Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not?" Reading this it sounds like a gang shooting gone wrong. The fact he was able to get a weapon, drive around in a black SUV and fired upon and random vehicle is a big problem. I'm glad he was caught quickly and will do the time he deserves. In regards to BLM there is a stark difference in what they're fighting for and this. The people who they are protesting against are people who don't get punishments. The police have shot many black children and get no punishment (even keep their jobs). To answer your question on if police are needed yes they are needed but they need to be better trained. In regards to the punishment the death penalty should be considered. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not?" Death penalty no imo | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo" Why no? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? " Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works." it might not work but honestly wat does a peice of shit like that bring to the world.off the fucker and they dont have to feed or house him in prison for the rest of his life | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works. it might not work but honestly wat does a peice of shit like that bring to the world.off the fucker and they dont have to feed or house him in prison for the rest of his life" To be honest ending his life doesn't make him pay for what he did. Making him stay in prison for years and then taking his life is a better punishment. But as someone posted above the death penalty isn't working as a deterrent. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works. it might not work but honestly wat does a peice of shit like that bring to the world.off the fucker and they dont have to feed or house him in prison for the rest of his life To be honest ending his life doesn't make him pay for what he did. Making him stay in prison for years and then taking his life is a better punishment. But as someone posted above the death penalty isn't working as a deterrent." like i said it might not be a deterent but really does the world need people like that in it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works. it might not work but honestly wat does a peice of shit like that bring to the world.off the fucker and they dont have to feed or house him in prison for the rest of his life" You can say that about all sorts. I remember there was a story about these twisted fuckers who tortured and killed an adopted little girl. Your 1st thought is they should be gassed but the law should be dispassionate. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? Death penalty no imo Why no? Well for a start look at the amount of innocent people who would have been killed the last x number of years. Is it a deterrent?its certainly not in America. I simply don't think it works. it might not work but honestly wat does a peice of shit like that bring to the world.off the fucker and they dont have to feed or house him in prison for the rest of his life To be honest ending his life doesn't make him pay for what he did. Making him stay in prison for years and then taking his life is a better punishment. But as someone posted above the death penalty isn't working as a deterrent."  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" like i said it might not be a deterent but really does the world need people like that in it" But does the world need to placate public outrage by executing people? Personally I believe locking up murderers and throwing away the key is a more fitting punishment..and it keeps their blood off my hands. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" like i said it might not be a deterent but really does the world need people like that in it But does the world need to placate public outrage by executing people? Personally I believe locking up murderers and throwing away the key is a more fitting punishment..and it keeps their blood off my hands." | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not?" You're conflating two different social issues. One is a campaign against institutionalised racism, to which society has little recourse. The other is an example of savage criminality which is prosecuted through the courts. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? You're conflating two different social issues. One is a campaign against institutionalised racism, to which society has little recourse. The other is an example of savage criminality which is prosecuted through the courts." No. I don't confront anything. This is your point of view. This man deserves to die. Courts? It's kinda funny. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient." Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world." Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? You're conflating two different social issues. One is a campaign against institutionalised racism, to which society has little recourse. The other is an example of savage criminality which is prosecuted through the courts. No. I don't confront anything. This is your point of view. This man deserves to die. Courts? It's kinda funny." I didn't say you'd confronted anything. Yes, it's my point of view, just as yours is your point of view. The man may or may not 'deserve to die' but that's a different discussion to the BLM campaign (which is why I suggested you were conflating two issues). Not sure of the point in your last post, what's funny about courts? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. " So if a wife plans to kill a violent and abusive husband she deserves to die? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. " I'm guessing you're expressing your personal opinion rather than a factual position. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
". So if a wife plans to kill a violent and abusive husband she deserves to die?" It's a 'simple law' apparently!  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. So if a wife plans to kill a violent and abusive husband she deserves to die?" If she plans to kill him its premeditated murder, so in some states could be considered for the death penalty. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" like i said it might not be a deterent but really does the world need people like that in it But does the world need to placate public outrage by executing people? Personally I believe locking up murderers and throwing away the key is a more fitting punishment..and it keeps their blood off my hands." costs more money locking it up for life.the blke killed a 7 yr old kid id have no probs having his blood on my hands | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. If she manages to do so, she deserves a death sentence. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. So if a wife plans to kill a violent and abusive husband she deserves to die?" | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. I'm guessing you're expressing your personal opinion rather than a factual position." And what difference does it make? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not?" You're clearly someone who doesn't understand what the BLM movement is about. This to me sounds like a gang related matter and a drive by in which Aliyah was not the intended target. What you're trying to do is make it look as if BLM is irrelevant like most White people who don't understand it and counter it with All Live Matter. This scum bag has been arrested and justice will take it's corse | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? You're conflating two different social issues. One is a campaign against institutionalised racism, to which society has little recourse. The other is an example of savage criminality which is prosecuted through the courts. No. I don't confront anything. This is your point of view. This man deserves to die. Courts? It's kinda funny. I didn't say you'd confronted anything. Yes, it's my point of view, just as yours is your point of view. The man may or may not 'deserve to die' but that's a different discussion to the BLM campaign (which is why I suggested you were conflating two issues). Not sure of the point in your last post, what's funny about courts?" This | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? You're clearly someone who doesn't understand what the BLM movement is about. This to me sounds like a gang related matter and a drive by in which Aliyah was not the intended target. What you're trying to do is make it look as if BLM is irrelevant like most White people who don't understand it and counter it with All Live Matter. This scum bag has been arrested and justice will take it's corse" Do not make me laugh. I understand BLM perfectly. I just don't understand why WLM is denied( Burnley) | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera" Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont." Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things" Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont." I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers?" bulger killers lets see.should of both stayed in nick until there 40s at least so there best years were behind them.as it is they done about 10 years.one seems to be keeping his nose clean now the other serms to still be a cunt that the tax payer has to keep funding with new identitys and relocations. so with him id be ok seeing him swing from a lamp post | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers?" This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry" Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works "But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? bulger killers lets see.should of both stayed in nick until there 40s at least so there best years were behind them.as it is they done about 10 years.one seems to be keeping his nose clean now the other serms to still be a cunt that the tax payer has to keep funding with new identitys and relocations. so with him id be ok seeing him swing from a lamp post" When he was 10? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? bulger killers lets see.should of both stayed in nick until there 40s at least so there best years were behind them.as it is they done about 10 years.one seems to be keeping his nose clean now the other serms to still be a cunt that the tax payer has to keep funding with new identitys and relocations. so with him id be ok seeing him swing from a lamp post When he was 10?" re read wat i said.they should of stayed in nick till there 40s they didnt as someone deemed they were both rehabilitated one obviously isnt.keeps getting caught with dodgy pics on his computer so only a matter of time until he actually goes further remember he has previous so wen he crosses that line again string him up as rehabilitation obviously dosent work with him.or do you think everyone can be rehabilitated? your from liverpool surley you must know exactally wat the little fuckers done to that baby because thats what he was | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty." Indeed I am only thinking out aloud and not claiming any answers. The ones that were not terror related yet deliberately murdered people at random - what do we do with them? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty." Yes, you are right that the system is not perfect but with the death penalty it would certainly be more effective | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty. Indeed I am only thinking out aloud and not claiming any answers. The ones that were not terror related yet deliberately murdered people at random - what do we do with them?" Fuck knows. It looks like the last 2 have been mental health issues which is an area that has been decimated the last 10 years. Probation has been another issue which was privatised and is another fuck up. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty. Indeed I am only thinking out aloud and not claiming any answers. The ones that were not terror related yet deliberately murdered people at random - what do we do with them?" Send them to their country of origin | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works "What is the solution, execute him when he was a child? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? bulger killers lets see.should of both stayed in nick until there 40s at least so there best years were behind them.as it is they done about 10 years.one seems to be keeping his nose clean now the other serms to still be a cunt that the tax payer has to keep funding with new identitys and relocations. so with him id be ok seeing him swing from a lamp post When he was 10? re read wat i said.they should of stayed in nick till there 40s they didnt as someone deemed they were both rehabilitated one obviously isnt.keeps getting caught with dodgy pics on his computer so only a matter of time until he actually goes further remember he has previous so wen he crosses that line again string him up as rehabilitation obviously dosent work with him.or do you think everyone can be rehabilitated? your from liverpool surley you must know exactally wat the little fuckers done to that baby because thats what he was" I know but they were kids when they did it and its probably one of the most difficult legal cases there has ever been. But you cant say..if you dont keep your nose clean we will execute you 20 years from now | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty. Indeed I am only thinking out aloud and not claiming any answers. The ones that were not terror related yet deliberately murdered people at random - what do we do with them? Send them to their country of origin" How does that tie in with if They live here they have to abide with our laws? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong."Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler. One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children. But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? bulger killers lets see.should of both stayed in nick until there 40s at least so there best years were behind them.as it is they done about 10 years.one seems to be keeping his nose clean now the other serms to still be a cunt that the tax payer has to keep funding with new identitys and relocations. so with him id be ok seeing him swing from a lamp post When he was 10? re read wat i said.they should of stayed in nick till there 40s they didnt as someone deemed they were both rehabilitated one obviously isnt.keeps getting caught with dodgy pics on his computer so only a matter of time until he actually goes further remember he has previous so wen he crosses that line again string him up as rehabilitation obviously dosent work with him.or do you think everyone can be rehabilitated? your from liverpool surley you must know exactally wat the little fuckers done to that baby because thats what he was I know but they were kids when they did it and its probably one of the most difficult legal cases there has ever been. But you cant say..if you dont keep your nose clean we will execute you 20 years from now " again read what i just wrote the guy git a nothing sentence was released has been caught with dodgy pics more than once obviously was never rehabilitated and just a matter of time until he croses that line again. wen he dies why waste time locking him up again off the oxygen theif | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
"Fairly sure I didnt say that. We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do not make me laugh. I understand BLM perfectly. I just don't understand why WLM is denied( Burnley) " Ahem, in that sentence clearly demonstrating why you don't understand BLM 'perfectly'. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world." You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt."So the risk of John Venables killing again high. The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him. So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again. I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work. Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
"Define violent. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
"Is it? He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder. I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence? I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Define violent."Can't really as the words I want to use are banned in the fab forums. However your definition may differ from mine so please can you give me your definition of a violent crime? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Define violent.
Can't really as the words I want to use are banned in the fab forums.
However your definition may differ from mine so please can you give me your definition of a violent crime?"Well it's a broad spectrum..you could get involved in a fight on a night out..punch someone once and they bang their head and die. Thats violent..should you be locked up for life for that? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.""He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder." Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are." I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.
"He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder."
Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts "You enjoy putting words in peopes mouths dont you? Are you suggesting murdering a child is comparable to looking at child porn? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.
"He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder."
Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts
You enjoy putting words in peopes mouths dont you?
Are you suggesting murdering a child is comparable to looking at child porn?"Its what you posted. I've already made my assumption. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.
"He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder."
Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts
You enjoy putting words in peopes mouths dont you?
Are you suggesting murdering a child is comparable to looking at child porn?
Its what you posted. I've already made my assumption.
"Child porn is different to murder..that doesnt make it unimportant.Quite frankly I couldnt give a flying fuck what assumption you have made. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high?" With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right?" So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do not make me laugh. I understand BLM perfectly. I just don't understand why WLM is denied( Burnley) Ahem, in that sentence clearly demonstrating why you don't understand BLM 'perfectly'." | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.
"He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder."
Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts
You enjoy putting words in peopes mouths dont you?
Are you suggesting murdering a child is comparable to looking at child porn?
Its what you posted. I've already made my assumption.
Child porn is different to murder..that doesnt make it unimportant.Quite frankly I couldnt give a flying fuck what assumption you have made."Don't get angry at me for your own thoughts and opinion. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. Faith in rehabilitation and its effectiveness are two other things Erm..I'm not sure..you must believe in some sort of rehabilitation but some people really do need to locked up and the keys thrown away. And what about when kids do something bad like the Jamie bulger killers? This the guy that got rehabilitated then was caught with and sharing indecent pictures of children. Yea the system clearly works
But the other one hasnt put a foot wrong.
Doesnt matter. Two boys were convicted for the murder of a toddler.
One may have seen the severity of the situation and will fade into obscurity if he is lucky, but the other has re-offended after his realise and been caught with obscene images of children.
But by your thinking because one has never re-offended its nothing to be concerned about
Fairly sure I didnt say that.
We were talking about rehabilitation..in 2 case it worked .in another it didnt.
So the risk of John Venables killing again high.
The offences he was charged with have built a rather sinister profile of him.
So if he does kill or sexually abuse a child we will just send him to jail again.
I'm not for execution I think that is one of the most horrible ways to die, but the so called rehabilitation and release of violent criminals doesn't seem to work.
Lifetime incarceration for offenders like these with no release.
Is it?
He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder.
I would imagine he is on a pretty tight leash tbh..isn't he on a life licence?
I'm not defending what he has done I just dont think there are any easy answers here.
"He was looking at child porn..bit differrent than murder."
Thanks for clearing up the fact that child porn is low on your list of criminal acts
You enjoy putting words in peopes mouths dont you?
Are you suggesting murdering a child is comparable to looking at child porn?
Its what you posted. I've already made my assumption.
Child porn is different to murder..that doesnt make it unimportant.Quite frankly I couldnt give a flying fuck what assumption you have made.
Don't get angry at me for your own thoughts and opinion.
"I'm not getting angry. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8463395/Man-26-shot-dead-seven-year-old-girl-just-THREE-HOURS-released-jail.html Where are the BLM members? Why there are no protests and looters Let's look at this. Is the Police needed or not? Should the death penalty be or not? You're clearly someone who doesn't understand what the BLM movement is about. This to me sounds like a gang related matter and a drive by in which Aliyah was not the intended target. What you're trying to do is make it look as if BLM is irrelevant like most White people who don't understand it and counter it with All Live Matter. This scum bag has been arrested and justice will take it's corse Do not make me laugh. I understand BLM perfectly. I just don't understand why WLM is denied( Burnley) " Nobody ever said White Lives don't matter. Why don't you start a movement called WLM if you feel that passionate about it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done?" Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. " They should be used as organ donations or medical science, at least their disgusting act has some silver lining. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. They should be used as organ donations or medical science, at least their disgusting act has some silver lining. " This is actually a great idea. Vaccine trials, science experiments. Plenty of scope here. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only problem with death penalty is the number of wrong convictions that have been given by judiciaries around the world. But if there is a clear cut case with bulletproof evidence, such violent criminals should be given the death penalty. Arguments that death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent is based on bullshit logic by comparing statistics which should not be compared. Lives on the planet have evolved based on survival. Humans are no different. Death penalty does act as a deterrent. Forget detterance. What do you do with criminals who would kill and r*pe people? Release them back to the society "hoping" that they won't do it again? That's unfair on law abiding people. We should either keep them locked up forever or finish it off with a death penalty. The latter option is more efficient. Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. Death for death. It's a simple law. If someone premeditated murders they do not deserve to exist in society. They should be used as organ donations or medical science, at least their disgusting act has some silver lining. " Jesus christ | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them." It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Death penalty for all murders is fraught with problems and innocent people have been executed in the past even in the UK many years ago. What about those that clearly set out to murder innocent people like the terrorists that go on a stabbing spree we have seen all to often. Is there any question of their guilt especially when caught on camera Bit pointless executing people who actually want to die tbf. And the recent ones dont seem to be terror related. Once you have the death penalty where do you draw the line? You either believe in rehabilitation or you dont. I agree some do want to die but as you say the recent ones were not terror related so should they be considered for execution? Rehabilitation on these people I don't believe in - sorry Thats The issue isnt it? What's the difference between a terrorist and non terrorist stabbing spree? What about the argument that young people tend to get radicalised? And then there is the middle east minefield..at one point we were going to fight on the same side as isis in Syria. The system we have isnt perfect but its better than the death penalty. Indeed I am only thinking out aloud and not claiming any answers. The ones that were not terror related yet deliberately murdered people at random - what do we do with them? Send them to their country of origin" when did Bradford or liecester become countrys ? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed." It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives?" So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life?" Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government." So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Between 2007 and 2017 84 people were wrongly convicted of serious crimes in the uk including murder,rape etc. According to on here those 84 innocent people would have been either executed or had medical experiments carried out on them. Fucking do gooders." I accepted that wrong conviction is a valid argument against death penalty. But all these arguments like compassion, rehabilitation are not. Recidivism in UK is around 30% And some fucking do gooders are fine with that because it doesn't affect them. Who cares if some poor child gets r*ped? Or some people in park get stabbed? It's the moral superiority of these do gooders that is important. These do gooders keep talking about safety of poor people. But it is mostly the poor people who get affected by these problems because the criminals won't have much to live on, when they are released. They obviously go live in some poor neighborhood that puts the people living there in distress. Of course, these modern liberals never really cared about poor people. They use poor people as a tool when it helps their arguments. It is their own moral superiority that matters. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. " Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Between 2007 and 2017 84 people were wrongly convicted of serious crimes in the uk including murder,rape etc. According to on here those 84 innocent people would have been either executed or had medical experiments carried out on them. Fucking do gooders. I accepted that wrong conviction is a valid argument against death penalty. But all these arguments like compassion, rehabilitation are not. Recidivism in UK is around 30% And some fucking do gooders are fine with that because it doesn't affect them. Who cares if some poor child gets r*ped? Or some people in park get stabbed? It's the moral superiority of these do gooders that is important. These do gooders keep talking about safety of poor people. But it is mostly the poor people who get affected by these problems because the criminals won't have much to live on, when they are released. They obviously go live in some poor neighborhood that puts the people living there in distress. Of course, these modern liberals never really cared about poor people. They use poor people as a tool when it helps their arguments. It is their own moral superiority that matters." Poor areas always have higher crime rates.This is due to power structures in society and nothing to do with do gooders or human rights. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law." Because you think innocent people should not be executed doesnt mean you dont care about the victims of crime. How would you feel if you had a relative wrongly executed? Would you still be just as vocal in support of the death penalty? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law." So you think countries with the death penalty have less serious crime? I don't think the data will back you up on that one. And let's have a look at recidivism rates... Norway often cited as lowest at 20% and they have no death penalty. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law. So you think countries with the death penalty have less serious crime? I don't think the data will back you up on that one. And let's have a look at recidivism rates... Norway often cited as lowest at 20% and they have no death penalty." That is wrong way to look at stats. The point is not just about recidivism. It's about overall crime too. Countries with least homicide rate- Singapore, Japan and China all have death penalties. The human right experts won't let you hear that. Even if we are looking at recidivism, we are looking only crimes having death penalty. Theoretically, if there is death penalty for a crime, the recidivism for that crime is 0. How can you ever beat that? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law. Because you think innocent people should not be executed doesnt mean you dont care about the victims of crime. How would you feel if you had a relative wrongly executed? Would you still be just as vocal in support of the death penalty?" I have explained it clearly to you. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. Justice system in some countries have been built with this in mind. Death penalties are not given to everyone that easily. The evidence has to be super strong. Like the stabbing incidents would have resulted in death penalties because you have a clear case for conviction. So I don't think I will ever be in a position where my relative is wrongly given a death sentence. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Between 2007 and 2017 84 people were wrongly convicted of serious crimes in the uk including murder,rape etc. According to on here those 84 innocent people would have been either executed or had medical experiments carried out on them. Fucking do gooders. I accepted that wrong conviction is a valid argument against death penalty. But all these arguments like compassion, rehabilitation are not. Recidivism in UK is around 30% And some fucking do gooders are fine with that because it doesn't affect them. Who cares if some poor child gets r*ped? Or some people in park get stabbed? It's the moral superiority of these do gooders that is important. These do gooders keep talking about safety of poor people. But it is mostly the poor people who get affected by these problems because the criminals won't have much to live on, when they are released. They obviously go live in some poor neighborhood that puts the people living there in distress. Of course, these modern liberals never really cared about poor people. They use poor people as a tool when it helps their arguments. It is their own moral superiority that matters. Poor areas always have higher crime rates.This is due to power structures in society and nothing to do with do gooders or human rights." Why do you want to release back violent criminals like the grooming gang members back to these areas? How does that not affect the poor? I have already made it clear that economic status plays a role in crime. But it doesn't have to be the only cause. There are multiple causes of which economic status is one while lack of fear for law is another. You are bothered only about one reason while not bothering about the other reason. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law. Because you think innocent people should not be executed doesnt mean you dont care about the victims of crime. How would you feel if you had a relative wrongly executed? Would you still be just as vocal in support of the death penalty? I have explained it clearly to you. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. Justice system in some countries have been built with this in mind. Death penalties are not given to everyone that easily. The evidence has to be super strong. Like the stabbing incidents would have resulted in death penalties because you have a clear case for conviction. So I don't think I will ever be in a position where my relative is wrongly given a death sentence." I think you have a very black and white issue of the judiciary when it's very often grey. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Between 2007 and 2017 84 people were wrongly convicted of serious crimes in the uk including murder,rape etc. According to on here those 84 innocent people would have been either executed or had medical experiments carried out on them. Fucking do gooders. I accepted that wrong conviction is a valid argument against death penalty. But all these arguments like compassion, rehabilitation are not. Recidivism in UK is around 30% And some fucking do gooders are fine with that because it doesn't affect them. Who cares if some poor child gets r*ped? Or some people in park get stabbed? It's the moral superiority of these do gooders that is important. These do gooders keep talking about safety of poor people. But it is mostly the poor people who get affected by these problems because the criminals won't have much to live on, when they are released. They obviously go live in some poor neighborhood that puts the people living there in distress. Of course, these modern liberals never really cared about poor people. They use poor people as a tool when it helps their arguments. It is their own moral superiority that matters. Poor areas always have higher crime rates.This is due to power structures in society and nothing to do with do gooders or human rights. Why do you want to release back violent criminals like the grooming gang members back to these areas? How does that not affect the poor? I have already made it clear that economic status plays a role in crime. But it doesn't have to be the only cause. There are multiple causes of which economic status is one while lack of fear for law is another. You are bothered only about one reason while not bothering about the other reason." Should a 17 year old be sentenced to life for sleeping with a 16 year old? You keep bringing up those grooming gangs. You realise many of those escaped justice for years. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you ever get "bullet proof evidence' If one innocent person is expecuted it's too.much. Why cant you compare countries?America,or parts of it,which has the death penalty have some of the worst murder rates in the world. You just gave me an example of why countries should not be compared directly like this. Top 3 countries in the ranking of least homicide rates - Japan, Singapore and China+Hong Kong. All three countries have death penalties for murders. There are plenty of factors that lead to violent crimes - Gun laws, economic development, social development (read controlling religious extremism), fear of law/punishment. In case of the USA, it is the gun laws driving homicides. If they remove death penalty too, they would do lot worse. Most statistical arguments make such mistakes. They just lump all countries with death penalty together and the ones without death penalty together and compare homicide rates. Each country has plenty of factors affecting crime rates. Bulletproof evidence can be hard to get. If not, it makes sense to err on the side of life sentence instead of death penalty. But there have been instances of crimes which have been too violent and clear case of who the perpetrators are. I agree gun control is an issue in the states but thats surely an example of the death penalty not being a deterrent. The 3 countries you mentioned are culturally different to us in the west so I suppose comparing countries isnt perfect. Even when we had the death penalty wasnt the murder rate comparably high? With literacy rate increasing, homicide rate all around the world has been decreasing with/without death penalty. This takes care of the "social development" factor I mentioned. The point is can we do better than that? You cannot brush aside these countries as having different culture. They have all had higher homicide rates in the past because of other factors I mentioned. Singapore and Japan have managed to crack all the four factors - economic development, social development, strict gun laws and death penalty for the ones who still manage to commit a crime. Europe's punishment for violent crime is laughable and screws up the victims lives forever. A person who r*pes children gets released within ten years and he goes back to live in the same place where victims are living. Can you imagine the life of the victims and their families knowing that this person is just living close to them? But of course, the criminal's human rights are more important right? So who exactly would you execute then? Are child rapists sent back to the same area? With presumably everyone living around them knowing what they have done? Unless a murder is done for self defense, any other murderer should be considered for death penalty at least. Chils r*pists should get minimum full life sentence. And yes. These criminals have been released back to the same place as of now: https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/14/rochdale-grooming-gang-victim-comes-face-face-abuser-asda-12703803/ Do you really think these animals care about what their neighbours are going to think after knowing what they have done? You should learn more about some gruesome criminals to know what their mindset is. If you have some strength in your heart, read about the Nirbhaya case in India. Read what they did to the woman. Those criminals were executed recently. Do you suggest anything other than death penalty for those monsters? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder Some people are pure monsters and they have to be treated that way. Human rights do not apply to them. It's quite easy to pick out horrendous crimes and say these people should be locked up for life. When they had those attacks at tower bridge one of the people who helped was a convicted murderer.Without his help it's likely more people would have been killed. It's quite easy to comment about horrendous crimes and talk about being humanitarian towards these vile creatures when nothing of these sorts have happened in your closer circles. Many people who talk about these things live in a safe echo chamber where nothing like this would happen to them and give advice to others on how we should show compassion towards criminal. Would you be happy if a terrorist or serial killer moves next to your house? Would a parent be happy if he has a 10 year old daughter and a child r*pist is released and he moves into the house next to him? The tower bridge incident happened in the first place because a terrorist was released too early. If they had kept him in jail, this incident wouldn't have been happened at all. Even if that convicted murderer is not there, there would have been other people who could have stopped him. In the past year there have been three major stabbing incidents. All criminals were released from prisons earlier. Why the hell should innocent people lose their lives? So who would be executed? Who would be locked up for life? Terrorists, homicides and r*pists. My want is they should not be allowed to enter into societies again. Execution/Life long lockup is upto the government. So the suffrages should have been executed. A wife who has been violently abused by her husband and kills him is excuted All those falsey accused and imprisoned of @@@@ All those executed/banged up for life along with those 84 innocents. Homicides do not normally include crimes did based on self defense. So an abused wife would not be executed. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of countries with death penalty. And they don't give it away that easily. The crime has to be horrific and there should be plenty of evidence for them to be executed. If you take India, number of death sentences given was 186 in 2018. Of those,65 were converted to life sentence. Once someone is given a death sentence, the person would not be executed immediately. They have the right to appeal to so many courts and in the end, the president too. Overall, it takes a minimum of five years to actually execute the person. Most countries having death penalty use it only under certain circumstances with so many chances for the accused to turn it around. Even a little bit of doubt changes it to life sentence instead. You care about 84 innocents who are wrongly convicted. I care about thousands of innocents who are killed due to recedivism and criminals who are not afraid of law. So you think countries with the death penalty have less serious crime? I don't think the data will back you up on that one. And let's have a look at recidivism rates... Norway often cited as lowest at 20% and they have no death penalty. That is wrong way to look at stats. The point is not just about recidivism. It's about overall crime too. Countries with least homicide rate- Singapore, Japan and China all have death penalties. The human right experts won't let you hear that. Even if we are looking at recidivism, we are looking only crimes having death penalty. Theoretically, if there is death penalty for a crime, the recidivism for that crime is 0. How can you ever beat that?" Pretty sure the human rights people would be pretty vocal on China, where embezzlement is a capital offence... and anyway, I think you'll find it's Hong Kong and not China which has the third lowest murder rate... and Hong Kong doesn't have the death penalty (it maintains an independent judicial system from mainland China). So you're left with Japan and Singapore. But then Jamaica and Guatemala have the death penalty and some of the highest murder rates in the world... and in the US, States without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those with it... you simply cannot prove that the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent. You care that criminals have no fear of the law. There's no evidence the death penalty increases that fear. Then there's recidivism... naturally killing someone prevents them from committing further crime, but it also prevents you from righting a miscarriage of justice. It all boils down to nothing more than your personal value system. I believe we have a right to live. I value life. I think state-sanctioned killing brutalises our society, I do not believe it is an effective deterrent, and I think that innocent people die where capital punishment occurs. I accept there are those who disagree. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
