Death Penalty...

**98tls** · 15th July 2006, 17:53

Originally Posted by Milky

As for my view on the death penalty, I am conflicted. I agree with it as an effective solution for making problems go away, but I don't feel comfortable with state sanctioned killing.

ITseems as though as you say alot of people are not happy with state sanctioned killing but are prepared to accept that individuals will go out and kill.....then whats worse if a member of the victims family attempt any retribution then there in the shit...

once again it seems the victim has no rights and the criminal does...maybe the death penalty wont fix the problem but the fact that it was there may well put a few off.

**Milky** · 15th July 2006, 18:07

Originally Posted by 98tls

ITseems as though as you say alot of people are not happy with state sanctioned killing but are prepared to accept that individuals will go out and kill.....then whats worse if a member of the victims family attempt any retribution then there in the shit...

once again it seems the victim has no rights and the criminal does...maybe the death penalty wont fix the problem but the fact that it was there may well put a few off.

Yeah it is a tricky one - is the state killing someone going to prevent criminals killing to the same/greater degree? If it is then it is more palatable. However, is the state killing going to set the example that it is ok to kill as long as you can justify it?

As a point of interest, I remember somthing from the USA about the direct cost of an excecution being a very large amount - well into the millions of dollars. Anyone else know a more exact figure?

**WINJA** · 15th July 2006, 18:15

Originally Posted by Firefight

does the name Arthur Allan Thomas ring a bell ?

F/F

THAT IS A TIME I CANT AGREE , BUT IN CASES WHERE THERES VIDEO EVIDENCE OR AN ADMISSION OR VERY CREDIBLE WITNESSES TO A MURDER THEN FUCKEM FRY THE BASTARDS SLOWLY EVEN THE ONES THAT ARE INSANE OR RETARDED, I THINK EVEN THOSE LITTLE SHITS WHO PUT JAMIE BULGER ON THE TRAIN TRACKS SHOULDA BEEN GIVEN THE CHAIR I DONT CARE IF THEIR 8 YEARS OLD , FUCKEN CUNTS EYE FOR AN EYE

**WINJA** · 15th July 2006, 18:16

what about not directly killing them instead just put them in a coffin and bury them alive

**98tls** · 15th July 2006, 18:25

Originally Posted by Milky

Yeah it is a tricky one - is the state killing someone going to prevent criminals killing to the same/greater degree? If it is then it is more palatable. However, is the state killing going to set the example that it is ok to kill as long as you can justify it?

As a point of interest, I remember somthing from the USA about the direct cost of an excecution being a very large amount - well into the millions of dollars. Anyone else know a more exact figure?

some good points there...as for the cost of an execution i wonder if that tally is with all the costs of endless appeals etc?i wouldnt think the actual killing cost was bugger all.

**ghost** · 17th July 2006, 08:46

Originally Posted by Macktheknife

I personally think that a society that prefers to think of itself as 'civilised' should be concerned with the greatest impact on the society as a whole. Does killing a self confessed and mulitple-evidenced rapist/paedophile/murderer make us less civilised or just smart enough to realise that some people cannot/will not adapt to our societal structures and requirements.

Think about it, in any other group of people/club/organisation you are required to learn the rules and obey them, failure to do so means there will be consequences. Those can include some form of discipline and ulitimately if you still do not follow the rules you will be evicted from the group.

Somewhere along the way we as a society have forgotten that we DO have the right to kick people out of our group, in this case permanently. Deportation is not realistic, who would want them? Locking them up for our protection is expensive and some idiot is liable to let them out again. If there were a very distant island with no possibility of escape then that would do nicely, anyone know of such a place?
We as a society need to wake up to our responsibility to the rest of us who do not commit these heinous and violent crimes, once crims show they are clearly not going to comply with the simple limit of NOT raping/ killing/ beating the crap out of people repeatedly; kill them. End of story. Waste no further effort, time or resources on them.
The rest of society is better off for the lack of them in it.

Macktheknife for President!!!!!

**mstriumph** · 17th July 2006, 12:29

Originally Posted by scumdog

Mwahahahah! Like that's going to work!
This government PAYS people outside prison to sit on their lazy fat arses, why should it be any different inside??
Sorry if it sounds sarcastic.

...... sorry - my bad ----- forgot to mention that FIRST we storm the parliament buildings and put all the pollies to the sword .....

**mstriumph** · 17th July 2006, 12:46

Originally Posted by Milky

Yeah it is a tricky one - is the state killing someone going to prevent criminals killing to the same/greater degree? .........

it's CERTAINLY gonna prevent recividism

....... the only reason i can think of AGAINST is that some of the more twisted perps might actually ENJOY it, auto-erotically-speaking [in the non-fordian context], and i'm morally opposed to giving the bastards ANY fun

........... but then it's monday - and i'm having a truly shitty day anyway ... not my usual sunny self at ALL

**Paul in NZ** · 17th July 2006, 14:35

This is an unusual subject and one that it is impossible to debate in a detatched way. Emotions run high and it's very easy to get swept away by it all.

Most people, despite all the posturing and 'kill em all let em fry' talk are NOT killers. A large part of military training involves getting people to a point where they are prepared to do the unthinkable - I mean it's very easy to adopt war comic bravado on the internet, it's quite something else to line someone up in your sights at 200yds and cold bloodedly pull the trigger.

Anyway - part of the problem is that most of 'us' are well intentioned, reasonably well educated and experienced and contribute in some way to 'society'. We feel we are part of this society and are proud of it and we certainly don't consider ourselves as barbaric killers. Thats something foreigners do (nasty people)

But - like everything, there are few absolutes.

If the radical Islamic Republic of Samoa decided to invade New Zealand and they had a toe hold in Northland and were push south in numbers, most of us would consider this as a defence of the realm situation and armed resistence would be mounted. We are proud of what our fathers and grandfathers achieved in WW1 and WW2 which were 'decent' wars and we were on the side of good.. In this situation, we have no problem with government sanctioned killing at all because the other side is in uniform and they are evil doers... or are they?

How do we deal with the deliberate fire storm bombing of German Cites at a time when it was obvious they were going to loose?? The A bombs on japan?? 'Shortened the war by years saving countless lives etc etc'...

When society or our nation is under threat we have little issue with state sanctioned murder....

Well perhaps our nation IS under threat.... Certainly our way of life is...

Yes, I don't think the 'opposition' is organised into armies but does that really matter?

Yes, I don't like killing or any kind of violence and I certainly don't advocate a death sentence to every criminal OR that this is even going to make much of a difference without a lot of other changes in how we see ourselves and what sort of society we want to live in.

Pick any reason you want why we are in this situation but don't just poohoo the death sentence as being the act of a barbarian. The whole purpose of this discussion is surely to review our current situation with the view of doing something about it. Don't tell me it's not on a parties adgenda etc because this IS a democracy and things like this can be brought to the publics attention through the actions of a few dedicated individuals.

My own feeling is that the root of most of this lies firmly at the door of the politicians. Frre enterprise is a great system but there are always checks and balances required. The market was happy to sacrifice the megre wealth of the lower working classes and thus detatch them from our society. hence, we just possibly could be at war.

We need to involve these people in society, make sure they have something to loose and then maybe... I dunno - I'm old and stupid (and you can quote that) but I'm not going to pretend that something I love is not under threat.

**acewheelie** · 17th July 2006, 15:17

My family are among the RSA homicide victims. My sister was the lone survivor, so I guess that gives me an experienced victims view on the subject.

I would kill Bell, the guys that supplied the drugs, the shotgun, the getaway car. I would shoot them cold bloodiedly, easier than I would kill a goat, rabbit or possumn., without as much guilt as killing an animal.

I have lived with five years of frustration with the justice system, police and the dept of correctrions, because the worst part of the RSA homicides were they were unnecessary, Bell should have been behind bars.

He wanted to kill those people, he new my sister was going to be there, he thought that it would be just her and the cleaner, he wanted to kill them.

I would give my eye teeth to torture and then kill him.

I would love to chat with anyone one on one about reinstatement of the death penalty. I was supposed to stand for one of the political parties 2 elections ago, but we had an altercation re Capital Punishment.

Ace

**Hitcher** · 17th July 2006, 19:16

Originally Posted by acewheelie

I would love to chat with anyone one on one about reinstatement of the death penalty.

No you wouldn't. You would just want to brow-beat them (or possibly worse) until they acceded to your point of view. I understand your frustration about the "failure" of New Zealand's "justice" system. But, fortunately, it is not based on exacting revenge for the aggrieved or other forms of state-sanctioned barbarism. Mr Bell is behind bars, and there he will stay for the full term of his sentence. Let it go.

**Skyryder** · 17th July 2006, 19:26

Originally Posted by Hitcher

No you wouldn't. You would just want to brow-beat them (or possibly worse) until they acceded to your point of view. I understand your frustration about the "failure" of New Zealand's "justice" system. But, fortunately, it is not based on exacting revenge for the aggrieved or other forms of state-sanctioned barbarism. Mr Bell is behind bars, and there he will stay for the full term of his sentence. Let it go.

Them's words of wisdom Ace. Move on and you'll find the world a better place. That's from someone who knows.

Skyryder

**acewheelie** · 17th July 2006, 19:31

It isn't as easy as you might think (read three shrinks and more than a handful of councillors later.) I think you ar either a person that believes in capital punishment or your not. I know that emotions run deep on both sides, so browbeating anyone won't change their position.
Just expressing my point of view, still a democracy I thought...

**Hitcher** · 17th July 2006, 19:59

Originally Posted by acewheelie

Still a democracy I thought...

"Freedom" of expression is a noble goal. But within constraints. Just because members of our community hold certain views doesn't mean that they have right to act on them. Otherwise there would be hundreds of Suzuki riders forced to find alternative forms of transportation...