The Death Penalty

[lawbinded]

Most people feel that the death penalty should be reinstated in South Africa due the increasing number of brutal murders during the past few years.

Do you really think it is unconstitutional to reinstate it and if not, will it even make a difference bringing it back (bearing in mind that it would only be awarded in the most extreme circumstances)?

What do you think?

[Dave A]

Most people?

Has there been a survey?

[Mark Atkinson]

To be honest, I'm all in favor of the death penalty. If a person rapes and murders people, I'm not sure that he deserves to live.

The only potential issue that I have with it is wrongful convictions. If an innocent loses his life to the death penalty, then it's a different story.

Then again, who am I to decide.

[wynn]

A few years back there was an attempted murder hijacking in East London where a pregnant chick was stabbed and lost her baby but survived herself.
The boyfriends mother went apeshit in the press and organised a march demanding the death penalty be reinstated.
The day before the march her son was arrested for arranging the hit on the pregnant girlfriend as he didn't want to marry her.

So be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!!

Story reminds me of Dewani??

[Martinco]

Most people?

Has there been a survey?

Well....what about a survey on TFSA ? Or too controversial ?

[AndyD]

I don't see why it would be too controversial, it's a genuine issue that's been in the limelight for many years.

For me it's not about anything but the unreliability of the police, the chain of evidence and the fallibility of the courts in this country. There's way too much scope for wrongful convictions.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

the constitutional issues aside, one of the fundamental shortfalls of arguments favouring the death penalty is that there is no evidence, world wide, to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent.
I must agree with the issue of police capabilities and evidence etc.
My biggest reason for not allowing the death penalty (and I am neither for nor against) would be the lack of accesibility to justice. A lawyer is too expensive. hardly fair to put a man on trial for his life without proper representation at least.

As an aside, my feeling in terms of addressing crime, is not more police or stricter penalties, but a higher conviction rate. That means the prosecutors particulalry, need more resources. Criminal penalties ar emeant to be deterrent. Unless you get high convictions crime will continue. Why fear a penalty if I know my chances of being convicted, not caught, are slim!

[lawbinded]

Most people?

Has there been a survey?

I have pulled up an old 2006 article. Have a look at some statistics back then. Hope this helps. Death penalty

[Dave A]

Well....what about a survey on TFSA ? Or too controversial ?

A great idea. Poll loaded.

[Dave A]

I'm with Anthony when it comes to reasons not to re-instate the death penalty. I don't think they should be entitled to the vote, though. If society's ability to remove a person's right to liberty can pass constitutional muster, why can't we also remove their right to vote?

My main add on the topic though is that I think there's far too much discussion on the death penalty and not enough discussion on what we are trying to achieve with imprisonment - which IMO is where the bulk of the harm is being done in our penal system.

When last did you hear the term "rehabilitation" being discussed with passion when it comes to incarceration?

[AndyD]

When last did you hear the term "rehabilitation" being discussed with passion when it comes to incarceration?

Rehabilitation is not important and incarceration or even the death penalty will do if all you want as a society is revenge.

[wynn]

Prisons should only be for dangerous criminals (murderers, rapists, hi-jackers, armed robbers, etc) all other long term prisoners should serve time on state farms and in workshops growing veggies and meat for hospitals, orphanages, schools etc. and making the necessary items needed in these institutions such as beds, matresses, bedding, desks, uniforms and printing books etc.

The short term convicts (more than six months) can stay at home but must work in state institutions as nurse aids, cleaners, helpers, gardeners, maintanance guys and labourers etc.

The really short term convicts would just do community service to the time they would have served (why send a person to prison for two or six months when they can do 1200 or 4320 hours service during the day if they are unemployed and the rest during evenings and weekends?)

[Justloadit]

Repetitive violent crime is committed by a few in the population, maintaining them alive an incarcerated, whilst it sounds as a civilized action, is an expensive way of maintaining your principle. Death penalty is a way to purge society of this unwanted criminal.

[berndj]

Prisons should only be for dangerous criminals (murderers, rapists, hi-jackers, armed robbers, etc) all other long term prisoners should serve time on state farms and in workshops growing veggies and meat for hospitals, orphanages, schools etc. and making the necessary items needed in these institutions such as beds, matresses, bedding, desks, uniforms and printing books etc.

On an emotional level I like the idea of convicts doing some real hard labour, but the free market advocate in me sees subsidized business operators and market distortions. If you get prison gangs to build roads, aren't we harming civil engineering companies? Or if the department of correctional services rents out their prisoners as a raw labour service, aren't they undercutting honest labourers unfairly? I recognize a few of you guys from the electrical contracting forum; how would you feel if prisons made installation electricians out of inmates and then put them to work for free, or not for free but still undercutting you because their marginal cost is near zero?

You'd have to somehow restrict this free labour to areas in which the market fails - get the convicts to do stuff that is worthwhile, but with nobody doing it because of transaction costs etc. But how do you reliably determine which these area are?

I'm almost forced to the conclusion that the only socially just work to which one can put convicts is work that is "wasted" in a sense. Letting them dig holes and fill them up again. I like to think such labour would make someone think twice about doing more crime, but there's also a pointlessness to it that offends me. We also couldn't force convicts to work, as that's proscribed by the bill of rights. I wonder if it would work if the labour were voluntary - 40% off now if you dig holes!

[Dave A]

We also couldn't force convicts to work, as that's proscribed by the bill of rights. I wonder if it would work if the labour were voluntary - 40% off now if you dig holes!

Interesting idea, but I see David Cameron recently had to back-track on the idea of discounted sentences for people who pleaded guilty early in proceedings against them. What are the chances "society" would renege on the deal?