[Politics] Capital Punishment

[Fungus]

Clearly your 1 v 1 “balance “ isn’t reflected on NSC.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Civilized nations don't kill people

But uncivilised people do ! Hang em high I say


Regards
DF

 

[Wrong-Direction]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU

Ffs what a witch!

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[vegster]

I really can't add much to what has already been said in this thread as it covers virtually all my thoughts on the matter already.

My one small addition is that in countries that still have the death penalty, said death penalty does not prevent murder and other heinous crimes from being still being commited.

 

[Knocky's Nose]

So difficult this one....

If someone tortured, raped then casually murdered your Wife, Husband, Son or Daughter would you not want them to pay for pointlessly and senselessly ending the life of someone you love in the most horrific fashion? Knowing their last hours on this earth were in agony and humiliation...

Would you really want the person who did that to them to spend the rest of their life watching TV in a warm cell, being fed three square meals a day, having exercise, studying, playing pool, having laughs - whilst WE paid for it out of the taxes we work bloody hard to pay.

I don't care if you say "Well, their liberty has been taken away... that's the biggest punishment!" because it's not.

Death is.

So, if they are 100% stone cold guilty - no doubts whatsoever, and they ended the life of someone I love, then I'm afraid I'd most likely wish the same fate upon them.

The argument against is that miscarriages of justice could occur. Yes, in the video Ian Hislop talks about wrongful convictions but the law, forensics, CCTV, crime scene investigation has all moved on in leaps and bounds. Would we really be that slapdash in 2022?

Then you have the moral argument. Who are we to take the life of a human? What right do we have to murder someone, even in the name of the law? All very commendable, but did the murderer ask him or herself "Who am I to take the life of a human. What gives me that right?"

The next argument is asking if it would make a murderer think twice about killing (assuming the person wasn't of unsound mind) if the thought of their own death would be the outcome? Maybe even that consideration would prevent some tragic outcomes...

I'm not completely in the "Hang the b*stards" camp, but I'm quite far away from the "they have human rights and should be locked up" one either....

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

So difficult this one....

If someone tortured, raped then casually murdered your Wife, Husband, Son or Daughter would you not want them to pay for pointlessly and senselessly ending the life of someone you love in the most horrific fashion? Knowing their last hours on this earth were in agony and humiliation...

Would you really want the person who did that to them to spend the rest of their life watching TV in a warm cell, being fed three square meals a day, having exercise, studying, playing pool, having laughs - whilst WE paid for it out of the taxes we work bloody hard to pay.

I don't care if you say "Well, their liberty has been taken away... that's the biggest punishment!" because it's not.

Death is.

So, if they are 100% stone cold guilty - no doubts whatsoever, and they ended the life of someone I love, then I'm afraid I'd most likely wish the same fate upon them.

The argument against is that miscarriages of justice could occur. Yes, in the video Ian Hislop talks about wrongful convictions but the law, forensics, CCTV, crime scene investigation has all moved on in leaps and bounds. Would we really be that slapdash in 2022?

Then you have the moral argument. Who are we to take the life of a human? What right do we have to murder someone, even in the name of the law? All very commendable, but did the murderer ask him or herself "Who am I to take the life of a human. What gives me that right?"

The next argument is asking if it would make a murderer think twice about killing (assuming the person wasn't of unsound mind) if the thought of their own death would be the outcome? Maybe even that consideration would prevent some tragic outcomes...

I'm not completely in the "Hang the b*stards" camp, but I'm quite far away from the "they have human rights and should be locked up" one either....

https://youtu.be/XVQ1m0afwXI


Regards
DF

 

[lawros left foot]

Anyone who votes for any State enforced execution needs to read about Stefan Kiszko.
Although he was never executed, if his case had happened 20 years earlier, he would have been.
Basically, fitted up by Police and , crucially a Home Office pathologist, and a Court appointed Defence barrister( David Waddington QC, who later became Home Secretary) who was proven to be incompetent.

If the corruption displayed by the Police in this case is anything to go by, even DNA could be manipulated by the Old Bill and a corrupt Pathologist to achieve their desired result.

In Kiszko’s case , the Pathologist and the Senior Police Officer were not prosecuted for perjury, as it was deemed to ‘ not be in the Public interest’.

 

[Icy Gull]

Voted option three and I feel no guilt doing so. Especially those caught on camera

 

[drew]

So difficult this one....

If someone tortured, raped then casually murdered your Wife, Husband, Son or Daughter would you not want them to pay for pointlessly and senselessly ending the life of someone you love in the most horrific fashion? Knowing their last hours on this earth were in agony and humiliation...

Would you really want the person who did that to them to spend the rest of their life watching TV in a warm cell, being fed three square meals a day, having exercise, studying, playing pool, having laughs - whilst WE paid for it out of the taxes we work bloody hard to pay.

I don't care if you say "Well, their liberty has been taken away... that's the biggest punishment!" because it's not.

Death is.

So, if they are 100% stone cold guilty - no doubts whatsoever, and they ended the life of someone I love, then I'm afraid I'd most likely wish the same fate upon them.

The argument against is that miscarriages of justice could occur. Yes, in the video Ian Hislop talks about wrongful convictions but the law, forensics, CCTV, crime scene investigation has all moved on in leaps and bounds. Would we really be that slapdash in 2022?

Then you have the moral argument. Who are we to take the life of a human? What right do we have to murder someone, even in the name of the law? All very commendable, but did the murderer ask him or herself "Who am I to take the life of a human. What gives me that right?"

The next argument is asking if it would make a murderer think twice about killing (assuming the person wasn't of unsound mind) if the thought of their own death would be the outcome? Maybe even that consideration would prevent some tragic outcomes...

I'm not completely in the "Hang the b*stards" camp, but I'm quite far away from the "they have human rights and should be locked up" one either....

Actually, it's not difficult at all.

Of course if you view it only from a personal loss perspective then you can understand the eye for eye approach but that's not how a civilised society should dispense justice. You seem to think a false conviction is impossible in this day and age, are you 100% certain? And what if it were the other way around, a member of your family was falsely convicted of murder and then put to death.

With regard to the moral argument, of course a murderer wouldn't ask themselves that but that's what separates us from them. Do think we should aim to be the lowest common denominator rather than the opposite?

As for deterrent, we know it doesn't work, a quick look across the pond proves that.

 

[Gwylan]

The main reason that capital punishment was abolished was simply that juries were increasingly reluctant to find someone guilty.

Times have changed and there's even more reluctance to convict. Certainly, if I were a juror where the accused was facing a capital charge I'd find him or her not guilty automatically - I know there are large numbers of people who feel the same. There's the very real possibility that all murder trials would end up as hung juries, and the system would grind to a halt. That's why it will never be brought back.

 

[Icy Gull]

The main reason that capital punishment was abolished was simply that juries were increasingly reluctant to find someone guilty.

Times have changed and there's even more reluctance to convict. Certainly, if I were a juror where the accused was facing a capital charge I'd find him or her not guilty automatically - I know there are large numbers of people who feel the same. There's the very real possibility that all murder trials would end up as hung juries, and the system would grind to a halt. That's why it will never be brought back.

You’d vote not guilty in the case of the terrorists who decapitated a soldier in London and then wandered down the road with the blood stained implements? Wow

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

The main reason that capital punishment was abolished was simply that juries were increasingly reluctant to find someone guilty.

Times have changed and there's even more reluctance to convict. Certainly, if I were a juror where the accused was facing a capital charge I'd find him or her not guilty automatically - I know there are large numbers of people who feel the same. There's the very real possibility that all murder trials would end up as hung juries, and the system would grind to a halt. That's why it will never be brought back.

All murder trials ? Some are so blatant it really doesn't need a jury's decision it's just going through the legal process and a waste of time and money


Regards
DF

 

[lawros left foot]

So difficult this one....

If someone tortured, raped then casually murdered your Wife, Husband, Son or Daughter would you not want them to pay for pointlessly and senselessly ending the life of someone you love in the most horrific fashion? Knowing their last hours on this earth were in agony and humiliation...

Would you really want the person who did that to them to spend the rest of their life watching TV in a warm cell, being fed three square meals a day, having exercise, studying, playing pool, having laughs - whilst WE paid for it out of the taxes we work bloody hard to pay.

I don't care if you say "Well, their liberty has been taken away... that's the biggest punishment!" because it's not.

Death is.

So, if they are 100% stone cold guilty - no doubts whatsoever, and they ended the life of someone I love, then I'm afraid I'd most likely wish the same fate upon them.

The argument against is that miscarriages of justice could occur. Yes, in the video Ian Hislop talks about wrongful convictions but the law, forensics, CCTV, crime scene investigation has all moved on in leaps and bounds. Would we really be that slapdash in 2022?

Then you have the moral argument. Who are we to take the life of a human? What right do we have to murder someone, even in the name of the law? All very commendable, but did the murderer ask him or herself "Who am I to take the life of a human. What gives me that right?"

The next argument is asking if it would make a murderer think twice about killing (assuming the person wasn't of unsound mind) if the thought of their own death would be the outcome? Maybe even that consideration would prevent some tragic outcomes...

I'm not completely in the "Hang the b*stards" camp, but I'm quite far away from the "they have human rights and should be locked up" one either....

Speak to anyone who has done serious long tern prison time, it really isn’t a holiday, whatever the Mail might say.
Personally I do think if any of my close family were murdered , then yes , I would want revenge in the most terrible way imaginable, however, I would hope that my fellow countrymen would be civilised enough to realise that it is revenge born of unbearable grief and prevent me from carrying it out.

You also have a lot more faith in the incorruptibility of our law enforcement agencies than I do. See my Stefan Kiszko post, it is still possible something like this could happen.

In America, the States that practice capital punishment have a consistently higher murder rate than those that don’t. Who ever committed a crime thinking they would get caught? More often it’s a case of criminals killing to escape arrest because they don’t want to be executed.

Why should the State take a life, when many, many citizens don’t agree with it.
The price of civilisation is we keep murderers alive when our more basic instincts are for revenge.
Not in my name.

 

[Gwylan]

You’d vote not guilty in the case of the terrorists who decapitated a soldier in London and then wandered down the road with the blood stained implements? Wow

Yep. Because I have a strong set of principles that I believe in and try to live by. One of those principles is that taking human life is wrong and I want no part of it.

It's sad that you feel that living by set of moral principles is somehow wrong. Too many people feel that way - that's how we've ended up with a mendacious, venal, lecherous narcissist as prime minister.

 

[Icy Gull]

Yep. Because I have a strong set of principles that I believe in and try to live by. One of those principles is that taking human life is wrong and I want no part of it.

It's sad that you feel that living by set of moral principles is somehow wrong. Too many people feel that way - that's how we've ended up with a mendacious, venal, lecherous narcissist as prime minister.

Nope I just cannot get my head around why you’d be foolish enough to vote not guilty when the facts prove guilty. It’s a complete cop out, personally I couldn’t live with myself having your attitude

Your principles might be different if the soldier had been your son….

WTF has Johnson got to do with this?

 

[darkwolf666]

My feeling is that if it is wrong to take someone’s life then how can it be right to do the very same...!

 

[1066familyman]

Anyone voting for option three care to explain their rationale?

Are some human lives worth more than others?

 

[knocky1]

Could be a business opportunity Lenny.
You'll need to put in a good tender, contract of dispersal will probably go the Landlord of a pub Matt Hancock infrequently visits.

 

[Icy Gull]

Anyone voting for option three care to explain their rationale?

Are some human lives worth more than others?

Yep, you are comparing the value of the life of an innocent person with that of a murderer?

I’ll feck off from this thread now, my mind just boggles

 

[dangull]

You’d vote not guilty in the case of the terrorists who decapitated a soldier in London and then wandered down the road with the blood stained implements? Wow

View attachment 146711

That's what he wanted though, to die a heroic martyrs death and be rewarded in heaven. Deluded maybe. instead he rots in prison and won't see sunlight again.