I found this article on the BBC News website and I found it really interesting, and that it raised some interesting issues: (possibly not for the faint-hearted)

The search for a 'humane' execution

By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News Magazine

In the US all executions by lethal injection have been temporarily halted while experts examine whether it is a "humane" form of execution. How does it compare to other forms, and for supporters of capital punishment, is there a more benign method?

The United States is one of 55 countries that practise the death penalty as the ultimate sanction on convicted criminals. But in the majority of US states the procedure is frozen while the Supreme Court decides whether lethal injection is a "cruel and unusual" form of punishment that violates the constitution.

For many, the debate has a ring of the absurd. Those opposed in principle to the death penalty believe all its forms are immoral and arguments about methods are irrelevant.

But Michael Portillo, who has voted for and against the death penalty in his time as an MP, says he changed his position because of miscarriages of justice.

For BBC Two's Horizon, he set out to investigate whether one method was any more humane than another, but concluded they were all imperfect:

Lethal injection is a combination of three chemical injections - one which makes the inmate unconscious, another that paralyses all muscles except the heart, and a final drug that stops the heart, causing death. But opponents say that if one of the chemicals fails or is badly administered, the prisoner suffers excruciating pain

Hanging causes a fracture between the second and third cervical vertebrae, fracturing the joint, tugging the spinal cord, damaging the brain stem and causing the heart to stop. Still common in many parts of the world, to be done properly it requires exact calculations - if the rope is too short, the prisoner may not die instantly; too long and he may be decapitated. The latter seems to have been the case last year in the botched hanging of Saddam Hussein's half-brother

Electrocution provides 15 seconds of about 2,450 volts applied to the human body at three points, the head and two calves. A sponge soaked in brine, which is a good conductor, is used on the head. But the voltage may not be sufficient to stop the heart and prisoners sometimes require more than one blast, despite severe damage to internal organs

Gas is used in five US states. Cyanide interferes with the human cells' ability to carry oxygen. Scientist Christopher Cooper described the pain as a combination of brain seizure, heart attack and asphyxiation. Prisoners can minimise the pain by breathing deeply, but in practice this is very difficult


Having ruled out all four methods, mainly because there was a risk of pain, Mr Portillo looked at an alternative, the deprivation of oxygen - hypoxia. It's commonly used in the killing of lab animals because it preserves their body tissue.

He discovered that nitrogen could do the job in about 15 seconds, and the prisoner would not feel pain - on the contrary he would feel euphoric, like being drunk.

While hypoxia might meet the approval of some, others argue that focusing on the dying moments of a prisoner is a distraction to the wider issue - the mental trial of being on death row for months or years.

"No method of execution can prevent the knowledge that you are going to die by the state in the future," says Jon Yorke, a law lecturer who has done extensive death penalty research in the US. "That will have a psychological impact, it can never be humane."

The so-called "death row phenomenon" affects an inmate in two ways, says Mr Yorke. One concerns the mind. In 1986 in Florida, Alvin Ford escaped the death penalty because he had become insane on death row.

The other is the physical impact of the structure in which an inmate is being held. In Oklahoma, where cells on death row are deprived of sunlight, a prisoner may endure 25 years without Vitamin D.

Lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith, who has represented death row inmates, agrees and says the mental torture of being on death row is far more horrific than what awaits them at the end.

But Tom Sorell of the Global Ethics Centre in Birmingham says philosophically speaking, the death penalty can be humane, if it is restricted to very serious crimes and due legal process is followed.

However he admits some of the current methods are unreliable and painful, and suggests that methods used in euthanasia would be more appropriate.

When asked if nitrogen would be a more humane way for the state to kill, the leading voice of the American pro-death penalty movement, Professor Robert Blecker, strongly disagrees.

"If the killers who smash their victims on the side of the heads with hammers and then slit their throats go out in a euphoric high, that is not justice."

What makes any method perfect is completely subjective, says Mr Portillo. "For the pro-death penalty lobby, using a painless method of execution is inhumane to the victim of the crime.

"I set out to discover whether science could offer a painless way of killing people and it does.

"And I think that is the right thing to be looking at, because for as long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."

What do people think - not only on the issues raised in the above article, but on the use of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment?

This article just shows how barbaric the death penalty is. I am glad this is not a point of discusson for Europeans anylonger.

I just watched the Horizon programme with Michael Portillo, and i found it one of the most powerful and chilling programmes i have ever seen.
Clearly none of the existing methods of execution are as fast and pain free as many might think-the one showing how death by electricity was extremely long and apparently has taken a few attempts to kill the condemned man-that sounds like torture to me, is the object to kill or to torture and kill?
What was interesting is when Portillo talked to the American government spokesman on the subject he was told that a clean quick death wasn't a priority or requirement and that the pain and suffering involved in capital punishment was acceptable, indeed appropriate as a consequence of the criminal act. If that principal is taken to it's logical conclusion surely advocates of a painful death would welcome even longer more gruesome means of execution, since they obviously feel inflicting pain as well as death is justified-maybe a few days merciless torture might satisfy their need for vengeance.

I'm against capital punishment in principle because i believe in a kind of sanctity of human existence, the transcendence of the human condition lies outside the boundaries of human morality so we cannot terminate it because we might want retribution.

the death penalty is wrong. period.

I had a look at a few surveys, and most of them regularly have about 50% support for the death penalty for the worst crimes i.e. child murder in this country. Admittedly, a lot of them are done straight after child murder cases e.g. a lot of people supported the death penalty for Ian Huntley :shrug:

Three Points:

First

I am against the death penalty chiefly because I think it has a barbarising effect on society.

To me it involves the contradiction that the State is saying that violence between citizens is wrong, and killing is the worst sort of violence... unless the State does it in the coldest of cold blood after certain 'safeguards'.

If, like me, you don't believe that killing a civilian living in a State in peacetime is the right answer to whatever problems that person has caused, I don't see how it is possible to think somehow it is all right or better when the State does it. The State, after all, only has the legitimacy given to it by us pooling our sovereignty - if it is wrong for one, two, hundreds, or even thousands of us to kill another civilian in our midst during peacetime, what difference does it make if we all do it?

I also would think it abhorrent for us, via the State, to be employing people to kill or be involved in the business of killing (designing methods and machinery etc.) on our behalf. Nobody supports lynching - but in my view it is less far from State executions than many would like to believe. To me the State being involved in the business of killing civilians in peacetime sends out a subliminal message that killing is a sort of answer.

Second

Then, of course, there are those miscarriages of justice - there is no such thing as a foolproof system. However, I think that opposing the death penalty solely because of miscarriages of justice is ONE BIG KOPOUT - you are effectively saying that if we were foolproof you would not mind the death penalty. Since human error is, always has been, and always will be, an inescapable part of the human condition, you are are starting a circle of nonsense to avoid addressing a far more fundamental proposition.

Of course, I would accept that human error can be one of a number of reasons put forward for opposition, my gripe is when it is put forward as the sole reason.

Third

If you are going to do it, I have never heard of any method that is an improvement upon the Guillotine. Quick and as close to fallible as you are going to get. If you are going to kill someone, so what if you end up severing their head from their shoulders, that is the least of their problems I would have thought. Also, it does not do any harm to the rest of us to be reminded by the method of what a big business it is to kill a civilian in cold blood. If the answer to using the guillotine is a certain squeamishness, does that not raise the much bigger question of whether we should be doing it at all?

I oppose the death penalty simply because I don't believe that just because the state kills someone it makes the state any better than the people they're puttin to death. We, who are not murderers, are supposed to be better than those who are - so how does us deciding it's ok to kill someone for their crimes make us any better than those doing the killing. Does that make sense?

Also, the idea that having the death penalty may in fact prevent crime does not seem to be borne out by the statistics from America. :blink:

But if it's going to be done, then I would always argue for the most humane method. Allowing them to be in agony would seem to be cruel and unusual punishment to me - a form of torture. and the civilised world is *supposed* to be above using forms of torture......

I simply oppose it because at the end of the day, what matters in this world is what can be learnt from it. If someone spends his life behind bars, he has a chance to reflect upon his acts. I am not saying he will but at least there is a chance he can...

Needless to say that if someone did something "mean" to my family, I would want him/her dead. So in that respect I understand polls which are in favour of it especially when a child has been a victim. But the role of the State is of course to deal with this in the more human manner and prevent us from avenging ourselves.

Well firstly, on administering a humane death penalty - I am aware that all these methods can be painful and agonising. It's liek with hangin, when you see it on Tv folks seem to die realyl quick - now that will only happen if you put the roep in the right place and I think what happens is that it snaps the adontoid peg of axis form the spinal cord. In reality what can happen though is the person is merely strangled slowly. And of course the chemical injection can go wrong, just like anyhting adminitered by a doctor in a hospital can also go wrong - fact of life (or death) I am afraid. And with electrocution - it surprises me that this was considered a humane method! :rolleyes: Ever seen that scene in the Green Mile? :sicky: Not everyone conducts electricty in the same way, it is unpredictable and you can be totally conscious that your organs are exploding inside you. Lets not go there on gas cos that is just disgusting.

It surprises me that they cannot come up with anything better, especially when several innocent people die quickly and painlessly. Folks go into hospital every day and have their insides chopped about without feeling a thing, so surely they must be able to find a strong anaesthetic drug ? Although I have heard that sometimes folk are conscious but they are paralysed and can feel everything, but that is rare. In the scheme of things I do not see what si wrong with simply shooting someone in the head, that is quick and would be my preference.

On whether we should have a death penalty - it depends on your beleifs. It is all very well saying it is barbaric and doesn't set a good example, but most of us who say that haven't had a close friend or relative suffer at length at the hands of a criminal, and possibly have a slow and painful death themselves. Some of these criminals have captured, raped, maimed and tortured people to death. Many would therefore consider it only right that they are punished and many would say that they get off lightly compared to their victims. And if you violate other people's rights then IMO you should lose some of your own because with rights come responsibilities. And logically if you violate someone's right to life then you should lose your own. Punishment to fit the crime as some theories of justice would state.

There are various theories of jurisprudence and crime and punishment. I used to think ti was better to reform people than lock them away for ever ro kill them. But sometimes I am not so sure. :unsure: Ideally reform is the best way but it only works with a flawless and top class judicial and prison refrom system, and we all know that doesn't exist. We don't live in an ideal world. I am generally against the death penalty, but my main reason is because of the imperfections in the justice system - there are miscarriages of justice and putting innocent people to death is totally unacceptable and it has happened. In some cases though some peopel simply do not deserve to live I'm afraid. Harsh but IMO true. And there is the issue of a deterent - if there is no deterent then we will simply have more crime. And you can't have a deterent that is never implemented or it is pointless. So it's a very tricky area and I do not personally believe that there can be a right or wrong answer.

The problem with that is the person doing the shooting. With electrocution, lethal injection and gas the executioner can be a long way away - in another room even - when they pull the switch. With shooting someone in the head, the person doing the shooting has to be next to them to shoot them. The psychological effect on anyone who has to perform exections must be fairly bad, but for someone to actually stand there and shoot someone in the head? :shrug:

Well IMO it all amounts to the same thing wherever you are. It's just that it looks cleaner at a difference to some, and I don't think that has anything to do with humanity - it's just to make us feel better as a society. At the end of the day though you are still killing someone, it is no better or worse if you do it at a distance or in a more socially acceptable manner. Personally I'd be more grateful for a shot in the head than any of the other methods, that's why i said it. I do worry about the exectioners but really, woudl you apply for a job on death row if you didn't feel you could end a criminal's life? :shrug: I wouldn't want to do it for sure, but there are enough folks in the world who feel fine about killing for justice.

One of the advantages of having a State is that decisions are made on behalf of, and taking into account the views of, all citizens. If you allow those most affected by an event to decide on how to respond to it you will have constant 'hot-blooded' government. That is bound to end in tears. Yes, you have to listen to victims, but you don't allow your empathy for their sadness and rage to persuade you to do something (which is inevitably done in cold blood for you) that you think is wrong.

I hope you will excuse me for saying that in my view the final paragraph is a little half-baked.

Our deterrence is a long prison sentence - there is no evidence of which I am aware that the deterence of the death penalty works any better as a deterrent in a western society like the UK or the US. The real deterrence is a belief that a serious crime will be uncovered.

I often feel that there is a fair amout of pond-life about whose disrespect for other members of society is so callous and all-embracing that we would be better off without them - those who cause suffering to innocent children are high on the list of such pond-life. But am I, either alone or as one of a large number (whether by being a party or having delegated it), happy to make that decision/judgment on others and go through with it to the end of an execution?

Either I am, or I am not - there ain't really any half-way house on that issue.

On your first paragraph - yes I see that. But again you might think differently if you or a family memeber had bene affected by haenous crime and saw the crminal go free. It's hard to strike a perfect balance, but many people do say that there are too many peopel makign decisions who are UNAFFECTED by them, so it's important to ensrue that you get the perspective of those most affected and with experience of such things. Too many folks work on th eassumption that such people are going to be running round with torches baying for blood a la Frankenstein movies! Plus as anyone who has suffered at the hands of criminals that don't get punished will tell you - there is nothing worse than having a bunch of supposedly objective liberal do gooders - call them what you will, I've certainly heard that phrase enough times so I will use it - making decisions with no real experince fo the matters at hand. It make sfolks feel like their feelings and experince counts for nothing. So it does need to be considered. In fact if we had mor eof that attitude in this country we might get somewhere. It's also worht considering that politicians may be elected by us but once in they do not always listen to us and do as we wish. So I don't buy aspects of your theory.

Call my paragraph half baked, that's fine by me. I tmight well be but those are my thought and did not spend that long composing them as I woudl do if I was writiing a thesis. I don't beleive everything is that black and white that you can be so sure that you are for or against. There are pros and cons, and I cannot fully decide just like an aganostic is undecided I guess. If it were a perfect world and justice worked well all the time, then I would be for the death penalty in some cases, although I am not a person who would like to see it used regularly.

There might nto be evidence that the death penalty is a deterent, how can there be? That's impossible to prove. But the common sense approach would say that most people would be detered by it surely? I know I woudl! Of course there will always be exceptions but there will always be criminals who liek to try and get oen over on peopel and will risk the consequences. I don't beleive the average person is like that though. I certainly don't - had enough folks queing up to get back at blokes who attacked my partner, but I declined as I suspected that they might get caught and get prosecuted. Believe me were there not that risk I'd have said kick the sh*t out of the b*stards, after all they asked for it adn received no punishment whatsoever under our law, so deterents do work to an extent. And any extent is better than none.

Interesting that when you talk about exceptions for real 'pond life' you talk about children. I don't think we should necesarily seperate children out as if a crime against them is more haenous than one against an adult. Sure it's terrible, and kids are young and defenceless, but there are also many adults who are equally vulnerable and just as easily traumtised by crime. I'm not saying that you have forgotten them, but I think a lot of folk tend to when they talk about crime. I think we need to be careful, because this can lead to assumptions that oen criem is worse than the other before we;ve even weighed up the circumstances adn the evidence. Did you hear that debate on the radio a while back btw - there was a phone in vote - you had a choice of criminals and had to say which you would lock up. As I suspected the outcome was an overwhelming knee jerk reaction to lock up someone who was involved in child crime (even if they had nto actually doen anything!) rather than someone who had assaulted a man leavign him permanently injured afterwards. :wacko:

Oooh there's a lot there, I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things you said.

It's always a balance - you cannot ignore victims thinking you know better in an arrogant way, but you cannot give them their head. I think we agree on that, it's just where the balance lies that we may disagree with.

I agree that there is a mass of hysteria about paedophiles and that the public response is often disproportionate to the crime involved, or too ready to infer criminal conduct from an innocent situation. I often think it's an escape route - we are all flawed and it is easy to hate someone who has done something that you have not been tempted to do yourself.

My take arises from my relationship with my own child (a toddler). To spend just a moment with my child, or any other child of that age, is to be presented immediately and forcefully with their trusting nature, their humanity and their vulnerability. If, despite that, you can go on and do something awful to them it strikes me that there is little hope for you. It's different in many situations with an adult, who may have done something to you that you dislike or provoke you.

I would agree that much the same can be said of crimes committed against other vulnerable people. Confidence tricksters who pinch the life savings of elderly people are precisely in that category in my view.

Yes I see what you are saying about kids and I agree entirely. And yes peopel have become obsessed with the threat fo paedophilia to such ridiculous proportions that non-paedophiles are beign suspected of a crime that would never even cross their minds. And that makes me VERY angry. :angry: Wasn't there some guy who said he could not even photograph his own kids in a play or in sport or something because of some ridiculous law to protect against paedophilia? Bloody stupid! Why don't we all just stay indoors under police surveillance then and have no lives! Sorry that make me mad! :lol:

You'd be amazed how many disabled or mentally ill people are vulnerable, and they get little protection in comparison to kids. And the criminal or abuser is often living with them or caring for them which is another subject entirely but nonetheless very disturbing.

On your first paragraph SB I'm in total agreement. I've been reading a few academic papers about this recently, and the statistics are interesting. More children are injured in traffic accidents every year than abused by a paedophile (and if they are abused it's more likely to be by someone they know rather than by a random stranger), and more children are killed in traffic accidents every year than murdered by a paedophile - yet try and do anything about the number of traffic accidents and the road lobby goes nuts!!! I'm not saying that paedophilia is not an awful crime - it is, just that the tabloid hyperbole around it is ridiculous.

You must not forget that this is now a cottage industry with plenty of 'professionals' earning a living from diagnosing and discussing paedophilia and giving evidence in Court and writing papers and going all over the world to government-funded conferences.

Its momentum is almost unstoppable - as the reaction to that C4 Brasseye programme showed it is very dangerous to challenge or make fun of the prevailing orthodoxy.

Members of the public are horribly complicit in its perpetuation - there are many too many false allegations of paedophilia being made by people who want to gain something (like divorcing spouses who want custody).

I am sure that there are plenty of terribly vulnerable people who don't get the support that they should have. It starts with the family.

But I also think the internet and easy flights have contributed to the development and accessibilty of paedophilia. It is not something to take lightly.

Being an enthusiastic photographer myself, I heard many stories about it. It is a tricky subject.



Back to the death penalty, I like vivahate clear and short post.

the eye for eye law would make the world go blind as Gandhi said once.

Yes it is indeed :ok:

Did I ever tell you that I knwo fo folks round here who've had that label put on them by criminal families for standign up to their kids? I've heard these kids shouting paedophile at old men - I went up to them and told them to get lost! Also our neighbour was accusing Geroge of that when all he did was phtotgraph her and a grown man setting their sofa on fire as evidence of ASBo for the council! We had mediation, I raised thsi there. She told em the other neighbour had told her that we were going roudn at night with a camera pointing ti at her garden - you shoudl have seen her face when I told her that was me photographing hedgehogs. :lol: She told me she was concerned as her duaghter was abused :wacko: Avtualyl we think she made that up but we don't know. Luckily we get on now, but it's quite sad how paranoid folk become and what they use against you just to get one over on you. The police even came roudn once, I put them straight and told them to neve rcoem back to my house again with such accusations - they apologised and haven't been back since either. Good job I am quite hard in many ways as that could have really upset many people.

Anyway that neighbour mediation is a great thing :lol:

Agreed :ok: Read my post to Jo - some idiot even tried to accuse my partner! Disgraceful :angry: I notice that if you don't have kids and so much as interact or look at one these days, it seems to be extra evidence against you. A good number of paedophiles have kids and are abusing their own! Sad but true.

Well there are two ways of lookign at it, both have their pros and cons. I personally don't feel confident that one is better than the other. :shrug:

One of the pernicious consequences of the quasi hysteria regarding paedophilia is that it also affecting the relationships adults have with kids too. I believe there's a growing caution especially with adult males regarding children, and i certainly include myself in that.
I remember a few years ago when my niece was about 3-4 years old, and because she was very playful and i was quite concerned that i didn't get too close physically-even though it was entirely innocent, in case her parents came back and misconstrued the situation. She had a habit of playfully throwing herself on me and felt really uncomfortable with that.
It's getting hard to recruit men for certain jobs and activities where children are involved because of how adult males are being increasingly perceived.

Hi SB- I am not sure what positive the death peanalty can bring if not sooth anger of the victims relatives. And even that, I am not sure it really helps them. Some of them have been willing to forgive their "debtors" and it is a great human gesture. Time is so important and the only healer in those situation for the victims and even criminals sometimes.

As said I perfecty understand those who want revenge when a close relative has been a victim and I woudl certainly be the first to do justoce myself if it happened to us but the state can't let this happen.

yeah, it's a big problem in nurseries and primary schools - very difficult for men to work in those situations :shrug: which is a more general problem as it means that some young children are not having any or very much male influence in their life :nope:

I having read through the whole thread, but I will say that the article portrays some of the methods as more troubling than they really are. I find it almost funny, if it were not such a morbid topic, that in the same artilcle, they're describing death via cyanide gas as torturous, but nitrogen gas as "euphoric." In truth, they're both doing the same thing, depriving your body of oxygen. They both differ from drowning or asphyxiation, though, in the sense that they both quickly displace oxygen in the bloodstream, resulting in rapid loss of consciousness.

The current lethal injection method is not as bad as depicted, either. They start with a powerful sedative to knock the inmate out, then administer the other drugs. It's being challenged on the basis that there is some chance that the first drug won't work or won't be administered properly. But if you're going to have death penalty, this is not a particularly cruel way to inflict it. It's just portrayed that way by those who ultimately want to eliminated capital punishment.

I have mixed emotions about the overall subject, myself. With some of the more horrific crimes I have heard of, I do sometimes think the people who committed them deserve this ultimate punishment. I don't know that I could make that decision to take someone's life, as a member of a jury, though.

But surely it's a simple question of whether you believe in the inviolability of human life or whether you don't.
If you don't then the question is not what is permissible with regard to human life but what, and why is something unacceptable with regard to human life. the default position of those who do not believe in the inviolability or sanctity of life is anything is possible until sufficient reason shows otherwise.
Your 'mixed emotions' are because you don't believe life is inviolable, therefore everything in a moral sense is then in a state of flux, to be endlessly reasoned in a way that defies logic.

I get that way from time to time when you hear about a particularly callous and wicked crime - as I have said before there is plenty of pondlife about. In the UK three teenagers have just been convicted for murder - they kicked to death a father of three who came out of his house to remonstrate with them for (as he believed) scratching his car. They set upon him in a rage and killed him with their fists and boots - one had made a court appearance that very morning in relation to an offence of violence.

My immediate reaction is would the world not be a better place without these wicked feral creatures?

One is tempted to answer yes, but then you simmer down and it is clear to me that, however much you don't want scum like that about, the State killing them in cold blood is not the answer.

Umm . . . . No. That's not it.

I agree a lot more with what Barrystar said, although I would not characterize the death penalty necessarily as being killing "in cold blood," which implies a lack of any emotion or compassion. It suggests that those deciding on or carrying out the death penalty are cold and calculating, without giving any value to the life they are about to take. I don't believe that's the case, in most instances.

To me it's a matter of whether you believe that anyone should have the right to decide that another human being should die. As far as i'm concerned, everyone has the right to life, simply by virtue of being human, and it is not for us to take that away - no matter what they have done. It is for us to rise above it, and to be better than the criminals and to not murder someone. Two wrongs do certainly not make a right in this case. :shrug:

This is very interesting. I would consider myself to be against the death penalty, and yet, I feel compelled to agrue against some of the ideas put forth here. I really don't consider it to be "in cold blood", nor do I consider it to be murder. In the strict sense, murder is an unlawful killing, so execution under the law cannot be murder. I can't say that I feel it's always wrong to kill.

I don't want to get into the current Iraq war too much, because that's a very troubling conflict with flimsy justifications. But certainly, we tend to celebrate certain war victories, such as the defeat of the "Axis" powers in WWII. There were certainly a lot of lives taken in the process, though. Was it wrong to kill, in order to defeat Hitler? I don't think so. Was it wrong to drop a couple atomic bombs on Japan, killing huge numbers of people, in order to defeat Japan? I do think so. It's not cut and dry in my mind that all killing is always wrong.

Is it OK for a police officer to shoot a criminal, to prevent them from killing another person? If yes, what if they were not likely to kill another person, but rather just injure them badly or torture them? Would it be OK, then, to shoot? I think those that are implying that the sanctity of human life always comes first are fooling themselves.

But the death penalty is not killing someone to save another person's life, it's not killing 1 to save 1000, it's not killing in self-defence. it's killing in punishment, or even revenge. It's not a split-second decision to shoot or not shoot - it's a decision made over many many years most of the time to kill someone. So in this case i believe killing is wrong.

I do think you've bought up some interesting points - i need to think about it a bit and reply to them (but right now i should be doing some work :blush: )

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that, but it seems a bit odd at times. If you are a police officer, for example, and you come upon someone attempting to commit murder, most people would agree it's OK to shoot, but if they've just successfully committed murder (and don't have anyone else in immediate perile), then you have to let them live and put them through trials and appeals, meanwhile keeping them fed and housed (albeit in a prison), etc. There just seems to be a bit of irony there.

There is quite a big difference. In one case an innocent life maybe saved...in the other case, its too late. :shrug:

A lot of people are saying it is wrong to kill for punishment, even if the person had committed murder. Maybe the person who committed it should have thought about the sanctity of his/her victims life but sadly not. We all have rights, and if we take away those of others we should be punished by having some of our own rights removed. So what do people suggest we do then? :shrug: And fi the answer is to lock people up forever, then what is the point in that and what good does it actually do? And isn't it a complete and utter waste of money? I'd be unhappy if my taxes were spent on that as are most normal people that I know.

True, and that pisses a lot of decent folks off. If we are thinking of the good of society then that is not a wise and productive choice of public expenditure.

out of interest, it actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life.

[

I don't get how it can! It seems stupid, unless of course they are spending money on unneccesary peripheral stuff like the courts, admin etc. :shrug: cos how much can an injection and a doctor to do it cost? I would like to see the costings but i bet they are unavailable. .

quick search on the internet and I found this:

and a website with info on the costs - linking to various studies:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...#financialfacts

Cheers :ok: btw sorry i missed the second part of your post. George was just saying abotu the legal system costing the money. Sounds to me like ti needs tightening up a bit and lawyers fo course are notirious for their greed.

Hi SB,
If your starting point is that you believe in the sanctity of life, then in a sense the debate regarding capital punishment is a non sequitur, because the moral principle determines you're view-if you believe life is inviolable then you cannot endorse capital punishment, the conclusion follows deductively from the premise.
A = human life is sacred B = I cannot endorse capital punishment because it flouts A. in other words B is true because A is true.
Questions about the cost of prisons, the motivation or feeling of the murderer, the feelings of relatives-or even my own feelings for that matter cannot override A.

If you start from a position where you reject A, then it's a question of weighing up subjectively what is permissible regarding human life.
That's why those who don't start by saying it's wrong to kill humans in an absolute sense have to agonise more to reach a conclusion-from my perspective their dilemma's are impossible.
In other words 'If A does not exist anything is possible' (i do hope you'll forgive me killing Dostoevsky there)


On a slightly different note i think hatred of those who commit vile acts and their crime is a healthy thing-imagine a world where an innocent could be killed for no reason and no one batted an eyelid-now that really would be a hell hole.