Murder of children renews debate over death penalty in Turkey

In my opinion, a murderer is a criminal because he doesn´t have the right to decide if another person lives or not. However, I also don´t think a state, a judge, or the police have the right to decide if a person lives or not. That´s why I´m against death penalty. Even if you would kill the person who killed those kids, it wouldn´t bring those children back. A long life sentence is better in my opinion. I´d rather die than have to be locked up the rest of my life.

There is probably not a single answer to a question like that. If youcan´t be bothered you simply say, yes or no. As a matter of fact, the same person could give different answers in different stages of his lilfe because this is one of the most crucial questions pertaining to justice.

Religions, folklore and the primeval nature of man urges him to take revenge when he or those in his group or family are offended, challenged, harmed or killed by others. Usually, this revenge either equals or outstips the oppoenent´s action. Man is used to functioning like this so it feels quite natural to desire to kill someone who killed one of you. After all, this is allowed and in some cases even encouraged by most religions. 

Modern states are also keen on retailiating. Mutuality and reciprocity are the two key criteria in relations so is retaliation. It is understood that all of these are just elaborations of the eye for eye, blood for blood mentality.

If someone killed someone who is very dear to me, I would wish to kill that person. That would not cure my grief. It would just help my anger. This is in my nature. I am not that modern so as to think about the conditions that caused that person to become a murderer. I can´t think so philosophical. Just as my attachment to my beloved ones is nothing but a primeval feeling, my urge to hurt those hurt them is also a primeval one.

That being said, I can´t claim that would be the most productive solution. Nor can I claim, bereaving someone of his freedom is any different from effectively killing that person. Both are done because of the existence of coercion that can decide on a punishment but not on its limits because of some philosophical reserve.

Türk halkı idam cezasını geri istiyor!

İşte HABERTURK.COM´un dev anketinin sonuçları

Kayserili üç çocuğun vahşice öldürülmesinin ardından gündeme gelen idam cezası tartışmalarında Türk halkı söz hakkını HABERTURK.COM´un düzenlediği ankette kullandı. "Çocuklara tecavüz edenlere, öldürenlere idam cezası geri getirilmeli mi?" sorusunun sorulduğu ve sadece 48 saat yayında kalan ankette 76 bin 874 kişi oy kullanırken, kullanıcıların yüzde 95.88´i (73 bin 750 kişi) "Evet, getirilmeli" yanıtını verdi. Oy kullananların yüzde 4.12´si (3 bin 167 kişi) ise "Hayır, getirilmesin" yönünde görüş bildirdi.

Okuyucularımız anketin yanısıra yorumlarıyla da tartışmaya katıldı. HABERTURK.COM okurları haberin yayında kaldığı 48 saat boyunca tam 4 bin 295 yorum göndererek konuyla ilgili görüşlerini dile getirdi.

Translation

Turkish people want it back. On a recent poll that lasted 48 hours, 76874 people have participated. Of those who voted, 95.88% (73750 persons) voted for "yes" (i.e. wanted it back), only 4.12% (3167 persons) voted for "no".

I myself haven´t voted but would vote for "yes". What´s the point of feeding a goddamned piece of meat for a lifetime?

Source: here

I know that if somebody would hurt my children, I would want to kill them. Sure, I am human after all. But that is why we are all living in countries with a modern legal system. Sometimes it´s to protect us from ourselves. Where do you draw the line for death penalty? Let´s say somebody killed 10 children... Clear, death penalty. Let´s say he killed 1... Let´s say he killed one, but he was in a crazy state at the time, thinking the child was an alien from outerspace?

I don´t think any person has the right to kill anybody else. Even if that other person is "god damned". If that other person is really god damned, god will take care of that person, you don´t have to. We are civilized people, and we don´t have to lower ourselves to the standard of "an eye for an eye".

There is a seed of truth in what you are saying. The system must indeed protect citizens from themselves too. 

Nevertheless, like all beliefs about systems whose rules are anonymously set (or at least appear to be that way) there are strings of assumptions whose validity change in the course of time. So what is considered modern will be archaic tomorrow. Public opinion about capital punishment is one such matter which can go in either direction as the assumptions change.

If the matter were say rape and if I could find words to justify it. I might say, in nature there is no rape because sexuality is not harnessed by the laws. THerefore rape is a petty crime and serving 5-10 years in prison would be a disproportionate punishment. If I said so, it wouldn´t be too difficult for you to defend the existing penal code emphasizing the special nature of the crime. What augments the punishment here is not only the material harm done but also the psychological one and the latter has greater weight here. Likewise, when people demand capital punishment, they partly base this on the fact that it is not just the loss of that person but also the irrepairable damage done in the psychologies of the persons who lost him.

You  displayed selective attention when you wrote in a previous message something like this: although many people lost their lives during the WWII like Russians, Gypsies, homosexuals etc., I mostly write and think about Jews and the Jewish Holocaust.  And the laws does consider this a special case and jail you if you deny the Holocaust. If the laws don´t care about anything other than the crime itself why do they single out certain crimes as more punishable. Isn´t that done because of sentiments other than justice? 

Everyday hundreds of people are murdered. There are so many incidents that newspapers don´t carry them unless they concern a celebrity, a very important person or unless murder committed in a strikingly brutal manner and people just don´t mind them all that much. The entire harm of a murder is done to the person murdered and those associated with him. If you judge a murderer with a sentiment expected of a newspaper reader, you can not establish justice in the hearts of those who are victimized. 

I am definitely pro capital punishment in cases where cold blooded murder has been committed and proven beyond doubt. Some people do not deserve to live and i do not see why the society should pay for their imprisonment, especially in case when there´s a life sentence, which basically means no chance for resocialisation. 

I find numerous sentences ridiculously short in regard to the crime committed. Some people get 10 years for murder or 5 for beating somebody to death and they leave prison after a few years for good behaviour.

On the other hand, I´ve heard that child murderers have it hard in prison, some are torched, others raped...maybe that´s the way to deal with scum: to let those whose hands are not tied with humanitarian ideals do what should be done?

Or maybe I say so because I have children and I cannot go beyond personal feelings when discussing this issue?

Murderers, their parents, their procreators and society are responsible and guilty for these  crimes according to criminal law, jurisprudence and law philosophy .Therefore, murderers, their  parents, their procreators  and community should be punished  respectively.This is not my opinion, but law philosophy.There are differences of opinions among countries on the issue.No consensus.I  think the opinions on this subject are mostly traditional, narrow minded and personal. I could not agree with them more scientifically according to theory philosophy, law sociology and  philosophy of law.

I watched a program on TV last night. They discussed bringing the death penalty back.

They summarised how people were executed after being found guilty during old times.

I couldn´t believe what they did to the surviving insurgents during Grand Mosque Seizure.

They were beheaded in the end but they cut off one organ a day until then (one day left arm the following day the right and then left foot and then...you know what).

Turkish Minister for Industry and Trade casts light on the status of capital punishment. Below is translated from the online edition of daily Hurriyet. There is an obvious flaw with this train of thought which is imported from the EU. Even if someone is caught red handed, there is no way to subject him to capital punishment. 

THERE IS NO GOING BACK

Capital punishment is back on the agenda in Turkey and particularly in Kayseri following the outbreak of the news on murder of the kidnapped children in the province.

Minister Ergun thinks one of the major concerns that lead to the abolishing of the capital punishment in Turkey was the probability of false convictions. He said there are instances where evidence found 10 years after the execution proving a suspect innocent, but there is of course no going back after execution. He said this point has induced a trend against capital punishment in the world. Since Turkey acts in line with the EU principles, capital punishment is also abolished in Turkey.

"IT IS NOT THAT CERTAIN CRIMINALS DON´T DESERVE DEATH SENTENCE."

"There are crimes justifying capital punishment in the world´s societies but since there can be false convitions, and some people can be proven innocent after years, we can restore justice to those affected by false convitions at least with a delay.