AIBU to think the death penalty should sometimes be used?

[Gide]

In cases such as mass murderers, paedophiles, rapists? Obviously only if there is absolutely no doubt at all about their guilt.

No-one has answered op's question about Anders Breivik. He is 100% guilty

You can't build a whole justice system around cases like this which are in the minority. Enough people have already articulated the viewpoint that proving guilt is only one facet to this. Many of us simply believe that it is wrong to give the state the power to decide who lives or dies and it's wrong to kill a person - any person.

If you want to go down the '100% guilty' route though, even in cases where you've got somebody on camera committing a murder, you still don't have the full picture. There is still an element of 'reasonable doubt' and the law of averages says that some of the people you convict will be convicted wrongly. For example, you have a film showing somebody stabbing another person to death. How do you know that there's not somebody off camera pointing a gun at their head? How do you know that their family are not being held somewhere and they have been instructed to kill someone in order to get them back? How do you know that somebody hasn't spiked their drink with some mad hallucinogenic and then convinced them that this person is the devil himself and needs taking out? Obviously some very outlandish Hollywood examples there but my point still stands. Even a video (assuming it's not been doctored) does not necessarily tell the full story.

My train of thought is that if we put down dangerous animals we should put down dangerous people. Same applies to if we put down extremely sick and in pain animals then we should be allowed euthanasia (although whole different topic just making a comparison).

It may be but so is 'what if?'. If we spend too much time worrying about whether we may be wrong no one would get convicted of anything.

You don't think we should spend a huge amount of time worrying whether or not we might be wrong when deciding whether or not to kill someone?
Nope. Not changing my mind on this one. I'm glad most of society is of the same opinion as me.

You dont give the power to the state completely you allow the jury to decide if the death penalty applies

You dont give the power to the state completely you allow the jury to decide if the death penalty applies
And juries have never found an innocent person guilty...

We should spend time deciding on the facts but if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then we shouldnt be worrying too much after that.

I dont want to change your mind or anyones mind. It makes for good debate

No, pineapple, the jury doesn't decide on sentencing. That is a matter for the judge.

I think you need to go away and read up on how the criminal justice system in general, and the death penalty in particular, are enacted across the world and then come back and try again.

But isn't a quick death an easier punishment than life long labour & loss of freedom? I'd much rather have them in for their whole life, than allow them to be done with their sins in an instant.

purple because the rhetoric of those say aww we are more civilised most of these folks havent lost anyone so violently fact. Those who have are either very forgiving and have mercy and then there are those who wont rest until they see the death penalty yes these folks exist. Contrary to what ppl are saying here no theyre not uncivilised or irrational i can understand why they feel that way. An eye for an eye if the crime is proven without a doubt. Call me what you will thats how i feel. I forgive many things but murder rathrr thsnan slaughter horrific gang rape like those in india where girls die from their injuries no there is no forguveness for that. Particularly the rape cases in india they shpw no remorse theie famies,are too busy tryubg to buy out the police and juries because if you are rich ovee there you can walk away witg a clean slate and a smile ob your face who cares abour the victims?

I think the major problem with the system for deciding on true guilt is the media. It is now impossible to truly isolate and find an unbiased jury and this isnt fair.
I dont think the media should be allowed to report anything until after a trial amd certainly not anythong about any suspects.

A murderer or rapist or paedophile is dangerous and therefore in my opinion nothong more than an animal and should be treated no differently. Also we wouldnt need a whole new 'really really guilty'. Guilty is guilty and thats it

Really? So Sally Clark, who was wrongly convicted of killing her child, should have been put down like an animal after her conviction? What's your view on people who carry out mercy killings? They're guilty of murder in law.

My train of thought is that if we put down dangerous animals we should put down dangerous people
It's not even remotely the same.
We also don't afford animals the right to vote or free health care. Or free education.

purple because the rhetoric of those say aww we are more civilised most of these folks havent lost anyone so violently fact. Those who have are either very forgiving and have mercy and then there are those who wont rest until they see the death penalty yes these folks exist. Contrary to what ppl are saying here no theyre not uncivilised or irrational i can understand why they feel that way. An eye for an eye if the crime is proven without a doubt. Call me what you will thats how i feel. I forgive many things but murder rathrr thsnan slaughter horrific gang rape like those in india where girls die from their injuries no there is no forguveness for that. Particularly the rape cases in india they shpw no remorse theie famies,are too busy tryubg to buy out the police and juries because if you are rich ovee there you can walk away witg a clean slate and a smile ob your face who cares abour the victims?

Suburban, i never said they did I just said they could and that would help remove some of the power from the state.it wasnt a statement of fact more an idea for how it could work

Artistic

If you think the death penalty as applied somewhere life the US, is quick and easy, just google botched executions. Even those that aren't officially "botched" can be long and drawn-out several times over due to last-minute appeals.

In relation to the war argument, there's also such a thing as war crimes.
And many people are against many wars.
War can be comparable to catching criminals. They may be killed in the process, or to prevent them from killing someone else who's at immediate risk.
But wars for no reason or just killing enemies even when they surrendered are also criminal.

We should spend time deciding on the facts but if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then we shouldnt be worrying too much after that.

So you would have been absolutely fine with Stefan Kiszko, Sally Clark and legions of others of wrongly convicted people being put to death, and wouldn't find that in any way worrying, pineapple? Would you feel the same way if it was you or someone you love about to be hanged for a crime you or they didn't commit?

Contrary to what ppl are saying here no theyre not uncivilised or irrational i can understand why they feel that way.

It is obviously not irrational for someone who has lost a loved one to want to see their killer punished, even killed. But that does not make the state actually killing the murderer morally right.

I'm a teacher and casino ally I feel like clouting some of my pupils around the head. If you saw what they'd done you would agree that would be an acceptable way for me to feel. It does not mean that doing it is the right thing to do.

Occasionally not casino ally! Phone went silly there.

You don't have to forgive appalling criminals. If they're found guilty they'll be locked up for a very long time.

Ill be honest i dont have a lot of empathy so have no idea how I would feel then. I do feel quite indifferent to the execution of convicted murderers and if we get it wrong then we learn for next time. I unfortunately dont have enough empathy to care much beyond that.

I know its not nice and is my downfall which is why having people like you fight against people like me is a good thing as it creates balance.

pineapple

Seriously, you would give the job of deciding whether to apply the death penalty to a jury of lay-people? Sorry, but you're being ridiculous. Juries decide on guilt or innocence after consideration of the evidence. They do not decide points of law - in fact, jury members are sent out of court when points of law are being discussed.

I said they could decide if it was an acceptable punishment for the judge to decide on not whether it should be applied. At least then if the jury said no to the death penalty then it would be off the table.

I do feel quite indifferent to the execution of convicted murderers and if we get it wrong then we learn for next time.
That's one of the most callous things I've read in here in a long time. You seriously think that if the state executes and innocent person that can just be chalked up to "ah well, better luck next time?" What if you were that person's mum?

I do feel quite indifferent to the execution of convicted murderers and if we get it wrong then we learn for next time

Really, pineapple?

Then how do you explain the fact that despite innocent people having been executed and continuing to be executed all over the world, no lessons are being learned?

Seriously, educate yourself. Your views are embarrassing.