Shake me up Judy Posted November 9, 2014 Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 Buzzzzzzz......Deviation. Hillsborough Inquiry. You're just playing mind games with yourself here Border Terrier. In the real world people have had to confront the worst and face moral decisions far bigger than you'll ever have to in the comfort of your own head. Your example of the hypothetical Breivik twin wouldn't go down well in a packed courtroom of grieving families. Nor would your hotshot law school routine find much of an audience at the trial of Fred and Rose West; or with the mums and dads of the kids murdered by Brady and Hindley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 TBT is clearly just trolling. The scenarios are too whacky to take seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Truth is stranger than fiction: http://www.cotwa.info/2013/02/identical-twin-brothers-both-charged.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9861164/Double-trouble-for-Marseille-police-hunting-serial-rapist-as-DNA-turns-up-identical-twins.html There is no way back from an execution for an innocent man or woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases "During the early 1990s there was a series of high-profile cases revealed to have been miscarriages of justice. Many resulted from police fabricating evidence, in order to convict the person they thought was guilty, or simply to convict someone in order to get a high conviction rate." I am not expecting actual evidence to over-turn your denial of the reality of just how flawed our justice system can be, and hence why even in the most "we are 100%, absolutely definitely sure" cases, some of even those "open and shut" cases turn out to be wrong..... any juror who thinks they are so sure that they can feel comfortable about imposing a death penalty is running a risk, in my opinion. I wouldn't want it on my conscience - not the doubt, and definitely not to ever find out I helped send an innocent person to be killed. TBT is talking perfect sense - if you claim to not see sense when it is staring you in the face then you are the troll not him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Your example of the hypothetical Breivik twin wouldn't go down well in a packed courtroom of grieving families. Nor would your hotshot law school routine find much of an audience at the trial of Fred and Rose West; or with the mums and dads of the kids murdered by Brady and Hindley. And as for this, I understand the dilemma, but this simply boils down to an argument that the desires of the grieving victims should trump due process, and the right of the accused to be convicted beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. Either you support the rule of law or you don't. It SUCKS for victims, god knows I know that, but the alternative is something much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Ceaseless Change: Your position just seems to be that the state should never kill under any circumstances. Would be perfect in a perfect world. As a matter of interest, what would have been your position if called up to fight a war of national survival which might involve killing people on the other side who really are innocent, and not the criminals we are talking about in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Ceaseless Change: Your position just seems to be that the state should never kill under any circumstances. You have a VERY tiresome habit of taking what I say and twisting it out of all recognition. Whatwould have been your position if called up to fight a war of national survival which might involve killing people on the other side who really are innocent, and not the criminals we are talking about in this thread? However this is an entirely sensible question, despite your premise for directing it at me being totally wrong. First of all I think it's interesting that you phrased it a war of NATIONAL survival. I'm not surprised, I expect you are strongly in favour of the idea of a nation state. I'm much more ambivalent, mainly because nationalism is one of the most powerful tools in the armory of warmongers. Whip it up, and off you go, and screw the damage. I think most wars have been pointless counterproductive tragedies, with some notable exceptions, like World War 2. That was a bona fide defensive war, which incurred massive suffering to avoid even greater suffering. However very few other wars pass this test IMO. e.g. I would sign up for World War 3, presuming we didn't start it and (let's say) Russia did. But I wouldn't sign up for Iraq 3, or Afghanistan 2, because those wars have been catastrophic in their consequences. Another area where state killing is fine by me, is assassination. When people say that assassinating Saddam Hussain would have been immoral, and yet they are fine with killing thousands of Iraqi soldiers who quite literally had no other choice but to be there or shot as a deserter, I can only stare at them in bemusement. I'm not sure they would know morality if it hit then in the face. But these are all actions that can only come after all options based on the rule of law have been exhausted. If Saddam had travelled to the UN for a summit, and we had the opportunity to arrest and prosecute him, but instead ducked that and assassinated him, that would not have my support. But of course Saddam was never that stupid - so send in the SEALs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Another area where state killing is fine by me, is assassination. When people say that assassinating Saddam Hussain would have been immoral, and yet they are fine with killing thousands of Iraqi soldiers who quite literally had no other choice but to be there or shot as a deserter, I can only stare at them in bemusement. I'm not sure they would know morality if it hit then in the face. You know, I totally agree with you on that. Kill the guilty and spare the innocent. Have any resonance with the earlier discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Well, no, because as I already said, "these are all actions that can only come after all options based on the rule of law have been exhausted." Assassination is a last resort. Clearly when you have the accused sat in a remand cell you can't claim "last resort, let's just kill him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 You know, I totally agree with you on that. I think I'm going to print this out and frame it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Everything comes to he who waits. I was surprised too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Buzzzzzzz......Deviation. Hillsborough Inquiry. You're just playing mind games with yourself here Border Terrier. In the real world people have had to confront the worst and face moral decisions far bigger than you'll ever have to in the comfort of your own head. Your example of the hypothetical Breivik twin wouldn't go down well in a packed courtroom of grieving families. Nor would your hotshot law school routine find much of an audience at the trial of Fred and Rose West; or with the mums and dads of the kids murdered by Brady and Hindley. >Deviation. Hillsborough Inquiry. Which one? Currently we're on the second inquiry for the one incident. >Your example of the hypothetical Breivik twin wouldn't go down well in a packed courtroom of grieving families. I've no idea if Breivik has a twin, do you? If Anders wasn't caught at the scene (and I've no idea if he was) could one say for certain it was Anders and not his brother? Is eye witness evidence infallible? Has an identical twin ever been wrongly convicted for their siblings crime? >Nor would your hotshot law school routine find much of an audience at the trial of Fred and Rose West; or with the mums and dads of the kids murdered by Brady and Hindley. I doubt the parents of Lesley Molseed would be impressed at:- a) an innocent man convicted in the name of their daughter. b) her killer allowed to continue his crimes. c) being duped by the police. If you were Lesley's father, and Stefan had been executed, what would you say to his mother once the injustice had been exposed? Probably something trite like... "I know how you feel" It's entirely for the sake of the victims and their families that we should be absolutely certain. It's regrettable to wrongly convict, but tragic if you've executed the wronged person. One positive way to prevent the latter would be incarceration. So the million $ question. How would I feel if an 18 year old student plunged a knife seven times into the neck of Mrs TBT during a lesson at the IoM college? If he were responsible... I'd want to know why. I'd want him locked up to prevent others suffering like I/we had. I'd find no solace in his execution. TBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Your example of the hypothetical Breivik twin wouldn't go down well in a packed courtroom of grieving families. Nor would your hotshot law school routine find much of an audience at the trial of Fred and Rose West; or with the mums and dads of the kids murdered by Brady and Hindley. And as for this, I understand the dilemma, but this simply boils down to an argument that the desires of the grieving victims should trump due process, and the right of the accused to be convicted beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. Either you support the rule of law or you don't. It SUCKS for victims, god knows I know that, but the alternative is something much worse. >...that the desires of the grieving victims should trump due process, In such cases I'd be concerned that the mindset of the grieving relatives is unstable. Making important decisions under such conditions may have far reaching consequences...ones which they may later regret making. So NO, I'd not want the desires of the relatives taken into account be they positive e.g. forgiveness, or negative e.g.advocating a particular sentence. But there could be some sort of forum prepared exclusive of the Court for such considerations. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 But there could be some sort of forum prepared exclusive of the Court for such considerations. TBT. If it's anything like MF, he hasn't got a cat in hells chance! Hung drawn and quartered in a real life screen world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 So the million $ question. How would I feel if an 18 year old student plunged a knife seven times into the neck of Mrs TBT during a lesson at the IoM college? If he were responsible... I'd want to know why. I'd want him locked up to prevent others suffering like I/we had. I'd find no solace in his execution. TBT Hear hear. And I personally would add: IF the system decreed that he had to be released at some point in the future, I would want the state at large to do everything they reasonably could to rehabilitate him before letting him out. Because release without rehabilitation just invites more tragedies. But my bias would definitely be towards keeping them inside longer and rehabilitating them more until you are genuinely sure ("beyond reasonable doubt") that they won't reoffend, instead of releasing them as soon as they get to a perceived risk level that you think you can justify as good enough for letting them out. Not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Is turfing them out onto the street enlightened policy or cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.