# Regulatory Compliance Category > General Regulatory Compliance Forum >  The Death Penalty

## lawbinded

Most people feel that the death penalty should be reinstated in South Africa due the increasing number of brutal murders during the past few years. 

Do you really think it is unconstitutional to reinstate it and if not, will it even make a difference bringing it back (bearing in mind that it would only be awarded in the most extreme circumstances)?

What do you think?  :Confused:

----------


## Dave A

*Most* people?

Has there been a survey?

----------


## Mark Atkinson

To be honest, I'm all in favor of the death penalty.  If a person rapes and murders people, I'm not sure that he deserves to live.

The only potential issue that I have with it is wrongful convictions.  If an innocent loses his life to the death penalty, then it's a different story.

Then again, who am I to decide.  :Smile:

----------


## wynn

A few years back there was an attempted murder hijacking in East London where a pregnant chick was stabbed and lost her baby but survived herself.
The boyfriends mother went apeshit in the press and organised a march demanding the death penalty be reinstated.
The day before the march her son was arrested for arranging the hit on the pregnant girlfriend as he didn't want to marry her.

So be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!!

Story reminds me of Dewani??

----------


## Martinco

> *Most* people?
> 
> Has there been a survey?


Well....what about a survey on TFSA ?  Or too controversial ?

----------


## AndyD

I don't see why it would be too controversial, it's a genuine issue that's been in the limelight for many years.

For me it's not about anything but the unreliability of the police, the chain of evidence and the fallibility of the courts in this country. There's way too much scope for wrongful convictions.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

the constitutional issues aside, one of the fundamental shortfalls of arguments favouring the death penalty is that there is no evidence, world wide, to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent.
I must agree with the issue of police capabilities and evidence etc.
My biggest reason for not allowing the death penalty (and I am neither for nor against) would be the lack of accesibility to justice. A lawyer is too expensive. hardly fair to put a man on trial for his life without proper representation at least.

As an aside, my feeling in terms of addressing crime, is not more police or stricter penalties, but a higher conviction rate. That means the prosecutors particulalry, need more resources. Criminal penalties ar emeant to be deterrent. Unless you get high convictions crime will continue. Why fear a penalty if I know my chances of being convicted, not caught, are slim!

----------

BusFact (07-Jul-11), Dave A (09-Jun-11)

----------


## lawbinded

> *Most* people?
> 
> Has there been a survey?


I have pulled up an old 2006 article. Have a look at some statistics back then. Hope this helps. Death penalty

----------


## Dave A

> Well....what about a survey on TFSA ?  Or too controversial ?


A great idea. Poll loaded.

----------


## Dave A

I'm with Anthony when it comes to reasons not to re-instate the death penalty. I don't think they should be entitled to the vote, though. If society's ability to remove a person's right to liberty can pass constitutional muster, why can't we also remove their right to vote?

My main add on the topic though is that I think there's far too much discussion on the death penalty and not enough discussion on what we are trying to achieve with imprisonment - which IMO is where the bulk of the harm is being done in our penal system. 

When last did you hear the term "rehabilitation" being discussed with passion when it comes to incarceration?

----------


## AndyD

> When last did you hear the term "rehabilitation" being discussed with passion when it comes to incarceration?


Rehabilitation is not important and incarceration or even the death penalty will do if all you want as a society is revenge.

----------


## wynn

Prisons should only be for dangerous criminals (murderers, rapists, hi-jackers, armed robbers, etc) all other long term prisoners should serve time on state farms and in workshops growing veggies and meat for hospitals, orphanages, schools etc. and making the necessary items needed in these institutions such as beds, matresses, bedding, desks, uniforms and printing books etc.

The short term convicts (more than six months) can stay at home but must work in state institutions as nurse aids, cleaners, helpers, gardeners, maintanance guys and labourers etc.

The really short term convicts would just do community service to the time they would have served (why send a person to prison for two or six months when they can do 1200 or 4320 hours service during the day if they are unemployed and the rest during evenings and weekends?)

----------


## Justloadit

Repetitive violent crime is committed by a few in the population, maintaining them alive an incarcerated, whilst it sounds as a civilized action, is an expensive way of maintaining your principle. Death penalty is a way to purge society of this unwanted criminal.

----------


## berndj

> Prisons should only be for dangerous criminals (murderers, rapists, hi-jackers, armed robbers, etc) all other long term prisoners should serve time on state farms and in workshops growing veggies and meat for hospitals, orphanages, schools etc. and making the necessary items needed in these institutions such as beds, matresses, bedding, desks, uniforms and printing books etc.


On an emotional level I like the idea of convicts doing some real hard labour, but the free market advocate in me sees subsidized business operators and market distortions.  If you get prison gangs to build roads, aren't we harming civil engineering companies?  Or if the department of correctional services rents out their prisoners as a raw labour service, aren't they undercutting honest labourers unfairly?  I recognize a few of you guys from the electrical contracting forum; how would you feel if prisons made installation electricians out of inmates and then put them to work for free, or not for free but still undercutting you because their marginal cost is near zero?

You'd have to somehow restrict this free labour to areas in which the market fails - get the convicts to do stuff that is worthwhile, but with nobody doing it because of transaction costs etc.  But how do you reliably determine which these area are?

I'm almost forced to the conclusion that the only socially just work to which one can put convicts is work that is "wasted" in a sense.  Letting them dig holes and fill them up again.  I like to think such labour would make someone think twice about doing more crime, but there's also a pointlessness to it that offends me.  We also couldn't _force_ convicts to work, as that's proscribed by the bill of rights.  I wonder if it would work if the labour were voluntary - 40% off now if you dig holes!

----------


## Dave A

> We also couldn't _force_ convicts to work, as that's proscribed by the bill of rights.  I wonder if it would work if the labour were voluntary - 40% off now if you dig holes!


Interesting idea, but I see David Cameron recently had to back-track on the idea of discounted sentences for people who pleaded guilty early in proceedings against them. What are the chances "society" would renege on the deal?

----------


## basati

Justice must prevail

----------


## tec0

Again I had a nice long post typed out and just deleted it… The truth is, in order to kill criminals you need an infallible system, secondly you would need an infrastructure that will consist of highly paid individuals schooled in law. Once the system is working then yes why not judge and execute those who did harm to others?

The truth is genocide will inevitably follow, because retribution knows no restriction. In some old world countries people are still stoned to death, burned alive there executions so violent that the fear of the pain and anguish stops criminals to act. 

However to torture a criminal is barbaric and basically pointless because as the churches of old has proven to us, if you inflict enough pain any person will confess to any crime. They will do so in hope that the suffering will end. 

I say rather remove the problem…

Crime functions on the fundamental or greed, lust and enslavement via drugs, torture and fear. By removing these elements crime will no longer have function. 

If crime can no longer provide the criminal with his/her needs then the act itself will no longer be committed.

----------


## Martinco

Come on guys and dolls......please give us a better response to this poll that 26 votes from +- 8000 members !

----------


## ColinK

casualties of war,innocent people will get unfair punishment to,dont be held back by the fact that innocent people might get convicted to death penalty because they innocent,sacrifices must be made,if it takes one innocent persons life to apply death penalty to even just 100 i say go,even if its my own family,if my brother or father or whoever gets wrongfully accused and gets death penalty u know what thats just one of those things,would u rather have 1 or 2 situations like this than to not have them at all and all this shit with rapes etc etc etc is happening,at the end of the day this is a world where we wanna feel more safe and not have this happen,how many women and children ouit there have been raped,how is that any different to death,there will allways be casualties of war,so YES to death penalty... :Smile:

----------


## johnwarner75

I dont think that we should give criminals the death penalty, although I strongly feel that they forfeit their 'Human Rights' if they take a right away from somebody else. But how do you quantify and punish that?

----------


## BusFact

I'm in agreement with Anthony on this. The death penalty is unlikely to change the crime rate much, if at all. Its the conviction rate that has to be increased.

An armed robber is unlikely to have the view: Oh well if I get caught its only 30 years in jail and not a death penalty. He simply doesn't believe he is likely to get caught.

----------


## tec0

I find it interesting that people would think that prison is working. Basically the prison today is a criminal school. When people go to prison some get’s rehabilitated others learn from other criminals how to become a better criminal. 

So the problem is not killing prisoners, it is managing prisoners. Yes it is true that the violent crimes can be punished by the death penalty and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with prisoners getting out of jail damaged, "raped" and full of hate towards humanity and that will lead up to violent crime! 

If you protect and educate the prisoner and give her/him hope for the future, value towards freedom and life they will be less willing to go and steal again because second time around they will lose more because they will actually value more.

----------


## johnwarner75

Forced hard labour would be a great deterrent and provide  ample punishment. Who knows, after time they may even rehabilitate them...

----------


## tec0

Forced hard labour? Right I would imagine the worst job imaginable then? Under a mine with nothing but a headlight and an air driven power tool to cut through a wall while everything around you can gave in at any moment or a spark of your air-tool hitting a rock can set off an explosion that would kill you. We call that normal? 

Fact is hard work is a norm and fact is people that do that type of work can die, thus punishing people with an honest day’s work, would be rather pointless because when there punishment is over, you not only showed them that the jobs they will probably get is hell, you may even convince them that they had it better being a criminal.

----------


## ColinK

Human rights???,I am sad to say that in this beautiful country of ours there is no such thing as human rights when it comes to criminals,the problem is actually population,to many people to little jobs,and the origin of most horrific crimes comes from townships,monkey see monkey do,thats just the way it is,if  they not willing to work the first time round how the hell will they the second time,how do u propose to educate that,let me put this out there,if u go to the United Arab Emirates,and u steal,they cut ur hands off,if u rape they cut ur penis off,what is the crime rate there at the moment???????????,any serious pnishment like that has proven to work.....or am i wrong?

----------


## mbsmit

Hi there,

I disagree completely with the death penalty. It is a cruel, inhuman and unusual punishment. The Constitutional Court held that there were no evidence that the death penalty had any a greater force than life imprisonment. Tell me, what would you prefer, life imprisonment or death??? Handing power of life and death over to the state? No, sir...

Also, our justice system is not ready for this, as the odds of a miscarriage of justice is to high.

Regards,
Mr Smit

----------


## mbsmit

Hi Dave,

In response to your question about their right to vote, I believe they are entitled to that right. They are put under the complete control of the government for the time of inprisonment. They should atleast have the chance to help decide who will take care of them while in prison...

Regards,
Mr Smit

----------


## Justloadit

> Hi Dave,
> 
> In response to your question about their right to vote, I believe they are entitled to that right. They are put under the complete control of the government for the time of inprisonment. They should atleast have the chance to help decide who will take care of them while in prison...
> 
> Regards,
> Mr Smit


They forfeited their right when the committed the crime. The victim can no longer vote, which means that the criminal gets a double value for his vote. You commit the crime you have no say in the government affairs - period!

When you committed the crime you had total disregard for the victim and the government, so why should the criminal have the pleasure of voting the government out.

----------


## Dave A

> In response to your question about their right to vote, I believe they are entitled to that right. They are put under the complete control of the government for the time of inprisonment. They should atleast have the chance to help decide who will take care of them while in prison...


An interesting argument, but can their judgement be trusted given that it was poor judgement that had them doing a criminal act and got them in jail in the first place?

----------


## Sparks

Why bother reinstating the death penalty if it is not going to be applied?

It'll just cost the state a lot of money in printing more useless legislation again.

----------


## wynn

Surely there are crimes that a Judge can pass the death penalty for? (premeditated gruesome cruel murder of children etc.)which under the present constitution will be substituted by life in prison until or if the death penalty is reinstated then shuffle them all through the Gallows.

----------


## tec0

> Human rights???,I am sad to say that in this beautiful country of ours there is no such thing as human rights when it comes to criminals,the problem is actually population,to many people to little jobs,and the origin of most horrific crimes comes from townships,monkey see monkey do,thats just the way it is,if  they not willing to work the first time round how the hell will they the second time,how do u propose to educate that,let me put this out there,if u go to the United Arab Emirates,and u steal,they cut ur hands off,if u rape they cut ur penis off,what is the crime rate there at the moment???????????,any serious pnishment like that has proven to work.....or am i wrong?


In all honesty torture is a very effective oppressor and is easy enough to enforce. If someone steel you cut off their hand if they rape you cut of the person's penis. What if the law gets it wrong? It happens, we have seen stories on TV of people getting the needle and a few years later they find out they kill the wrong person. 

So let's say an innocent person lost his penis, must the judge lose a ball? Or an ovary if the judge is female? Remember now this man will have no chance at having a family AND if his wife may not stay with him because of his amputation? How are you going to fix that? 

What about the other people that was involved and gave false testimony? Will they lose parts of their reproductive systems?  

See it is easy to say chop of a hand an arm or penis but what if it is an innocent person that you are about to mutilate? Keep in mind even forensic evidence can get it wrong. Then consider false evidence and or fabricated evidence.

Now you will think "ok what if the sky falls" same principal right? Wrong because what if someone dislikes you enough to claim you steel something and it is your hand that is going to be chopped off! What if you become the victim? Is it still so easy? I think not.

And that is the problem with mutilation and or death penalty. It is not the system itself because if you can implement it with 100% accuracy then I will be all for it! But what if you can only be 99.9% accurate and I am the 00.1 that is innocent but lose an arm... now that changes things dramatically.

----------


## mbsmit

> An interesting argument, but can their judgement be trusted given that it was poor judgement that had them doing a criminal act and got them in jail in the first place?


Yes, that is also a true... Well, either way, the government will be unable to A) Take away their right to vote and B :Smile:  Reinstate the death penalty noting that the Honorable Constitutional Court already made a ruling on those matters.

I wonder of the state can be held in Contempt of Court? Never heard of something like that happen. 

Well, if the state could then take away people's right to vote, by just arresting them, wouldn't it in theory allow them to just enact a bunch of bogus laws and convict all of their non-supporters and then win every election (just a idea that entered my mind)

Regards,
Mr Smit

----------


## mbsmit

Well, ColinK, you are clearly not an supporter of the system of human rights. But, remember the second paragraph of the preamble for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind". As tec0 said, what will happen in the event of a miscarriage of justice? That person will live with a hate and contempt of society, and what about your conscience?

Those countries who still make themselves guilty of gross human rights abuses, have gained my and I trust many others contempt.

Regards,
Mr Smit
[My apologies, but human rights are one of my passion's]

----------


## Dave A

> Well, if the state could then take away people's right to vote, by just arresting them, wouldn't it in theory allow them to just enact a bunch of bogus laws and convict all of their non-supporters and then win every election (just a idea that entered my mind)


If they're that way inclined, I suggest it's cheaper and easier just to rig the vote by stuffing ballot boxes.

Who was it that said "the strongest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a voter" (or something like that)?
Winston Churchill, I think.

Oh well - we have to play with the hand we're dealt with. Let's hope free and sensible citizens will always outnumber the incarcerated.

----------


## murdock

> Hi there,
> 
> I disagree completely with the death penalty. It is a cruel, inhuman and unusual punishment. The Constitutional Court held that there were no evidence that the death penalty had any a greater force than life imprisonment. Tell me, what would you prefer, life imprisonment or death??? Handing power of life and death over to the state? No, sir...
> 
> Also, our justice system is not ready for this, as the odds of a miscarriage of justice is to high.
> 
> Regards,
> Mr Smit


the difference is the cost...dead people dont cost the tax payer millions of rands...jails are over crowded...which means more money for prison...it would be more human to let a person who was imprisoned for a lesser crime to enjoy the hot shower and warm bed...in a single room instead of being gang raped every night...chance are you will ge taids in prison and die...so what is so human about that?

how many prisoners who are released...end up back in jail for mor eserious offence the second or third time?

----------


## berndj

> let me put this out there,if u go to the United Arab Emirates,and u steal,they cut ur hands off,if u rape they cut ur penis off,what is the crime rate there at the moment???????????,any serious pnishment like that has proven to work.....or am i wrong?


I can also cherry-pick my examples: Sweden, Germany, France, Iceland, Canada, Denmark. All have outlawed the death penalty (at least for murder).

Why didn't you pick Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan or Zimbabwe as your example? They each still practice the death penalty.

----------


## Sparks

The latest in the actual administering of the death penalty:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/Death_Penalty1.pps

Be sure to turn up your sound first

----------


## tec0

Sparks Well there is that... eeeeeeeeeeeew

Brings to mind a singer that got high on sniffing his own "excrement" or rather taking in the fumes and finally died with his head in the toilet. Sad story really... What people would do to get high is astounding. 

In all honesty if the law could convict without error, I would condone the death penalty. That said our law system needs some work before we can say it is perfect because it needs to be perfect when it comes to justifying mutilation and or death. 

Sadly an unborn are subject to being aborted by means of mutilation and dismemberment without even committing a crime. It is justified because it is speculated that it has no feeling in that stage of development. It is still a human life being taken in the name of convenience. Thus I cannot support the hundreds of abortion clinics opening all over the place. Going price range from R75 to R250. Or so it is advertised on almost every wall in our down town aria. 

So in a way it is ok for an innocent child to die, but it is considered inhumane to give a "possible" criminal the death penalty. So what exactly is the message? I don't know...

----------


## Sparks

Remember we are in SA. Just heard on the radio that an awaiting trial prisoner escaped from the court house on crutches   Now I need the "rolling on the floor laughing" emoticon from skype  :Smile: 
What are the chances of the death penalty actually being carried out?
The criminals will rather be pardoned for Christmas/New Year

----------


## tec0

Well in our aria more police officers cot sacked because our mayor wanted a new car... Or that is the story because after the order was given he got one. the real funny thing is we are a "city" and we have 4 active patrol cars for the city...

----------


## gac

I have absolutely no reservations in adding my YES vote. It should never have been scrapped in the 1st place and whether it has acted as a deterrent or not is besides the point in my humble opinion. 

For people who commit a heinuous violent crime - death of another, rape and maybe 1 or 2 other, and who are judged to have known what they were doing at the time, there can be ONLY 1 outcome. Death. End of Story.

Why must the innocent (society at large) carry the financial burden, penalty if you will, for keeping violent perpetrators alive. Where is the justice and fairness in that? 

Whether the death sentence does or doesnt lead to a reduction in violent crimes is a separate issue for a different debate. 
In any event my logic tells me that there is a better chance of reducing violent crime with a death penalty available than without it. How do I accept otherwise? 

If you're one who argues against the death penalty then please attempt to convince me why I should change my thinking. You can gladly take on my share of paying criminals to do these violent crimes.

----------


## tec0

> If you're one who argues against the death penalty then please attempt to convince me why I should change my thinking. You can gladly take on my share of paying criminals to do these violent crimes.


I am not going to convince you to change your mind. Here is the thing on TV they show forensic work to be 100% all the time. The reality is if a human is involved in the testing and logging of evidence then mistakes can be made. 

In real high profile cases we have seen on TV that evidence can indeed be planted and or removed due to the human operator. Knowing this and it was your life hanging in the balance would you still be adamant that the death penalty must be implemented? 

The conviction process is fallible, and because it is fallible you cannot allow for a life to be taken. That said if the evidence is infallible and 100% then yes bring in the death penalty. 

Remember taking an innocent life is also murder. Thus every person responsible for her/his death must then also be convicted of murder and conspiracy. This will include the judge, lab technician and the investigator. 

To be 99.9% accurate is simply not good enough to allow for the death penalty. You need to be 100% accurate and our technology is simply not good enough.

----------


## Justloadit

So I must pay taxes to maintain 999 murderers alive of every 1000, no wonder there is no money left to maintain the countries infrastructure. 

Let's drive ourselves into poverty to keep our conscience clean then, so that I can sleep at night knowing that maybe one day I will figure out which one is innocent, and when we can no longer afford to keep them locked up, we can simply just release them because just maybe may just be innocent, after all they could be one of the 0.01% that are innocent.

This discussion is going to go nowhere. Each one of us has our own reason for this decision. If a referendum were taken, the true feeling of society would arise. Once you have been a victim of a horrendous crime, your attitude to the death penalty changes, irrespective of the just in case that single one person out of every thousand may just be innocent.

----------


## Justloadit

For a judge knowing that there is no death sentence, will make him make his decision of guilty far easier if the facts are not fully there, as he knows, that if he has made an error in judgment, then maybe the sentence could be reversed, however on the other hand, if the defendant's life is dependent on the judges final decision, it will ensure the judge takes the evidence and very carefully analize it before making his final decision.

----------


## wynn

The courts should just find the guilt or innocence of the party, the agrieved victim or their family should decide the punishment!! or what?

----------


## Citizen X

1. Herein lies the problem: The Constitution is the supreme law of SA, any law or conduct that is inconsistent with it will be declared invalid. In the bill of rights section 11 provides that everyone has the right to life. Section 12(1)(e) provides that everyone has the right not to be punished in a cruel , inhumane or degrading manner.
capital punishment had it's home in the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977(Act still exists but has been amended an certain sections repealed. On 6 June 1995 the Constitutional Court abolished the death penalty.
2. The leading case is S v Makwanyane
3. My 2 cents: I don't belive the death penalty to be a deterent to crime. We have drug mules who go to other countries smuggling drugs with full knowledge that if they caught they will be executed in those countries but drug mule activity is on the increase especially in countries where the penalty for such crime is execution!

----------


## tec0

Ok you where at home and someone just walks in and accuse you of something you didn't do. Now out of the blue they got DNA evidence so perfect that the judge can see no fault with it. You get the death sentence and a few months later your neck gets broken by a piece of rope… 

On revision it is found that oops you are innocent and the perfect evidence was planted because someone liked your pot-plant more then you did and he/she figured out how to use the system to get you out of the way to get to your pot-plant. 

Now you will say this is BS and fictional and this type of crap don't happen in real life!!! Right!!! Wrong modern DNA saved over a 100 lives of people accused of committing murder. They were innocent. Sadly a lot more wasn't saved in time. So it happens… That is fact not fiction. 

The fiction part is you believing the judge is an educated doctor, biological engineer… the list goes on. Fact is he/she only has "credibility of evidence" to go on and "expert witnesses" to listen too. He/she has no choice but to accept their word…

Now using RF- tracker technology a device can be planted into the spine so that it cannot be removed and the criminal can go back outside and work for her/his own food and so on. If he/she crosses the line again one can react because he/she cannot run or hide anymore. 

The other criminals that are too dangerous to let go can be executed based on just that. They are too dangerous. You are not making them guilty of murder. No... You identify them based on basic observation done while imprisoned. The fact that they will hurt others can be seen. One can then structure a law around that aspect. That way you can execute without worrying about getting it wrong…

There observed "recorded" behaviour will allow the law to identify the problem and structure a law that will allow the judge to forfeit this person's right to life. 

Because the evidence was recorded and collected in a controlled aria it will have a higher value then evidence collected else-ware.    

I am not saying the death penalty is bad… I am saying you have to get infallible evidence. Having a controlled environment to collect data is the best known way to do it.

----------


## Justloadit

Ha you are talking again 1 in a 1000 again. No mater how many examples you cite, you are not going to change my mind. As I said before, once you have been a victim of crime, you will not stand and usher your 1 in a thousand scenario. We are not talking here of petty theft, the cases in which the death penalty should be applied, a laymen could make the decision based on the presented facts. There is more than just a single person who has admitted evidence.

----------


## Blurock

Shame, the poor murderers and serial killers who kill and rape repeatedly. We should not be too harsh on them because they have human rights. :Whistling: 

Yes, they do. They have a right to a fair trial and it should be proven beyond a doubt (not circumstantial evidence) that they are guilty. But when you commit a crime, you lose some of your rights. You lose the right to freedom, you lose the right to choose. In the worst cases you should also lose the right to live.

There are too many instances where serial rapists or killers are let lose on society as proven by successful claims against the state. The innocents have human rights too and they have the right to be protected! :Batman:

----------


## tec0

Ag if only one could read hey… If you actually took the time and read then you would see that what I am suggesting can be done on today's system. A petty criminal gets an RF-tracker and it is game over for her/him. The actual killer or rapist gets imprisoned with the evidence given in court.

Then once in prison her/his every move is watched and evaluated. If it is found that this person will remain a danger then the evidence collected while imprisoned will be used to sentence them to death. 

That way you remove the real criminal based on facts only. That is what I am suggesting. 

As for being touched by crime… I understand that more then you may realise.

----------


## Blurock

Hi tecO, not so sure if your suggestion is practical. They may be out on medical grounds in no time to play golf with their shakin' selebate friends.  :Whistling:

----------


## gac

I'm willing to take a 1 in 1000 chance of being found guilty of something I didnt do. In fact I would be willing to accept shorter odds of 1 in 500. 

I am also quite OK with the courts reserving the right to decide whether the death penalty is justified or, in cases of extenuating circumstances, an alternative sentence  may be more appropriate. Of course the decision to terminate a life would require overwhelming evidence and of course the courts would need to be very sure that they have accurate facts before them. The chance of a poor case being presented to the court is hardly a rational argument for maintaining the status quo. 

We are talking about the death penalty for the worst crimes - murder & possibly violent rape which my little peanut says deserves the worst possible punishment. 
And giving someone a free holiday in prison at my expense is not a punishment on them, its a punishment on me that I am not willing to accept. If anything, for most impoverished citiziens of our country, spending time inside is far better than spending time outside so where is the deterrent in this? 

Yes there is a Constitution, which doesnt allow for the death penalty and it could not be reintroduced without the Constitution being changed. I'm of the view that there must be a limit to the right to life and that that right is forfeited when you take the life of another. And please tell me how my Constitutional rights are protected when I have to pay for a muderer to continue living.

Bring back the Death Penalty!

----------


## berndj

> So I must pay taxes to maintain 999 murderers alive of every 1000, no wonder there is no money left to maintain the countries infrastructure.


Non sequitur. The cost of keeping alive those prisoners who, in any remotely sane society, would have been sentenced to death if it were allowed, is simply a drop in the ocean. If it's money you think we're short of, rather look at frigates, submarines and pet megaprojects.




> If a referendum were taken, the true feeling of society would arise. Once you have been a victim of a horrendous crime, your attitude to the death penalty changes, irrespective of the just in case that single one person out of every thousand may just be innocent.


What does it do to your attitude when you or one of your loved ones get even "only" arrested for a crime they did not commit?

Speaking of that "once you have been a victim" line of thought, what I've never understood is how south africans have such a great fear of murder, but nearly none about driving on our roads. But you're about as likely to die in a car crash as you are to die by homicide. So there's a bit of an incongruency between expressed attitudes wrt personal safety and practical choices: we fear violent crime but think nothing of driving aggressively. Personally I think most of the crime phobia is bunk - it's just an outlet for our latent racism that is now repressed due to its being socially proscribed. You can hear echos of it in the "they" whom we blame for the "terrible crime situation" with our beer can in the hand around the braai fire.

----------


## berndj

> I'm willing to take a 1 in 1000 chance of being found guilty of something I didnt do. In fact I would be willing to accept shorter odds of 1 in 500.


Yeah, sure you are. Hey let's test your resolve: please supply your name and physical address, and we'll "report" you for some criminal activity via CrimeLine (apparently tips phoned in there bypass the usual due process). Then we'll see if you sing the same tune after the police come and raid you in the middle of the night. Come on, it's only a little raid, what harm can it do? Nothing even nearly like sentencing you to death.




> We are talking about the death penalty for the worst crimes - murder & possibly violent rape which my little peanut says deserves the worst possible punishment. 
> And giving someone a free holiday in prison at my expense is not a punishment on them, its a punishment on me that I am not willing to accept. If anything, for most impoverished citiziens of our country, spending time inside is far better than spending time outside so where is the deterrent in this?


I think your little peanut is only reflecting daddy's/mommy's values, i'm afraid. Ask again in a few years when s/he has had time to form his/her own opinions.

Maybe you should go visit a prison before you glibly refer to it as a "holiday". And let's not bring deterrence into this because the death penalty has nothing to do with effective deterrence anywhere other than in the revenge fantasies of actual or would-be victims.




> Yes there is a Constitution, which doesnt allow for the death penalty and it could not be reintroduced without the Constitution being changed. I'm of the view that there must be a limit to the right to life and that that right is forfeited when you take the life of another. And please tell me how my Constitutional rights are protected when I have to pay for a muderer to continue living.


Maybe we could discuss more productively how your rights are protected if you named a specific right that you claim to be violated by having murderers continue living at taxpayer expense? Please, don't be shy with detail. Quote chapter and verse if you can.

----------


## wynn

Well here is an article from the M&G on the acidental death of a drug mule

"Police arrested the 48-year-old man at the Johannesburg airport on Christmas Day, and took him to a nearby hospital after an x-ray picked up foreign material in his stomach.

"The close check by the police yielded results when during excretion he let off plastic containers that had liquid cocaine. Yesterday, January 2, the man collapsed and later passed away," said a police statement.

"Current diagnosis indicate a heart attack due to drug overdose. The value of the cocaine will be determined in due course."

Maybe this is the answer for those transporting drugs internally, feed them something that will rupture the containers???

----------


## Dave A

> Personally I think most of the crime phobia is bunk - it's just an outlet for our latent racism that is now repressed due to its being socially proscribed.


 :Hmmm:  Deflection - normally a strategy employed when the speaker considers his/her own argument to be a bit weak.

Personally I thought you were doing OK.

----------


## Justloadit

> Speaking of that "once you have been a victim" line of thought, what I've never understood is how south africans have such a great fear of murder, but nearly none about driving on our roads. But you're about as likely to die in a car crash as you are to die by homicide. So there's a bit of an incongruency between expressed attitudes wrt personal safety and practical choices: we fear violent crime but think nothing of driving aggressively. Personally I think most of the crime phobia is bunk - it's just an outlet for our latent racism that is now repressed due to its being socially proscribed. You can hear echos of it in the "they" whom we blame for the "terrible crime situation" with our beer can in the hand around the braai fire.


Interesting in all my driving career my family may each have had an accident, however each member of my family, except for my daughters, have been in a violent crime involving fire arms, my father in law pistol whipped, my brother in law shot with a 9mm on the one occasion missing his lung and heart fortunately, my mother in law and sister in law and little ones, both tied up while they ransacked their houses, my wife held up at gun point as she entered her business premises, my self held up by 4 youths branding firearms and threatening to blow my brains out.

So do not come and tell me about victim of crime, I have been there and have experienced the helplessness and ugliness of the situation, with psychological trauma and  all.

When you have experienced this type of trauma, believe you me, just a tiny sound places you on edge, and many occasions, a sound, a smell or  similar event to what you experienced on that fateful day, makes you relive the whole ordeal again. 

I standby my beliefs, death penalty for violent crimes of murder, premeditated murder and violent rape.Right now prisoners serving lifetime sentences for these crimes, have not been relieved of their sentences because there was some problem in the evidence. If you consider the number of murders per day, and the so called innocently convicted murderers, the numbers can not even compute.

The death sentence is not a deterrent, it is rather an action to cull these unwanted so called human beings from society, so that their gene has no chance of being passed on, and procreating more violent off spring.

----------


## tec0

> Hi tecO, not so sure if your suggestion is practical. They may be out on medical grounds in no time to play golf with their shakin' selebate friends.


With the new system emplace the violent criminal will have no chance in ever getting out. The same damming evidence that would have given the criminal the death penalty will make sure of this. The petty criminal gets out on the same day with a RF-Tracker implanted in her/him… So no more prison vacations… 

The violent criminal has two choices 1 is he/she becomes a model prisoner and stays alive. Or they continue with their violent ways and end up facing the death penalty. There is no getting away with it or playing Golf. 

The first set of collected evidence puts them in prison for life. The second set of evidence collected while imprisoned gets them the death penalty. This way one can eliminate prison violence. And even get the prisoners to work for their own keep.

----------


## Blurock

> And even get the prisoners to work for their own keep.


This is something that has always bugged me. I know that some prisoners use their time to study and obtain degrees etc. The majority however sit and plot their next crime or plan gang related activities. They also get paid an allowance and are enjoying many privileges such as watching TV. Boredom appears to be a big issue.

Should their rehabilitation not include improving their self-esteem? What about providing them with jobs in prison? Let them earn their keep and at the same time learn some skills. I know that years ago they were making their own shoes and clothes and also learnt some crafts and art. I do not think it still applies.

----------

tec0 (04-Jan-12)

----------


## tec0

That is exactly it Blurock, 

See my suggestion points to the fact that if they misbehave they get the death penalty. So in order to survive they need to step it up and become model prisoners. Now these model prisoners can then be used in moderate fabrication of goods or even fix our roads.

If they plan to do something stupid and indeed do something stupid they face execution.  That is why this will work.  They have nothing to lose accept the one thing they hold value too there life. Not only can they not commit violence while in prison escaping will also not be an option.  

And we can get them to pay for their own prison… This is why I say it is an ideal solution. All we need is an RF-tracker infrastructure add a few new laws and that is it. Violent offenders can then do 1 of 2 things. One is to face execution two is to become a public servant and get paid.

It is a failsafe way to deal with violent offenders and to take the strain of the public to pay for it all. It simply will work.

----------


## gac

Berndj - your 2.04 AM post refers

Lets keep the debate within the context of the topic – the death penalty. 

I am still willing to take on the odds to bring back the Death Penalty and can’t see how one would be any worse off than the current situation. I did qualify my comment so please read the whole paragraph to keep the point in context. 

With regards your “daddy's/mommy's values” chirp, you should know better than stooping this low in a debate. 

I have an old acquaintance who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for sexually molesting and attempting to rape the 12 year old daughter of another mutual friend. Through the visits of those closer to him than I, I have some insight to prison life and it isn’t the hell you seem to be suggesting it is. He has spent the last 4 years on a Prison Farm in the countryside, doing woodwork, repairing machines, watching lots of telly and living very well. Furthermore he is up for parole in 2012 after serving half his “sentence”.  Do you have any beloved daughters he can hang out with when he is released? 

If I changed the word “free holiday” to “free passage” would that enable you to at least consider the point being made. I’m happy to hear your views on why I should be punished by having to involuntarily carry the financial burden of keeping a murderer alive. 

With respect to the deterrent issue, afraid I do not believe for a single second that the death penalty is not a deterrent. My logic suggests that if I place the 2 alongside each other – death penalty vs no death penalty, there is no way that they both flatline on the should I/shouldn’t I part of the normal human brain. Based on that reasonable deduction I’m thinking that a normal being would think at least twice before making a murder decision. I’m also thinking that if enough people are put to death we will reach a point where it will become a stronger deterrent. We can debate how much of a deterrent, but can’t agree that the death penalty isn’t one.

I conceed that there is no Constitutional right that is being infringed by keeping murderers alive at my expense. I guess I should rather have said there should be one. Apologies for my misguided comment.

Berndj, I would be very willing to read and consider your argument on this matter but please substantiate your points a bit more, rather than attack the views of others.

----------


## berndj

> I am still willing to take on the odds to bring back the Death Penalty and can’t see how one would be any worse off than the current situation. I did qualify my comment so please read the whole paragraph to keep the point in context.


We'll have to agree to differ. I still think you'd change your tune very quickly if you were personally affected by the problem of wrongful arrest / incarceration / death penalty.




> With regards your “daddy's/mommy's values” chirp, you should know better than stooping this low in a debate.


Then don't bring it up!




> I have an old acquaintance who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for sexually molesting and attempting to rape the 12 year old daughter of another mutual friend. Through the visits of those closer to him than I, I have some insight to prison life and it isn’t the hell you seem to be suggesting it is. He has spent the last 4 years on a Prison Farm in the countryside, doing woodwork, repairing machines, watching lots of telly and living very well. Furthermore he is up for parole in 2012 after serving half his “sentence”.  Do you have any beloved daughters he can hang out with when he is released?
> 
> If I changed the word “free holiday” to “free passage” would that enable you to at least consider the point being made. I’m happy to hear your views on why I should be punished by having to involuntarily carry the financial burden of keeping a murderer alive.


I don't have any daughters. I don't know about countryside jails, but I'd rather see to it that I stay out of Pollsmoor. Somehow I expect that the people who get sent to the cushy comfy jails that you parade as this "free passage" are not the ones who would get the death penalty in any remotely sane society.




> With respect to the deterrent issue, afraid I do not believe for a single second that the death penalty is not a deterrent. My logic suggests that if I place the 2 alongside each other – death penalty vs no death penalty, there is no way that they both flatline on the should I/shouldn’t I part of the normal human brain. Based on that reasonable deduction I’m thinking that a normal being would think at least twice before making a murder decision. I’m also thinking that if enough people are put to death we will reach a point where it will become a stronger deterrent. We can debate how much of a deterrent, but can’t agree that the death penalty isn’t one.


I have the same "logical" intuitions as you do, but AFAICT they just aren't borne out by the facts. Since drug mules have entered the discussion, why are people choosing to take drugs to China et al and not to, say, Sweden? I think the problem with the intuitionistic approach is that separating out the presence or absence of the death penalty independently of all other factors is impossible. You can't allow the death penalty without also becoming a more violent and retributive culture in general, for example.




> Berndj, I would be very willing to read and consider your argument on this matter but please substantiate your points a bit more, rather than attack the views of others.


Let's start here: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publicatio...093/P03093.pdf Look at tables 4.12-4.14 and 4.15 - compare "Transport accidents" with "Assault" as non-natural causes of death. The numbers in that publication seem sane compared to my experience of living here in Cape Town. In fact my little anecdote is that the only time anyone has assaulted me, it was in my youthful folly when i expressed disapproval towards some driver who whooshed over the stop street i was crossing. I touched his car, and in his moral calculus the appropriate response was to get out and slap me in the face a few times. No permanent injuries and only a broken watch wristband, but it's an illustration of how aggressive we are as a nation of motorists. We could all probably halve our chances of non-natural death simply by driving more carefully and getting drunk less often.

----------


## gac

There truly is nothing wrong about holding different views but what is important in my humble opinion is to try and find a balanced middle ground, i.e. one where the best of both extremes comes together for the good of all. However in this instance it is pretty difficult to expect a middle ground given the answer to the question is either yes or no.

For reasons already offered and in the absence of solid counter argument I'm still no closer to changing my view on the death penalty. Am unreservedly willing to consider sunstantiated debate against bringing back the death penalty.

----------


## tec0

The truth to this topic is, one MUST look at new technologies to solve crime. The old systems failed this much is fact. 

If you wish to have a "Stone-Age" approach to a growing problem you will get "Stone-Age" results. Jails dont work Humanity has used jails for over 100 years now and crime grew regardless. In the past 30 years we have seen an explosion in violent crimes and criminals not fearing the justice system anymore.

Face the facts, we need new technologies and new laws to implement these technologies.

----------


## Dave A

> You can't allow the death penalty without also becoming a more violent and retributive culture in general, for example.


I see this as one of the stronger points in arguing against the death penalty.

Society evolves. Norms change, and hopefully towards a more civilised, less barbaric society. Re-introducing the death penalty would be a step backwards as it would escalate the mean level of brutality within society.

I suggest re-introduction of the death penalty would only be justifiable if it was clear the murder rate was spiralling out of control.
And even then, I'd suggest the first step would be to look at society and try to determine the social factors driving such a trend and trying to address those first.

I also have to ask of those who argue for acceptable losses to error - which is worse: 

1. some innocents losing their lives to convicted murderers who somehow got back into society because we didn't have the death penalty
2. or some innocents being erroneously convicted and slaughtered by "justice"?

----------


## Blurock

> The truth to this topic is, one MUST look at new technologies to solve crime. The old systems failed this much is fact. 
> 
> If you wish to have a "Stone-Age" approach to a growing problem you will get "Stone-Age" results. Jails dont work Humanity has used jails for over 100 years now and crime grew regardless. In the past 30 years we have seen an explosion in violent crimes and criminals not fearing the justice system anymore.


Pity that there are no penal colonies or unoccupied islands where we can send the criminals like the Brits used to send their "dregs of society" to Australia. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  (there's no icon for tongue-in-cheek or stirring)

The problem is that law enforcement is ineffective. The majority of officials are too lazy to do their job and when a case eventually gets to court, the conviction rate is so low that the law is no longer a deterrent. Criminals are brazenly applying their trade knowing that the odds on conviction is limited. 

We as citizens add to this by our disrespect of the law which starts with small things such as parking offences. How many times do you see healthy people park in bays reserved for the disabled? No respect for other people - that's where it starts. :Batman:

----------


## mbsmit

Good morning!

This is a real nice debate going on here - and one real close to my heart! Sorry, I have been away on holiday and could not get near my laptop (wife...). Lets get started with my own personal view: I would never (never!) support the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment. 

In the Constitutional Court case that had the death penalty abolished, the learned Justices held that there was no evidence that the death penalty was in any way a greater deterrent than life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Life imprisonment serves the main purposes of sentencing well. It keeps offenders out of society (thereby preventing future offenses), and serves as a good form of punishment (permanent loss of right to liberty).

The death penalty, in my opinion is no better (or for the offenders, worse), than life imprisonment. Life imprisonment causes them to loose out on life, and face the violence in our prisons for the rest of their life. While the death penalty causes them to loose out of life (by dying). Currently, one might suggest that the death penalty is perhaps better than life imprisonment (given the state in our prisons).

But anyways - good debate guys.

Regards

----------


## gac

You need to add your NO vote to the poll mbsmit.

I truly do respect the integrity of the ConCourt and applaud their resolve thus far in virtually every single decision of theirs that I am aware of, except this one. 
I also understand that they base decisions on being able to justify them with factual argument. 

What evidence would be accepted as confirming that the Death Penalty is a deterrent?
On what statistical/other information did this matter fail to convince the ConCourt?
What does the murder rate statistic reflect since the abolishment of the death penalty? 
Anyone out there who can shed some light?


There remains 2 fundamentally huge unsatisfied issues for me to swing my vote against reintroducing the death penalty:
1. it makes no common sense that the death penalty is not a deterrent (the fact that there is no scientific proof/evidence doesnt negate what logic suggests)
2. why should society be punished, through having to carry the financial burden of a murderer being kept alive in prison?


Another thing making it difficult for me to consider changing my vote is that the Poll, albeit still a very small one number wise but mirrors all discussions I have ever heard, at the top of this debate still suggests overwhelmingly that respondents are in favour of reintroduction.

----------


## gac

Sunday Tribune Jan 8, page 20 "Monster husband was 'friend' to all", if the story is true, is a prime example in my view of somebody who has forfeited their right to life by mudering his step son in front of the boys mother (his estranged wife) and then instructing her gang rape. This guy is on the run, so clearly knows he hasa done something terrible. 

And according to the "Right to Life" thinking, society is expected to find the remainder of his life in prison. GET REAL!!!

On page 20 of the same newspaper is a letter from a Mr Narendh Ganesh articulating a well strucutured argument about the Death Penalty.

Bring back the death penalty QUICK!

----------


## gac

Apologies make that "... fund the remainder of his life ..."

----------


## Justloadit

We must stop having any emotional pity for these murderers. 

*We are very quick to forget the victim, as they are here no longer to shout out their plea*. 

Only the close family and friends are the ones that carry the trauma and the pain of the senseless murder for the rest of their lives. Especially around birthdays and other family get together days.

The arguments rarely talk about the victims original right to life, only the convicted murderer's right to life.

----------


## Dave A

So are you suggesting having the death penalty would have prevented this from happening?

----------


## gac

Who are you asking DaveA?
My answer is probably not in this instance.

----------


## Dave A

> Who are you asking DaveA?


Narrowly, those who support a death penalty in this specific instance - but broadly anyone who has an opinion on the question, I guess.
I can always cross-check and tie up the two.

For the record, my hunch is the presence of the death penalty wouldn't have prevented it.

----------


## Justloadit

Hi Dave,

I second your opinion. The question, do we want people like this in our society? and are you prepared to support the cost of keeping a person like this alive till the day they die naturally? and remember part of the maintenance is full medical, irrespective of what it is. I wonder if you would get the same medical treatment.

----------


## AndyD

So you're arguement in favour of the death penalty is down to the cost of keeping prisoners?

----------


## mbsmit

> Narrowly, those who support a death penalty in this specific instance - but broadly anyone who has an opinion on the question, I guess.
> I can always cross-check and tie up the two.
> 
> For the record, my hunch is the presence of the death penalty wouldn't have prevented it.


Hi Dave A,

I agree 100% with your hunch. I also note that the strongest argument in favor of the death penalty is the the body of revenge and deterrence. In my opinion, murder (in cases of this nature) was likely the cause of some form of psychosis. It is ipso facto clear that the alleged murderer had nothing to gain from killing the deceased - so why kill? It could only be the result of some mental disorder.

If murder was the result of a mental disorder (or in the case of a robbery, et cetera in which the killing was not the primary intent but came as a result of random chance) the killing was not planned nor could be prevented by knowing the legal penalties involved.

Most brutal murders (in which torture may have taken part) would not likely be perpetrated by a person who is of sound mind and who has taken the law into full consideration. In a quick Google Search to find statistics, I found a nice page which can be found here: http://www.indiatogether.org/combatl.../deathmyth.htm

The above site deals mostly with the USA yet I think that is can be applied ex post facto to South Africa as well. Also, research conducted pre and post the abolishment of the death penalty was clear in that the death penalty is not a greater deterrent to crime - it might even increase murder cases by scoping a more violent and brutal society.

So, I still regard the death penalty barbaric and inhumane and my vote remains a big NO. Well again, this is a very interesting debate. Oh, and please - do not interpret my con-death penalty attitude to be insensitive to the family mentioned earlier - I firmly believe that the murderer must be brought to justice and his crime punished.

Kind Regards

----------


## Justloadit

> So you're arguement in favour of the death penalty is down to the cost of keeping prisoners?


Ultimately - Yes - for those who have no place in society. They can never be rehabilitated and released, and are a cancer to society. 

Telling me it is barbaric to to apply the death penalty is more humane than maintaining someone closed up in a small cell for the rest of his life and watching him agonizingly become insane, to me is even more barbaric, as it shows a society with a physiological disorder in taking pleasure in someone else's continuous suffering, disguising it as "humane".

----------


## gac

In researching this topic on the Internet (Google) I have found numerous informative articles - just type in "death penalty arguments" to find them. 
A lot of the points, both for and against, that we have debated are covered quite well and it might prove very useful for all of us to spend some time reading through these.

Have a great day.

----------

Blurock (11-Jan-12)

----------


## gac

Having read the plethora of research on this subject on the internet I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no compelling argument either way. There are good and bad points on both sides of the fence,so its not an argument that can easily be won by either camp. 

So I'm now at the point where I'm considering whether my stance on the matter:
Is serious violent crime (murder and possibly rape) the problem I have always thought it is? 
Is it really terrible enough to deserve the death penalty?
Am I merely an indivdual with a deep subconcious appetite for violence to be thinking it does?
In thinking such, am I actually contributing to the rate of murder and rape?
Should I rather adopt an attitude of forgiveness and just accept that its OK for me to contribute towards the financial maintenance of murderers and rapists

I've thought about it long and hard and with all due respect to everyone who thinks differently and chooses to accept the anti-death penalty movement, I still feel that making someone swing when found irrefutably guilty is the right thing to do.

In addition, if the death penalty is not the ulimate punishment and deterrent what is?

----------


## Justloadit

A bully keeps on getting away until the day he gets a 'warm klap', then he is a bully no more. Simple but true. Need I say more. The Death penalty may not be a deterrent to a few, but it is to a majority. There is always an exception to the rule, however the punishment in the majority of cases will deter the crime, and is this not the aim of punishment?

----------


## mbsmit

Good morning :-)!

Yes, a debate regarding the death penalty is rather pointless. It's like debating which tastes best - apple or pear! I think that life imprisonment will have exactly the same deterrence effect.

Have a great day!

----------


## Justloadit

> I think that life imprisonment will have exactly the same deterrence effect.


Ja, but it leaves a little window open to still do the evil deed, I can take a chance at getting away with it and still be alive.

----------


## wynn

Castration and a lobotomy for rapists, a parachute drop onto Gough Island for murderers, let them look after themselves.

'But what about guys accused of rape by woman suffering remorse the following day?' I hear you say.  Punish false accusers by making them work in a massage parlour  :Big Grin:

----------


## tec0

I don't get it to be honest; it is taboo to legalize suicide because people will self-terminate for many reasons. These reasons include ill health, disability, suffering, emotional-upset and basic-circumstances such as poverty.  

Now if there is a law that allows for self-termination that is easy and painless then I believe there will be a change in how people live and how they are prepared to live. Sadly because it is a taboo subject people don't give it much thought.

Secondly is the death penalty… The argument is both emotional and economical. If you are a victim of a crime or perhaps a loved one was victim then yes the justification is there. Economical justification is just as simple, why give someone a free ride if he/she did something terrible? 

In order for the death penalty to be accepted one must accept legalized suicide for the exact same reasons. It is cost effective and it is an emotional justification. I say this because in the end it is about the human rights aspect. If a free thinking human has the right to self terminate then the law can also enforce the same right towards criminals.  

This eliminate the aspect of discrimination against  prisoners only.  I know it sounds stupid but the fact is ALL humans needs to have the same rights then only can it be just. If not then prisoners will always scream "human rights this and human rights that" you will never get around it unless you make it everyone's right.

----------


## gac

I dont understand the point yu're making at all!

There is a HUGE diferrence between someone who wants to terminate their own life, many do anyway and dont need permission from the law to do so and someone who has committed murder and/or rape. 

I'm all for equal right to life but believe that that is forfeited when the life of another is taken

----------


## Dave A

Where the law stands on self-euthanasia and suicide is probably a moot point - there's not much to be gained (other than ridicule) by prosecuting the corpse.

There is some merit in linking assisted suicide though (which is illegal here BTW). I've argued before that if you allow abortions, in principle you should also allow assisted suicide when the motive is relief from suffering. This link on Jack Kevorkian will be worth a read once Wikipedia has ended their blackout.

----------


## tec0

> I dont understand the point yu're making at all!
> 
> There is a HUGE diferrence between someone who wants to terminate their own life, many do anyway and dont need permission from the law to do so and someone who has committed murder and/or rape. 
> 
> I'm all for equal right to life but believe that that is forfeited when the life of another is taken


It removes the prisoner's argument, by justifying and legalizing self termination you remove the "inhumane argument" and allow for "justification" and will go forth to change our "laws" to "accept" termination of life as both a right and an enforceable right toward prisoners fitting of the punishment. 

Abortion is legal and that is just a termination of a premature life. It is allowed by law as it is regulated responsibly "in most cases". Self termination if made a right and is allowed by law will become a norm. 

Once it is a norm then prisoners can no longer claim discrimination that is the point I was trying to make.

----------


## gac

Ok thanks, I think I gotcha.

What do the "right to life" chaps say about**:

1. the Lawyer who cut open a pregnant womens stomach, ripped her baby out and left her to die. Clearly she is a sick woman with a twisted mind but regardless, deserves the death penalty.

2. And Johan Kotze the Modimolle Killer?

----------

