Bring back hanging !

[Simster]

Okay, so you've (or some quailfied ) gets into the mind of these people. You find out why they do it. You identify 10,000 people who have similar 'ways' to these people, and maybe could be a risk.... then what?

You say you want to understand why they do it. Okay pretend we know. You say you want to use this info to stop others doing did? Fine. You identify who is capable of doing, so what then. YOu must have an opinion of what happens next. Pretend THis is where my problem with your argument lies.

It would depend exactly where the problem lies. If it's down to the availability of paedophilia, alcohol, mobile phones, internet porn, anything, at least we'd know what the problem was and could have an adult debate about what steps are worth taking to minimise the chance of such a crime happening.

You might find it frustrating, but no, I don't have the answer. And in any case, I would nevertheless point out that this has nver been my argument against the death penalty. My argument against the death penalty is that the risk of killing an innocent is a risk too far. And since that murderer is being kept alive, why not find out why he did it.

 

[El Presidente]

Going right back to the start of this thread EP the biggest injustice of all is when young kids like that 2yr old girl are sexually assaulted and murdered. Whatever views we all have on the justice these monsters should recieve the fact still remains that these crimes are despicable.

I agree 100% with you, our thoughts should be with the bewildered and distraught parents, not having a bitchfest amongst ourselves.

 

[British Bulldog]

But there ARE miscarriages of justice so you're not answering the question. And given that FACT that there are miscarriage of justice, you seem happy enough with the FACT that your proposed change of policy (bringing back the death penalty) will lead to the deaths of innocent people.

That is the FACT of the matter. There will be innocent people put to DEATH by introducing the death penalty. No ifs no buts. Those TEN people I was referring to who were aquitted in the '90s would now be DEAD, and not rebuilding their lives.

So given the FACT that innocent people WOULD be killed, can you please please please answer one of my two questions. Please.

Simster you really are starting to bore the arse off me now! Did I or did I not just answer your questions?

 

[Mr Burns]

If that was the case, and we could profile someone with such tendencies, then when a crime occured, the police could target their resources towards those most likely to have committed the offence.

The benefit of this is that they are

1. More likely to catch the perpetrator
2. Going to catch the perpetrator quicker.

This would reduce the chances of the perp committing the offence again if they were caught earlier and imprisoned.

Right, so the goalposts are moving now.
So it wouldn't stop a crime happening (my point) just would stop a repeat crime.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Going right back to the start of this thread EP the biggest injustice of all is when young kids like that 2yr old girl are sexually assaulted and murdered. Whatever views we all have on the justice these monsters should recieve the fact still remains that these crimes are despicable.

That's very true. And it really pisses me off when people imply (and I don't think that you have) that just because you don't immediately want to go and torture anyone who might have done it, that you don't think that.

 

[Mr Burns]

It would depend exactly where the problem lies. If it's down to the availability of paedophilia, alcohol, mobile phones, internet porn, anything, at least we'd know what the problem was and could have an adult debate about what steps are worth taking to minimise the chance of such a crime happening.

You might find it frustrating, but no, I don't have the answer. And in any case, I would nevertheless point out that this has nver been my argument against the death penalty. My argument against the death penalty is that the risk of killing an innocent is a risk too far. And since that murderer is being kept alive, why not find out why he did it.

OKay, I think I'll leave it there with you, because your not really answering what I'm saying. I dont think I've mentioned the death penatly since the first page, my problem is with, well I can't be bothered because I've said it enough.

So I will summise that like El P (who would stop selling alchol to stop drink driving (and I notice he never said where this line od thought would stop from my earlier post)), you would stop selling porn if someone killed someone because of what they saw. You would stop internet porn, which would mean stopping the internet, if this was the cause of killings? Am I on the right lines here?

 

[Simster]

Simster you really are starting to bore the arse off me now! Did I or did I not just answer your questions?

No. And clearly you're not going to, so we'll just forget it.

You are in favour of the death penalty and f*** any innocent people who are wrongly sent to the gallows. It's perfectly clear.

 

[Yorkie]

Good posts by Edna on this thread.

I feel sorry for the father of this little girl as he has to live with the death of his child and also the fact that his own brother did it (allegedly)

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Against my better judgement I'm going to dip my toes into this little debate...

I've only skim read the nine pages so apologies if this has already been said:

There are, IMO, two arguments against for and two arguments against the death penalty.

For the death penalty:
1)An eye for an eye.
2)It's cheaper than keeping people in prison for the rest oftheir lives.

Against the death penalty:
1) The threat of a miscarriage of justice. No matter how small a threat there is still and always will be a possibility that an innocent person is put to death.
2) The state has NO RIGHT to put to death any of its citizens.

As far as I see it, only the second argument for the death penalty holds any merit at all. The first is about vengeance, not justice.

IMO, however, the two arguments against the death penalty offer a practical and a moral/ethical/theoretical counterbalance that far outweigh the potential monetary benefits of a quick hanging of a nonce/murderer etc.

The risk(albeit small) of an innocent person being put to death is enough to make me argue against capital punishment. Then there is the argument that the state has no moral right to put it's citizen's to death. The state should be a framework above the frailties of human nature. It is created by man, for man. If an individual doesn't have the right to take a life, then how can the state? Everyone has a 'right' to life. No-one has a 'right' to take a life. If someone transgresses within a society, then society has the right to punish. It doesn't have the right to take a life, no matter how heinous a crime has been commited.

They're my basic thoughts. Apologies if they're not too coherent...It's 3a.m over here and I've only just got in from my thrilling night out...

 

[Simster]

OKay, I think I'll leave it there with you, because your not really answering what I'm saying. I dont think I've mentioned the death penatly since the first page, my problem is with, well I can't be bothered because I've said it enough.

So I will summise that like El P (who would stop selling alchol to stop drink driving (and I notice he never said where this line od thought would stop from my earlier post)), you would stop selling porn if someone killed someone because of what they saw. You would stop internet porn, which would mean stopping the internet, if this was the cause of killings? Am I on the right lines here?

Sort of. If we decided it was a price worth paying, then I guess so.

Obviously if alcohol or porn were found indisputably to be the cause, then probably not because as a society, we would rightly or wrongly probably choose not to ban those things for the sake of preventing 2 child murders a year. But if hypothetically, the cause is something more preventable or easier for society to give up - say poverty, smoking, too much mobile phone use, supporting Palace, then maybe.

I think the difference of opinion here is that - death penalty aside - you don't think it's worth finding out why such murders are committed, and I do.

 

[algie]

Against my better judgement I'm going to dip my toes into this little debate...

I've only skim read the nine pages so apologies if this has already been said:

There are, IMO, two arguments against for and two arguments against the death penalty.

For the death penalty:
1)An eye for an eye.
2)It's cheaper than keeping people in prison for the rest oftheir lives.

Against the death penalty:
1) The threat of a miscarriage of justice. No matter how small a threat there is still and always will be a possibility that an innocent person is put to death.
2) The state has NO RIGHT to put to death any of its citizens.


As far as I see it, only the second argument for the death penalty holds any merit at all. The first is about vengeance, not justice.

IMO, however, the two arguments against the death penalty offer a practical and a moral/ethical/theoretical counterbalance that far outweigh the potential monetary benefits of a quick hanging of a nonce/murderer etc.

The risk(albeit small) of an innocent person being put to death is enough to make me argue against capital punishment. Then there is the argument that the state has no moral right to put it's citizen's to death. The state should be a framework above the frailties of human nature. It is created by man, for man. If an individual doesn't have the right to take a life, then how can the state? Everyone has a 'right' to life. No-one has a 'right' to take a life. If someone transgresses within a society, then society has the right to punish. It doesn't have the right to take a life, no matter how heinous a crime has been commited.

They're my basic thoughts. Apologies if they're not too coherent...It's 3a.m over here and I've only just got in from my thrilling night out...

2) The state has NO RIGHT to put to death any of its citizens

Why not?So all the other countries that have it are wrong just because the UK doesn't have it and we are right?Laws are made for a reason

 

[Simster]

2) The state has NO RIGHT to put to death any of its citizens

Why not?So all the other countries that have it are wrong just because the UK doesn't have it and we are right?Laws are made for a reason

Fair enough - now answer his first point against the death penalty.

 

[El Presidente]

So I will summise that like El P (who would stop selling alchol to stop drink driving (and I notice he never said where this line od thought would stop from my earlier post))

But I didn't say that, my post was as follows

"Why not? Far more people will be caused by drink drivers this year than by child molesters or dangerous dogs etc, so if your aim is to reduce unlawful killing, then the answer should be yes."

The 'yes' referred to the issue of preventing killings, and was an answer to your original point, which you have turned around and said that I am in favour of, which is incorrect.

As for death through obesity, that is a lifestyle choice, and has nothing to do with killing others, so I have no opinion on the issue in the context of this debate. You are trying to trivialise the issue.

 

[algie]

Fair enough - now answer his first point against the death penalty.

There will always be tragic cases but with the advancement of dna and other forensics it will be only be a very slim chance of it ever happening again.The police have so much more adavantages over there collegues back in the fifties and earlier.You get blue on blue in war so what i'm saying is thats life.

 

[El Presidente]

so what i'm saying is thats life.

Probably not the best phrase to use there Algie, I think it's your round mate

 

[Simster]

There will always be tragic cases but with the advancement of dna and other forensics it will be only be a very slim chance of it ever happening again.The police have so much more adavantages over there collegues back in the fifties and earlier.You get blue on blue in war so what i'm saying is thats life.

Or indeed "that's death". But firstly, thanks for being honest enough to answer the point. That sets you apart from BB who decided against this slippery slope.

But what you are saying is "the death penalty is the way forward, and f*** any innocent people wrongfully sent to the gallows". You may not like that tone, but we'd only be arguing about the English being used.

It is sometimes a fact of life that people get fitted up and justice is not seen to be done until many years later. That alone is reason enough to remain a civilised country and not have the state kill people.

So if we do have a death penalty, and your grown up child is found guilty of a murder that you know he didn't commit, would your views change?

 

[algie]

Probably not the best phrase to use there Algie, I think it's your round mate

You can say the same thing about the Forest Gate incident EP.At the end of the day thats life.Lets be fair about it

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

2) The state has NO RIGHT to put to death any of its citizens

Why not?So all the other countries that have it are wrong just because the UK doesn't have it and we are right?Laws are made for a reason

No, whether the U.K does or doesn't have the death penalty is irrelevant to my argument. The reason I think it is morally unjustifiable is because:

The state should be a framework above the frailties of human nature. It is created by man, for man. If an individual doesn't have the right to take a life, then how can the state? Everyone has a 'right' to life. No-one has a 'right' to take a life. If someone transgresses within a society, then society has the right to punish. It doesn't have the right to take a life, no matter how heinous a crime has been commited.

I shall try and explain that a little better. I believe the role of the state is to provide a framework within which humans can best live. As such it is a manmade construct, designed to protect the 'rights' of it's citizens by standing 'above' and apart from the passions, jealousies and weaknesses of the average human life. The most fundamental right a human has-and one that IMO, transcends the state- is the right to life. No-one has the right to take anothers life. However, as no-one has the right to take a life and as the state is an arbiter that stands above and beyond the petty frailties of humanity, it most definitely does not, and cannot, have the right to take a life. If it does, then, IMO, it collapses as a moral authority as it has descended to the level of 'the savage'. It has every right to punish the citizen but that punishment, IMO, cannot be death.

Hope that helps?

 

[algie]

Or indeed "that's death". But firstly, thanks for being honest enough to answer the point. That sets you apart from BB who decided against this slippery slope.

But what you are saying is "the death penalty is the way forward, and f*** any innocent people wrongfully sent to the gallows". You may not like that tone, but we'd only be arguing about the English being used.

It is sometimes a fact of life that people get fitted up and justice is not seen to be done until many years later. That alone is reason enough to remain a civilised country and not have the state kill people.



So if we do have a death penalty, and your grown up child is found guilty of a murder that you know he didn't commit, would your views change?

I have more chance of winning the lottery chap.You really can't use that.So i can turn round and say to you that you are happy that people like Huntley and Whiting are still breathing,playing computer games etc etc?

 

[Mr Burns]

But I didn't say that, my post was as follows

"Why not? Far more people will be caused by drink drivers this year than by child molesters or dangerous dogs etc, so if your aim is to reduce unlawful killing, then the answer should be yes."

The 'yes' referred to the issue of preventing killings, and was an answer to your original point, which you have turned around and said that I am in favour of, which is incorrect.

As for death through obesity, that is a lifestyle choice, and has nothing to do with killing others, so I have no opinion on the issue in the context of this debate. You are trying to trivialise the issue.

I'm not trying to trivialise the issue. And I didn't meanto mis-quote if I did. I still dont quite get where you are coming from? Would you ban alchol to stop people killing someone by drink driving. I though that is what you said.