Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

Some folks will always end up in jobs they aren't cut out for, that is why committees are formed, to control the situation.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

Also it’s not more expensive at all .
These is a fallacy brought about by the American system where prisoners stay on death row having endless appeals .
To keep a man in jail for fifty years or more costs millions .

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

But some folks get rich, and propel the economy.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

It has been mentioned a number of times the expense of keeping a killer in prison and how better use the money could be put to, like the NHS for example, better medicines, better medical machinery etc etc.

With that said, here is an ethical question for you. Your mother, father, child, grandchild has come down with a life threatening illness/condition but there is not enough money in the system to get them seen quickly and as a result, they could die without immediate attention.

There is a proposal put forward that all the murderers currently in prison will face the death penalty and the money released from keeping them incarcerated will be used on saving your relatives life. This is the only way to save your close relative, to put murderers to death or allow them to live and let your relative die.

It is not supposed to be a nice ethical question. What do you do? Still hold true to your morals that all life is sacrosanct and as such, even murderers deserve to live, even when it is at the expense of your close relative?.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

Being a policeman, firefighter, paramedic are all stressful jobs where you are in danger and have to deal with post traumatic stress. Working in a mental health unit is just the same. These are challenging jobs people go into and some can handle it others cannot. A prison officer is no different.

But being an executioner has to be the most unpleasant job around. What sort of person would choose to do that?

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

There has never been enough money, but that don't matter.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

I would ask them to release funding from the HS2 gravy train.

They are already releasing funding from prisons, building larger facilities, closing the old less efficient units. Most of the people in there aren't mass murderers so you won't save any money imo at all by killing them. Many prisons are full of mentally ill people for whom there are insufficient facilities in NHS secure units. So I think you are talking without actually understanding how the system works. Forensic mental health units such as Broadmoor are not deemed to be prisons.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

All that comes across is that many would have no qualms about administering the final act of ending a murderers life, and that in turn makes them seem to show as having the same mind-set as those who are already guilty !
Quite worrying.

Here is the history of where and when approx. the first death penalty was thought to have been introduced. Quite an eye opener. It came from the Middle East (Babylon) we inherited , we exported it , we eventually got rid of it, and now some want to return it. How very archaic ! Why don't we bring back boiling ?? Keep the reactionaries happy.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...-death-penalty



Early Death Penalty Laws

The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.’s Hittite Code; in the Seventh Century B.C.’s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes; and in the Fifth Century B.C.’s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.

In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain. In the following century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Some common methods of execution at that time were boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering. Executions were carried out for such capital offenses as marrying a Jew, not confessing to a crime, and treason.

The number of capital crimes in Britain continued to rise throughout the next two centuries. By the 1700s, 222 crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and robbing a rabbit warren. Because of the severity of the death penalty, many juries would not convict defendants if the offense was not serious. This lead to reforms of Britain’s death penalty. From 1823 to 1837, the death penalty was eliminated for over 100 of the 222 crimes punishable by death. (Randa, 1997)......

The Death Penalty in America

Britain influenced America’s use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.

Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke’s Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one’s mother or father, or denying the “true God,” were punishable by death. (Randa, 1997)

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

Annie - naturally we disagree on this.

For me, it seems far more cruel to keep someone locked up for the whole of their life than to execute them and release them from their angst.

We haven't really discussed how the families of the victims may feel, which seems an oversight. If someone brutally tortured and killed my daughter, I'm pretty certain that is would drive me to despair to think that this person was still around, possible and occasionally fantasizing about the thrill it gave him and having the memory of my daughter's final few breaths. Why should I have to live through this additional agony with there being little chance of any semblance of closure while he lives? Meanwhile, I'd also know that I'd be financially contributing to his survival, just to add insult to injury.

Each to their own on this one, but surely there should be an option for me to put my penny's worth into? It's not about eye for an eye (which you presumably largely believe in too, otherwise you'd be denouncing any form of retributionist incarceration for any crime). It's about what's in the best interest for all parties concerned in a very small and narrowly defined set of scenarios.

It seems to me that for IMHO well intentioned but nevertheless misplaced moral reasons, you'd rather that the murderer and the victim's family should suffer for far longer than needs be.

But as said, we will agree to disagree on this. My imaginative empathies don't concur with yours.

Re: Does being a good human being matter to you?

No, we won't agree Dextrous.

I don't have misplaced morals. I simply don't agree that society should have blood on it's hands.

It is sufficient for families to know that someone has their liberty removed and that society is safe from the most dangerous criminals.

As I and others have said there is always the risk of a wrongful execution.

All I have heard for the death penalty is that it would save money (not true) and that it's not pleasant for prison guards to do their job. Well these are weak arguments. Particularly weighing them up with taking a life, perhaps in error.

We have moved on from the age of savagery. Some other countries have not and they are frequently attacked here. So I really don't understand why this appeals so much to some here. Perhaps as you get older life becomes more expendable?