I remember, a while back, a policeman was murdered in the course of his duty, resulting in calls from some for the restoration of the death penalty - specifically (and only) for killers of police officers. Frankly, this struck me as more than a little bit insulting to the rest of us. I have nothing against the death penalty per se for certain crimes, but surely, as a punishment, it should apply equally across the board for wilful murderers of anyone, not just a select few who wear a uniform. It may not be the intention, but it implies that not every innocent person's life is of the same value, and that some are worth more than others purely because of the way in which they earn their living.
Everyone's life is of equal value (at least to their relatives), so think how you'd feel if the person who killed a member of your family was given just a few years imprisonment, while the miscreant who murdered a member of someone else's family received the death penalty, purely because the victim was a policeman or woman. Hardly fair is it? It creates a two-tier system in which the lives of some people are considered more valuable than others. Protecting the police in the execution of their duty is not something that most people would object to, but surely the best way of doing it is to protect everyone by having the same punishment for murder, regardless of the victim's job?
So let me ask you a question. It's not the concept of capital punishment itself which is up for discussion (though you can tackle it if you want to), but rather whether it's fair or right that the death of someone in a minority (but important) occupation should be regarded as more worthy of the ultimate punishment for offenders than that of nurses, binmen, or shop workers.
What's your take on this, fellow Crivvies?
15 comments:
A good point Kid. I think I understand the reasoning behind that comment as killing a police officer would not only be a murder but was an assault on all our values ( killing the law) Plus the police are on the front line and in the UK they have no weapons ( well the average Bobby on the beat doesn't )so also a deterrent for that as well as general public don't put their lives in danger every day. But as you note everyone's life is important
I'd say we (the public) face the same danger every day, McS, and that our lives are at risk from criminals, murderers, psychos, etc., the only difference being that we face it as part of our lives (even if we're not consciously aware of it), not just our jobs. And we (the public) have no weapons to protect ourselves either. Also, just imagine you murder someone, serve the paltry few years you'd be given ('life' can mean around half a dozen years nowadays), then get out of prison and murder a policeman. You'd only be in a position to do that because you weren't punished as you should have been (capital punishment) for the first person you murdered. That being the case, if the country had the death penalty for murder, it would actually be in every innocent person's best interests for it to be applied to every murderer, irrespective of the occupation of the victims. Once you make distinctions, you're saying (whether you mean to or not) that some people's lives are worth more than others.
I have no moral qualms with the death penalty being meted out for murder. I would expect it to apply to everyone regardless of whether the victim was a police officer or a civilian. That said I would vote against the death penalty being reinstated because of the awful miscarriages of justice we have seen. Innocent people do get convicted of crime. In place of execution I would expect life to mean life and not a paltry decade and a half. I have personal reasons for my belief in this area that I would not share online but I will say that this is a subject I have thought long and hard about.
The fact that innocent people have been wrongly convicted in the past, bad as that is, doesn't convince me that the death penalty shouldn't be reinstated, M. What with DNA these days, the chance of wrongful conviction is lessened, and I believe that as a society, we should be prepared to run the risk in order to cut certain cancers of crime from our midst. Think of the many thousands, if not millions of people who die worldwide in car accidents - most of whom weren't responsible for their demise - yet no one ever says that cars should be abolished to reduce the possibility of innocent fatalities. As for life meaning life, why should these scum be put up at the public's expense, being fed, watered, and looked after to a far greater standard than pensioners who have to decide between feeding and heating themselves or buying a TV Licence?
Even if there were a chance that I might be wrongfully convicted of a crime and suffer the death penalty, I'd rather run that proportionately minuscule risk than see human vermin not be punished as they should. Don't get me wrong - I'd be far from happy to get wrongfully executed, but the fact that I wouldn't want to die in a car accident doesn't stop me from getting into a car. (As in taxi or friend's car 'cos I don't/can't drive.)
I was only answering your question on why there may have been a difference in the proposed idea of the death penalty for the murder of a police office and the general public not that I agreed with it and of course it hasn't happened maybe for the very reasons you raise. I'm very much against the sentencing we have in the UK it's way too lenient. 8 or so years and you could be out on the streets for murder - a joke!. I'm not really for the death sentence either as we have in the past executed innocent folk (although in some cases I could be converted) but life should mean 70 years plus.
Oh, I knew that, McS - I was only explaining why I don't agree with those who'd offer that as their reason for supporting a two-tier punishment system, I wasn't assuming that you held the view yourself. As for the other part of your comment, see my above response to M to see what my own view on the matter is.
I don’t like the idea of my taxes paying for any criminal behind bars particularly murderers, rapists and child molesters. In my world they would toil from sunrise to sunset. As I said I agree with the death penalty in principle. People aren’t usually convicted on DNA evidence alone and some are convicted without it. It has occasionally been misinterpreted to the detriment of justice. My wife thinks we should have a death row system where people would be held for some unspecified time until all their appeals run out. I could probably live with that although again it wouldn’t be a foolproof way to protect the innocent. I am a natural idealist I’m told.
I don’t accept the car accident comparison. There is no equivalence that I can see. I would also like to see pensioners looked after better, among other socio economic groups, although we weren’t discussing that.
The equivalence is the fact that innocent people die every year in car 'accidents', but no one seeks to abolish the means by which they were wrongfully killed. So, to me, the notion that we shouldn't have capital punishment because innocent people may die in an 'accident' of justice is a weak one. If it turned out that every single executed person in this country over a period of 20 years when we had the death penalty was, in fact, not guilty, it would likely still be a fraction of the number killed in one year in car crashes. The risk is worth it, and I'd be taking that risk as much as anyone. The chances of you (or me) being killed in a road crash are far higher than either of us ever being found guilty for a murder we didn't commit.
And there's only so much dosh in the public purse. Fewer murderers being looked after by the State would free up some money for other societal problems.
There is no equivalence between accidental death and execution. The only thing they have in common is the extinguishing of a human life. The state deliberately ending someone’s life is not accidental as is a car crash that happens because of human error. Again I don’t like the idea of all that dead money - you’re preaching to the choir, as my dad used to say but I don’t see a fair alternative. Taking an innocent life is immoral.
I'd say you're wrong, in that regardless of whether death results as an 'accident' or 'execution', the equivalence is in the fact that society (or the government actually) is shy of the death penalty because of the possibility of innocents being killed, but doesn't seem to apply the same principle or logic in other spheres where innocent people might (and in fact DO) lose their lives. No analogy is perfect of course, but far more people die in road accidents in the UK every year than were wrongly executed in the last 100. The circumstances may be different, but the results are the same. If you're saying that we shouldn't risk capital punishment because innocent people might die, logic dictates that you should have the same reservations about any circumstance in which innocent people might die - especially when the latter has more deaths than the former.
Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind, but I feel you haven't grasped the point - the equivalence is in the result, not in the circumstances which produce that result. And like I say, the risk of being wrongly executed if the death penalty were reinstated is minuscule compared to dying 'innocently' or 'wrongly' under other circumstances. Therefore I'd say the risk is well-worth taking. Will you let the risk of being killed in a car accident stop you getting into a car (or even walking to the shops)? No, I'd venture. You'd deem the risk to be slight. The risk of wrongful execution would be even more unlikely, so the risk is worth taking when considered against the benefits.
Thanks for your contribution, but let's not go round in circles by continuing the discussion unless you can bring something new to the table. Cheers.
Oh, one more thing. It could be argued that the State ending someone's life (when that person is not guilty) is as much a mistake as someone being killed in an accident that wasn't his fault. In both scenarios, something clearly went wrong. I'd say that qualifies as 'equivalence'.
The death penalty doesn't stop murders - in fact, we probably had a lot more murders in the past when the death penalty was legal. That was probably one of the reasons why it was abolished.
It's an incontestable fact, CJ, that some murderers who'd served their time murdered again when they were released. Had they been executed they wouldn't have been able to kill again. In that sense, it demonstrates that the death penalty DID stop murders. Is it a deterrent though?Unfortunately, there are some people who will never be deterred whatever the deterrent is? Getting thrown in prison doesn't stop some people stealing, but it does deter others. Same as the death penalty. Won't deter some, WILL deter others. Whether or not we had more murders in the past may have had nothing to do with having capital punishment (could have been other factors), but if we had it today, whatever the murder rate is, it would probably be lower than it could be - simply because SOME people would be deterred.
Yes, the chance of a wrongful conviction is low, especially in this day of DNA evidence.
But it is still possible, most particularly for the poor who are less able to hire a competent defender.
So my answer has always been: In the event of a wrongful conviction and subsequent execution, we must view the execution as a first degree murder. The judge, the entire jury, and everyone who ever advocated in favor of capital punishment must all then be executed.
But don't worry, Kid... It's so very unlikely...
Well, I'd say where you're going wrong in your thinking is in saying that we MUST view a mistaken execution as a first degree murder. There's no logic to that position. If someone is wrongfully convicted and jailed, does that mean the judge, jury, etc., must all be imprisoned for making a mistake? Nah!
But thanks for your contribution anyway.
However, too many people still seem to be missing the point. There's no logic in saying that one thing must be excluded because of a slight risk of innocent people dying (and where the benefits to society outweigh the risk), when we allow so many other things where there's an even higher risk of many more innocent people dying. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Post a Comment