Thread: Bali Executions

Originally Posted by Looper

The greatest tragedy of the whole thing is that the death penalty actually has great potential if it were reserved for and applied to criminals who truly deserve it.

Trouble is, it's well-known that many criminals have mental illnesses of some type. And some of those are sociopathic or psychopathic. Unfortunately sociopaths and psychopaths have little fear and are not dissuaded from their actions by knowing the possible (or even probable) consequences.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Actually they should have been pumped full of the stuff for 6 months and then locked in a cell without it so they could go through the withdrawal process, with it live on webcam for others thinking of getting involved in it.

That's actually a good idea. I hadn't thought about it as a possibility, but there's a lot of poetic justice in it.

'My mama is alive! My mama is alive!': Filipina Mary Jane Veloso's 11th-hour reprieve from firing squad

video report
'My mama is alive! My mama is alive!': Filipina Mary Jane Veloso's 11th-hour reprieve from firing squad

Here's something else for you Terry, if you do actually read and understand (I have highlighted the most pertinent paragraphs for you [those who don't like the highlighting do please give it a rest - I wear glasses and have no problem]);

Wednesday 29 April 2015 19.42 BST

We have heard a great deal about Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran: their conviction for drug trafficking as members of the “Bali Nine”; their repentance during long years in jail; and this week their execution in Indonesia by firing squad despite an international outcry.

Some may chafe at what can look like the west’s selective concern. Few know the names of the Indonesian, Brazilian and Nigerians shot alongside the Australians on Wednesday and still fewer could identify the 607 people whose executions Amnesty International recorded globally last year. The true toll is probably far higher. China, which Amnesty believes to have executed more people than all the rest of the world put together, treats the data as a state secret.

But Jakarta is also guilty of double standards. While Joko Widodo, president of Indonesia, insists on the harshest possible response to tackle the “national emergency” of drugs, the Indonesian government simultaneously seeks clemency for its citizens on death rows abroad, including those convicted of drug crime and murder.

Overall, the death penalty is in decline. In 1977, only 16 states or territories had abolished it in law or practice; but last month, Fiji became the 99th to abolish it for all crimes. Six more reserve it for exceptional circumstances and another 35 have not used it for at least 10 years. The UN general assembly has seen growing support for a global moratorium.

Yet China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the US continue to execute substantial numbers of prisoners. Indonesia is one of several nations to have resumed judicial killings after de facto moratoria. In Budapest, Viktor Orbán, prime minister, announced this week that reintroducing capital punishment should remain on the agenda “to make clear to criminals that Hungary will stop at nothing when it comes to protecting its citizens”.
Advertisement

There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime, and in any case EU membership requires its abolition. Hungary’s prime minister was simply echoing the popular far right Jobbik party. For Mr Widodo, too, the real rationale appears political and domestic. A weak leader, embattled even within his own party, seeks to beef up his image at home by refusing to bow to international pressure. More executions are likely.

Targeting Indonesia alone could prove counterproductive. More important, it undermines the real case against the use of the death penalty. The issue is not that states should spare those who are repentant or who are foreign; nor is it that they should shun methods such as shooting, stoning and injection with untested drugs. It is simply, as the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has said, that taking life is unjust and incompatible with fundamental human rights. Those who are criticising Indonesia should also press powerful nations such as the US, China and Japan to spare their own nationals. Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, called the killings of Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran “cruel and unnecessary”. The same can and should be said of all executions, wherever they are carried out.

The Guardian view on Indonesia?s executions: cruel and unnecessary | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Trouble is, it's well-known that many criminals have mental illnesses of some type. And some of those are sociopathic or psychopathic. Unfortunately sociopaths and psychopaths have little fear and are not dissuaded from their actions by knowing the possible (or even probable) consequences.

I think that the 'mental problem' defence is not much defence against the death penalty. The death penalty could be seen as a merciful release for a deranged creature with no hope of integrating as a functioning human being amongst the rest of society. They have caused untold misery and have no hope of rehabilitation (if we were in a generous mood and even considering their rehabilitation as a worthy goal, which we are not obliged to do).

The smugglers did not have malice in their hearts. They had greed. I don't see greed as a mortal sin worthy of the gallows in the way I see the worst cases of murder, torture or rape.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think that the 'mental problem' defence is not much defence against the death penalty. The death penalty could be seen as a merciful release for a deranged creature with no hope of integrating as a functioning human being amongst the rest of society. They have caused untold misery and have no hope of rehabilitation (if we were in a generous mood and even considering their rehabilitation as a worthy goal, which we are not obliged to do).

I agree, which is why I think this particular execution was entirely inappropriate.
Psychopaths are generally unable to be rehabilitated. Even worse, they have a long history of very convincingly and cunningly fooling psychologists and parole boards into releasing them, then re-offend.....leaving broken people in their wake.

Is the death penalty is a deterrent or not I'm unsure? But it's Indo's way, and we should respect that. If Indo' bitched about the UK's soft legal system we'd tell them to fcuk off.

Respect Indonesia's way ?

I can't possibly respect Indonesia's politicians, military, power brokers, or their corruptocracy at all. In my view, they're a disgusting

joke of a nation. Especially in how they are devastating huge swathes of forest (full of wildlife), with their politicians, their families and

cronies being given the concessions to do so and reaping all the money. Not to mention the killings and generally brutish way they are

treating the people of West Papua.....which they invaded.

https://teakdoor.com/indonesia-forum/...quad-drug.html (Indonesia executes six by firing squad for drug trafficking)

Originally Posted by hazz

which has the advantage of not annoying any local voters at home.

And plays into national rhetoric, boost the vote and popularity of the leader for looking 'strong'.

Originally Posted by hazz

when crimes are premeditated the primary deterrent is not the punishment, its the expectation of being caught.

Total cobblers. the deterrence is in the total risk. The risk is a combination of probability (likelihood of getting caught) and impact (sentence severity).

Elementary risk analysis.

Originally Posted by Looper

Total cobblers. the deterrence is in the total risk. The risk is a combination of probability (likelihood of getting caught) and impact (sentence severity).

So therefore, countries that have the death penalty will have a lower crime rate than ones that do not ?

Elementary statistics.

Why are some life destroying drugs acceptable socially, legal and available to anyone over 18 and some not? They're all addictive, play havoc with your health and destroy lives. There is very little difference between an alcoholic,clutching a bottle breathing his last, a smoker dying of lung cancer or emphysema, painfully giving up the struggle to get one last bit of nicotine into his lungs or a heroin addict dying because his riddled body can’t cope with that last hit. Is there a reason to ban the whole lot ?? Is it not a bit ludicrous to say alcohol and Cigs must remain legal and accept both as a vital ingredient for our way of life ?.....when we know both kills thousands and destroys even more lives, but then ban other mind altering substances and justify legislation by stating it destroys lives etc etc..... Pure logic would say prohibition is crazy. By decriminalising all you do is take away the illegality. You don't see your local publican hanging round school gates trying to sell drink to kids. As long as people enjoy being in a state of altered reality the problem will remain. So we have to change the mindset of addictive personalities and so that no one wants get drunk, stoned or out of their heads. Without change organised crime will continue to reap millions......anyone see the series "Breaking Bad "....rant over

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Looper most of these Traffickers are in the pyramid scheme, and pay for there involvement,so they do inflict the misery.

I never used to be pro capital punishment but moving that way more by the day.

HH, understanding that some heinous beings or others that thrive as criminals should not be amongst the citizens for the 'betterment of society' simply comes with age...

...though "war is hell" becomes well-ingrained with each passing year after you have children and grandchildren. (IMHO)

Unsure if this has been mentioned before, I heard the Barli leaders had previously committed the same crime 5 times before being apprehended or is it just hear say ??

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by Looper

Total cobblers. the deterrence is in the total risk. The risk is a combination of probability (likelihood of getting caught) and impact (sentence severity).

So therefore, countries that have the death penalty will have a lower crime rate than ones that do not ?

Elementary statistics.

The death penalty is the impact. Without making any parallel statement about the probability that conclusion does not follow from the premise.

All other things being equal the greater the penalty the greater the deterrence. If the death penalty is considered severe by the criminal he will be more deterred than by a lesser panalty, all other things being equal.

Elementary psychology.

Which is why of course there are no murders in the U.S. States which impose the death penalty........

Elementary stupidity, eh Looper?

All things being equal I think it is only common sense to accept that the death penalty constitutes a significant disincentive when compared with life imprisonment. The problem is that it is very difficult to hold all other factors equal in order to perform a statistically sound analysis.

However criminal disincentivisation is only one apect of the argument. the death penalty could be championed on other grounds.

e.g.

1. Society's and the victim's right to exact revenge upon a particularly severe outrage against the social contract. Society enjoys a sense of fairness so outrageous crime deserves no mercy.

2. A humane approach to the death penalty in the case of the worst cases of torture/rape/murder. i.e. we are putting a deranged and probably emotionally very unhappy and incurable creature out of its misery

3. A fiscal approach. It is far cheaper than life imprisonment.

Originally Posted by KEVIN2008

So we have to change the mindset of addictive personalities and so that no one wants get drunk, stoned or out of their heads. Without change organised crime will continue to reap millions......anyone see the series "Breaking Bad "....rant over [/B]

Couldn't have put it better myself, unfotunately that is what people do not want to face, it seems they enjoy cruelty and killing, makes us more like animals than human beings.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Which is why of course there are no murders in the U.S. States which impose the death penalty........

Elementary stupidity, eh Looper?

Not a valid argument, most murders, like assaults are heat of the moment crimes.
Premeditated, cold blood killings are rare in comparison, a bar fight can not be counted the same as a killer who plans and executes a crime.

Deterrents sentences work well in some areas, compare bank robberies to street robberies, rob a bank and you will do real time.
Shoplifting to burglary, technically shoplifters who steal with premeditation commit burglary, but the sentencing does not reflect that.

Originally Posted by Looper

1. Society's and the victim's right to exact revenge upon a particularly severe outrage against the social contract. Society enjoys a sense of fairness so outrageous crime deserves no mercy.

Revenge does not solve the problem.

2. A humane approach to the death penalty in the case of the worst cases of torture/rape/murder. i.e. we are putting a deranged and probably emotionally very unhappy and incurable creature out of its misery

Plenty of people with supposedly successful careers or relationships suffer from various problems or disorders and live in misery. There are few if any humane approaches to the death penalty.

3. A fiscal approach. It is far cheaper than life imprisonment.

Executing somebody in America is far more expensive than jailing them.

Revenge does not solve the problem.

for many of the victims and those hurt by crime it might.

Originally Posted by Ronin

Revenge does not solve the problem.

It solves the problem of society's desire for revenge which is a natural human emotion with a sound basis in the evolutionary roots of the human species. Revenge is the natural desire for justice as it is manifested in the human set of emotions.

Originally Posted by Ronin

Plenty of people with supposedly successful careers or relationships suffer from various problems or disorders and live in misery

Totally irrelevant. Do you have a brain? We are talking specifically about individuals who have committed atrocities because they are emotionally damaged. Putting them out of their misery is an argument in favour of the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Ronin

Executing somebody in America is far more expensive than jailing them.

Not if is expedited within say 12 months.

Originally Posted by Ronin

Executing somebody in America is far more expensive than jailing them.

Technically correct in one sense, but very misleading when taken out of context like this.

The average convict sentenced to death in the US spends around 15 years on death row. When they say 'executing them is far more expensive than jailing them" they count the costs of special facilities for death row inmates, ALL OF THE 15 YEARS OR MORE WORTH OF LEGAL PROCEDURES/APPEALS, and all other costs.

Thus, it might technically be cheaper to sentence them to "Life Without The Possibility Of Parole" and just lock them away than to sentence them to death.

That's how 'they' do the calculation to support the OP's statement.

In fact, the cost of the execution is almost nothing. It's mostly handled by prison personnel as part of their duties. Cost of a bullet or two, or a brief surge in electricity consumption, or the cost of a rope or some chemicals. It's getting them there that costs the big bucks.

Idiotic system.

Originally Posted by hazz

when one needs to build strawmen as weak as that to make your point... the senible person would realise they have lost the argument. After all we all die so why worry or do anything. sad

the argument was won simply by pointing out the ridiculous clamoring about a couple Aussies getting drilled for committing a crime openly known to carry the death sentence. Your failure to grasp the lunacy of this when posted up against the millions who die in this world due to pure negligence of its society, yet no big out cry from the media, the governments or its general lefty slobbering cry babies.

Strawman argument is the one poised for those criminals who were executed according to the law of the land they were in while comitting their crimes hazz.