h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i think that these rights may be forfeited when someone proves that they are a danger to a specific person, family, group, society as a whole,etc. since they are a danger to others, they should be imprisoned or killed. it is true that there are flaws in the system, and an innocent may be killed, but the murderer or rapist that is executed might kill 20 other people. also, if they destoyed another person's rights knowingly and willingly, and not in self-defense, why should they be entitled to them? in some cases this does not really apply,e.g., if someone's boss fires them for incompetence, the boss might be said to be violating that person's right to the pursuit of happiness, but in the context of this forum, it does. i think that anyone who commited murder in the first degree or rape should definitely get the death penalty. as for that quote from Colonel Sellers, though they may not be "better for it", at least the criminal will not have the chance to go after the victim's family, friends, attorney, etc.


one argument against dp is that if they get a good lawyer, they can appeal against the dp and have it cost much more of the taxpayer's money to kill them, in court costs than jailing them for life would. this is very unfortunate, but i don't know of a good or even passable solution for it.

"one argument against dp is that if they get a good lawyer, they can appeal against the dp and have it cost much more of the taxpayer's money to kill them, in court costs than jailing them for life would. this is very unfortunate, but i don't know of a good or even passable solution for it."

I think they should have the best representation that the state can afford. Killing people is serious business. It's the most awesome responsbility that the state can undertake. While there are legal errors in all trials, they need to have their effect minmized by having effective representation at the trial level.

Even though it is not often mentioned or practiced, it is not the role of the defense attorney to obstruct the judicial process. They're job is to make sure the state has a good case. They're sworn to help find the truth just as prosecutors are.

In the long run, this would also save the state alot of money. As I recall, the effectiveness of trail counsel is one of the most often used basis for appeal. If we have really sharp attorneys representing these morons, then we can save on some appeals, and we can also be more confident in a guilty verdict.

Mr Sellers! Unless in the USA your prisions are designed to kill minor criminals because mass murders are next door (who is the guy your talking about?)! because over here in the uk minor and serious criminals are kept as seperate as possible!

Also in the UK we still do have the dp for treason!!!!

So lets all get rid of the dp and live in happiness together!!!!

The army is just a glorified death penilty! For those countries who arn't the US's mates they feel threatened by the hard boy attitude of our lads that come's from the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you wonder why u are all mass murders over there and are on death row!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To take away someones life with the dp is painful for a few sswconds!!
To take away someones life by imprisoning them for life is painful until there death!!!!!!!!!!

When the prisons are overcrowded with minor drug offenders (another rant for another time), the minor criminals and the killers are impossible to keep apart.

"And you wonder why u are all mass murders over there and are on death row!" - This is ignorant stereotyping that doesn't deserve a response. Plus, adding extra exclamation points don't make your points any more valid.

Military service, even during wartime, is not a glorified death penalty. Even in combat units the vast majority of soldiers survive.

Good news, kwolf - there is now definitely, unequivocally, no death penalty in the UK. It was finally abolished, even for such improbable offences as treason, in 1998.
The death penalty has, in fact, been abolished in almost every civilised, advanced nation on Earth.

With one curious exception.

Well, whoever said we were civilized?

Seriously, though, if the people of those other nations decided that the death penalty wasn't best for them, that's fine. I'm happy that you're happy. Here in the US, we choose to keep it. That is the will of the people, and until democratic processes change it, that is the way it will stay. And with shining examples like Charles Manson still laughing in our faces, it isn't likely to change soon.

However, I will advise you that pressure from outside will have the wrong effect. The more outsiders denounce the practice, the harder America will cling to it. Self-determinance and self-governance is the reason we formed our own country in the first place, and that tradition and philosophy is so ingrained into us as a people that it manifests itself today, as we seek to isolate ourselves from the very diplomatic achievement that US presidents Wilson envisioned and Truman achieved, built right here in our own most prominent city... the United Nations.

This post has been removed.

Sorry, but when I read this, I understand why the Greek 'intelligentia' was for the 'Aristocracy' (power to the wise(st)). Unfortunately, I've got to catch my train which is leaving in 15 minutes so I can't develop my theory... But I'm sure other researchers are going to do it for me

With 'this', I meant:

'Seriously, though, if the people of those other nations decided that the death penalty
wasn't best for them, that's fine. I'm happy that you're happy. Here in the US, we
choose to keep it. That is the will of the people, and until democratic processes
change it, that is the way it will stay'

I've always been against nationalism.

Well, Horse with no name, I think what you are refering to is the obvious failure of the greek democracy, and the fact that the greatest of the greek philosophers objected to it. (one of them even got the Death Penalty for thinking too much...)
The greek democracy included only free men over 25 (age uncertain, please put me righ. I won't bite) This exlude most of the populace, but anyhow, it was much more democratic than any other system at the time.
There is a reason why modern democracy elects leaders and representatives for the people: We want someone to use all available time to look into matters and make decisions based on research and educated contemplation. We also want (at least we used to want) someone to tell us when we are wrong. A wellspoken rethoric can turn an entire nation into bloodthirsty monsters (see: Germany 1936 to 1945, ugly thing that...) A leader is the one who sees a nation full of bloodthirsty monsters about to tear the world apart, and says "no". A good leader goes against the will of the people when it is needed for the benefit of the people. That is why we have leaders. (That and because nationwide elections every time a new bill is to be passed would be silly) If the Death Penalty is the will of the people, something is defenatly wrong with the people. Nervestaple them. (Or educate them. Possible a better solution).
Democracy isn't great, but it's the best we've (We is humanity) has come up with yet. However, we must be carefuyll not to turn it into the "Tyranny of the Masses". If a million people do drugs doesn't mean it's allright. If USA thinks it's fine to kill people, it's still morally defunct.

I would just like to correct Mr sellers on one minor point in the history of the USA! The reason the USA wanted inderpendece from Great Britain was because the King at the time George the 4th (?) was putting up the taxes on imports into the USA (or was it exports) Get your own history right next time!!!!!!!!

You have a rosy view, Colonel. The problem is not in the juries, but in the system itself. A black man is more likely to be executed than a white man (several times more likely) for the same crime; a rich defendant will usually get life while a poor one is more likely to be executed. The hourly rate for public defenders working on homicide cases works out to under $2 per hour. You pay peanuts, and what do you get?

Another problem: some states in the US will try people as adults for crimes commited while they are minors. Two people convicted of murder. Both were minors when the crime was committed; one was 16 when tried the other was 17. The 16-year-old could not be executed, because they were tried as a minor. The 17-year-old was sentenced to the chair. The 16-year-old admitted she had pulled the trigger; this was not enough to save her accomplice. Call that justice? How does it feel I wonder to be one of the small and diminishing number of countries in the world which is prepared to execute people for crimes committed when they were legally still children? Does it feel good, I wonder, to be in the same league as Saudi Arabia?

In any case, unless and until the criminal justice system is proved infallible, ther can be no justification for execution. Until you can prove that all those who are genuinely of diminished responsibility, insane or innocent, are acquitted, you can't allow the possibility of wrongly killing someone.

As to deterrence, the evidence is overwhelming that the death penalty has no measurable effect on deterrence, but that once a capital crime *has* been committed, the fugitive feels he has nothing to lose, and is more likely to fight to the death to evade capture. Are police widows, too, a price worth paying?

>The hourly rate for public defenders working on homicide cases works out to under $2 per hour. You pay peanuts, and what do you get?<

You're right, we need to hire top rung criminal defense attorneys for people who are goint to be executed. This is too important to have someone who is inexperienced. The prosecution needs to have someone explore all of the evidence to make sure that we execute the right people.

Ineffective counsel is one of the most common basis for appeals in death penalty cases. I think in the long run we'd save money by hiring good defense attorneys from the start.

>Another problem: some states in the US will try people as adults for crimes commited while they are minors. Two people convicted of murder.<

In some states, 17 year olds are considered adults. They assume the rights of adulthood along with the responsibilites of adulthood. Are you suggesting that 17 year olds don't know understand that shooting poeple is illegal?

>In some states, 17 year olds are considered adults.

You miss the point. When the offence was committed, both defendants were legally minors. To then try one as an adult is like saying "well, you may have been clinically insane then, but you're not now, so we'll execute you anyway." At the time of the crime they were not *legally* responsible. They weren't considered old enough to drive a car or have sex, yet they are held accountable for their lives for actions they took simply because the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow. Would you execute the twelve-year-old high school killer, if it took five years for their case to come to court? I sincerely hope not.

They are adults. In this state (Georgia), 17 year olds are adults. They can can drive, they can have sex, they can stay out late, they can leave home, they can leave school, they can travel, and they an go to jail.

They have the rights that adults do, and they face the consequences that adults do.

This post has been removed.

You missed the point. Again.

When the crime was committed they were legally children, and not responsible for their actions. Just because the trial took so long to come to court, one was tried as an adult. Does this affect the fact that *when the crime was committed* he was a child in law? No. The girl who actually pulled the trigger was sixteen at trial, so was not executed. Is this right?

Thanks, (My Brother...) You put my thougts into words far better than I would have done: indeed, democracy is a great thing, but also a dangerous one.
Maybe it would also be interesting to know te reasons of the crimes: why is the so-called civilized Us-nation the one with the most problems?
1) The educational system seems very important to me for a good-working society. Unfortunately, I don't know how it works in the US...
2) Nobody buys someting if he knows he won't use it... Why is it so easy to buy a gun?

(This is hearsay I have been led to belive that it is every americans right to own a gun to defend him or herself from the ongoing indian raids at the frontier. Of course every man should be allowed a weapon of choice! (<-- Sarcasm)