Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

What is your opinion about the death penalty? do u think it is right to legally kill a person under any circumstances? come out with your opinions...


personally i believe that death penalty should be applied if the circumstances call for it....

i will post my reasons and my point of view on this tomorrow.... rite now i got to go...

NO to death penalty.

The death penalty is the ultimate breach of Human rights.
Criminals have jails.

No one has the right to take anothers life. He should live through jail

I am against the death penalty for many reasons. Firstly I'll address the issues people raise for the death penalty.

The question of whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to me seems a non-starter. Leaving aside the squables over what the statistics show (because to be fair the pro's and the anti's will always find the statistics that back themselves up) it just doesn't seem to be a reasonable point. If I'm going to commit a crime then I do so thinking that I will get away with it. If I plan it then I plan to avoid being caught surely? I certainly don't plan to get caught that's for sure and so I won't be too bothered about the punishment I'll face whether it be life in jail or death. I don't see how a murder or rapist is going to be put off by the death penalty but not a life sentance! This argument also seems to ignore the amount of murders that occur in the heat of the moment...in a state of anger and/or drunkeness then a don't feel a person is going to be able to take a step back from the situation, think calmly and sensibly about it and then stop. They'd just do it! Then there is the mentally ill who'll very likely never be prevented by any deterrent. Are we going to execute them as an example to others? Hmm...well it's never stopped Texas I suppose.

The other main argument is the argument of 'an eye for an eye'. But as the famous response goes, that'd leave us all blind. Executing a murderer or a rapist cannot bring back a loved one or remove the harm that has been caused. Of course some victims will want revenge but that is not the aim of a judicial system which is justice. From a utilitarian standpoint it seems to me that the most beneficial form of justice would be to give these criminal life sentences and attempt to rehabilitate them. If rehabilitation proves impossible then just give them life sentences. I see no reason to kill these criminals because the only people to suffer from this in the long term are the criminals friends and family (unless you happen to be a bitter and cruel theist who thrives on the idea of eternal suffering and damnation dispatched from a loving God).

In terms of the arguments against it then it seems that these are equally persuasive. Firstly, the death penalty is at the present time of writing an irrevocable process which means we can't exactly compensate the accused if they later turn out to be innocent. All judicial systems are fallible and so we often get mistrials...how can we dispatch the ultimate punishment if we have no way of knowing for certain whether it is a fair sentance to a guilty man? The history of justice is very liberally littered with cases of innocent people being executed and I can think of very few worse experiences then going to the gallows/chair/gas chamber, etc knowing that I am innocent. At least if someone was falsely imprisoned for a long time then you can offer them some sort of appology, financial compensation and counsiling as an attempt to right the wrong somewhat. None of those are of much comfort to a corpse or the people facing a trial.

Secondly I cannot see where the state gets its right to kill from. We're told that killing people is wrong by a State that is about to execute someone. Am I the only one who sees that as troubling and hypocritical? As someone who is an atheist (or at an extreme push an agnostic) I think that in order for the State to rule that certain actions are illegal then they must not only take a moral highground and lead by example, they must also be capable of arguing where their authority comes from. It seems to come from the people and if the people have no right to execute people then how does the State acquire such a right? The notion of international justice I admit is a joke but if it weren't then it would seem fair that a State is required to argue that the actions it carries out aren't contrary to those of international law. I certainly don't see the UN marching into tyranical sovereign countries and executing those who are either above the law or who have managed to evade it.

I'm in favour of the death penalty.

There needs to be legal safeguards and it should befit the crime, but yes as the ultimate punishment I believe in the death penalty.

There is an issue of victim's rights and the rights of society which should be weighed against the rights of the criminals. Some crimes are heinous enough to merit death.

Morally, I think there is more dignity in an execution after a fair trial than there is in bombing people and incurring 'collateral' damage. Letting people around the world die from starvation or lack of medical facilities is a far greater crime than executing convicted felons.

Cheers,
Shafique

rvp_legend wrote:The death penalty is the ultimate breach of Human rights.
Criminals have jails.

No one has the right to take anothers life. He should live through jail

What about soldiers fighting against another army - do they have the right to kill?

What about Police in a gun fight against a gang - do they have the right to kill the man about to shoot a kid?

If it is right to kill in those circumstances, why not have execution as the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes (eg. rape homicide, serial killers etc)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:why not have execution as the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes (eg. rape homicide, serial killers etc)

Few if any feminists have advocated the death penalty for rape. In Susan Brownmiller's classic "Against Our Will" she specifically comes out against the death penalty for anything but murder...that's in the context of discussing lynch-law executions for alleged rape.

Which does kinda highlight that all your predecessors in advocating execution for rape are kinda right-wing. Islamic law also comes to mind.

The death penalty is widely recognized as a barbaric means of state terror, and has been abolished in much of the world.

Draconian punishments for crime are always associated with a generally repressive atmosphere, and a low level of democratic rights. They are characteristic of Stalinism, as well as repressive capitalist regimes. And of utopians seeking to impose their blueprints on society by brute force (e.g. Cambodia.)

That kind of long-term, large-scale repression is a bigger problem than the crime it seeks to suppress. There is no way to ensure it only affects "bad people" and does not intimidate or even directly target anyone else. Even

Crime-fighting cannot be our be-all or end-all. Even in the U.S. today, where street crime is unusually common, it's far from our biggest problem. Far more people are killed by work accidents, and by other consequences of the system, than by individual violence.

If you start asking "what is the answer to crime" in isolation from everything else, treat it as a unique and overriding problem....then yes, draconian punishments do make sense. Whether advocated by Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, or some other reactionary blowhard.

Nosferatu wrote:
personally i believe that death penalty should be applied if the circumstances call for it....

..

Homosexuality is forbidden in Muslim cultures; in certain Islamic countries it is regarded as a criminal activity punishable by death. this too?

Val - 'rape homicide' is when someone kills the victim after raping them.

I consider myself a 'liberal' - which may surprise some people. What sometimes gets lost in these discussions is the feelings of the victims and their relatives and friends.

Cheers,
Shafique

Even though my religion is againt the death penalty, I personally believe it should be a law and should be implemented in any part of the world.

I support the ff methods of death penalty for severe crimes committed only:

- Beheading (in Saudi Arabia, Iraq)

- Electrocution (in USA)

- Hanging (in Egypt, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, Singapore and other countries)

- Lethal injection (in China, Guatemala, Philippines, Thailand, USA)

- Shooting (in Belarus, China, Somalia, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, UAE and other countries)

- Stoning (in Afghanistan, Iran)

But with this, I need to emphasize there should be a good justice system that will make sure no innocent people will be executed.

shafique wrote:

rvp_legend wrote:The death penalty is the ultimate breach of Human rights.
Criminals have jails.

No one has the right to take anothers life. He should live through jail

What about soldiers fighting against another army - do they have the right to kill?

What about Police in a gun fight against a gang - do they have the right to kill the man about to shoot a kid?

If it is right to kill in those circumstances, why not have execution as the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes (eg. rape homicide, serial killers etc)

Cheers,
Shafique

You are comparing the killing of an unarmed man to a warring army. different circumstances.

When someone is defending themselves, he can kill..but only as a last resort.

If someone is a convicted criminal, then locking up him in isolation is more than sufficient,
because
A: He cannot do it anymore and
B: it shows why we are better than he is.

Thirdly if justice in this world was prevailing, then more people may be in favour. But its not. So what you have left is Diluted justice, especially in political nature where the real perpetrators are walking free.

Just as he is convicted for killing 148 people, Bush kills more than Hundreds of thousends and walks free.

No thanks to Death Penalty

rvp - so you agree that under some circumstances it is ok to kill. I just wanted to explore your previous statement that no one had the right to kill another person.

I agree there is a lot of injustice in the world, but I don't think that alters the arguments in favour of the death penalty as a last resort.

I can think of circumstances where the continuing incarceration of a brutal criminal causes continuing pain for the victims of crime. In these circumstances the state is contributing to the continuing suffering of the victim. Where a victim is compassionate and would like to forgive - then they should be heard as well.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:rvp - so you agree that under some circumstances it is ok to kill. I just wanted to explore your previous statement that no one had the right to kill another person.

Only in self defense, although i have not been in a situation where ive wanted someone dead really badly for something they did. But as it currently stands, no Human should take the life of another if they are not in imminent danger at that point.

My immediate argument is that there is not robust enough justice system out there to carry these trials out fairly.
In Afghanistan + northen pakistan, you can get stoned to death if accused of adultary.... never is a fair case, and often is one family getting revenge on another.

Similarly, Saddam is being Hanged, for what? the gassing of the Kurds? Churchill was ok doing it, so were the yanks in Korea and Vietnam.

Yahya Khan,Pakistan played his part in 3 million Bengalis dead... why wasnt he hanged for it?, many people in Bangladesh would have been relieved

Why werent Ariel Sharon and Pinochet hanged?

So its too easily hijacked for political of tribal purposes therefore i am against it.

I believe locking them away is better than execution at this moment in time especially.

RVP - I understand what you are saying. Killing should only be done in extreme circumstances and should not be taken lightly.

I also follow your argument that the death penalty in some instances may be mis-used and counterproductive, and I also fully understand the injustice of many guilty people walking free and no prospect of being brought to justice (or acknowledging their wrongdoings).

However, in extremis, keeping alive some criminals is not in the best interest of society and actually causes suffering to victims. This is cruelty -and is no one's interest but the criminal.

I therefore agree with your arguments - but I still maintain that in principle the death penalty should be maintained as an option (and that this view does not mean I condone all the executions around the world).

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique
Perhaps your right, but it then boils down to how you define a criminal.

Hero of one, zero of another.

On the basis i provided the Yahya Khan example, would you agree to the demands of people from Bangladesh, that the former West Pakistan leaders should be sentenced to death for their parts of Genocide?

Would you agree that GWB should be hanged for killing many Afghans and Iraqi's, even with the apparent aim of liberation?

I am just saying there is nothing robust enough out there to make a strong case. What you have are disjointed systems which are easiliy influenced.

rvp - totally agree that is how you define a criminal. This is otherwise known as the 'law'.

My support of the death penalty is in the context of a just criminal justice system.

I do not know about the person from Bangladesh, so can't comment.

In general, I do believe that those who have committed crimes against humanity should be brought to justice. Those who have intentionally killed or ordered the killings of multitudes of people should be treated as the criminals they are.

That is my opinion. I do not believe in vigilatism - taking the law into one's own hands - but I do strongly believe in justice.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I do not know about the person from Bangladesh, so can't comment.

Reference was to a Pakistani General who ordered the Genocide against now Bangladesh and if he and his co accused should be hanged for it.
My Flat mate who is mixed Bangladeshi and English would like to know your opinions on that?

My opinion is that the current situation doesnt have a robust enough solution and the risks of innocents being killed via death penalty are too high

rvp_legend wrote:

shafique wrote:I do not know about the person from Bangladesh, so can't comment.

Reference was to a Pakistani General who ordered the Genocide against now Bangladesh and if he and his co accused should be hanged for it.
My Flat mate who is mixed Bangladeshi and English would like to know your opinions on that?

My opinion is that the current situation doesnt have a robust enough solution and the risks of innocents being killed via death penalty are too high

If a person is guilty of genocide, then I would support the death penalty for that crime. It doesn't matter to me whether what nationality or religion they are, just whether they are guilty or not and whether they have been given a fair trial.

Your last sentence implies that if the safeguards were in place and there was a 'robust' criminal justice system, then you would support the death penalty. I see very little difference in our views if that is the case - I'm just saying that having a death penalty is justifiable (and necessary) under a fully just criminal system (with the emphasis on just).

Cheers,
Shafique

(PS I'm not Pakistani, or Indian)

shafique wrote:If a person is guilty of genocide, then I would support the death penalty for that crime. It doesn't matter to me whether what nationality or religion they are, just whether they are guilty or not and whether they have been given a fair trial.

Your last sentence implies that if the safeguards were in place and there was a 'robust' criminal justice system, then you would support the death penalty. I see very little difference in our views if that is the case - I'm just saying that having a death penalty is justifiable (and necessary) under a fully just criminal system (with the emphasis on just).

Cheers,
Shafique

(PS I'm not Pakistani, or Indian)

My flatmate is smiling, so he was satisfired with the answer i guess
and yes, 3million dead is guilty as sin, esp in 9 months.

Regarding my comment about criminal justice, ive repeated, as it stands i do not support death penalty and will be against it completely as too much political/tribal misuse.
If System was robust and trials were fair(er)... My view may soften, and if majority want i may also accept.

So yes, ultimately we probably do hold a similar opinion but i would like to see improvements before i can start to back it.

PS
made no such assumptions, but my Flatmate is 1/2 BD and therefore holds a particular interest

The whole 'Human Rights' issue is a bit of a hot potatoe. And surely someone who has taken anothers life or has committed such awful crimes, has given up their 'human rights' and no longer has any place in society.

The death penalty should be handed out for the severest of crimes, and it must be made absolute that the person sentenced is guilty of those crimes.

In those cases, yes I agree with it.