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

Thought this might be of interest as it is related to the earlier discussion about the homeowner convicted of manslaughter when he confronted burglars in his home with a shotgun after repeated break-ins. He then shot them in the back, killing one and wounding the other. You can decide for yourself if they were fleeing or not - the jury clearly thought they were so his actions were unjustified and he was convicted.

The burglar that survived was attempting to sue him for damages but the case has been thrown out...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2949463.stm

Some lives are more important than others, who's? Sorry but my life and that of my nearest and dearest is more important than any of yours! (no offence and I really dont have anything against any of you, Yet!) My life is important so if anyone tries to end it or harm it then I see no problem in ending their life.

As for capital punishment, without going into the realms of mistakes, why not? It doesn't deter people but its cheaper than prison. Society only works cause there are laws and for laws to work you have to have punishments for those that decide to break the law (remember we live in a democracy (na luck if you don't)and as such we decided the people that made the law so it's our own fault if you disagree with the law)
Do to others what you would have others do to you.
Life is cheap, Its the assesories that cost.

'As for capital punishment, without going into the realms of mistakes, why not?'

'You are not allowed to kill people! Now die!'. Yeah, I have respect for that , not to mention respect and admiration for the kind of state that would feel fit to implement such an inhumane and hypocritical system to *save money*, amongst other things.

Why not go into the realm of mistakes??? Perhaps because that's the main argument against capital punishment? Are you willing to be found mistakenly guilty and be put to death?, because you seem to be willing for that to happen to 'other people'. And remember, from where I'm sitting, you are 'other people'.

Ste

OK Ste - what are you going to do with the people who drink too much, then go out in their car and plough down and kill some innocent passerby ?

I presume you're going to lock them up - how long for ?

What about the people who mug pensioners - because its easier - and some of whom die ? Lock them up ?

What about the people who sell drugs and carry a gun to protect themselves because they frequently have high value merchandise about themselves ?

Or do you think we should turn them all loose on the streets, because "they have rights." ?

I am so dis-interested in their rights you just wouldn't believe it.

Lock them up, yes. Some longer than others, depending upon the severity of the crime. Even those who break the law have rights, and trundling out emotive situations thankfully won't change that situation. Do you want to kill all criminals? Remove their right totally?

Two million people in the USA are locked up, remember, most of them for petty drug charges.

Ste

What do I want to do with people who break the law ? Well that depends - I can appreciate that people make mistakes. I'm not advocating chopping peoples hands off for stealing a loaf of bread.

Against that some people just do not accept that laws apply for them. Look around you on the roads - watch the motorists who weave from lane to lane regardless of which is appropriate for their destination. They think their arriving earlier is more important then the safety of other road users. I would take their license away.

I would lock away people who sell drugs, even the mules who only sell to finance their own habits - though having said that I cannot see the point of drug legislation, I would make all drugs available from clinics to licensed users - though not free.

I also think there are people this world is better off without. I don't think we should have to wait for them to run up against someone stronger than themselves to kill them in self defense. I have so little faith in the justice system that I worry about the consequences of the death penalty, but I think the fault is in the courts not in the concept of there being an ultimate penalty.

Cut their goolies off!!!!

Nah, I'm sorry, maybe it's cos I grew up in Northern Ireland, and have seen first hand the descent from civilization that results once you start down the road of "this person's life is more valuable than that person's"...

I've known people shot because of the uniform they wore....or the school they went to...or who their customers were.

One of my friends was a fruit and veg merchant - murdered because he supplied the police force.

There's a quote I must trace so's I can attribute it properly, something like "there are several causes for which I would be prepared to die, but none for which I would kill"

Justice is just a pretty word for vengeance, with a nicer connotation.

McKay - Your disregard of the rights of others is, frankly, frightening. If you have so little regard for their rights, why should they have any for yours? Who decides who deserves rights and who doesn't? And once we start denying rights to people, where to we draw the line?

We protect the rights of the few who will abuse those rights, else we deny them to the many who will not.

Re McKay's "so little faith in the justice system".

This seems to pop up quite a lot here, people with little/not a lot of faith, others that point out some of the horrific mistakes.

I'm one of the wishy-washy people who say NO to the death penalty being meted out by courts (self defense is something else but that is not my point here)... My thoughts are as follows: many people know of minor/major injustices that occur because of incompetance, negligence, bad luck, bloodymindedness, ...... or worse

OK I know that many dedicated people are involved in the system (police, courts...) but what happens when injustices start to grow. I think that when they are truely intolerable many people will find ways (regardless of their legality) to "fight back".

When a situation starts getting "too" bad (i.e. the general public starts making a lot of noise), things start to change, start going too far.... the public starts making a lot of noise, things ease up again... and the cycle starts again.

I sometimes wonder whether there is too much emphasis on the "letter of the law" and not enough countrebalancing by common sense.

OFF TRACK : Just to remind everyone that the "defence" problem is not recent, over 70 years ago one of my relations (what a lady ! ) was taken to court. She had come across a child in a public park, with her panties off and crying, and a "strange man" (the only details provided when I was a child). This lady told her daughter to fetch the park keeper but the man tried to run off; this great lady ran after him, hitting him as hard as she could with her umbrella (must have been sturdier umbrellas in those days because she managed to do quite a lot of damage apparently). Although there was "nothing to hold against" the man involved, she was taken to court for causing bodily harm (in fact, she was "allowed to leave the court without a blemish on on her character" and was awarded 5 shillings from the public purse).

I know I would rescue my children, to the detriment of the whole world if I had to. No question. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of loving my children more than anything or anybody else on the planet. If I had to make Sophie's choice, I hope I would say I cannot choose, and then let come what may.

I don't see any remarks regarding my post that were not already answered within my post, if properly read, so I'll leave it that.

Does anyone have any figures on whether it is actually cheaper to execute people than to keep them in prison for life or not?

So when do people forfeit their humanity and their rights as a person? Where do you want to draw the line?

They forfeit their humanity and rights as a person when they commit acts which show flagrant disregard for the humanity and rights of others... murder, rape, torture.

What about stealing, is that a violation of a person's right?
What about if someone punches another person in the face?
What about if its a slap?
What if they invade a person's "personal space"?

The trouble is, how far do you take these things? Some of that may look absurd, but you can bet someone's been executed for each of them in the past.

It took a lot of sweat, blood and tears for people to be given human rights. Best not be throwing them away just yet. A murderer is still a person, just not the sort of person any of us want anywhere near us.

I've already answered this question in the above. Please read my previous post and try again.

>Two million people in the USA are locked up, remember, most of them for petty drug charges.

I'd be interested to see that backed up by statistics. There are people in jail for simple possession. If they are, it's because they violated their probation. Most of the people that I see in jail are in for other reasons. Although a lot of the crime is related to drugs or addiction.

>"there are several causes for which I would be prepared to die, but none for which I would kill"

What kind of sense does that make? I'm not willing to die for anything. I'll risk death for some things, but just plain die for them, no. Dying for a cause is useless. Killing for a cause, might be helpful.

Emotionally, I feel that anyone who would say something that stupid should be culled from the population before they spread that non-sense. Intellectually, I know it's not right to kill people. Even pacisfists (not that they'd do anything about it).

You're saying rape, murder & torture only? That's a fairly narrow definition. In some countries, there are acts which are considered murder which would be manslaughter in another. What if you tie someone to a lamp post while they're drunk, is that torture? How about emotional torture, does bullying then become a capital offense?

2bit: I don't normally do the smiley parade, but...

Bouncy: Since we've already got legal definitions for which types of murder are capital crimes and which are not, I don't see the purpose of exploring that line of questioning. And by torture I mean physical torture... and we all know what torture is, so I shouldn't have to say that noogies, wedgies, and titty-twisters are not covered. As you said, it's a fairly narrow definition... and it should be. If the definition leaves a lot to interpretation, then people could get carried away with it, like you have.

The point I'm making is that if capital punishment was implemented, there would probably then be people wanting to widen the range of crimes it covered almost from the word go, and those people would still be there even if that happened.

Funny... we've had capital punishment in the US continuously since the country has been founded, although some states have stopped and started again at various times. We have yet to see the sort of behavior you describe.

death penalty for litter louts ?

lifetime imprisonment for outlandish messages ?

Sorry to be flippant, but now the discussion seems to be about more and more reasons to kill people, and the thread itself is getting more agressive. I think the death penalty in itself (which I'm against anyway) will never cure all the ills of society.