doc.fixit Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 absolutely! 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. 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? No. Not at all. Nothing to do with it. Never read it since 1969 and I was a communist then. Would not waste my time on tabloid journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley 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. But they ARE allowed to do that. Out on licence to do the same again. Of course the "experts" thought it was quite safe. The victims dicovered differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 No. Not at all. Nothing to do with it. Never read it since 1969 and I was a communist then. Would not waste my time on tabloid journalism. Sorry - but you do appear that way; especially when you simply ignore any factual argument such as the one showing that violent crime, including homicide, peaked over 10 years ago in the UK and has been declining ever since - WITHOUT the so-called deterrent of capital punishment. (Post #75 if you're interested) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX 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. But they ARE allowed to do that. Out on licence to do the same again. Of course the "experts" thought it was quite safe. The victims dicovered differently. They're "allowed" to do it exactly the same way you are. Whether they're likely to is a factor taken into account when discussing parole. Again you're going back to the viewpoint of there only being two options, either they're killed by the state or they go out and murderrape everyone. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The most important disagreement with capital punishment is so basic that it ought to be obvious to even the most intellectual insignificant - if we as a society have a problem with violence, we can't use punishment as violence. If someone is killed and has killed someone, which are considered wrongful acts against any person, you can't then be violence or kill, or both and think that is moral. If the principles is paramount then that principle should be upheld. Exactly. A LOT more innocent lives would be saved. I hate this mentality of being too civilised to have any meaningful sanction against the uncivilised. And who are the civilised? One of the main reasons why I think capital punishment is a complete no-no and has no place in an enlightened legal system is that to some extent the greater society is to blame for the crime, all crime. Crimes naturally have a social context in that the assailant has developed his or her identity from interacting with people in society. Responsibility cannot be said to lie entirely with the individual because their personality, their desires, their idea of the world is based on living with us, so it seems ridiculous to then treat the assailant as solely culpable. Capital punishment moves to the burdern of responsibility entirely onto the assailant and largely exists so that society can do a trick of washing its hand of the issue. (And obviously, this isn't a problem with just capital punishment). I agree with Chinahand - the person should be removed from society if they are found to be a continued danger to others and every effort should be made by society to try and instill in that person an understanding of the harm they did. If the person simply lacks any empathy or even sympathy and is a no hope case in trying to developing understand then I have to ask just what fucked that person up to make them that way. Capital punishment (and all punishment) might be comforting to society by brushing the dirt caused by society under the carpet and thus hiding our failures as a society, but need to be comforted is really not something to be pandered to. I'd think we ought to look at dealing with the problems - such as how to reduce violence in society and understandin why sexuality manifests in many harmful ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Is every evil bastard simply a "product of society" or is it just possible they're simply evil bastards? If it was just society, wouldn't there be considerably more ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I like this quote from the article "'It was a horrible thing to witness. This was totally botched,' Mr Autry said." The implication being that there are times when it is not horrible to watch a person die. It was quite nice to see a History Channel documentary last year showing actual footage of Amon Goeth being hanged. Actually, they had to try a few times because his neck didn't break. Cruel, wicked people that we know 100% are guilty should die. Unfortunately, the yanks seem to just kill anyone even when there's credible doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The most important disagreement with capital punishment is so basic that it ought to be obvious to even the most intellectual insignificant - if we as a society have a problem with violence, we can't use punishment as violence. If someone is killed and has killed someone, which are considered wrongful acts against any person, you can't then be violence or kill, or both and think that is moral. If the principles is paramount then that principle should be upheld. Well that is all very nice. Of course we don't believe in violence but you can't fight violence with softness and loving care. There have to be appropriate sanctions. What would your attitude be if required to fight a war if your country was in peril of invasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I find this debate a little strange. No one has said psychopathic murderers and child rapists should be treated with softness and loving care. They should be imprisoned for life with all the drudgery, boredom, and isolation that involves.Some crimes require life to mean life, and the mental state of many psychopaths means they should never be trusted with freedom.How is this being soft?The deliberate, cold blooded killing of people is reducing the state to the level of murderer, and an unreliable murderer at that. In a democratic state that puts the responsibility for these laws onto every elector. War is not the deliberate, cold blooded killing of people. It is politics - and if politicians wage war unjustly they should face criminal sanctions - that is what the law says, the ideal, flawed though the reality is.That is the difference - a state should be ready to defend itself - and that can involve killing. But the aim is not the deliberate cold blooded killing of people. The death sentence is exactly that, and that is barbaric, and the victims of that barbarity too often innocent.I leave it to Camus:But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared? For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. Sadly such monsters do exist - but they kill in fewer numbers than some murderous states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 No. Not at all. Nothing to do with it. Never read it since 1969 and I was a communist then. Would not waste my time on tabloid journalism. Sorry - but you do appear that way; especially when you simply ignore any factual argument such as the one showing that violent crime, including homicide, peaked over 10 years ago in the UK and has been declining ever since - WITHOUT the so-called deterrent of capital punishment. (Post #75 if you're interested) You are the one ignoring factual information. I posted that executed murderers do not reoffend. Fairly pertinent point I would contend. You brushed it off as a cute comment and witty if it hadn't been used a thousand times before going off at a tangent about the Daily Mail. I posted about the pain of the victims and their families and how you justify your position to them.You pointedly ignored that too. What is this fixation with the Daily Mail? You can disagree with me and we are quite obviously never going to convince each other but the Daily Mail? If I did read it I would tell you. I have no idea what you read and I don't care, but it clearly isn't doing you any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 How is this being soft? Well it's not, but in this case its a * sight softer than being buried alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What about people who murder someone who was a menace to society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 He used to be called the Hangman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What's he called now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.