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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's an acceptable error rate?" Zero | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have to admit I’m sat on the fence. " Don’t get splinters in your ass! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is a legal punishment in 31 US states ? Since 1976 Texas has carried out the most executions (548), followed by Virginia (113) and Oklahoma (112) ? There are 2,817 inmates on death row in the US ? California has the most prisoners on death row, 746, but has carried out only 13 executions since 1976 . Over the last five years, 70% of death sentences have been imposed on people of colour - more than half of these sentences were for African-American defendants, according to TCADP. . though less than 13% of Texas's population is African American, they constitute 43.8% of death row inmates, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. . Those who support the death penalty point out the decreasing trend also reflects a nationwide drop in murder rates, and that the death penalty continues playing an effective role, and retains public support, with the small percentage of eligible homicides. . Do you agree the death penalty should be kept aa deterrent, or should this barbaric act be removed once and for all " and what do you tell the families of those that were eventually found innocent..... ooops!! my bad!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Beware those whos urge to punish others is strong.They are the real enemies of humanity." as I said, and asked, - should this barbaric act be removed once and for all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If they are 100% guilty ....of the crime .....it doesn't matter the colour of your skin ." You don't think it matters that if a black person and a white person committed the say crime, the black person is more likely to be killed by the state? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am a reluctant convert from being anti death penalty to pro. Statistically the annual UK murder rate is the same now as in 1964 when Britain last hanged a murderer at around 400 a year. This is a powerful argument for removal of the death penalty (on the surface). However the statistics are false because the bar has been moved upward on a number of occasions to keep the murder rate constant. Fact is we have even go as far as making a new offence of causing death by dangerous driving (in 1964 all would have been murders) to remove an average of 300 year from the murder figures. The simple truth is using the 1964 definition of murder the murder rate has been climbing steadily since the abolition of the death penalty. We now live in a time where gangs of youths can beat someone to death and rather than all being prosecuted for murder they get charged with manslaughter because they claim they did not mean to do it. Whenever this subject comes up for debate the most powerful argument for abolishing the death penalty was and is the how many innocents is it acceptable to hang because someone makes a mistake? The answer is always the same: None, and with that single question the argument is over. This I find strange, because if the changes to the legal definition are dialled out then it is clear that the murder rate has at least tripled or maybe quadrupled since 1964. Therefore by saying we will not execute murderers because we do not want to carry the guilt of the state killing an innocent person, but we are quite happy for somewhere between 800 and 1200 people to be killed by criminals who would not have done so in 1964 because of the risk of being hanged for murder. I would say that the capital punishment debate should be between which causes the most harm having the option of the death penalty and accepting that there are going to be miscarriages of justice where innocents are put to death and not having the death penalty and accepting the cost or 8 to 12 hundred lives annually to save us from the guilt of killing an innocent." good comment will, apreciated | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect." interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There were over 17,000 recorded murders in the United States in 2016, so clearly a death penalty does not deter. It's always struck me as perverse - in order to show you that killing someone is wrong we're going to, um, er, kill you. " Again a fact taken without context... You have to remember when looking at that fact that life expectancy for a young African/American male from the projects is much longer when on death row than when on the streets. If killing someone increases your life expectancy then the homicide rate will climb. After all we are all wired to do whatever it takes to stay alive. Context is everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik "That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There were over 17,000 recorded murders in the United States in 2016, so clearly a death penalty does not deter. It's always struck me as perverse - in order to show you that killing someone is wrong we're going to, um, er, kill you. Again a fact taken without context... You have to remember when looking at that fact that life expectancy for a young African/American male from the projects is much longer when on death row than when on the streets. If killing someone increases your life expectancy then the homicide rate will climb. After all we are all wired to do whatever it takes to stay alive. Context is everything." are you saying that may be an option for the homeless on our streets? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely "If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed. no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not for us to decide if the US should do this or not. The same as it's not for is to decide if they should ban guns prevent primary school children from being shot. It's also not for us to decide who they elect as President. The UK decided that state sanctioned revenge probably wasn't a good thing. I agree with that decision even though it had nothing to do with me. I also don't think it should be brought back. 100% certainty of guilt is an interesting concept." 100% certainty of guilt is not a concept it's a reality. Look at the killers of Lee Rigby, caught on camera cctv in the evil act they commitment. There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that they are guilty. I'd gladly see those 2 individuals get the death penalty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely
If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.
no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!"i have no issue with them being jailed for the rest of their life... so if that had been 175 years as in the larry nassar case where he was sexually abusing women or children... of life plus 1000 years as in the case of Ariel Castro ... i have no issue with that so in the case of stephen pollock .... if he had been around i would have said lock him up and throw away the keys.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not for us to decide if the US should do this or not. The same as it's not for is to decide if they should ban guns prevent primary school children from being shot. It's also not for us to decide who they elect as President. The UK decided that state sanctioned revenge probably wasn't a good thing. I agree with that decision even though it had nothing to do with me. I also don't think it should be brought back. 100% certainty of guilt is an interesting concept. 100% certainty of guilt is not a concept it's a reality. Look at the killers of Lee Rigby, caught on camera cctv in the evil act they commitment. There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that they are guilty. I'd gladly see those 2 individuals get the death penalty. " ...and if they were mentally deficient? Brainwashed? High on drugs as they appear to have been? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely
If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.
no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!"What is the necessity to kill him? Why would you need to, rather than wish to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely
If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.
no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!
What is the necessity to kill him?
Why would you need to, rather than wish to?"Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. " conversely... what would you say to the family of a person who ended up being found innocent that you would have killed via the death penalty... lets say.... the birmingham 6.... or the guildford 4 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. conversely... what would you say to the family of a person who ended up being found innocent that you would have killed via the death penalty... lets say.... the birmingham 6.... or the guildford 4" We're not talking about cases where there is reasonable doubt. I'm talking about cases like the killers of Lee Rigby where there is no doubt what so ever. I'd tell their families they deserve the death penalty for what they did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely
If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.
no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!
What is the necessity to kill him?
Why would you need to, rather than wish to?
Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. "The NECESSITY to kill them is to save money? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am a reluctant convert from being anti death penalty to pro. Statistically the annual UK murder rate is the same now as in 1964 when Britain last hanged a murderer at around 400 a year. This is a powerful argument for removal of the death penalty (on the surface). However the statistics are false because the bar has been moved upward on a number of occasions to keep the murder rate constant. Fact is we have even go as far as making a new offence of causing death by dangerous driving (in 1964 all would have been murders) to remove an average of 300 year from the murder figures. The simple truth is using the 1964 definition of murder the murder rate has been climbing steadily since the abolition of the death penalty. We now live in a time where gangs of youths can beat someone to death and rather than all being prosecuted for murder they get charged with manslaughter because they claim they did not mean to do it. Whenever this subject comes up for debate the most powerful argument for abolishing the death penalty was and is the how many innocents is it acceptable to hang because someone makes a mistake? The answer is always the same: None, and with that single question the argument is over. This I find strange, because if the changes to the legal definition are dialled out then it is clear that the murder rate has at least tripled or maybe quadrupled since 1964. Therefore by saying we will not execute murderers because we do not want to carry the guilt of the state killing an innocent person, but we are quite happy for somewhere between 800 and 1200 people to be killed by criminals who would not have done so in 1964 because of the risk of being hanged for murder. I would say that the capital punishment debate should be between which causes the most harm having the option of the death penalty and accepting that there are going to be miscarriages of justice where innocents are put to death and not having the death penalty and accepting the cost or 8 to 12 hundred lives annually to save us from the guilt of killing an innocent." Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The death penalty is not an effective method for a civilized society to use, including as a deterrent. It is inappropriate wherever there is one mistake in sentencing and unforgivable. It is an abhorrent way for any human to be treated and has no place in a humane society. The state should not take lives on this manner, where it lowers itself to the level of discounting the value of any human life. Countries and states where it is removed as a punishment option are far healthier and treat others with more respect. interesting, are you saying that had Stephen Paddock survived, you would not want him to receive the death penalty? . guess that question is open to all as well as this; Do you consider a 21 year sentence long enough for Anders Behring Breivik
That is the maximum sentence he could be given under Norwegian law... however if at that time he is still considering to be a risk to society he can actually be detained indefinitely
If, is a big word, works out 3 months for each person executed.
no comment on Stephen Paddock, should he have survived? Fabio!
What is the necessity to kill him?
Why would you need to, rather than wish to?
Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day.
The NECESSITY to kill them is to save money?"if it was your money perhaps you would have a different view No one has mentioned the risk to the guards around them, many locked up for life have nothing to lose and vent anger on security guards & wardens | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We're not talking about cases where there is reasonable doubt. I'm talking about cases like the killers of Lee Rigby where there is no doubt what so ever. " If there is reasonable doubt, the defendant is found not guilty. You can't apply different standards of proving guilt to different punishments. 'he probably did it - life in prison. He definitely did it - death penalty'. That's not how it works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't?" Another red herring... You cannot compare one country (society) to another because by the very nature of societies they differ. You need to compare a societies murder rate pre and post death penalty repeal and use the same baseline for all comparisons. "Just no death penalty - it's not a deterrent - just like guns and cops don't magically stop crime." The headline figures do tend to confirm your position. However if you look at the data objectively and use a single baseline to harmonise the numbers then it quickly becomes obvious that just like trickle-down economics the statistics are nothing but an elaborate hoax and confidence trick. Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964." Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty? " it is obvious you are speaking from a bias, and that your position is based on your opinion rather than the numbers. Fact is in the year following the British governments announcement that there would be no more hangings for murder there was a 20% rise in the murder rate, then when the death penalty was abolished by Act of Parliament the murder rate nearly doubled! Don't take my word for it, go check the numbers, and while your at it notice the very clear pattern of the numbers rising at a constant rate and then every so often dropping back to the base line round 3 to 4 hundred a year. When you have spotted that pattern then check to see what changes were made directly before that decrease in UK homicide laws... Then come back and tell me there is no coloration between crime and punishment. As I said in my first post on this thread I am a reluctant convert from being anti the death penalty to being pro. It seems to me reading posts here that many have not bothered to actually examine the evidence and have formed their opinions on feelings rather than evidence (even if it is circumstantial). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates This all anyone needs to read just the facts . States without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates. !! Read up people and educate yourself.. "Interesting you take your numbers from a US death penalty abolition pressure group, I take mine from the UK Home Office. You take your numbers at face value because they say what you want them to, I examined the numbers spotted a flaw and then went looking to see if I could find a reason for it. Wonder which one of us was trained to examine known facts objectively. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some motherfuckers are just willfully ignorant.The numbers aren't made up.. Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year. Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population. The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000) In calculations that include Kansas and New York, Kansas is counted as a death penalty state from 1994 and New York from 1996, since New York's law did not become effective until September, 1995." Yep, fully agree. I know nothing about changes to New York or Kansas legislation since 1995/6, somehow I bet you don't either. But I do know about UK murder rates since 1964 and the changes that have been made yo UK law to ensure that those figures have remained fairly constant. I also know that trends in human behaviour are pretty constant around the world. Therefore as I know that UK headline figures reflect those you have quoted I can only assume that the figures you are using to prove your point are as false and vacuous as the the ones produced here. That you are so tied to the anti death penalty cause that rather than going and checking the official UK figures and changes to UK law as I suggested you do before answering says a lot more about you than me. And before you reply to this you may want to consider the fact that I used to share your opinion until someone pointed out to me what I am pointing out to you. The only difference between us is I went and checked the facts and when I saw the reality I changed my position on the issue. Try it Bob, you may find it cathartic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?" Is nobody going to answer this one? How do those who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty justify this? I can understand killing in self-defence during hand-to-hand fighting, but is sending a drone to kill not execution without trial? For the record, in no way am I opposed to what the military do under legal orders and fully support the troops. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty? it is obvious you are speaking from a bias, and that your position is based on your opinion rather than the numbers. Fact is in the year following the British governments announcement that there would be no more hangings for murder there was a 20% rise in the murder rate, then when the death penalty was abolished by Act of Parliament the murder rate nearly doubled! Don't take my word for it, go check the numbers, and while your at it notice the very clear pattern of the numbers rising at a constant rate and then every so often dropping back to the base line round 3 to 4 hundred a year. When you have spotted that pattern then check to see what changes were made directly before that decrease in UK homicide laws... Then come back and tell me there is no coloration between crime and punishment. As I said in my first post on this thread I am a reluctant convert from being anti the death penalty to being pro. It seems to me reading posts here that many have not bothered to actually examine the evidence and have formed their opinions on feelings rather than evidence (even if it is circumstantial)." You haven't read my question properly. Even if I accept correlation is there, you cannot show that an increase in murders is related to the absence of the death penalty, and not one or more of the many other factors involved. You're relying on the assumption that the death penalty is a valid deterrent. This has not been shown. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do countries which have and apply the death penalty have higher or lower murder rates than those that don't? Another red herring... You cannot compare one country (society) to another because by the very nature of societies they differ. You need to compare a societies murder rate pre and post death penalty repeal and use the same baseline for all comparisons. Just no death penalty - it's not a deterrent - just like guns and cops don't magically stop crime. The headline figures do tend to confirm your position. However if you look at the data objectively and use a single baseline to harmonise the numbers then it quickly becomes obvious that just like trickle-down economics the statistics are nothing but an elaborate hoax and confidence trick. Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964." No, not a red herring at all. It's the actual pertinent question. If the data is difficult to collect or unreliable is another matter. You haven't really said anything about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. The fact that governments massage their crime statistics to look good or that, from your calculations, murder rates are rising does not indicate that the death penalty will improve anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone? Is nobody going to answer this one? How do those who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty justify this? I can understand killing in self-defence during hand-to-hand fighting, but is sending a drone to kill not execution without trial? For the record, in no way am I opposed to what the military do under legal orders and fully support the troops." How much of a potential threat is somebody in custody and to how many people compared to somebody at large and with access to weapons etc? I am not defending extra-judicial killing. It is an horribly grey area. Just responding to your question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice " That sounds like you dodging a difficult question. Using your logic, who would be executed so that the innocent person's family could have their "justice"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone? Is nobody going to answer this one? How do those who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty justify this? I can understand killing in self-defence during hand-to-hand fighting, but is sending a drone to kill not execution without trial? For the record, in no way am I opposed to what the military do under legal orders and fully support the troops. How much of a potential threat is somebody in custody and to how many people compared to somebody at large and with access to weapons etc? I am not defending extra-judicial killing. It is an horribly grey area. Just responding to your question." So the decision to "execute" them is based purely on what they may do next? How about terrorists of various factions spreading their hate in prison which then encourages others to commit atrocities when they are released? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haha we are discussing the USA not the UK .We haven't had the death penalty here for 50 years.Also you've provided nothing, no data to challenge the pages ive offered.All you said is "I know better than you ". Is that it.?. Really a...Best go down to the pub and drown your ego. You've been called out now jog on..or put up some data that counters the link.. "So I take it you do not think that British people and American people are subject to the same drives and inhibitions... Which do you consider to be the superior human beings? Or are you clutching at straws because you visited the Home Office website looked at the figures and realised that there is a correlation between premeditated killing and killing in the course of a crime and the potential punishment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haha we are discussing the USA not the UK .We haven't had the death penalty here for 50 years.Also you've provided nothing, no data to challenge the pages ive offered.All you said is "I know better than you ". Is that it.?. Really a...Best go down to the pub and drown your ego. You've been called out now jog on..or put up some data that counters the link..
So I take it you do not think that British people and American people are subject to the same drives and inhibitions...
Which do you consider to be the superior human beings?
Or are you clutching at straws because you visited the Home Office website looked at the figures and realised that there is a correlation between premeditated killing and killing in the course of a crime and the potential punishment?"What's the title of the thread.? Still no data! still can't refute the data that proves your talking out your racist arse.! Apparently we should believe your trained in something. Obviously not trained in searching for data to collaborate your bullshiting.. Put up or shut the fuck up.Your wasting my time now.Im off back to work. I suggest you lick your wounds and jog the fuck on down the boozer... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice " But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail, So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting " Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting " For a start you've just made up the 'fact' that the majority on here 'fully accept death by war'. And there are very obvious differences between war and capital punishment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail, So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" corse you don't mind Fabio Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them To die painfully if possible but like I said above words don't mean a lot when you have lost someone you love you just want justice I can't understand you being happy for someone who killed someone you loved rotting in jail I'd want them dead but that's just diffrent opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings" . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders" The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently.. I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently.. I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay " When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return . so again I ask you; do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail, So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime? corse you don't mind Fabio Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them To die painfully if possible but like I said above words don't mean a lot when you have lost someone you love you just want justice I can't understand you being happy for someone who killed someone you loved rotting in jail I'd want them dead but that's just diffrent opinion " There are worse fates than death.Being in isolation year on year getting beaten daily forever.Some prisoners would pray for death as a release from suffering.Sometimes for the next of kin death is to good and quick for those who want justice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same " You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question." as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings" I agree with you Fabio, but the other side of the coin is the 400 plus innocents (in the UK) that are murdered annually because their killers know that they will not be killed in turn if they are caught. So the question is which is the more abhorrent, the (UK) state killing 1 or 2 innocents a year (averaged out over time) to save 400+ lives a year, or the state doing a Pilot and allowing 400+ be killed every year so that it does not kill 1 or 2 innocents every year. Of course the USA (which this thread is about) is a lot more violent so the numbers are going to be a lot larger, but the moral conundrum is still the same, and I will not apologise for eventually reaching the conclusion that 400+ lives are more valuable that 1 or 2. Others are free to reach differing conclusions, but please do not dismiss the statistical evidence in order to justify your choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I agree with you Fabio, but the other side of the coin is the 400 plus innocents (in the UK) that are murdered annually because their killers know that they will not be killed in turn if they are caught. " Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting " Interesting and complicated. Unless you think this is a simple matter. Do you? Why does the state want to kill? National defence? Can that be extended to anti-terrorist activities outside direct armed conflict? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. "Justice"? Is killing a murderer or mass murder who is in custody nd no longer able to do harm justice or revenge? In this case, will death make society safer? Will it discourage potential murders or not? Will it make victim's families feel any more content? Is there a new category of murder necessary for the death penalty? Murder where it's almost certain and murder where it's absolutely certain? Does the second option bring into question the entire judicial process which requires an assumption of innocence and the gathering of sufficient evidence to prove otherwise? What is an acceptable error rate? What is the restitution for executing an innocent man? If execution for murder is appropriate then it should be readily possible to answer these questions. If not. Don't do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question." no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably something similar to the families of someone who as been butchered by some one who is guilty I'd of thought but for families of innocent victims words don't mean much they probably just want justice But I can hopefully say to that family that I hope the killer goes away for a long long time.. I don’t mind that people rot in jail, So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime? corse you don't mind Fabio Your opposed to the death penalty but I'm not I'd want them To die painfully if possible but like I said above words don't mean a lot when you have lost someone you love you just want justice I can't understand you being happy for someone who killed someone you loved rotting in jail I'd want them dead but that's just diffrent opinion There are worse fates than death.Being in isolation year on year getting beaten daily forever.Some prisoners would pray for death as a release from suffering.Sometimes for the next of kin death is to good and quick for those who want justice." isolation is to stop them getting beat up bob it rarely happens and there's no fate worse than death did you wach Trevor macdonalds on death row they even had cats to play with I'd of given them all a tiger instead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond. The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents. Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive? If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals? One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go." That would guarantee killing more innocent people. But hey, so long as money is saved... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently.. I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return . so again I ask you; do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders " absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail! but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik! I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it... so now you can answer mine.... is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik? and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!" my.......how magnanimous of you........
see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....
after all... "collateral damage" and all that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty. " True, I do not absolutely know, but I can look at the statistics and the things that have changed when there is a significant change in the statistical data and say there is an extremely high probability that if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change. I can further examine the data and note that as punishment is reduced crime increases and say that there is a significant correlation between the 2. I understand that this is purely circumstantial but at some point even the most ardent of the anti capital punishment lobby must admit that there has to be some element of cause and effect. The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change" You think that is the only thing that has changed over many decades? Come on, be serious. There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a proven deterrent. In fact, in the US, the states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than those with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort " He actually asked this: "So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that. Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent. Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently.. I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return . so again I ask you; do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail! but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik! I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it... so now you can answer mine.... is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik? and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!" my.......how magnanimous of you........
see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....
after all... "collateral damage" and all that! "Fabio where did I say, or agree that the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing was to give money! I said this; as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing I said "it mean nothing" what part of that did you not understand. How much money did your Guildford 4 buddies get in compensation!!!
and as for your question, regarding Sally Clarke, I never mentioned her once and as far as I know, she was innocent, so why would she be convicted with the death penalty? we don't even have the death penalty here.
I mentioned Anders Behring Breivik as an example as this is a clear and shut case with the Children he shot on the island, his car bombings may have been more difficult to convict but the evidence regarding the children he shot was conclusive.
Now go back and read again where I said "as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing"
It is very easy to see you like to twist words
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty. True, I do not absolutely know, but I can look at the statistics and the things that have changed when there is a significant change in the statistical data and say there is an extremely high probability that if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change. I can further examine the data and note that as punishment is reduced crime increases and say that there is a significant correlation between the 2. I understand that this is purely circumstantial but at some point even the most ardent of the anti capital punishment lobby must admit that there has to be some element of cause and effect. The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals." Increase in drug abuse and related crime? The high rewards leading to higher violence. The influence of American gang "culture" through cinema, TV and the internet? The ubiquity of violent computer games? The breakdown of stable families and extended families? Increasing inequality and lack of prospects? Reducing church attendance? And...and...and... Some have no influence on murder rates. Some have a huge influence. I think that your conclusion is a bit of a stretch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is interesting to read here that the majority view is not to execute, get rid of the death penalty, but then fully accept death by war, one family soldier, with wife and kids at home killing another family soldier with wife and kids at home simply because they are on different sides and their governments instruct them to fight. . seems strange some oppose the killing of a convicted murderer but accept a family person with moral's, to kill another, simply because they are on opposite sides. . interesting Convicted killers like the Birmingham 6... Convicted killers like the Guildford 4 Convicted killers like sally clarke... or Stefan kiszko...or Stephen downing... or the bridgewater 4... or Angela cannings . . No Fabio, convicted killers such as Anders Behring Breivik, or do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders The reason why I mentioned some of those names was the fact they were convicted of what you would call terrorism or they were convicted of killing children... and later found completely innocent So you are saying executing an anders brevik is worth the same as killing a sally Clark innocently.. I am saying that is not a price I’d ever be willing to pay When you answer my question Fabio, I will then answer yours in return . so again I ask you; do you believe The murder of 77 people by Anders Breivik in Norway was justified, the majority being children. are you saying you consider Anders Behring Breivik innocent of these mass murders absolutely no i don't believe he is innoncent... i would happily let him rot in jail! but i don't believe that killing one innocent person like sally clark or angela cannings for example in mistake is worth killing an anders brevik! I answered your question first time round... you were just too blinkered to see it... so now you can answer mine.... is killing innocent people like a sally clark, or an angela canning, or the bridgwater 4 or a stefan kiszko a price worth paying..... for you to execute an anders brevik? and as with you, the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing an innocent person is to "give them money!!!!" my.......how magnanimous of you........
see all you people who want the death penalty back, if you are people of conviction... so if there was a mistake i'd expect you people to be the first to offer up your own lives....
after all... "collateral damage" and all that!
Fabio where did I say, or agree that the answer to cleaning up the mess of killing was to give money!
I said this;
as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing
I said "it mean nothing" what part of that did you not understand.
How much money did your Guildford 4 buddies get in compensation!!!
and as for your question, regarding Sally Clarke, I never mentioned her once and as far as I know, she was innocent, so why would she be convicted with the death penalty? we don't even have the death penalty here.
I mentioned Anders Behring Breivik as an example as this is a clear and shut case with the Children he shot on the island, his car bombings may have been more difficult to convict but the evidence regarding the children he shot was conclusive.
Now go back and read again where I said "as far as I could see, there would be no justice, perhaps a payment of compensation but when a loved one, it means nothing"
It is very easy to see you like to twist words
"see... i answered your question bluntly.... you... you are being a weasel...... so if the original question is and was about the US and the death penalty, so why bring up anders brevik... last time i checked he was not american! then you went on to criticise the norwegian legal system for giving him 21 years... which is the maximum.... with the proviso they he can be actually kept in longer which you either failed to know, or deliberately left out... so which was it??? the falsehood or the twisting of the falsehood? then your "buddy" centaur.... brought up the lee rigby case, which again doesn't involve america or americans...... so i was absolutely within my right to bring up miscarriages of justice from wherever i see fit!!!! so how about actually answering the question and bluntly as i did yours! would a death penalty execution of a found innocent years after the fact sally clark, or an angela canning, or a stefan kiszko so you could get your death penalty execution of anders brevik? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort He actually asked this: "So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that. Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent. Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable?" well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change You think that is the only thing that has changed over many decades? Come on, be serious. There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a proven deterrent. In fact, in the US, the states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than those with it. " He thinks it's fake data because it doesn't fit his agenda.Some people are just willfully ignorant.Hes already made up his mind that the death penalty reduces the murder rate.When everywhere I look the opposite is true.Much like talking to nazi holocaust deniers youre talking to a brick wall.He has nothing to offer but his intuition that lead him to this conclusion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond. The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents. Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive? If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals? One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go." Do you actually know the appeals process? Would you prefer the appeals process to be equally as good as the current one? The appeals process is complex and thorough, covering many aspects of the justice system progressively - it engages with different people and is compatible with the US justice system, involving local, state and national aspects: this is the USA. Inevitably, most sane and reasonable people prefer a system that would not result in the inappropriate taking of an innocent person's life: so the appeals system, after conviction, is an important part of this. I view all taking of life as against my moral code and don't believe that civilised decent cultures should take lives away. It harms society imo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort He actually asked this: "So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that. Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent. Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable? well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day " We haven't got rid of smoking yet. We haven't got rid of motorbikes. Do you think it would be acceptable to introduce either to the general public today? Just because something has been in existence for a long time it does not mean that it is a good thing. I refer you to the fact that Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971 because online could vote until then. I'm going to give you the opportunity to ask the same, fundamental questions again; What is an acceptable rate at which an innocent person is executed? What form of "justice" will the family of a wrongly executed individual receive? Telling me what you would want done to someone who hurt your family does not answer either of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. You do not know, and cannot prove, that those murders would not have happened if we had the death penalty. True, I do not absolutely know, but I can look at the statistics and the things that have changed when there is a significant change in the statistical data and say there is an extremely high probability that if only one thing changes then that must be be the cause of the change. I can further examine the data and note that as punishment is reduced crime increases and say that there is a significant correlation between the 2. I understand that this is purely circumstantial but at some point even the most ardent of the anti capital punishment lobby must admit that there has to be some element of cause and effect. The shame is hundreds or maybe even thousands have to die over time to save the lives of a hand full of wicked individuals." Taking this to an extreme to prove a point, look up "Spurious Correlation". The first hit gives you an interesting selection. US spending on science and technology vs suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation Total revenue from arcades viDS computer science doctorates US crude oil imports from Norway vs number of drivers killed in train collisions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort He actually asked this: "So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that. Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent. Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable? well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day We haven't got rid of smoking yet. We haven't got rid of motorbikes. Do you think it would be acceptable to introduce either to the general public today? Just because something has been in existence for a long time it does not mean that it is a good thing. I refer you to the fact that Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971 because online could vote until then. I'm going to give you the opportunity to ask the same, fundamental questions again; What is an acceptable rate at which an innocent person is executed? What form of "justice" will the family of a wrongly executed individual receive? Telling me what you would want done to someone who hurt your family does not answer either of them." ffs mate read back I said earlier up there is no justice for that how could a family of a inocent person who as been executed get justice words or money won't give them that as that answered yr question it doesn't change my opinion on the death penalty tho like I said I'd expand it beyond murder | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond. The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents. Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive? If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals? One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go. That would guarantee killing more innocent people. But hey, so long as money is saved... " Convicted beyond reasonable doubt, then they get one chance within a year. I don't see a issue with it after all they shouldn't of been convicted in first place if innocent especially with technology we have now. I'd gladly flick the switch or swing the sword/axe on someone on death row, why wait around, just do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond. The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents. Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive? If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals? One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go. That would guarantee killing more innocent people. But hey, so long as money is saved... Convicted beyond reasonable doubt, then they get one chance within a year. I don't see a issue with it after all they shouldn't of been convicted in first place if innocent especially with technology we have now. I'd gladly flick the switch or swing the sword/axe on someone on death row, why wait around, just do it." so you want to wait a year.... okay.. lets relate that to sally clark... she would have been convicted of killing her 2 children.. it was only medical evidence 3 years later than completely exonerated here..... let relate that to stefan kiszko.... he was convicted of a brutal child killing.... it was only DNA evidence and the police finally admitting they fabricated some of the interviews that got him completely exonerated 17 years later..... you would have killed them both..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not dodging anything just giving a personal opinion if a member of my family was murdered I'd want the person killed simple as that I dint need data or stats or facts for that it's a personal feeling and if most ppl were realy honest on here they would want the same You are I'm afraid. Referring to what you might want to see as "justice" does not answer the question. How would the family of an innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit get justice? It's a very direct question. no Fabio did not ask how afamily of an inocent would get justice he said what would you say to a family of an inocent man read what he said before you twist the question and ask me there would never be any justice to the family of an inicent man put to death and no words of comfort He actually asked this: "So again... what do you say to the family of a person who is then found innocent of that crime?" Perhaps you misread it? There's no harm I'm that. Even if he did ask a different, my question was also equally pertinent. Is there any reason not to answer? It goes to the heart of any process. What happens when it goes wrong? Are the consequences acceptable? well this is about the death penalty in the USA so it must be acceptable in the states that have it or they would get rid you and Fabio have diffrent opinions on this subject to me and that's fine it's a forum as I said earlier I'd expand it to peodos rapists aswell I consider them all evil crimes and the death penalty is what I would want if any of them crimes were committed against my daughters some may prefer a nice comfy life behind bars 3 meals tv radio table tennis pool tables gym with hope of walking free one day We haven't got rid of smoking yet. We haven't got rid of motorbikes. Do you think it would be acceptable to introduce either to the general public today? Just because something has been in existence for a long time it does not mean that it is a good thing. I refer you to the fact that Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971 because online could vote until then. I'm going to give you the opportunity to ask the same, fundamental questions again; What is an acceptable rate at which an innocent person is executed? What form of "justice" will the family of a wrongly executed individual receive? Telling me what you would want done to someone who hurt your family does not answer either of them.ffs mate read back I said earlier up there is no justice for that how could a family of a inocent person who as been executed get justice words or money won't give them that as that answered yr question it doesn't change my opinion on the death penalty tho like I said I'd expand it beyond murder " So, by implication as you have not said directly, one incorrect execution is too many. That means that you require an infallible system. Do you think that is possible? Does that create a special category of murder that carries the death penalty? Beyond reasonable doubt still allows for doubt. If we only execute those who are 100% guilty that means that only the very stupid, the very "unlucky", or those who wish to be martyred are killed. Everyone else would "get off" with life imprisonment. Is that justice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It should stay and wish they'd bring it back this side of the pond. The number of people on death row is far to high. If sentenced to death, they should have one year to prove there innocents. Why should tax payers money pay to keep them alive? If they are going to be executed anyway why keep them longer and longer for multiple appeals? One appeal should be allowed, maximum. If that fails straight to the chair you go. That would guarantee killing more innocent people. But hey, so long as money is saved... Convicted beyond reasonable doubt, then they get one chance within a year. I don't see a issue with it after all they shouldn't of been convicted in first place if innocent especially with technology we have now. I'd gladly flick the switch or swing the sword/axe on someone on death row, why wait around, just do it. so you want to wait a year.... okay.. lets relate that to sally clark... she would have been convicted of killing her 2 children.. it was only medical evidence 3 years later than completely exonerated here..... let relate that to stefan kiszko.... he was convicted of a brutal child killing.... it was only DNA evidence and the police finally admitting they fabricated some of the interviews that got him completely exonerated 17 years later..... you would have killed them both..... " A year is to get a court date and for defence to build a better case. As for those cases you mentioned, 17 years is a long time ago. Things have improved massively since then. Sure a couple of people might slip through the net but why should they be given countless appeals? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Convicted beyond reasonable doubt, then they get one chance within a year." Why do people keep saying stuff like this? We already have a system where the standard is to convict when guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And mistakes get made. You can't just say 'only kill people whose guilt is certain'. That's what we do now, and it kills innocent people because the legal system is run by imperfect human beings and can never be 100% accurate. So again, your idea would kill innocent people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why do people keep saying stuff like this? We already have a system where the standard is to convict when guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And mistakes get made. You can't just say 'only kill people whose guilt is certain'. That's what we do now, and it kills innocent people because the legal system is run by imperfect human beings and can never be 100% accurate. So again, your idea would kill innocent people. " I accept your argument, but although circumstantial there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests the murder rate doubles with abolition of the death penalty. Now which is the greater evil, putting an innocent to death for a murder they did not commit after due process of law or allowing an innocent to be murdered so society does not have to improve due process to reduce the number of innocents that are put to death because of legal failures? Am I the only one here who is willing to acknowledge that this is not a simple black and white issue? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Convicted beyond reasonable doubt, then they get one chance within a year. Why do people keep saying stuff like this? We already have a system where the standard is to convict when guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And mistakes get made. You can't just say 'only kill people whose guilt is certain'. That's what we do now, and it kills innocent people because the legal system is run by imperfect human beings and can never be 100% accurate. So again, your idea would kill innocent people. " 
And killing any convicted person is inappropriate - it should not be done, ever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can I ask you Fabio if somebody murdered your child planned it out was described as evil in court would you realy take jail over the death penalty for them if it was your choice ?" absolutely..... would i ever forgive them.... nope would i be happy to see them rot it jail and never get out.... sure have i had anyone close to me murdered ... yep! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why do people keep saying stuff like this? We already have a system where the standard is to convict when guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And mistakes get made. You can't just say 'only kill people whose guilt is certain'. That's what we do now, and it kills innocent people because the legal system is run by imperfect human beings and can never be 100% accurate. So again, your idea would kill innocent people. I accept your argument, but although circumstantial there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests the murder rate doubles with abolition of the death penalty. Now which is the greater evil, putting an innocent to death for a murder they did not commit after due process of law or allowing an innocent to be murdered so society does not have to improve due process to reduce the number of innocents that are put to death because of legal failures? Am I the only one here who is willing to acknowledge that this is not a simple black and white issue?" That's a false equivalence. I also think that you are making an assertion about there being a "substantial body of evidence". There is no justification for killing an innocent man. What is your figure for an acceptable failure rate? Would reducing poverty have a bigger or smaller effect on murder rates than the death penalty? Would the legalisation of drugs have a bigger or smaller effect on the murder rate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" although circumstantial there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests the murder rate doubles with abolition of the death penalty." You're still arguing as if the death penalty is the only thing that has any effect on murder rates. It isn't. And if it were so clear cut that the death penalty prevents people from killing, then those countries with the death penalty would have substantially lower murder rates than those without it. They don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry Fabio I just don't believe you any normal human would want them Put to death if it was there choice if they had there child killed by someone and this rotting in jail shit doesn't wash either they lose there freedom that's it they get 3 meals a day exersize pool tables table tennis tv music games consoles better than homeless ppl on the outside how is that rotting mate " Should we execute homeless people too then? Society wouldn't have to pay for them. They wouldn't be suffering. We wouldn't have to feel guilty about them. What makes it alright for a society to kill people? You still haven't explained how to prevent innocent people from being killed or if it is alright to execute some people for the same crime because there is slightly more evidence against them due to either luck or judgement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bob iv read yr posts for ages you know if someone killed yr child you shoot them yourself mate " If someone shot my child in front me I would shot them .However I except that you can't have complete trust in the legal system not to make mistakes and send an innocent man to the chair.Its just not acceptable to kill an innocent.My desire for revenge is negated by fairness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bob iv read yr posts for ages you know if someone killed yr child you shoot them yourself mate " Flip it around. If your child was executed for a crime they didn't commit and they caught the real murderer year later . Would you still be in favour of the death penalty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No need to be silly I'm Not talking about inocent ppl being killed by the state I'm talking about what I see as justice I'm giving my personal opinion I could be silly aswell and say inocent ppl die in driving accidents so why don't we ban driving or is it acceptable for inocent ppl to die in the roads I'm just giving my opinion on the death penalty " This is the opposite of silly. You are saying people who commit murder should be killed by the state. I understand that. If you feel that revenge is an acceptable behaviour that's fine. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is explaining how to create a legal system that makes zero errors to ensure that no innocent people are executed for crimes they did not commit. The hard part is explaining why somebody who is 99% guilty should live whilst somebody who is 100% guilty should die despite committing the same crime. Can you, or an other capital punishment advocate answer the hard questions that you will expect judges and juries to decide every day? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is never going to be zero errors tho is there everything in life as errors it's my opinion thasts all there's already a system in the us called death row it's not perfect but what is I just think there's ppl in this planet that don't deserve to live that's Allie never once claimed to have all the answers because in life there's always room for error " Do you get what I am trying to demonstrate for yourself? There is no infallible solution. If that is the case then people will be executed for crimes that they did not commit. If that is unacceptable then the practicality of a death penalty makes it impossible. Do you disagree with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ffs mate I understand what your saying it's your opinion your against the death penalty great that's your choice I'm not trying to sway you I respect your opinion but like I said earlier if there was a better way I'm sure they would be useung that but there will always be errors in everything but I'm still for the death penalty and not just for murder " Right. Now we're getting somewhere
That's what I'm trying to explore. This is where the difficulty is.
So it's not alright to kill an innocent person. Is the principle of executing a murderer or some other criminal more important than not mistakenly killing an innocent person? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes it would be great if there was a foolproof way but I don't think that will be anytime soon but the need for proper justice is just as important but if you are wanting me to come up with a plan I can't but I still support capital punishment you won't change my mind like I won't yours but that's good isn't it ppl having diffrent opinions " I'm not trying to change your mind. I understand that you are expressing a feeling about crime and punishment that is deep rooted. What I don't get is that you don't think that an innocent person dying is acceptable but you still support the process that might allow that to happen. I don't understand how you resolve that within yourself. Can you explain it? I'm only pushing you because you are one of only two people who support it giving it the consideration it deserves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry Fabio I just don't believe you any normal human would want them Put to death if it was there choice if they had there child killed by someone and this rotting in jail shit doesn't wash either they lose there freedom that's it they get 3 meals a day exersize pool tables table tennis tv music games consoles better than homeless ppl on the outside how is that rotting mate " I might want them killed, even to kill them myself: but it still doesn't make it an appropriate course of action. Would I trust myself not to kill someone who had, for example, killed my loved ones? No - but I would hope that I'd not do, or would be stopped. It would be 100% wrong of me to kill someone in revenge/as punishment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that " Foxy what is evil.What is good.Who decides , you me or the state or a judge.Is primark evil for using children to make clothes or us the customer evil for buying it.The 100,000 children we killed in iraq .Does that make you evil or Tony Blair or the soldiers or the voters or Saddam....Who are the evil people who the fuck are the good people... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that " I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serial killers who kill for pleasure rapists peodos ppl who ruin lives because they can and don't care for other ppl that's evil in my eyes you can name dozens just from last few decades but the list is endless venables Thomson west Huntley hindley sutcliff I would say they are all evil wouldn't you bob and as for revenge isn't all justice a form of revenge " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that Foxy what is evil.What is good.Who decides , you me or the state or a judge.Is primark evil for using children to make clothes or us the customer evil for buying it.The 100,000 children we killed in iraq .Does that make you evil or Tony Blair or the soldiers or the voters or Saddam....Who are the evil people who the fuck are the good people... "Bob the example I have used time after time on this forum "Anders Behring Breivik" extreamly evil or do you think he is okay because none of the 69 kids he shot was yours, "oh, he didn't kill my kid, so he is okay, he is just misunderstood" get a fucking grip bob, easy. and the rest of you fuckers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that Foxy what is evil.What is good.Who decides , you me or the state or a judge.Is primark evil for using children to make clothes or us the customer evil for buying it.The 100,000 children we killed in iraq .Does that make you evil or Tony Blair or the soldiers or the voters or Saddam....Who are the evil people who the fuck are the good people...
Bob the example I have used time after time on this forum "Anders Behring Breivik" extreamly evil
or do you think he is okay because none of the 69 kids he shot was yours,
"oh, he didn't kill my kid, so he is okay, he is just misunderstood" get a fucking grip bob, easy. and the rest of you fuckers."He is a very bad man. He has been caught and convicted and could be indefinitely imprisoned if that's what the judicial process, independent of politics and public opinion, decides. Why does he NEED to be killed? If someone else committed a similar mass murder but the evidence was less conclusive would they be executed regardless or would they "just" be jailed for life? Direct answers from you would be interesting but, on experience, highly unlikely  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it?" in my eyes it's about justice for the inocent and there families I see death for killing ppl and pure evil as justice you see putting them in jail 3 meals a day medical care TVs radio games consoles gyms pool tables table tennis and lots more as justice for me personally I think that's a warped sence of justice we are two diffrent ppl with diffrent views on life but there's nothing wrong with that I respect your opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that Foxy what is evil.What is good.Who decides , you me or the state or a judge.Is primark evil for using children to make clothes or us the customer evil for buying it.The 100,000 children we killed in iraq .Does that make you evil or Tony Blair or the soldiers or the voters or Saddam....Who are the evil people who the fuck are the good people...
Bob the example I have used time after time on this forum "Anders Behring Breivik" extreamly evil
or do you think he is okay because none of the 69 kids he shot was yours,
"oh, he didn't kill my kid, so he is okay, he is just misunderstood" get a fucking grip bob, easy. and the rest of you fuckers."The Norwegian judiciary thinks you are wrong.Im going to say they are right.You can't stop all right wing Nazis like brevik by introducing the death penalty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what about the Jimmy Saviles of this World?" I'd exucute all them aswell pure evil | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what about the Jimmy Saviles of this World? I'd exucute all them aswell pure evil " where would you draw the line? cheating husbands | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what about the Jimmy Saviles of this World? I'd exucute all them aswell pure evil where would you draw the line? cheating husbands "Well in certain countries   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"iv made it clear in earier posts were I would draw the line were would you draw the line ?" im on the fence with this one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's the difference between a murderer, executioner and a soldier who kills by pressing a button to send death by drone?" The first (murder) is by definition illegal, the second (state execution) is always legal and the third is often legal but sometimes illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should they be kept alive at the expense of the taxpayer? They get a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in each night and 3 meals a day. conversely... what would you say to the family of a person who ended up being found innocent that you would have killed via the death penalty... lets say.... the birmingham 6.... or the guildford 4 We're not talking about cases where there is reasonable doubt. I'm talking about cases like the killers of Lee Rigby where there is no doubt what so ever. I'd tell their families they deserve the death penalty for what they did. " If there was reasonable doubt then they should not have been found guilty; it's called guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because that's what it's meant to be. The Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 were all found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in exactly the same way as the killers of Lee Rigby. How, at the time of conviction, are we meant to distinguish between reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fact is the murder rate has been consistently climbing since 1965 and every few years the government of the day applies an 'adjustment' either by means of instructions to the Crown Prosecution Service (or the DPP as was), secondary legislation, or every 20 years or so primary legislation to return the statistics to the same levels as those in 1964. Correlation is not causation. How can you show that a rise in murder rate is due to the absence of the death penalty? " I'm not even sure I accept his premise that the murder rate has actually risen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe in capital punishment for murder and I'd put peodos on there aswell " Do you not think that that might make the peodo more likely to kill his victim after he's abused them rather than run the risk of having a witness? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. "Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time."Such a shame. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think that a peodo thinks about getting caught by a large number they reoffend there's only one real way of stopping that happening and protecting children that's to get rid " Why not just castrate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time.
Such a shame. "The shame is on those that still wish to have assault rifles on the street.Thank baby Jesus you live here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time.
Such a shame. The shame is on those that still wish to have assault rifles on the street.Thank baby Jesus you live here. "Oh i do. While it's still legal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time.
Such a shame. The shame is on those that still wish to have assault rifles on the street.Thank baby Jesus you live here.
Oh i do. While it's still legal. "Don't worry brexiters have temporarily prevented the islamification of the UK.Baby Jesus still weeps over remoaning Christians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well let's hope the judicial system manages to rehabilitate yesterday's school shooting defendant. Florida has the death penalty it didn't deter him from murder. He'll fry no doubt in time.
Such a shame. The shame is on those that still wish to have assault rifles on the street.Thank baby Jesus you live here.
Oh i do. While it's still legal.
Don't worry brexiters have temporarily prevented the islamification of the UK.Baby Jesus still weeps over remoaning Christians. "I don't think islamification is coming from Europe to be honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For people guilty of murder where there is no shred of doubt possible like Lee Rigby's killers etc then they should be disposed of permanently for 2 reasons. 1. They could never harm anyone ever again. 2. Save the tax payer a fucking fortune keeping them incarcerated for years only then to be released and maybe murder again, which we all know has happened many times. Also to ask what the difference is between a murderer, executioner and a soldier is a joke. " But there is always doubt even in the case of Lee Rigby. Unless you were there and saw it then there is always doubt, the only question is is it reasonable doubt or not. I don't know what the reoffending rate is for murder is but, as murder carries a life sentence and offenders are only released on licence only, which means they can and often are monitored, I would think the reoffending rate for murder is actually pretty near or actually 0; but if you can show statistics to the contra please direct me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why do people keep saying stuff like this? We already have a system where the standard is to convict when guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And mistakes get made. You can't just say 'only kill people whose guilt is certain'. That's what we do now, and it kills innocent people because the legal system is run by imperfect human beings and can never be 100% accurate. So again, your idea would kill innocent people. I accept your argument, but although circumstantial there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests the murder rate doubles with abolition of the death penalty. Now which is the greater evil, putting an innocent to death for a murder they did not commit after due process of law or allowing an innocent to be murdered so society does not have to improve due process to reduce the number of innocents that are put to death because of legal failures? Am I the only one here who is willing to acknowledge that this is not a simple black and white issue?" Which is worse depends on whether your the victim of a murder, an innocent person executed or a relative of either. Personally I think I would be more upset and annoyed if a close relative of mine was incorrectly killed by the state than if they were murdered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry Fabio I just don't believe you any normal human would want them Put to death if it was there choice if they had there child killed by someone and this rotting in jail shit doesn't wash either they lose there freedom that's it they get 3 meals a day exersize pool tables table tennis tv music games consoles better than homeless ppl on the outside how is that rotting mate " I'm not sure I would want a person executed for murdering someone close to me but if Fabio says he's known people who have been murdered and says he didn't and still doesn't want them executed why would you not believe him? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it? in my eyes it's about justice for the inocent and there families I see death for killing ppl and pure evil as justice you see putting them in jail 3 meals a day medical care TVs radio games consoles gyms pool tables table tennis and lots more as justice for me personally I think that's a warped sence of justice we are two diffrent ppl with diffrent views on life but there's nothing wrong with that I respect your opinion " I'm not contesting I'd someone should be executed for a crime. I am asking about the system associated with that. I don't understand why it is warped to want to not risk killing an innocent person. There is no system where miscarriages of justice will not occur. If an innocent person is killed then what is the remedy for their family? They have the same right to see someone die for this injustice as anyone else. If only people who are 100% guilty then where is the justice in someone who is 90% guilty being allowed to live? If those who support the death penalty cannot resolve the legal process then justice will not be served. It is supposed to be the same for everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it? in my eyes it's about justice for the inocent and there families I see death for killing ppl and pure evil as justice you see putting them in jail 3 meals a day medical care TVs radio games consoles gyms pool tables table tennis and lots more as justice for me personally I think that's a warped sence of justice we are two diffrent ppl with diffrent views on life but there's nothing wrong with that I respect your opinion " But no justice for an innocent person wrongly convicted for murder and then executed. How is that anything to do with 'justice for the innocent'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"out of curiosity what would be the preferred method of execution? •Lethal Injection. •Electrocution. •Gas Chamber. •Firing Squad. •Hanging. anyone have a preference" The quickest and least painfull would be fine with me. No need to prolong it just bang no warning just let him go to sleep and do it before he wakes up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it? in my eyes it's about justice for the inocent and there families I see death for killing ppl and pure evil as justice you see putting them in jail 3 meals a day medical care TVs radio games consoles gyms pool tables table tennis and lots more as justice for me personally I think that's a warped sence of justice we are two diffrent ppl with diffrent views on life but there's nothing wrong with that I respect your opinion I'm not contesting I'd someone should be executed for a crime. I am asking about the system associated with that. I don't understand why it is warped to want to not risk killing an innocent person. There is no system where miscarriages of justice will not occur. If an innocent person is killed then what is the remedy for their family? They have the same right to see someone die for this injustice as anyone else. If only people who are 100% guilty then where is the justice in someone who is 90% guilty being allowed to live? If those who support the death penalty cannot resolve the legal process then justice will not be served. It is supposed to be the same for everyone." Michael Adebolajo, and Michael Adebowale, were clearly guilty and even videoed carrying out the murder now with a life sentence they preach in jail trying to convert others with their beliefs The are lucky they are in the UK, their victim was not so lucky. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's simaler with you in another post about over seas aid when u say you accept some money will go astray but you still support over seas aid I don't know the numbers but I think it will be very very low how many inocent ppl are killed by the state I just think very evil ppl should be put to death I don't lose sleep over that I understand what you are trying to express, but now you are saying that a few innocent deaths are acceptable. This sounds deeply conflicted to me. Wasting some money just doesn't compare to accidentally killing someone though does it? in my eyes it's about justice for the inocent and there families I see death for killing ppl and pure evil as justice you see putting them in jail 3 meals a day medical care TVs radio games consoles gyms pool tables table tennis and lots more as justice for me personally I think that's a warped sence of justice we are two diffrent ppl with diffrent views on life but there's nothing wrong with that I respect your opinion I'm not contesting I'd someone should be executed for a crime. I am asking about the system associated with that. I don't understand why it is warped to want to not risk killing an innocent person. There is no system where miscarriages of justice will not occur. If an innocent person is killed then what is the remedy for their family? They have the same right to see someone die for this injustice as anyone else. If only people who are 100% guilty then where is the justice in someone who is 90% guilty being allowed to live? If those who support the death penalty cannot resolve the legal process then justice will not be served. It is supposed to be the same for everyone. Michael Adebolajo, and Michael Adebowale, were clearly guilty and even videoed carrying out the murder now with a life sentence they preach in jail trying to convert others with their beliefs The are lucky they are in the UK, their victim was not so lucky." Do those who are not quite so clearly guilty but commit equally serious crimes live then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should a life sentence mean life? Would that appease those who call for capital punishment?" It probably would a bit yes because so many convicted murderers have been let out and killed yet again though there's always the cost involved of prison too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should a life sentence mean life? Would that appease those who call for capital punishment? It probably would a bit yes because so many convicted murderers have been let out and killed yet again though there's always the cost involved of prison too." How many is "so many"? Perception isn't always reality. One is too many, but so is one incorrect execution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should a life sentence mean life? Would that appease those who call for capital punishment? It probably would a bit yes because so many convicted murderers have been let out and killed yet again though there's always the cost involved of prison too." I don't i know how often that's happened. Possibly more often with sex offenders. Life is usually 25 years ish? Less likely to reoffend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should a life sentence mean life? Would that appease those who call for capital punishment? It probably would a bit yes because so many convicted murderers have been let out and killed yet again though there's always the cost involved of prison too. How many is "so many"? Perception isn't always reality. One is too many, but so is one incorrect execution." Do you really expect me to trawl the internet to count how many murderers have murdered again once been let out ?? if you need to know, find out yourself mate. For any sane person, one murderer being let out and murder again is 1 too many. There's many murderers that have indistputable evidence against them and not just convicted on the beyond resonable doubt basis, or do you think there's doubt in every murder case ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
