However the AFP's response was along the lines of needing to maintain a strong professional relationship with the Indonesian police, and failing to inform them of the smugglers' activities would have undermined that relationship, which has provided other benefits to Australia.
I know that sounds simplistic and unsympathetic,
I am decidedly unsympathetic to any special pleading on their behalf. If I am reading you correctly, then we are also in agreement that opposition to the death penalty, in general, and its application to this case requires no sympathy for the individual "victim" of the State. So like gillianren says, an opposition to this particular case based on a general principle is sufficient.
Although I would expect the government, acting as an advocate, to make whatever case it can. Principled, special pleading, pounding the law, pounding the table, shaking a fist or whatever. You never know which argument will work.
It would be far easier to bring these treatments to the people who need them if the criminal "justice" system would just get the hell out of the way. And it would remove the incentive for drug dealers to profit from the misery of others.
As I understand it, heroin is legal in the UK both as a medical analgesic (as an alternative to morphine) and for addiction maintenance. Here in the US it's in DEA schedule I, meaning it's banned for all purposes, including medical. Exceptions for schedule I are made only rarely for research purposes.
My opposition to this case is that it carries a capital sentence, and in that sense I oppose any such cases, regardless of whether they are unusual forms of execution, barbaric or humane forms of execution (if there are any), I oppose punishment by death. I don't condemn the Iranian authorities anymore than the US authorities for carrying out the death penalty. I would like to think to myself that I take a humanist stance and my views are not distorted my perception of culture and another state's 'judicial integrity.' It is a matter if principle for me.
Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty, every flight you get on in that part of the world (and I have been on several, both international and internal) advertises in no uncertain terms that the penalty for drug smuggling is death.Yes, I've seen that on landing cards for Singapore.
Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty, every flight you get on in that part of the world (and I have been on several, both international and internal) advertises in no uncertain terms that the penalty for drug smuggling is death.Yes, I've seen that on landing cards for Singapore.
What worries me is not drug dealing, it's carrying prescribed pharmaceuticals. Would they be recognized as legitimate? I wouldn't bet on it.
it does offer an interesting question about the killing of OBL. Was that an execution or a legitimate act of war? Where is the line with in the War on Terror?
It was clearly an extra-judicial execution.
Which is why capture and trial is the preferred option.
Well, a reason.
I will say that they clearly thought they could justify their actions. That's what all those videos were. They can't justify them to our standards, but that's different.You probably could say the same thing about the major Nazi war criminals in their prime. But most of them looked and acted very different in the dock at Nuremberg, and that was the whole point.
We did just that with the major Nazi war criminals after WW2 even though they killed orders of magnitude more people than al Qaeda. I always thought that the Nuremberg trials were one of the very few good things to come out of that period. This time around we took the low road, and look where it's gotten us.
The major Nuremberg trial was interesting in that one could almost certainly conclude with the backdrop of Nazi atrocities that each defendant was guilty, yet a proportion were acquitted of the charges.Yes. As I recall, three (Hans Fritzsche, Franz von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht) were acquitted on all charges though it was a puzzle why they were indicted in the first place.
The Nuremberg trials did more than dispense justice and show the world that we believed in our principles even for those who obviously lacked them. It created a huge and meticulously detailed history of that period all the more authoritative because the defendants were given a fair chance to rebut it and failed. How many of us would believe a recent history of Iraq and Afghanistan written by Bush and Cheney?
They also presented an opportunity to set international legal precedentsWhich we have completely squandered over the past decade.
and resurrect the failed League of Nations, which we now call the UN. There are many critics of the trials, and I can see why. Afterall, could Churchill have stood trial for ordering the bombing of Dresden? Where does Truman stand on the A-bombs? Stalin and his cronies hardly had their hands clean of blood?The Nuremberg trials were by no means perfect. The questions about ex post facto laws and tu quoque defenses still linger today. But they were probably the best that we could do at the time in a completely unprecedented situation, and as you say they did set some important precedents. For a while, anyway.
Which we have completely squandered over the past decade.
The Nuremberg trials were by no means perfect. The questions about ex post facto laws and tu quoque defenses still linger today. But they were probably the best that we could do at the time in a completely unprecedented situation, and as you say they did set some important precedents. For a while, anyway.
In fact I'm still amazed we were able to talk the Soviets into even one international military tribunal.
And our own. Have you been reading about the "black site" in Chicago? Appalling. Even with the sickening saga of the CIA overseas, this is still not supposed to happen in this country. Not only do the police embarrass their city and open themselves to serious criminal and civil liability, they risk having a lot of cases thrown out by the courts -- including those of people who were actually guilty. What were they thinking?Which we have completely squandered over the past decade.Absolutely, giving other countries carte blanche to act in a similar manner.
Agree, but given their crimes I have yet to see a better alternative proposed by the critics. Could we really let them free?Of course not. And consider this: Hermann Goering was heard to complain that as a high official on the losing side, the Allies had the right to execute him and he fully expected that he would be. But he actually seemed annoyed by their insistence on giving him such a humiliatingly thorough and public trial first. Precisely!
The Western allies held the ace there and if I am to believe correctly, they threatened that they would take the Nazis they held and hold separate trials to the Soviets. Since the West held the key figures, the Soviets felt they had to play ball.And that was no accident. During the last days of the war there was a mad westward scramble by just about everyone left in Germany. The average German feared the raping and plundering Soviet army, and those with more to answer for strongly preferred to surrender themselves to the Americans or the British rather than the Soviets. Werner von Braun was just one of many examples.
Have you been reading about the "black site" in Chicago?
Of course not. And consider this: Hermann Goering was heard to complain that as a high official on the losing side, the Allies had the right to execute him and he fully expected that he would be. But he actually seemed annoyed by their insistence on giving him such a humiliatingly thorough and public trial first. Precisely!
Werner von Braun was just one of many examples.
Still, after the one joint IMT for the major war criminals the Americans conducted many more on their own.
And our own. Have you been reading about the "black site" in Chicago? Appalling. Even with the sickening saga of the CIA overseas, this is still not supposed to happen in this country. Not only do the police embarrass their city and open themselves to serious criminal and civil liability, they risk having a lot of cases thrown out by the courts -- including those of people who were actually guilty. What were they thinking?
And our own. Have you been reading about the "black site" in Chicago? Appalling. Even with the sickening saga of the CIA overseas, this is still not supposed to happen in this country. Not only do the police embarrass their city and open themselves to serious criminal and civil liability, they risk having a lot of cases thrown out by the courts -- including those of people who were actually guilty. What were they thinking?
"If the federal government does it, it must be legal"?
And our own. Have you been reading about the "black site" in Chicago? Appalling. Even with the sickening saga of the CIA overseas, this is still not supposed to happen in this country. Not only do the police embarrass their city and open themselves to serious criminal and civil liability, they risk having a lot of cases thrown out by the courts -- including those of people who were actually guilty. What were they thinking?
And that was no accident. During the last days of the war there was a mad westward scramble by just about everyone left in Germany. The average German feared the raping and plundering Soviet army, and those with more to answer for strongly preferred to surrender themselves to the Americans or the British rather than the Soviets. Werner von Braun was just one of many examples.
And that was no accident. During the last days of the war there was a mad westward scramble by just about everyone left in Germany. The average German feared the raping and plundering Soviet army, and those with more to answer for strongly preferred to surrender themselves to the Americans or the British rather than the Soviets. Werner von Braun was just one of many examples.
Optimisation of the surrender strategy did seem to be the main objective of Dönitz for the first week or so of his three-week presidency.
Since we can almost never be one hundred percent certain of guilt, the death penalty has also resulted in the deaths of innocents. Look into the statistics of how many people have been freed over DNA evidence--and look into states like Texas, that limit how long you have to present new evidence, even if the technology involved is itself new.
Since we can almost never be one hundred percent certain of guilt, the death penalty has also resulted in the deaths of innocents. Look into the statistics of how many people have been freed over DNA evidence--and look into states like Texas, that limit how long you have to present new evidence, even if the technology involved is itself new.
Yes you can be 100% certain of guilt. Two guys cut off a young off-duty soldier's head in the middle of a public street in London and then waited for the Police to show up. Yesterday a Guy in Scotland was convicted of Murdering an Escort and then raping a further two escorts in the same room as her corpse, they escaped and then he then called the Police and told them what he'd done. There is sometimes no doubt whatsoever and if there is doubt then you don't impose the death penalty.
The US is renowned for having a bad record with regards to the Death Penalty, just look at the 'Robin Hood Hills' tragedy, That's why I said I am all for the death penalty but not the way it has been applied.
Since we can almost never be one hundred percent certain of guilt, the death penalty has also resulted in the deaths of innocents. Look into the statistics of how many people have been freed over DNA evidence--and look into states like Texas, that limit how long you have to present new evidence, even if the technology involved is itself new.
Yes you can be 100% certain of guilt. Two guys cut off a young off-duty soldier's head in the middle of a public street in London and then waited for the Police to show up. Yesterday a Guy in Scotland was convicted of Murdering an Escort and then raping a further two escorts in the same room as her corpse, they escaped and then he then called the Police and told them what he'd done. There is sometimes no doubt whatsoever and if there is doubt then you don't impose the death penalty.
The US is renowned for having a bad record with regards to the Death Penalty, just look at the 'Robin Hood Hills' tragedy, That's why I said I am all for the death penalty but not the way it has been applied.
First, the murders you describe are exceptionally rare and fall within gillianren's almost never conditions.
Second, guilt is established at trial by how prosecutors present evidence. So the question really is not whether "we" as in you, I, gillianren and whoever know or believe we know the guilt to 100%, but whether a jury relying on a practiced prosecutor's case that is rebutted by an less skilled defense attorney can be persuaded they know to 100% when that is not the actual case. I think the answer to that is yes, a jury can be wrongly persuaded.
So if you think a jury could not be wrongly persuaded into a greater level of certainty than they can reasonably have, please let us know.
I am definitely for the death Penalty. I am just not in favour of the way it has been applied. There have been too many mistakes, too many injustices. You have to be 100% sure, no questions, no balance of probabilities, no uncertainties!And that's just some of the reasons I'm solidly opposed to it.
The Death Penalty is one of those government powers that always will end up being abused for political gain.
Historically it always has.
The Death Penalty is one of those government powers that always will end up being abused for political gain.
Historically it always has.
How?
And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.
Whether it should be applied for drugs related cases is another matter, I personally don't think so. Indonesia obviously thinks it's required and as others have said, if you go to a country with the Death Penalty for certain crimes...don't commit those crimes...or don't be surprised and all 'remorseful' if you do and get caught....clear and simple! People opposed to this particular sentence have said..."but they have been reformed"! Oh really? massive opportunities to smuggle drugs in an Indonesian prison and they have 'turned their backs' on those opportunities? I don't think so! It's probably quite easy to say "I will honestly never ever, ever, smuggle drugs again" when you are looking at a death sentence imposed on you!
The death sentence will never deter crimes...it will deter repeat offences of crimes when offenders found guilty have been released on Parole. When the death Penalty was in force in the UK there were something like 70 murderers who had been reprieved (and that doesn't mean commuted to a 'whole life' life sentence but on average back then it was 10 years served and then released) who then went on to murder again. How many murderers have murdered again since the death penalty was abolished? I don't know, but if it was only one murder it would have been avoided had the murderer been executed.
I don't care how the sentence is carried out either. When a young child is abducted, raped, horrifically tortured and then murdered, where their last few hours (or even days) of life are full of horrendous pain and paralysing fear, then I couldn't give a monkeys toss if a lethal injection isn't all nice and peaceful for the filth who committed that crime.
But the main thing is there must be, in either case, absolutely no doubt, no extenuating circumstances, whatsoever! otherwise you cannot have a death sentence or a whole life tariff.
Saudi Arabia- a virtual totalitarian state.
The Death Penalty is one of those government powers that always will end up being abused for political gain.
Historically it always has.
How?
The Death Penalty is one of those government powers that always will end up being abused for political gain.
Historically it always has.
How?
If a prosecutor wants to be seen as "tough on crime," they go for the death penalty in a situation where even those in favour of it on principle might see it as questionable if they knew the details. In the US, if you are poor and/or an ethnic minority, you are more likely to end up on Death Row than if you are rich and/or white, because the skill of your lawyer is one of the things that influences which way things will go for you. There are frankly countless examples of political influence on the death penalty, not actual consideration of evidence.
This is interesting in itself as it shows the number of liberal minded people at this forum, and while these are not the moon hoax boards, I always feel a sense of frustration from the moon hoax crowd when they accuse us of propping up government lies, when in fact we are probably some of the most open minded and liberal individuals around.
Absolutely. You only have to look at the less civilised states in America where the local Governor is keen to appear "tough on crime"
"Texas' appellate judges are elected to office and hence serve according to the pleasure of the public. Not surprisingly, they require a record of toughness on criminals in order to win re-election."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/texas.html
Pgs 506-509
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o-VgH3zb61IC&pg=PA506&lpg=PA506&ots=74zjHCozYk&focus=viewport&dq=bill+bryson+hotel+california&output=html_text
Evidence can take years to come forward and change a case.
Indeed. And that's not factoring that the Police have frequently lied under oath, concealed and doctored evidence, fabricated evidence and shown all sorts of bias.SDome examples:
The Birmingham 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six)
The Guildford 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven)
Look at the current enquiry into the Hillsborough disaster where members of the South Yorkshire Police "reviewed and altered" their statements. There is no system that could give me the satisfaction that a death sentence could be justified completely.
That slightly puts to bed the idea that it is cheaper to execute someone than incarcerate them. I guess the counter argument would be not to let them appeal and make sure the execution happened soon after sentence.Yes. And about the only thing worse than being in a country with the death penalty is being in a country where the death penalty is cheaper than incarceration because all of the reviews and safeguards you definitely want on such an extreme penalty have been done away with.
In the US, if you are poor and/or an ethnic minority, you are more likely to end up on Death Row than if you are rich and/or white, because the skill of your lawyer is one of the things that influences which way things will go for you.I wonder if this is partly an artifact of the adversarial legal system we inherited from the Brits. Like most Americans I was taught in school that it defends the rights of the individual better than the alternatives like the civil law system, but now I'm not so sure. The adversarial system can work well (if not efficiently) when both sides have deep pockets, but that is rarely true when the death penalty is involved.
You only have to look at the less civilised states in America where the local Governor is keen to appear "tough on crime"Not just Texas. Local judges stand for election here in California too. In their ballot blurbs they invariably tout how many criminals they've put in jail and claim they're "law enforcement's choice", often adding the catchphrase "tough but fair".
"Texas' appellate judges are elected to office and hence serve according to the pleasure of the public. Not surprisingly, they require a record of toughness on criminals in order to win re-election.
You're not cynical at all; you're just perceptive. Saudi Arabia routinely scores near the bottom of various annual democracy lists, just a few notches above North Korea.Saudi Arabia- a virtual totalitarian state.
Absolutely, and as soon as the oil goes, so will the arm deals and the 'special diplomatic' ties. Call me cynical, but I'm fairly sure that we turn a blind eye to the appalling human rights because of their oil. Once Saddam threatened that in 1990 we were suddenly quick to demonise Saddam.
And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.
Derek Bentley. Say no more.
The problem with your argument is that you apply guilt to differing degrees. You choose the murder of Lee Rigby as an example. Yes, the killers of Lee were guilty, there is no question of their guilt. So, according to your argument they should be executed.
However, justice should be balanced. That is fair. You cannot say, well we'll hang those people because their guilt is clear, but not those because there is some doubt. This would be unfair. There are only two other options, have no death penalty, or have a death penalty that executes all those convicted and then say sorry later for the miscarriages of justice.
ETA: Here is a great example of a reason not to support the death penalty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32180700
The problem with "weak enough" is that no two people will ever agree where to draw that line.
In this regard it's similar to people who say that the death penalty should only be applied in the most heinous cases: where do you draw the line and say, this crime is heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, but that crime is one iota less heinous so doesn't attract the death penalty.
The death penalty brutalises the society that insist on it.
No thank you....I do not want to be part of a society that thinks that the answer to terrible crimes is to execute people.
One of the people set to be executed with the two Bali 9 men is the Frenchman Serge Areski Atlaoui. According to this story (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/9-other-prisoners-death-row-with-bali-nine-pair-chan-sukumaran/6130190) he was a welder who accepted a job in a factory which turned out to be a drug laboratory, and after he found this out he tried to leave immediately, only to be arrested. What you say about knowingly flouting a country's laws is quite true, but what about people being executed for crimes it appears they had nothing to do with?
I'm always uneasy about this argument, as it smacks of punishing a person for a hypothetical crime - the murder they might commit if they're released.
In any case, I can think of a few practical reasons for not executing people:
1. The person may have information about other crimes, leading to the possibility of convictions of other guilty people or the release of innocent people.
2. A prisoner in jail can potentially contribute to society. A dead person can't.
3. Executions are more expensive than life in prison, due to legal costs being higher than incarceration costs.
4. A live prisoner can be charged with further crimes if the evidence warrants it.
How far do you think this punishment equivalence should go? Should it be applied on the basis of the killer's intent to cause pain, or on the basis of the victim's actual death?
The problem is that with the cases I've read about in the USA, cases which at first glance appear watertight end up looking anything but when given a more detailed study.
Then there are the disturbing cases, such as the Willingham case where the (prisoner) witness who claimed Willingham confessed to him later claimed he'd been coerced by the prosecutor with the promise of a reduced sentence if he cooperated; or the case of the Norfolk Four convicted of rape and murder who pleaded guilty to avoid the risk of the death penalty as a result of confessions obtained in the absence of lawyers.
If a prosecutor wants to be seen as "tough on crime," they go for the death penalty in a situation where even those in favour of it on principle might see it as questionable if they knew the details. In the US, if you are poor and/or an ethnic minority, you are more likely to end up on Death Row than if you are rich and/or white, because the skill of your lawyer is one of the things that influences which way things will go for you. There are frankly countless examples of political influence on the death penalty, not actual consideration of evidence.
And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.
How do you propose that a jury be asked to consider if the evidence is 100% without also simultaneously asking them to consider the death penalty? Under your proposition they are identical because there is no other reason to determine the 100% state of mind.
I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)
I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)So, in other words you don’t support capital punishment unless it is applied in some circumstances that are unlikely ever to de seen in any human society?
No I am saying that there are different circumstances in which a murder (or other serious crime) were committed. In the US a unanimous finding by the Jury in any criminal case must be reached before a Guilty verdict. In the UK a majority of at least 10 in a 12 person jury (so by your definition this is not fair as there is clearly some doubt amongst the jury members), and in Scotland at least 8 in a 15 person Jury (also not fair by your definition).What happens when new evidence is uncovered? Or when it is found that the evidence used in the initial case is found to be wanting?
What I am saying is that you MUST have a unanimous finding for any death sentence to be carried out (along with other criteria that I have previously mentioned) So if, for example, ten out of twelve think that a person committed a murder but the other two had some doubt, they could still be found guilty, but the Death sentence not be applied, with a prison sentence instead.
And yes I do think the murderers of Lee Rigby should be executed, along with a few others.With this one:
I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)So how would you apply it in the Rigby case?
People say it shouldn't be about revenge. Why not?Because we can, and should, be better than that. Basing how you treat people (yes, even the most horrific criminals are people) on an “eye for an eye” has no place in a civilised society for many reasons. The most obvious is that it simply doesn’t work.
It always 'seems' to be about the rights of felons, why shouldn't the victims and their friends and relatives be taken into account? A child rapist in the UK will probably do about 8 years in Jail (that is not a firm researched figure it just seems to be typically what I see on the BBC news website time and time again, round about once a week). What about the potential life of fear and mental pain that the child has or may suffer at the hands of such a rapist? not really important that is it? It seems.And how exactly would a state-execution do anything for the victim of such crimes, over and above satisfying a primitive urge for an eye for an eye?
If the case is a Capital Crime case then presumably the jury must know that they may have to come to a decision which may result in an execution.
And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.
Not at all you are punishing a person for the crime that they have already committed. if a death sentence is indeed carried out then that is 100% protection against further crimes being committed by that felon.
2. 'Contribute to society' how? that hints of future release into society again. And for capital offences I have a problem with that. And what about the potential future Einsteins, Steve Jobs, and Neal Armstrongs who may have been murdered by a felon? Take Andy Murray (Scottish Tennis player and I think the UK's number one player ...don't really follow tennis myself anymore) he was a small kid at school in a Scottish town called Dunblane when a madman walked in and then shot and murdered loads of small kids. One of which could easily have been him.
Ah the US, yes definitely a flawed system there! Doesn't happen in every country though does it?. May I ask does the Governor of a state have the final say as a personal opinion or as a recommendation by a legal team?
I used to support the death penalty
In the US a unanimous finding by the Jury in any criminal case must be reached before a Guilty verdict.That is correct. The twelve jurors must agree unanimously either way. If they can't, they get a talking-to by the judge. If they still can't agree, a mistrial is declared and the prosecutor has to decide whether to try the defendant all over again.
combined with the fallibility of the legal system (especially in the US)
People don't risk this because they are "stupid," rather that young people, particularity young men, have a great deal of difficulty in assessing actual risk and consequences. Many times they have values regarding their own lives that are quite skewed relative to what most full adults have. It's why we have higher insurance rates for young drivers and why the higher rates extend to age 25 for men.
The fact that people still do take the risk and smuggle drugs shows the rather limited deterrence factor of the death penalty. And what other reason is it there for? Many political reasons only tangential to the actual crime.
People don't risk this because they are "stupid," rather that young people, particularity young men, have a great deal of difficulty in assessing actual risk and consequences. Many times they have values regarding their own lives that are quite skewed relative to what most full adults have. It's why we have higher insurance rates for young drivers and why the higher rates extend to age 25 for men.
The fact that people still do take the risk and smuggle drugs shows the rather limited deterrence factor of the death penalty. And what other reason is it there for? Many political reasons only tangential to the actual crime.
They were drug dealers and peddlers in misery.Maybe so, but they were created by the drug war.
So, you're blaming society?
Firstly, there are literally hundreds of thousands of young men in your "risk unaware" age bracket who visit Bali & other parts of Indonesia every year.Correct, risk unawareness and risk seeking have a great deal of variety among people, it is among the things that gives variety to life. And like all other activities people make choices and choices have consequences. These men suffered the logical outcome of their choice and were killed.
They were drug dealers and peddlers in misery.They have reached the age of responsibility for their actions, knew the actions were illegal and violated the law. That is sure. But executing them is an irrevocable moral decision of judging them unfit to be alive and it better have an indisputable moral basis. As to being "peddlers in misery," the prohibition of drugs brings death and misery too. We need look no further than Northern Mexico to see the effects of US drug policy on the innocent.
They were drug dealers and peddlers in misery.They have reached the age of responsibility for their actions, knew the actions were illegal and violated the law. That is sure. But executing them is an irrevocable moral decision of judging them unfit to be alive and it better have an indisputable moral basis. As to being "peddlers in misery," the prohibition of drugs brings death and misery too. We need look no further than Northern Mexico to see the effects of US drug policy on the innocent.
I don't buy the argument that criminals can be excused their behaviour because they are poor judges of risk or come from broken homes
I agree with Gillian.
It's very easy to talk about "choices" for those among us who have no neurological issues and grew up in a stable home with secure attachments. The ability to make choices is not just down to the knowledge of doing so, but also innate ability, education, development, illness (and side-effects from the drugs used to treat it) etc.
Some people make choices others might see as "bad" - but they key to human compassion is hope for education, growth, redemption and rehabilitation. The death penalty takes away that hope.
The fact is that the deed was committed and society has a right to be protected from a repeat of the offence.No doubt. My concern and the reason I bring the "why" into the discussion is that it is very easy and all too common to judge the "moral" fitness of criminals instead of the intent and severity of their actions. Moral judgement runs deep in U.S. drug policy and thus by extension, in the drug policy of a number of other countries that cooperate with the U. S. in drug enforcement. In essence, the US exports a great deal of its law so we can live smugly believing it is someone else that is really the cause of so much of the drug related death and violence, not us. I again refer to Northern Mexico, the place where the US exports much of the violence that results from its drug laws.
I really get shirty with people who have anti-US sentiments because it's chique to bad mouth all that is the 'US of A'