Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 04:03 UTC

Re: Should the Death Penalty be allowed in Asgardia?  

"The risk of executing innocent people is minuscule, but even a minuscule risk in this gross miscarriage of justice is too much"

No it isn't. I would rather see ten innocents shot out an airlock than even one guilty go free. You also seem to be under the delusion that this wont be a surveillance state. Its a space station, there will be cameras in every corridor, every crevice. You're right, the risk is minuscule, far more so than on Earth.

"Having a perfect trial, perfect evidence and completely competent representation for individuals facing the death penalty is simply impossible."

Than it is impossible for all trials thus all punishments are invalid.

"I view the death penalty as an outdated and barbaric form of deterrence."

Clearly you're quite sheltered as the vast majority of the world doesn't. Have you ever spent time outside of the first world? Death is an integral part of punishment, the human condition and most importantly natural selection. Should there be a certain type of person who is genetically prone to irrational violence, it is logical to eliminate their genes from the pool. There is nothing out of date about the death penalty unless you think we humans have transcended nature its self, which is quite a ridiculous assertion.

"we should seek to rehabilitate these individuals and put them to use for the state through the utilization of the best scientific rehabilitation processes."

These individuals are a drag on the state and their sheer need for rehabilitation detracts from far more important matters of the state. Should conclusive evidence arise that it is cheaper to rehabilitate them than to simply smite them I would be happy to allow this, on Earth, not on a space station. Rehabilitation has no business occurring on a space station.

  Last edited by:  Thomas Hinton (Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 04:10 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: reformat

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 09:11 UTC

@Justice - completely agree with your comments. If we have the option of the death penalty there is always the chance (however small) that someone innocent could be executed and the reasoning behind this is sound 1- it has been proven that it has already happenedin the past, 2 - the judicial system is subject to human error and or corruption because attorneys, judges and juries are all human. Imagine if we had enacted the death penalty on the 'Guildford Five' or the 'West Memphis Three' - all of whom have now been released from prison because of evidence that pointed to them all being innocent.
If you have the death penalty there will always be the chance that some one innocent will be murdered by the state and that should be an unacceptable risk in a modern, progressive and peaceful society that I hope Asgardia will prove to be!

  Last edited by:  Belinda DARE (Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 09:24 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 10:46 UTC

Death penalty was one form of punishment at a time when there was very limited understanding of human psychology and perceptions. As scientific research grew, so the should the form of punishment. Punishment itself will indulge very little correction factor in a human being. Its not that punishments shouldn't there at all, but should be present along with more appreciative counseling.

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 12:08 UTC

I agree to most of "Justice" sayings. Death penalty is barbarian.

What would be more civilised is to think that crimes and negative behaviors in a society, come from lack of education, lack of social empathy, emphasis on violence and unruled access to weapons. Sometimes crime is due to illness, brain damage, ... and then death penalty is criminal. Trying to cure the person seems more civilised. If crimes happens it is education that can solve the problem. But of course education is a long term action, not like a bullet.

"Punishment" is a word which should disappear, "rehabilitate" should replace it.

Tradeinc says "I would rather see ten innocents shot out an airlock than even one guilty go free" - Try and think if you were one of them. That sentence is exactly the contrary of civilisation. I also want to point that genes have scientifically nothing to do with crime. Using the word "eliminate" shows a barbarian state of mind.

On an other point makes me mad. Someone says "it should be a quick justice" an other one "people should vote for death penalty". Do you want to be a crowd shouting "kill him, hang him, burn him" with no proofs, no evidences no fair trial. Yuck !

If death penalty should enter Asgardia, I would get out immediately.

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 15:00 UTC

I choose no due that I believe that we don't have or should not have the right to kill someone.

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 16:32 UTC

Death penalty was one form of punishment at a time when there was very limited understanding of human psychology and perceptions. As scientific research grew, so the should the form of punishment. Punishment itself will indulge very little correction factor in a human being. Its not that punishments shouldn't there at all, but should be present along with more appreciative counseling.

The correction factor will be 100% if all offenders are dead.

Try and think if you were one of them. That sentence is exactly the contrary of civilization*. I also want to point that genes have scientifically nothing to do with crime. Using the word "eliminate" shows a barbarian state of mind.

I would happily die so that a man who needs to die gets what he deserves. Genes my friend, have to do with absolutely everything, including and especially crime. Barbarian, civilized, these are relative terms without tangible meaning, not arguments.

On an other point makes me mad. Someone says "it should be a quick justice" an other one "people should vote for death penalty". Do you want to be a crowd shouting "kill him, hang him, burn him" with no proofs, no evidences no fair trial. Yuck !

That is not what I envision in the slightest. Once the crime has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court, for large offenders there could be a vote between deportation or death. Work on reading comprehension, I have stated this once already. For smaller crimes it matters less, I could envision a voting system or no. You seem to have no idea what live will be like on a space station, screens everywhere, cameras everywhere, everything you consume and produce tracked, everywhere you go noted. Imagine instead of checking into Facebook every morning, you sign in to your Citizens Account. In this account you will have things similar to facebook, in addition to mandatory votes on various station matters. Everybody will be linked in. Everybody, online. No vote will go amiss, every Citizen accounted for.

If death penalty should enter Asgardia, I would get out immediately.

Good. The weak will only hold us back. Space will be an extremely difficult place. I have a feeling it will be similar to what life was like on earth thousands of years ago, at least in the way we interact with other species.In space nature will test a races, a species, at every turn. Only the strongest will have the ability to survive, the weak will quickly be forgotten, their blood lost to the ages, because it was not worthy of existing in natures most testing realm.

If we have the option of the death penalty there is always the chance (however small) that someone innocent could be executed and the reasoning behind this is sound

I have repeatedly addressed this. Absolutely everything that can be tracked and noted will be, cameras will be everywhere, your location tracked all hours of every day. Yet even if one innocent man in 50 years is wrongly executed you wouldn't execute a man who massacred 30? Absurd.

  Last edited by:  Thomas Hinton (Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 16:33 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 19:53 UTC

I vote yes but with a slight hesitation.

Being that Asgardia is a new nation, we will have new dangers to account for, those need to be considered in our daily survival. Having extremely violence beings on in our nation posses a real threat to everyone's safety. Also need to consider, if no death penalty, how or where would we house such offenders. we would then need to create and train staff to maintain them. This all comes at a cost, can we really afford it?

if these people couldn't work in society why should we carry "dead weight" which only enders our growth and likely our survivability.

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 21:12 UTC

I vote NO. I am of the opinion that the UN stance on the death penalty should be adopted and they are not in favour of capital punishment. If Asgardia is to be accepted as a new nation, then such an extreme justice system is likely to raise too many eyebrows around the globe.

I appreciate that having to keep citizens safe in space presents some complicated challenges with many additional high risk factors. Resources are going to be limited. Everyone is going to have to rely on one another. Maintaining close ties with terrestrial governing bodies may help to resolve problems with potentially dangerous criminals in space. I think this is the first thing to consider before resorting to the death sentence. Perhaps in the future, there will be better resources available if a problem arises.

  Last edited by:  Nicholas Wilkinson (Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 21:13 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 20, 01 / Jan 20, 17 00:20 UTC

I voted no. The reason why I voted no because the death penalty is an extreme form of punishment. Let me explain.... 1) we wish to become a member state of the United Nations however if we are to have the death penalty , this may cause a problem because on 18th December 2014, the United Nations voted to adopt a resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty, with an eye toward abolition. A record high 117 countries voted in favor of the resolution. ( there are 193 member states in the UN, with 160+ member states have either abolished or don't even practice it. These 160+ members states have a variety of legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious background)

But some may say that we could have the death penalty and also be a united nation member state because there are some member nations who have the death penalty. This then brings me to my second reason....

2) nobody has the right to take another person's life regardless of belief, race ,etc. Life is a precious thing which all mankind has. No matter of everybody's social class...no matter if we are really rich or really poor we all have this precious gift. (My second reason is an opinion based reason because I much prefer to have those who would normally get the death penalty to go through rehabilitation that will be benefit the asgardian "future" nation as well as them)

To sum up the death penalty shouldn't be in place and that alternative methods has to be in place for a person who has committed a criminal act as this would be beneficial for said person and the asgardian nation.

Regards

Fpitts

Edit-
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DeathPenalty/Pages/DPIndex.aspx https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MemberstatesoftheUnited_Nations http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/5993

  Last edited by:  Francis Pitts (Asgardian)  on Aqu 20, 01 / Jan 20, 17 19:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Sorry didn't put the URL for the websites where I found information on the United Nations and the death penalty.

Aqu 23, 01 / Jan 23, 17 02:02 UTC

Absolutely not.

@ Tradeine, to murder innocents just in the hopes of killing the right person is not justice, and even if you are willing to be killed in the zealous pursuit of such ham-fisted retribution, others are not.

While you may see your line of thought as merely being pragmatic, if the state will so casually murder innocent people, it is indistinguishable from those it was designed to punish; worse in fact, because of the greater power the state wields over the lives of its citizens.

Aqu 24, 01 / Jan 24, 17 17:46 UTC

Murder and "assisted suicide" are two seperate things, entirely. The request for termination I feel should be honoured, regardless of "criminal" status or not. It should first be offered different means to deal with w/e problem leads to this desire but on finding this is informed descision it should be the right of any sentient being. Otherwise is frankly barbaric.

If we can attribute resources to sensibly think about housing our population, the construction of isolated prison facilities shouild be a trivial affair. As is the long term maintainence. Being a sovereign nation we can not just send people back to earth unless we have a prison system to place them in. Thusly, due to the "resource excess" caused by solving various things - like actually gathering the mass to sensibly support our population in space - we can simply build more than we need and rent that space to Earth, along with other rehabilitation options. Why just fix our problems? Say the offense was murder. What is the punishment? Quite possibly, I am unsuitable to decide this, but the comitting the same act is hardly appropriate unless you're trying to prove you are really no diferent.

just airlock them. It will be quick and humane form of death.

Sure, they have a life expectancy of less than 20s as all their water in their blood starts to boil causing savage convulsions aligned with bloody froth from mouth or nose as everything begins to be an exit for the pressure. I'd not entirely describe this process as "humane" - but it could become a fun hobby if left unchecked. However, there are many things - aside from the moral and ethical conundrums - that would make this unwise to persue. Things like orbits tend to work in vagely circular fashion - and even if this doesn't happen in orbit, you're intentionally making debris. The idea is to be clearing that up. Try working out the kinetic energy provided by a frozen corpse travelling at 1800m/s relative.

Pis 08, 01 / Feb 5, 17 15:27 UTC

No. Killing is wrong, no matter how you word it. Murder, or death penalty. It's about taking a life for a selfish reason. I hope by the time Asgardia gets into space we will have moved passed unnatural deaths. Medicine and therapy should be developed enough to rehabilitate or placate violent tendencies.

Tradeinc - You seem to really want to kill a lot of people. That airlock death penalty was kind of a scary thought. The 10 innocent to 1 guilty ratio was absolutely terrifying. I would like for you to read your own words objectively and be honest with yourself.

Pis 10, 01 / Feb 7, 17 18:46 UTC

No, we do not need the death penalty in Asgardia, compared to spending life having to live with the guilt and knowledge of what you have done. Being put to death by the nation/state in which you live is no penalty at all! I mean, just think about what attrocity you would have to commit to even receive the death penalty like murder and then think about how after you have been executed the victim's family has to go on suffering from the loss of a loved one, and then ask yourself is your having been executed a penalty when you do not have to live with the guilt and knowledge of what you have done the pain you have caused people who have no quarrel with you!? I know not every murder has remorse for what they have done but. There are some who do end up coming to understand what they have done and truly feel remorse for their actions. Leaving those folks to have to live with that guilt would be far more of a penalty than death!

Tradeinc what is wrong with you? Also, it does not matter what you would rather see, ten innocent people should NOT lose their lives just so one guilty person is eliminated from society. It is quite disturbing to know you think that way, I suggest you seek professional mental help as you do not sound stable at all. The death penalty is actually barbaric and more to the point it is totally ineffective! It does not deter folks from committing crimes like murder and needs to be permanently retired!

Hey Dvk9, Every crime you can think of will find it's way to Asgardia, so, if you really believe that certain crimes will be limited you are fooling yourself and no, throwing folks into an airlock would not be a humane way to execute them. A quick and cheap method maybe, but in no way humane. There is no humane way to take the life of another! When taking the life of another even in the name of justice you always hurt someone and because you are simply executing folks rather than trying to find out what caused them to commit the crime in the first place. You aren't doing anything to help ensure those same crimes are not committed by someone else! Asgardia could have prisons they would not even need to be part of the space station itself. There would be an infinite or nearly infinite amount of space for such facilities in space. Or Asgardia can simply purchase land and build one on good ole terra firma. Actually, screw prisons they are obsolete ideas anyway, rehabilitation facilities is what Asgardia should build. Working to eventually fix the problem is far more effective than simply locking up people in what are basically cages! The issue of crime is not limited to the present moment but the future as well. The goal should always be to learn how to treat what causes folks to commit crimes now. So, you can develop and employ more effective means of crime prevention in the future.

  Updated  on Pis 22, 01 / Feb 19, 17 04:43 UTC, Total number of edits: 4 times

Pis 15, 01 / Feb 12, 17 18:32 UTC

Absolutely not. The very basis of the death penalty on earth, I believe, is taken out of the bible with the "eye for an eye" mentality. Too many laws in most countries are taken from a religious pretext and, although some are justifiable, we cannot condone killing our brothers and sisters in any sense. If our goal is to create a nation free from persecution and percieved borders then we cannot adapt a system which is largely unfair and unjust to a majority of the population, with a few exceptions, and where corruprion is rampant on a global scale. Maximum punishment should be some form of exile reserved for only the extreme cases. As the great Gandhi so eloquently put it, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the world blind"

Pis 15, 01 / Feb 12, 17 18:33 UTC

Absolutely not. The very basis of the death penalty on earth, I believe, is taken out of the bible with the "eye for an eye" mentality. Too many laws in most countries are taken from a religious pretext and, although some are justifiable, we cannot condone killing our brothers and sisters in any sense. If our goal is to create a nation free from persecution and percieved borders then we cannot adapt a system which is largely unfair and unjust to a majority of the population, with a few exceptions, and where corruption is rampant on a global scale. Maximum punishment should be some form of exile reserved for only the extreme cases. As the great Gandhi so eloquently put it, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the world blind"