Bring back hanging !

[British Bulldog]

No. I believe we can as a society bring about conditions that reduce the likelihood of child murderers or any other crime. The reason behind this is because there are societies where crime is virtually unheard of, so it must be possible. However, all I am saying is that I am not one of the skilled, qualified people to help bring this about - therefore I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people.

Back to your point of view. We've established that you stand for the death penalty only where guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. I've put it to you that nobody should be convicted without it already being beyond reasonable doubt. So are you suggesting there are different levels of guilt? Are you suggesting that people should be locked away for 50 years without it already being beyond reasonable doubt?

You dont like giving up do you?

Ok where am I finding different levels of guilt and where am I suggesting people should be locked away for 50 years without it being beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[El Presidente]

Do you really believe what have just written there.

Absolutely, I would have lost my child, if you think that I would take the view that "Thank heavens it was only a drunk driver that killed her" is not one that I subscribe to, the loss would be the same.

 

[Mr Burns]

But you two haven't got a clue either, yet seem able to form an opinion on the subject - albeit the opposite one...

Not all. You have come out with a cliche. "Find out why they do it so we can stop them".

I think thats crap, so i asked you why. You still haven't answered.In fact you've said you dont know enough to answer, so why say anything in the first place. Nobody knows why they do it, there is no answer. And as I asked before, even if you know why, what then?

 

[Simster]

You dont like giving up do you?

Ok where am I finding different levels of guilt and where am I suggesting people should be locked away for 50 years without it being beyond reasonable doubt?

You suggest the death penalty for those where guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, and presumably life imprisonment where it's not.

If that IS what you're suggesting, then my question about levels of guilt still stands. How can you have levels of guilt? And how can you put someone away for 50 years without it being beyond reasonable doubt, let along hang them?

If that is NOT what you're suggesting then I want my previous question answered. i.e. how many innocent deaths can the State be responsible for before we hold our hands up and say that the death penalty is simply not worth having.

So far, you've answered neither.

 

[algie]

1. Why 16 years? I do not see what difference age has to do with it. I have read about horrific sexual attacks on OAP's too, why are these less monstrous?

2. How do you distinguish between someone setting out to take someone's life, and someone who just means to smack them about a bit, and ends up killing them. Is it possible t

3. Why should someone who drives a car when drunk or texting and kills someon get away with just 10 years, they have taken away someone's life, in exactly the same way as someone with a rope, gun or knife?

I know what you are saying but we must protect our children more seriously.The penalty has to be life.Sorry but any wanker who can harm a child is sick in the head

 

[algie]

1. Why 16 years? I do not see what difference age has to do with it. I have read about horrific sexual attacks on OAP's too, why are these less monstrous?

2. How do you distinguish between someone setting out to take someone's life, and someone who just means to smack them about a bit, and ends up killing them. Is it possible t

3. Why should someone who drives a car when drunk or texting and kills someon get away with just 10 years, they have taken away someone's life, in exactly the same way as someone with a rope, gun or knife?

Someone who is texting or on the phone has not set out to kill someone and therefore is punished with manslaughter which i believe should be 10 or more years

 

[El Presidente]

I know what you are saying but we must protect our children more seriously.The penalty has to be life.Sorry but any wanker who can harm a child is sick in the head

I agree with you 100%, but arbitrarily hanging some people and not others to me does not add up, and I have been on the receiving end when aged 14.

 

[El Presidente]

Someone who is texting or on the phone has not set out to kill someone and therefore is punished with manslaughter which i believe should be 10 or more years

But they have still killed someone, people are justifying hanging on the grounds of "en eye for an eye", therefore it is irrelevant what the original intention is.

 

[Mr Burns]

Absolutely, I would have lost my child, if you think that I would take the view that "Thank heavens it was only a drunk driver that killed her" is not one that I subscribe to, the loss would be the same.

If you lost a child your loss would be massive, to the extent you probably would die a lot earlier than you would have done, and you would live in pain for the rest of your life. Thats no matter how they died.

But can you honestly honestly, sit there and say if your child was raped and murdered by an adult human being, and spent there last hours in terrified, in agony, being raped beatan and killed, you would honestly suffer the same way, as if your child was killed in a motor accident.

 

[Simster]

Not all. You have come out with a cliche. "Find out why they do it so we can stop them".

I think thats crap, so i asked you why. You still haven't answered.In fact you've said you dont know enough to answer, so why say anything in the first place. Nobody knows why they do it, there is no answer. And as I asked before, even if you know why, what then?

We appear to be going round and round in circles here. My answer is as follows:

I believe we can as a society bring about conditions that reduce the likelihood of child murderers or any other crime. The reason behind this is because there are societies where crime is virtually unheard of, so it must be possible. However, all I am saying is that I am not one of the skilled, qualified people to help bring this about - therefore I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people. I really do think its worth trying to find out why people behave like this rather than just executing them immediately. You seem unable to accept my point of view because I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people. Or is it because you don't think we could do anything useful with any such information - you have alluded to that too. El Pres gave you some examples of scenarios that might be responsible for this behaviour and how society might fix it, you just said something like "all very nice, but not in the real world" or something. How is that any less of a cliche than my own response?

In fact, I'm actually confused about what your problem with my argument actually is.

 

[British Bulldog]

You suggest the death penalty for those where guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, and presumably life imprisonment where it's not.

If that IS what you're suggesting, then my question about levels of guilt still stands. How can you have levels of guilt? And how can you put someone away for 50 years without it being beyond reasonable doubt, let along hang them?

If that is NOT what you're suggesting then I want my previous question answered. i.e. how many innocent deaths can the State be responsible for before we hold our hands up and say that the death penalty is simply not worth having.

So far, you've answered neither.

This has been your problem right throughout this debate Simster, Your using presumptions! All convictions of guilt on any crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt before any sentence is passed. If you look back through my posts you will see that I answered your question in that no innocent person put to death is acceptable.

Now either I still hav'nt woken up properly or i'm just not typing my posts in a language you understand!

 

[algie]

But they have still killed someone, people are justifying hanging on the grounds of "en eye for an eye", therefore it is irrelevant what the original intention is.

Just buy me a pint and lets be done with it

 

[El Presidente]

This has been your problem right throughout this debate Simster, Your using presumptions! All convictions of guilt on any crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt before any sentence is passed. If you look back through my posts you will see that I answered your question in that no innocent person put to death is acceptable.

Now either I still hav'nt woken up properly or i'm just not typing my posts in a language you understand!

I understand where you are coming from BB, but ALL criminal convictions are based on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' argument, and that has not stopped miscarriages of justice occurring in the past.

 

[El Presidente]

Just buy me a pint and lets be done with it

So long as you don't glass me afterwards

 

[algie]

So long as you don't glass me afterwards

I wouldn't do that to a fellow christian

 

[Mr Burns]

We appear to be going round and round in circles here. My answer is as follows:

I believe we can as a society bring about conditions that reduce the likelihood of child murderers or any other crime. The reason behind this is because there are societies where crime is virtually unheard of, so it must be possible. However, all I am saying is that I am not one of the skilled, qualified people to help bring this about - therefore I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people. I really do think its worth trying to find out why people behave like this rather than just executing them immediately. You seem unable to accept my point of view because I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people. Or is it because you don't think we could do anything useful with any such information - you have alluded to that too. El Pres gave you some examples of scenarios that might be responsible for this behaviour and how society might fix it, you just said something like "all very nice, but not in the real world" or something. How is that any less of a cliche than my own response?

In fact, I'm actually confused about what your problem with my argument actually is.

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.

 

[El Presidente]

If you lost a child your loss would be massive, to the extent you probably would die a lot earlier than you would have done, and you would live in pain for the rest of your life. Thats no matter how they died.

But can you honestly honestly, sit there and say if your child was raped and murdered by an adult human being, and spent there last hours in terrified, in agony, being raped beatan and killed, you would honestly suffer the same way, as if your child was killed in a motor accident.

I can't answer that question, and neither can you, unless it happens, which clearly I hope and pray it does not.

I know that I would want vengeance on whoever did it, and there is a huge difference between a motor accident, and wilful negligence caused by drink driving or using a mobile when in charge of a car.

 

[Simster]

This has been your problem right throughout this debate Simster, Your using presumptions! All convictions of guilt on any crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt before any sentence is passed. If you look back through my posts you will see that I answered your question in that no innocent person put to death is acceptable.

Now either I still hav'nt woken up properly or i'm just not typing my posts in a language you understand!

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.

 

[El Presidente]

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.

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.

 

[British Bulldog]

I understand where you are coming from BB, but ALL criminal convictions are based on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' argument, and that has not stopped miscarriages of justice occurring in the past.

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.