Death Penalty

PCTECH said:
It seems to me that our legal system is borked. Criminals are being released on bail to go out and commit further violent crimes. Sentences are too soft and when U back into society to go out and rape and murder again.
Click to expand...
How is having the death penalty as a sentence going to change any of that?

It's amazing that people can go on and on about the defects in our legal system, and then offer the death penalty as a magic fix.

PCTECH said:
Were the criminal's victims treated humanely?
Click to expand...
That's because we're not them.
 
noxibox said:
How is having the death penalty as a sentence going to change any of that?

It's amazing that people can go on and on about the defects in our legal system, and then offer the death penalty as a magic fix.
Click to expand...
Who suggested it's a fix of the legal system? The legal system is actually working - the investigative system is not.
That's because we're not them.
Click to expand...
.
 
Robin Hood said:
DEATH PENALTY =

2) MORE FOOD AVIAL FOR PEOPLE IN NEED
3) MORE SPACE IN PRISONS
4) LESS INFRASTRUCTURE TO BUILD
6) LESS CRIME
Click to expand...
We'll need prison space for these people for 10-15 years while they are on trial. We'll need to build a lot more courts and train a lot more people to be able to handle the lengthy trials, along with everything that would be required for rigorous police and forensic investigation.

South Africa is a long, long way away from having the facilities necessary to fairly conduct death penalty trials.

Killing the handful of people we do catch and convict is a drop in the ocean. Any criminal playing the odds, and that is essentially what criminals do - they all think they'll get away with it - no criminals is going to be concerned about maybe getting caught, then maybe going to trial, and maybe facing the death penalty with remote chance of getting convicted. And all this time they'll be alive and in prison, able to be released if some idiot decides to clear some space in prisons.

Contrary to what people seem to think we cannot just re-introduce the death penalty with our system as it stands and if it were re-introduced today it would probably seldom be applied.
 
BobbyMac said:
Who suggested it's a fix of the legal system?
Click to expand...
If we have the death penalty crime will go down. Quick fix.

BobbyMac said:
The legal system is actually working
Click to expand...
Accusations of light sentences. Accusations of dangerous criminals being freed. Overloaded courts.

If the investigation system is broken how does the death penalty fix it?

Is someone who should be jailed for life, but is released after a few years likely to be executed instead if that option were available?
 
BobbyMac said:
I believe he should.
Click to expand...

Agreed if the normal correct procedures is followed and he is treated fairly as any other murderer in this country. He abolished all his rights to humanity and as such IMHO cannot claim any human rights. But thats a fairytale idea in this world. I believe many become criminals as then they get free board and lodge and have more human rights privileges than the beggar man in the street today.
 
BobbyMac said:
Of course they'd mind, but the fact remains due process needs to be followed. If you are falsely accused of murder, you would rely on your legal representatives to get you off. If they don't, then in a system that's designed to be to the benefit of the accused (which is in fact the way South African law works), they're either useless or you shouldn't be representing yourself.

The prime purpose of the death penalty is not to punish the criminal, but to remove them from society and ensuring they cannot corrupt others, while making sure they do not repeat their heinous crimes. It is also used as a dissuasion factor to prevent criminals from killing other people. It may not be successful in the latter instance, but in the first, it's finitely successful.

yet we have people in our society willing to stake their morality on ensuring these people do not lose their lives. Wow.
Click to expand...
But they'll still have many years to do this before they are executed. If someone who should be jailed for life can be released early, then someone who should be executed can be released. The death penalty isn't going to change this. It has arguable deterrent value if criminals know they'll get caught, convicted and executed. That situation does not exist in South Africa.

I'm not opposed to killing the most violent criminals, but first we have a lot of work to do on the system. Any calls for re-instating the death penalty are premature.

You don't have to care about the fate of genuine violent criminals to have concerns about the state using its vast resources to kill people. The average individual cannot afford the kind of expert defense they'd need, particularly if they were not guilty. The state can spend whatever it takes to get that individual killed. Protections in law are there to protect individuals from the state.
 
noxibox said:
If we have the death penalty crime will go down. Quick fix.


Accusations of light sentences. Accusations of dangerous criminals being freed. Overloaded courts.

If the investigation system is broken how does the death penalty fix it?

Is someone who should be jailed for life, but is released after a few years likely to be executed instead if that option were available?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting the Death Penalty is going to fix the criminal justice system - I don't think anyone suggests that. I am saying that the death penalty will remove the ****ers who do not belong in society from society permanently. The End. :mad:
 
noxibox said:
We'll need prison space for these people for 10-15 years while they are on trial. We'll need to build a lot more courts and train a lot more people to be able to handle the lengthy trials, along with everything that would be required for rigorous police and forensic investigation.
Click to expand...

A couple of rolls of barbwire and a chunk of space in the kalahari seems like a plan
 
noxibox said:
But they'll still have many years to do this before they are executed. If someone who should be jailed for life can be released early, then someone who should be executed can be released. The death penalty isn't going to change this. It has arguable deterrent value if criminals know they'll get caught, convicted and executed. That situation does not exist in South Africa.
Click to expand...
The exception is that a "life sentence" in South Africa is a maximum of 25 years.
I'm not opposed to killing the most violent criminals, but first we have a lot of work to do on the system. Any calls for re-instating the death penalty are premature.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
You don't have to care about the fate of genuine violent criminals to have concerns about the state using its vast resources to kill people.
Click to expand...
Quite right. This state kills people by the millions each decade. It's a pity the criminals participate so freely.
The average individual cannot afford the kind of expert defense they'd need, particularly if they were not guilty.
Click to expand...
the average individual is likely never to be tried for murder in the first place. And if they are, they will have lawyers appointed for them - at no charge to themselves.
The state can spend whatever it takes to get that individual killed.
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting the state has a personal interest in ensuring that such a person is killed? Let's not forget - the state will be paying that person's legal bill anyway, so this point is largely baseless to begin with.
Protections in law are there to protect individuals from the state.
Click to expand...
AKA the accused. It is far more difficult to prove guilt in a system where the onus is on those to prove the guilt. In law, the presumption of innocence is the basis of every case. The odds are always stacked against the prosecutors.
 
Albereth said:
Not one of the offenders executed for a crime has ever repeated the offense - so yeah, I think it deters them from doing it again.
Click to expand...
They can manage quite a few murders while they're out on bail, in the years before they get executed. Maybe they'll even get released early. If someone who should be in jail for life can be released, then why not someone who should be executed?

Someone securely locked in prison for life is also prevented from killing anyone. Deterrent value is whether it discourages anyone else.

DJStealth said:
So what you mean is we should scrap the death penalty for criminals but execute those who believe the death penalty is good. Then share the executed's wealth amongst the family of a person wrongfully convicted and put to death
Click to expand...
Maybe you didn't read the previous post?

Those who are in favour of the death penalty and happy with an 'acceptable' number of erroneous executions put their head on the block for their convictions. State kills innocent person, a few of those in acceptable losses camp hand over their heads and their possessions. Takes care of the apology for the mistake.

All we need is a list of names - "I believe it is acceptable for the state to execute some innocent people and I agree that if this should occur I may be picked to be executed myself, as an apology and recognition of my implicit involvement in the wrongful death, and my possessions given as compensation to the family of the person wrongfully convicted. I agree that I have no recourse and may not object if I am selected."

Let's have a referundum, let people vote, but to vote yes you have to put your name on the list and sign the agreement.
 
BobbyMac said:
The odds are always stacked against the prosecutors.
Click to expand...
No they're balanced. In reality the state remains favoured, except in cases of wealthy individuals who can afford the best defense.

My impression of the accused in the Lotz case was that he had access to money. What if he had been dirt poor and saddled with an overworked, poorly experienced state-provided lawyer?
 
Legally that doesn't work.

If someone kills my family I do not have the right to kill his family.

If I'm supposed to kill the perpetrator then that's an eye for an ear.
 
noxibox said:
My impression of the accused in the Lotz case was that he had access to money. What if he had been dirt poor and saddled with an overworked, poorly experienced state-provided lawyer?
Click to expand...

Or what if he was innocent.

But your point is taken re a law for the rich and a law for the poor.
 
BobbyMac said:
And if they are, they will have lawyers appointed for them - at no charge to themselves.So you're suggesting the state has a personal interest in ensuring that such a person is killed?
Click to expand...
That only applies if the state is required to appoint the best available to act in the person's defense, otherwise the state can provide the individual with the cheapest most useless attorney. The state is represented by the prosecutor and they can take it personally, spend whatever they like to secure a conviction, ignore evidence or even engage in deception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X