woolley Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 100% of people murdered have died. And 0% of murderers die for it - unless fate takes a hand. Something wrong there in my book. So we get back to the same old point. You want an eye for an eye, and the rest of us can see that that's not a sensible way to run a society. It is better than the taker of the first eye being released to take another. Seems eminently sensible to me. Efficient and just. As for "the rest of us", do you really think I am alone in this regard? Why are those the only two options in your mind? Do 100% of murderers re-offend? Do 100% of murderers get out before they die of old age? I have no care for them whatsoever. Only for the victims. I don't see your problem with liquidating those who commit horrific crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 100% of people murdered have died. And 0% of murderers die for it - unless fate takes a hand. Something wrong there in my book. So we get back to the same old point. You want an eye for an eye, and the rest of us can see that that's not a sensible way to run a society. It is better than the taker of the first eye being released to take another. Seems eminently sensible to me. Efficient and just. As for "the rest of us", do you really think I am alone in this regard? Why are those the only two options in your mind? Do 100% of murderers re-offend? Do 100% of murderers get out before they die of old age? I have no care for them whatsoever. Only for the victims. I don't see your problem with liquidating those who commit horrific crime. That doesn't answer the question I asked. You seem to be under the assumption that all murderers re-offend. They don't. Capital punishment is not the only way to stop reoffending. I've already explained the problems several times. It makes us no better than them, and sometimes it's a wrongful conviction and an innocent man is killed - which is what you're trying to prevent to start with. When you're literally doing the same thing you're trying to prevent, perhaps the method you're using isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Bizarre that some think that the decision to murder is the outcome of a rational thought process, where the pros and cons are weighed up prior to the act with a sane mind. I doubt the death sentence would be a deterrent to those who convince themselves that they won't get caught, or the psychopaths who don't care if they live or die, or those who commit violence in the red mist of rage with no thoughts (at the time) of the consequences for themselves or their victim. I.e. the vast majority of murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I am not under the assumption that all murderers reoffend. I know that they don't. I just see them as valueless and therefore perceive no point in maintaining them at cost to everyone, whilst at the same time entertaining the risk that they might reoffend. What is the rationale for doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I am not under the assumption that all murderers reoffend. I know that they don't. I just see them as valueless and therefore perceive no point in maintaining them at cost to everyone, whilst at the same time entertaining the risk that they might reoffend. What is the rationale for doing so? Is a reformed murderer lacking in value more than someone who never bothers getting a job and lives off the dole/parents money for their whole lives? Where do you stop at deciding who not to "maintain"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Bizarre that some think that the decision to murder is the outcome of a rational thought process, where the pros and cons are weighed up prior to the act with a sane mind. I doubt the death sentence would be a deterrent to those who convince themselves that they won't get caught, or the psychopaths who don't care if they live or die, or those who commit violence in the red mist of rage with no thoughts (at the time) of the consequences for themselves or their victim. I.e. the vast majority of murderers. Your second para says it for me; all of those you describe should end up toast. The chances of stringing up an innocent these days is slim. With the droves of the 'let them live' brigade, and vast advances in forensic science, a wrong conviction is very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I am not under the assumption that all murderers reoffend. I know that they don't. I just see them as valueless and therefore perceive no point in maintaining them at cost to everyone, whilst at the same time entertaining the risk that they might reoffend. What is the rationale for doing so? Is a reformed murderer lacking in value more than someone who never bothers getting a job and lives off the dole/parents money for their whole lives? Where do you stop at deciding who not to "maintain"? Ridiculous analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The chances of stringing up an innocent these days is slim. With the droves of the 'let them live' brigade, and vast advances in forensic science, a wrong conviction is very unlikely. Oh good, anytime the wrong person is killed we can just tell their family "Well it was unlikely" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I am not under the assumption that all murderers reoffend. I know that they don't. I just see them as valueless and therefore perceive no point in maintaining them at cost to everyone, whilst at the same time entertaining the risk that they might reoffend. What is the rationale for doing so? Is a reformed murderer lacking in value more than someone who never bothers getting a job and lives off the dole/parents money for their whole lives? Where do you stop at deciding who not to "maintain"? Ridiculous analogy. It's not an analogy. It's a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I am not under the assumption that all murderers reoffend. I know that they don't. I just see them as valueless and therefore perceive no point in maintaining them at cost to everyone, whilst at the same time entertaining the risk that they might reoffend. What is the rationale for doing so? Is a reformed murderer lacking in value more than someone who never bothers getting a job and lives off the dole/parents money for their whole lives? Where do you stop at deciding who not to "maintain"? Ridiculous analogy. It's not an analogy. It's a question. The ridiculous analogy was on your first line and it renders the following question spurious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The chances of stringing up an innocent these days is slim. With the droves of the 'let them live' brigade, and vast advances in forensic science, a wrong conviction is very unlikely. Oh good, anytime the wrong person is killed we can just tell their family "Well it was unlikely" So on this premise, you would allow rapist murderers licence to repeat their actions as we have seen too often in the past? What do you say to the victims' families? "Sorry, we were just too civilised to stop your daughter being butchered."? Crass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 What are you on about? "you would allow rapist murderers licence to repeat their actions as we have seen too often in the past?" I don't think anyone is saying that such people would allowed to be free if there is reason to believe they would commit their crimes again. Locking people up effectively prevents them from doing that. Whether someone may be fit for parole must be decided on a case by case basis. Murderers can be reformed, and be genuinely regretful and penitent of their crime. Indeed, they can go on to do much good, as had an ex-gang member in a recent BBC documentary who had murdered a member of a rival gang. He was released from prison on good character and went on to be involved in projects aimed at tackling gang problems. If he'd have been killed he would have had no chance to truly repay his debt to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The chances of stringing up an innocent these days is slim. With the droves of the 'let them live' brigade, and vast advances in forensic science, a wrong conviction is very unlikely. Oh good, anytime the wrong person is killed we can just tell their family "Well it was unlikely" So on this premise, you would allow rapist murderers licence to repeat their actions as we have seen too often in the past? What do you say to the victims' families? "Sorry, we were just too civilised to stop your daughter being butchered."? Crass. You 'say' you haven't read the Daily Mail for a long time. Have you, perhaps, been writing editorials for it? Or is it just that your entire social circle consists of Mail readers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The debt of murder cannot ever be re-paid to the victim whatever is done, however, keeping the perpetrator off the streets by any means is about all society can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The debt of murder cannot ever be re-paid to the victim whatever is done, Which also applies to all of those wrongly executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.