No, I'm commenting on the fact that this is a serious, irreversible punishment that cannot be compensated for in the event of all too likely cases of error or malice.

Further to this, the justifications offered for its return are an incompatible mix of deontological principle (eye for eye) and utilitarian consequentialism (ends justify means). If the proponents of capital punishment are honest deontologists, then they cannot accept the risk of executing an innocent. If they are honest utilitarians, they cannot successfully argue the necessity of such punishment (except in terms that entail some entertainingly horrible conclusions) and they cannot argue from a deontological principle.

The idea that it is right to have capital punishment just because it is the will of the majority is deriving an ought from an is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Capital punishment is serious and irreversible, I do not accept that it is right to leave such decisions to people who are too lazy to think about them. Nobody should be asked to place their potentially innocent life in your hands just because you are part of a bigger mob than they are.

In short, this is a subject where the majority of people vote with their gut, and that's not good enough for me.

Indeed, but I also hold that innocent people should be released as soon as the evidence against them is shown to be false, and they must be compensated for the miscarriage of justice. So as long as I am let out quickly and given a large cheque, I am game if society is.

That wasn't a very strong argument against capital punishment, I grant you. But that's not in itself a very interesting topic to me. I want to know how committed people are to their views, how much thought they're willing to put into them, and what the implications of lazy attitudes to other people's death are for democracy and justice.

If 30 million people vote to bring back hanging, and then an innocent man goes to the gallows, does that make it ok to kill him because it's democracy so therefore it's right. Or does that make 30 million people guilty of criminally disregarding their duty? Or do those 30 million people have no duty in regard to the innocent man - all they had to do was vote, but the innocent death is the responsibility of the politicians who implemented the command of the plebiscite? I don't like the thought that lazy people can decide to implement a murderous change to our justice system without bothering to answer or even acknowledge such questions.

We have democracy, it is perfectly capable of enacting change on a massive scale if the electorate are capable of coherently desiring such.

The basic problem with democracy is that the level of discourse is generally poisonous. I'm a left-leaning liberal, but I really do tire of reading idiotic complaints that the Tories are evil, they want to sell the NHS to the highest bidder, none of them believe in anything, they only want to steal money grind the faces of the poor into the dirt. The authors of these complaints never in my experience show any interest at all in the other team's justification for their policies.

These attitudes (reciprocated with equal venom) create a dialogue of the deaf, nobody is awake to reasoned argument because they are all equal participants in a giant ad-hominem lie. Everyone becomes a fanatic - you can recognise a fanatic very quickly; he's the guy who thinks you secretly know he's right, and you disagree with him because you are pure evil - and no progress is made ever again because nobody respects the tools of persuasion any more.

So sure, we have democracy, but we all got together and we broke it.

4 posts in a row! I win this thread!

Well that must make me the anti-fanatic, as i know you all think im wrong But I like a good discussion about stuff, though forums are never a good place to really have a good discussion.

Though I would say most peeps on this forum are (using the crude pigeon holing technique) are probably liberal left of centre types in their viewpoints whilst I think I'm more at the t'other end.

That I would disagree with that, I'd say it has been broken from the start but most people actually don't give a flying fig about the political system unless it impacts their life.

Its those long words! you scaring people!!!

Someone on the BBC website made a similar comment: if you are happy to overlook innocent deaths, how would you feel if it was you who was innocently put to death? If murdering someone is the most heinous crime you can commit, then giving someone the death sentence IMO makes you equally repugnant as the murderer.


I've been a bit suspicious of all of this. "Feeling" that we have democracy and that the Govt is really listening is a good way to detract from other issues. All cloak-and-dagger stuff IMO.


As stated above, how would you feel if you were wrongly imprisoned? How would you feel if you knew you were going to executed but were wholly innocent?


If it's a clear-cut case and the guilty party admits to doing it, it's a different situation than if you were alleged to have done it. You can't go round executing everyone. Or believe me, it'd have happened by now.


Be careful that you're not indulging them in their violent fantasies. Most "normal" people would be horrified etc. But there are those who would get a real kick out of things, would relish the splash of blood on their faces etc.

I'm against the taking of a human life. I used to think it would be a positive thing to have capital punishment - it would act as a deterrent and would ease public burden on jails etc. But through maturity (rather than work), I realised that there are very few things which would justify killing someone. In some ways, making someone do meaningless tasks could be more painful and torturous than simply hanging them.

er i wouldnt feel a thing if I was put to death, innocent or not. I would be dead
Actually I would say murder is far from the most heinous crime you can commit. There are many crimes I would rank as much more serious.


Pretty narked. But I'm not going to change my viewpoint on the premise that I may in the future be in that situation as a totally innocent party. If I am I want it to be because Ive done the deed


What is "normal", I feel you are confusing your own set of beliefs and extrapolating them out to encompass a majority. Looking back in history when executions were public they were great crowd pullers. As a revenue stream we could make them pay per view.

So you'd be happy to be put to death for a crime you didn't commit? Really? Would you go solemnly or not?

As for "normal" - I guess this is a reducing majority but remember we have a lot of elderly and children as well as violent adults. Personally, it wouldn't distress me - I've seen people die and in some cases successfully resuscitated them. What would distress me is if it were a family member, whether or not they were innocent.

No I wouldn't be happy and neither did I say I would. If I was innocent then they'd have to drag me kicking and screaming if I was guilty then who knows how I would react.

If it was a family member and they were guilty then it wouldn't bother me at all. You have to take the consequences of your actions.

But you'd be happy for the few innocent to suffer in order the punish the majority (of criminals)?


Quite difficult - if your mother killed your father in self-defence but was construed as excessive violence and hence sentenced for manslaughter which resulted in the death penalty, would you still be "not bovvered"? It all depends on the circumstances. For me, the proximity of the relationship would be proportional to the emotional turmoil I'd experience irrespective of the crime committed. I love my sister but if she killed someone in cold blood, it'd still pain me to see her die albeit knowing full well it was justice.