Death Penalty in Bali

Status
Not open for further replies.
TriggerHappy said:
There's three separate discussion in this:

1) Are current sentences harsh enough? No, sentences should be longer and 10 years should mean just that, not 5 if you play ball for a few years. More needs to be done to limit the harm these people can do without us sinking to the levels of the criminals.

2) Is there evidence that capital punishment actually prevents or deters crime? There's certainly nothing conclusive that I'm aware of. Sure, it stops reoffenders but we can all also point to people who have been wrongly killed (murdered) by the state for something they haven't done. I don't believe our justice system is sufficiently infallible to carry out such an irreversible sentence.

3) Of course the state can make whatever they want legal and can enforce as many double standards as they like. The law can be moulded to any means, good or bad. The 'legality' of it isn't something I mentioned so I'm not sure why you've crept this into the debate. It's the moral stance that I take issue with. I don't believe it right that someone can say "killing is wrong, so if you do it we'll kill you". It's a completely hypocritical stance and it undermines the entire premise of a 'just' society.

I appreciate you are probably coming at this with a degree of religious of belief underpinning your opinion. "An eye for an eye" etc. That probably means that neither you or I will ever convince each other to adjust our own beliefs.
Click to expand...


you mean 'sufficiently fallible'? But good post and i agree
 
No he means sufficiently infallable. :D
 
Laudrup said:
So pay peanuts, get monkeys and then someone innocent is put to death for a crime they didn't commit due to a poor defence. Sounds like a real dystopian society.
Click to expand...

Who said they were not guilty?
 
Daryl said:
Ok lets put it to this way Martyn.

Three men break into your house tie you up, rape and torture your wife and kids and then kill them.

They get a fancy expensive law firm that gets them minimum sentance. one does 10years and the other two get out on good behaviour in 8 years.

Are telling me that is fine?
that justice is done....

10 years later they are free to do what they want?
Whilst you and all your family and wifes family have to go forward knowing that your wife and kids won't be there to see it with you?

If that happened you would let it go?

I'd want medievil hung drawn and quartered to some one like that.

As for the woman smuggling drugs through customs.... How many 100's will that effect? then 100's + with friends and family of those that take those drugs?

Yes, let them live because we are civilised and the perps don't give a s h i t.
Click to expand...

Daryl, I'm a liberal, and I don't support the death penalty. Please spare me the asinine 'bleeding heart' and 'do gooder' labels that are bandied about on these threads. I believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, and robust sentencing of criminals. People who are convicted of heinous crimes should spend the rest of their lives in prison. That, sort of, takes care of the scenario you constructed.
 
Laudrup said:
So we get rid of innocent until proven guilty too?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that because they were tried by half paid barristers that they are innocent....that is you being judge now. Typical liberal attitude.
 
Laudrup said:
Maybe some type of war, like a war on drugs?
Click to expand...

Looks like the country in question has one and if found guilty the punishment is death. So what you complaining about :shrug:
 
Laudrup said:
My comment didn't concern that case.
Click to expand...

Well there is the problem. Maybe if you keep the comments based in the facts of this case instead of taking it off topic things would be easier to understand
 
tiler65 said:
You are assuming that because they were tried by half paid barristers that they are innocent....that is you being judge now. Typical liberal attitude.
Click to expand...

So your solution is to have a person on trial for their life being defended by a person who is earning half of what the prosecution is? It's an unorthodox way to save money, but not well thought through.
 
Laudrup said:
So your solution is to have a person on trial for their life being defended by a person who is earning half of what the prosecution is? It's an unorthodox way to save money, but not well thought through.
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that because someone is on less money they can't do as good as a job as somebody earning the highest rate....you are foolish if you believe that.

And All barristers/solicitors would be on an even keel wages wise, but at half the rate they are currently on......then it would be a fair trial.
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
There's three separate discussion in this:

1) Are current sentences harsh enough? No, sentences should be longer and 10 years should mean just that, not 5 if you play ball for a few years. More needs to be done to limit the harm these people can do
Click to expand...

I agree entirely but "without us sinking to the levels of the criminals" really doesn't apply because 'we' are not, the administration of law is not doing that.

TriggerHappy said:
2) Is there evidence that capital punishment actually prevents or deters crime? There's certainly nothing conclusive that I'm aware of. Sure, it stops reoffenders but we can all also point to people who have been wrongly killed (murdered) by the state for something they haven't done. I don't believe our justice system is sufficiently infallible to carry out such an irreversible sentence.
Click to expand...

Far more guilty people have escaped the death penalty than have been wrongly executed. The fear of 'penalty' will stop many offending/murdering. The lack of a severe penalty takes away that fear and leads individuals to kill and maim without fear of serious punishment.

TriggerHappy said:
3) Of course the state can make whatever they want legal and can enforce as many double standards as they like. The law can be moulded to any means, good or bad. The 'legality' of it isn't something I mentioned so I'm not sure why you've crept this into the debate. It's the moral stance that I take issue with. I don't believe it right that someone can say "killing is wrong, so if you do it we'll kill you". It's a completely hypocritical stance and it undermines the entire premise of a 'just' society.

I appreciate you are probably coming at this with a degree of religious of belief underpinning your opinion. "An eye for an eye" etc. That probably means that neither you or I will ever convince each other to adjust our own beliefs.
Click to expand...

The moral stance is easy, it just depends where you get your moral stance from ... depending on where you look, on the one hand there is the moral stance that you can shoot someone walking the street just because they are black and you think they look suspicious - on the other hand a crime is a cry for help from an emotionally deprived person who needs special support from society.
"An eye for an eye" is often misquoted as a requirement for brutal punishment but in fact it merely implies that the punishment should fit the crime. Under the Mosaic Law a thief, for example, was not only punished but had to make retribution to the victim ... you steel a sheep you have to pay back three and if you have to sell yourself into slavery to do that, (slavery under the Mosaic Law was quite different to the perception of slavery in modern times), so be it ... good law IMO.

The provision of punishment by law is not hypocritical, it is necessary to avoid anarchy, everyone deciding for themselves what they think is right and wrong. A 'just' society must act with justice, not only for the criminal but for the victim and in the case of murder for the relatives.
 
Bottom line is we're all individual and have our own opinions and we can't possibly all agree on such a powerful subject.

My own opinion is if you can't take the punishment then don't do the crime, if they lived by that themselves then they wouldn't be in a situation where they're facing a death penalty anyway.

If they make the choice to cross that then they can't really blame anyone but themselves for it.

Others believe in reeducation etc which has been proven to work in some cases and not in others.

For me they shouldn't even get the chance to reoffend, why should more people be affected by what is, human or not, nothing more than a leech on society?

I even if I'm honest, don't care if they're executed or not, but I believe they should lose any rights once they cross that line, other than to a fair trial, so if not executed then concrete cell with no tv play station mini bar hole in the floor to excrete to, slab for a bed etc. Why should we work our asses off to provide them with more?

But again why shouldn't the country in question set their own law and make it clear to people that if they cross that line they pay the price.

Let the argument continue for eternity but the same people will have the same opinion for ever won't they, even if not valid to others.

I actually hope they shoot her, not because I want her to die, but because I think that because they haven't executed drug mules for a while everyone thinks its open season, be nice for them to show the world that it isn't.
 
Mark Anthony said:
Now you have such a little argument that your inventing scenarios and trying to put words into people's mouths.

Nice!
Click to expand...

You were the one espousing this tired idea of stopping it 'at source'. We've tried it with the war on drugs, it isn't working.
 
tiler65 said:
You are suggesting that because someone is on less money they can't do as good as a job as somebody earning the highest rate....you are foolish if you believe that.

And All barristers/solicitors would be on an even keel wages wise, but at half the rate they are currently on......then it would be a fair trial.
Click to expand...

You are into a complex and specialized field when dealing with capital punishment. It's hardly a time to skimp on your defence when faced with a lethal injection. I'd like to see you try and force a pay cut on a solicitor or barrister, they don't drive Porsches because they take pay cuts.

The trial costs a fortune, the appeals cost a fortune, housing the inmates on death row costs a fortune. Our international reputation is damaged and we're viewed as backwards barbarians. So why bother?
 
Laudrup said:
You are into a complex and specialized field when dealing with capital punishment. It's hardly a time to skimp on your defence when faced with a lethal injection. I'd like to see you try and force a pay cut on a solicitor or barrister, they don't drive Porsches because they take pay cuts.

The trial costs a fortune, the appeals cost a fortune, housing the inmates on death row costs a fortune. Our international reputation is damaged and we're viewed as backwards barbarians. So why bother?
Click to expand...

Oh please :shake:
 
Our international reputation will remain intact as long as we wash our hands of her and allow them to serve justice as they wish.
 
Laudrup said:
You are into a complex and specialized field when dealing with capital punishment. It's hardly a time to skimp on your defence when faced with a lethal injection. I'd like to see you try and force a pay cut on a solicitor or barrister, they don't drive Porsches because they take pay cuts.

The trial costs a fortune, the appeals cost a fortune, housing the inmates on death row costs a fortune. Our international reputation is damaged and we're viewed as backwards barbarians. So why bother?
Click to expand...

Everyone else is having to make some wage sacrifices....why not barristers?
 
Laudrup said:
So literally shoot the messenger? Won't the people who grow and refine the drugs (the source) still exist?
Click to expand...

In this case the messenger is the one that was caught, the one that this post refers to, and the one I was referring to when I said source. So yes shoot her! At no time did I mention cartels or growers.

Look your hell bent on altering what people are saying to suit what you think so do it by yourself fella. Adios.
 
Mark Anthony said:
In this case the messenger is the one that was caught, the one that this post refers to, and the one I was referring to when I said source. So yes shoot her! At no time did I mention cartels or growers.

Look your hell bent on altering what people are saying to suit what you think so do it by yourself fella. Adios.
Click to expand...

Shooting the messenger solves nothing.
 
Laudrup said:
The desire for a primitive act of revenge would cost this country too dear, both morally and monetarily. Leave it in the past where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we would once again be seen as a country not to be ****ed with. It would make a change.
 
Laudrup said:
So your solution is to have a person on trial for their life being defended by a person who is earning half of what the prosecution is? It's an unorthodox way to save money, but not well thought through.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought the salary is totally irrelevant. Isn't the training and expertise required to become a barrister the same regardless of which side of the court they choose to sit on?
 
Mark Anthony said:
It does when she's carrying 5k of smack! 5k less and one less drug smuggler in existence!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Any drugs gang can threaten another smuggler's family with harm if they don't take this suitcase to destination X. It's inconveniencing the source, not stopping it.
 
dod said:
I'd have thought the salary is totally irrelevant. Isn't the training and expertise required to become a barrister the same regardless of which side of the court they choose to sit on?
Click to expand...

Not all barristers are created equal, you'll get what you pay for. You can see this in America already where attorneys of poor quality handle death penalty cases. If I'm facing the needle I want the barrister earning £1 million a year, not £50k.
 
Laudrup said:
Not all barristers are created equal, you'll get what you pay for. You can see this in America already where attorneys of poor quality handle death penalty cases. If I'm facing the needle I want the barrister earning £1 million a year, not £50k.
Click to expand...

This case isn't in America so why are you so hung up on it?
 
Laudrup said:
Not all barristers are created equal, you'll get what you pay for. You can see this in America already where attorneys of poor quality handle death penalty cases. If I'm facing the needle I want the barrister earning £1 million a year, not £50k.
Click to expand...

That is completely untrue. You really need to do some research. There are plenty of very highly paid, very skilled attorneys in the US who will handle death penalty defences and appeals on a completely pro bono basis. SOme of them do it because they believe deeply in the cause....others for the kudos, but either way many many felons who are about to be toast get some of the best legal representation in the country.
 
viv1969 said:
That is completely untrue. You really need to do some research. There are plenty of very highly paid, very skilled attorneys in the US who will handle death penalty defences and appeals on a completely pro bono basis. SOme of them do it because they believe deeply in the cause....others for the kudos, but either way many many felons who are about to be toast get some of the best legal representation in the country.
Click to expand...

Equally a large number of appeals and miscarriages of justice are based around poor legal representation of the defendant at the original trail, in capital cases
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top