Evil

[MrJonno]

They were good to the people running them however ugly that is the people who murdered 7 million people thought they were doing the right thing

[rainbow]

Liver.

[cronus]

Evil does not exist, neither do I subscribe to just war theory. Death certainly exists however. A most unpleasant prospect that spooks the irrational into certain gibberish and fuels the fires of quick reaction. 'Evil' is one such gibberish based concept. A word to get the adrenalin going and you running towards or away from your existential threat.

[Blind groper]

Scumple

It is not a case of evil not existing. It is simply what definition do you use. If you define evil by a particular human behaviour and that behaviour exists, then evil exists, by definition.

You can 'eliminate evil' by redefining it so that it does not exist. But the definitions used for evil currently do not eliminate it.

Dictionaries tend to define evil by its synonyms, like "profoundly immoral or wicked". That is too imprecise for me, so I define evil as that quality of human behaviour that leads to terrible harm to other people. It means the same thing really, but avoids other words that also need defining.

[cronus]

Scumple

It is not a case of evil not existing. It is simply what definition do you use. If you define evil by a particular human behaviour and that behaviour exists, then evil exists, by definition.

You can 'eliminate evil' by redefining it so that it does not exist. But the definitions used for evil currently do not eliminate it.

Like astrology. Anything can exist if you infuse it with enough bollocks. There is no evidence for evil as a objective fact. Taurus the Bull or Texas exists by your line of reasoning. A definition is not what I want , it is evidence.

[Seth]

It is not that easy to be sure the guy you are convicting is guilty. We have a case here in NZ right now, where a guy convicted of a particularly nasty rape and murder, who spent 22 years behind bars, is now being freed, and will be paid a heap of money as compensation, for the simple reason we now know he was innocent.

The number of people wrongly convicted is unknown. I have seen estimates that range from 1% to 25% of those convicted. The USA has a very thorough system of checks and balances for those sentenced to death, and despite that, there are still innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit.

We can agree that the standard of evidence proving guilt must be higher in death-penalty cases. The vast majority of innocent persons convicted of crimes here in the US were convicted decades ago based only on eyewitness identification, circumstantial and non-forensic evidence, and in a majority of those cases they were cross-racial identifications and cases where guilt was assumed and inadequate investigation and collection of forensic evidence occurred.'

Put simply, most of those recently acquitted through DNA profiling are black males convicted based on the testimony of the victim or an eyewitness identifying the defendant as the perpetrator where, at the time, there was no effective way to check for a DNA match.

We can agree that cases like this are travesties of justice that occurred because of false presumptions about the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, particularly in cross-race crimes.

However, while one might argue that some cases like this occur, it is not true that all, or even a majority of cases are miscarriages of justice. There are plenty of cases where the identification and guilt of the defendant is beyond question, and therefore the risk of executing an innocent person is non-existent in those cases.

Because a miscarriage of justice might result in an improper death penalty sentence is not a sufficient reason to ban the death penalty in cases where guilt is certain and the gravity of the crime is such that society cannot tolerate the continued existence of that individual.

What's called for is a much higher standard of proof for a death penalty sentence, including at a minimum compelling forensic evidence matching the defendant to the trace evidence left at the scene (if any) which might be evaluated in a separate death-penalty hearing that excludes entirely all circumstantial and eyewitness identification evidence. Thus, if the prosecution can first prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a general trial, then, in order to invoke the death penalty a separate trial would be held using ONLY physical evidence, and the death penalty could be executed only if the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is based ONLY on the forensic physical evidence.

There are cases where the individual is indisputably guilty and needs to be executed for the safety of society.

[Blind groper]

Seth

It is not possible at this point in history to be sure of the guilt of anyone. So why not take the cheaper option and simply lock murderers up for life (or at least until they are candidates for an old persons home)?

Frankly, I have not seen a single rational reason for the death penalty. I have seen lots of reasons based on vengefulness and emotion.

For example, you say it is a final end to a problem. It is not. A death penalty is the beginning of a long protracted legal process which may last decades. Even if and when carried out, it may well be an innocent person who dies. It is easier, cheaper, and more just to simply put that guy in prison long term.

[Seth]

Seth

It is not possible at this point in history to be sure of the guilt of anyone.

Utter nonsense. There is no doubt that Tsarnev and his brother planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, there are dozens of videos of them doing it, and then there's their murders of police officers while fleeing. If, and I emphasize if, he is convicted, then he needs to be executed and there is zero chance of a miscarriage of justice. There are many, many cases where there is no question whatsoever, including in-prison murders by lifers.

So why not take the cheaper option and simply lock murderers up for life (or at least until they are candidates for an old persons home)?

Because there is a chance that years down the road, as things change and the heinousness of the deeds are forgotten, such creatures might persuade a parole board to let them out so they can kill again. It's simply not worth the risk to society for some people to remain alive merely because someone else doesn't have the balls to do what is right and just. I favor Robert Heinlein's proposal of "equalization" that subjects the perp to exactly what he inflicted on his victims.

Frankly, I have not seen a single rational reason for the death penalty. I have seen lots of reasons based on vengefulness and emotion.

Sanitation is not vengence, it's merely good public policy to take out the garbage and shoot rabid dogs.

For example, you say it is a final end to a problem. It is not.

Sure it is. Dead is dead. That's about as final as it gets.

A death penalty is the beginning of a long protracted legal process which may last decades.

Well, there's your problem right there Sparky. Justice delayed is justice denied. Arraignment, trial, conviction, appeal, trial, affirmation, execution, all completed within 90 days. There's no reason for it to take longer than that other than the desire of the defense to put off the trials as long as possible so that memories fade, evidence is lost and the impact of the crime is lessened. You're entitled to a "fair" trial, not a perfect one, and you're entitled to a trial of your peers, which does not mean 12 people who know nothing about you or anything else. Your peers are the members of your community who know you and are therefore in the best position to judge your guilt or innocence. Peer trials are the essential factor for jury nullification, which is the final check against prosecutorial misconduct or judicial corruption.

Even if and when carried out, it may well be an innocent person who dies.

It's actually pretty rare that an innocent person is executed.

It is easier, cheaper, and more just to simply put that guy in prison long term.

That doesn't protect society well enough. He can escape, kill guards, kill other inmates or be released by some bleeding-heart liberal judge who was in diapers when the crime was committed.

Sorry, but some crimes call for the guilty person to be rendered permanently incapable of harming anyone ever again.

[Brian Peacock]

[devilsadvocate]

Our society is fragile. It needs nurturing and protecting from those who would undermine our great project. A project that, if successful, will ensure the future security and and well-being of everybody. Will you help in that noble work comrade?

[/devilsadvocate]

Would it be evil if you picked up a shovel and helped dig the hole?

I addressed that here, and Rum said, unless I am misinterpreting his post, more succinctly there.

Don't you read what others have to say unless their posts are a direct reply to yours?

Not at all, but I was fishing for a direct reply from BG here.

[pErvinalia]

You evil cunt!

[cronus]

Evil is exactly like good, a very suspicious concept. Should do a debate on abortion too.

[Rum]

BBC 4 tonight at 8. 'Are you good or Evil'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

[cronus]

No need for the concept. The family of man will grow up, or die out. Life isn't a blame game and good/evil debate invites lukewarm manipulator. Deeds are deeds, consequences are consequences. Cuts little finger off to explain this to Rum. TV is in pay of the British establishment, the people are being goaded towards war. Crude simplifications of ethical uncertainty abroad. Staff at Horizon probably don't know they are being played, intelligent fools.

Once you've decide who got the 'evil' tag gives you free reign to organise their slaying. (no morality, plenty of cynical exploitation of the common man's simple worldview)

Makes me hope Hell exists for some folks....but since it doesn't best try to organise it here by overthrowing the applecart....as a nihilist.

[cronus]

I blame the social workers who worked with kids for inventing the coming evil times. Stealing kids off the learning disabled mums, giving them to (former)middle class ones as pets or abuse victims - ignoring the criminal class parents. Chickens, home and roost.

[mistermack]

Amusing, mistermack.
Fortunately no one is stupid enough to implement such a policy.

The logical approach to this is simply to get rid of the death penalty, in toto. No exceptions. People who would have drawn the death penalty get imprisonment for life. If it turns out that he/she is innocent, then release is appropriate, with generous financial compensation. If guilty, then lifetime imprisonment is just as nasty as a clean death.

At the moment we have none of the above.
Barry George was convicted of killing tv presenter Jill Dando in the UK in 2001, on ludicrously flimsy evidence. Even at the time, there was amazement that a jury could have convicted him on what they heard in court.
He spent seven years in jail. The court of appeal ruled that his conviction was ''safe''.
Eventually, he was retried and acquitted on the pretence of ''new'' evidence, which was actually not new at all.
A few weeks ago, he was denied any compensation for the seven years he spent in prison.
Compensation is not automatic.
I suppose he should be grateful that he wasn't executed.

Basically, they just found the local nutter and fitted him to the crime, rather than tracking down the killer. So Jill Dando's killer remains free, and a man spent seven years in prison, on ludicrously weak evidence, and doesn't get a penny compensation.

And the reason? The pressure from above for a conviction. Any conviction. It still happens all the time.

That's the kind of justice that's still happening in Britain today. How the fuck can you possibly have an option of a death penalty?