Nice pitch JD. My personal creed has been when a person transgresses society’s finite boundaries. I came up wioth that boundary on hearing about the killers of Anita Cobby. My girlfriend worked at Sydney Hospital at the time, and I worked there later.
But then I was a psychiatric nurse for quite a awhile, I did see people that would have/could have dropped for what they did, it always struck me as wrong. But then I have voted with my feet . . . again . . . there’s no death penalty in HK.
HG
Why would any civilised country treat it’s convicted criminals with the rights and pivelages offered to normal people. Often, more rights and privellages.
For example, in the UK, if you commit a crime, you get free legal aid. If you are the victim, you don’t.
If you are a criminal, you get a cushy cell and a TV. Accomodation akin to a hotel room and all the services associated with a such an establishment.
Why would a civilised country allow its citizens to keep criminals fed and watered?
Why would a civilised country make its citizens pay tax so criminals can receive free legal aid and have endless appeals upon their conviction?
Why would a civilised country give rights to a person who has taken rights from another?
Forgive me if I think this sounds a trifle unfair.
The world can do without nasty people. The death penalty couldserve as an example to others that serious crime against another will not be tolerated.
Perhaps communist countries have got the right idea.
Because it’s a civilized country?
Surely the prosecution is funded by the state in criminal trials?
[quote=“Dangermouse”]Why would a civilised country allow its citizens to keep criminals fed and watered?
Why would a civilised country make its citizens pay tax so criminals can receive free legal aid and have endless appeals upon their conviction?
Why would a civilised country give rights to a person who has taken rights from another.[/quote]
I think it all centers around what we consider to be civilization. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but when I was studying Anglo-American legal history I learned that ancient Britain had no prisons whatsoever. There was only one punishment, that being death, and it was only administered for felonies. Murder, rape, arson, and a few other serious crimes all resulted in the death penalty. All other crimes were considered civil matters. If Mr. Higginbotham’s tree falls on Mr. Winston’s yard, then Mr. Winston’s only legal recourse was to take Mr. Higginbotham to court. Likewise for petty theft and misdemeanors. Over time, British society began to rethink both aspects of its criminal justice system. People started to think that not all felonies were equally evil, and so death is not warranted in all cases. If Mr. Higginbotham burns down Mr. Winston’s barn and nobody is hurt, then perhaps he doesn’t deserve the same punishment as if he had raped Mr. Winston’s wife and murdered his children. Prisons went from temporary holding cells to long term housing for criminals. A variety of jail time, corporal punishment, fees, and public humiliation replaced the catchall noose. Eventually corporal punishment and public humilation were eliminated, and finally the death penalty (in Britain). Likewise, people were sick and tired of having to go to court to get justice for what were properly considered minor crimes. The existence of larger and more numerous prisons made it possible to extend the definition of crime. So, it was now both civilized to try people for minor offenses, but also to not hang people for every major offense. British society’s belief in what should be considered civilized evolved over time to its present state.
I think that most people would agree prisoners should be given water and food while they are in prison. Otherwise, we’d have the death penalty for not only all felonies, as in ancient times, but for every little misdemeanor that merits jail time for longer than a couple of weeks. That would be a more severe form of criminal justice than Britain has ever seen.
Regarding legal representation to defendants, remember that under both British and American courts the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore it is obvious why legal representation must be granted to all defendants. The presumption of innocence compells the state to grant legal representation. If the state does not provide legal representation to those who cannot afford it, then we create a situation in which only the wealthy can adequately defend themselves. Poor and lower middle class defendants would be sitting targets for the prosecution. Remeber that it is the duty of the courts to determine guilt or innocence, not angry mobs or sensationalist media pundits.
Dangermouse, I can’t say that I agree with your statement that defense attorneys are as bad as the criminals, or even worse. Defense attorneys are performing a vital duty for the society, especially since defendants are innocent until proven guilty. This is one of the most counter-intuitive aspects of our legal system, and probably overall the hardest to understand, but the fact is that defense attorneys must defend their clients to the best of their ability, even when they know their client is guilty. Does this create situations where clever attorneys can let guilty men walk free? You bet. But just think of the alternative. If defense attorneys had no obligation to defend their clients, and could report to the judge, prosecution, or jury their’s client’s guilt, then defense counsel would simply become another arm of the prosecution. The state would be in utter control. One of the underlying foundations of the Anglo-American legal systems is that if it works, then the truth will be revealed in court regardless of the efforts of crafty defense attorneys. It’s not a perfect system, but in my opinion it is vastly superior to the alternative.
Regarding your question about giving rights to prisoners when the prisoner deprived another of those rights, remember that prisoners are losing, not gaining rights. All free people under the nation’s jurisdiction already have the right to counsel. In fact, even if a defendant is declared innocent (and let’s say for the sake of argument he really is innocent), for the duration of the trial he may have actually lost some rights. If he was held in jail during the trail as opposed to staying out on bail, then he was detained by the state. His freedom was restricted. If the defendant is found guilty, then he will lose even more rights still.
I can understand your feelings regarding heinous criminals, believe me I do. However, I for one am glad to see the days of dungeons, torture chambers, and gruesome public executions long behind us.
gao_bo_han, classic.
:bravo: 
[quote]If the defendant is found guilty, then he will lose even more rights still.
[/quote]
Uhm, yeah. That would be logical.
Some might say that he gave up those rights by committing a crime, not that the state took away the rights.
Let me throw something else into the mix here that has not yet been discussed: The Eighth Amendment.
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
I did a research project involving the Eighth Amendment once. The purpose of the assignment was to research actual cases in Harris and Galveston counties of Texas to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, we were given a mock situation where our client, who was in prison, was subjected to various torments by his fellow prisoners and neglect by the guards. There was nothing really serious; no out and out torture. I read through dozens of real life cases in the counties, and found that a wide variety of abuse and neglect come under the umbrella of the cruel and unusual clause. A mountain of case law, and even specific Texas statutes, forbid guards from withholding medical care for inmates, allowing them to be sexually assaulted by fellow inmates, putting too many inmates into one cell, and even not providing nutritious and sanitary food. Now these are in two of the most conservative counties in East Texas, which itself is one of the most conservative states in the country. I also researched federal cases that fell under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Court of Appeals, which is considered the most conservative appeals court (or one of them). In case after case, the judges consistently found that any form of abuse whatsoever is cruel and unusual punishment, and many kinds of neglect are likewise considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Bear in mind that the crimes of the defendant are completely irrelevant regarding civil rights cases claiming cruel and unusual punishment. So let’s think about what that actually means. The most conservative courts in the country routinely find that not providing nutricious and sanitary is cruel and unusual, but killing that same person would not be (if the person had been sentenced to death). If the defendant tortured his victim, the state cannot then torture him because that would be cruel and unusual. If the defendant raped his victim, the state cannot them allow him to be raped, because that would be cruel and unusual. If the defendant kills his victim, however, it is still valid for the state to kill him. Somehow, this is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. I think this is a serious inconsistency.
I welcome anyone’s comments, but it’d be great to hear from some of you lawyers as well regarding the apparent legal contradiction.
Turns out one of the reasons I’m alive is because the judge decided to hang the uncle and the father but spare the son for stealing a farking sheep! Seriously! The 14-year old son got penal servitude . . . I’m the fruit of that result! Okay, that ls probably not a good thijng for all, but I’m happy.
HG
You just don’t get it, do you 
A civilised country should protect the innocent and punish the wrong doers - not the other way around.
Gao bo tan,
I’ll reply in due course. Thanks for the insightful reply. I’m off to bed now.
[quote=“Jaboney”]gao_bo_han, classic.
:bravo: [/quote]
Thanks Jaboney, and I agree with much of what you’ve said here. I would only add that I don’t think prisons should be so uncomfortable that life in prison is worse than the death penalty. And I don’t for one second think you really believe that either.
Some people on here have mentioned the cost of the death penalty versus the cost of life in prison. When I was studying the death penalty, I found that yes, it is true the death penalty is slightly more expensive keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life. But so what? If the statistics were reversed and it was more expense to incarcerate for life than to kill a prisoner, would that make it acceptable to carry out the death penalty? To me the cost is irrelevant. Justice isn’t available to the lowest bidder.
Well said. What’s important is that we continue to distance ourselves from the barbarism of our past and progress toward a more civilized, advanced and free future, whether it costs more to do so or not.
Well said. What’s important is that we continue to distance ourselves from the barbarism of our past and progress toward a more civilized, advanced and free future, whether it costs more to do so or not.[/quote]
All depends on ones definition of civilization and barbarism. You seem to feel that only your beliefs constitute “civilized” thought. How sweet.
Why does the victim need legal aid? I didn’t realise that they were tried for being victims. Also let’s try not to be sloppy with words. The accused is not a criminal until convicted, and without legal aid many would not be able to afford representation. This could quite possibly lead to a much higher rate of miscarriages of justice - which hardly help the victim.
You must stay in some pretty strange and shitty hotels.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]
Why would a civilised country make its citizens pay tax so criminals can receive free legal aid and have endless appeals upon their conviction?[/quote]see above and also this: The hall of judicial infamy …
[quote=“Dangermouse”]
Why would a civilised country give rights to a person who has taken rights from another?[/quote]
See above. Just because the police say that someone did something by no means makes it certain to be true. Also, under your system, would all criminals lose all rights irresepctive of the crime? For how long? How would this help the victim or society anyway?
Unfortunately the evidence does not suggest that the death penalty offers much of a deterent. Indeed if some one is committing a murder, I think the thought of death or life in prison is pretty far from their mind. Getting away with it completely is what they are thinking about.
Oh my god, Butcher Boy has turned up. 
Here we go.
OK, I’m being sloppy.
IF and when the case gets to court, there is so much tax payers money going into defending the criminal, sometimes 10’s of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money (MY MONEY) even for small cases. The victim usually gets less than 10% of any damage on goverment compensation schemes if anything at all. The criminal when convicted, often gets away with not paying anything.
There is no legal aid to a victim to claim back hours lost from work.
However, there is free legal aid fopr a criminal to have the facility to counter sue a victim should a victim harm a criminal during the course of arrest or apprehension. There is no facility for the victim to recieve free legal aid during a counter sue held by the criminal.
Sound screwed up?
Ever seen the inside of a prison? No, didn’t think so.
[quote]See above. Just because the police say that someone did something by no means makes it certain to be true. Also, under your system, would all criminals lose all rights irresepctive of the crime? For how long? How would this help the victim or society anyway?
[/quote]
I’m suggesting that the criminal has been found guilty and HAS TAKEN RIGHTS FROM ANOTHER. Lets not get over-excited, eh?
Oh well. If they’re not worried about it, let them have it. Simple.
Your hall of judicial infamy is questionable. Many people wrongly convicted are let off purely because of a technicality, not because they didn’t do it. Many cases in hindsight give the person “not guilty” because of a lack of supportive evidence, blunders or because the benefit of doubt is given as the case was fopund to be too close to call. It doesn’t necessarily mean these people are not guilty, it just means that it can’t be proven that they did it.
Would you like to compare the numbers of criminals who have got away with crimes to the number of people wrongly incarcerated?
20,000:1 perhaps? Perhaps more.
I know this was addressed to Chris, but I want to discuss your points anyways. I agree with you that the decision to carry out the death penalty does largely depend on society’s definition of civilization and barbarism. Chris has used some strong language, but I don’t think that anyone here cries himself to sleep at night because heinous criminals are still being executed in the United States. Of all the social problems facing the United States, this is pretty far down the list in my view. However, if it came down to a vote (say some kind of public referendum, like some states do carry), then I would vote no. I would do so because I think that historically, the abolition of the death penalty is a logical progression of society’s constantly evolving standards of civilization. The second reason is because of the constitutional argument I explained previously. The contradiction between the most conservative jurisdictions in the country declaring that denying medical treatment is cruel and unusual regardless of the crimes of the prisoner, while at the same time even moderate jurisdictions continue to carry out the death penalty, is just too big of a paradox for me to accept.
I realize that you don’t think ending the death penalty is a logical, or in any event desirable progression of civilization, but how do you account for the constitutional paradox?
[quote=“Dangermouse”]Oh my god, Butcher Boy has turned up. 
[/quote]
You know you love it really :flowers:
[quote=“Dangermouse”]The victim usually gets less than 10% of any damage on government compensation schemes if anything at all. The criminal when convicted, often gets away with not paying anything.
There is no legal aid to a victim to claim back hours lost from work.[/quote]
True it
[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“Dangermouse”]
Would you like to compare the numbers of criminals who have got away with crimes to the number of people wrongly incarcerated?
20,000:1 perhaps? Perhaps more.[/quote]
What is your point? That incarcerating a few innocent people is the best way of changing that statistic? Bizarre logic.[/quote]
With respect, BB, you know very well that his suggestions would not only raise the number of innocents incarcerated, but would also decrease the number of criminals who get away with it. Argue about which number would change more if you want, but c’mon… play fair. Don’t pretend that only one number would change. :no-no:
You made a number of great points in your post, but you ended it by failing to concede a very basic truth: that there is very often a trade-off between innocents who are punished and guilty who go free.
Dangermouse conceded this trade-off, and suggested that in his view the current system doesn
[quote]True it
Hi Hobbes,
Can I persuade you weigh in on the constitutional argument? I’d love to hear your take on it.
Cheers,
Gao