woolley Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I note with interest that nobody picked up or contested my point that there are plenty of cases where the identity of the perpetrator is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so I conclude that the mistaken identity objection is in reality a fig leaf to cover a more broadly based objection to judicial killing under any circumstances. People are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt whatsoever, so to accomodate that you'd either need to change it to beyond any doubt, reducing the number of convictions, or have a two tier conviction system, of "definitely guilty" and "probably guilty", which would cause more problems than it solves. No, I'd go with that. Don't see a problem at all. And if a "probably" was let out to murder again that person would then be a "definitely" and subject to the ultimate sanction. Good idea. Certainly better than what we have at the moment. I repeat that people who shrink from capital punishment for murder have a total blindness regarding potential future victims of those same murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I note with interest that nobody picked up or contested my point that there are plenty of cases where the identity of the perpetrator is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so I conclude that the mistaken identity objection is in reality a fig leaf to cover a more broadly based objection to judicial killing under any circumstances. People are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt whatsoever, so to accomodate that you'd either need to change it to beyond any doubt, reducing the number of convictions, or have a two tier conviction system, of "definitely guilty" and "probably guilty", which would cause more problems than it solves. No, I'd go with that. Don't see a problem at all. And if a "probably" was let out to murder again that person would then be a "definitely" and subject to the ultimate sanction. Good idea. Certainly better than what we have at the moment. I repeat that people who shrink from capital punishment for murder have a total blindness regarding potential future victims of those same murderers. You're right, instead of murderers killing innocent people let's cut out the middle man and have the Government kill innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 We already have. The government releases them so they can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 We already have. The government releases them so they can do it. According to this, 12% of serious violence offenders re-offend: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192631/proven-reoffending-jul-10-jun-11.pdf (page 12). According to the stats from the US that were posted a couple of days ago, 1 in every 9 executions is an innocent. Given that "serious violence" and "murder" are not separated in that graph, it's safe to assume that much less than 12% of the re-offenders are committing murder. So you're swapping a less than 12% chance of an innocent being killed by a re-offending murderer for an 11% chance of the Government putting an innocent person to death. Do you really think that's a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yes. With the safeguards already outlined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Yes. With the safeguards already outlined. Its a system that involves human interaction, thus flawed and capable of failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Everything is capable of mishap. Even walking down the street you can finish up dead. We have to make sober assessments and go with the greater good for the greater number of innocents. If the capital penalty was available for only those crimes where identity was not at issue and guilt was beyond doubt, I believe that it would be the best way to protect the greater number of innocents. Helix's figure of the government putting to death 11% of innocents is totally inappropriate to the concept of guilty beyond doubt in a British court in the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Everything is capable of mishap. Even walking down the street you can finish up dead. We have to make sober assessments and go with the greater good for the greater number of innocents. If the capital penalty was available for only those crimes where identity was not at issue and guilt was beyond doubt, I believe that it would be the best way to protect the greater number of innocents. Helix's figure of the government putting to death 11% of innocents is totally inappropriate to the concept of guilty beyond doubt in a British court in the 21st century. Why is it? What makes you think British courts have a better innocent:guilty ratio than American ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Everything is capable of mishap. Even walking down the street you can finish up dead. We have to make sober assessments and go with the greater good for the greater number of innocents. If the capital penalty was available for only those crimes where identity was not at issue and guilt was beyond doubt, I believe that it would be the best way to protect the greater number of innocents. Helix's figure of the government putting to death 11% of innocents is totally inappropriate to the concept of guilty beyond doubt in a British court in the 21st century. You talk of the greater good and wilful murder in the same sentence. When are you going to realise that human beings are a flawed species, and as a result will kill, steal, rape, etc, regardless of the threat against their liberty and life. Has the death penalty worked in America? Well they have killed a load of people, and yet there are still murderers, rapists, etc. So killing them hasn't worked and will continue to not work. As I have tried to communicate to you before, more should be done to reduce the reasons behind crime. Oh, and to follow up on a comment you made before about increasing spending: We currently spend approximately the same amount of money on educating our children as we do drop bombs on other countries (who we invaded in the first place), and you want to increase defence spending? I say make defence spending more efficient (spend it on the boots on the ground rather than wasting it on MOD bloat) and increase money spent on education/opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Everything is capable of mishap. Even walking down the street you can finish up dead. We have to make sober assessments and go with the greater good for the greater number of innocents. If the capital penalty was available for only those crimes where identity was not at issue and guilt was beyond doubt, I believe that it would be the best way to protect the greater number of innocents. Helix's figure of the government putting to death 11% of innocents is totally inappropriate to the concept of guilty beyond doubt in a British court in the 21st century. Why is it? What makes you think British courts have a better innocent:guilty ratio than American ones? If anything America's conviction rate is tainted by the need to keep the cells full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (spend it on the boots on the ground rather than wasting it on MOD bloat) I agree with that bit, so that's positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-T Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 So did anyone actually try it out? 15- years ago when I used to smoke a fair bit I never really had a problem getting hooked up but these days on the rare occasions I fancy a bit it is a total nuisance getting it - i'm just not in the, or any kind of loop. So when I read about the Silk Road I wanted to check it out. So I did. Got some free bitcoins, which at that point were still pretty easy to come by as the price hadn't gone mental, and had a skeet. Couple of days later 3 grams of 'king hassan' moroccan hash turned up vacuum packed in some plastic and stuck between some card, wrapped in the Evening Standard and shipped in a jiffy bag with a 2nd class stamp on it. Amazing. Concept proved. Shortly after that it got closed down by the feds, and the more research I did into alternatives the more I was put off. Bloody scammers everywhere in the bitcoin world. It was an astonishing site though, I couldn't believe the scale of it. And the variety. Everyone knows the global drug laws and wars are mental, the guy should be applauded for coming up with a system that worked, and had both happy sellers and customers. Life in jail no parole. America, fuck yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Just picked it up on Twitter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24373759#TWEET908345 I read about the site recently and accessed it a few weeks ago, read the link if you want to get the picture What was facinating was it's potential as a game changer, in the way that the internet has decimated the high street, here was the online version of the local drug dealer The only thing I couldn't really understand was the payment method "bitcoins" I could see how the consumer would remain anymous but I don't see how the retailer could use large amounts of this currency, i.e. put it in a bank account It looks like ther will be a plethora of similar sites will spring up given the amounts of money involved in Silk Road, could bitcoin banking be the next big thing for the Island ? I read the DEDs statements on Bitcoin being the future for the IOM and being fully audited and no AML issues like normal money. Then I read this story where $225m of drug profits seem to have been made off Bitcoin funded purchases of drugs and yet nobody apparently really noticed until the FBI got involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Everything is capable of mishap. Even walking down the street you can finish up dead. We have to make sober assessments and go with the greater good for the greater number of innocents. If the capital penalty was available for only those crimes where identity was not at issue and guilt was beyond doubt, I believe that it would be the best way to protect the greater number of innocents. Helix's figure of the government putting to death 11% of innocents is totally inappropriate to the concept of guilty beyond doubt in a British court in the 21st century. Why is it? What makes you think British courts have a better innocent:guilty ratio than American ones? If anything America's conviction rate is tainted by the need to keep the cells full. Oh whoopidee-doo, a(nother) poster worth reading, "Hello and welcome.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Oh whoopidee-doo, a(nother) poster worth reading, "Hello and welcome.". Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.