Okay, I want to open a debate on Human Rights, in relation to my latest Vlogpost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxXsMgijO48
Specifically, does anyone actually disagree with the current list? If so, why? And should anything be added or removed?
List is here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4002951
Quote
Your human rights are:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
So... what's wrong with those?
I cant kill my ex.
Otherwise, no, I see nothing wrong with those at all. I believe that everyone should be entitiled to such things.
They give people the death penalty anyway.
That's the UK/EU list, the death penalty isn't on the statute book here.
Some people deserve to die.
That is true. Or at least be put through the pain that they caused others.
Err... interesting debate. *backs away scared*
Hahahaha, awwww. Dont be scared :)
I'd argue that because some people deserve to die, that doesn't mean that you should kill them. I firmly believe that the only "good" motive for killing someone should be to prevent greater suffering and death.
If you just kill criminals, even those who have done terrible things, you lose a little of your own humanity - become a little more like the thing you're trying to stop. A society that kills is not in nearly such a good moral position to condemn killing as one that sees the inhumane treatment criminals and killers mete out and then refuses to sink to that level in response. I'd rather see murderers in prison than dead, because death is an escape from the reality of what they have done.
Secondly, I think it's dangerous to give the state a statute book with the power to execute citizens. If it's not on statute and there are bills preventing it, it then makes it vastly more difficult for any future leader to use such powers wrongly. I know we may trust our governments now, but one of the things about human rights is that you guard them against an uncertain world not a certain one.
I still think putting them through what they have done is the way to go.
It's logical, but where does it stop? An eye for an eye, and pretty soon the whole world is blind.
A society that is forceful and vindictive in its system of justice breeds a harsh and vindictive response. As corporal and capital punishments decreased in Britain from being the main method of punishment, so too did the crime rate.
In Norway they have the nicest prisons in the world, and compared to the rest of the world their re-offence rate is stupid low. Rehabilitation may not play exactly to your sense of justice but it damn well works when done right.
Quote from: Jubal on November 11, 2011, 09:59:24 PMyou lose a little of your own humanity
Since when is it not part of humanity to kill?
Quote from: Jubal on November 11, 2011, 09:59:24 PMI think it's dangerous to give the state a statute book with the power to execute citizens.
*states; it is a jury of one's peers that decide on the death penalty, at least here. Maybe not in China. :P
Quote from: Nightangel on November 11, 2011, 10:27:10 PMRehabilitation may not play exactly to your sense of justice but it damn well works when done right.
Agreed, and if the case everywhere it would trump my first point by showing that humanity had moved beyond what it was.
*coughstartrekcough*
Since we decided that on the grounds we wouldn't like to be killed ourselves, it is therefore morally wrong to kill other people? Our humanity is not the same as our basest instincts, it is the things that make us special as a species. And I think one of those is the ability to make moral judgements and our ability to see a future better than our past.
I said a statute book: in fact, assuming your system is the same as ours a jury only decides on guilt. A judge decides the penalty. If the death penalty is not on statute it means it can't be used for ANY crime, aka it is more difficult for our theoretical bad state than simply creating a new crime with the death penalty; they would have to re-implement the entire mechanism system into common law rather than it being ready-made for their ease and convenience.
Rehabilitative justice does work in more or less all places where it's been tried. Politicians are just scared of looking "soft on crime" so they don't bother doing things which will actually fix the problem.
I could be wrong, but it sure seems to me that in our system the jury also decides on either death or life imprisonment in those situations.
In the UK system, the jury decides on guilt, and the judge decides the sentence. I believe when the death penalty was around the jury could also recommend mercy, but it was ultimately up to the judge whether or not the accused was hanged.
My thoughts on the death penalty are mixed, on a moral standpoint, I would probably say no to it, but on an economic and practical standpoint, yes.
Hanging a criminal and burying them is cheaper overall, in my opinion than keeping them incarcerated for life, and it does make damn sure they won't do it again. Of course on the other hand if you hang the wrong man then the mistake is irreversible, but although I don't know what the accuracy rate of convictions for murder is in the UK these days, I reckon it is most likely higher than it was in the 60s when the death penalty was abolished.
Then again you still have the moral issue that if you kill the wrong man, you have most likely killed an innocent man, and that in itself is wrong. The point therefore is to argue whether or not this evil is an evil worth having, in order to dispense justice to the majority of genuine murderers.
The next point is does the death penalty work as a deterrent? Now Pierrepoint famously said that it didn't, and since most murders are heat of the moment, often domestic disputes where logic and reasoning flies out of the window the moment someone picks up the kitchen knife, I would believe him. But what about premeditated murder, where somebody has plotted and planned to kill someone, not in a moment of rage, but in a clear, cool headed thought process over days? One could argue these people are mentally incapable to stand trial, and whatever ails them that they carry on and kill the person with no thought for the consequences would mean that it wouldn't deter them anyway. But I think that if it can be proven they planned to kill someone, and furthermore attempted to dispose of the body or attempted to cover up their crime, the death penalty would be appropriate, because I feel that there is no rehabilitating these people.
The British justice system at the moment suffers from not being seen to actually dispense justice where its due. Cutting time off jail sentences for 'good behaviour' is in my opinion farcical, and not based at all on 'the poor lickle murderer' but the fact that prisons are overcrowded and they want to punt people out as soon as possible before the next lot arrive.
So why are the prisons overcrowded? You could argue prison sentences are handed out for minor offences that don't warrant them, non payment of fines, or moral degradation in society. I don't believe in the latter to the full extent of its meaning, but I do believe that a lot of people see the justice system as incompetent, and believe they can literally get away with murder, therefore more are committing crimes, leading to more convictions and more prisoners. I believe that the death penalty would help to bring some of these people back to reality.
On its own, the death penalty wouldn't reduce crime figures much, but combining it with a more streamlined system to process criminals would. This doesn't mean I am in favour of mass trials though, I still believe in a fair trial, and to be honest, I wouldn't know exactly where to start on the justice system as it stands. Your thoughts Jubal?
I'm not sure that the economic and practical arguments DO favour the death penalty.
For example, there's the question of perverse incentive; a murderer who knows their life is forefeit has absolutely every compulsion to keep killing in order to prevent others finding out about their crime. There's also the fact that in Texas in 2009, the homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. In the UK it was just 1.17; the death penalty does not seem to have a major effect on the homicide rate. Perverse incentives, I believe, are too dangerous in very practical terms for it to be worth a punishment that has no obvious correlation with low crime rates.
In my opinion, the main problem with the British justice system is a case of doing what looks good not what works. We need to start giving out fewer 6 month to one year sentences; these do no good whatsoever, and throw people in with other criminals. Short stay prisons often, by these means, become "crime colleges". The main thing which will improve the justice system from a practical standpoint is sentences that are long enough and well-funded enough to rehabilitate criminals fully instead of throwing them out on the streets in just as bad a state as they were when they came in.
I mean, if you put a thief in prison for eight months, then put him out on the street, just as you found him, with a black binbag with some clothes in and 20 quid in his pocket, and still with no skills or employability, what would you expect the result to be?
I agree that short prison sentences do little to actually help society for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I don't know what percentage of the costs are from giving people short sentences, but I imagine it would be sizeable.
As for perverse incentive, would they [the murderer] not do pretty much the same thing if they knew they were going to be locked up for life? Once they're in there, they can never be released until they are to old to be a threat, and they will still cost the country money afterwards because they are unemployable and thus living on pension/benefits. Yes, you could exclude them from such support due to what they've done, but that could piss them off enough to potentially kill again.
In my opinion, if the justice system and the police were known to be more capable of capturing murderers and handing out appropriate sentences, the death penalty would contribute as a deterrent. On its own, it would be no more a deterrent than the threat of being detained until heat death of the universe.