The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Capital Punishment - Is it time we re-visited this odious Topic ?

Capital Punishment - Is it time we re-visited this odious Topic ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All
I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Paul. I don't agree with capital punishment, as it is no more a deterrent than a life sentence, and while there are not many cases of wrongful conviction, there are too many for comfort.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 15 September 2014 2:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« There is also no malice in nature BP........ »

You are right. The word “malice” derives from the Latin “malus” which means “evil”. Evil has to do with morality and religious dogma. The evil one is the devil, Satan.

Whether it be malice or any other form of morality, I agree that there is no such thing in nature.
.

You also wrote :

« ....given the reason for the death sentence is a moral one. The zealots in this case did something immoral; they took lives.....innocent ones. »

Again, you are right in thinking that most people consider the death sentence to have a moral justification. I do too, to a certain extent. But, unlike all other crimes, murder, willfully killing someone, is definitive. The victim cannot be resuscitated. The “wrong” cannot be reversed. The damage to humanity can neither be repaired nor compensated. The individual is lost forever and irreplaceable.

Underneath the “man-made” concept of morality which we have grafted on human conduct, lies a much more profound and powerful current imposed on us by nature : the instinct of survival. Murder, the deliberate and ruthless elimination of the living cells (individuals) of society must, imperatively, be avoided .

Hence, my metaphor of a virus in a computer. In addition to the moral overtones of capital punishment (which I do not deny), it is in my view, more importantly, a question of survival - survival of the individual - as well as a question of the preservation of society in its integrity.
.

You surmise :

« Banjo, I take it that this thought bubble comes from the Joseph Goebbels School of Genetics »

I understand and sympathise with your reaction, but hasten to reassure you that Goebbels School of Genetics is light years from my personal philosophy.

Perhaps if you reread my previous post (on page 5) of this thread, hopefully, you will be reassured on this point :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6557#196701

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 15 September 2014 4:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good afternoon to you SONOFGLOIN...

Thank you for qualifying your question, I understand exactly what you now mean.

Earlier on I spoke of the necessary 'proofs' or elements that detectives MUST establish before getting up on Murder. I'll not waste your time or anyone else's, by reiterating them. Simply, it goes to 'motive' or the 'mens rea' of the crime.

Terrorists have this insatiable lust to exterminate or annihilate all infidels, all the unbelievers, anybody guilty of Islamic apostasy. Whether 'the guilty' are a man, a woman or a child, even a baby. It matters not. All that matters is; they exist, and should be destroyed, nothing more.

Whereas, a murderer must have a motive, otherwise he can't be cited 'a murderer' in our legal system. There are many degrees of unlawful killing within our statutes, and non of them need be murder ?

I will agree with you SONOFGLOIN, the unlawful killing of another is still a killing. Whether the killer is a terrorists or someone else entirely ?

You've put a perfectly legitimate question to me, therefore I'm bound to answer it. For example, if a terrorist were apprehended today after having just exploded a bomb, here in Sydney which killed half a dozen people. That terrorists would be treated just like any other individual, he would be charged with murder. It is at this point that I most vehemently and sincerely disagree !

Please understand, it's my 'own personal view' on how terrorists should be treated. And that particular view, carries no weight whatsoever in law. It's my own firmly held argument - a terrorist is quite different to that of an ordinary criminal who'd been convicted of a murder, for the reasons that I've already articulated several times within this topic. I do hope this explanation goes in some way in answering your question SONOFGLOIN ?
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 15 September 2014 5:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

Perhaps I should add, to be complete, that, in my view, convicted murderers should not be released from prison - by application of the principle (of the metaphor I indicated) that it is imprudent to release a virus from quarantine in a computer.

I likewise advocate that they should not remain in prison any longer than whatever time is necessary for them to exhaust all possible avenues of recourse and appeal within the judicial process. Confinement in prison is a form of torture. While I advocate capital punishment, I firmly oppose inflicting any form of physical or psychological pain, suffering or torture on convicted murderers.

The “punishment” must be strictly limited to terminating the murderer’s life and, under no circumstances, should it extend to include any other form of punishment such as pain, stress, suffering, moral reproach, disparaging remarks or attitudes, impoliteness, or lack of respect.

I see no reason why there should be any difference of treatment between somebody who freely decides to terminate his own life in the best possible conditions of comfort and security that modern state of the art science can allow and somebody who has been condemned to death by a court of justice. In the first case, it is the person himself who takes the decision. In the second case, it is a court of justice which takes it, on behalf of society. There should be no other difference.

By the same token, I consider that perpetrators of “atrocious crimes” should all be treated on an equal footing. This includes child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 15 September 2014 9:27:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we as a society want to assure a reasonable existence we must agree that criminals have instantly forfeited their standard human rights. This nonsense of spending my tax dollar to defend a criminal against me, the victim, has to stop.
This when most problems start when criminals are protected &assisted whilst the victim has to fight & fund with bound hands to defend himself in court of Law.
Do-gooders should be made to contribute to costs for defending criminals, taxpayers should fund the victim.
Perhaps we wouldn't need to discuss capital punishment if we had some punishment in the first place.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 6:40:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...but Judicial Murder is not the same as Legal Execution."

Only to the extent that Judicial Execution is not the same as Legal Murder, but maybe the confusion is with the concept of extra-judicial execution?

"I do wish that we'd all start using common English."

Or correct English, Is Mise.

OK, WmTrevor, we'll use correct English and in that language there cannot be legal murder because by definition murder is not legal.

I do wish that we'd all start using correct English.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 4:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy