Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The death penalty?

237 replies

WaywardOn3 · 29/04/2014 08:48

Ok so I was reading this article about a man sentenced to death taking half an hour to die. The state have upped the dose to try to prevent it happening again.

While I'm against having a death penalty his lawyers comments bugged me as him potentially suffering for up to half an hour before death breached his human rights. What about the young pregnant woman's human rights to not be raped and murdered? She must surely have suffered far longer than half an hour and in actual pain/fear for herself and her child not assumed and unconfirmed pain.

AIBU to not care that he may have suffered ever so slightly in his last unconscious half hour?

OP posts:
gordyslovesheep · 29/04/2014 08:51

two wrongs don't make a right - state sanctioned murder is wrong - why want justice reduced to the his level - what does that make us?

oh and yes YABU

WestieMamma · 29/04/2014 08:52

YABU

What makes your not caring about the suffering and death of another human being any better than his not caring about the suffering and death of another human being?

nennypops · 29/04/2014 08:52

YABVU. The death penalty in itself is barbaric and takes us down below the level of the murderers themselves, because it is cold-blooded. Does it occur to you that living through the period going up to the carrying out of the death penalty is in itself hell on earth? Knowing that at a defined date and time you are going to die, when every single human instinct screams at you to try to escape, but that there is nothing that you can do about it? We don't need to dehumanise ourselves yet further by using torture as well.

gordyslovesheep · 29/04/2014 08:52

oh and welcome to Mumsnet btw Hmm

OwlCapone · 29/04/2014 08:53

Well, you're clearly not really against the death penalty are you OP?

Cookiepants · 29/04/2014 08:54

YABU you punish killing BY killing - bonkers.

The point of the death penalty is to remove someone from society as you are saying they have done something so bad they have no place there anymore.

It is not for revenge or they would have different methods depending on the crime.

treaclesoda · 29/04/2014 08:55

I'm anti death penalty too, but I do know what you mean. Still, two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

My objection is more for the convicted man's family than for him. Presumably no matter how terrible a thing he has done, someone somewhere loves him. They've done no wrong but have to see their loved one condemned to a horrible death.

treaclesoda · 29/04/2014 08:57

although that's not to say that I would think the death penalty would be Ok if someone had no family, because I still wouldn't agree with it.

Aeroflotgirl · 29/04/2014 08:58

I do believe in the death penalty for some very severe cases. I was reading the stripey if poor Savannah Cross who was tortured, seeing her little battered and mutilated body made me sob and broke my heart, tat I wanted whoever dd this to hang.

Original poster
WaywardOn3 · 29/04/2014 08:59

Gordy -actually long time member just name changed Hmm

Given that he knew the likely consequences for his crime the death penalty should not have come as that much of a shock to him

I just didn't see why him potentially suffering was worse than his victims actual suffering

OP posts:
Aeroflotgirl · 29/04/2014 09:00

Storey doh not stripy

DystopianReality · 29/04/2014 09:01

A decent and humane society deals with crime without stooping to 'a life for a life' philosophy. It does not sanction the death penalty and I am very proud that we live in a decent society. It speaks volumes of the people and places that santion the death penalty.

I feel so strongly about it that there are states in developed countries that operate the death penalty that I simply would not comtemplate visiting and endowing them with my interest and money (unless I was Louis Theroux...)

gordyslovesheep · 29/04/2014 09:02

oh really - how brave Hmm

it's not - it's the same - you want another human to suffer a long and painful death? that makes you not a very nice human being

Dawndonnaagain · 29/04/2014 09:03

1)There have been many miscarriages of justice, plenty on death row too.
2)He may have been ill enough to not comprehend the pain and suffering his victim went through, so as a just in case measure, to help him comprehend, do you think that was right? Hmm
3) If we all had that attituded we'd be killing one another from the playground onward.
4) Miscarriages of justice, again. I cannot say this enough.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 29/04/2014 09:04

The point is that the state / government should not be in the business of inflicting suffering on citizens.

Also if you're interested in reducing the suffering of victims like his, then the repealing the death penalty is one way to go about it. The death penalty does not act as a deterrent and the murder rates in countries that have it (even controlling for social / economic factors) are usually much higher.

WestieMamma · 29/04/2014 09:07

Can you imagine living in a society where Dave and his mates have the authority to decide directly whether a citizen lives or dies? shudders

Blu · 29/04/2014 09:08

The defence of human rights is non negotiable and is for the benefit of all, surely?

Of course, capital punishment debases a society, anyway, because it succumbs to the moral standards of the criminal. It allows the criminal to set the absolute moral standard - that it is acceptable to kill. OUr absolute should be that it is not acceptable, under any circumstances. A civilised society should not be acting in a reactionary way to a murder but maintaining the moral high ground from which true justice emanates.

The malfunction in this execution will perhaps emphasise the grotesque barbarity of killing as part of the justice system.

Original poster
WaywardOn3 · 29/04/2014 09:10

Gordy - I did not name change just to post this ffs

I never said I wanted them to 'suffer' a long painful death just that I didn't care either way.

Since we don't have the death penalty in the uk I only ever seem to hear about it when it goes wrong or when they changed the drug used

OP posts:
lottieandmia · 29/04/2014 09:14

I don't think the death penalty has any place in a progressive society. But then America doesn't seem to be very progressive generally IMO.

There do seem to be lots of reports of botched executions in the US. Lethal injection was supposed to stop this happening but that too seems to have its problems.

I am very glad to be lucky enough to live in a country where this does not happen. It's always wrong to respond to criminal acts in any other way than to rise above them and not compound the evil already done.

CabinetSauvinyoni · 29/04/2014 09:14

Realistically, yes YABU. But I do sort of get where you're coming from.

I'm not pro death penalty at all, but that's more of an intellectual and ethical ideal. Emotionally, I'd be very hard pressed to find sympathy for someone that had committed his crimes, and so although I don't agree morally with killing him, I didn't get an emotional response reading the article that makes me think "that poor man, a whole 26 minutes - it must have been awful". Maybe that's partially down to the official review saying he was unconscious and feeling no pain though grasps straws to prove I'm not a heartless robot

pigsinmud · 29/04/2014 09:19

YABU. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. Tbh it sounds odd to say you are not in favour of the death penalty, but were not bothered that he was tortured for half an hour before he died Confused

Just because his victim suffered it does not mean that society has the right to make him suffer. It's a naff saying, but I'll say it - two wrongs don't make a right.

softlysoftly · 29/04/2014 09:23

Well to be honest if on a case by case basis I saw Someone commit a horrific crime on someone else and I knew 100% that they were just an evil bastard then I would agree for they themselves to die or at least sufferin the same way. I am not a big enough person to forgive.

However as the above scenario can never actually happen you have to oppose the death penalty and any human suffering.

Because you can never be sure of guilt. You can't be sure of mitigating circumstances. You can't allow the freedom to kill as a mass society as it will be abused, look at the god awful case in Egypt of the 300 sentenced to die en masse.

frostyfingers · 29/04/2014 09:32

Watch the BBC Three series Life & Death Row and that will make you think, and think again.

If pushed I would have been vaguely in the camp that "for really bad crimes and where there is no doubt" then it was just about acceptable, having watched these programmes I am vehemently and resolutely opposed to it - it's a terrible thing to do, and in an interview after the event, one victim said that she felt cheated and had no closure. It serves no purpose, and has no place in what is laughingly called a civilised society.

Some of these crimes are awful beyond belief, but nothing justifies putting someone to death in cold blood in the name of the law.

Original poster
WaywardOn3 · 29/04/2014 09:36

I would hope that forensic science is advanced enough that guilt should be 100% proven before a death sentence was even considered a possible punishment?

I would feel for him if his innocence is now proven. I do feel for his family knowing his sentence and how it went wrong.

It would be nice if people stopped and thought hang on I won't rape/murder/torture anyone I'll give back to society instead. Since that will never happen and the death penalty is not compattable with a modern, civilised society. Life in prison rarely means life and victims families are often left feeling like justice wasn't done the it's hard to know what the answer is

OP posts:
OnlyLovers · 29/04/2014 09:40

Well, I DID have an emotional response and think 'that poor man, a whole 26 minutes - it must have been awful', because a) he was a person and the thought of a person suffering pain and distress is always awful and b) the thought of a person suffering pain and distress through state-sanctioned actions is to me repulsive, reprehensible and morally utterly indefensible.

I don't believe that any society that has the death penalty can call itself a civilised society, let alone a progressive one. The 'her suffering was worse than his' argument holds no water for me; what would society look like if all crimes and misdemeanours were judged and punished thus?

Cabinet, I think what you say about the intellectual and ethical ideal versus personal emotions and sympathy is really interesting. I think that's EXACTLY why the death penalty should be banned; anyone getting emotionally involved in a case of, say, torture or murder would be more likely to make a judgement based on emotion than on intellectual and ethical grounds. If someone killed a person I care about I'd want to hunt them down and kill them with my bare hands, and I think that's the right emotional response; but at the same time I don't think I (or the state) should be permitted to kill someone as 'revenge' for killing someone else.

It's the job of society to represent the best of us, IMO, not to sink to the level of the worst.

Christ, this is long. Sorry everyone Blush

Swipe left for the next trending thread