WI the death penalty (in Britain) never abolished?

as far as I'm concerned, murder is murder is murder

To be overly literal, murder is illegal killing. As long as a government follows the process of law in its execution, it is by definition not murder.
 

Hendryk

Banned
If Britain retained the death penalty, would Europe have its anti-execution principles in the first place? After all, if one of the founding members of the organization continues to practice this, then it wouldn't be a Europe-wide consensus anymore.
As alt_historian has pointed out, France didn't abolish the death penalty until 1981, even though it was one of the original signatories of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (and Britain isn't a founding member of the EEC, having joined in 1973).

But taxes are mandatory--they're NOT donations.
In a functioning democracy, taxes are set up by the representatives of the people, which means that citizens ultimately decide how much of their money goes to the government, just as they decide through their representatives how that money is to be used.
 
How nice and collectivist. I suppose it's all right for Al Qaeda to attack the citizens of states that offend their sensibilities, either by occupying Iraq (US, Britain) or existing (Spain, Israel), since their citizens are all accessories.

A person opposes the death penalty, therefore he supports terrorism?

That's illogical captain.
 
A person opposes the death penalty, therefore he supports terrorism?

That's illogical captain.

No. If you think all Americans are murderers, then you support people who fight them. Or else, you are yourself complicit in the murder for not opposing it enough...:rolleyes:
 

Hendryk

Banned
How nice and collectivist.
"Collectivist"?

I suppose it's all right for Al Qaeda to attack the citizens of states that offend their sensibilities, either by occupying Iraq (US, Britain) or existing (Spain, Israel), since their citizens are all accessories.
Are you saying that the US government is detached from American society and acts of its own discrete initiative, independently of the American population? If that's the case, what are you waiting for to overthrow that oppressive dictatorship?
 
No. If you think all Americans are murderers, then you support people who fight them.
That is not a logical statement, there are other possibilities. You may for example believe there are mitigating circumstances, that terrorism is an excessive punishment for the supposed crime, you may hope for peaceful change, etc, etc.

Or else, you are yourself complicit in the murder for not opposing it enough...:rolleyes:
I agree that this is a weak arguement. You may oppose your country's policies but realistically be unable to do anything much about them.
 
My point was that the mindsets of AQ and the people who claim all citizens of a government that practices the death penalty are accessories to murder is the same--punish the people for the policies of their government, even if they oppose said policies.

For example, if France resumed the death penalty or tried to recolonize Algeria, should Hendryk be subject to reprisal (by families of someone executed or by Algerian terrorists) for it? I strongly suspect he would oppose such a thing.
 

ninebucks

Banned
My point was that the mindsets of AQ and the people who claim all citizens of a government that practices the death penalty are accessories to murder is the same--punish the people for the policies of their government, even if they oppose said policies.

For example, if France resumed the death penalty or tried to recolonize Algeria, should Hendryk be subject to reprisal (by families of someone executed or by Algerian terrorists) for it? I strongly suspect he would oppose such a thing.

If someone supports a state then they do share some responsibility for that state's actions.

Just as if someone were to support al-Qaeda they would share some responsibility for al-Qaeda's actions. And before you come back asking how I can compare a state with a terrorist network, I'll ask, what is the difference? Legal mumbojumbo aside, neither organisation is innocent of committing extreme harm to people who didn't deserve it.

And no, I'm not supporting al-Qaeda. I'll say again, murder is murder is murder. Any organisation that engages in the ending of peoples' lives (unless, I concede, if doing so will definately save more lives in the future), is reprehensible, in my opinion.
 
To be overly literal, murder is illegal killing. As long as a government follows the process of law in its execution, it is by definition not murder.

Not "overly literal", but a completely accurate and appropriate statement. Not only is criminal execution not murder, neither are deaths of enemy combatants in warfare waged according to the established rules of engagement. Similarly, neither is abortion or state/doctor-assisted suicide if these activities comply with the process of law.

Of course, to make these statements, it is fair to question if the laws and procedures themselves reflect accepted legal or moral principles, hence the fact tha Nazi euthanasia of thousands is considered murder while the carefully regulated and supervised end-of-life assisted suicides allowed in some modern democracies is not.
 
And no, I'm not supporting al-Qaeda. I'll say again, murder is murder is murder. Any organisation that engages in the ending of peoples' lives (unless, I concede, if doing so will definately save more lives in the future), is reprehensible, in my opinion.

Than I wish I lived in the world you do, it must surely be a better place.
 
If someone supports a state then they do share some responsibility for that state's actions.
Depends what you mean by "support." "Happens to live in" is not the same as "actively supports government policy."
Just as if someone were to support al-Qaeda they would share some responsibility for al-Qaeda's actions. And before you come back asking how I can compare a state with a terrorist network, I'll ask, what is the difference? Legal mumbojumbo aside, neither organisation is innocent of committing extreme harm to people who [sometimes] didn't deserve it.
Agree, as edited.
 
At one time capital punishment, wasn't only for a capital offense.
But punishments should always be proportionate to the crimes - isn't that in itself a 'just' concept.
However, a punishment should also consist of 'protection of the public', for someone who is considered to be a danger to the public - likely to commit an offence again. Serial rapists will get (I hope) longer sentences proportionately longer than someone who has just done it once!

What then for a murderer? And, in this context, we are talking of someone who cold bloodedly commits unlawful killing, as opposed to someone unlawfully kills someone unintentionally.
The cry has been - you can't have capital punishment - a innocent person may die as result. Perfectly valid arguement - though perhaps less so in these days of DNA.
However, suppose someone has been imprisoned for murder, after say fifteen years (at of course the taxpayers expense) - they are out, and what happens - it happens again another murder. I'm sure this has happened. Indeed, we've had cases recently, where someone who was on bail - commits another murder!
At what point, does a Government say 'enough is enough, our first duty, it to protect the public'.
Apparently, from an 'open prison' some murders have gone missing!!
Would it be a deterent - hard to say either way, but if it was, then how many innocent lifes are then saved as a result!? And if not, well it's one way of reducing the prison population!
 
Northern Ireland would be a whole lot more complex. Remember the power of the "martyr" thing. Hanged IRA men would be incredible recruiting sergents for the Provos,

Oh and there is the fact that we would likely have hanged a dozen or more innocent people.
 
Not "overly literal", but a completely accurate and appropriate statement. Not only is criminal execution not murder, neither are deaths of enemy combatants in warfare waged according to the established rules of engagement. Similarly, neither is abortion or state/doctor-assisted suicide if these activities comply with the process of law.

Of course, to make these statements, it is fair to question if the laws and procedures themselves reflect accepted legal or moral principles, hence the fact tha Nazi euthanasia of thousands is considered murder while the carefully regulated and supervised end-of-life assisted suicides allowed in some modern democracies is not.

Not counting the Nazis, which obviously is murder, that may be disputed.

What a state does being murder or not really depends upon one's moral viewpoint. I don't think such definitons of what is and is not murder are quite as clearly delineable as you seem to be making out. Granted, you may just be describing consensus of opinion, but it is surely fair to question things according to more than just what happens to be the consensus of the era and culture one happens to be in.

I think to say anymore (I would wish to do so!) might mean this thread would be veering rather too close to political Chat, which it already seems to be, and might start a flamewar if we aren't careful...

(Any takers for a Chat thread?)
 
At one time capital punishment, wasn't only for a capital offense.
But punishments should always be proportionate to the crimes - isn't that in itself a 'just' concept.
However, a punishment should also consist of 'protection of the public', for someone who is considered to be a danger to the public - likely to commit an offence again. Serial rapists will get (I hope) longer sentences proportionately longer than someone who has just done it once!

What then for a murderer? And, in this context, we are talking of someone who cold bloodedly commits unlawful killing, as opposed to someone unlawfully kills someone unintentionally.
The cry has been - you can't have capital punishment - a innocent person may die as result. Perfectly valid arguement - though perhaps less so in these days of DNA.
However, suppose someone has been imprisoned for murder, after say fifteen years (at of course the taxpayers expense) - they are out, and what happens - it happens again another murder. I'm sure this has happened. Indeed, we've had cases recently, where someone who was on bail - commits another murder!
At what point, does a Government say 'enough is enough, our first duty, it to protect the public'.
Apparently, from an 'open prison' some murders have gone missing!!
Would it be a deterent - hard to say either way, but if it was, then how many innocent lifes are then saved as a result!? And if not, well it's one way of reducing the prison population!

I was thinking this. I think having capital punishment might have been beneficial in reducing the prison population crisis that seems to be ccurring at trhe moment, although to back up this claim I'd need to know what the statistics are for what proportion of the prison population are actually committing any given crime, and what capital punishment is being given for. If we say for murder, how many murderers are actually in prison compared to those for 'lesser' crimes?

Also, it might be beneficial in reducing the amount of crime which seems to be comitted at present, especially if it were part of a system which is a lot tougher on crime and criminals than at present- of course without going back to the really bad old days of grisly prison conditions, overly-harsh corporeal punishment and even torture...

One also must consider the sort of views that the likes of Christian Voice posess as well- I guess there'd be a lot less hassle with some of the more extreme groups (Jerry Springer: the Opera notwithstanding). (I don't think the Biblical case for the death penalty in a supposedly CVhristian society-which, they asrgue, we are at least nomnally- is as clear-ccut as all that- in a new covanent era, is it really wise to use OT principles ,and even in the NT, if the civil authorities have the right to bear the sword, if they are supposed to be Christian, should the death penalty not be withheld to allow for possible repentance? Anyway, this is getting political again...)
 
I was thinking this. I think having capital punishment might have been beneficial in reducing the prison population crisis that seems to be ccurring at trhe moment, although to back up this claim I'd need to know what the statistics are for what proportion of the prison population are actually committing any given crime, and what capital punishment is being given for. If we say for murder, how many murderers are actually in prison compared to those for 'lesser' crimes?

The number of people in prison for murder in Britain is pretty low and the number of those who would meet the critria for execution would be even lower.
 
Top