|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 9:48:37 GMT
Deary me. This has become too easy. A long weekend on the old Mekhong seems to have addled your brain cell. You don't get it do you? Whether the death penalty has or hasn't been repealed recently has no consequence to my post. You settled in a country knowing that country has or had the death penalty. I'm taking about all the years you've already been there pretending you're a Socialist and no doubt condemning the death penalty with your faux morale online outrage not the last 48 hours. Hypocrite. Unless of course you were for the death penalty until this week and now you're against it?? 'Liked' by Samba It was all going alright as well until that Samba 'Liked' my post So Rog, how is your right wing morning going? Tories in power...it must be fucking great? I'm off for a tantric oil massage followed by a Papaya salad then kip. You? No mate. You're blocked so I only comes across you drivel now and again, the Samba like was just a bonus. Anyway who's Kip? Aussie bloke?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 25, 2017 10:02:01 GMT
In this world, Google doesn't always carry the answers Partick. I'm sure you know all about that. Please take my word for it. Nope. I think you're full of shit; wind up merchant shit, fake news shit, general bullshit shit... Maybe I'm being unfair. But this seems to be yet another example of you just making shit up to support a shit argument you've got involved in. I searched all the news outlets yesterday, couldn't find anything apart from the link to include corruption as a death penalty 6 months ago, he is just posting lies, calling everybody names that doesn't agree with his thinking, a troll that's not worth the time of replying to aymore.
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 25, 2017 10:40:27 GMT
Nope. I think you're full of shit; wind up merchant shit, fake news shit, general bullshit shit... Maybe I'm being unfair. But this seems to be yet another example of you just making shit up to support a shit argument you've got involved in. I searched all the news outlets yesterday, couldn't find anything apart from the link to include corruption as a death penalty 6 months ago, he is just posting lies, calling everybody names that doesn't agree with his thinking, a troll that's not worth the time of replying to aymore. I thought you'd blocked me?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 10:47:59 GMT
To be fair, we loved it up until about 60 years ago mate? I always find it ironic that we love to look down our noses at various other parts of the world when it comes to 'culture'. Our culture has some rather embarrassing branches that remain firmly attached to the tree..... to this day. Capital Punishment is wrong...... WHEREVER IT IS. The fact we only outlawed it 60 years ago, means we have very little moral superiority on this particular subject. Most of our fathers were alive when they outlawed capital punishment..... and still are alive today. Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? It's interesting isn't it, nobody did shed a tear for Fred West or Brady. I think Brady and Hindley only missed the rope by a few months and we've had 50 years of morbid curiosity and chilling anniversary documentaries ever since. Not to mention the millions of pounds of taxes spent on someone who by all accounts wanted to die. It was almost became a sadistic intent to keep him alive if he was ready for death. Right until the end he didn't tell the location of that little boy. His family had a lifetime of torment. Even after death a judge had to rule that his ashes couldn't be scattered on the moors. I struggle to think how my life has been improved because the State kept Brady alive all this time. Do you think anyone has changed their lives for the good because of his incarceration? My daughter has never heard of him and her morale compass will be what it will be with or without evil people like him on the planet. I'm not sure I am in favour of bringing back the death penalty but I can't find a logical reason not to.
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 25, 2017 11:06:52 GMT
Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? It's interesting isn't it, nobody did shed a tear for Fred West or Brady. I think Brady and Hindley only missed the rope by a few months and we've had 50 years of morbid curiosity and chilling anniversary documentaries ever since. Not to mention the millions of pounds of taxes spent on someone who by all accounts wanted to die. It was almost became a sadistic intent to keep him alive if he was ready for death. Right until the end he didn't tell the location of that little boy. His family had a lifetime of torment. Even after death a judge had to rule that his ashes couldn't be scattered on the moors. G I struggle to think how my life has been improved because the State kept Brady alive all this time. Do you think anyone has changed their lives for the good because of his incarceration? My daughter has never heard of him and her morale compass will be what it will be with or without evil people like him on the planet. I'm not sure I am in favour of bringing back the death penalty but I can't find a logical reason not to. Hello Mumf Hatred can't hide it's identity.... Roger.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 11:12:45 GMT
To be fair, we loved it up until about 60 years ago mate? I always find it ironic that we love to look down our noses at various other parts of the world when it comes to 'culture'. Our culture has some rather embarrassing branches that remain firmly attached to the tree..... to this day. Capital Punishment is wrong...... WHEREVER IT IS. The fact we only outlawed it 60 years ago, means we have very little moral superiority on this particular subject. Most of our fathers were alive when they outlawed capital punishment..... and still are alive today. Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? By avoiding capital punishment, murderers are at least given a basic level of human rights.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 11:14:37 GMT
Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? It's interesting isn't it, nobody did shed a tear for Fred West or Brady. I think Brady and Hindley only missed the rope by a few months and we've had 50 years of morbid curiosity and chilling anniversary documentaries ever since. Not to mention the millions of pounds of taxes spent on someone who by all accounts wanted to die. It was almost became a sadistic intent to keep him alive if he was ready for death. Right until the end he didn't tell the location of that little boy. His family had a lifetime of torment. Even after death a judge had to rule that his ashes couldn't be scattered on the moors. I struggle to think how my life has been improved because the State kept Brady alive all this time. Do you think anyone has changed their lives for the good because of his incarceration? My daughter has never heard of him and her morale compass will be what it will be with or without evil people like him on the planet. I'm not sure I am in favour of bringing back the death penalty but I can't find a logical reason not to. You're effectively blurring the lines between euthanasia and the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 11:29:35 GMT
It's interesting isn't it, nobody did shed a tear for Fred West or Brady. I think Brady and Hindley only missed the rope by a few months and we've had 50 years of morbid curiosity and chilling anniversary documentaries ever since. Not to mention the millions of pounds of taxes spent on someone who by all accounts wanted to die. It was almost became a sadistic intent to keep him alive if he was ready for death. Right until the end he didn't tell the location of that little boy. His family had a lifetime of torment. Even after death a judge had to rule that his ashes couldn't be scattered on the moors. I struggle to think how my life has been improved because the State kept Brady alive all this time. Do you think anyone has changed their lives for the good because of his incarceration? My daughter has never heard of him and her morale compass will be what it will be with or without evil people like him on the planet. I'm not sure I am in favour of bringing back the death penalty but I can't find a logical reason not to. You're effectively blurring the lines between euthanasia and the death penalty. I wasn't trying to. The comment about Brady wanting to die was decades later when he was much older I understand. Our refusal just added to my thoughts that we should oblige. He doesn't want to be alive, the victims' families don't want him alive the tax payers don't want him alive. Who wants him to be alive?? Has your life been improved by Brady not being hung back in the 60's ??
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 11:38:15 GMT
You're effectively blurring the lines between euthanasia and the death penalty. I wasn't trying to. The comment about Brady wanting to die was decades later when he was much older I understand. Our refusal just added to my thoughts that we should oblige. He doesn't want to be alive, the victims' families don't want him alive the tax payers don't want him alive. Who wants him to be alive?? Has your life been improved by Brady not being hung back in the 60's ?? Take Ian Brady as the exception rather than the norm. Aside from all the obvious reasons not to bring back capital punishment (it's barbaric, it's completely against human rights, it's medieval), I just wonder how many people were falsely executed before we canned this fucking stupid idea 60 years ago? In America, 4.1% of people on death row are believed to be innocent. 4.1%.... So for every 100 people executed, 4 of them were innocent. Take the 28,000 people who turn up to our ground most weeks. That is 1148 people who would be wrongly executed. Think of a thousand people at our ground, and think of that number being executed. Now I know 28,000 aren't going to be executed, but it really puts into context, just how many people are wrongly executed in the USA. And you want to bring that dog shit back to the UK? Unfortunately, there's no hard details about how many were wrongly executed in the UK. Corruption is rife in the UK. The police force are systemically corrupt, the CPS is believed to be corrupt, and you want to give them the chance to legally 'deal' with people. Fuckkkkkk that. If we bring the death penalty back, I will emigrate to somewhere else. Genuinely.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 12:00:43 GMT
I wasn't trying to. The comment about Brady wanting to die was decades later when he was much older I understand. Our refusal just added to my thoughts that we should oblige. He doesn't want to be alive, the victims' families don't want him alive the tax payers don't want him alive. Who wants him to be alive?? Has your life been improved by Brady not being hung back in the 60's ?? Take Ian Brady as the exception rather than the norm. Aside from all the obvious reasons not to bring back capital punishment (it's barbaric, it's completely against human rights, it's medieval), I just wonder how many people were falsely executed before we canned this fucking stupid idea 60 years ago? In America, 4.1% of people on death row are believed to be innocent. 4.1%.... So for every 100 people executed, 4 of them were innocent. Take the 28,000 people who turn up to our ground most weeks. That is 1148 people who would be wrongly executed. Think of a thousand people at our ground, and think of that number being executed. Now I know 28,000 aren't going to be executed, but it really puts into context, just how many people are wrongly executed in the USA. And you want to bring that dog shit back to the UK? Unfortunately, there's no hard details about how many were wrongly executed in the UK. Corruption is rife in the UK. The police force are systemically corrupt, the CPS is believed to be corrupt, and you want to give them the chance to legally 'deal' with people. Fuckkkkkk that. If we bring the death penalty back, I will emigrate to somewhere else. Genuinely. Oh I agree that Brady is an anomaly. He just missed hanging, the case was/is shocking, some bodies never recovered and he eventually morphed into a macabre 21st century celebrity monster. I agree with your reason to abolish a mandatory death penalty but I think that judges should have the option of a death sentence for some cases. Fred and Rosemary, Shipman the Lee Rigby killers. All premeditated and uncontested.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 25, 2017 12:24:04 GMT
Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? By avoiding capital punishment, murderers are at least given a basic level of human rights. Didn't the European Court of Human Rights rule life without parole is a breach of human rights?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 12:46:38 GMT
Capital punishment or life without parole. I wonder why we look on the latter as OK but not the former. The first is actual death, the latter a living one. Both have moral challenges, but then again both are punishments for (let's assume for the point of argument) appalling crimes. It's an old argument but would anyone much bother if Ian Brady had been executed rather than allowed to die after many years in prison? Who shed a tear when Fred West died? By avoiding capital punishment, murderers are at least given a basic level of human rights. And on a purely logical level, some convicted criminals will be acquitted. Always happens, even with the best will in the world and a pretty good justice system. For me, the risk of executing the wrong person - however remote - is the main reason for avoiding the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 13:11:58 GMT
By avoiding capital punishment, murderers are at least given a basic level of human rights. And on a purely logical level, some convicted criminals will be acquitted. Always happens, even with the best will in the world and a pretty good justice system. For me, the risk of executing the wrong person - however remote - is the main reason for avoiding the death penalty. No I think that's a reason for avoiding a mandatory death sentence. Another problem I have with this 'wrong person' logic is that if you were to follow that path then you would support the total closure of borders to refugees because "however remote" one might be an ISIS terrorist. Maybe you do support that?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 13:33:25 GMT
Oh I agree that Brady is an anomaly. He just missed hanging, the case was/is shocking, some bodies never recovered and he eventually morphed into a macabre 21st century celebrity monster. I agree with your reason to abolish a mandatory death penalty but I think that judges should have the option of a death sentence for some cases. Fred and Rosemary, Shipman the Lee Rigby killers. All premeditated and uncontested. It's too open to abuse. People in authority, throughout history, have been corrupted and often corruptible under the right conditions. It is human nature. If any of you recently watched the TV drama Fearless, I thought that brilliantly represented how people in authority are corruptible. I'm aware that it was fictional piece of television (the director has said many of the side plots are actually true stories, but were glued together to make a separate single story), but ultimately, it was an excellent and very believable piece of work..... and the subsequent ending really hit the nail on the head. Now, for the Fred and Rose West's of this world, perhaps death would feel like an acceptable outcome.... but take the person who has been wrongly convicted of murdering, say.... his pregnant wife. Now, there's a surefire example of a guy who needs execution right? How could someone be so despicable.... www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/convicted-murderer-eddie-gilfoyle-a-11543241Like when the police Eddie Gilfoyle went to jail for 18 years for murder, despite evidence, diaries, documents pretty much proving that she committed suicide. Merseyside Police are now under investigation for corruption and I believe it's an ongoing case. Don't expect any police to be prosecuted though. They're a protected class. Let's be honest... Gilfoyle is just one of many people stitched up by our systemically corrupt police force. And you want to give them the right to effectively sentence people to death? To reiterate..... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT. By avoiding capital punishment, murderers are at least given a basic level of human rights. Didn't the European Court of Human Rights rule life without parole is a breach of human rights? What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 13:49:35 GMT
And on a purely logical level, some convicted criminals will be acquitted. Always happens, even with the best will in the world and a pretty good justice system. For me, the risk of executing the wrong person - however remote - is the main reason for avoiding the death penalty. No I think that's a reason for avoiding a mandatory death sentence. Another problem I have with this 'wrong person' logic is that if you were to follow that path then you would support the total closure of borders to refugees because "however remote" one might be an ISIS terrorist. Maybe you do support that? You could equally apply that logic the opposite way too, though. ie - we don't want to risk punishing innocent people for the crimes of a handful, so let's just let everyone in. Both stances are flawed because immigration and criminal justice are two completely different things. You have to apply different principles and different logic to them. For what it's worth, my stance on immigration would, I suspect, be tougher than you think, but that's off-topic ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) It doesn't matter if it's mandatory or otherwise; innocent people would be executed, even with the best will in the world. That's too heavy a price to pay. Without even getting into the more abstract morality of the rights and wrongs of killing human beings ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 25, 2017 14:25:44 GMT
Oh I agree that Brady is an anomaly. He just missed hanging, the case was/is shocking, some bodies never recovered and he eventually morphed into a macabre 21st century celebrity monster. I agree with your reason to abolish a mandatory death penalty but I think that judges should have the option of a death sentence for some cases. Fred and Rosemary, Shipman the Lee Rigby killers. All premeditated and uncontested. It's too open to abuse. People in authority, throughout history, have been corrupted and often corruptible under the right conditions. It is human nature. If any of you recently watched the TV drama Fearless, I thought that brilliantly represented how people in authority are corruptible. I'm aware that it was fictional piece of television (the director has said many of the side plots are actually true stories, but were glued together to make a separate single story), but ultimately, it was an excellent and very believable piece of work..... and the subsequent ending really hit the nail on the head. Now, for the Fred and Rose West's of this world, perhaps death would feel like an acceptable outcome.... but take the person who has been wrongly convicted of murdering, say.... his pregnant wife. Now, there's a surefire example of a guy who needs execution right? How could someone be so despicable.... www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/convicted-murderer-eddie-gilfoyle-a-11543241Like when the police Eddie Gilfoyle went to jail for 18 years for murder, despite evidence, diaries, documents pretty much proving that she committed suicide. Merseyside Police are now under investigation for corruption and I believe it's an ongoing case. Don't expect any police to be prosecuted though. They're a protected class. Let's be honest... Gilfoyle is just one of many people stitched up by our systemically corrupt police force. And you want to give them the right to effectively sentence people to death? To reiterate..... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT. Didn't the European Court of Human Rights rule life without parole is a breach of human rights? What's your point? The point is my original one - if you are intending to lock someone up and throw away the key why not just kill them? Both have massive moral issues, both breach human rights. A living death vs an actual death. Why get all worked up about one but not the other.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 15:05:50 GMT
It's too open to abuse. People in authority, throughout history, have been corrupted and often corruptible under the right conditions. It is human nature. If any of you recently watched the TV drama Fearless, I thought that brilliantly represented how people in authority are corruptible. I'm aware that it was fictional piece of television (the director has said many of the side plots are actually true stories, but were glued together to make a separate single story), but ultimately, it was an excellent and very believable piece of work..... and the subsequent ending really hit the nail on the head. Now, for the Fred and Rose West's of this world, perhaps death would feel like an acceptable outcome.... but take the person who has been wrongly convicted of murdering, say.... his pregnant wife. Now, there's a surefire example of a guy who needs execution right? How could someone be so despicable.... www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/convicted-murderer-eddie-gilfoyle-a-11543241Like when the police Eddie Gilfoyle went to jail for 18 years for murder, despite evidence, diaries, documents pretty much proving that she committed suicide. Merseyside Police are now under investigation for corruption and I believe it's an ongoing case. Don't expect any police to be prosecuted though. They're a protected class. Let's be honest... Gilfoyle is just one of many people stitched up by our systemically corrupt police force. And you want to give them the right to effectively sentence people to death? To reiterate..... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT. What's your point? The point is my original one - if you are intending to lock someone up and throw away the key why not just kill them? Both have massive moral issues, both breach human rights. A living death vs an actual death. Why get all worked up about one but not the other. Because one option is, at least, reversible to some extent? The other is a bit more final ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif)
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 15:29:20 GMT
No I think that's a reason for avoiding a mandatory death sentence. Another problem I have with this 'wrong person' logic is that if you were to follow that path then you would support the total closure of borders to refugees because "however remote" one might be an ISIS terrorist. Maybe you do support that? You could equally apply that logic the opposite way too, though. ie - we don't want to risk punishing innocent people for the crimes of a handful, so let's just let everyone in. Both stances are flawed because immigration and criminal justice are two completely different things. You have to apply different principles and different logic to them. For what it's worth, my stance on immigration would, I suspect, be tougher than you think, but that's off-topic ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) It doesn't matter if it's mandatory or otherwise; innocent people would be executed, even with the best will in the world. That's too heavy a price to pay. Without even getting into the more abstract morality of the rights and wrongs of killing human beings ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 15:48:22 GMT
You could equally apply that logic the opposite way too, though. ie - we don't want to risk punishing innocent people for the crimes of a handful, so let's just let everyone in. Both stances are flawed because immigration and criminal justice are two completely different things. You have to apply different principles and different logic to them. For what it's worth, my stance on immigration would, I suspect, be tougher than you think, but that's off-topic ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) It doesn't matter if it's mandatory or otherwise; innocent people would be executed, even with the best will in the world. That's too heavy a price to pay. Without even getting into the more abstract morality of the rights and wrongs of killing human beings ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. One a decade? Oh it's only one a decade... one a decade everyone. One innocent person a decade. Nothing to worry about here. One a decade. Jesus fucking christ.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 25, 2017 15:57:16 GMT
The point is my original one - if you are intending to lock someone up and throw away the key why not just kill them? Both have massive moral issues, both breach human rights. A living death vs an actual death. Why get all worked up about one but not the other. Because one option is, at least, reversible to some extent? The other is a bit more final ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif) Agree - that is certainly a difference! But is that your main issue with capital punishment - the risk of killing an innocent person. If so - I'm guessing you'd support it where there is no question about the guilt of the individual concerned.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jul 25, 2017 16:09:10 GMT
We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. One a decade? Oh it's only one a decade... one a decade everyone. One innocent person a decade. Nothing to worry about here. One a decade. Jesus fucking christ. Jesus fucking Christ indeed if you think any of the people Roger mentioned are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 16:10:38 GMT
We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. One a decade? Oh it's only one a decade... one a decade everyone. One innocent person a decade. Nothing to worry about here. One a decade. Jesus fucking christ. By the same reasoning against the death penalty are you in favour of Trump's "Muslim ban"? Or the Eastern European countries deciding to fight again immigration?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 17:09:58 GMT
You could equally apply that logic the opposite way too, though. ie - we don't want to risk punishing innocent people for the crimes of a handful, so let's just let everyone in. Both stances are flawed because immigration and criminal justice are two completely different things. You have to apply different principles and different logic to them. For what it's worth, my stance on immigration would, I suspect, be tougher than you think, but that's off-topic ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) It doesn't matter if it's mandatory or otherwise; innocent people would be executed, even with the best will in the world. That's too heavy a price to pay. Without even getting into the more abstract morality of the rights and wrongs of killing human beings ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. I wouldn't shed a tear for any of that lot no. My fear is a Birmingham Six or Guildford Four situation. If we'd had the death penalty back then, people would have been clamouring to kill the terrorist bastards. And they'd have been backed by strong "evidence". But of course the burden of evidence changes sometimes. I'd also fear that yes we may start with one evil maniac per decade, but that we'd steadily (ab)use the facility more and more.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 18:24:35 GMT
We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. One a decade? Oh it's only one a decade... one a decade everyone. One innocent person a decade. Nothing to worry about here. One a decade. Jesus fucking christ. I misunderstood, I thought he meant one innocent person wrongly killed a decade....... Which is a lot less than the actual amount of innocent people executed in USA. No thank you. #InnocentLivesMatterToo
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 18:48:17 GMT
Because one option is, at least, reversible to some extent? The other is a bit more final ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif) Agree - that is certainly a difference! But is that your main issue with capital punishment - the risk of killing an innocent person. If so - I'm guessing you'd support it where there is no question about the guilt of the individual concerned. Well as I said in a previous post to someone else, I've not even gone into abstract morality arguments here. I'm honestly not sure what I'd think if there were no questions about guilt. I'd suggest we go into that if and when we can ever prove that 100% of convictions are 100% safe. And even with the best will in the world, that may never happen.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 20:47:04 GMT
We do apply that logic. As with the MEN bomber. But you're right that's for another thread. I really don't think innocent people would be killed. Take the earlier examples of the West's, Rigby killers, Brady, Hindley and Shipman. Surely you can't argue with those? My guess it's there would be one a decade. One a decade? Oh it's only one a decade... one a decade everyone. One innocent person a decade. Nothing to worry about here. One a decade. Jesus fucking christ. One baddie ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) soz. Should have been more specific.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 20:55:05 GMT
Because one option is, at least, reversible to some extent? The other is a bit more final Agree - that is certainly a difference! But is that your main issue with capital punishment - the risk of killing an innocent person. If so - I'm guessing you'd support it where there is no question about the guilt of the individual concerned. I think this is the point I'm trying to make. No blanket, mandatory death penalty but it's not outlawed in unique cases. I don't think any of us can use the human rights, it's barbaric defence if you believe in having armed forces who are trained to take life but under legal scrutiny and restrictions. How is firing a few hundred rounds from an Apache gunship against ISIS combatants different to a lethal injection for the Lee Rigby killers?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 25, 2017 21:15:44 GMT
The problem is, you open the door to corruption? We all know how bent the police are. We all know they have been routinely linked with people randomly 'dying' who were previously healthy. Whistle blower about to open the lid on something.... Poof, dead from 'suicide'.
Imagine giving them a legal way of doing it? Fuuuuck that.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jul 25, 2017 21:37:22 GMT
The problem is, you open the door to corruption? We all know how bent the police are. We all know they have been routinely linked with people randomly 'dying' who were previously healthy. Whistle blower about to open the lid on something.... Poof, dead from 'suicide'. Imagine giving them a legal way of doing it? Fuuuuck that. Yep. Cf. The Birmingham Six.
|
|
|
Post by woodstein on Jul 25, 2017 21:45:56 GMT
It's too open to abuse. People in authority, throughout history, have been corrupted and often mm corruptible under the right conditions. It is human nature. If any of you recently watched the TV drama Fearless, I thought that brilliantly represented how people in authority are corruptible. I'm aware that it was fictional piece of television (the director has said many of the side plots are actually true stories, but were glued together to make a separate single story), but ultimately, it was an excellent and very believable piece of work..... and the subsequent ending really hit the nail on the head. Now, for the Fred and Rose West's of this world, perhaps death would feel like an acceptable outcome.... but take the person who has been wrongly convicted of murdering, say.... his pregnant wife. Now, there's a surefire example of a guy who needs execution right? How could someone be so despicable.... www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/convicted-murderer-eddie-gilfoyle-a-11543241Like when the police Eddie Gilfoyle went to jail for 18 years for murder, despite evidence, diaries, documents pretty much proving that she committed suicide. Merseyside Police are now under investigation for corruption and I believe it's an ongoing case. Don't expect any police to be prosecuted though. They're a protected class. Let's be honest... Gilfoyle is just one of many people stitched up by our systemically corrupt police force. And you want to give them the right to effectively sentence people to death? To reiterate..... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT. What's your point? The point is my original one - if you are intending to lock someone up and throw away the key why not just kill them? Both have massive moral issues, both breach human rights. A living death vs an actual death. Why get all worked up about one but not the other. Lifers existence isn't exactly a living hell when at least they have tv, games consoles etc and visits from family.
|
|