FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Death Penalty 2 - Continuing as it got too big
Death Penalty 2 - Continuing as it got too big
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
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) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. " The fact that expressing support for the death penalty can be a political career ender is ridiculous in itself. People often harp on about miscarriage of justice in sentencing innocent people to death, but how many bother to look at the statistics over the past few decades to see how many death penalty worthy convictions were successfully secured on the back of cast iron evidence that can't be disproved. Missing the woods for the trees would be the classic way to put it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia." If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. " our system is flawed too. George Banks one of the original mass shooters in my area was convicted without a doubt in 1982. His appeals went in forever. How many times can appeal be accepted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. our system is flawed too. George Banks one of the original mass shooters in my area was convicted without a doubt in 1982. His appeals went in forever. How many times can appeal be accepted." Case too be reinvested rather than an appeal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their are loads of things to take into consideration like mental state not using as an excuse like some use it for a lighter punishment but too be executed is totally wrong given amount of corruption within the system " I don't care about the mental state you do not accidentally pull a trigger or stab someone. That in itself is awareness. People can cry all they want on mental health. They were aware of loading a weapon or they were aware of getting a knife out of the kitchen. It is pre meditated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. The fact that expressing support for the death penalty can be a political career ender is ridiculous in itself. People often harp on about miscarriage of justice in sentencing innocent people to death, but how many bother to look at the statistics over the past few decades to see how many death penalty worthy convictions were successfully secured on the back of cast iron evidence that can't be disproved. Missing the woods for the trees would be the classic way to put it. " ? So it's just a numbers game? If there's enough people sentenced to death correctly, it's fine that innocent people are killed? Absolutely bizarre sense of morals that some people have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. " You're absolutely ignorant if you think the US system produces correct results. Every avenue is not always investigated, to say the least. Do a little reading, I beg you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. You're absolutely ignorant if you think the US system produces correct results. Every avenue is not always investigated, to say the least. Do a little reading, I beg you. " Totally plus has the law for a polygraph test which also gets tampered with its corruption on a huge scale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! "And what do you say to the family of someone who got murdered, that oh you convicted the murderer who took your loved one's life, but they'll get to live the rest of their life behind bars on the taxpayer's dime? It is also very interesting to see how even in countries like the UK where there is no death penalty, prisoners take it on themselves to kill those who have been convicted of death-penalty worthy crimes like murder and worse. Says a lot about what society actually wants, and makes one question just how high in the moralistic clouds or the class system those who oppose the death penalty are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!!
And what do you say to the family of someone who got murdered, that oh you convicted the murderer who took your loved one's life, but they'll get to live the rest of their life behind bars on the taxpayer's dime?
It is also very interesting to see how even in countries like the UK where there is no death penalty, prisoners take it on themselves to kill those who have been convicted of death-penalty worthy crimes like murder and worse. Says a lot about what society actually wants, and makes one question just how high in the moralistic clouds or the class system those who oppose the death penalty are. "Executing isn't going to bring anyone back if they did commit a crime it's difficult for a person knowing that they will never get out whilst mixing with those who do have a date for release | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! "everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? "I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes."Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!!
And what do you say to the family of someone who got murdered, that oh you convicted the murderer who took your loved one's life, but they'll get to live the rest of their life behind bars on the taxpayer's dime?
It is also very interesting to see how even in countries like the UK where there is no death penalty, prisoners take it on themselves to kill those who have been convicted of death-penalty worthy crimes like murder and worse. Says a lot about what society actually wants, and makes one question just how high in the moralistic clouds or the class system those who oppose the death penalty are. "Sorry, but what are you exactly achieving by putting someone to death? As I argued before, people intent on murdering are going to do it regardless. The people you hurt in this is the family of the murderer, whether you give a sh*t or not, they’re the ones who also lose someone and suffer because of an individuals life choices. Science can, and does, get it wrong. The US system of death row is horrific and beyond cruel, spending 30+ years on death row, not knowing when your warrant is being signed is mental torture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading "DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence."ok if scientific evidence points to the perpetrator there should be no issues then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence."Yes it is but it's the further information that can be misleading DNA does also get contaminated not always but does or can be done. ten to a dozen the system doesn't care long as they have someone and can frame them. the system plus lawyers most are corrupted theirs decades of information on amount that have been charged on joint efforts to stitch someone up it's those who should pay the price as it's abuse of power and deserve the death penalty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence. ok if scientific evidence points to the perpetrator there should be no issues then. "How? If I was the last person to see you leaving all my DNA around your home then someone else wore protective clothing Without leaving a trace of evidence doesn't that make me look guilty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence. ok if scientific evidence points to the perpetrator there should be no issues then.
How? If I was the last person to see you leaving all my DNA around your home then someone else wore protective clothing Without leaving a trace of evidence doesn't that make me look guilty "If it under the victims fingernails on a knife or gun or let's say in the vagina. What is the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence. ok if scientific evidence points to the perpetrator there should be no issues then.
How? If I was the last person to see you leaving all my DNA around your home then someone else wore protective clothing Without leaving a trace of evidence doesn't that make me look guilty If it under the victims fingernails on a knife or gun or let's say in the vagina. What is the issue? "science. Ballistics DNA and stab wounds. Case closed death penalty applies correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? " See my post above here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. " Quite sure if the UK did that it would be deemed as violating the ECHR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!! everyone wants to believe in science if DNA on a victim or surveillance is irrefutable what is the issue? I mean there has been murders solved 40 years later by DNA and scientific evidence. So I guess science is wrong sometimes.
Maybe not wrong but how it's put together as it can be misleading DNA is supposedly accurate everyone want to believe in science. It's irrefutable. Just like other mankind calamities. Believe in the scientific evidence. ok if scientific evidence points to the perpetrator there should be no issues then.
How? If I was the last person to see you leaving all my DNA around your home then someone else wore protective clothing Without leaving a trace of evidence doesn't that make me look guilty If it under the victims fingernails on a knife or gun or let's say in the vagina. What is the issue? "Say I knew the victim and we argued prior then left then later that night a burglar breaks in and kills them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. " and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No…… Our systems aren’t infallible…. And that decision is irreversible What do you say to the family who you got that decision wrong….. oops! My bad!!!
And what do you say to the family of someone who got murdered, that oh you convicted the murderer who took your loved one's life, but they'll get to live the rest of their life behind bars on the taxpayer's dime?
It is also very interesting to see how even in countries like the UK where there is no death penalty, prisoners take it on themselves to kill those who have been convicted of death-penalty worthy crimes like murder and worse. Says a lot about what society actually wants, and makes one question just how high in the moralistic clouds or the class system those who oppose the death penalty are.
Sorry, but what are you exactly achieving by putting someone to death? As I argued before, people intent on murdering are going to do it regardless.
"And such people would already by your logic still kill without giving a second thought to losing their life in return. Life imprisonment would be a pleasant surprise for them more than anything else. If you already don't care about the worst possible outcome to a choice you make, getting anything less will feel like a win to you. Has any murderer serving life in any prison ever been recorded saying that his life imprisonment is hell and he'd rather have been executed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? " Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? " There this very hard-hitting quote in The Dark Knight Returns, said by Batman just before he FINALLY kills the Joker. "All the people I've murdered, by letting you live!..." If we say taking a life doesn't deserve losing a life in return, do we then inherently say that a murderer's life is worth a potentially infinite number of lives he can take before he's put away behind bars for good? And sometimes even that isn't enough because as you said, some murderers have killed prison staff before in the past. How can society then believe and keep faith in the rule of law if the life of a murderer is seen as more worthy of retaining than the life he took? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights " I'm sorry, you remove the right to life for someone else, and you still expect to retain that same right for yourself which you denied your victim? Classic example of the cakeism anti-death penalty proponents hold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? " If a prisoner kills again under imprisonment , that’s a process failure. Lock them down, nothing other than solitary, no tv, no radio, nothing. They Live every day knowing the act carried out led to this point and it won’t stop. Taking your own life Is often referred to as cowardice, because you lose all senses, it’s all gone. If a mistake occurs in prosecution it can be remedied, if not the killer lives in a version of purgatory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights I'm sorry, you remove the right to life for someone else, and you still expect to retain that same right for yourself which you denied your victim? Classic example of the cakeism anti-death penalty proponents hold. " But that person looses his/her right to freedom like some get life with or without parole | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? If a prisoner kills again under imprisonment , that’s a process failure. Lock them down, nothing other than solitary, no tv, no radio, nothing. They Live every day knowing the act carried out led to this point and it won’t stop. Taking your own life Is often referred to as cowardice, because you lose all senses, it’s all gone. If a mistake occurs in prosecution it can be remedied, if not the killer lives in a version of purgatory " https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-human-rights-multipage-guide/right-be-free-torture-or-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading Look up Mathew vs Netherlands (2005). "Inhuman and degrading treatment can involve social isolation, lack of meaningful activity and lack of access to fresh air. This usually applies to prisoners, but it could include other settings, such as patients in mental health services (Munjaz v Mersey Care NHS Trust 2003). In Mathew v Netherlands 2005, a case about a prisoner held in solitary confinement, the European Court of Human Rights found there had been a violation of the right, because of ‘the complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation’ he had undergone." In short, what you want can't be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights I'm sorry, you remove the right to life for someone else, and you still expect to retain that same right for yourself which you denied your victim? Classic example of the cakeism anti-death penalty proponents hold. But that person looses his/her right to freedom like some get life with or without parole " So you saying the person I mentioned should be a glorious standard of not having a death penalty? When clearly life in prison in prison means nothing. If given the opportunity he would do it again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? If a prisoner kills again under imprisonment , that’s a process failure. Lock them down, nothing other than solitary, no tv, no radio, nothing. They Live every day knowing the act carried out led to this point and it won’t stop. Taking your own life Is often referred to as cowardice, because you lose all senses, it’s all gone. If a mistake occurs in prosecution it can be remedied, if not the killer lives in a version of purgatory https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-human-rights-multipage-guide/right-be-free-torture-or-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading Look up Mathew vs Netherlands (2005). "Inhuman and degrading treatment can involve social isolation, lack of meaningful activity and lack of access to fresh air. This usually applies to prisoners, but it could include other settings, such as patients in mental health services (Munjaz v Mersey Care NHS Trust 2003). In Mathew v Netherlands 2005, a case about a prisoner held in solitary confinement, the European Court of Human Rights found there had been a violation of the right, because of ‘the complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation’ he had undergone." In short, what you want can't be done. " Let’s assume I want a public decision based on the UK either bringing in the death sentence or my proposal of solitary confinement for a whole life, which do you think would be the preferred choice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights I'm sorry, you remove the right to life for someone else, and you still expect to retain that same right for yourself which you denied your victim? Classic example of the cakeism anti-death penalty proponents hold. But that person looses his/her right to freedom like some get life with or without parole So you saying the person I mentioned should be a glorious standard of not having a death penalty? When clearly life in prison in prison means nothing. If given the opportunity he would do it again." apparently victim justice goes out the window with some in certain instances. It's aww poor criminal you got life I don't want you to die even though you keep in killing.Grewt analogy and if he was kept in solitary confinement forever with no human interaction some people would say that it was inhumane his rights were violated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If scientific evidence is supposedly to be valued on everything else. Why not the death penalty? Everyone has human rights the right to life the system violets those rights I'm sorry, you remove the right to life for someone else, and you still expect to retain that same right for yourself which you denied your victim? Classic example of the cakeism anti-death penalty proponents hold. But that person looses his/her right to freedom like some get life with or without parole So you saying the person I mentioned should be a glorious standard of not having a death penalty? When clearly life in prison in prison means nothing. If given the opportunity he would do it again." Life in prison should be max as I've mentioned that the system itself isn't perfect for handing out justice when it has failed so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on." Smiling for how long? 1 year, 5 years, 25 years, 40, 50 years, the day before they die of natural courses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on. Smiling for how long? 1 year, 5 years, 25 years, 40, 50 years, the day before they die of natural courses " If he was put down in the first place that guard would be still alive for the same amount of time...spending the time with family watching his children grow and being a lawful citizen. Yet his justice was denied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on. Smiling for how long? 1 year, 5 years, 25 years, 40, 50 years, the day before they die of natural courses If he was put down in the first place that guard would be still alive for the same amount of time...spending the time with family watching his children grow and being a lawful citizen. Yet his justice was denied. " I understand this point, however, I feel this incident may have been prevented by more stringent protocols. It’s an outlier and will hopefully not happen again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on. Smiling for how long? 1 year, 5 years, 25 years, 40, 50 years, the day before they die of natural courses If he was put down in the first place that guard would be still alive for the same amount of time...spending the time with family watching his children grow and being a lawful citizen. Yet his justice was denied. I understand this point, however, I feel this incident may have been prevented by more stringent protocols. It’s an outlier and will hopefully not happen again" That's just my opinion you can't rehabilitate everyone.  to some life sentence means nothing what else do they have to lose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on. Smiling for how long? 1 year, 5 years, 25 years, 40, 50 years, the day before they die of natural courses If he was put down in the first place that guard would be still alive for the same amount of time...spending the time with family watching his children grow and being a lawful citizen. Yet his justice was denied. I understand this point, however, I feel this incident may have been prevented by more stringent protocols. It’s an outlier and will hopefully not happen again That's just my opinion you can't rehabilitate everyone. to some life sentence means nothing what else do they have to lose."Take away the life, they’ve got nothing to lose. Take away their liberties, they’ve lost everything, everyday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inmate I set as a example where is the justice again? Life x2 ? No he should be put down. Yet he smiling knowing he set for the rest of his life with 3 meals entertainment and a cot to sleep on." I honestly don't believe a person whose been given a life sentence would be smiling doing more or less the same 7 days a week then you get the others announcing celebrate their getting out knowing they ain't a painful death comes in a slow process eating away daily | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let’s assume I want a public decision based on the UK either bringing in the death sentence or my proposal of solitary confinement for a whole life, which do you think would be the preferred choice?" Death penalty will win a majority public vote, hands down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty does not prevent crime, if it did there would be no crime wherever the death penalty ever existed. The death penalty needs to be turned into a solid punishment of life behind bars with no privileges at all, no visits from family, no interaction with society, until natural death. That is punishment not revenge. and again there has been documented instances of convicts killing guards nurses and other inmates. Do they deserve a second life sentence or should be given death. What is to prevent it from happening again? They get life x2? How far you willing to go in innocent deaths? There this very hard-hitting quote in The Dark Knight Returns, said by Batman just before he FINALLY kills the Joker. "All the people I've murdered, by letting you live!..." If we say taking a life doesn't deserve losing a life in return, do we then inherently say that a murderer's life is worth a potentially infinite number of lives he can take before he's put away behind bars for good? And sometimes even that isn't enough because as you said, some murderers have killed prison staff before in the past. How can society then believe and keep faith in the rule of law if the life of a murderer is seen as more worthy of retaining than the life he took? " Your measure is not valid as killing the culprit doesn’t bring the victims back to life. It’s not an either or! Civilised people lead by example in a civilised way . Killing someone for in effect the religious eye for an eye vengeance is too base to take seriously. Incarcerate them out of society for life by all means Put them to useful work . Make them contemplate and regret. Some guys given life kill themselves rather than face a whole life term. It’s deterrent enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. " In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system … | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system …" Yet whenever some hot conflict breaks out somewhere in the world, or some natural disaster strikes, who does the world look to? Yes. A "third world" country like the US to come and play policeman and emergency medic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your measure is not valid as killing the culprit doesn’t bring the victims back to life. It’s not an either or! Civilised people lead by example in a civilised way . Killing someone for in effect the religious eye for an eye vengeance is too base to take seriously. Incarcerate them out of society for life by all means Put them to useful work . Make them contemplate and regret. Some guys given life kill themselves rather than face a whole life term. It’s deterrent enough. " Criminal laws are not made to be rehabilitative first and foremost. They're made to be deterrent and retributive first and foremost. They are the legal stick by which the state gets to execute sanctioned violence to keep society in line. If you want rehabilitation or education, suggest you go look in the schooling system for that. The point is that if you kill someone, why should you be allowed to live then? You care about the potential trauma that the murderer's family will suffer from the murderer being executed, is their trauma worth more than that suffered by the family of the murdered? Finally, as you said, some guys kill themselves in prison to get out of life terms. The key word being "some". Shall we dig into statistics of any country to see how many lifers died of natural causes or due to murder by other inmates, and how many died by their own hands? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system …" if it was so bad here why do we take in more immigrants than any nation? Yet we uncivilized heathens. That's always a excuse " gun crime, death penalty, and healthcare" and other issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No to the Death Penalty. Why ? Because the accused is someone else's son/daughter. Someone else husband/wife. Someone else father/mother. Those immediate and extended family have enough to deal with with their relative's actions. Compounding the execution of a family member on top of that pours even more distress upon the innocent family. Incarcerate, not obliterate. " I agree, I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system … if it was so bad here why do we take in more immigrants than any nation? Yet we uncivilized heathens. That's always a excuse " gun crime, death penalty, and healthcare" and other issues. " Everyone in the USA is an ‘immigrant’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system … if it was so bad here why do we take in more immigrants than any nation? Yet we uncivilized heathens. That's always a excuse " gun crime, death penalty, and healthcare" and other issues. Everyone in the USA is an ‘immigrant’ " That's the whole point. If the US is a Third World shithole, why is it so many still try to cross over the US-Mexico land border? Why do so many still try to smuggle themselves in by sea from Central or South America? Why do so many people still fly to the US to claim asylum? The US looks like a Third World country if the metrics you measure it by are the "First World Problems" kind of concern. Gun crime/killings are high in the US because of high gun ownership rates, meaning to say people can actually defend themselves and shoot other people trying to shoot them first. Try living in somewhere say Afghanistan or Syria or even anywhere in the EU where gun ownership is mostly illegal, and see how it's like when you can't defend yourself against a genocidal state out to kill you, or some terrorist driving their car or truck into a crowd you're standing with on the high streets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system … if it was so bad here why do we take in more immigrants than any nation? Yet we uncivilized heathens. That's always a excuse " gun crime, death penalty, and healthcare" and other issues. Everyone in the USA is an ‘immigrant’ That's the whole point. If the US is a Third World shithole, why is it so many still try to cross over the US-Mexico land border? Why do so many still try to smuggle themselves in by sea from Central or South America? Why do so many people still fly to the US to claim asylum? The US looks like a Third World country if the metrics you measure it by are the "First World Problems" kind of concern. Gun crime/killings are high in the US because of high gun ownership rates, meaning to say people can actually defend themselves and shoot other people trying to shoot them first. Try living in somewhere say Afghanistan or Syria or even anywhere in the EU where gun ownership is mostly illegal, and see how it's like when you can't defend yourself against a genocidal state out to kill you, or some terrorist driving their car or truck into a crowd you're standing with on the high streets. " What are you on about, the US gun laws don’t work, another 6 murdered today in Mississippi | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. In many respects it is worse than third world….death penalty, gun crime, ‘health’ system … if it was so bad here why do we take in more immigrants than any nation? Yet we uncivilized heathens. That's always a excuse " gun crime, death penalty, and healthcare" and other issues. Everyone in the USA is an ‘immigrant’ That's the whole point. If the US is a Third World shithole, why is it so many still try to cross over the US-Mexico land border? Why do so many still try to smuggle themselves in by sea from Central or South America? Why do so many people still fly to the US to claim asylum? The US looks like a Third World country if the metrics you measure it by are the "First World Problems" kind of concern. Gun crime/killings are high in the US because of high gun ownership rates, meaning to say people can actually defend themselves and shoot other people trying to shoot them first. Try living in somewhere say Afghanistan or Syria or even anywhere in the EU where gun ownership is mostly illegal, and see how it's like when you can't defend yourself against a genocidal state out to kill you, or some terrorist driving their car or truck into a crowd you're standing with on the high streets. " Maybe we should send all the immigrants by plane and boats to the UK. Since there is a better standard of living. All of them it's the only humane thing to do since we are "Third world". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences " Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. " so what is the deterrent? Life in prison is not the deterrent either. Either way vile people are going to do what they going to do. Go out whole hog. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. " Exactly  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. so what is the deterrent? Life in prison is not the deterrent either. Either way vile people are going to do what they going to do. Go out whole hog." Most terrorists are killed , they are doing it for a cause, executing them will make them a martyr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. Exactly "now you know exactly why I carry everyday. Nothing is going to deter someone who is determined to kill others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too." Of course they do, no one is saying they don't, (to be honest it's a tired old trope) that if a person opposes the state taking lives that means that person is indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Of course they do, no one is saying they don't, (to be honest it's a tired old trope) that if a person opposes the state taking lives that means that person is indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime.." Are you opposed to me using my weapon to take out someone commiting murder? Technically I would be judge jury and executioner. I am the deterrent. Great debate the justice system can not hold people responsible in every type of scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too." Does the victim have the right to have other people killed in their name? Then what about that victim, should someone else be killed on their behalf, and so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Does the victim have the right to have other people killed in their name? Then what about that victim, should someone else be killed on their behalf, and so on." Should I stop a mass shooting if given the chance or do I just turn and walk away creating more victims. What is the deterrent again? Surely everyone has different views most said there is no deterrent except life in prison. Such a quagmire. Some would be happy if I turned and walked away. Some would be happy if used my deterrence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Of course they do, no one is saying they don't, (to be honest it's a tired old trope) that if a person opposes the state taking lives that means that person is indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime.. Are you opposed to me using my weapon to take out someone commiting murder? Technically I would be judge jury and executioner. I am the deterrent. Great debate the justice system can not hold people responsible in every type of scenario." You know Blu if you read what I wrote it's pretty clear you went for the tired old trope interpretation .. Were both ex military, both served in areas where we had the 'means' if required but whilst we both understand the need to use lethal force to stop someone in that moment it's not the debate, the debate is about the death penalty in a justice system.. We have the same as you do where trained police have the use of lethal force as a resort, we differ when it's in the courts.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. Exactly now you know exactly why I carry everyday. Nothing is going to deter someone who is determined to kill others."You carry because your scared and you have to, I don’t need a gun because only a tiny number of people own one in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Of course they do, no one is saying they don't, (to be honest it's a tired old trope) that if a person opposes the state taking lives that means that person is indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime.. Are you opposed to me using my weapon to take out someone commiting murder? Technically I would be judge jury and executioner. I am the deterrent. Great debate the justice system can not hold people responsible in every type of scenario. You know Blu if you read what I wrote it's pretty clear you went for the tired old trope interpretation .. Were both ex military, both served in areas where we had the 'means' if required but whilst we both understand the need to use lethal force to stop someone in that moment it's not the debate, the debate is about the death penalty in a justice system.. We have the same as you do where trained police have the use of lethal force as a resort, we differ when it's in the courts.." No one can come with a valid deterrent. To some life is to some death penalty. I choose death penalty if it's undeniable. Follow the scientific evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also believe that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent especially when it relates to terrorist offences Yup. People seem to have the strange idea that the threat of death might deter others from committing terrible crimes. It absolutely does not. Perversely, it may even encourage them, at least in ferocity. After all, if you have nothing to lose and are going to die for the crime, why not go the whole hog. You cannot deter an irrational person with the threat of after event punishments. It means nothing to them. Exactly now you know exactly why I carry everyday. Nothing is going to deter someone who is determined to kill others.
You carry because your scared and you have to, I don’t need a gun because only a tiny number of people own one in the UK "I carry because i want to and I do not want to be a victim. It's a deterrent is it not? You pull a knife I pull my g19. Who is the deterrent? Not the police not society. I am. Rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. | |||
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) | |||
"How many times is “getting it wrong” then acceptable because it’s apparently “for the greater good!” " it goes both ways it's a 2 headed cointoss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many times is “getting it wrong” then acceptable because it’s apparently “for the greater good!” it goes both ways it's a 2 headed cointoss." I am all for letting people convicted of murder never see the outside of their jail cell again… It’s the question I ask that no one who advocates for the death penalty ever answer… if it’s wrongly applied, what do you say to that family? Oops? Here… have a couple of million! That will make you feel better! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Of course they do, no one is saying they don't, (to be honest it's a tired old trope) that if a person opposes the state taking lives that means that person is indifferent to the plight of the victims of crime.. Are you opposed to me using my weapon to take out someone commiting murder? Technically I would be judge jury and executioner. I am the deterrent. Great debate the justice system can not hold people responsible in every type of scenario. You know Blu if you read what I wrote it's pretty clear you went for the tired old trope interpretation .. Were both ex military, both served in areas where we had the 'means' if required but whilst we both understand the need to use lethal force to stop someone in that moment it's not the debate, the debate is about the death penalty in a justice system.. We have the same as you do where trained police have the use of lethal force as a resort, we differ when it's in the courts.. No one can come with a valid deterrent. To some life is to some death penalty. I choose death penalty if it's undeniable. Follow the scientific evidence." One innocent life taken by the state is one too many, you have the death penalty in many states as do other countries.. It does not work as a deterrent, that's simply the facts .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Does the victim have the right to have other people killed in their name? Then what about that victim, should someone else be killed on their behalf, and so on. Should I stop a mass shooting if given the chance or do I just turn and walk away creating more victims. What is the deterrent again? Surely everyone has different views most said there is no deterrent except life in prison. Such a quagmire. Some would be happy if I turned and walked away. Some would be happy if used my deterrence. " What happens if you shoot some fella you think is about to committ a mass shooting, who turns out is just carrying a stick? Anyway, it's all a bit silly, examples. I don't think the state should be putting anyone to death. We should strive to be more civilised, not less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put it up for a referendum. It's that simple." Lol. Worst idea ever! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia." Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member / close friend was killed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their are loads of things to take into consideration like mental state not using as an excuse like some use it for a lighter punishment but too be executed is totally wrong given amount of corruption within the system I don't care about the mental state you do not accidentally pull a trigger or stab someone. That in itself is awareness. People can cry all they want on mental health. They were aware of loading a weapon or they were aware of getting a knife out of the kitchen. It is pre meditated." Exactly, mental health is used to try and cover up any behaviour these days | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member / close friend was killed by the state due to incompetence or corruption?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Does the victim have the right to have other people killed in their name? Then what about that victim, should someone else be killed on their behalf, and so on. Should I stop a mass shooting if given the chance or do I just turn and walk away creating more victims. What is the deterrent again? Surely everyone has different views most said there is no deterrent except life in prison. Such a quagmire. Some would be happy if I turned and walked away. Some would be happy if used my deterrence. What happens if you shoot some fella you think is about to committ a mass shooting, who turns out is just carrying a stick? Anyway, it's all a bit silly, examples. I don't think the state should be putting anyone to death. We should strive to be more civilised, not less." a stick don't go boom. Can't be civilized if some people do not want to be civil. Guess we should just jail those repeat offenders for life. To deter acts of violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member / close friend was killed " Actually I can answer this… people who have been here a long long time will know I was very good friends with someone who was murdered with became one of the highest profile murders in a long time… Not one person I know would have wanted to death penalty… I would absolutely love to see them rot in jail… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A victim has rights too. Does the victim have the right to have other people killed in their name? Then what about that victim, should someone else be killed on their behalf, and so on. Should I stop a mass shooting if given the chance or do I just turn and walk away creating more victims. What is the deterrent again? Surely everyone has different views most said there is no deterrent except life in prison. Such a quagmire. Some would be happy if I turned and walked away. Some would be happy if used my deterrence. What happens if you shoot some fella you think is about to committ a mass shooting, who turns out is just carrying a stick? Anyway, it's all a bit silly, examples. I don't think the state should be putting anyone to death. We should strive to be more civilised, not less. a stick don't go boom. Can't be civilized if some people do not want to be civil. Guess we should just jail those repeat offenders for life. To deter acts of violence." It would be my preference to punish offenders over giving revenge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly, mental health is used to try and cover up any behaviour these days" That's a frankly insulting and shameful comment to those with mental health issues. They need help, compassion, support, empathy and understanding. Not vilification or tarring all with the same brush. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member / close friend was killed " I'd feel terrible of course, but would killing the perpetrator bring them back? Also, if I agitated really publicly for a death penalty and said executed convict turned out to be not guilty I think I'd be even more upset. If you get bored try John Grisham 'The Confession' for a take on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your measure is not valid as killing the culprit doesn’t bring the victims back to life. It’s not an either or! Civilised people lead by example in a civilised way . Killing someone for in effect the religious eye for an eye vengeance is too base to take seriously. Incarcerate them out of society for life by all means Put them to useful work . Make them contemplate and regret. Some guys given life kill themselves rather than face a whole life term. It’s deterrent enough. Criminal laws are not made to be rehabilitative first and foremost. They're made to be deterrent and retributive first and foremost. They are the legal stick by which the state gets to execute sanctioned violence to keep society in line. If you want rehabilitation or education, suggest you go look in the schooling system for that. The point is that if you kill someone, why should you be allowed to live then? You care about the potential trauma that the murderer's family will suffer from the murderer being executed, is their trauma worth more than that suffered by the family of the murdered? Finally, as you said, some guys kill themselves in prison to get out of life terms. The key word being "some". Shall we dig into statistics of any country to see how many lifers died of natural causes or due to murder by other inmates, and how many died by their own hands? " While you’re at it dig out the statistics of innocents murdered under the guise of justice. . Iran would be a good place to start or maybe Saudi if that is something similar to what you desire . Also where is your consideration for the trauma of the innocent families of the accused ? Are they guilty and deserving of justice too? Laws are to be abided by and I believe we are to soft on many crimes mostly antisocial etc That does not lead in any way to killing people on any level. What is the reason to kill them other than revenge? There isn’t one . To avenge by killing someone reflects on rage not informed thought. I would freely admit if I caught someone attacking my girls when they were little I would be tempted to kill them. . Is that rage or a reasoned approach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let’s assume I want a public decision based on the UK either bringing in the death sentence or my proposal of solitary confinement for a whole life, which do you think would be the preferred choice? Death penalty will win a majority public vote, hands down. " Sad reflection on the voting public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let’s assume I want a public decision based on the UK either bringing in the death sentence or my proposal of solitary confinement for a whole life, which do you think would be the preferred choice? Death penalty will win a majority public vote, hands down. Sad reflection on the voting public." Totally since many are still fighting injustice whom are incarcerated or have won their case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let’s assume I want a public decision based on the UK either bringing in the death sentence or my proposal of solitary confinement for a whole life, which do you think would be the preferred choice? Death penalty will win a majority public vote, hands down. Sad reflection on the voting public." I wouldn't be surprised if that was accurate. A lot of people are cheering on the slow move to a more authoritarian state with less rights and freedoms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wouldn't be surprised if that was accurate. A lot of people are cheering on the slow move to a more authoritarian state with less rights and freedoms. " Indeed. I get that people want to feel safe and not fear being attacked or their loved ones hurt or possessions absconded with. (Can't use the word "Stollen"(sic) on Fab) Sadly, they conflate authoritarianism as offering them more protection. It does not. Authoritarianism protects The State first and foremost, whilst paying lip-service to the citizen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"pretty much agree. I think the american system is about right. Convicts spend years on death row to ensure that the proper appeals process has been applied and every avenue is investigated to ensure that a wrongful conviction has not taken place. I think quite a few MP's of whichever side of the house would agree to the death penalty but are too afraid for their carreers to express it. The fact that expressing support for the death penalty can be a political career ender is ridiculous in itself. People often harp on about miscarriage of justice in sentencing innocent people to death, but how many bother to look at the statistics over the past few decades to see how many death penalty worthy convictions were successfully secured on the back of cast iron evidence that can't be disproved. Missing the woods for the trees would be the classic way to put it. " You accept that there are some convictions that could be overturned though? Would you say that one of your loved ones being wrongly convicted of a crime and murdered by the state is a price you'd bevwilling to pay to see the death sentence restored? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go."Until one of their own is facing it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go."Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population. Too late after a few innocents have been killed . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . "seems they are informed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . seems they are informed."Definitely not. Exhibit A: Brexit. Case closed your honour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . seems they are informed.
Definitely not.
Exhibit A: Brexit.
Case closed your honour. "People voted you get what you vote for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . seems they are informed.
Definitely not.
Exhibit A: Brexit.
Case closed your honour. People voted you get what you vote for. "Very much so. But it's an excellent example of how poorly informed the electorate here is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . seems they are informed.
Definitely not.
Exhibit A: Brexit.
Case closed your honour. People voted you get what you vote for.
Very much so.
But it's an excellent example of how poorly informed the electorate here is."Same applies here Just wait until the next election to enact change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Definitely in favour for murder, it must be an option. It could open up all new job roles.
In all seriousness though, put it to a vote or public referendum. Even those against the death penalty know full-well how that kind of ballot would go.
Yes after the Brexit vote and subsequent eyes being opened to reality we really do need a better informed population.
Too late after a few innocents have been killed . seems they are informed.
Definitely not.
Exhibit A: Brexit.
Case closed your honour. People voted you get what you vote for.
Very much so.
But it's an excellent example of how poorly informed the electorate here is. Same applies here Just wait until the next election to enact change. "Can't. There's no going back from brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a side note, the thing about the death penalty question is that the very arguments against it highlight how rubbish our current justice system is. The arguments are pretty much saying the law can be wrong. But the catch 22 is that the law isn't supposed to be wrong, its supposed to be the ultimate authority. That's probably more why the powers the be don't want a discussion on the topic." I don't think it's the law that's wrong, in this instance. It's the system by which people are found to have broken the law, or not, that's flawed. Just reality that a lot of cases are very complicated, partial evidence can look compelling. Then later more evidence can be found to trigger an appeal. If the person has already been executed by the state. Too late. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On a side note, the thing about the death penalty question is that the very arguments against it highlight how rubbish our current justice system is. The arguments are pretty much saying the law can be wrong. But the catch 22 is that the law isn't supposed to be wrong, its supposed to be the ultimate authority. That's probably more why the powers the be don't want a discussion on the topic." I don't think many believe the law is infallible. We've simply landed on trail by your peers as being the best (in our countries opinion) we can get. It will have false negatives and false positives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member / close friend was killed " Wonder if you’d feel the same if a family member/ close friend was wrongly executed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia." Although the death penalty is still available in Russia. Its not been used since 1996. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although the death penalty is still available in Russia. Its not been used since 1996." Not domestically as far as I know. However it would appear to have resurfaced in Ukraine, sadly  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims." Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although the death penalty is still available in Russia. Its not been used since 1996. Not domestically as far as I know. However it would appear to have resurfaced in Ukraine, sadly "I thought we were talking about a countries judicial system. If we go into what countries rogue soldiers do in war, well no country has clean hands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. " You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. " Yes I do in my own home. My state has Castle Doctrine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. Yes I do in my own home. My state has Castle Doctrine." Your state also lets anyone over the age of 21 carry a gun , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. Yes I do in my own home. My state has Castle Doctrine. Your state also lets anyone over the age of 21 carry a gun , "not everyone. | |||
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) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay?" I’m not sure of my ground her but I think one is reactive such as a defensive one punch killing or defending your family so could be considered justifiable or even accidental killing. The other is planning and preparing with every intended action to take a life . They both end up with someone dead but it’s the intention that’s on trial. Like I said I’m not sure how solid the ground is for this view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. Yes I do in my own home. My state has Castle Doctrine. Your state also lets anyone over the age of 21 carry a gun , "Why's that a big deal? In the UK 16 or 17 year old teens/barely adults can carry guns and be trained to shoot to kill if they join the Armed Forces. I had conscription back home, which meant at the age of 18 I entered the army and was trained to handle firearms and be trusted to kill on orders of the state in times of war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Death penalty is archaic and barbaric. Killing a criminal will make 0 difference and will not bring vindication to victims. Technically if someone doing me bodily harm I have a right to end their life to save mine. Do I let myself be a victim or do I take anothers life in self defense. Yet the ones that cannot defend themselves are silenced to that retribution. I am positive they would choose life over death. Yet those voices mean nothing. You do not have the right to end someone's life if you are attacked. You have the right for proportionate defence. If someone pulled a gun to your head then yes they may intend to murder you and you can defend yourself with equal proportions. Self defence is not the same as the death penalty. There is no such thing as "retrospective" self defence killing. Yes I do in my own home. My state has Castle Doctrine." That pretty much lets you do what you've got to do to protect yourself, family or property, which would never float over here, as you can probably tell by the response you got on self defence... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay?" Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life." Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. " The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird." Stand your ground was a great idea in my opinion, I would be interested to know if it has reduced crime or if it has given the community more strength or faith in the legal system | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird." @NotMe - if they are caught are they no longer a threat? I would hope not! They are incarcerated without access to weapons. @Blu I am assuming “castle doctrine” is the right to protect your property/family/self from intruders? As per my original point, if prison is truly awful then a life spent incarcerated is arguably a more severe punishment then the death sentence right? I do think people should have the right to use justifiable force to defend themselves, especially within their own property. So if someone breaks into your home but is unarmed and you shoot them, then that is not justifiable. If they are armed then it is justifiable IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird. Stand your ground was a great idea in my opinion, I would be interested to know if it has reduced crime or if it has given the community more strength or faith in the legal system" Seems to work my community is armed low crime rate. Drive 20 minutes away high crime rates.No one really bothers our community. One of the safest in the area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder if a policy like The Castle Doctrine has been tested and scrutinised to see if it has in fact made homeowners more likely to suffer gun-related violence, rather than less ? I'm working on the law of unintended consequences, essentially. My thought being, if someone was bent on going to burgle a property, it would be incredibly stupid NOT to take a firearm for self-protection, because the homeowners certainly will have them AND are now empowered to use them in retaliation. I'd be interested in seeing what burglaries were like before the introduction of the Doctrine and how many homeowners were injured and by what means, compared to stats after the Doctrine was introduced." Defensive firearm use to get reported to the CDC but they do not do that anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird. @NotMe - if they are caught are they no longer a threat? I would hope not! They are incarcerated without access to weapons. @Blu I am assuming “castle doctrine” is the right to protect your property/family/self from intruders? As per my original point, if prison is truly awful then a life spent incarcerated is arguably a more severe punishment then the death sentence right? I do think people should have the right to use justifiable force to defend themselves, especially within their own property. So if someone breaks into your home but is unarmed and you shoot them, then that is not justifiable. If they are armed then it is justifiable IMO. " How do you know their intentions when the break in? They commiting a felony once they breach your property.They do not announce hey I am here to sexually assault you or hey I am here murder you. They breach my doors they getting a lesson on their bad choices. I didn't force them to choose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird. @NotMe - if they are caught are they no longer a threat? I would hope not! They are incarcerated without access to weapons. @Blu I am assuming “castle doctrine” is the right to protect your property/family/self from intruders? As per my original point, if prison is truly awful then a life spent incarcerated is arguably a more severe punishment then the death sentence right? I do think people should have the right to use justifiable force to defend themselves, especially within their own property. So if someone breaks into your home but is unarmed and you shoot them, then that is not justifiable. If they are armed then it is justifiable IMO. How do you know their intentions when the break in? They commiting a felony once they breach your property.They do not announce hey I am here to sexually assault you or hey I am here murder you. They breach my doors they getting a lesson on their bad choices. I didn't force them to choose." I really do agree with this. If someone enters your home as an intruder, it really is their choice, not the choice of the home owner, in my opinion they lost all rights to protection from the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Applying the death penalty retrospectively, is a problem for many because it could be wrongly applied, however the death penalty is widely supported during a terrible event. For instance, attackers hell bent on ending innocent peoples lives will lead to the assailant being shot and likely killed on sight if confronted in the act. If they are captured would the same plight be supported once found guilty in a court of law? Where is cutover from okay to not okay? Justifiable force to prevent further loss of life? A mass shooter caught in the act and armed to the teeth ready to carry on! I’d say shoot to injure if possible. Shoot to kill if no other option. If they have been caught and are now on trial then they can no longer be a threat to life. Are they no longer a threat because they have been caught? It is interesting the fine line of such detail that can make a person justify the death of another or not. It is becoming clear, that capital punishment is not liked if it needs to be considered in a court of law, however there are times where it is appropriate and that is to save or stop the deaths of others by law enforcement and military I would assume. What does baffle me is how that fine line creeps into this too, if it is a civilian saving their own life, it has been suggested in this thread that you would need to be in real and present danger, very near to being killed before you would be in the right should the attacker lose their life due to your resistance, like for like kind of deal. This is not the first time I have heard this, and it makes me feel this view is coming from people who have never found themselves in a threatening position, and everything is very black and white. I also think this could and does worry individuals when it comes to defending themselves and their property, making it far easier for criminals to take advantage of a law biding persons who are fearful of breaking the law by defending themselves. I want to be clear I'm not advocating a law that would let a person kill another because he stole their bike, but I would like our justice system to support innocent individuals who through no fault of their own found themselves in a situation that injured their assailant. I have wondered off the main topic, apologies. The topic is intertwined. The state can't take a life because of courts but for instance the castle doctrine I have. I don't need the courts to make a decision on guilt or innocence. Basically it's shoot first. Then on the flip side mass shooters. Getting life when clearly they are guilty. Weird. @NotMe - if they are caught are they no longer a threat? I would hope not! They are incarcerated without access to weapons. @Blu I am assuming “castle doctrine” is the right to protect your property/family/self from intruders? As per my original point, if prison is truly awful then a life spent incarcerated is arguably a more severe punishment then the death sentence right? I do think people should have the right to use justifiable force to defend themselves, especially within their own property. So if someone breaks into your home but is unarmed and you shoot them, then that is not justifiable. If they are armed then it is justifiable IMO. How do you know their intentions when the break in? They commiting a felony once they breach your property.They do not announce hey I am here to sexually assault you or hey I am here murder you. They breach my doors they getting a lesson on their bad choices. I didn't force them to choose. I really do agree with this. If someone enters your home as an intruder, it really is their choice, not the choice of the home owner, in my opinion they lost all rights to protection from the law." Exactly I not a mind reader I do not know the intention. So to some I supposed to lay there and be a victim until it's life threatening. Nope . I'll end it earlier. Shouldn't have been here in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give us a break. We are a civilised society - we don’t murder people. We are not third world societies like America and Russia. If the US is a third world country, you better not venture out of the Western world because its a jungle out there. " Remember not all the US states have capital punishment - easy to lump the whole USA together but that is really not correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the deterrence again? Some prefer to be incarcerated. " I said it before and I'll reiterate it again. There is a danger in conflating deterrence with firearm possession. I can deter burglars from considering my property and perhaps some of my security measures do. I don't feel any safer because of them. I still know a professional burglar will get in if they are determined to do so. However the difference between your situation and mine is that your burglar is highly likely to be armed with a firearm. Mine is highly likely not to be armed with one. Yours came packing a piece, mine came packing a knife. Theoretically we could both die from our assailants, but I fancy my chances of survival higher than yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the deterrence again? Some prefer to be incarcerated. I said it before and I'll reiterate it again. There is a danger in conflating deterrence with firearm possession. I can deter burglars from considering my property and perhaps some of my security measures do. I don't feel any safer because of them. I still know a professional burglar will get in if they are determined to do so. However the difference between your situation and mine is that your burglar is highly likely to be armed with a firearm. Mine is highly likely not to be armed with one. Yours came packing a piece, mine came packing a knife. Theoretically we could both die from our assailants, but I fancy my chances of survival higher than yours." How are you measuring your chance of survival... A knife being less deadly than a gun? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How are you measuring your chance of survival... A knife being less deadly than a gun? " I'm looking at collected data. In a new analysis of data submitted to Maryland's state trauma registry from 2005 to 2017, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers found that gunshot victims are approximately five times more likely to require blood transfusions, they require 10 times more blood units and are 14 times more likely to die than people seriously injured by motor vehicles, non-gun assaults, falls or stabs. Number of murder victims in the United States in 2021, by weapon used 6012 - Handguns 4740 - Firearms (type not stated) 1035 - Knives (or cutting instruments) 461 - Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc) 447 - Rifles 277 - Other guns 243 - Blunt objects (clubs, hammers etc) 152 - Shotguns 117 - Narcotics 73 - Fire 55 - Asphyxiation 6 - Poison 1059 - Other weapons or weapons not stated Source : Statista Release Date : Oct 2022 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And ? What does your statistics prove in a dire situation...? Nothing. Statistics do not have anything to do with a moment where life and death for your safety is involved. Statistically I would use my shotgun in a home invasion over any other weapon. How that for stats ? Throw all those stats out the window. It's up to the individual in that situation at that time to make a decision. Not statistics. " seriously statistics is the last thing on my mind... I more concerned if I loaded the correct ammunition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How are you measuring your chance of survival... A knife being less deadly than a gun? I'm looking at collected data. In a new analysis of data submitted to Maryland's state trauma registry from 2005 to 2017, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers found that gunshot victims are approximately five times more likely to require blood transfusions, they require 10 times more blood units and are 14 times more likely to die than people seriously injured by motor vehicles, non-gun assaults, falls or stabs. Number of murder victims in the United States in 2021, by weapon used 6012 - Handguns 4740 - Firearms (type not stated) 1035 - Knives (or cutting instruments) 461 - Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc) 447 - Rifles 277 - Other guns 243 - Blunt objects (clubs, hammers etc) 152 - Shotguns 117 - Narcotics 73 - Fire 55 - Asphyxiation 6 - Poison 1059 - Other weapons or weapons not stated Source : Statista Release Date : Oct 2022 " that is not telling the story is it? The scenario is someone coming into your house to attack you, here in the UK you are more likely to be facing the knife. Either way it really is irrelevant, a person with intent is holding a weapon that can kill you. Trying to reason this through in the moment, working out if deadly force is needed is a noble one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My vr80 is loaded with a trigger lock by the bedside with 00 buck and a 20 round drum mag. How's is that for statistics. Fuck around and find out ( Statistically) "This is why I would not want to live in the USA. It isn’t that you Blu have a gun or that people like you (reasonable, of sound mind, military training to safely handle firearms) have guns, it is all the other crazies and angry disenfranchised teens packing heat and ready to use it! How many mass shootings in the USA over the last 20 years? How many in UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My vr80 is loaded with a trigger lock by the bedside with 00 buck and a 20 round drum mag. How's is that for statistics. Fuck around and find out ( Statistically)
This is why I would not want to live in the USA. It isn’t that you Blu have a gun or that people like you (reasonable, of sound mind, military training to safely handle firearms) have guns, it is all the other crazies and angry disenfranchised teens packing heat and ready to use it!
How many mass shootings in the USA over the last 20 years? How many in UK?"I have no issues removing handguns. I said that in other threads. It's the number 1 preferred weapon of choice. But is anyone advocating for that no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My vr80 is loaded with a trigger lock by the bedside with 00 buck and a 20 round drum mag. How's is that for statistics. Fuck around and find out ( Statistically)
This is why I would not want to live in the USA. It isn’t that you Blu have a gun or that people like you (reasonable, of sound mind, military training to safely handle firearms) have guns, it is all the other crazies and angry disenfranchised teens packing heat and ready to use it!
How many mass shootings in the USA over the last 20 years? How many in UK? I have no issues removing handguns. I said that in other threads. It's the number 1 preferred weapon of choice. But is anyone advocating for that no."While I am not really comfortable with the idea of widespread gun ownership at all, I kind of get why you might have a pistol. However, NOBODY who is a civilian needs to own assault rifles. NOBODY! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My vr80 is loaded with a trigger lock by the bedside with 00 buck and a 20 round drum mag. How's is that for statistics. Fuck around and find out ( Statistically)
This is why I would not want to live in the USA. It isn’t that you Blu have a gun or that people like you (reasonable, of sound mind, military training to safely handle firearms) have guns, it is all the other crazies and angry disenfranchised teens packing heat and ready to use it!
How many mass shootings in the USA over the last 20 years? How many in UK? I have no issues removing handguns. I said that in other threads. It's the number 1 preferred weapon of choice. But is anyone advocating for that no.
While I am not really comfortable with the idea of widespread gun ownership at all, I kind of get why you might have a pistol. However, NOBODY who is a civilian needs to own assault rifles. NOBODY!"But what if they need to mow down that flock of ducks that's been quacking too much & looking really shifty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
