Timeline for Why is the death sentence considered to be an unacceptable punishment in the Council of Europe, while life imprisonment is not?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26 at 14:47 | comment | added | Abdel Aleem | @KaanE. Death punishment could be form of relief for the affected party. In America, in states where they still carry out execution, it is motivated as giving closure to the family. | |
| Dec 12, 2023 at 18:15 | comment | added | Kaan E. | @AbdelAleem It is definitely true that some kind of compensation is required for the affected party. In the case of death though, there is simply no remedy, or material compensation that can be provided by anyone. Hence, all the discussion about establishing moral justice | |
| Jul 29, 2021 at 21:09 | comment | added | Abdel Aleem | @KaanE. Is it justice to allow someone to live who has unjustly and willfully (meaning he has a sane mind) taken the life of another innocent human being? Isn't execution a justice for both that murdered person and his/her family? What right does such a murderer have to exist? | |
| Jun 10, 2017 at 8:31 | comment | added | Luaan | @JonathanReez There is no such thing as 100% proof - there is no probability of 1, ever. Say, a hundred people see the guy attack people, remember his face (already a stretch) and there's even DNA evidence. The guy is caught later and executed, and bang - turns out he had a twin brother, who actually did it. Or it's all work of some three-letter-agency that wants to influence public opinion. Or it's done by someone who cannot be held responsible (mental breakdown), or was backed into a corner ("we'll torture your family to death if you don't do this and keep quiet"). Justice isn't simple. | |
| Jun 9, 2017 at 21:35 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @Luaan what about criminals with 100% proof of their guilt? Say, a public terrorist attack? | |
| S Jun 7, 2017 at 16:40 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve grammar and wording
|
| Jun 7, 2017 at 16:26 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 7, 2017 at 16:40 | |||||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 7:49 | comment | added | Luaan | @Nathan That's not quite the point. When you imprison someone, they're still one party of the argument - they can still put forth new evidence, seek out alternative solutions to the argument etc. You're limiting their freedom, but they still exist and still have a voice. The death penalty puts final responsibility on some arbitrary authority (usually neither side of the argument) - after this point, there can be no more discussion, and there is no resolution. Say someone steals ten million dollars from you - do you really care to kill them? You want your money back. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 23:52 | comment | added | Kaan E. | @Nathan It is true, i also can't say that it is the perfect solution. Idealy a prison is a rehabilitation center where the criminal relearns how to be a fully functioning member of the society. This doesn't apply so well to life long cases though. Actually, prisons as a rehabilitation center sounds like unicorns throwing up rainbows and pooping butterflies. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 23:43 | comment | added | Kaan E. | @DoktorJ The point is that this idea of faculty of reasoning and its association with humans is a little problematic, because it effectively discards animals' rights, and up to a certain extent the rights of children. Since children and animals are not judged to be completly "reasonable", they don't have any obligations in the civil society, and thus have no rights, but it is also probably true that Hegel didn't forsee the level of animal cruelty that can be exercised by the modern world. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 21:55 | comment | added | Nathan | I fully see your reasoning. Though I think if applied further, putting someone in prison is in essence stealing those years of their life. So the State still commits an act of injustice by pursuing a prison sentence, let a lone a life long one. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 21:10 | comment | added | Doktor J | This sentence doesn't really make sense to me: "This idea of responsibility necessitate the existence of the faculty of reasoning which is associated, wrongly it maybe, with humans." -- could you clarify please? | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 16:15 | history | answered | Kaan E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |