlessly ends a life.

There is another fundemental and clear reason why your attempts to draw parity between those two penalties are just overly verbose nonsense. A fine, Community Service, imprisonment are all not only punishments for breaking the law, but attempts to rehabilitate the offender. The death penalty isnt, its just killing someone.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It means it forms part of the reasons for it. No im saying vengeance is one of the reasons for having the death penalty as punishment. Not any of the strawmen you have built about a judges personal vendetta. But ‘revenge’ on the perpetrator being a big part of the reason that a state would have the death penalty as a sentence.

And revenge is a reason why a states law would facilitate the death penalty.

As I said many countries have many crazy laws, they aren’t relevant to me.

Only when there is a clear and immediate threat to safety.
Here there is a clear and immediate threat to safety, here it is justified as a necessary evil, where other non-lethal attempts to protect the safety of others have been exhausted.

If either the police marksman or his commanding officer, couldn’t justify the killing on that basis then they would be guilty of, and charged with, and go through the legal process for murder.

Individuals are obliged to follow the legal process. The state decides the legal process. The individual executing on order of the state (including the sentencing judge) are not guilty of murder. A state which obliges a judge to sentence death is..
If they are protecting the safety of innocent parties no. If they pull the trigger for any other reason. Yes.

I doubt you would argue today was wednesday.

It seems you have spent quite a lot of time here writing something just to agree with the principle of what I put, just disagreeing with the description I gave, which seems pretty pointless to me.

But yes, a fine for a burglar or mugger is an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator. The death penalty isn’t. Because the victim is already dead, they no longer exist so there is no-one for the perpetrator to have parity with. It acheives nothing, it gives no lessons, it rehabilitates nothing. It needlessly ends a life.

There is another fundemental and clear reason why your attempts to draw parity between those two penalties are just overly verbose nonsense. A fine, Community Service, imprisonment are all not only punishments for breaking the law, but attempts to rehabilitate the offender. The death penalty isnt, its just killing someone.

100% of inmates sentenced to the death penalty and had the sentence carried out didn't offend again.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:54 pm  

I am certain that in none of the jurisdictions under discussion is "revenge" a reason for a death penalty being imposed.

I am certain that in none of them is "revenge" ever mentioned in the law, or in the process.

NO modern jurisdiction has, or claims to have "revenge" as any part of the judicial process. Punishment - yes. Deterrence - yes. Revenge - certainly not.

It is YOUR straw man that, even though you have NOTHING to contradict these facts, nevertheless "revenge is one of the reasons for having the death penalty". Whose reasons? Where did they give these reasons? This is such a vague and general claim that it isn't even sensibly capable of discussion. Which is why I haven't discussed it. If you gave an example of an instance of this, maybe there would be something to discuss, but you don't.

SmokeyTA wrote:

revenge is a reason why a states law would facilitate the death penalty.

You say "is". What evidence do you have? Where has this ever been shown? Which jurisdiction, which statute? Give us ONE example of where this has ever happened in any such jurisdiction as we are discussing.

SmokeyTA wrote:

As I said many countries have many crazy laws, they aren’t relevant to me.

So, if you murdered someone in a state that had the death penalty, that would be the case for your defence? Good luck with that.

SmokeyTA wrote:

But yes, a fine for a burglar or mugger is an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator.

No, it really isn't. "Parity"?? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're tying yourself in knots. The other kind of jursdiction, where mediaeval concepts such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" hold sway, certainly and directly call for parity between perpetrator and victim. In the most direct way. Following a murder, making the perpetrator as dead as his victim indisputably restores parity between victim and perpetrator. Doesn't it? If not, then can you explain to me why a death sentence could not be an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator?

SmokeyTA wrote:

A fine, Community Service, imprisonment are all not only punishments for breaking the law, but attempts to rehabilitate the offender.

You've obviously been thinking very deeply about this, to realise that a death sentence is not an attempt to rehabilitate the offender. Well done on achieving that insight, but who said it was?

Rehabilitation is a laudable aim, but there have always been some offences viewed as so heinous, that the perpetrator will never be rehabilitated. In our jurisdiction, under present law, they would get a whole of life tariff.

A fine is also manifestly NOT an "attempt to rehabilitate", but is a "PUNISHMENT". It may also be thought to be a deterrent. But how on earth do you say forcing me to pay money on pain of imprisonment is rehabilitative?

SmokeyTA wrote:

I doubt you would argue today was wednesday.

Well, no, I wouldn't, because it just is. It is a fact, deduced from the fact of what time it is, and the fact of my location in the world. It brooks no argument, but I'll concede that it might not be Wednesday on your planet.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:00 pm  

Standee wrote:

100% of inmates sentenced to the death penalty and had the sentence carried out didn't offend again.

100% of criminals who weren’t caught, didn’t go through any type of legal process and weren’t sentenced to death, who died of natural causes didn’t offend again either.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:16 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

100% of criminals who weren’t caught, didn’t go through any type of legal process and weren’t sentenced to death, who died of natural causes didn’t offend again either.

Er, I suspect that prior to their demise, it's very likely many of them did. Bein' criminals, an' all . . .

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:35 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I am certain that in none of the jurisdictions under discussion is "revenge" a reason for a death penalty being imposed.

I am certain that in none of them is "revenge" ever mentioned in the law, or in the process.

NO modern jurisdiction has, or claims to have "revenge" as any part of the judicial process. Punishment - yes. Deterrence - yes. Revenge - certainly not.

It is YOUR straw man that, even though you have NOTHING to contradict these facts, nevertheless "revenge is one of the reasons for having the death penalty". Whose reasons? Where did they give these reasons? This is such a vague and general claim that it isn't even sensibly capable of discussion. Which is why I haven't discussed it. If you gave an example of an instance of this, maybe there would be something to discuss, but you don't.

The only fact you are expressing is that you aren’t aware of it. Im not going to argue with you about what you are and aren’t aware of. It would take far too long for us to list the things you don’t know.

You say "is". What evidence do you have? Where has this ever been shown? Which jurisdiction, which statute? Give us ONE example of where this has ever happened in any such jurisdiction as we are discussing.

Why not try the US. Evidence below.

So, if you murdered someone in a state that had the death penalty, that would be the case for your defence? Good luck with that.

Whereas if you were a homosexual in Uganda im sure you would think their laws perfectly fair and reasonable.

No, it really isn't. "Parity"?? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're tying yourself in knots. The other kind of jursdiction, where mediaeval concepts such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" hold sway, certainly and directly call for parity between perpetrator and victim. In the most direct way. Following a murder, making the perpetrator as dead as his victim indisputably restores parity between victim and perpetrator. Doesn't it? If not, then can you explain to me why a death sentence could not be an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator?

Interesting you should mention mediaeval concepts such as an eye for an eye. May 19-21 poll*, Gallup asked Americans why they favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. More than half of those who favor the death penalty cite something about revenge (i.e., "an eye for an eye", 37%), the convicted deserving to be executed (13%), justice (4%), or fair punishment (3%) as their reason for supporting the death penalty. Eleven percent of supporters cite saving taxpayers money because executed prisoners would not have to be incarcerated. Although deterrance is often mentioned as a major benefit to society of executing those convicted of murder, only 11% of death penalty supporters volunteer that as a reason for supporting it. Seven percent of those who favor the death penalty do so because they believe it keeps the criminal from repeating the crime.

Are you arguing that something you would describe as a mediaeval concept is also reasonable? I would have thought we had moved forward a bit more than that.

You've obviously been thinking very deeply about this, to realise that a death sentence is not an attempt to rehabilitate the offender. Well done on achieving that insight, but who said it was?

Nobody said it was an attempt to rehabilitate. I can only assume you have deliberately misunderstood why it was brought up .

Rehabilitation is a laudable aim, but there have always been some offences viewed as so heinous, that the perpetrator will never be rehabilitated. In our jurisdiction, under present law, they would get a whole of life tariff.

A fine is also manifestly NOT an "attempt to rehabilitate", but is a "PUNISHMENT". It may also be thought to be a deterrent. But how on earth do you say forcing me to pay money on pain of imprisonment is rehabilitative?

Prisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Er, I suspect that prior to their demise, it's very likely many of them did. Bein' criminals, an' all . . .

I would also suspect that prior to being executed it is very likely that many criminals sentenced to death would have also committed crime.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:44 pm  

Standee wrote:

100% of inmates sentenced to the death penalty and had the sentence carried out didn't offend again.

And it's almost certainly the case that nothing like 100% of those executed were guilty of the crime for which they were executed.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The only fact you are expressing is that you aren’t aware of it. Im not going to argue with you about what you are and aren’t aware of.

Translation: You can’t produce anything, not one thing.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Why not try the US.

Because it is not evidence of what I asked you for. The fact that in any given country, out of millions of inhabitants, a significant amount of support can be found for prety much any proposition (even the frequent occurrence of alien anal probes), does not equate to any one of those views forming part of the judicial process. If a US state executes a criminal, many residents may personally feel that some measure of revenge has been exacted, but that doesn't mean that the concept of revenge was involved in the decision whether or not he should die, which would be based on laws enacted, processes followed and decisions made with a total absence of the concept of revenge. Get it?

SmokeyTA wrote:

Whereas if you were a homosexual in Uganda im sure you would think their laws perfectly fair and reasonable.

Homosexual? Uganda?? As we were neither discussing Uganda, nor homosexuality, nor what laws I think "fair and reasonable", I nominate that for your second-weirdest remark to press.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Interesting you should mention mediaeval concepts such as an eye for an eye.

No, I "mentioned" it as it is the ultimate manifestation of "parity" between offender and victim, which YOU seem to favour as an aim. I'm the one who disputed your remark about "parity" between perpetrator and victim as some sort of aim. Remember?

SmokeyTA wrote:

Are you arguing that something you would describe as a mediaeval concept is also reasonable?

Any given concept is either reasonable or not, depending what it is. Its age is not relevant. That the earth isn't flat is a pretty ancient concept, but I think it is reasonable. Aliens bent on performing anal probes is a very recent concept, but I don't think it's a reasonable one.

Again, the "parity" concept was introduced by you, not me.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary.

Beside your point entirely, but anyway if you've looked it up, then you'll know that they can only do so on compassionate grounds of great age or infirmity. Not because they have become fully rehabilitated.

Plus, you've got it the wrong way round, since it used to be the Home Secretary who decided how long you'd serve, but now that decision is made by the Trial Judge. The Home Secretary's role and power in the process has been greatly reduced, not increased, as you seem to believe.

Moving on, following the recent ECHR ruling, Jeremy Bamber was quoted as saying:

"If the state wishes to have a death penalty, then they should be honest and re-introduce hanging.

"Instead, this political decision that I must die in jail is the death penalty using old age or infirmity as the method.

That's perhaps as twisted logic as anything you've come up with.

Re: Death Penalty : Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:24 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Translation: You can’t produce anything, not one thing.

Except I have.

Because it is not evidence of what I asked you for. The fact that in any given country, out of millions of inhabitants, a significant amount of support can be found for prety much any proposition (even the frequent occurrence of alien anal probes), does not equate to any one of those views forming part of the judicial process. If a US state executes a criminal, many residents may personally feel that some measure of revenge has been exacted, but that doesn't mean that the concept of revenge was involved in the decision whether or not he should die, which would be based on laws enacted, processes followed and decisions made with a total absence of the concept of revenge. Get it?

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer or how many times I can say it to you. Im not saying that the judiciary is acting out of vengeance, im not saying that an individual judge is conducting a personal vendetta, im not saying any of the strawmen you keep inventing. I have said, numerous times, that a state, which facilitates a death sentence, is doing so, in a large part, out of a wish for revenge. Do you understand?

Homosexual? Uganda?? As we were neither discussing Uganda, nor homosexuality, nor what laws I think "fair and reasonable", I nominate that for your second-weirdest remark to press.

Why is Uganda and their death penalty irrelevant when you have repeatedly tried to expand the argument to not just the law in this country but elsewhere? You have repeatedly asked for examples, why isn’t Uganda an example?

No, I "mentioned" it as it is the ultimate manifestation of "parity" between offender and victim, which YOU seem to favour as an aim. I'm the one who disputed your remark about "parity" between perpetrator and victim as some sort of aim. Remember?

So you did mention it? Im not sure what you are disputing here, whether you mentioned it which you admit you did, or whether i thought it interesting and relevant to the debate.

Any given concept is either reasonable or not, depending what it is. Its age is not relevant. That the earth isn't flat is a pretty ancient concept, but I think it is reasonable. Aliens bent on performing anal probes is a very recent concept, but I don't think it's a reasonable one.

Mediaeval can be used as a pejorative term to describe something as primitive. I assumed this was the context in which you were using it, im not sure why you would be using it in the context of a period of time between the 5th and 15th century. Was this not the case?

Beside your point entirely, but anyway if you've looked it up, then you'll know that they can only do so on compassionate grounds of great age or infirmity. Not because they have become fully rehabilitated.

Plus, you've got it the wrong way round, since it used to be the Home Secretary who decided how long you'd serve, but now that decision is made by the Trial Judge. The Home Secretary's role and power in the process has been greatly reduced, not increased, as you seem to believe.

Moving on, following the recent ECHR ruling, Jeremy Bamber was quoted as saying:
That's perhaps as twisted logic as anything you've come up with.

Im not sure why you are now making things up. I have in no way made any comment on whether the power of the home secretary has increased or decreased. Nor did I state that the home secretary gave the minimum sentencing. I made the factually correct statement Prisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them. Which you couldn’t argue against so you seem to have made up something you could argue against.