A woman in England was found guilty of murdering her two children. In 1996 she smothered her 11 week old baby and in 1998 she killed her 8 week old baby. The court heard that the chances of a second cot death in the family was 73 million to 1. She got life but that probably only means 14 years.

Lock her up in a cell, covered with painted faces of her murdered kids. Gives her something to think about the next 14 years.

ONLY IF THERE IS NO DOUBT OF GUILT:

death by public execution.
Sorry - this person gave up their right to life. IMO, almost no right is inalienable, and one way you lose a right, especially one so final as the right to life, is by taking it from another.

Smother HER with a pillow.

Give her compassion and make her understand what she has done..

If she done it I forgo to add..

[ 01-30-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: WOLFGIR ]

But surely they had more evidence than just a statistic?

Well nobody saw her do it and she claimed it was two cot deaths so I suppose there has to be some doubt.

I think a mother killing two of her children in such a cold manner has to have something wrong with them personally. I for one wouldn't mind finding out what it is and trying to get the best out of the situation. I don't think deterrance is much of an issue here - after all, how much does this happen? And I think people are already generally of the opinion that its a bad thing without the courts telling them so...

The main thing for me is getting best out of the situation. Ok, so I have a very utilitarian view of justice. One of my fellow Political philosiphy students says that makes me "morally bankrupt". I think it just makes me sensible. But then again, I would wouldn't I.

Would this be the case of the mother who was jailed and appealed, by any chance? She got life, but was freed a few days ago only serving 3 years. The appeal court heard new evidence that stated that one of the babies probably died from a severe infection.

But, you've not answered the question, Barry. HOW would you get the best out of the situation? What would the utilitarian DO? I'm pretty utilitarian too, and I see my answer as a quick and efficient and just solution for society. But, I'm *positive* we differ on what should be done.

Oh my word - guess what? She didn't do it!

From Timber Loftis :
Don't you see a contradiction there ? Some vicious circle ?
You are clearly talking about killing someone there. Are you better than her after all ?

If you really care about life, like you are trying to show us, then you don't (want to) kill anyone.

I think the worst part is you want to do that in public.

What good can it make ?

Ah well, if it were up to me I'd try and find out why she wants to kill her kids and work from there. If it can be "cured" for want of a better word, then lets do that. If rehabilitation is a possibility then lets do that. In this case, as in all others in my opinion, the utility loss to the person concerned due to the loss of life overrides any possible (and in this particular case very minimal) utility gain from killing her. I do not believe she should be killed or punished just because she did something wrong. If it would discourage other people from her course of action then punishment might be a good idea, but I don't think that that is applicable in this case. Most people don't need discouraging from killing children, especially their own. The people that do need discouraging aren't going to be all that affected by the idea of prison or death I think. The idea of killing your own children, even without those particular consequences attached to it, is a big step alone. Stopping people making that step in the first place would be my idea.

Don't you see a contradiction there ? Some vicious circle ?
You are clearly talking about killing someone there. Are you better than her after all ?

If you really care about life, like you are trying to show us, then you don't (want to) kill anyone.

I think the worst part is you want to do that in public.

What good can it make ?</font>[/QUOTE]If we follow this notion to its logical conclusion, we disprove the entire legal system - both criminal and civil. If it is wrong to imprison someone in your home, you can't do it in society. If it is wrong to steal, you can't have a court order the money back. If it is wrong to breach a contract...

See what I mean??

Doing it in public makes a proper spectacle out of it - a better deterrent I think. Now, this also attracts a frenzied wacko crowd, but the wackos in this world today are so easily attracted to anything, we must simply ignore this fact. I think the spectacle occuring in front of a gallows is simply more poignant that it occurring at the prison gates. The folks at the prison gates cheer and act a fool, cause it's not in their face. But, and anyone who has ever watch the life leave a human being can attest to this, killing someone in public will certainly have a profound effect on at least some of the spectators.

That is the good it can make.

On the utilitarian side, a swift and quick death for those who purposely take another's life also avoids a lot of expense and wasted personnel time. Social efficiency, you see.

Punishment?, like a kind of society's vengeance against the criminals?, you have a curious sense of justice.

Timber Loftis you wrote:

*Doing it in public makes a proper spectacle out of it - a better deterrent I think. Now, this also attracts a frenzied wacko crowd, but the wackos in this world today are so easily attracted to anything, we must simply ignore this fact. I think the spectacle occuring in front of a gallows is simply more poignant that it occurring at the prison gates. The folks at the prison gates cheer and act a fool, cause it's not in their face. But, and anyone who has ever watch the life leave a human being can attest to this, killing someone in public will certainly have a profound effect on at least some of the spectators.*

I can't agree here. We had for centuries gallows, goulioutines (sp?) and whatever. The convicted were treated in the most cruel ways before they've been torn into pieces for every kind of crime and everything happened in public. Following your conclusion (don't get me wrong, I dont want to pick at you or offend you!) earth should be a peaceful place now. But I can't recognize any profound effect. Though I must admit, that the human approach (if it is that) doesn't seem to work either. Maybe we still didn't find the right way to deal with this kind of things :(

life but life should mean life.

Howsabout REPROGRAMMING, a la Clockwork Orange??

I think that would fall under 'cruel and unusual' punishment

*Throws hands in air in disgust*

Can someone please explain to me why it is okay to deny someone freedom of movement (note, this IS on the UN Human Rights list) yet it is not okay to deny them the right to life???

I just don't get it. If their right to life is *that* sacred, in my mind it only means their punishment should INCREASE to repay society for the life they took.

Sure are a lot of namby-pambys here for a forum where most everyone has whacked Noober at least once. :D

Well, showing death as a spectale can affect people thaz true but maybe not in the way you'd like.

Borvik is right there. Will that prevent anything ? Hell no. Will that make a mass murderer think twice before killing ? No because it's a mass murderer and he is somehow brain-diseased.

Most of the times when someone murders someone else, I don't think the consequences of the act come right in mind. They come after.

Death sentence has never been and will never be a preventive way.

And those who apply them or are all for it are somewhere (just my opinion) murderers too.

A life is a life. And when someone takes one away on purpose, he always have a good reason in his mind.

There must be another way.

Oh and btw, don't be wrong, an execution nowadays cost a hell lot of money. We are not in the middle age where an axe, a hole and 5 gold piece to the executionner was enough.

And it's never swift and quick. Usually take few years of procedure.

Now if you really want to go back to the middle age...

Life is so much more than movement...

two words - death penatly

Well, because once you kill them there is no going back if later evidence shows they are innocent. Death is a rather permanent solution.

Pardon me for intruding on a wonderful argument, but did anyone notice that Donut stated the woman was innocent? Found innocent? The point is now moot. Those who suggested she should be killed should be ashamed. You'd have killed an innocent woman who lost her two children. What a terrible tragedy that she even lost 3 years of her life. Three years is a lot of time.

As has been stated you can reinstate freedom of movement. You cannot reinstate life. One allows for possible error, the other doesn't. THere is always room for error Timber.

Yorick,

You and I have had this discussion before, and if you'll recall I agree that the death penalty does not work in practice for this very reason - which is why I do not support it at this point and why we agree 100%.

And there is not always room for error. Example: Dahmer.

But, what's not moot is the death penalty in theory. I was speaking of the theoretical points of crime and punishment in the situation where the criminal is 100% known to be guilty. If you'd like to state a few thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them.

Didn't anyone like the Noober joke?? :D :D :D

Well, I personally think it was a bit misplaced... There's a huge difference between real life and a computergame, as you yourself should realize as well. Besides, I've honestly never killed neither Noober nor Neeber. ;)

Thank you Yorick!

Well, I personally think it was a bit misplaced... There's a huge difference between real life and a computergame, as you yourself should realize as well. Besides, I've honestly never killed neither Noober nor Neeber. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enouch.

But, there's this quote from a really bad movie called "The Talented Mr. Ripley" that the character played by the dreamy Gwyneth Paltrow says:

Why is it that when men play, they always play at war?

I was wondering the same thing. This goes to show, that you should read all the posts before replying to a topic. I realise there was a debate starting, but It seemed a little ironic that the pro-death replies were still coming after she was posted cleared.

I was wondering the same thing. This goes to show, that you should read all the posts before replying to a topic. I realise there was a debate starting, but It seemed a little ironic that the pro-death replies were still coming after she was posted cleared.</font>[/QUOTE]well when sharks smell blood it's hard to get em to stop [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I was wondering the same thing. This goes to show, that you should read all the posts before replying to a topic. I realise there was a debate starting, but It seemed a little ironic that the pro-death replies were still coming after she was posted cleared.</font>[/QUOTE]well when sharks smell blood it's hard to get em to stop [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]On the same note, had YOU GUYS kept reading, you have noted that:
1. I mentioned there was a theoretical point to the debate to be addressed irregardless of her innocence;
2. I asked folks to assume a 100% fool-proof guilt situation and then address the topic.

:D Sheesh :D

I did read on, and was just saying that it seemed irrelevent once she was innocent. I was not trying to insult you or your debate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It seems to me, that any topic posted that has any questionable subject, usually rapidly turns into a debate. I suppose im guilty of this to. Just an observation man.

;) sheesh ;)

[ 01-31-2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Im an avatar now!!! :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, well I apoligize Lord K -
especially for using irregardless, which isn't a real word. ;)

Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think we got away with it!

All is vonderfull TL. :D :D :D :D

yep, i saw it also... maybe he should write in CAPS. ;)

well you could send her to IRAN or IRAQ to live a perfect caoticly muslum life.
I say put her on a hot seat and fry her hide off.