mham001
Posts: 5048
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:22 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Human rights are binding to everyone or to no one. Murder is murder, state sponsored of private enterprise.


best regards
Thomas


Then that should also apply to developed fetuses.
 
mham001
Posts: 5048
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:26 pm

c933103 wrote:
mham001 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
abortion have no place in the discussion as fetus are not developed human forms and there are already numerous regulations in place in most countries against unreasonable abortion


That is not necessarily true. In fact one of those "western" countries held up as paragons of human rights, Canada, by which it denounces the death penalty, has NO restrictions on late-term abortions (over 20 weeks), which is indeed a developed human form. I find that quite hypocritical. Certainly has more impact on society than eliminating a few murderers.

20 weeks old fetus still cannot survive independently without external helps so I won't call it developed enough to be an individual person.

.


Over 20 weeks. There is no legal limit on how late. None the less, there is heartbeat and it moves. It is living. And one would think that it would have more empathy from supposed "human right" proponents than convicted killers.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:35 pm

c933103 wrote:
Who determine "Human rights or natural law exclude capital punishment"?

We do, collectively. That is why almost no democracy has capital punishment, because of the quite universally accepted concept of the right to life.

given that the value that capital punishment should be abolished is not something of common value to all human beings, that should not be assumed as part of the natural law.


The right to life is commonly accepted. That it means no death penalty also is commonly accepted, as you can see by it being abolished almost everywhere. That is also why almost only dictatorships have it, they usually don't care much about human rights.

To prevent this situation, the capital punishment device in Japan have been specially engineered so that no single individual could be said as the one who is responsible for killing the person.


Statesponsored murder, I.e. capital punishment, is always a conspiracy to commit murder. They are all just equally murderers.

Country laws are not above everything, ethnic cleansing is something that most human individuals would find it disagreeable, however execution of criminals is not.


Since few democracies have capital punishment, that statement is obviously wrong.

Who decide a "society is wrong" other than arbitrary moral and religious judgement?


A society that allows the right to life being violated is either broken or evil. You need to design an exception/excuse to make capital punishment justifiable. Those are arbitrary, simply applying a rule is not.

Should extremist ideology be free to spread?


That is what freedom of speech means. And how do you get from murder to extremist ideology? Don't like that human right either I guess? We can surely discuss what is and what isn't protected speech, but death penalty for hate speech is taking it a fee notches too far. But then again, you just argued for exactly that.

Do you think monetary compensation can actually help compensating time someone spent in a prison?


A hell lot more than a "we are sorry" letter mailed to the grave.
You do understand that people are dead after being executed, right?

If so then monetary compensation to family of those falsely accused would do the same job.


You just lost the argument. If money can compensate for having one of your loved ones murdered, why not just fine the murderer in the first place. So, technically, if you support capital punishment you have to support death penalty for those involved in executing someone innocent.
And btw, how exactly does the family get their innocent family member back alive and well by such payments?

Who decide what is human right, other than religious believes?


Religious believe and lack of human rights seem to correlate quite nicely. We all do make that decission, and we all have, murder isn't legal anywhere. Hence nothing, that would qualify as murder if you or I did it, can be permissible for states, otherwise it would need to be legal for you and me as well. Premeditated killing of a defenceless person... find me a jurisdiction where you could do that and not go to prison.

In what sense is it universal?


Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.
For example we could snatch up those Japanese executioners on their Europe vacation and prosecute them for murder.

the feeling helps the society.


Bullsh*t. I would feel disgusted to live in a country that has capital punishment. There are even organisations of murder victim families fighting capital punishment.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/dea ... ims-family

Life imprisonment is better for the victims too.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:41 pm

mham001 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
mham001 wrote:

That is not necessarily true. In fact one of those "western" countries held up as paragons of human rights, Canada, by which it denounces the death penalty, has NO restrictions on late-term abortions (over 20 weeks), which is indeed a developed human form. I find that quite hypocritical. Certainly has more impact on society than eliminating a few murderers.

20 weeks old fetus still cannot survive independently without external helps so I won't call it developed enough to be an individual person.

.


Over 20 weeks. There is no legal limit on how late. None the less, there is heartbeat and it moves. It is living. And one would think that it would have more empathy from supposed "human right" proponents than convicted killers.


If it can't survive on its own outside of the whom it ain't a human yet. The 20 weeks have been chosen because it has some marges built into it. I think the medical consensus is that a baby born after 24 weeks it has some chance of a normal life without too many inabilities. Week 4 of a pregnancy the embryo has a heartbeat. You are not one of those people whom actually suggest we give rights to an embryo, right?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:43 pm

mham001 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Human rights are binding to everyone or to no one. Murder is murder, state sponsored of private enterprise.


best regards
Thomas


Then that should also apply to developed fetuses.


We can discuss that topic once being vegan is prescribed by law. An adult pig has a hell lot more ability to suffer than a featus, and given that it is about as intelligent as a two year old toddler, that remains true well beyond birth.
Only vegans can even begin to make an argument against abortion, anyone else is just motivated by religious fundamentalism. Quite funny considering that God commands abortions in the Bible.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:46 pm

Dutchy wrote:
You are not one of those people whom actually suggest we give rights to an embryo, right?


And only to the featus! Because once born that entitlement to nourishment and shelter stops. Forcing women to provide that is fine, making the tax payer do it, not so much. Even forcing the Dad to pay child support often is too much to ask for.....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
mham001
Posts: 5048
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm

Dutchy wrote:
mham001 wrote:
c933103 wrote:

20 weeks old fetus still cannot survive independently without external helps so I won't call it developed enough to be an individual person.

.


Over 20 weeks. There is no legal limit on how late. None the less, there is heartbeat and it moves. It is living. And one would think that it would have more empathy from supposed "human right" proponents than convicted killers.


If it can't survive on its own outside of the whom it ain't a human yet. The 20 weeks have been chosen because it has some marges built into it. I think the medical consensus is that a baby born after 24 weeks it has some chance of a normal life without too many inabilities. Week 4 of a pregnancy the embryo has a heartbeat. You are not one of those people whom actually suggest we give rights to an embryo, right?


Yes, I understand the Netherlands has a 24 week limit, but Canada has no such limit. And no, I am not discussing embryos.
tommy1808 wrote:

We can discuss that topic once being vegan is prescribed by law. An adult pig has a hell lot more ability to suffer than a featus, and given that it is about as intelligent as a two year old toddler, that remains true well beyond birth.

Best regards
Thomas


I see you are now on record proclaiming a pig has equal (more?) rights of a child. Got it.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
No at the very least it should be no parole PERIOD! This is the liberal justice system way of looking at sentencing .


bullsh*t. This is human rights correctly being implemented by courts. Life imprisonment without *chance* of parole is a violation of human rights just as much as capital punishment.

There is exactly zero reasons to have an old criminal die of old age, cancer or what not in a cage, almost every criminal will reach a point in its life where they don´t pose a threat to anyone anymore. Letting them die outside is also cheaper.

Many places that aren´t exectly liberal don´t have life imprisonment w/o chance of parole, by far the most countries don´t have capital punishment.

Those countries that still have either don´t understand or don´t care about human rights.

c933103 wrote:
But looking at those arguments against death penalty, is it just me that the supposed secular countries of European are being a little bit religious here?


The "Religion" is called "the rule of law", and countries that have capital punishment don´t have that.

Capital Punishment is the Religion in the room. We know it has no deterrence value, we know it costs more, we know it is severe punishment for innocent (you get to take my dad away, which is a crime against me, because my dad killed yours? What do i have to do with that? Why do i get punished?), we know it is fairly frequently applied to people that turn out innocent later, holding on to that outdated, barbaric and utterly incompatible with any notion of human rights. Pro capital punishment is a fundamentalist religion that gets people killed, anyone involved should be hunted down and brought to justice.

dmg626 wrote:
The death penalty only applies to aborted fetuses


bla bla. They are not sentenced to die, they are just not entitled to using a womans body as long as they please.

best regards
Thomas


No bulls*it is your statement right there! Did you even read what this guy did? There are crimes so heinous there is no way in hell they should EVER walk free again. We have had our disagreements but this takes the cake. I don't care if he lives to 99 there are some crimes that dictate that they forfeit their own life. Liberal thinking like this I will never ever understand.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:15 pm

mham001 wrote:

Yes, I understand the Netherlands has a 24 week limit, but Canada has no such limit. And no, I am not discussing embryos.


That is a different discussion then, an argument against late term abortions can be made. At some point during pregnancy the forming baby will acquire the ability to suffer, in the sense as we humans understand, and don't accept, suffering.

We can discuss that topic once being vegan is prescribed by law. An adult pig has a hell lot more ability to suffer than a featus, and given that it is about as intelligent as a two year old toddler, that remains true well beyond birth.


I see you are now on record proclaiming a pig has equal (more?) rights of a child. Got it.


You made the argument, I just spelled out what you said if you applied the argument consistently. If i supported your argument, then I'd be on record saying such. But since only you claim so...

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:16 pm

mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
mham001 wrote:

Over 20 weeks. There is no legal limit on how late. None the less, there is heartbeat and it moves. It is living. And one would think that it would have more empathy from supposed "human right" proponents than convicted killers.


If it can't survive on its own outside of the whom it ain't a human yet. The 20 weeks have been chosen because it has some marges built into it. I think the medical consensus is that a baby born after 24 weeks it has some chance of a normal life without too many inabilities. Week 4 of a pregnancy the embryo has a heartbeat. You are not one of those people whom actually suggest we give rights to an embryo, right?


Yes, I understand the Netherlands has a 24 week limit, but Canada has no such limit. And no, I am not discussing embryos.


No, the Netherlands has a 20week limit, where the most abortions are done in the first few weeks. The 24 weeks are for deliveries, if a child is born in week 24 or beond, the child will be treated and tried to help it develop further, most will die unfortunately and those who survive will most likely have severe problems in the rest of his life.
Canada seem to have little protection against the unborn, I didn't know that. I think thus I would not be in favor of the absence of such a law protecting the unborn. If a child is wanted, it needs some protection, also in the development phase, so in extreme cases in The Netherlands, the woman is actually supervised during her pregnancy. The decision to become a mother is left with the mother. If the child is not welcome, then I think it is better the end the pregnancy, but before it can live on its own. In Canada it seems to be a doctor-patient decision, I don't think you can find many Canadian doctors whom going to abort a 28weeks pregnancy. So I think it is in Canada a non-issue.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:19 pm

stratosphere wrote:
I don't care if he lives to 99 there are some crimes that dictate that they forfeit their own life. Liberal thinking like this I will never ever understand.


Human rights can by definition neither be taken, lost or given up. Liberal thinking is just consistent with the definition.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15937
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:24 pm

stratosphere wrote:
Liberal thinking like this I will never ever understand.


Don't worry, it's entirely mutual. Liberals don't understand extreme conservative thinking like yours.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3552
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:55 pm

stratosphere wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I’m not a proponent of the death penalty, but Luka Magnotta makes me struggle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Magnotta


Yeah and your Canadian justice system sentenced him to life in prison with no parole for 25 years? No at the very least it should be no parole PERIOD! This is the liberal justice system way of looking at sentencing .


He isn't getting out, even in 25 years at his parole hearing there is a 99.999% chance it will be denied anyways. I find that solitary for life is far more of an effective and appropriate punishment than a state execution and the most egregious murders probably want the death penalty if caught and convicted. Look at most mass shooters, they kill themselves at the scene usually because they don't want to go to jail for the rest of their lives.

ozglobal wrote:
It's not just the EU attitude to the Death Penalty, it's the conviction of all developed countries (including Australia, NZ, Canada, etc) who have long since moved beyond state sponsored execution as a means of justice. The US is ALONE in its conviction that killing its citizens who are convicted of crimes is to the greater good of society. This Japanese example is an extreme counter example of the trend to suspend the death penalty in practice in Japan.


Here are a few reasons why it is a bad idea to execute criminals where the death penalty may be warranted.

    The cost of a state sponsored execution is more that locking them up for life due to appeals when on death row.
    There have been many instances where those on death row have been released due to new evidence or advances in forensic technology. The execution of a criminal there needs to be 100% certainty which cannot usually be provided
    It isn't a deterrent
    Most of the reasons that people want capital punishment are based on emotional decisions and that is not a good way to dish out justice.
    Many people are pro-life when it comes to abortion but support capital punishment which is a hypocritical position
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:00 pm

scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Obviously not, but regardless of methodology of implementing punitive system, you still can't get everything right, and falsely sending someone into life sentence is just about as destructive as falsely sending someone into death sentence.


Even after 10 years or more in prison, an innocent person can still be pardoned, freed and compensated. How do you compensate a person you incorrectly executed? :sarcastic:

In many places those who received death sentences will have already stayed in prison for that long or more anyway to clean up all possible doubts on the case in the juridical process
And we can also count the death of those falsely accused onto the hand of those who actually committed the crime.

Dutchy wrote:
c933103 wrote:
The feeling helps the society.


So you say, but I see no empiric evidence for that. Do people in the US feel saver then in Europe? or Canada? The same standard of living, sort of same democratic way. So quite comparable I would say.

I cannot comment on the US due to my unfamiliarity with them. The place I am from have no death penalty any more, that's why sometimes people think that it's unfortunate for us to caught certain criminals by ourselves instead of letting polices of neighboring area that do still have death penalty to do the job.

Dutchy wrote:
Fun fact, Andres Breivik agrees with you, he wanted to be released or the death penalty.

76 dead, so we should add number 77? Nobody disputed that it was a despicable act. Don't think that killing him would solve anything.

So if next time someone committed a crime and wish for a jail sentence, should we stop sending people into jail?
And do you think the life of those who committed these felony should be seen as those who died innocently?

Dutchy wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

You and your stupid human rights bullshit, some people simply don’t deserve to live, I keep on mentioning him, Anders Breivik is one of those people, killing 76 mostly children is wrong in anyone’s book, if you think him being locked up for life or executed is against his human rights you’re as bad as he is.


Stupid emotional remark.

Moral is actually a sort of human emotion anyway. Why would we have moral if we don't have emotion? Moral are just a representation of what we feel to be good or bad.

tommy1808 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Who determine "Human rights or natural law exclude capital punishment"?

We do, collectively. That is why almost no democracy has capital punishment, because of the quite universally accepted concept of the right to life.

Collectively, outside of western civilization, how many people agree this that you can say it is "universally accepted"? Countries like America and Australia also count as countries of western civilization for this purpose.

given that the value that capital punishment should be abolished is not something of common value to all human beings, that should not be assumed as part of the natural law.


The right to life is commonly accepted. That it means no death penalty also is commonly accepted, as you can see by it being abolished almost everywhere. That is also why almost only dictatorships have it, they usually don't care much about human rights.

It is accepted that human have the right to life, but should it be unconditional? Many places abolished death penalty but dozens still have it.

To prevent this situation, the capital punishment device in Japan have been specially engineered so that no single individual could be said as the one who is responsible for killing the person.


Statesponsored murder, I.e. capital punishment, is always a conspiracy to commit murder. They are all just equally murderers.
So do you think jails are state sponsored kidnapping facilities?

Country laws are not above everything, ethnic cleansing is something that most human individuals would find it disagreeable, however execution of criminals is not.


Since few democracies have capital punishment, that statement is obviously wrong.
People, culture and society living in non-democratic countries could still have opinions, despite their countries' direction might not reflect them.

Who decide a "society is wrong" other than arbitrary moral and religious judgement?


A society that allows the right to life being violated is either broken or evil. You need to design an exception/excuse to make capital punishment justifiable. Those are arbitrary, simply applying a rule is not.

Then again how many people actually think that right of life cannot be stripped if the object person stripped the right of life of others' first?

Should extremist ideology be free to spread?


That is what freedom of speech means. And how do you get from murder to extremist ideology? Don't like that human right either I guess? We can surely discuss what is and what isn't protected speech, but death penalty for hate speech is taking it a fee notches too far. But then again, you just argued for exactly that.
Then, in many western countries, ideologies like Nazi or ISIS are prevented from spreading. Does that mean those countries don't have freedom of speech?

As for the connection, many people commit attacks based on extremist ideology, like those who was committing this Tokyo subway attack.

Do you think monetary compensation can actually help compensating time someone spent in a prison?


A hell lot more than a "we are sorry" letter mailed to the grave.
You do understand that people are dead after being executed, right?

If so then monetary compensation to family of those falsely accused would do the same job.


You just lost the argument. If money can compensate for having one of your loved ones murdered, why not just fine the murderer in the first place. So, technically, if you support capital punishment you have to support death penalty for those involved in executing someone innocent.
And btw, how exactly does the family get their innocent family member back alive and well by such payments?
You simply don't, that's why the way to go is to minimize the percentage of incorrectly judged cases, even if that is impossible to eliminate. Compensations are vain and you do what you can do the best despite never able to actually compensate them, regardless of form of punishment. There are simply no helping

Who decide what is human right, other than religious believes?


Religious believe and lack of human rights seem to correlate quite nicely. We all do make that decission, and we all have, murder isn't legal anywhere. Hence nothing, that would qualify as murder if you or I did it, can be permissible for states, otherwise it would need to be legal for you and me as well. Premeditated killing of a defenceless person... find me a jurisdiction where you could do that and not go to prison.
It is also illegal to restrict freedom of people and also take money away from others in most countries. Yet in most states there are still jails, fines, and taxation.

In what sense is it universal?


Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.
For example we could snatch up those Japanese executioners on their Europe vacation and prosecute them for murder.

So it is individual interpretation by those states and organizations that aren't even clearly written anywhere? How's that any better than say ISIS abusing their religious law onto everyone else?

the feeling helps the society.


Bullsh*t. I would feel disgusted to live in a country that has capital punishment. There are even organisations of murder victim families fighting capital punishment.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/dea ... ims-family

Life imprisonment is better for the victims too.

Best regards
Thomas

Well, that is why I said it is not universal. Some feel one way, others feel otherwise.

tommy1808 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
I don't care if he lives to 99 there are some crimes that dictate that they forfeit their own life. Liberal thinking like this I will never ever understand.


Human rights can by definition neither be taken, lost or given up. Liberal thinking is just consistent with the definition.

Best regards
Thomas

UDHR say everyone have this right, but it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings.
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:09 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I’m not a proponent of the death penalty, but Luka Magnotta makes me struggle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Magnotta


Yeah and your Canadian justice system sentenced him to life in prison with no parole for 25 years? No at the very least it should be no parole PERIOD! This is the liberal justice system way of looking at sentencing .


He isn't getting out, even in 25 years at his parole hearing there is a 99.999% chance it will be denied anyways. I find that solitary for life is far more of an effective and appropriate punishment than a state execution and the most egregious murders probably want the death penalty if caught and convicted. Look at most mass shooters, they kill themselves at the scene usually because they don't want to go to jail for the rest of their lives.

- Why leave that 0.001% chance there?
- Why should we care about the feeling of those mass shooters? That's not even human rights
ozglobal wrote:
It's not just the EU attitude to the Death Penalty, it's the conviction of all developed countries (including Australia, NZ, Canada, etc) who have long since moved beyond state sponsored execution as a means of justice. The US is ALONE in its conviction that killing its citizens who are convicted of crimes is to the greater good of society. This Japanese example is an extreme counter example of the trend to suspend the death penalty in practice in Japan.


Here are a few reasons why it is a bad idea to execute criminals where the death penalty may be warranted.

* The cost of a state sponsored execution is more that locking them up for life due to appeals when on death row.

Those appeals could still occur for life sentence
There have been many instances where those on death row have been released due to new evidence or advances in forensic technology. The execution of a criminal there needs to be 100% certainty which cannot usually be provided
It isn't a deterrent
It should be up to the court to tell
Most of the reasons that people want capital punishment are based on emotional decisions and that is not a good way to dish out justice.
Human society functions based on emotion. What would a emotionless society of human be like? That is not to say justice system should react based on instantaneous emotion of individual or even the entire society, but it should be a condensation of the believe of the entire society.
Many people are pro-life when it comes to abortion but support capital punishment which is a hypocritical position

Many is not all and trying to deny a stand X because their supporter also support stand Y is simply bad debating skill
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:28 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
That is a different discussion then, an argument against late term abortions can be made. At some point during pregnancy the forming baby will acquire the ability to suffer, in the sense as we humans understand, and don't accept, suffering.

I honestly do think there is an absolute connection between abortion and the death penalty.

Many are saying that humans have a right to life and interfering in that is wrong (i.e. state sponsored executions) however we are interfering with the life process (and life's apparently inherent "right") when we intervene and abort a fetus. Left to nature the baby will most likely develop and be born, instead though we accept that the woman carrying the baby has a right to her own life and therefore can dictate the terms in wanting to abort it for many various reasons.

To me it really is a question of: Why are a woman's reason to terminate a baby superior to the victims of murder etc. that could elicit a death penalty?

Taking a life is not easy and should not be but I support both the right for a woman to abort (with limitations) just as I understand the reasoning for someone being sentenced to death (again with limitations). (Though as implemented in the USA I find the death penalty nearly useless in addition to often being applied unfairly. Oh and the death penalty is, in my mind at least, not there as any kind of deterrent, it is a consequence.)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11537
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:56 pm

scbriml wrote:

I can say it because I believe killing people is wrong. That includes state sponsored murder. You're free to disagree. However, you disagreeing with me doesn't make you right and me wrong.


Killing good people is wrong, you won’t find me disagreeing with you, but I have no issue with the state executing bad people like ABB, especially bad people who there is no doubt about there guilt.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11537
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:02 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
I don't care if he lives to 99 there are some crimes that dictate that they forfeit their own life. Liberal thinking like this I will never ever understand.


Human rights can by definition neither be taken, lost or given up. Liberal thinking is just consistent with the definition.

Best regards
Thomas


Human rights were made up by you guessed it humans, what we make up we can take away, they are only worth the paper they were written on. Your human rights can be taken away regardless of what you think. Govts do this all the time.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:04 pm

Tugger wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
That is a different discussion then, an argument against late term abortions can be made. At some point during pregnancy the forming baby will acquire the ability to suffer, in the sense as we humans understand, and don't accept, suffering.

I honestly do think there is an absolute connection between abortion and the death penalty.

Many are saying that humans have a right to life and interfering in that is wrong (i.e. state sponsored executions) however we are interfering with the life process (and life's apparently inherent "right") when we intervene and abort a fetus. Left to nature the baby will most likely develop and be born, instead though we accept that the woman carrying the baby has a right to her own life and therefore can dictate the terms in wanting to abort it for many various reasons.

To me it really is a question of: Why are a woman's reason to terminate a baby superior to the victims of murder etc. that could elicit a death penalty?

Taking a life is not easy and should not be but I support both the right for a woman to abort (with limitations) just as I understand the reasoning for someone being sentenced to death (again with limitations). (Though as implemented in the USA I find the death penalty nearly useless in addition to often being applied unfairly. Oh and the death penalty is, in my mind at least, not there as any kind of deterrent, it is a consequence.)

Tugg


I don't regard a fetus a life, just a potential of life and that is something completely different. Then I indeed regard the life of the mother to be more important than the fetus. The victim of a murder have their right of life violated by the murderer, indeed, but why repeat it again with the murderer and violate his right of life? He probably will leave some persons behind. And should the life of someone whom was accidentally killed by a motorist whom was speeding at the time valued less? This person will not be sentenced to death under the current American justice system.

The justice system should be aimed at three things:
- revenge for the victim, so taking over the role of revenge for the victim by the state
- deterrence, to keep others from doing the same offense
- resocialize the perpetrator so he doesn't do it again

The death penalty only tips the first one, the other it doesn't,
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1210
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:41 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
You and your stupid human rights bullshit, some people simply don’t deserve to live....


So, according to your logic, if I for any reason decide that you don't deserve to live, I'm allowed to kill you? :duck:

Tugger wrote:
Ro me it really is a question of: Why are a woman's reason to terminate a baby superior to the victims of murder etc. that could elicit a death penalty?


Women who kill babies go to jail. If you think a foetus is a baby.... check a biology textbook :) (a real one, no creationist rubbish)
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:45 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
You and your stupid human rights bullshit, some people simply don’t deserve to live....


So, according to your logic, if I for any reason decide that you don't deserve to live, I'm allowed to kill you? :duck:

I’m missing the part where he said that individuals rather than society and the systems it puts into place get to make that decision.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15937
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:59 pm

c933103 wrote:
In many places those who received death sentences will have already stayed in prison for that long or more anyway to clean up all possible doubts on the case in the juridical process


So what about cases like this?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /25259723/

You'd apparently be happy having him executed after 10 years even though he wasn't guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?

c933103 wrote:
And we can also count the death of those falsely accused onto the hand of those who actually committed the crime.


Let me make sure I've got you right - if we incorrectly execute an innocent person, it's OK because we'll just add their death to the real killer's count (even though, by definition you don't know who that is). Is that what you're saying? Please tell me it isn't.

I can only hope you're not a lawyer or a judge. Maybe keep clear of jury service as well?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:05 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Ro me it really is a question of: Why are a woman's reason to terminate a baby superior to the victims of murder etc. that could elicit a death penalty?


Women who kill babies go to jail. If you think a foetus is a baby.... check a biology textbook :) (a real one, no creationist rubbish)

Tell your wife that when she is 10 weeks pregnant.... Seriously try it, the result won't be pretty. My neighbor got his pregnant wife nothing for Mother's Day (yep, a manufactured day for gift and flower giving and having a nice breakfast the mom didn't have to prepare) and yeah, he was in trouble. I remember not being that stupid.

So the exact same thing and it can be a "baby" or it is a fetus if people want to think of it differently. Yes clinically 100% accurate but again we are walking around obvious things here. Wanted life: a baby! Unwanted life: a fetus.

And again, we humans are interfering with the life process it is not something that is naturally occurring, the state (in democracies that is "the people") has deemed it OK to terminate and we accept that. In the USA the state (again "the people") has determined that terminating life in certain circumstances is acceptable. These are equatable no matter how much you don't want them to be.

I know it is a useless argument as people have already discounted it or made up their minds (it is a weird/difficult line to walk) but I don't and can't. And again I fully support a woman's right to have an abortion, elective or otherwise (yes within agreed to limitations).

scbriml wrote:
So what about cases like this?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /25259723/

You'd apparently be happy having him executed after 10 years even though he wasn't guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?

Yes this is the reason I do not support the death penalty in many cases. There has to be 100% proof, which is often a near impossible level to reach but there are still many instances where it exists. Then you get into the hairy bit of justifiable homicide and self-defense etc. and again that gums it up.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
ltbewr
Posts: 13494
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:24 am

The US Federal government still has the death penalty as law, people are sentenced to it from time to time, no one has been executed in years due to court challenges and many juries who do convict using the option of life without parole. Federal cases also have better assurances of appointed counsel for poor defendants, who are more likely to challenge a death penalty.
On the state level, it is a different story. Most US state either do not have a death penalty law or is not applied or not carried out. Most recent US executions are concentrated in a few states, and even those are facing problems with using drugs to carry them out due to makers banning their sale for executions for business, liability and humanitarian reasons. Other methods like hanging, by gun, by electrocution or by gas are not used as can be messy, difficult to properly carry out, torturous and inhumane. States will not usually offer proper legal defense, only the most minimal and really insufficient. This inconstancy is wrong too, what is legal in one state isn't in another.
We also have in the US a terrible history and culture that encourages revenge violence upon criminals. In some countries, political changes, history and pressure from the majority who were more likely to be executed, caused many politicians to end the death penalty, further encouraged by treaties and agreements as noted in other posts.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2016
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:25 am

Kiwirob wrote:
ozglobal wrote:
It's not just the EU attitude to the Death Penalty, it's the conviction of all developed countries (including Australia, NZ, Canada, etc) who have long since moved beyond state sponsored execution as a means of justice. The US is ALONE in its conviction that killing its citizens who are convicted of crimes is to the greater good of society. This Japanese example is an extreme counter example of the trend to suspend the death penalty in practice in Japan.


There’s a sizable movement in NZ to reintroduce the death penalty, it’s been growing for years, the problem is we signed some daft treaties which say we can’t bring it back.

Some crimes are just so horrible that the person committing them doesn’t deserve to continue breathing, the Utøya killer being prime example of one of them.


Well it is possible to renounce a treary and withdraw from it.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2016
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:34 am

Aesma wrote:
c933103 wrote:
When situation allows, in some places there are instructions like even in incidents like mass killing and such, whenever possible, police should disable the perpetrator by shooting at their arms and legs and avoid shooting the person death at the scene.


I'm not convinced that it's true. Either there isn't an imminent threat and negotiation is possible, or use of a taser or something like that. Or you use your gun and there is no "shooting in the legs" instruction possible because that might kill you just as well anyway.


Police and weapons carry permit holders are taught to shoot at the center of mass only while the threat continues. If the threat no longer exists, it is no longer lawful to use lethal force. Arms and legs are small and often fast moving targets. They are a lousy target. The center of mass is a larger target. Also one most consider whee a bullet will go if it misses a target. Shooting at an arm or leg is likely to result on a missed shot and quite likely to hit an innocent person.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:21 am

Tugger wrote:
I honestly do think there is an absolute connection between abortion and the death penalty.


I honestly do think you are wrong about that. ;-)

Many are saying that humans have a right to life and interfering in that is wrong (i.e. state sponsored executions) however we are interfering with the life process (and life's apparently inherent "right") when we intervene and abort a fetus. Left to nature the baby will most likely develop and be born, instead though we accept that the woman carrying the baby has a right to her own life and therefore can dictate the terms in wanting to abort it for many various reasons.


Technically, outside of late term abortions, it is not the abortion procedure that kills the featus, it is being outside the woman´s body and not being viable that leads to it dying. A executed person is actively killed, in an abortion the fetuses death is "just" a side effect of the procedure.

And that makes a whole lot of a difference in ethics. You probably heard about the lorie on the tracks about to kill people ethical dilemma questions. Most people, independent of age, gender, culture, religion and such, would say it is ok to divert the Lorie onto another track, knowing it will kill a person there, but morally wrong to toss the same person on the track, assuming their are sufficiently fat to stop the lorie.

To me it really is a question of: Why are a woman's reason to terminate a baby superior to the victims of murder etc. that could elicit a death penalty?


Imprisonment and death penalty serve the same purpose, and do so to the same degree. In both cases future crimes are prevented. There is no benefit for the victim in putting someone down, in fact studies rather indicate that imprisonment is better for the victim, as it allows to move on faster. Not murdering a murderer therefore doesn´t violate anyone´s rights. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term does. Her liberty and freedom goes beyond the fetuses entitlement to nourishment and shelter, the same way there are limits as to how much we can tax people only to provide welfare and shelter to the homeless.

I understand the reasoning for someone being sentenced to death (again with limitations).


I do understand the reasoning too. That doesn´t mean the reasons are valid or consistent with what we claim to believe in.

, it is a consequence


It is a cultural precedence saying "premeditated killing of unsuspecting/defenseless people can be ok under certain circumstances", which is destructive to societies.

Find me a terrorist that is against capital punishment. There is a connection between those mindsets.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Police and weapons carry permit holders are taught to shoot at the center of mass only while the threat continues.


While true, it has happend before. Luckily, because the "gun" in that one case turned out to be a remote control.
Here for example police man are trained to shot once. Like in this instance (there have been better videos before, but can´t find one): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-w-GeIaR3w

Man approaches cop with a 8 inch knife, cop warns twice, fires one round into his chest.

If the threat no longer exists, it is no longer lawful to use lethal force.


http://www.thenewsburner.com/2012/08/12 ... es-square/

How many shots where fired in that incident again? Close to 100 iirc.....

Arms and legs are small and often fast moving targets. They are a lousy target. The center of mass is a larger target. Also one most consider whee a bullet will go if it misses a target. Shooting at an arm or leg is likely to result on a missed shot and quite likely to hit an innocent person.


More importantly, the chance of killing someone with a leg or arm shot is not so much lower than a random spot on the torso. Movies create wrong impressions.....

Kiwirob wrote:
Human rights were made up by you guessed it humans, what we make up we can take away, they are only worth the paper they were written on. Your human rights can be taken away regardless of what you think. Govts do this all the time.


That doesn´t change the definition and such government are simply criminal. In my country I explicitly have the constitutional right to kill governments that do so.
If we applied universal jurisdiction, well.. universally... governments would quickly stop doing that.

c933103 wrote:
Collectively, outside of western civilization, how many people agree this that you can say it is "universally accepted"? Countries like America and Australia also count as countries of western civilization for this purpose.


I said "democracies", not western countries. America is also not a country and the Americas are basically free of capital punishment, most countries have abolished it or haven´t used it in over a decade. The US is the sole exception.

It is accepted that human have the right to life, but should it be unconditional?


that is what "right" means.

Many places abolished death penalty but dozens still have it.


Many? 105 nations have abolished it, among them almost all democracies. Most other countries don´t use it. Just 23 countries total in 2017.

So do you think jails are state sponsored kidnapping facilities?


Nah, prison time has a meaningful offset, it prevents criminal from committing a crime again and, hopefully, modifies behavior. Capital Punishment doesn´t.

People, culture and society living in non-democratic countries could still have opinions, despite their countries' direction might not reflect them.


So? I can have the opinion that you should give me your wallet, and in plenty of countries you will find lots of people sharing that opinion. That doesn´t make it legal.

Then again how many people actually think that right of life cannot be stripped if the object person stripped the right of life of others' first?


Not enough to get anyone elected on the plattform almost anywhere.

Then, in many western countries, ideologies like Nazi or ISIS are prevented from spreading. Does that mean those countries don't have freedom of speech?


No countries i know of makes it illegal to promote either Nazi nor ISIS "philosophy" in a private conversation, which is what we are discussing.

As for the connection, many people commit attacks based on extremist ideology, like those who was committing this Tokyo subway attack.


Yes, the same is true for people applying capital punishment. A terrorist carrying out a murderous attack will be just as convinced what he is doing is right and good as you are about capital punishment.

Do you think monetary compensation can actually help compensating time someone spent in a prison?


A hell lot more than a "we are sorry" letter mailed to the grave.
You do understand that people are dead after being executed, right?

You simply don't, that's why the way to go is to minimize the percentage of incorrectly judged cases, even if that is impossible to eliminate.


by definition the best way to prevent killing an innocent person is to not have capital punishment.

It is also illegal to restrict freedom of people and also take money away from others in most countries. Yet in most states there are still jails, fines, and taxation.


There are just two countries on this planet that tax you for being a citizen. If you are looked up your freedom isn´t taken away for good, that is why life imprisonment without chance of parole is a crime against humanity as well, when a countries murders you it is.

So it is individual interpretation by those states and organizations that aren't even clearly written anywhere? How's that any better than say ISIS abusing their religious law onto everyone else?


No one has the right to murder anyone. Hence no rights are violated when you prevent murder, state sponsored or otherwise. ISIS and capital punishment proponents disagree and think they have the right to murder.

Well, that is why I said it is not universal. Some feel one way, others feel otherwise.


On average it doesn´t help to murder a murderer, murder is always wrong. If someone being murdered makes you feel better, you should consult a mental health professional.

UDHR say everyone have this right, but it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings.


"everyone
ˈɛvrɪwʌn
pronoun
every person.
"everyone needs time to unwind"
synonyms: everybody, every person, each person, each one, each and every one, all, one and all, all and sundry, the whole world, the world at large, the public, the general public, people everywhere"

"Everyone" means it can´t be lost, taken or given.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Zeppi
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:36 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Life imprisonment is better for the victims too.

I say that depends on how they are imprisoned.

I'm absolutely against the death penalty, it's a far too easy way out for the criminal. But I'm also largely against our hotel like accomodation for criminals like what we largely have in Europe. Often criminals even get way more in terms of support than their victims by the state which I think is grotesque. Resocialisation for criminals is a good approach in its essence, yet for violent criminals it is usually futile as fallback statistics clearly show.

I think a practical approach for violent criminals would be some kind of forced labour, where they are made to somewhat repay society for what they have done. Of course the loss of a loved one can never be "repaid" in a material sense, yet it would benefit society by giving 100% of the money made to charitable funds and making the criminal suffer somewhat and maybe make them think about what they have done every day. I'm thinking of tough jobs like mining, 12 hours shifts every day, food and water at a bare minimum, just enough to survive.
Surely some will say that is also inhumane, maybe rightly so. But IMHO someone who commited such a heinous crime like murder or rape causing huge grieve and misery to the friends and family of their victim has no right to demand such any more.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:27 am

Zeppi wrote:
But I'm also largely against our hotel like accomodation for criminals like what we largely have in Europe.


we do that because it works better...

Often criminals even get way more in terms of support than their victims by the state which I think is grotesque.


it is grotesque, but improving that should be the goal, not making stuff worse.

Resocialisation for criminals is a good approach in its essence,


Resocialisation is the main reason to do anything about crime.

yet for violent criminals it is usually futile as fallback statistics clearly show.


In Germany reoffending rate for crimes against life is 1%, rape and sexual abuse have 3%. I don´t see how that is "usually futile".
Hard time makes those numbers worse, not better.

12 hours shifts every day, food and water at a bare minimum, just enough to survive.


Why don´t you move to North Korea, they got all you want.

Surely some will say that is also inhumane, maybe rightly so.


yup, to a point where we can remove you from Power with whatever it takes if you tried that here, even if killing you is the only way to accomplish that..

But IMHO someone who commited such a heinous crime like murder or rape causing huge grieve and misery to the friends and family of their victim has no right to demand such any more.


I see you don´t understand how rights work. You have them, you can not lose them, be stripped of them or give them up. You have them for just being human, no matter what terrible kind of human you are.

And if you read up on the last 20 years of research into how our brains work and how we make decisions (hint: we don´t really make decisions in the sense that we could make different ones) punishment is out regardless of what you think about crimes, so preventing new crimes is the only thing we have to do, while violating rights as little as possible.

You have free will only in the sense that no one forces you to do something, not in the sense that you could make a different decision.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5369
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:45 am

For those of you who are interested in further information:

Capital punishment by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... by_country
 
User avatar
RetroRoo
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:29 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:46 am

Dutchy wrote:
Yeah, Europeans had enough of killing each other and wanted some humanity in society, hence no more state-sponsored killing starting within the EU.

But yeah:

Image

Great point :roll:


Oh, I've hit a nerve.

The point I was making is that it's incorrect for the original author of this thread to point to basic respect for life as being a European ideal. It's not, it's a relatively modern concept. Most importantly it's one that can be appropriated by any society in the world.

Should be, anyway.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:58 am

RetroRoo wrote:
It's not, it's a relatively modern concept..


relatively, yes. But there are 10 European countries that had the last execution sometimes between 1468 and 1892..... over all history that is young, but relative to enlightenment it is old.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
In many places those who received death sentences will have already stayed in prison for that long or more anyway to clean up all possible doubts on the case in the juridical process


So what about cases like this?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /25259723/

You'd apparently be happy having him executed after 10 years even though he wasn't guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?

c933103 wrote:
And we can also count the death of those falsely accused onto the hand of those who actually committed the crime.


Let me make sure I've got you right - if we incorrectly execute an innocent person, it's OK because we'll just add their death to the real killer's count (even though, by definition you don't know who that is). Is that what you're saying? Please tell me it isn't.

I can only hope you're not a lawyer or a judge. Maybe keep clear of jury service as well?

It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.

tommy1808 wrote:
Imprisonment and death penalty serve the same purpose, and do so to the same degree. In both cases future crimes are prevented. There is no benefit for the victim in putting someone down, in fact studies rather indicate that imprisonment is better for the victim, as it allows to move on faster. Not murdering a murderer therefore doesn´t violate anyone´s rights. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term does. Her liberty and freedom goes beyond the fetuses entitlement to nourishment and shelter, the same way there are limits as to how much we can tax people only to provide welfare and shelter to the homeless.

- Other than victims, how about to everyone else who have learn about the incidents? Should we tell them the one who's responsible for the case can continues to enjoy their right to life?
- There's no limits to how much people can be taxed to provide welfare and shelter to homeless other than for practical purposes

tommy1808 wrote:
It is a cultural precedence saying "premeditated killing of unsuspecting/defenseless people can be ok under certain circumstances", which is destructive to societies.

Find me a terrorist that is against capital punishment. There is a connection between those mindsets.

It is impossible to isolate a person and claim they're defenseless or unsuspecting just because they have been such at a particular moment and such shouldn't be killed

tommy1808 wrote:
If the threat no longer exists, it is no longer lawful to use lethal force.


http://www.thenewsburner.com/2012/08/12 ... es-square/

How many shots where fired in that incident again? Close to 100 iirc.....

That is America not other countries being discussed

tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Human rights were made up by you guessed it humans, what we make up we can take away, they are only worth the paper they were written on. Your human rights can be taken away regardless of what you think. Govts do this all the time.

That doesn´t change the definition and such government are simply criminal. In my country I explicitly have the constitutional right to kill governments that do so.
If we applied universal jurisdiction, well.. universally... governments would quickly stop doing that.
It shows exactly why it is not universal

tommy1808 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Collectively, outside of western civilization, how many people agree this that you can say it is "universally accepted"? Countries like America and Australia also count as countries of western civilization for this purpose.


I said "democracies", not western countries. America is also not a country and the Americas are basically free of capital punishment, most countries have abolished it or haven´t used it in over a decade. The US is the sole exception.
I mean outside of these countries, not inside of. Latino America are influenced heavily by Christianity too.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is accepted that human have the right to life, but should it be unconditional?


that is what "right" means.

I don't believe it is
tommy1808 wrote:
Many places abolished death penalty but dozens still have it.


Many? 105 nations have abolished it, among them almost all democracies. Most other countries don´t use it. Just 23 countries total in 2017.

I said "many places abolished" despite "dozens still have it".

tommy1808 wrote:
So do you think jails are state sponsored kidnapping facilities?


Nah, prison time has a meaningful offset, it prevents criminal from committing a crime again and, hopefully, modifies behavior. Capital Punishment doesn´t.
Capital punishment also permanently prevent criminals from committing a crime again. As for modify behavior, how can that happens when all human are intrinsically thinking around oneself or his own surrounding in nature? Sometimes people would understand and be considerate about a wider scope of objects like the entire society or entire humanity or even all forms of life, but that still doesn't change the fact that human would only do what they want.
Also, why spend efforts in correcting those who have already wrong-stepped instead of spending better effort in helping those kids that still haven't?
tommy1808 wrote:
People, culture and society living in non-democratic countries could still have opinions, despite their countries' direction might not reflect them.


So? I can have the opinion that you should give me your wallet, and in plenty of countries you will find lots of people sharing that opinion. That doesn´t make it legal.
Yet that's continually being done via tax and welfare system as things are actually and effectively working in this way.

tommy1808 wrote:
Then again how many people actually think that right of life cannot be stripped if the object person stripped the right of life of others' first?


Not enough to get anyone elected on the plattform almost anywhere.
But enough to make people lost seats in election in some area.

tommy1808 wrote:
Then, in many western countries, ideologies like Nazi or ISIS are prevented from spreading. Does that mean those countries don't have freedom of speech?


No countries i know of makes it illegal to promote either Nazi nor ISIS "philosophy" in a private conversation, which is what we are discussing.
Agencies in all these area are monitoring things like facebook messages and SMS to find out who people are holding private conversation with and to deter them from spreading radical ideas.

tommy1808 wrote:
As for the connection, many people commit attacks based on extremist ideology, like those who was committing this Tokyo subway attack.


Yes, the same is true for people applying capital punishment. A terrorist carrying out a murderous attack will be just as convinced what he is doing is right and good as you are about capital punishment.
Most people disagree with terrorist and agree with law and that's the difference. That's also part of the reason why some wars are fought.

tommy1808 wrote:
Do you think monetary compensation can actually help compensating time someone spent in a prison?


A hell lot more than a "we are sorry" letter mailed to the grave.
You do understand that people are dead after being executed, right?

You simply don't, that's why the way to go is to minimize the percentage of incorrectly judged cases, even if that is impossible to eliminate.


by definition the best way to prevent killing an innocent person is to not have capital punishment.

It also helps that someone mistakenly sent to death sentence will only need to face death instead of endless prison time. And with the low rate of execution in most countries it seems like in most countries it's still far more likely to die from being murdered than die from being wrongly prosecuted.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is also illegal to restrict freedom of people and also take money away from others in most countries. Yet in most states there are still jails, fines, and taxation.


There are just two countries on this planet that tax you for being a citizen. If you are looked up your freedom isn´t taken away for good, that is why life imprisonment without chance of parole is a crime against humanity as well, when a countries murders you it is.
If the freedom is not taken away for good then it isn't serving the purpose of punishing someone who have taken away the life of others for good. As for tax, tacing on activities like buying/selling things or manufacturing activities is no different from uniformally taxing everyone with only exceptions veing tax exempt that serve for realistic purpose as it's mot an option to most people to not buy things or not produce labor product for living

tommy1808 wrote:
So it is individual interpretation by those states and organizations that aren't even clearly written anywhere? How's that any better than say ISIS abusing their religious law onto everyone else?


No one has the right to murder anyone. Hence no rights are violated when you prevent murder, state sponsored or otherwise. ISIS and capital punishment proponents disagree and think they have the right to murder.

Countries have right to enact their law. Fortunately ISIS is not a country, and countries like Nazi Germany have been stripped off their status as a country after the war.
tommy1808 wrote:
Well, that is why I said it is not universal. Some feel one way, others feel otherwise.


On average it doesn´t help to murder a murderer, murder is always wrong. If someone being murdered makes you feel better, you should consult a mental health professional.
"On average" is also not universal either

tommy1808 wrote:
UDHR say everyone have this right, but it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings.


"everyone
ˈɛvrɪwʌn
pronoun
every person.
"everyone needs time to unwind"
synonyms: everybody, every person, each person, each one, each and every one, all, one and all, all and sundry, the whole world, the world at large, the public, the general public, people everywhere"

"Everyone" means it can´t be lost, taken or given.

best regards
Thomas

it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15937
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:16 pm

c933103 wrote:
It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.


"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:43 pm

c933103 wrote:
- Other than victims, how about to everyone else who have learn about the incidents? Should we tell them the one who's responsible for the case can continues to enjoy their right to life?


yes, exactly. The message is "we are not criminals like him".

It is impossible to isolate a person and claim they're defenseless or unsuspecting just because they have been such at a particular moment and such shouldn't be killed


It is very easy. It is a human, it shouldn´t be killed. Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth doesn´t work.

It shows exactly why it is not universal


No, it means exactly that. Universal. That is the established term, it doesn´t matter if you like it, don´t like it or disagree with the definition. It is the definition.

I mean outside of these countries, not inside of. Latino America are influenced heavily by Christianity too.


Capital Punishment does not happen inside of any Country in the Americas, except the US.

I don't believe it is


Again, it is an established term with a definition. What you think about it does not matter.

I said "many places abolished" despite "dozens still have it".


Which still isn´t correct. Most countries abolished it, less than dozens still execute people.

Capital punishment also permanently prevent criminals from committing a crime again.


No more than imprisonment, which comes with a lesser interference into human rights. So that isn´t an argument at all.

As for modify behavior, how can that happens when all human are intrinsically thinking around oneself or his own surrounding in nature? Sometimes people would understand and be considerate about a wider scope of objects like the entire society or entire humanity or even all forms of life, but that still doesn't change the fact that human would only do what they want.


Irrelevant, since it is just made up fantasy. What you think doesn´t matter, with an effective correction system re-offense rates are low. For crimes against life just about 1%.

And if that was relevant, you´d need to execute thiefs and pickpockets, they are hard to change.

Also, why spend efforts in correcting those who have already wrong-stepped instead of spending better effort in helping those kids that still haven't?


Because both are the same. Human treatment of prisoners correlates quite nicely with overall violence and crime. Have decent prisons for your criminals, and you get less crime, have them serve hard time and you get more. How we treat people in prison is a mirror image of how we treat the rest of society.

Yet that's continually being done via tax and welfare system as things are actually and effectively working in this way.


You will have a hard time, outside of fundamentalist circles you are so afraid off, to find anyone equating tax with theft. Also, when something has been stolen from me, i don´t get anything back. I get something back for my taxes. Like nice prisons with humane treatment of inmates that give me a safe country to life in.

]But enough to make people lost seats in election in some area.


Which goes a long way to proof that your view is only held by some fringe minority.

Agencies in all these area are monitoring things like facebook messages and SMS to find out who people are holding private conversation with and to deter them from spreading radical ideas.


Again: where do you get punished/executed for discussing extremist views in private?

Most people disagree with terrorist and agree with law and that's the difference. That's also part of the reason why some wars are fought.


That is just a point of view. If you think the killing of an innocent person can be justified for "higher reasons", they have every right to do the same, for whatever they assume is a valid justification. Or are you some masterrace that has different rights from anybody else.


It also helps that someone mistakenly sent to death sentence will only need to face death instead of endless prison time.


How about we leave that decission up to the accused.... oh.. wait... wouldn´t almost anyone just pick prison then?

But it is so nice of you that you allow an innocent person to be murdered, a father, son, mother, daughter, friend being wiped out, because it is better for them.
Well, lets just hope you get wrongly accused of murder and wrongly convicted, maybe you learn something then.

If the freedom is not taken away for good then it isn't serving the purpose of punishing someone who have taken away the life of others for good.


the 18th century called, they want your philosophy back. "Punishment" isn´t in the cards, it is called "correction system" for a reason.

Plus you don´t make sense. You just said that being innocently murdered isn´t all so bad. So why look murders up for life, but not Judges, Juries, Law Enforcement personal and anybody else involved in the killing of an innocent person?

As for tax, tacing on activities like buying/selling things or manufacturing activities is no different from uniformally taxing everyone with only exceptions veing tax exempt that serve for realistic purpose as it's mot an option to most people to not buy things or not produce labor product for living


Go to a place without VAT/Sales tax and don´t work. Usually you don´t pay taxes then.

Countries have right to enact their law. Fortunately ISIS is not a country, and countries like Nazi Germany have been stripped off their status as a country after the war.


Exactly. You are onto something. Countries and organisations violating human rights get destroyed in the end, if they don´t come around by themselves. Countries having capital punishment just hadn´t had their turn yet.

"On average" is also not universal either


on average is what counts.

it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings


The moment you strip it from a single person, it isn´t everyone anymore, is it? Or do you disagree with the definition of "everyone" as well since it doesn´t fit your fundamentalist views?
So yes, it says exactly that. If they didn´t mean "everyone", they would have written an exception into it. They didn´t.

It is quite hilarious that you skip the science part about free will, makes sense since all your arguments fall apart with that. Not accepting science however is the sign of extremists, in your case extremism promoting the killing of people, knowingly including the killing of innocent people. Since discussing extremism even in privat is an offense worthy of being murdered for for you, when and where would it be convenient for you to picked up by the execution squad. Better get it over with quick, as you said, being murdered isn´t that bad......

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 8738
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:45 pm

scbriml wrote:
There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.


"It hurts every time i hit myself with the hammer!"
"Well, then don´t"
"But hitting myself with a hammer is good for a), b), c)..... "

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:34 pm

scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.


"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.

That is an overly utilitarian way of saying individual human life being more important than maintaining the society

tommy1808 wrote:
And if you read up on the last 20 years of research into how our brains work and how we make decisions (hint: we don´t really make decisions in the sense that we could make different ones) punishment is out regardless of what you think about crimes, so preventing new crimes is the only thing we have to do, while violating rights as little as possible.

You have free will only in the sense that no one forces you to do something, not in the sense that you could make a different decision.

best regards
Thomas


Correction and Prevention is not the purpose of punishment. Nowadays we have corrective systems in jails that help correcting the behavior of inmate, however that is secondary to punishment. That's also why jail terms are determined by severity of a crime instead of how easily can the crime be corrected.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is quite hilarious that you skip the science part about free will, makes sense since all your arguments fall apart with that. Not accepting science however is the sign of extremists, in your case extremism promoting the killing of people, knowingly including the killing of innocent people. Since discussing extremism even in privat is an offense worthy of being murdered for for you, when and where would it be convenient for you to picked up by the execution squad. Better get it over with quick, as you said, being murdered isn´t that bad......

best regards
Thomas

Missed the part in previous reply

tommy1808 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
- Other than victims, how about to everyone else who have learn about the incidents? Should we tell them the one who's responsible for the case can continues to enjoy their right to life?


yes, exactly. The message is "we are not criminals like him".

It is impossible to isolate a person and claim they're defenseless or unsuspecting just because they have been such at a particular moment and such shouldn't be killed


It is very easy. It is a human, it shouldn´t be killed. Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth doesn´t work.

- The message that "we are not criminal so we shouldn't kill people like what a criminal did" doesn't seems to be persuading as it only tell why we shouldn't kill them ourselves, but say nothing about why the person should not die. If the concern is just that the society should not kill someone, then we can lock the person into a room without supply of new food/water/air and everything, and then include a gun into the room so that the person can decide when will he kill himself. Alternatively, we can also, for instance, create a huge room under a large train station, lock up people who are going to get death sentence in, and then put some lethal pathogen on top of the roof of the room each time everyone use the train station, there's a chance that those pathogen would fall off from the roof and onto the room's air due to pressure of footsteps, and then they would have a chance to be inhaled by the person and that would killed them. So no one will need to conduct the execution process.
- So you think applying punishment against criminals according to crimes that committed doesn't work? Then why are there countries that do so and are still working?

tommy1808 wrote:
It shows exactly why it is not universal


No, it means exactly that. Universal. That is the established term, it doesn´t matter if you like it, don´t like it or disagree with the definition. It is the definition.
If it is "universal" than why am I, together with many others, thinking the other way?

tommy1808 wrote:
I mean outside of these countries, not inside of. Latino America are influenced heavily by Christianity too.


Capital Punishment does not happen inside of any Country in the Americas, except the US.

Which part of "outside these countries" do you not understand?

tommy1808 wrote:
Capital punishment also permanently prevent criminals from committing a crime again.


No more than imprisonment, which comes with a lesser interference into human rights. So that isn´t an argument at all.

Imprisonment still allow the criminal to come in contact with outside society, have a chance to be released in the future for things like prison break, change of political regime, amnesty, parole, and such, which mean they would still have a potential threat on the society

tommy1808 wrote:
As for modify behavior, how can that happens when all human are intrinsically thinking around oneself or his own surrounding in nature? Sometimes people would understand and be considerate about a wider scope of objects like the entire society or entire humanity or even all forms of life, but that still doesn't change the fact that human would only do what they want.


Irrelevant, since it is just made up fantasy. What you think doesn´t matter, with an effective correction system re-offense rates are low. For crimes against life just about 1%.

And if that was relevant, you´d need to execute thiefs and pickpockets, they are hard to change.

It could simply mean they don't have chance to redo what they did in their life and doesn't mean that they won't if they're given the opportunity to do so. There have been millenniums of philosophical iterations that all come to the conclusion that the nature of human is not to be beneficiary to "others".

tommy1808 wrote:
Also, why spend efforts in correcting those who have already wrong-stepped instead of spending better effort in helping those kids that still haven't?


Because both are the same. Human treatment of prisoners correlates quite nicely with overall violence and crime. Have decent prisons for your criminals, and you get less crime, have them serve hard time and you get more. How we treat people in prison is a mirror image of how we treat the rest of society.

Then again that is a utilitarian way of saying what kind of punishment would yield less crime instead of saying what kind of punishment they deserve. Also many European countries have higher crime rates than many Asian countries.

tommy1808 wrote:
Yet that's continually being done via tax and welfare system as things are actually and effectively working in this way.


You will have a hard time, outside of fundamentalist circles you are so afraid off, to find anyone equating tax with theft. Also, when something has been stolen from me, i don´t get anything back. I get something back for my taxes. Like nice prisons with humane treatment of inmates that give me a safe country to life in.

I agree with the necessity of taxation but that doesn't mean a system that people have to involuntarily pay tax regardless of what they think is all that much different from thief. Surely, you get something in the community as return but many times they are not what you actually wanted. In some of the most democratic countries people are allowed to directly specify how do they want their tax to be used in the country's budget personally which would be fine but other than that it is still rather compulsory
tommy1808 wrote:
As for tax, tacing on activities like buying/selling things or manufacturing activities is no different from uniformally taxing everyone with only exceptions veing tax exempt that serve for realistic purpose as it's mot an option to most people to not buy things or not produce labor product for living


Go to a place without VAT/Sales tax and don´t work. Usually you don´t pay taxes then.

How can one maintain living without working and be accepted into a country without sales tax/vat? Even farming or hunting might need to pay tax

tommy1808 wrote:
But enough to make people lost seats in election in some area.


Which goes a long way to proof that your view is only held by some fringe minority.

I mean, there are people losing election because they want to remove capital punishment

tommy1808 wrote:
Agencies in all these area are monitoring things like facebook messages and SMS to find out who people are holding private conversation with and to deter them from spreading radical ideas.


Again: where do you get punished/executed for discussing extremist views in private?

Like https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... conviction for France or https://www.eurozine.com/no-freedom-to- ... ncitement/ for Germany?

tommy1808 wrote:
Most people disagree with terrorist and agree with law and that's the difference. That's also part of the reason why some wars are fought.


That is just a point of view. If you think the killing of an innocent person can be justified for "higher reasons", they have every right to do the same, for whatever they assume is a valid justification. Or are you some masterrace that has different rights from anybody else.
Yes, it is true that different people have different idea on different people should remain exists, and that's a reason why peace is not possible

tommy1808 wrote:
It also helps that someone mistakenly sent to death sentence will only need to face death instead of endless prison time.


How about we leave that decission up to the accused.... oh.. wait... wouldn´t almost anyone just pick prison then?

But it is so nice of you that you allow an innocent person to be murdered, a father, son, mother, daughter, friend being wiped out, because it is better for them.
Well, lets just hope you get wrongly accused of murder and wrongly convicted, maybe you learn something then.

If the freedom is not taken away for good then it isn't serving the purpose of punishing someone who have taken away the life of others for good.


the 18th century called, they want your philosophy back. "Punishment" isn´t in the cards, it is called "correction system" for a reason.

Plus you don´t make sense. You just said that being innocently murdered isn´t all so bad. So why look murders up for life, but not Judges, Juries, Law Enforcement personal and anybody else involved in the killing of an innocent person?

1. Yes causing innocent person to be killed is the price that need to be pay for to maintain the system
2. 18th century? You mean 18th century of Europe? The way 18th centuries European see the world seems to be different from 21st century European, and in a similar way other world area could also see thing differently from 21st century western society.
3. Why not take the life of everyone who mistakenly sentenced someone to death? a.) Those persons are needed for the society to function, b.) If anyone have been intentionally caused an innocent people to be sentenced to death then they should be charged accordingly of course

tommy1808 wrote:
Countries have right to enact their law. Fortunately ISIS is not a country, and countries like Nazi Germany have been stripped off their status as a country after the war.


Exactly. You are onto something. Countries and organisations violating human rights get destroyed in the end, if they don´t come around by themselves. Countries having capital punishment just hadn´t had their turn yet.
When do you think a country like America or Japan will be destroyed? Or do you think Europe should take the role and fight for a future of no capital punishment worldwide by using army and force, killing billions in the process?

tommy1808 wrote:
it does not say they can't be stripped for wrongdoings


The moment you strip it from a single person, it isn´t everyone anymore, is it? Or do you disagree with the definition of "everyone" as well since it doesn´t fit your fundamentalist views?
So yes, it says exactly that. If they didn´t mean "everyone", they would have written an exception into it. They didn´t.

ah, maybe they're just not being considerate enough and forget about there are persons that need to be sentenced to death.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15937
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:58 pm

c933103 wrote:
That is an overly utilitarian way of saying individual human life being more important than maintaining the society


The vast majority of the civilised World clearly disagrees with that opinion and have laws that maintain society without the need to execute people who break those laws. Go figure.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:03 pm

RetroRoo wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Yeah, Europeans had enough of killing each other and wanted some humanity in society, hence no more state-sponsored killing starting within the EU.

But yeah:

Image

Great point :roll:


Oh, I've hit a nerve.

The point I was making is that it's incorrect for the original author of this thread to point to basic respect for life as being a European ideal. It's not, it's a relatively modern concept. Most importantly it's one that can be appropriated by any society in the world.

Should be, anyway.


Your original post is gone, unfortunatelly, so I can't see why I, apparently, misinterpered your post by a wide margin. Basic respect for life is a human ideal, I think, within a group it is quite handy to have a norm not to kill eachother. So then I tend to agree with you that it isn't an European ideal. How you interered this varies quite widely. Abortion, righ to euthanesia, death penalty, but also the right to have basic needs for life etc.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11537
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:53 pm

scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.


"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.


I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:57 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.


"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.


I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.


Is there any evidence for that. I have seen some, anecdotical evidence, to the contrary. And in a civilized society, we don't have the victims or relatives to the victim, in this case, determine the penalty. We have professionals do this and a lawyer for society (prosecutor) representing the victims. I have thought of it actually, and I honestly believe I would not want the murderer of a loved one to be killed, but that is just me thinking about an academic situation.

Anyhow, the death penalty is something which is something you want, but not actually want to have.

As always, he has a funny but clear way to express my opinion or this.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:11 pm

And I recall last time someone committed a mass murder - random stabbing incident in Taipei Metro. Before the ruling, the perpetrator's (not the victim's) family have already condensed their message to yhe perpetrator into a single line, be a better person in your next life, which implies the wish for a death sentence to their son.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3552
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:15 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
scbriml wrote:
c933103 wrote:
It is not happy or okay to do so, but it is the consequence that the society need to face in order to enjoy keeping the death penalty. There are no ideal solution for this situation and thus only so much can be done.


"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.


I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.


That is precisely why there shouldn't be capital punishment because then that is simply taking revenge on someone which a civilized society should not do, justice should be served and not revenge.

I do not support capital punishment but for the places that have it the decision should be made as an action of exercising justice from the judge who is paid a lot of money to be impartial and put his/her emotions at the door.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:16 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
scbriml wrote:

"Enjoy keeping the death penalty" :crazy:

There's a very simple solution which most of the civilised World has adopted - no death penalty. No chance of executing an innocent person. Job done. Next.


I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.


That is precisely why there shouldn't be capital punishment because then that is simply taking revenge on someone which a civilized society should not do, justice should be served and not revenge.

I do not support capital punishment but for the places that have it the decision should be made as an action of exercising justice from the judge who is paid a lot of money to be impartial and put his/her emotions at the door.

Isn't justice a codified form of revenge for the entire society to act against individuals that have damaged the society?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6551
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:29 pm

c933103 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.


That is precisely why there shouldn't be capital punishment because then that is simply taking revenge on someone which a civilized society should not do, justice should be served and not revenge.

I do not support capital punishment but for the places that have it the decision should be made as an action of exercising justice from the judge who is paid a lot of money to be impartial and put his/her emotions at the door.

Isn't justice a codified form of revenge for the entire society to act against individuals that have damaged the society?


In part, as discussed before. The other parts are prevention and resocializing the convicted.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 2690
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:28 pm

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/201807 ... 71000.html
Here is a report on feeling of individuals that are affected by the incident. They can be read via Google Translate.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15937
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:48 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
I'm sure you would change your tune if one of your family members or close friends was murdered, most people do.


I'm sure I wouldn't.

c933103 wrote:
Isn't justice a codified form of revenge for the entire society to act against individuals that have damaged the society?


Justice is punishment for those that cannot conform to the norms that society has defined. The death penalty is old-testament-style biblical revenge. Which again, most of the civilised World has decided it doesn't need.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Jalap
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:22 am

Murder is always wrong. If we want humanity to survive another 200 years, all should agree on this.

Linking abortion to death penalty is spinning the debate. It's a whole different discussion. This discussion is about the age a fetus has when aborting equals murder. And if one opposes abortion alltogether, then I propose it's up to the father to raise the child instead of the mother.
 
ArciniegaJR
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:18 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:31 am

Jalap wrote:
Murder is always wrong. If we want humanity to survive another 200 years, all should agree on this.

Linking abortion to death penalty is spinning the debate. It's a whole different discussion. This discussion is about the age a fetus has when aborting equals murder. And if one opposes abortion alltogether, then I propose it's up to the father to raise the child instead of the mother.


Killing is killing. At least criminals have done something wrong.

Save the criminals and kill the babes? And you're talking about survival?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: EU attitude on death penalty.

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:22 am

Humanity's survival doesn't depend on embryos at the moment, in fact we'd have better odds with 10 times less people.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airstud, bagoldex, OA412 and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos