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

Call for an End of Executions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • thingfish
    replied
    Absolutely!
    I never knew that.
    Do you know if any other states are thinking of following suit.

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    I agree.Well put,
    I am also tired of politicians who,even when in office,talk as if they are aware of the sociological aspects of crime and how they are going to act on it henceforth,do nothing about it.
    Isnt it a gross abuse of office to have the power to do things like change laws or fund and promote rehabilitation and do nothing.
    You"re right Kevin,unfortunately a wheel or two will have to fall of the applecart before things are done but lets not let that stop us from keeping snapping at their heels

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin McCabe
    replied
    If the will is there, it's easy enough - you said it yourself, you define the crime as the greatest punishable offense from a single criminal episode. But, the will is lacking. At least in my state, the legislature has been incanting the words "tough on crime" for so long that it is a requirment of office. Still, hope springs eternal. My own observation of history indicates that reforms in the criminal law often occur at the same time as economic downturns and unpopular wars. My guess is that what you get is folks who have formerly been secure in the knowledge that they will never be prosecuted suddenly being able to imagine a state of affairs that would end the pipe dream. One of the things serving the poor as counsel has taught me is that the biggest difference between a person on skid road and the classes which judge him is the money. I think most people suspect this on a subconscious level, but it is only the prospect of hard times that causes them to consciously admit they are living from paycheck to paycheck and could hit the skids themselves in a matter of months, if the world turned on them. This allows a sociological view of crime, rather than a psychological view. To put things differently, people can understand that negative economic conditions breed crime, that it's not always, or even usually, a matter of an inherently bad person. Just a normal person who runs out of choices, makes a bad choice, and is consigned to the criminal class for the rest of his/her life by the computers. When sufficient people feel threatened by the possibility of bad times, they become remarkably more open to ideas like rehabilitation.

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    Yeah i think that the law should be changed so that they can only prosecute for the biggest criminal act.
    How do you go about changing a law such as this though

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin McCabe
    replied
    Oh, juries are fair enough. And, we don't have the same sort of intimidation problems over here that one sees in, say, Irish Ra trials. It's the laws that are the problem. Prosecutors can charge multiple crimes for the same act. The huge potential sentences often scare accused persons out of trials, even when they have a good defense. Too much risk.

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    I think maybe one idea would be to make juries anonymous to everyone involved in the trial.
    They could watch on cctv.
    Dont know how you would pick them though
    Sorry,just thinking out loud!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin McCabe
    replied
    Not to put too fine a point on things, folks, but the jury system is in trouble. Thompson lamented it's fading in Britain a long time ago. Here, it is under siege from the laws themselves. Expansion of unit of prosecution and other multiple criminalizations of the same act or episode is the problem. A person might well go to trial on principle when faced with 5 years, but what about thirty? Increasingly, with crimes defined very broadly, sentencing enhancements, and multiple units of prosecution, those are the sort of choices people are faced with.

    Leave a comment:


  • SERPNTA1267
    replied
    Originally posted by johneffay View Post
    I appreciate that the death penalty is an extreme example, but what about other forms of punishment for criminal acts? If somebody falsely imprisons somebody, we don't have a problem with imprisoning them. Likewise what is fining somebody for theft but theft by the State?
    I have a problem with false imprisionment! We have too many prosecuters who just want to get a guilty verdict so that they climb up the ladder. I've heard about too many cases were a prosecuter new about evidence that proved the accused was innocent and didn't let it be known. This isn't justice.
    I find that I have a big problem with how the media treats the accused in general. I often hear people around me say that a someone is guilty when they don't know all the facts and the accused hasn't even been to trial.
    The thing I hate about crimes by people in government is that they tend to get away with it even when they are found guilty. They should get a harsher punishment because they betrayed our trust.

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    Yep,couldnt agree more John.
    The big question now is what do we devise to put in place of these tried and failed methods.
    Hmm will have to chew on that one for a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • johneffay
    replied
    Originally posted by thingfish View Post
    Yeah i take your point John but the key word i used is "morally".You cant turn around to somebody and say that they have committed the most evil deed and then turn round and say we are going to do the exact same thing back to them.
    Thats playground justice and i would like to think that one day they could evolve out of that like europe eventually did!
    I appreciate that the death penalty is an extreme example, but what about other forms of punishment for criminal acts? If somebody falsely imprisons somebody, we don't have a problem with imprisoning them. Likewise what is fining somebody for theft but theft by the State?

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    Yeah i take your point John but the key word i used is "morally".You cant turn around to somebody and say that they have committed the most evil deed and then turn round and say we are going to do the exact same thing back to them.
    Thats playground justice and i would like to think that one day they could evolve out of that like europe eventually did!
    I also saw the documentary by that "reformed" thatcherite Portillo and thought he did a brilliant job on it.The scene you refer to when he confronted the pro-death penalty redneck with his Hypoxia method also staggered me,i just thought he was like a kid who says "its my ball and your not getting a game"

    Leave a comment:


  • johneffay
    replied
    Originally posted by thingfish View Post
    If we do that then i feel we forfeit our right to sit in judgement of them as we would be morally equal and not in any way morally superior!
    But the criminal justice system here is based upon our right to be tried by our peers (although Nu-Lab are trying to chip that away), not our superiors.

    There was an interesting programme on the other week featuring Michael Portillo looking into different means of execution in order to find the most humane. One of the highlights was subjecting a pig's carcass to the same voltage, etc. as an electric chair: the burns were horrific. Anyway, Portillo finally come across a humane method: hypoxia (oxygen starvation) where you basically become euphoric before you die. He was talking to some US pro-execution activist about this and the guy's response was "But we want them to suffer!". Prior to that, Portillo had asked the inventor of the lethal injection what his reaction was to all the evidence that there was nothing humane about it and the guy's response was "so what if they suffer: they deserve it!"

    Incidentally this cleared up something that has long puzzled me: how come vets can put down animals without any problem, but there is all this controversy over lethal injections? It turns out that it's not only the mixture of drugs that is an issue, but the fact that doctors won't carry out the procedure due to the Hippocratic oath so they use 'medical technicians' some of whom can't hit veins very well (I can't see why they can't train them up to do this: junkies don't seem to have problem).

    Anyway, I digress. My point is that whilst I am perfectly comfortable with the concept of revenge on a personal level, the notion that the State should extract revenge by deliberately inflicting suffering upon those it sees fit to execute is just so abhorrent, that it had never crossed my mind that there were advocates of the death penalty who would have stood by this view in the nineteenth century, yet alone nowadays.

    Leave a comment:


  • thingfish
    replied
    Agree 100% about the lowbrows using religion to justify their unevolved state.
    I would have loved to have seen their faces when the"what would jesus do"question came up.The trouble i find with these folks is that they never have anything to back up their knee-jerk extremism so its always interesting to see their own dogma being thrown back at them
    Agree also with the killing criminals point.
    If we do that then i feel we forfeit our right to sit in judgement of them as we would be morally equal and not in any way morally superior!

    Leave a comment:


  • SERPNTA1267
    replied
    I would rather see someone be placed in prison for the rest of his life than be killed. We've found too many people innocent of crimes that they were put into prison for. How will society pay for the killing of an innocent in this way? Far better to let them rot in prison or better yet, put them to work doing slave labor.
    I loved in the Republican debates when the question came up about "what would Jesus do?" about the death penalty. They all went around the question because they believe in it. Jesus would be against it! "He who has no sin cast the first stone." He was even given the death penalty and forgave his killers. These God fearing Christians should be ashamed. I find it funny(strange) how people twist the words of holy men to accomplish their own ends.
    I have studied many religions and most seem to say don't kill each other and love one another. It seems unfortunate that man seems to always needs another avatar to come to Earth to remind us of these things. It's unfortunate how quick we forget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heiron
    replied
    I didn't know the 2nd world either.I thought Greece was a part of it actually but hey we were in the 1st world(or the 3rd?Hmmm...)Anyway,you understood what I meant.
    Replying to myself,I'd like to add that perhaps prison is not so bad for a terrible prisoner.I mean most of the prisons are not that bad after all.Sports,books,television,visitors...they even let you go out for some days!!!Hey,military service in the Navy was worse than prison coming to thing of it...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X