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

Well

Murder

It depends on the circumstances. It could be any number of things. If a cops kills someone in self defense, it's neither, it's self defense. If someone dies in a collapse during a road construction project, it's an accident.

If a person tortures and sodomizes a person, and makes them beg for their life before killing them: If they're executed after a trial - that's justice.

is it?

No judicial system has a perfect record, with no miscarriages of justice, no pardons ever given. If the state can’t be 100% sure of guilt dose has it the right? Also in some parts of the world (including certain US states) it appears to me, to be used as a tool of social control rather than a judicial one.

Good point about cops & shooting but that’s a different scenario, I have no problem with that, providing a proper investigation is made by an impartial agency. I’m more interested in peoples views on Judicial Killings.

I personally would never want to make the decision whether or not to sentence somebody to death. Of course it is difficult when people did really really horrible things, but
a) you can never be 100% sure that they are guilty (there is an interesting guide entry about that here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A666164)
b) who am I or the state or anybody else to decide that another humans live is not worth living anymore

I think we have find other ways to deal with crime. I also agree that it often seems like race, political views, social status etc. of the accused influence the sentence.

Seems to me we have to define justice before we get an answer to this question. Even if we are sure of somebody's guilt, it seems to me a bit like revenge to kill them. And that is supposed to be something else than justice.

Anyone know why Justitia is always portrayed with a sword in one of her hands?

Funny. I had a dream very recently where I called a judge who sentenced people to death a 'murderer'. The thing is, I don't consciously regard the death sentence as 'murder'. It's just an aspect of a legal system that I don't agree with. As Feffi said, no country has a 100% track record on getting convictions right. As long as the 'guilty party' is alive, you can put mistakes right, although you can never give them back the years they've lost behind bars.

In the film 'Just Cause' Sean Connery's character said something like, 'The death penalty isn't justice. It's revenge.' It seems to me that that's what a lot of people want when somebody they love is murdered. Somehow, just locking up the murderer doesn't seem enough of a punishment for the grief and suffering s/he has caused. Some people also believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. As far as I'm aware, nobody has come up with any figures to bear this out.

And yes, race and social status does influence the sentence; I don't know about political views, though. A black man has more chance of being sentenced to death in the U.S. than a white man, especially if the black man killed a white person. A rich white man with a good lawyer is highly unlikely to get the death sentence, and a rich black man probably won't.

Oh, and Feffi, please don't include the appearance of the page in the links you post. Not everybody likes 'Classic Goo', so it's best to present the link in a way that leaves the appearance as it normally is. That link would be better as: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666164

Thanks Cheerful Dragon . I am not very good with all this computer stuff, so just copied and pasted the URL.

Concerning the political views, I don't know whether it ever influenced a sentence in the US, but there are a lot of other countries out there, where I believe they do take the political view into account, especially if it is regime-critic.

Judicial killing is murder. There is no quibble about that - it's premeditated and everything. The question should be "is murder permissable in that situation?". I'd say no.

Oh, and that link would have been even better posted as A666164

Murder.
If a murder victim has a right to life, then so does the murderer. Just a life in prison, so they can't do it again.

Of course, I say this as someone who has never had a loved one murdered. If I had, it's possible that my feelings would change. Although I'd hope not.

It's murder - no-one has the right to decide to take another's life. Also, as has been mentioned before, it is very difficult to know with absolute certainty that someone is guilty and innocent people could end up being killed. Personally I wouldn't want to have that on my conscience.

I remember reading that Bush Jnr spent an average of fifteen minutes - that's an *average*, please note - considering the final appeals of those who were on death row.

Obviously, when morons like that are involved in the execution of prisoners, it can't be called murder. I mean, you have to be of a certain mental competence in order to stand trial for murder...

AFAIK there are three main arguments for the death penalty - (1) to scare people into not committing crimes with the threat of death, (2) to remove a dangerous criminal for the protection of society, or (3) revenge.

Can we dismiss the revenge argument out of hand?

The second of these is faulty because life imprisonment would have the same effect. Although I think this argument is enough, I have, to my amazement, argued with someone who believed that the death penalty was justified on grounds of cost - it's cheaper to kill someone than imprison them for life.

To people who advocate (1) I ask, what is the essential difference between holding up the threat of death and holding up the threat of, for example, excrutiating torture followed by death? Torture, as a disincentive, is surely more effective than a painless death...

Of course judicial execution is murder. It's a premeditated killing, and whatever the justification given for that killing, whatever that person has done or is thought to have done, he's been murdered.

There have been a number of high profile cases in the last few years in the UK where people have bee released after serving many years in prison for horrific crimes only for it to be proven after a long campaign that they hadn't - in some cases couldn't have - committed the crime.

It is easy to see how this happens - a child is horribly murdered, the nation is outraged, the media hysterical. The police are under huge pressure to find the perpetrator. They find a suspect - often an inadequate - who circumstantial evidence places at the scene. There's no proof, but the police genuinely think he did it - not because they are corrupt or incompetent, but because they are desperate to catch a monster and they think that this is the man. It has happened too many times.

It's not justice to lock up an innocent person, but at least you can let him out again if you find you have made a mistake.

To kill a person in cold blood for something that they didn't do - is that justice - or murder? Obviously those states which still carry out the death sentence have judicial systems which are incapable of making a mistake.

Murder.

The State in all it's wisdom says "You cannot kill someone. It is wrong. Now we will kill you."

Just because they are Judges and politicians, it doesn't mean that they're any better than us. Or, for that matter, any less likely to make mistakes. Which in this case is inexcusable and HAS happened.

Ste

As far as Dogster's three arguments are concerned, I discount (1) because, as I've said, there is no evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent. (3) is unacceptable, but it seems to be what the victims' families want. As for (2), a life sentence seldom means 'life'. About 20 years ago it was reckoned that somebody getting a 'life' sentence in an English court would actually serve less than eight years. That's not life and, to the families of the victims, it's not justice either.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that we should have the death sentence. See my original posting. I'm not even saying that life should mean life. if the person being sentence really *is* a dangerous criminal, then they should be locked up permanently. But to say that 'murder' should carry a mandatory life sentence (as it does in some places), and then lock up forever somebody who just freaked out and killed their spouse, seems a little over the top to me. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, and the person who freaked out probably needs help more than they need locking up.

Whether it's justice or murder, either way it's wrong AFAIK.

I've always thought that the primary purpose of the penal system should be rehabilitation & not punishment(aka revenge).

A few days ago I read about a guy who had kidnapped a girl when she was about 8 years old. He then kept her in his bedroom for the next 9 years untill he was arrested. How do you think that guy should be punished?

In general, I agree. People who have killed because they lost their temper need help / rehabilitation, not punishment. But how do you rehabilitate a psychopath? Some psychologists believe that there are many people among us who have 'psycopathic' tendencies, we just don't know about them because they aren't violent (or they manage to control any violence). The psychologists have come up with a 'test' (i.e., 40 questions) that enables them to determine whether somebody is a psychopath. The higher the score, the greater that person's psychopathic tendencies. It has been tried in Britain, Canada and (I think) the US, and seems to hold up quite well. The recommendation is that 'psychopaths' should not be allowed back on the streets because they will not change their ways, no matter how they are 'rehabilitated'.