I heard about a case in England where they wanted to kill a doctor that had wanted him hung. Mr Cockerell from Scunthorpe was leading some kind of posse to hunt him down in prison because the British don't kill prisoners. Is that morally right?
121725
If murder is premeditated, ie conceived and planned, then the murderer waves all rights to any civil liberties they may once have had.  Fry the ba****d!
498514
Often times we use capital punishment (killing) to tell people it is wrong to commit certain crimes (like killing). I do not refuse to commit heinous crimes because the state will kill me. I refuse to commit those crimes because that is not who I am. It is only an earnest inner choice that can effectively deter crime. Think about it: When a man is committing a crime that is horrible enough to merit capital punishment (such as murder), he knows at the time that he might be killed in the act of committing the crime itself. If you try to kill someone, they will certainly try to kill you first. Apparently, the man who would commit such a crime doesn't care about living, if he was willing to risk his life to commit it. Death is no punishment to the man who does not fear death.
3499
no -- he was not in the jury that convicted Williams.  he was not the 'executioner'.  Williams was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to be executed.  Arnold had NOTHING to do with it other than saying that his sentence would be fulfilled.
110520
In England, we do, in fact, have the Death penalty. But this is little known about. I am led to believe that the only 2 crimes which still carry this penalty however, are:\n1: Piracy on the High Seas (High Seas being out into international waters) and\n2: Setting fire to her majectys dock yards.\n\nI'm pretty sure no one has been found guilty for these for a while, but I'd quite like myself to see some more added back to the list, especially now we have good DNA evidence etc ...
71867
Yes, it is much better than giving scumbags like the one mentioned in the question a lifetime of freebies.\n\nThe only thing wrong with it is they are given a much more humane death than they gave their victims.\n\nVictims didn't get a chance to say "goodbye" to their families, or a last meal, why should the killers?
44829
A sane society kills its maniacal killers. Those on death row are beyond rehabilitation. They are beyond any usefulness to society. In hard labor for life they are a continuing burden on society. How beneficial would it be to still have Gacy, Bundy, et al still alive and in prison? Would you want these horrendous people out in public on a "crab boat" with a chance to escape? Are you for real?\n\nIt would be better to keep the appeals process from going on for 15 years, at the waste of taxpayer dollars.
489916
i am unsure, my first thought was yes after all a 25 years sentence reduced to 12 for 'good behaviour' doesn't fit the crime. So a life for a life would seem logical and possibly reasonable. However we have all heard of miscarriages of justice, what possible compensation could we give to those people who have had family members wrongly put to death. \n\nTough i realise there is server over crowing in prisons and that this needs to be addressed i don't think the death penalty should be the way to do it.\n\nHowever if there was stronger sentencing in this country to say that the criminal never gets out. Many more people would be put off and i think the families of victims and the public would be reassured.\n\nThese days it is sad to say that you get more time in jail for stealing money from the government than you do for crimes against a person including violence offences and rape. It's very unbalanced.\n\nCrimes such as paedophiles should never be released as there is NO evidence to ever even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be rehabilitated. Why do we let these people continue to abuse the privilege of freedom? only to destroy young lives and the lives of those around them.
229724
Well I wouldn't unstrap myself unless my own life was at risk or for another good reason. You would not be a murderer, possibly manslaughter because you didn't choose to kill the boy. You would be the victim too because this would hvae been done against your will. You could call it unlawful imprisonment.
520963
I hope you don't mind, but I'm just going to copy and paste a previous answer I posted to a similar question:\n\nIt's called a social contract. Morals and integrity do not come from religion at all. Religion preaches about morals, but from the example of many religious leaders, it's not always the priority.\n\nA social contract is basically not doing to someone what you don't want to be done to you. I'm not going to kill people because I don't wish to be killed. I don't damage property because I know I wouldn't want my property to be damaged. \n\nPeople who have no morals are "sociopaths", getting the "socio" from the "social" from social contract and getting the "path" from the Greek word "pathological," meaning "uncontrolled or unreasonable".
464551
I think in the right circumstance that is great. Sadly enough it does cost the government more money to execute a person than it does to keep them in prison for life. I see the death penalty being a good thing because why reward a murderer or what ever the crime was, for doing that crime. Because technically that is what you are doing. You are putting them in a place, where they will always have a roof over their head, 3 hot meals a day, a hot shower, cable TV, books to read, Internet/computers to use, books in the library and endless time to exercise (use the weight machines) and they even get visitation rights. How is this fair? This is not only fair to the victims and their families, because they will never get visitation rights. But its also unfair to the millions of poor or homeless people. Who can't say that they always have a roof over their head, one meal a day let alone a hot one. Who if don't have a steady home wont have a steady shower, or cable or Internet or the resources to keep fit both mentally and physically. Prisoners even get a chance to make money by working in the prisons facilities. How does this seem fair. They are being rewarded, they have a better life, despite being behind bars, than most people do. \nSo why not give them the death penalty if they are guilty without a reason of a doubt? That is after all what they deserve. As the old saying goes an eye for an eye.
602808
This is a doozy hard question.\n\nDeath penalty is not an answer because we are the killers also, if we condoned the killing of killers. In a way it makes sense for many in our society to live by the rule "an eye for an eye" but in another sense we will turn into the killers, and that's supposedly what we're trying to get rid of?\n\nIt is cheaper for the prisoners to stay in prison for the rest of their life, rather than executing them. If a prisoner has a better life among society then prison will seem harsh, death will only make it easier as then they won't be living with the guilt. But if they have a shitty life in the society, then prison doesn't seem so bad because everything is paid for in there and they live as if they never lived before. On the other hand if we kill them, we rid them of guilt and any responsibilities so it seems better to let them “rot” in prison. But yet it goes back to my point about them living an easier life in prison.\n\nSo to me, it is a catch 22 for the people involve excluding the prisoner as they are the winners in the outcome of any jurisdiction. Life in prison, or death. This probably doesn't answer the question but actually stir up more issues but I wanted to put in my few cents. =)
416473
I am so torn on the death penalty issue... I don't have a stance yet.\n\nFrom a strictly economical side, I'm against the death penalty, because I've heard in multiple places that it costs 2-3 times more than life in prison w/o parole.\n\nFrom a moral standpoint, it's hard to say.  Killing someone removes them once and for all as a threat.  Granted, while in jail they are only a threat to other inmates and the prison guards, but still, you cannot make a blanket judgment on whether those people (in the case of the other prisoners) deserve the threat, or (in the case of the guards) willingly accept the threat by being in that job.  Also, there's always the chance of escape.  You don't have that chance with death.\n\nIn addition, there's the obvious fact that if you accept the death penalty, almost regardless of standards for conviction, you're going to eventually get an innocent person in there.  Making the standards for conviction extremely high just leads to multiple expensive appeals, which brings us back to the economic reason to be against it.  It also makes the death penalty so rare that any appeal to it being a deterrent is just silly at that point, because even if you are convicted you'd have to be one of the unlucky ones to get the chair.\n\nIn fact, I have not seen any evidence that it actually serves as a deterrent, regardless of the extensiveness of its use.\n\nI do believe that the highest value must be placed on human life, but when you have one human life that continues to threaten others, isn't it respecting that value to end their life?\n\nI don't know.  I'm an atheist struggling to have a position on this.
577080
I seriously doubt these guys did any intentional harm. It makes no sense, they have zero motivation. One of the accused is a Palistinian Doctor. Why would he seek to kill fellow Arabs? \n\nThe Bulgarian nurses, again what motivation would they have? Bulgaria really does not care about the Middle East. \n\nThat torture and rape happened is very believeable. So the confessions are useless. What is believable is that libya is using the situation to blackmail money and other considerations out of Europe. A very typical game Ghadifi is well known for. The nurses and Doc on the other hand have already paid heavily for apparently volenteering to work in such a hell hole in the first place. \n\nLast we are talking about some unsanitary conditions. No screening of blood products, no needle sanitation. It's a wonder there isn't a huge empidemic going on there.
667409
Here in lies the delimma.......what IS the sex OF that sex offender?? In these times..I see a growing percentage of sex offenders being female....should this law also mean death to females as well??\n\nDouble-standards dont work in a democracy.\n\nNo..I think its an illness..and unless you want to start killing Downs Syndrome folks...retarded folks....and other mentally challenged folks..then no...I say it is wrong to fault a subconcious illness. What next...death to all Sickle cell patients?? The disease IS transferrable from mother to child ya know??
141935
People may want to consider this when making that decision -- his efforts and actions during his trial have been consistent with making the jury angry at him. He is on record as saying he wants to be killed, since that would make him a martyr.\n\nGiven the conditions in prison, is being put to death actually  a worse fate than life without parole?
389858
Look at the list of countries who still have capital punishment on the books, you would not want to be associated with most of them. Why put him out of his misery, let him suffer for the rest of his life. You would be doing him a favor by killing him, and lowering yourself to the murderers level. People actually think that criminals consider this consequence when they are doing a crime, most of them don't believe they will ever be caught. He deserves worse than death.
41743
I've always agreed with the idea that freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.  If you start limiting freedom, it's not freedom.  However, if you allow some freedoms that infringe on another person's freedoms, you aren't really allowing freedom.\n\nLaws need to be a balance between all freedoms.  You can't have the freedom to kill someone because it infringes on that person's freedom to live.\n\nIt is a delicate balancing act that will never be completely balanced out.  No one will ever figure it out to the satisfaction of all.\n\nI personally am for stricter punishments for people who violate the rights and freedoms of others.  I think criminals have too many rights.  But then, if they are wrongly accused, shouldn't they have rights to prove their innocence?\n\nSee?  I don't know and I don't think anyone does.