|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 5:28:31 GMT -6
Watch from the begining this is great. Anyway it's here for those that wanna watch it.
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Dec 28, 2008 8:19:41 GMT -6
I ended up logging in to YouTube to watch all 5 parts of the documentary, and it was fascinating. I must have missed this when it was first broadcast. I loved the guy who invented the Lethal Injection stating he didn't care if there was any pain. I also loved the professor at the end (part 5) when he said that the Death Penalty is a punishment and he would never countenance the use of Hypoxia to kill an inmate. His reasoning, in my opinion, was sound. Were the victims giving the choice to leave this world on a 'high'?
Another way to look at this programme would be.......is Britain FINALLY looking seriously at bringing back the Death Penalty, and this programme was broadcast to start some sort of debate.
One can only hope......
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 8:41:17 GMT -6
What made me angry was when they gassed the bunny rabbit. Why not experiment with a condemned murderer instead? The dead pig being cooked by electricity made me laugh i don't know why.
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Dec 28, 2008 13:03:04 GMT -6
I felt the same about the bunny - poor wee thing. It couldn't be persuaded to breathe deeply before the cyanide kicked in. Did you notice that the voltage they used on the piggy was too high compared to the voltage used in the real electric chair? I laughed at the piggy too - does this make us evil
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 14:08:53 GMT -6
no cos he was dead anyway! The scientist said the electric chair was like torture! What? All 15 seconds of it? Lol.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Dec 28, 2008 15:06:38 GMT -6
Sorry to disapoint you all, but Britain is not even close to bringing back the death penalty. The issue isnt even being discussed at any level where it might be of relevance. In the UK the only current debate is around the guilt of the last DP recipients. Although I will add that the last few executed were as guilty as they could possibly have been, despite the recent debates. We are happy to leave the DP to such countries as Iran, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, USA etc.
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 15:26:13 GMT -6
I'm not dissapointed at all. The death penalty has become a farce since LI was introduced. I just can't see the point of it. Give them a long sentence in a rough old prison thats justice enough.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Dec 28, 2008 15:31:48 GMT -6
LWOP in a tough prison, yeah that works for me.
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 15:36:20 GMT -6
Chelmsfords D wing ( where i have had the displeasure of residing ) or Norwich's A wing would be absolute hell on earth if you had to reside there for years. I just can't see this facination with putting a killer out of his misery with anesthetic. What the hell is the point?
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Dec 28, 2008 15:50:10 GMT -6
I object to killing anyone who you have total control over, and therefore object to DP in any form. This covers any crime for me. But for extreme crimes, LWOP in whatever prison seems most apropriate works for me.
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Dec 28, 2008 15:51:51 GMT -6
Well we don't do it here so sleep easy Mr Jules lol.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Dec 28, 2008 17:19:26 GMT -6
The Prof. at the end is totally right although I don't agree with the DP: Either you want the DP as a concept or not. This idea of killing "humanely" is stupid and deluding because the psychological component of the DP still remains, namely that you wait for your death, that you know exactly when you're going to die and that you will die surrounded by people who want your death and deliver it to you. This is what Antis label as inhumane (because death itself isn't inhumane because we will all die sooner or later and for most of us it won't be swift) and all this will remain the same even with the most painless method of execution. It doesn't alter the fact that the state kills without a situation provoking self defense as well. The only thing "humane" executions lead to is that some idiot (not referring to majority of Pros here) who is not aware what the DP is about will support it because everybody says it's humane. But there's no need for a humane execution since it's not intended to be humane. It's intended to take revenge and to put the criminal to the cemetery. That's what it is about and that's why I'm against it. I don't care much if the criminal dies of cancer or whatsoever later on while imprisoned. I just don't want blood on my hands and so "humane" executions would not make a difference.
I agree though that if you want the DP it is right not to inflict more pain than necessary to kill the convict which would already be guaranteed with shooting or similar methods.
|
|
|
Post by me1 on Jan 3, 2009 1:09:43 GMT -6
Exactly. The death penalty was meant for revenge for the victims family and a detterrent to the killers. This ended when LI was introduced and the death penalty lost it's purpose. I say abolish it and give LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 3, 2009 13:20:30 GMT -6
Exactly. The death penalty was meant for revenge for the victims family and a detterrent to the killers. This ended when LI was introduced and the death penalty lost it's purpose. It would be revenge only if the victim's family did it. In reality, it is only an approach to justice. The murderer always comes out ahead, even when executed. LWOP just gives the murderers a bigger advantage. I suggest that, before you pretend that revenge, or even justice is possible, you read Blood Echoes: The Infamous Alday Mass Murder and Its Aftermath by Thomas H. Cook (ISBN: 9780451403490). You can get it for a dollar, plus shipping costs.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 3, 2009 13:59:39 GMT -6
I just don't want blood on my hands and so "humane" executions would not make a difference. What about the blood of the additional victims of murderers who are killed because the murderers were not executed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2009 0:38:37 GMT -6
I think this was posted some time last year i remember seeing it before but it is a very interesting series.
|
|
|
Post by clairew on Jan 4, 2009 2:13:00 GMT -6
I think this was posted some time last year i remember seeing it before but it is a very interesting series. I believe Iammouldy posted it before. IT's old news
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 4, 2009 11:13:27 GMT -6
I just don't want blood on my hands and so "humane" executions would not make a difference. What about the blood of the additional victims of murderers who are killed because the murderers were not executed? We have very little problems with murders committed in prisons. The last one I remember was a horrible case near where I live when some teenagers tortured another teenage inmate over hours and finally forced him to hang himself which failed for the first two times. But those who murdered the poor guy (he was in prison for thievery) were in there for battery so they wouldn't have faced the DP anywhere in the US as well, so it would not have made a difference if we had the DP. I understand that in the US the situation is very different with gang crimes and all that is connected to it. But I believe you can make prisons so safe for the COs and other inmates that it wouldn't necessarily be much of a problem. Admittedly the inmates have a lot of time to construct weapons of materials which seem to be harmless but if you check the cells and the inmates daily it'll work, I guess. But we have COs on this board who will know it better and it would be interesting to hear about their experiences and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 9, 2009 17:48:13 GMT -6
But I believe you can make prisons so safe for the COs and other inmates that it wouldn't necessarily be much of a problem. What you believe cannot change reality. At least 481 people have been killed in the US by murderers who were not executed after their first murder conviction. That does not include several recent cases.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 9, 2009 18:04:15 GMT -6
I understand that in the US the situation is very different with gang crimes and all that is connected to it. But I believe you can make prisons so safe for the COs and other inmates that it wouldn't necessarily be much of a problem. Admittedly the inmates have a lot of time to construct weapons of materials which seem to be harmless but if you check the cells and the inmates daily it'll work, I guess. But we have COs on this board who will know it better and it would be interesting to hear about their experiences and opinions. It's been tried over and over, but the result has always been failure. Supermax prisons are the latest answer, with the most secure prison in America for a long time being the supermax in Marrion, Illinois. Then in 1983, members of the Aryan Brotherhood (the most dangerous and seemingly unstoppable prison gang ever) stabbed two CO's to death and injured two others. Both men were in handcuffs and had been in solitary confinement. They then built the even more secure ADX Supermax in Florence, Colorado only to have members of the same gang order murders in other states from their cells in the Segregated Housing Unit. Even worse, Islamic terrorists there managed to correspond with members of the cell that carried out the Madrid train bombings.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 9, 2009 18:07:43 GMT -6
But I believe you can make prisons so safe for the COs and other inmates that it wouldn't necessarily be much of a problem. What you believe cannot change reality. At least 481 people have been killed in the US by murderers who were not executed after their first murder conviction. That does not include several recent cases. Further reason parole should never be an option for the crime of murder.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 9, 2009 18:08:08 GMT -6
I object to killing anyone who you have total control over, and therefore object to DP in any form. This covers any crime for me. But for extreme crimes, LWOP in whatever prison seems most apropriate works for me. Hi, Jules. What is your definition of "extreme crimes"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2009 21:54:26 GMT -6
It doesn't alter the fact that the state kills without a situation provoking self defense as well. What a bizarre concept. Permanently removing the cancerous growths known as murderers is the epitome of societal self defense. Here we go with this tired "revenge" refrain again. No. No, it isn't about revenge. It's about what the law says. "If you do this, the consequence is this." Plain and simple. The law is not marked TOP SECRET and encrypted on a hard drive stored in a safe. It is in plain English. It is written and maintained by legislators elected by The People. Walking around out there right now are future murderers: some without even a single prior conviction or arrest. WE THE PEOPLE ARE WARNING YOU: Walk in to that restaurant when they are closing, rob the staff of the day's receipts and shoot them to keep them from testifying against you? WARNING: The consequence for that is DEATH. DON'T DO IT. Now you tell me how that is "revenge". What total utter nonsense. Well, here is the best part! It's not about you! There won't be any blood on your hands. It's what The People have decided. You are only a person.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 10, 2009 18:12:46 GMT -6
What a bizarre concept. Permanently removing the cancerous growths known as murderers is the epitome of societal self defense. A killer who has killed in the past is not necessarily a danger to society in the future so it's not self defense. If it is believed the murderer will kill again then we can think about self defense but keeping the murderer incarcerated is the better option. The concept of the DP is revenge and nothing else since it cannot work more as a deterrent than LWOP woud. The vast majority of murderers don't believe that they will be caught or don't think about the consequences of their acts so the DP doesn't matter to them. The DP would be a deterrent if used for minor crimes but not for murder. The inhibition threshold for murder is too high that a murderer thinks about the consequences as well. You simply define that it's a law but not the reason for the law. Over here the verdicts say: "Im Namen des Volkes ergeht folgendes Urteil" meaning "On behalf of the people the following verdict is handed down". So there would be blood on my hands. There would be blood on my hands as well since in a democracy the people decide about the laws. Last but not least I study law and could get into the situation of sentencing somebody to death if we had the DP or demand the DP on behalf of the prosecution and I wouldn't do that. I would quit the job.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 10, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -6
It's been tried over and over, but the result has always been failure. Supermax prisons are the latest answer, with the most secure prison in America for a long time being the supermax in Marrion, Illinois. Then in 1983, members of the Aryan Brotherhood (the most dangerous and seemingly unstoppable prison gang ever) stabbed two CO's to death and injured two others. Both men were in handcuffs and had been in solitary confinement. They then built the even more secure ADX Supermax in Florence, Colorado only to have members of the same gang order murders in other states from their cells in the Segregated Housing Unit. Even worse, Islamic terrorists there managed to correspond with members of the cell that carried out the Madrid train bombings. The question is whether the DP would really change that. Because you need certain appeal possibilities to ensure you've sentenced the right one which results in years of waiting in prison and giving the inmate the opportunity to kill as well. Admittedly the opportunities would be limited to a certain period of time but still it would be years if you speed up the appeal process. In Germany we're pretty fast (max. of 2 years until your appeals are exhausted under normal conditions, I'd say) but I think if we had the DP it would take longer as well because here you only have one regular appeal possibility in homicide cases, maybe re-trial if new evidence is found or something went terribly wrong and you can go to the Constitutional Court in a very limited amount of cases (1 out of 100 are sucessful). But if we had the DP there would be more appeal possibilites because new evidence etc. after the execution would be too cynical even for the taste of lawyers over here. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2009 21:13:42 GMT -6
What a bizarre concept. Permanently removing the cancerous growths known as murderers is the epitome of societal self defense. A killer who has killed in the past is not necessarily a danger to society in the future so it's not self defense. If it is believed the murderer will kill again then we can think about self defense but keeping the murderer incarcerated is the better option. No. It's not a better option, because an incarcerated murderer can still kill. Also, he is breathing oxygen, which is theft, since he no longer deserves to have any. What a mind-boggling statement. I guess you must believe in those horror movies where they come back form the dead to kill again. Neither does the thought of LWOP--they don't care about that either, because they still commit murder. Funny. But YOUR NAME is not listed. It is in the name of THE PEOPLE, same as over here. Majority rule, and all that. You can't have everything your way, all the time. Sometimes, the law must disagree with what you want. That is the difference between blood on your hands, which it isn't, and blood on the hands of The People, which it is. Excellent. So you are a man of character. But that has nothing to do with the DP being society's self defense.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 18, 2009 7:03:33 GMT -6
No. It's not a better option, because an incarcerated murderer can still kill. Also, he is breathing oxygen, which is theft, since he no longer deserves to have any. An incarcerated thief can kill as well. Just because a murderer has killed doesn't mean he/she will kill again. Some are very likely to do so, I admit that. But many have killed out of a singular situation that won't occur again. That you believe a murderer doesn't deserve to live is the key question when it comes to opinions about the DP. I don't believe human beings can judge who deserves to live and who doesn't. Context? Yep, no punishment does. That's why the purpose of punishment - at least in the case of homicide - is only to show people that the rule "don't kill" is still valid which is shown by punishing the guy who questions this rule. I'm well known for my dark humor... Juristic you can make that difference. But the reasons for the DP are moral ones and not juristic ones as it is with nearly every law -- morally I would have blood on my hands being a member of the collective "people". It has to do with the fact that you doubt I would have blood on my hands. In this case I would have since I don't accept the argument that simply applying the law takes that responsibility off you. And self defense has nothing to do with the belief somebody deserves death either, what you believe murderers do. Either you see it as self defense or you see it as just punishment. One argument excludes the other, IMO. Justice can only be a side effect of self defense.
|
|