The most convincing case fort the death penalty. ffs.

[BigGully]

So, if someone doesn't believe that Ian Huntley should be killed, they are defending Ian Huntley and his actions?

He Killed. Killing is wrong. Let's Kill him.

The real danger to our society is not a very very small minority of twisted individuals, the real danger to our society is people like you.

How can those that advocate the death penalty for those men that raped that child somehow be a greater danger to society for holding that view than those rapists themselves.

Now c'mon ..........

 

[BigGully]

Very true, proportionally these individuals are so few and far between we should be grateful this debate doesn't surface, weekly.

What paedophiles are just a few ....... it may not surface weekly on here but it effects 1000's of children daily.

 

[martyn20]

I think BG is saying when there are no errors, what then?

Ian Brady has spent nearly 50 years in jail, is that time well spent?

The problem is at some point every conviction is seen as sound by our system.
I remember the media and large numbers of the population demanded the death penalty for certain IRA bombers who killed people in pubs, there was no doubt about their guilt at the time, only several years later did those claims begin to be heard. They were terrorists surely they would be at the top of the kill list with murderers and paedophiles?
We cannot have a system when we only kill certain numbers of murderers, who would decide, judges, politicians, a public vote? Who should decide Brady, a mental patient remember, should be killed but Barry George or Colin Stagg (examples I used before) should not, when they were found guilty were they less guilty than Brady, is he more guilty than most others? If your problem is the 50 years he has spent in jail at what point should we have killed him, at the beginning or after 20 or 30 years?

 

[dingodan]

No not at all, those saying that you can never be sure of guilt is a red herring.

Those that are then asked how about those crimes with undeniable guilt, then what ?

Have a view and a belief and offer it, but dont bamboozle yourself with the irrelevant.

What I said had nothing to do with miscarriages of justice, I was talking about Ian Huntley, a guilty man.

Miscarriages of justice are a very good reason not to do this. But so is the hypocrisy of condemning the taking of life, only to resort to it in retribution.

The dangers of permitting the state to kill people are so obvious and horrendous that just hearing it suggested makes my skin crawl.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

What I said had nothing to do with miscarriages of justice, I was talking about Ian Huntley, a guilty man.

Miscarriages of justice are a very good reason not to do this. But so is the hypocrisy of condemning the taking of life, only to resort to it in retribution.

The dangers of permitting the state to kill people are so obvious and horrendous that just hearing it suggested makes my skin crawl.

This 100%.

 

[martyn20]

Maybe our jury's should have options of guiltiness and at the top level get killed. Someone is either 'very guilty as charged your honour' or 'less guilty as charged'.

 

[Stat Brother]

The problem is at some point every conviction is seen as sound by our system.
I remember the media and large numbers of the population demanded the death penalty for certain IRA bombers who killed people in pubs, there was no doubt about their guilt at the time, only several years later did those claims begin to be heard. They were terrorists surely they would be at the top of the kill list with murderers and paedophiles?
We cannot have a system when we only kill certain numbers of murderers, who would decide, judges, politicians, a public vote? Who should decide Brady, a mental patient remember, should be killed but Barry George or Colin Stagg (examples I used before) should not, when they were found guilty were they less guilty than Brady, is he more guilty than most others? If your problem is the 50 years he has spent in jail at what point should we have killed him, at the beginning or after 20 or 30 years?

I don't recall the IRA bombers expressing their guilt.
I don't recall Brady have mental health issues before his imprisonment (although it's been years since I took an interest in the case).

Personally I don't advocate capital punishment, for many of the reasons you've covered.
But as usual there's always cases where it's harder to defend a 'civilised' society.

 

[martyn20]

Maybe our jury's should have options of guiltiness and at the top level get killed. Someone is either 'very guilty as charged your honour' or 'less guilty as charged'.

Brady was 'very guilty' but Barry George was 'less guilty', bloody lucky really!

 

[BigGully]

The problem is at some point every conviction is seen as sound by our system.
I remember the media and large numbers of the population demanded the death penalty for certain IRA bombers who killed people in pubs, there was no doubt about their guilt at the time, only several years later did those claims begin to be heard. They were terrorists surely they would be at the top of the kill list with murderers and paedophiles?
We cannot have a system when we only kill certain numbers of murderers, who would decide, judges, politicians, a public vote? Who should decide Brady, a mental patient remember, should be killed but Barry George or Colin Stagg (examples I used before) should not, when they were found guilty were they less guilty than Brady, is he more guilty than most others? If your problem is the 50 years he has spent in jail at what point should we have killed him, at the beginning or after 20 or 30 years?

At what point do you in your own psyche accept a convicted man to be punished then ?

3 months, 12 months, 5, 10, life, it must concern you or do you just save it for the death penalty ?

I accept that the death penalty is the ultimate sanction, but how do you reconcile your view of our justice system with all those convicted.

The context of this debate is that of an indisputable guilty man raping a child, for me death would be wholly appropriate and even desirable.

 

[martyn20]

I don't recall the IRA bombers expressing their guilt.
I don't recall Brady have mental health issues before his imprisonment (although it's been years since I took an interest in the case).

Personally I don't advocate capital punishment, for many of the reasons you've covered.
But as usual there's always cases where it's harder to defend a 'civilised' society.

But you can't say we only kill murderers and paedophiles who actually plead guilty, who admit their crimes, every criminal would say they didn't do it, as 99% of them do anyway.
Many guilty people, murderers and paedophiles included, say they didn't do and lie in court to try and get away with it, you could not kill them?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

At what point do you in your own psyche accept a convicted man to be punished then ?

3 months, 12 months, 5, 10, life, it must concern you or do you just save it for the death penalty ?

I accept that the death penalty is the ultimate sanction, but how do you reconcile your view of our justice system with all those convicted.

The context of this debate is that of an indisputable guilty man raping a child, for me death would be wholly appropriate and even desirable.

It ain't up to you though is it ? It is up to society. You would be suprised to know that often victims families want justice to be served but do not agree with the death penalty.

 

[martyn20]

At what point do you in your own psyche accept a convicted man to be punished then ?

3 months, 12 months, 5, 10, life, it must concern you or do you just save it for the death penalty ?

I accept that the death penalty is the ultimate sanction, but how do you reconcile your view of our justice system with all those convicted.

The context of this debate is that of an indisputable guilty man raping a child, for me death would be wholly appropriate and even desirable.

How can you say is about 'an indisputable guilty man raping a child' when the men have not even been caught let alone talked to, again you have decided on guilt from a media report and are willing to kill 2 men because of that report. I don't know many who believe what they read and see through the media but you seem happy to take it as gospel.
My personal feeling is sentences are not long enough in this country, life should mean life, life without parole should be available and people should die of old age in prison. But during a life sentence, even years into it, you can let someone out who turns out to be innocent, if you have hung them how to say sorry and let them free?

 

[dingodan]

I personally see us going the way of Nazi Germany, for various reasons.

I would just like to say to anyone who would ever advocate the state killing anyone, that this position should be rethought.

Specific cases can make us very emotional and very angry. But we should always re-examine where we are coming from and what we believe in.

Vengeance is such an ugly thing.

Also, we may agree with somebody's politics today, but we cannot say who will have the levers of power in 5 or 10 years time. Government rarely relinquishes it's power so what we give it today, it will likely have tomorrow.

Should we ever have a leadership who's politics we don't agree with, perhaps say elected in the face of an economic collapse (see 30's Germany), the consequences to our bestowing this kind of power may become dangerous. If we have set the precedent for the state to kill the "really bad people", and if someone at some time in the future wishes to expand that remit, well it's a slippery slope is all I am saying.

Rant over.

 

[BigGully]

But you can't say we only kill murderers and paedophiles who actually plead guilty, who admit their crimes, every criminal would say they didn't do it, as 99% of them do anyway.
Many guilty people, murderers and paedophiles included, say they didn't do and lie in court to try and get away with it, you could not kill them?

Your basing your view on the complexity of executing the law to arrive at the correct verdict of guilty or not guilty, all very important ..... especially with the death penalty......

My view is the appropriate punishment of the perpetrator of the most heinous of crimes, we are not law makers and I will not march on London tomorrow, but for sake of debate I would happily see those that raped that boy and others swing, they are vermin that are driven by the most brutal perversions, who actively seek children to abuse, for me the death penalty would be quite satisfying.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Your basing your view on the complexity of executing the law to arrive at the correct verdict of guilty or not guilty, all very important ..... especially with the death penalty......

My view is the appropriate punishment of the perpetrator of the most heinous of crimes, we are not law makers and I will not march on London tomorrow, but for sake of debate I would happily see those that raped that boy and others swing, they are vermin that are driven by the most brutal perversions, who actively seek children to abuse, for me the death penalty would be quite satisfying.

It's a blood lust though and the same as stoning people in a public square for people's self satisfaction. Either way it is not the answer.

 

[BigGully]

It's a blood lust though and the same as stoning people in a public square for people's self satisfaction. Either way it is not the answer.

Public stoning, now your talking, especially for those vile human beings.

Blood lust, what other emotion could you have for those that abuse and murder our children ?

 

[Camicus]

If we give in to the urge to hang them on public demand we are under mob rule rather than the rule of law. However I can defiantly see the case for the likes of Huntley or Brady. If we had 100% proof IE DNA CCTV and all they should be given the choice life meaning no parole or the death sentence

 

[BigGully]

If we give in to the urge to hang them on public demand we are under mob rule rather than the rule of law. However I can defiantly see the case for the likes of Huntley or Brady. If we had 100% proof IE DNA CCTV and all they should be given the choice life meaning no parole or the death sentence

Bloody democracy at work, shocking.

 

[martyn20]

Bloody democracy at work, shocking.

But the majority of people in this country are against the death penalty?

 

[dingodan]

Bloody democracy at work, shocking.

You make a good point.

Maybe you should rethink what you had previously thought about the virtues of Democracy.

Democracy does not have a monopoly on a representative form of government, before people flame me as a fascist