In the UK, no-one is executed for murder, even serial killers.
There have been numerous miscarriages of justice and people released after many years after it has been proven that they were innocent.
That is one important factor against the death penalty, for any age.
There have also been many cases were they let murderers out on parole for 'excellent behaviour', who had faked being 'better', who then went the first day back in society and raped and killed somebody else! If somebody is a serial killer (and there is plenty of direct evidence) he should be executed, to prevent this animal from being able to kill again.
The problem with executing the wrong person is always (no exception) because the person was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That should NEVER happen! No direct evidence, no witnessess, no conviction and death sentence should be the rule, ALWAYS. That would prevent the wrong person from being convicted of murder.
I may be critisised for this but I believe that there shouldbe "an eye for an eye". No matter what age the killer, this includes the two litttle *ahem* persons!! who murdered Jamie Bulger. At teh age of 18 the were released from prison with false identities. What evidence is there that these two will not kill again?? They knew what they were doing and that it was wrong.
Sorry folks but thats my feelings. :-(
Actually, for the most part I agree with you. But as I said above, there has to be absolutely indisputable evidence for guilt before executing anybody. That way nobody can argue that there should be no death penalty because the wrong person might be executed. Because it has always been a problem that circumstantial evidence was the only determining factor in many convictions.
But what about the rights of someone in Terri's situation? She obviously can't speak for herself, and she did nothing wrong. Yet, Michael the Murdering guardian wants her executed in the worst way possible. Needless to say, the courts aren't granting her any appeals either. What are her rights?
Sorry to bust your bubble folks, but this can happen to all of us. Look for a future where infants will be euthanized simply because they have autism and the doctor "doesn't want the person to suffer a life not worthy of life". For those who have guardians, I feel especially sorry for. You see, that guardian could decide that he or she wants an "abortion", and at who's expense? Take a good guess. One day, a person with any type of disability will be looked at as being no different then an inanimate object.
MrCoffee
"For those who have guardians, I feel especially sorry for. You see, that guardian could decide that he or she wants an "abortion", and at who's expense?"
This does already happen, people with autism being treated like this is the past, present and future.
Regarding euthansia - this is something that should ALWAYS be with the consent of the person being euthanised. Otherwise it is simply murder.
An analogy:
I have an item which i own. If i want to, i can give it up and dispose of it. If i ask someone else to take it from me, that is my choice. If someone else decides by themself that i don't want it anymore without asking me and then takes it, that is theft.
This argument against euthanasia that the person might not actually want to be killed is (to be blunt) a load of crap.
Who here thinks it was a good thing that Harold Shipman hanged himself?
I'm suprised no one has said "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind" yet.
The trouble with Harold Shipman having hanged himself, Gareth, is that he has taken a load of secrets with him to the grave. Now hundreds of families will never know the true story of how/why their loved ones died.
It would be interesting (from a purely hypothetical point of view) to know how differently a Shipman-style case would be handled in a state with the death penalty.
The trouble with Harold Shipman having hanged himself, Gareth, is that he has taken a load of secrets with him to the grave. Now hundreds of families will never know the true story of how/why their loved ones died.
It would be interesting (from a purely hypothetical point of view) to know how differently a Shipman-style case would be handled in a state with the death penalty.
If it were in Texas, he would have been executed. Serial murderers are especially prone to a date with the needle. As the welcome banner on I-40 says, "Don't mess with Texas".
MrCoffee
If he were to try to hang himself, like he had successfully did, he would have been placed on suicide watch. Then, stripped of all of his cloths and all possessions, and locked into a concrete cell with nothing, not even his own privacy. As for the menu? Administrative food loaf would be the order of the day. In Texas, it's the state that determines when an inmate's life is over with, not the offender.
MrCoffee
Harold Shipman was on suicide watch, but they had left bedsheets.
The trouble with Harold Shipman having hanged himself, Gareth, is that he has taken a load of secrets with him to the grave. Now hundreds of families will never know the true story of how/why their loved ones died.
It would be interesting (from a purely hypothetical point of view) to know how differently a Shipman-style case would be handled in a state with the death penalty.
If it were in Texas, he would have been executed.
And then what if other evidence emerged after his death?
Harold Shipman, Fred West, Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan all killed themselves after killing other people. If this is normal practice among multiple-murderers, what price the deterrent effect?