Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Hanging in Japan / Execution

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    We do not have prisons for only murderers. We have discussed the cost of imprisonment. Imagine now, the additional cost of building at least 50 more prisons and manning them.
    I feel that just tossing them into a big cage to kill each other off is not the way to go (I know that is not exactly what you meant but that is relatively what it boils down to. After all, the ones imprisoned are just released after a few years anyway to kill again.
    Indeed, there are specific prisoners I feel are beyond hope and that on a personal level would not mind if they were killed, but that goes in the direction of not being objective and looking at it personally. Due proccess has decreed that those prisoners of lesser crimes have rights and are not to be executed for those lesser crimes. It is not right to put murderers in with them to carry out executions that due proccess did not call for.
    Likewise, if due proccess has decreed that a person is not to be executed for murder, I support the systom and will not call for the execution anyway just because I do not agree with it.
    Last edited by EVIL INC; 09-30-2009, 04:51 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      From one of your previous posts
      4. A wrongfull conviction (rare) is done, it is a travesty regardless of what the sentance is. Saying that it is ok to wrongfully find someone guilty is ok if they are just going to prison but not ok if they are executed is, to me, silly. If someone is wrongfully executed, so be it. It still serves as a deterrent to others who may commit murder. In our society, there are travesties that occurr every day. Not a reason to put the murderers who did commit thier crimes out on the street. I know this is a sad old saying but sometimes, the ends DO justify the means.

      It may not be O.K. to wrongfully find someone guilty. But being imprisoned and then exonerated and released is in rather a diferent catagory than executed and then exonerated. Not like you can resurect them and apologise.

      Comment


      • #78
        You are assuming that murderers will be exonerated. As in the case of war, people are killed to protect the whole of the society. Accidents happen and no one is perfect. Trust me, for every one person who is exonerated, you have over a hundred who were guilty but not convicted and an even higher number who murder but are not even caught.
        Personally, I feel that for the protection of the society as a whole, that is a chance we should be willing to take. Not that you have to agree with me of course.

        Comment


        • #79
          Well, if the state were to kill everyone as a precaution, then there would never be any crime ever again!

          feel free to click on the link below
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_ad_absurdum

          incidently, here is a list of those exonerated while on death row
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...th_row_inmates
          lists 135
          unless more than 13500 people were executed in that period (which I doubt) then the "less than 1%" statement you keep making seems rather dubious
          Last edited by Nathaniel; 09-30-2009, 06:25 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Nat, compare that number, 135, versus how many criminals are actually on death row, not with the ones already executed.

            Originally posted by Talisant View Post
            Originally posted by Vazkar Asquinol View Post
            ...I ask those of you that are against capital punishment what your views on abortion are?...
            Not sure the implied analogy stands up, capital punishment is forced/enforced by the State, abortion, in the US, is a personal choice, within a certain frame of law. I believe that China, communist China, not Taiwan, would be an example where there is, or was, a mandate concerning state forced abortions after one child.
            Sure it does, unless you think that the right to "murder" as a personal choice is "ok" as opposed to being ordered by the State.
            Why should a felonious murderer be any different? He "chose" to murder someone. Same thing with many abortion cases. What about that woman that had 15 abortions in 16 years? Is that not murder? Is is most certainly irresponsible and heinous...

            Or is that ok because there are already too many people and 'systematic population reduction' is "good" as long as it is on the unborn?

            No matter when you personally feel that a fetus is a 'human', it is an innocent, but somehow murdering an innocent future human is alright, but executing a convicted felon is somehow reprehensible?

            Execution is not "murder" btw. There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing someone in self-defence is not murder either, as long as it is justified. It may still be called a homicide, but, a homicide is not necessarily a murder. Hence the term: "justifiable homicide".
            "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein

            "If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however, if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I will help you become that." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

            "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." -Thomas Jefferson

            Comment


            • #81
              BTW: I don't understand why this is in "Activism". What part of this thread has a call to be an activist about execution? The original post was a "news story" and it seems to me this should be in RD.

              /shrug
              "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein

              "If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however, if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I will help you become that." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

              "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." -Thomas Jefferson

              Comment


              • #82
                I never suggested we commit mass suicide as a nation. If all Americans were to kill themselves in order to stop crime, people from other nations would just move in and bring thier crime with them. I only suggested that if the judicial systom decrees that a proven murderer be executed, we allow the systom to do it's job and follow through.
                In the Wikipedia selection you gave it says that 135 people have had evidence provided that would exonerate them. This is subjective. This is not to say that the evidence would prove them innocent, it says that the evidence is such that there would have been reasonable doubt. Those are two seperate things. Regardless, as a nation how many people have been executed? Lets not go back to the colonial days, let us start on the day the officially "became a nation". What is the number of peopl executed in those years? Then compare that number who have been "exonerated". I am not sure of the exact number, but I am sure that it is way much higher then 135.
                Then, why are Americans the ultimate evil of the world because we have a death penalty while all the other nations and countries of the world so innocent and blameless when they defend thier societies (or have defended thier societies) in exactly the same way (often in a much less humane manner)?

                Comment


                • #83
                  On top of what EC just posted, judges have leeway when passing sentence. The DA may push for capital punishment but if the case isn't strong enough to show serious malice on the part of the defendant then many felons end up with life terms when they could have been put on death row. Generally speaking, the only folks that usually actually end up on death row are those that commit the more heinous crimes, the majority, even in States w/ capital punishment don't actually get the death sentence.

                  At least from what I have read on the matter.

                  I will say one thing though, as is quite obvious I support capital punishment but I also say that if that sentence is passed then the State better be damned sure they got the right guy, as many have stated, you can't resurect someone and to kill an innocent or wrongfully accused is not accptable in my eyes.
                  "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein

                  "If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however, if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I will help you become that." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

                  "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." -Thomas Jefferson

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Vazkar Asquinol View Post
                    BTW: I don't understand why this is in "Activism". What part of this thread has a call to be an activist about execution? The original post was a "news story" and it seems to me this should be in RD.
                    And lo it was so.
                    Good point VA.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      An interesting analysis (in .pdf format):

                      http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/tea...es/JLpaper.pdf

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by EVIL INC View Post
                        D.M. the examples you gave were on a personal level. where they were aimed at a direct person. Just because you put them in prison for a short while does not stop them from killing.
                        This may be a difference between the US and UK penal system; here in the UK a conviction for murder (homicide) carries a mandatory life sentence. In practice, 'life' usually means 30 years tops and a minimum tariff of 15 years before parole can be considered is normal, although in exception cases of mass-murder - such as Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Dennis Nielson - 'life' can mean 'life'. The point to note is that in the UK we don't generally lock murderers up "for a short while".

                        The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 set out guidelines for how long murderers should spend in prison before being considered for parole. This legislation highlighted the recommendation that multiple murderers (the murder of two or more people) whose crimes involved sexual abuse, pre-planning, abduction or terrorism should never be released from prison, which is known as a whole life tariff (elsewhere known as life without the possibility of parole), while other multiple murders (two or more) should carry a recommended minimum of 30 years. A 30-year minimum should also apply to the worst single murders, including those with sexual or racial motives, the use of a firearm as well as the murder of police officers. Most other murders should be subject to a 15-year minimum. Inevitably, there have been numerous departures from these guidelines since they were first put into practice. For example, the judge who sentenced police killer David Bieber recommended that he should never be released from prison, whereas government guidelines recommended a 30-year minimum for such crimes. On 23 July 2008, Bieber was told by the High Court that he would not have to serve a full life sentence, as originally recommended by the trial judge, but would still have to serve a minimum of 37 years before being considered for parole, meaning that he is set to remain in prison until at least 2041 and the age of 75. And in the case of Mark Goldstraw, who killed four people in an arson attack on a house in Staffordshire, the trial judge set a recommended minimum of 35 years—as the crime included planning and resulted in the deaths of four people, it might have been expected to come under a category of killings which merited a whole life tariff.
                        (Source: Wikipedia)

                        I confess I don't know what the recidivism rate of in-prison killings is in the UK, but I imagine it's generally frowned upon to allow inmates to kill each other and would indicate a significant failure in prison discipline.

                        Originally posted by EVIL INC View Post
                        It gives them a captive group of victoms to choose from who have no means of self defence or getting away. Then afterwards, they go right back onto the street to start again. It does nothing to deterr them and rather reinforces to them that it is ok to kill.
                        That analysis does seem to indicate a systemic failure of the US prison system to reform or rehabilitate criminals. I understand that in the US prison are run at a state level rather than a federal one, yes?, so there's not necessarily a uniform approach to prison management as might be the case in the UK. Some information about how a UK prison operates can be found here. I don't know how that compares to US prisons.

                        Originally posted by EVIL INC View Post
                        Your point of view is aimed at the personal level. For example, so long as they cant get to me, I dont care if he kills others." I look on it from a societal level. For example, I dont want this murderer to kill other innocents who live in my society.
                        The sentence I've put in bold is about as far from being an accurate understanding of my position as it's possible to get. I might have given personal examples but I was extrapolating from that to the societal level that you wanted to discuss. Removing murderers from Society and incarcerating them behind bars does prevent them from killing "other innocents who live in your society", since "your" society doesn't include the prison population. I apologise if my meaning was ambiguous.

                        However, I'm guessing from your previous statements that you consider prison inmates to be part of Society as well (Rothgo makes a similar point) and deserve to be protected from murderers as well. Well, I'd certainly agree with the latter sentiment. However, I don't accept that your solution to the problem - execute the murdering mofos - is the only solution. Simply isolating dangerous/violent inmates would be just one alternative to executing them.

                        Of course, there's going to be a cost involved in keeping a convicted murdered behind bars for the rest of their natural life (assuming that a life sentence means life) or even for 15 or 30 years. You may feel that the cost in unjustified, that a murderer forfeits their Human Rights. The Human Rights organisation Liberty has produced a document on prisoners' rights (applicable to the UK) which can be found here. Feel free to disagree with it.

                        Originally posted by EVIL INC View Post
                        Look on it also from this level, a country wages war. Look for example when the colonies waged war with England to gain our freedom. The anti-capital punishment posters would say that that was immoral because lives were taken. On a societal level, we had to do that killing to survive as a country. While we do not condone that sort of killing on a personal level, we were forced to do so on a societal level.
                        One would hope that even pro-capital punishment posters would say that war is immoral because it involves the taking of lives. I mean, this is kind of at the heart of the difference between us; we say that killing is immoral, you say that killing is immoral in certain circumstances (when individuals do it) but morally acceptable in others (when the State does it). Where the inconsistency now?

                        I would also be inclined to disagree with your assertion that your ancestors had to wage a war against my ancestors in order to survive. The War of Independence was not fought in order to 'survive' but rather for political reasons to do with self-governance, self-representation and self-taxation. Had the dastardly Frenchies not sided with the revolutionaries against their historic enemy, the British, then the outcome of the War might have been very different. But this is not the place to exhume a long concluded disagreement between our two nations.
                        _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                        _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                        _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                        _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          So they are back on the street in 15 to 30 years? In terms of life and the span of life taken by them as well as the span of life they take while in prison and again after they are released back onto the street, that IS a short time. Especially when as I mentioned, you look at it on a societal level rather then a personal one.
                          True, inmates are not "allowed" to kill one another but as we all know, where there is a will, there is a way and as we have seen the world round, there IS a will. Those rules are also not strictly followed in the prisons because, unfortunately, gaurds and people who run prisons (the world round) are often corrupt or simply do not care about "mere prisoners".
                          Sorry, I had though that you were on a personal level when you said "you". That still does not stop killers from killing. Prisons are not perfect and just as a killer can kill on the street, they can just as easily kill in the prisons. The difference in there though is that they have a snitches get stiches culture where the murderers in there are not caughtor penalized. The ones usuall killed in there are, as i pointed out earlier, short timers who committed lesser crimes such as unpaid parking tickets or shoplifting. Then again, after the short time the prisoners are in there and then released, they are once more amongst the general population to continue killing.
                          I do disagree, when a person takes it upon themselves to kill others and take away thier human rights, they forfiet thier own. Of course, that is just my opinion as the human rights people who wriote the document you provided only expressed thiers or you are expressing yours. My issue in this thread is that I offered an opinion that others did not agree with and as a result, all Americans were attacked as being bloodthirsty killers who wish to kill everyone and that I did not have a right to express or even have an opinion that differed from the masses here.
                          The inconsistancy that you point out is when looking at it from a personal view and a societal view. When a society goes to war, for example the U.S. revolution, it was as self defence against oppressors who were killing our people, taking our money, generally treating the population as little more then slaves. Then again look at when England went to war against germany in WW2. It was to protect the world (and thier own nation) from an opposing nation whose goal was to eradicate entire races of people and enslave the world. Going by the same "inconsistancy view", germany should have been allowed to just do as they wished with no one going to war to stop them. Personally, I am glad that we did because on a societal level, that was "justified".

                          Edit: Of course, we can go tit for tat forever and as we have seen from a few others who have popped in, it can get personal. While I may not agree with you (and the others) I will always (and always have) be treating you with the utmost dignity and respect and expect the same in return. We have different views and backgrounds. We should have the right to have and express differing opinions without fear of attack in retaliation.

                          Let me give you my own background that may explain why I feel the way I do....
                          I grew up in a small mountain town where politics and the churches ran everything. Everyone knows everyone and there are few secrets. My friends and I listened to rock and roll music (heavy metal usually) and played D&D. We were ostracized by society as satanists and it became a huge contest to see who could come up with the wildest stories about us. None of which were true. This has led me to become a spiritual person rather then a religious one. When addressing such issues as capital punishment, I look at it from the cold view of black and white and survival as a species. In terms of death and killing, I see it as better safe then sorry. When I am physically attacked, I take it a an attempt on my life and act accordingly. I understand that should I kill someone, I am perfectly willing to work within the system and die if sentanced. I see assisted suicide as a viable option. I see the society as a whole being more important then the individual within it and if one's rights need to be stripped (a murderer) to protect the society as a whole, it being worth it. Of course, others may disagree with me. Hell, I may even be wrong (although only "God" can make that call). But I expect to have the right to hold my opinions on the matter (and which so far in this thread, I have been personally attacked my country as a whole attacked for having my opinion and told I do not have the right to have it.)
                          Last edited by EVIL INC; 09-30-2009, 09:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by EVIL INC View Post
                            Then, why are Americans the ultimate evil of the world because we have a death penalty while all the other nations and countries of the world so innocent and blameless when they defend thier societies (or have defended thier societies) in exactly the same way (often in a much less humane manner)?
                            I don't think anyone is singling out America as the 'ultimate evil' when it comes to capital punishment; the original 'target' of the thread starter was Japan. It just so happens that America does have the death penalty and we're fortunate enough that there are Americans here who support death penalty who are prepared to argue for/defend its practice. Likewise, we have many European members (where the death penalty is not widely practiced) who are able to provide an alternative POV. Would that we had someone from Japan, or Saudi Arabia, or China, or India, or Indonesia, who was able to enter into the discussion.

                            So, what I'm saying is, those of us who oppose the death penalty should not be considered in any way 'anti-American' or engaging in 'US-bashing' if we participate in a discourse with Americans who support the death penalty. The arguments I have provided in support of my position are the same arguments that I would provide if I were debating with anyone from any country who thinks the death penalty is 'a Good Thing'.

                            Perhaps those who are in favour of the death penalty would be doing us all a great service if they were to consider the circumstances under which the death penalty may be practice in countries other than their own? In Britain/England we used to hang people for stealing a loaf of bread. In Islamic countries murder is not punishable by death but rape is. In Nigeria kidnapping is a capital offence. In Somalia you can be executed for adultery. In Isreal crimes against humanity are punishable by death. In Lebanon drugs trafficking. In Pakistan sodomy. In Saudi Arabia sexual 'misconduct' (whatever that means). Wikipedia has lots of other examples.

                            The point is, can 'the defence of Society' argument be made in areas other than murder, or are there crimes for which the death penalty would be anathema even for those who say they support capital punishment?

                            PS. I will respond to your longer response to me in due course; I just wanted to address the charge of 'US-bashing' first to try to defuse some of the heat being generated by this discussion.
                            Last edited by David Mosley; 09-30-2009, 12:13 PM.
                            _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                            _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                            _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                            _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I cannot speak for the other countries you mentioned and thier use of the death penalty. Those are different societies with different mores and practices. I may not agree with then but I am not going to pass judgement on them as I do not have that right.
                              So far in this thread, all the anti death penalty posts HAVE had an anti American flavor to them. Well, maybe not ALL but the vast majority have been. They have also passed judgement on the U.S. and declared us evil as a society on a personal level (ALL members of the society are murderers because we kill people who kill people). True, Most of the pro D.P. posters are American here but as you yourself said, England has had the death penalty among others. Why is it that the U.S. is singled out as being wrong for it rather then any other.What I take offense to is that passing of judgement against the U.S. as both a society and each individually as people. Just because our society operates differently then "yours" (not you in particuler but in general) does not make us enemies or evil. I also took offence to the intense personal insults and being told that I do not have the right to disagree with those who hold different opinions.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Errrr, EI, can you show me this post where someone "declared us evil as a society on a personal level (ALL members of the society are murderers because we kill people who kill people)" ? I have skimmed this thread and could not find it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X