First, just a few caveats.
People who do really terrible things almost always have a psychiatric condition.Hormonal, neurological and environmental factors can be the basis for this individually or in combination. In the brains of criminals, other structures and functionalities have been established than in those of non-criminals. Hormones also have a major impact on our actions. If you nurture a child without love and empathy, chances are that such a child is developing little social feelings and a limited conscience.
All five recognised means of proof in criminal law, namely
- Statements of the suspect (for example, a confession),
- Testimonies of witnesses,
- Declarations of experts,
- Written documents (such as an official report),
- Perception of the judge
A photo, video or sound recording can be edited and/or misinterpreted.Police officers can consciously or unconsciously tell untruth. Blood and DNA samples and fingerprints may be exchanged or misinterpreted or separate from the offence. Not only is it, of everything, actually come to be established that they have led to unjustified convictions.
In 1969, the death penalty was taken from ordinary criminal law in England; In 1998 for all cases in peacetime.One of the reasons was that a disturbing number of executions afterwards proved unjustifiably, because still the actual perpetrator became obsolete and well-known. Since the availability of DNA tests, it has been found that, counting from 2017, 159 sentenced to death in the US (but not yet executed) by DNA or other evidence still proved to be innocent.
Often there is so much time between condemnation and execution that you have to ask yourself seriously whether the person who has to undergo the punishment is still the same as the one who committed the offence.
So even if I would find some deeds so gruesome that an offender has forfeited the right to live further, there are still good reasons to be very reluctant with definitive and irrevocable penalties.
Imputability to the perpetrator at the time of his deed and the irrebuttal of the evidence are almost never to be determined by one hundred percent.
Does that mean everything that I never think: 鈧?艙kapostshooting is still too easy for such a 鈧?No, but we are given reason to understand that emotions cannot form the basis of our criminal law. You have to take this into account, but you should not let it reign.
Being a judge is already an incredibly difficult profession.Also judges make mistakes. Let’s not (again) saddle them up with the possibility to make unrecoverable mistakes.
I’m really not blind to the fact that even someone for a long time robbing his freedom and good name are in some way irreparable, but we can at least try it.
I am opposed to the death penalty, but not 100%.I think that the death penalty for the worst war criminals in Nuremberg and later Eichmann was the only possible punishment.
The death penalty is a religious punishment, which assumes that the punishment proceeds in the hereafter (the detain goes to hell for his sins).It is also a punishment based on revenge; An eye for an eye and so on.
A lifelong cell punishment lasts in any case longer, and you can always undo mistakes.
The death penalty is not only definitive, the cell punishment that precedes it is also shorter than a life-long cell punishment.
An incriminated punishment you to my idea more with that life-long cell punishment.
If a dog bites someone, he is finished.
In the man who drives in Nice with a truck on the people, I think, ‘ beautiful that they have shot him ‘.
If my bike is stolen I am in favour of the death penalty for bicycle thieves.
We live in a culture that is against the death penalty, therefore we will have arguments against outweighing arguments.
When we bring peace and security to the world, we bombard innocent people, without any process.War crimes always occur on a large scale, and usually remain unpunished. If a soldier shoots an innocent one, the victim after death is naturally a dangerous terrorist. So here we have no difficulty in killing the innocent.
We could also enter the death penalty, without worrying about condemning the innocent.The debt is fixed by pronouncing the death penalty. Just as the referee determines whether or not there is a goal. “The Stranger” of Camus is a fine example of this approach, while the culprit is guilty as well. But the death penalty is rather pronounced because he would have pushed his mother to a retirement home, then because he murdered an Arab.
We are dying anyway, so why should we not give the death penalty?I do not know any convincing arguments against the death penalty.
Murderers of course.Murder with preconceived Rade. Whether you do it for profit, revenge or mental disorder does not matter. In order to counteract innocent convictions one could buy the death penalty. For a few million.
You can make a lot of question marks here.Someone who is terrorized by the partner and then killed the partner. But what would it be. Not too small. It is like pruning the bad branches of a tree. We want a world without fear.
Homicide, murder by accident, is still unpunished.Thus, the death penalty is not really retaliation.
Without delay.The punishment is carried out as soon as possible. Only prisoners who persist even after torture are innocent are given a longer procedure, up to two years. In All other cases, all remedies must be completed within half a year. Murder by poison, like Socrates, seems to me to be the best method. The big advantage is that there is no executioner. The condemned death himself. After the assassination of Hitler, General Rommel has also made himself of the side.
Rommel also extends the possibility of death penalty.He was guilty of complicity in an attack on the estate head. Should the state not have additional space for the death penalty, in connection with State security? This means the possibilities. Anyone who is in danger of the government can also get the death penalty if necessary.
On the other hand, if every killer is to be given the death penalty, should soldiers not be able to get the death penalty?In wartime get only soldiers who refuse to fight the bullet. Is this correct?
The importance of the state is centered around the death penalty.The citizen must not kill, but the state does.
There are a lot of dilemmas haunting my head.In my reasoning I come to the guillotine of the French Revolution, the killing of psychologically caused by the Nazis and the Chinese legislation related to security. Also Duarte in the Philippines and now Bolsonario in Brazil have little difficulty in taking out the state monopoly on violence.
There are really people who would rather not let you live.The problem is where you draw the border. Who does not? As a executioner you can also ask yourself what right you murder, because the death penalty is also murder.
My conclusion is that the death penalty is only allowed to be a suicide and that the state must also be extremely reluctant to have life-threatening violence.
Difficult question, am not against, but where do you draw the line between death penalty or cell punishment,….That line is so difficult for everyone else to determine, as long as that line cannot be elected unanimously I would not want to commit the death penalty
Tjaaa What I love it…
The death penalty is something for the time of the barbarians.A time without norms and values. It is not up to someone who is not the victim, to decide on someone else’s death.
What right should it have to decide to kill someone?Then it is just as badly engaged as the criminal himself. And if it has a piece of paper, it would just say that such persons should know better.
Every idiot who can’t learn right and practice a function in it.Because civil servants are not all jofel either. There are also a lot of weird figures in between. Only they can get away with it more often or not so much attention is paid to it. Precisely because of the function you practiced. There are enough doctors who sniff, officials who use and clamp themselves. If even priests do not know how to behave, then you understand how far we are.
But I think it’s best to be applied in some case.And how we talk about priests, we all know where this is going. Jaa paedophilia.
I only think that it must be done with the consent of the victims themselves or the nearest person if the victim himself is unable to indicate it.
I mean, other criminals are being tackled adamely, while paedophiles come out with a lot of way.Foundations that can create a pedophile, functions that they practice. These are not even criminals. Criminals address such people in prison when they get the chance.
This is another 鈧?艙kind 鈧?man, who cannot change himself, because they are mentally disturbed.So you have to lock it up or with the consent of the data subject.
I find that..
If it could be conclusively fixed that someone acted consciously and in full sense, I would be in the face of the death penalty.
However, this is not possible for various reasons.
Firstly, corruption within the judiciary is not to be excluded.Secondly, psychiatric examinations are not 100% reliable. Thirdly, fraud and errors within the investigation device cannot be excluded.
So we cannot rely on the system, and that is why we cannot enter the death penalty.For example, in the case of Christel Ambrosius, We have seen The Puttense Moordzaak 鈧?that serious mistakes are made only by the tenacity of a single Dutchman 16 (?) years later. Of course, it is too silly for words if two men were condemned to death because justice here is failing glass hard.
I don’t have a good word for the kidnappers of Freddy Heineken, the Hakkelaar, Willem Holleeder, Klaas Bruinsma and you name them, those men knew in my opinion exactly what they were doing, and caused a lot of suffering.Personally, I would have no problems at all if they were to get a bullet. But I do not know the history of those guys, maybe they are all mad in their heads and they have missed the youth assistance and it is the fault of the society…. Cough
I am opposed to the death penalty.In addition to being a definitive punishment in which mistakes can never be made more well, I also find it a primitive punishment for this time. There are so many disadvantages when the Netherlands would enter the death penalty again. Such as problems with human rights organisations.
Yes.The NEURENBERGSE lawsuit against the Nazi criminals were good with the skins of Doodvonissen. Actually, more should have been hung. There have been individuals who feel empty with the notion of nulla bymbaa sine pevi that one should have let them go. Such nonsense proves the narrowness of the legal speech. Stalin was right with his desire to put them all against a wall and fill them with bullets. The USA has sometimes made a game with the lawsuits against Japanese war criminals. The Dutch Judge B. Roeling also seems to have come up with idealistic considerations.