FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Indian court upholds death sentence
Indian court upholds death sentence
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"[Removed by poster at 09/07/18 10:49:34]" Well if you're happy to give them what they want and make them marters for their cause I guess there's a good argument for it. | |||
"I can't agree with the death penalty.There has been far to many mistakes in the past." The problem with that stance Bob is that you fail to address the other side of the coin. Fact is across the world where the death penalty has been abolished or the appeals procedure has been extended to a point where life expectancy on death row is longer than that of those living in murder hotspots that murder rates climb or the definition of murder has to be updated regularly (always raising the murder bar) in order to keep the murder statistics stable. So in effect not having a death penalty results in many more innocents dying than having a death penalty. But I suppose it's easier to for society to ignore hundreds (in the case of the UK) being murdered each year as a result of not having a death penalty, than one or two each decade (or year) being executed when innocent. We can always claim that lack of a death penalty may not be the reason that if the same murder definition was applied to today's homicide statistics as when the death penalty was abolished it would be higher. After all we can always claim the world is a different place today and so dismiss any evidence that a death penalty swiftly enforced reduces murder rates. And it's not our fault if violent criminals kill innocents... 
It seems to me that like economic theory, anti capital punishment theory is a thing that once adopted is near impossible to reverse because it means admitting that over decades thousands or tens of thousands (in the case of the UK) have been sacrificed so that society does not have to deal with tens or maybe hundreds of innocents being executed by the state. | |||
| |||
"The problem with advocacy for the death penalty, as above, is they skirt around the central question that their stance raises How many innocent people being murdered in your name are you willing to tolerate? " This I accept, but there is also the question of how many murders are you willing to ignore in order that you do not have to deal with an innocent being murdered in your name? To me the answer is simple, all lives have equal value therefore we need to follow a course that results in the lowest loss of life and then deal with our collective. | |||
"The problem with advocacy for the death penalty, as above, is they skirt around the central question that their stance raises How many innocent people being murdered in your name are you willing to tolerate? This I accept, but there is also the question of how many murders are you willing to ignore in order that you do not have to deal with an innocent being murdered in your name? " All of them. I am not prepared to have a single person murdered in my name, so other people's thirst for revenge can be momentarily sated. Fuck that. And once you get around to answering your half of the question properly, we can move onto why your wrong about the death penalty being a deterrent. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What is it then? 1, 10, 100? Is there even a limit? And no, you didn't "wake up to the facts" The death penalty does not act as a deterrent, we know this because even in countries that still subscribe to the barbaric notion of the death penalty, murders still happen. So as it isn't a complete deterrent, what you're arguing is that it prevents some, but not all, murders - which is a claim that is utterly unverifiable. You didn't wake up, you got angry and vengeful. " Really? I agree the death penalty will not stop all murders, but to claim that as it is not a complete deterrent it is not a deterrent is ridiculous and just to show you how ridiculous if that is the standard you apply then you must be anti all punishments because none are a total deterrent. Are you? Or is is just this one punishment? To claim it is utterly unverifiable is to ignore the number of killers who have openly said they only killed because they knew they would not be killed in return provided they were able to surrender to law enforcement. As for your I became angry and vengeful, you are wrong. In fact if anything I have become sad and disillusioned. I would much rather we all did the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than because we are afraid of the consequences of our actions. But the sad fact is there are individuals who will always make a risk benefit calculation and where costs of being caught are not so draconian to make the risk unacceptable will do anything. Therefore I have reluctantly accepted that a death penalty needs to be there to act as a deterrent to those who are willing to kill because being caught does not place their one life in jeopardy. | |||
"Fact is across the world where the death penalty has been abolished or the appeals procedure has been extended to a point where life expectancy on death row is longer than that of those living in murder hotspots that murder rates climb or the definition of murder has to be updated regularly (always raising the murder bar) in order to keep the murder statistics stable. " We went round this before. Correlation is not causation. Capital punishment is far from the only factor. And there are plenty of stats on the other side of things - for example the US states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than those with. And of the top ten countries with most murders, six have the death penalty, four do not. The evidence of deterrence needed to justify the risk of loss of innocent life would need to be absolute and compelling. It's so far away from that. | |||
"To claim it is utterly unverifiable is to ignore the number of killers who have openly said they only killed because they knew they would not be killed in return provided they were able to surrender to law enforcement. " I mean, we can all just make stuff up. | |||
"What is it then? 1, 10, 100? Is there even a limit? And no, you didn't "wake up to the facts" The death penalty does not act as a deterrent, we know this because even in countries that still subscribe to the barbaric notion of the death penalty, murders still happen. So as it isn't a complete deterrent, what you're arguing is that it prevents some, but not all, murders - which is a claim that is utterly unverifiable. You didn't wake up, you got angry and vengeful. Really? I agree the death penalty will not stop all murders, but to claim that as it is not a complete deterrent it is not a deterrent is ridiculous and just to show you how ridiculous if that is the standard you apply then you must be anti all punishments because none are a total deterrent. Are you? Or is is just this one punishment? To claim it is utterly unverifiable is to ignore the number of killers who have openly said they only killed because they knew they would not be killed in return provided they were able to surrender to law enforcement. As for your I became angry and vengeful, you are wrong. In fact if anything I have become sad and disillusioned. I would much rather we all did the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than because we are afraid of the consequences of our actions. But the sad fact is there are individuals who will always make a risk benefit calculation and where costs of being caught are not so draconian to make the risk unacceptable will do anything. Therefore I have reluctantly accepted that a death penalty needs to be there to act as a deterrent to those who are willing to kill because being caught does not place their one life in jeopardy." Yes, really. You've got an unverifiable claim. You can't know with any certainty if your idea about less people would have been murdered if we have the death penalty, as we do not have an identical copy of this world where the death penalty was retained to compare against. Unless you can pierce the veil and see the multiverse, in which case, my apologies. And you claim you're not vengeful, yet you are comfortable with the death of as many innocent people as it takes for you to feel that 'justice' has been done. At least the last time someone made the case that they didn't really want to do something monstrous, but it was the only way to save us all, it was Josh Brolin and he's at least a talented actor. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion." And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not too bothered about there being a death penalty or not but would rather people found guilty are sent to the worst horrible shit hole of a prison with extreme hard labour and occasional torture thrown in for good measure. Life for them should be made unbearable as to make them wish they were dead. That's when you get true punishment for horrific crimes.... the death penalty is an easy way out for them that they don't deserve." On hey, look, it's the death penalty's just as awful cousin. Was wondering when the people advocating torture would show up... | |||
"Not necessarily." Well, that's me convinced. | |||
| |||
"And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself?" What has my personal feelings if I am somehow involved in a miscarriage of justice gt to do with anything? We have laws and a criminal justice system overseen by judges that is designed to make the enforcement of punishments impersonal. I or others may not like verdicts or sentences but so what? It is a question of deterrents. As for the claim that those committing violent crime do not make risk benefit calculations I would point out to you that the preferred weapon af many gangsters today are attack dogs because if the dog does serious damage or kills in most cases the gangster if caught will be charged with having a dangerous dog out of control with a maximum of 14 years if the dog kills (manslaughter carries a maximum of life) and for injury 5 years (whereas malicious wounding with intent is 12 years). To believe that violent gangsters do not 'play the system' is nieve at best. | |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught." Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough. | |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough." Well, at least your honest about wanting nothing more than revenge. | |||
"And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? What has my personal feelings if I am somehow involved in a miscarriage of justice gt to do with anything? We have laws and a criminal justice system overseen by judges that is designed to make the enforcement of punishments impersonal. I or others may not like verdicts or sentences but so what? It is a question of deterrents. As for the claim that those committing violent crime do not make risk benefit calculations I would point out to you that the preferred weapon af many gangsters today are attack dogs because if the dog does serious damage or kills in most cases the gangster if caught will be charged with having a dangerous dog out of control with a maximum of 14 years if the dog kills (manslaughter carries a maximum of life) and for injury 5 years (whereas malicious wounding with intent is 12 years). To believe that violent gangsters do not 'play the system' is nieve at best." Of course, not setting a dog on someone carried a maximum sentence of 0 years. So, again, if people were actually doing a cost benefit analysis of their actions, they wouldn't be doing this either, would they? And yet, here we are. The death penalty can't work as a deterrent, because people don't make rational decisions. Not that I believe your story in the slightest, but it's always fun when someone does the legwork of disproving their own point for you. | |||
| |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough. Well, at least your honest about wanting nothing more than punishment." FTFY  | |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough. Well, at least your honest about wanting nothing more than punishment. FTFY "Did you? Because it seems to me like you're not willing to stand over your own ideas. But, please, feel free to edit this into whatever form best suits your lack of argument, should you need to. | |||
"Setting your dog on someone to kill them, rather than doing it yourself, has a rationality of its own. It's down to a choice. " Yes. And not doing that has an even stronger rationalisation - therefore the whole stupid story just goes to show people are terrible at weighing up choices. Do try and keep up. | |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough. Well, at least your honest about wanting nothing more than punishment. FTFY
Did you? Because it seems to me like you're not willing to stand over your own ideas.
But, please, feel free to edit this into whatever form best suits your lack of argument, should you need to."Punishment and revenge are two different words buddy. Educate yourself  | |||
| |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough." What if they are innocent? Who can they punish? | |||
"The biggest problem with death penalty as a deterrent is it assumes people make rational cost/benefit analysis before going on to do crimes. As it turns out, people just assume they won't get caught. Why does it have to be a deterrent? Punishment for the perpetrator is reason enough. Well, at least your honest about wanting nothing more than punishment. FTFY
Did you? Because it seems to me like you're not willing to stand over your own ideas.
But, please, feel free to edit this into whatever form best suits your lack of argument, should you need to.
Punishment and revenge are two different words buddy. Educate yourself "If the punishment is not to be a deterrent, then it's only purpose is to satisfy the need for revenge that slighted people feel. That's the benefit of actually knowing what words mean, it's something I'd heartily recommend. | |||
"Still a rational decision. It's your definitions that let you down. Dogmatic statements tend to be like that and they don't lend themselves to discussion. " It clearly isn't, as a more ration choice would simply be to not have a dog for the purpose of attacking someone. Then you run zero risk of going to jail, as opposed to trying to limit jail time if you do get caught. That you can ascribe a level of reasoning to that decision doesn't make it rational. Which is why both of you are utterly wrong about the death penalty being a deterrent. Even in this fairy tale, all you've demonstrated is sub par decision making, and then you pair have thusly reasoned that because your story of choice involves people making some decisions, therefore they must make rational ones, so therefore the death penalty must be a deterrent, because..... Its utterly stupid, from start to finish. Try harder. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself?" Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. | |||
| |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. " People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think." Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? | |||
"I'm not sure you understand that there are levels of rationality and differences between individuals on the opinions of what is rational. It is clearly rational to that person to make a decision to send a dog in rather than do it personally. Rationality is not as black and white as right and wrong, ( which is in itself a variable concept) which is what you are confusing this with." Wrong. If your aim is to avoid jail, then the rational decision is to not do things that increase your risk of going to jail. This is objectively correct. There is no argument to be had. But, what you have done is just made my point for me. You've demonstrated that people will make decisions, coloured by their own poor judgement. Like this fairy tale of setting dogs on people. Or more pertinent to this, committing murder. As you said it's variable. So we cannot rely on the death penalty as a deterrent, because as you've helpfully said, people will just justify it to themselves as being 'rational', and in order for it to work as a deterrent it would have to override this poor decision making that humans have. So, thanks for taking my argument and parroting it back at me as if it disproved itself, I guess. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? " It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not." Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs " There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy." So many people come on here and tell us what we shouldn’t do but very few seem to give an alternative. Speaking from a personal point of view If someone murdered a relative/ family member of mine I’d have no problem in seeing them executed. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy. So many people come on here and tell us what we shouldn’t do but very few seem to give an alternative. Speaking from a personal point of view If someone murdered a relative/ family member of mine I’d have no problem in seeing them executed. " Thankfully, what you want isn't important. | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy. So many people come on here and tell us what we shouldn’t do but very few seem to give an alternative. Speaking from a personal point of view If someone murdered a relative/ family member of mine I’d have no problem in seeing them executed. Thankfully, what you want isn't important." That can be said about each and every one of us, you still haven’t given me any examples of wrongful convictions that have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs, you’ve had more than enough time to search the internet. | |||
| |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy. So many people come on here and tell us what we shouldn’t do but very few seem to give an alternative. Speaking from a personal point of view If someone murdered a relative/ family member of mine I’d have no problem in seeing them executed. " Seriously? You send someone to prison for life. That's what you do. That's what happens now. Well done not having a problem executing a fellow human being. Slit his throat yourself if it makes you feel like a hero. How about answering the hard question? What do you do if you get it wrong and kill an innocent person? | |||
"I have answered your question. But to be clear I used to share your view until I woke up to the facts. In order to have no one killed in my name I have to tacitly accept some 300 to 400 a year will die in the UK. That's more blood on my hands than I am willing to countenance in order that I do not have to deal with miscarriages of justice maybe costing one or two innocents being put to death in the name of justice. But I accept that many if not most will reach a different conclusion. And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? Probably not, but ask someone who’s had a relative murdered the same question ? With modern forensics, dna profiling etc I think the chance of people being wrongly convicted is so much less. People's idea of what forensics is has been horribly skewed by shit like CSI. So, no, wrongful convictions aren't as rare as you'd think. Never watched it in my life, don’t be patronising. My sister is a forensic scientist, that’s what I base my opinion on, I may be wrong but that’s my prerogative. What do you base your opinion on ? the fact CSI is a bit far fetched. In the last 10yrs how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed ? It is literally a problem that real forensic scientists have been complaining about for quite some time. People assume that forensics are infallible, and as your sister should be able to tell you, they are not. Nothing is infallible, i never claimed that. I pointed out that the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted is less today than 10yrs ago due to the advances in modern science. I’m still waiting to hear how many wrongful convictions have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs There's an interesting, long, article in The Atlantic about this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. That is not to say that the forensic process is flawed now, but methods and assessments change. Shaken baby syndrome was "a thing". Apparently, it now isn't. You convict, hopefully, because you think that is the correct thing to do. I'd suggest from a practical perspective, that it is almost impossible to have enough certainty to kill someone. That without the moral argument of you state killing someone. Should the state protect it's citizens from crime or should it punish them for committing them? If you get it wrong you can, just about, compensate someone financially for having their liberty removed for an extended period. What's the price for hard labour or torture or death? Give me a number or form of recompense that you feel appropriate. You have to base the system on having a solution for the worst case. So what's that solution? The rest is easy. So many people come on here and tell us what we shouldn’t do but very few seem to give an alternative. Speaking from a personal point of view If someone murdered a relative/ family member of mine I’d have no problem in seeing them executed. Thankfully, what you want isn't important. That can be said about each and every one of us, you still haven’t given me any examples of wrongful convictions that have resulted in someone being wrongly executed in the last 10yrs, you’ve had more than enough time to search the internet. " I did though: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/ It does not give any recent examples but it does outline systematic failures in the FBI before then and the potential for current conflicts of interest. The point is that the FBI failures were discovered long after the event, so if you'd asked the same question at the time you'd have discovered no problems. | |||
"I'm not sure you understand that there are levels of rationality and differences between individuals on the opinions of what is rational. It is clearly rational to that person to make a decision to send a dog in rather than do it personally. Rationality is not as black and white as right and wrong, ( which is in itself a variable concept) which is what you are confusing this with. Wrong. If your aim is to avoid jail, then the rational decision is to not do things that increase your risk of going to jail. This is objectively correct. There is no argument to be had. But, what you have done is just made my point for me. You've demonstrated that people will make decisions, coloured by their own poor judgement. Like this fairy tale of setting dogs on people. Or more pertinent to this, committing murder. As you said it's variable. So we cannot rely on the death penalty as a deterrent, because as you've helpfully said, people will just justify it to themselves as being 'rational', and in order for it to work as a deterrent it would have to override this poor decision making that humans have. So, thanks for taking my argument and parroting it back at me as if it disproved itself, I guess." You have an extremely muddled way of thinking and not a single one of your contentions in this post is correct. If a person uses a secondary means to murder someone in order to avoid the death penalty, they are making a rational choice. Rationality is not confined to decisions you approve of. Therefore, that rational choice would avoid the death penalty . However, in the context of the theme of this thread, it is all totally irrelevant. | |||
| |||
"And you would be happy if one of those innocents was a close relative or even yourself? What has my personal feelings if I am somehow involved in a miscarriage of justice gt to do with anything? We have laws and a criminal justice system overseen by judges that is designed to make the enforcement of punishments impersonal. I or others may not like verdicts or sentences but so what? It is a question of deterrents. As for the claim that those committing violent crime do not make risk benefit calculations I would point out to you that the preferred weapon af many gangsters today are attack dogs because if the dog does serious damage or kills in most cases the gangster if caught will be charged with having a dangerous dog out of control with a maximum of 14 years if the dog kills (manslaughter carries a maximum of life) and for injury 5 years (whereas malicious wounding with intent is 12 years). To believe that violent gangsters do not 'play the system' is nieve at best." So you would happily do nothing if your brother, sister, son, daughter was on death row after being convicted for a murder you knew they did not commit because the criminal justice system is allowed to make one or two mistakes? | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. " Amazing that grown adults don't understand the 'makes the whole world blind' element of this saying. Kids can get it. | |||
| |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. Amazing that grown adults don't understand the 'makes the whole world blind' element of this saying. Kids can get it. " I prefer: 'Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself'. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. " ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent?" Same could be said for any form of punishment, why punish anyone then, you might get the conviction wrong | |||
"I'm not too bothered about there being a death penalty or not but would rather people found guilty are sent to the worst horrible shit hole of a prison with extreme hard labour and occasional torture thrown in for good measure. Life for them should be made unbearable as to make them wish they were dead. That's when you get true punishment for horrific crimes.... the death penalty is an easy way out for them that they don't deserve. On hey, look, it's the death penalty's just as awful cousin. Was wondering when the people advocating torture would show up..." You're most welcome  | |||
| |||
"You have an extremely muddled way of thinking and not a single one of your contentions in this post is correct." It's really quite clear. People are terrible at making choices, and do not make rational ones. There's a reason we have invented things like statistics in order to That you dispute this is stupifying, but also the way in which you do so just proves the above. You contend that suboptimal decision making is actually rational. But even if I were to grant you your premise, then we're still back to square one. The deterrence of a death penalty cannot work, because despite knowing about it people still make choices to commit acts that carry that penalty. So, in summation, you're wrong, and even if you weren't you'd still not making the case for the death penalty as a deterrent. Well done. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? Same could be said for any form of punishment, why punish anyone then, you might get the conviction wrong "Murder has this funny trick about it of being irreversible. You'd think you'd have known that.... | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? Same could be said for any form of punishment, why punish anyone then, you might get the conviction wrong
Murder has this funny trick about it of being irreversible.
You'd think you'd have known that...."ohh so condescending  | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? Same could be said for any form of punishment, why punish anyone then, you might get the conviction wrong
Murder has this funny trick about it of being irreversible.
You'd think you'd have known that....
ohh so condescending "Well, if you're going to say stupid things. | |||
"You have an extremely muddled way of thinking and not a single one of your contentions in this post is correct. It's really quite clear. People are terrible at making choices, and do not make rational ones. There's a reason we have invented things like statistics in order to That you dispute this is stupifying, but also the way in which you do so just proves the above. You contend that suboptimal decision making is actually rational. But even if I were to grant you your premise, then we're still back to square one. The deterrence of a death penalty cannot work, because despite knowing about it people still make choices to commit acts that carry that penalty. So, in summation, you're wrong, and even if you weren't you'd still not making the case for the death penalty as a deterrent. Well done. " You miss the point by a mile. Rationality is subjective. It depends on culture, upbringing and social norms. Your version is never going to be the same as anyone else's. It's fine you have an opinion but it is just that. Nothing more. | |||
"You have an extremely muddled way of thinking and not a single one of your contentions in this post is correct. It's really quite clear. People are terrible at making choices, and do not make rational ones. There's a reason we have invented things like statistics in order to That you dispute this is stupifying, but also the way in which you do so just proves the above. You contend that suboptimal decision making is actually rational. But even if I were to grant you your premise, then we're still back to square one. The deterrence of a death penalty cannot work, because despite knowing about it people still make choices to commit acts that carry that penalty. So, in summation, you're wrong, and even if you weren't you'd still not making the case for the death penalty as a deterrent. Well done. You miss the point by a mile. Rationality is subjective. It depends on culture, upbringing and social norms. Your version is never going to be the same as anyone else's. It's fine you have an opinion but it is just that. Nothing more. " Some opinions are informed others are emotional and therefore rarely rational. | |||
"You have an extremely muddled way of thinking and not a single one of your contentions in this post is correct. It's really quite clear. People are terrible at making choices, and do not make rational ones. There's a reason we have invented things like statistics in order to That you dispute this is stupifying, but also the way in which you do so just proves the above. You contend that suboptimal decision making is actually rational. But even if I were to grant you your premise, then we're still back to square one. The deterrence of a death penalty cannot work, because despite knowing about it people still make choices to commit acts that carry that penalty. So, in summation, you're wrong, and even if you weren't you'd still not making the case for the death penalty as a deterrent. Well done. You miss the point by a mile. Rationality is subjective. It depends on culture, upbringing and social norms. Your version is never going to be the same as anyone else's. It's fine you have an opinion but it is just that. Nothing more. " Except it isn't to the degree that you're positing. That's the point of rationality - that you can reason through the decision, and it logically flows from premise to conclusion. Your version is simply saying "any decision that is made is rational" which is drivel. People make objectively poor decisions all the time, people act against their own self interests all the time, and people just straight up do stupid things. Because people are not rational. Case in point, people living under places that have the death penalty will still commit crimes that Carey the death penalty, because people are not rational. | |||
| |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent?" You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. " We know our justice system is fallible. Therefore, having executions as a possible punishment means we will end up executing innocent people. This isn't a difficult premise to grasp. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. We know our justice system is fallible. Therefore, having executions as a possible punishment means we will end up executing innocent people. This isn't a difficult premise to grasp." I do hate repeating myself but can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. We know our justice system is fallible. Therefore, having executions as a possible punishment means we will end up executing innocent people. This isn't a difficult premise to grasp. I do hate repeating myself but can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. " At a low bound estimate, 4% of the people on death row in the US were and are innocent. And the actual number is probably higher, as once someone has been executed there is little motive and money to keep the case open. Of course, even if there wasn't a single person wrongly executed in the last fifteen years (and there were) you'd still not have a point, because unless you're going to argue that the legal system is infallible then wrongfully executed people is an unavoidable part of any legal system that has the death penalty. | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. Amazing that grown adults don't understand the 'makes the whole world blind' element of this saying. Kids can get it. I prefer: 'Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself'." So not kill them then? | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. " Look up Ledell Lee, Arkansas | |||
"The people condemned to death are undoubtedly guilty - they were photographed- but the issue is that often it's a crime that goes completely unpunished but it caused international horror and highlighted a deeper, institutional disregard for the victims, being women. They simply did not matter. The message given by this death penalty being upheld is, surely, is that they, or at least this one girl, did." This means that you have a different punishment for exactly the same crime because you were stupid or "unlucky" enough to be caught red handed. Should specific individuals suffer a harsher sentence to make an example of them? If there is a particular media frenzy should the sentence be different. Same crime, same penalty. Either your guilty or innocent. Some flexibility over the length of tariff is reasonable due to severity but life or death? | |||
"Eye for an eye. . . Any day of the week and I wouldn't complain. ...and if you gouge out the eye or rip out the tooth of someone innocent? You keep saying “ innocent” , yet can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. We know our justice system is fallible. Therefore, having executions as a possible punishment means we will end up executing innocent people. This isn't a difficult premise to grasp. I do hate repeating myself but can you point out someone “ innocent” who’s been executed in the last 10-15yrs. At a low bound estimate, 4% of the people on death row in the US were and are innocent. And the actual number is probably higher, as once someone has been executed there is little motive and money to keep the case open. Of course, even if there wasn't a single person wrongly executed in the last fifteen years (and there were) you'd still not have a point, because unless you're going to argue that the legal system is infallible then wrongfully executed people is an unavoidable part of any legal system that has the death penalty." We’re going around in circles, you still haven’t given me an example of someone wrongly executed. I’m not claiming that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, for me it would be retribution, I’m not proud of it but I’m a vengeful person. A friend of mine had his daughter murdered a number of years ago, the guy who murdered her had already served time for a previous murder. He told me he always disagreed with the death penalty but after finding out this guy had already served time his views changed. Where there is no death penalty then life should mean life, lock them up and throw away the key | |||
"We’re going around in circles, you still haven’t given me an example of someone wrongly executed." And as shown, that shouldn't matter. Unless you want to make the case that our justice system is infallible. And if you did that's going to clash with your story about how you're OK with wanting the state to carry out your revenge fantasies | |||
"We’re going around in circles, you still haven’t given me an example of someone wrongly executed. And as shown, that shouldn't matter. Unless you want to make the case that our justice system is infallible. And if you did that's going to clash with your story about how you're OK with wanting the state to carry out your revenge fantasies" I’ve never said it was infallible, read back through my posts. It’s obviously not infallible, look at the murder reoffending rates, yeah let’s give them another chance ?? | |||
"We’re going around in circles, you still haven’t given me an example of someone wrongly executed. And as shown, that shouldn't matter. Unless you want to make the case that our justice system is infallible. And if you did that's going to clash with your story about how you're OK with wanting the state to carry out your revenge fantasies I’ve never said it was infallible, read back through my posts. " Then you know that innocent people being sentenced to death in an inevitable result of having the death penalty in such a system. Which raises the question - why waste time demanding that people tell you of people who have been wrongfully executed? | |||
" Then you know that innocent people being sentenced to death in an inevitable result of having the death penalty in such a system. Which raises the question - why waste time demanding that people tell you of people who have been wrongfully executed?" For posterity I'd like you to view your b"elieve all women" type arguments in this way. Be consistent | |||
| |||
" Then you know that innocent people being sentenced to death in an inevitable result of having the death penalty in such a system. Which raises the question - why waste time demanding that people tell you of people who have been wrongfully executed? For posterity I'd like you to view your b"elieve all women" type arguments in this way. Be consistent "Well done on continuing your trend of stupifying ignorance. Believe all women means that when someone makes an accusation of sexual assault, you actually take it seriously. Not that you believe it unquestioningly. Now, feel free to misrepresent this simple concept at your leisure. | |||
"May I just nudge everybody back to the original post? It is really about the death penalty for a violent sexual assault and murder in plain sight being confirmed, in an eastern country, not the West." The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. | |||
| |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over." So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.  | |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes. "Yes. Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent? | |||
"Well god as spoken guys thread over lol" ????Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. | |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.
Yes.
Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?"You have an opinion...you think your right, you think your arguments support those thoughts....common denominator, YOU think. Any argument to the contrary of your thoughts are dismissed, why, because you think.....An emotive subject where opinions vary drastically, personally, I am in favour of the death penalty. Do you care, of course not, because you think....  | |||
"Well god as spoken guys thread over lol ????Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. " Come on now, despite that old adage you've been accommodated more than adequately. | |||
"Yes. Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?" No Tangent, I just wonder if you would be so principled if the choice were kill a killer of watch that killer murder your whole family before killing you. | |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.
Yes.
Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?
You have an opinion...you think your right, you think your arguments support those thoughts....common denominator, YOU think. Any argument to the contrary of your thoughts are dismissed, why, because you think.....An emotive subject where opinions vary drastically, personally, I am in favour of the death penalty. Do you care, of course not, because you think.... "That's nice. But how many innocent people being sentenced to death do you consider acceptable? | |||
"Yes. Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent? No Tangent, I just wonder if you would be so principled if the choice were kill a killer of watch that killer murder your whole family before killing you. " Want to try that again? | |||
"Want to try that again?" So not willing to say you would watch your family die if the only other option was killing yourself. I think you should step away from the keyboard now. | |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.
Yes.
Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?
You have an opinion...you think your right, you think your arguments support those thoughts....common denominator, YOU think. Any argument to the contrary of your thoughts are dismissed, why, because you think.....An emotive subject where opinions vary drastically, personally, I am in favour of the death penalty. Do you care, of course not, because you think....
That's nice.
But how many innocent people being sentenced to death do you consider acceptable?"Why is it "nice"? Do you feel being condescending will help your argument? And as to your question...none. How many people being murdered due to any real lack of deterrent to you find acceptable? | |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.
Yes.
Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?
You have an opinion...you think your right, you think your arguments support those thoughts....common denominator, YOU think. Any argument to the contrary of your thoughts are dismissed, why, because you think.....An emotive subject where opinions vary drastically, personally, I am in favour of the death penalty. Do you care, of course not, because you think....
That's nice.
But how many innocent people being sentenced to death do you consider acceptable?
Why is it "nice"? Do you feel being condescending will help your argument? And as to your question...none. How many people being murdered due to any real lack of deterrent to you find acceptable? "Then you cannot also support the death penalty. The two are mutually exclusive. As for your question, the death penalty is not a deterrent. But if we pretend that it is then the answer is all of them. | |||
"How many people being murdered due to any real lack of deterrent to you find acceptable? " He has answered that... Overseeing over 1.2 million (Rudolf Höss commandant of Birkenau death camp) is not enough to merit the death penalty. | |||
"Want to try that again? So not willing to say you would watch your family die if the only other option was killing yourself. I think you should step away from the keyboard now." And that has what to do with the topic at hand? Also, if your going to concoct bullshit scenarios, go fucking hogwild. Throw some ninja nuns and robo assassins in there. Put some fucking effort in. | |||
"How many people being murdered due to any real lack of deterrent to you find acceptable? He has answered that... Overseeing over 1.2 million (Rudolf Höss commandant of Birkenau death camp) is not enough to merit the death penalty. " First correct thing you've said. | |||
| |||
"You murder someone, you die, end of, no ifs, no buts. " And how do you square that with the fact that the justice system can and does make mistakes? | |||
"You murder someone, you die, end of, no ifs, no buts. And how do you square that with the fact that the justice system can and does make mistakes?" Outside of Evans name one? No Googling.... S | |||
"You murder someone, you die, end of, no ifs, no buts. And how do you square that with the fact that the justice system can and does make mistakes? Outside of Evans name one? No Googling.... S" Again, how do you square that with the fact that the justice system can and does make mistakes? | |||
| |||
"The same as any other system does, someone in the NHS chooses who gets the kidney, they live, someone else possibly dies, both innocents. " Except we don't perform kidney transplants as an act of punishment for breaking the law, and more to the point the people involved are there voluntarily. This is a bad analogy. " In this day & age the CPS if they cannot categorically prove premeditated murder will go for manslaughter. This means only those proved or even caught redhanded would ever get charged with murder & not all those would be bad enough to get the death penalty. " Making the case that the justice system is infallible, then denying it. A bold move, but a foolish one. " How about you name one person who has been released as a free man after being acquitted of murder in the last say five years? If you can't then errors are not as common as you appear to make them. " It doesn't actually matter, I consider 0 to be the acceptable number of innocent people being sentenced to death. You're OK with a number greater than zero. What is that number? Is there an upper limit? " I also have no doubt that as I said it would be held back for the worst of the worst, the likes of Brady, The Soham murderers etc. Those that quite literally were caught with blood on their hands. " This is a common refrain. And it relies on the idea that there is are levels of being found guilty, and that there is one where you are super-duper sure that those murderers totally did it. It's halfwitted bollocks. The standard for putting someone to death is the same as for every other crime - beyond reasonable doubt. Also, the idea that you can only reserve the death penalty for the totally, obviously guilty means that you're imaging, and are OK with, a justice system where crimes that aren't murder, you can be found guilty and punished accordingly if your peers are just kinda mostly sure you're guilty. Which is also pretty grotesque, but I've never credited death penalty advocates with thinking things through. | |||
| |||
"The death penalty has no justification, ever. Thread over. So in your world it was no justification for the hanging of SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss and Adolf Eichmann. Also in your world had Hitler not killed himself he should also have been allowed live out his life and die of natural causes.
Yes.
Now that you've gone all the way to Hitler and failed to find an exception, I trust we're done with this tangent?
You have an opinion...you think your right, you think your arguments support those thoughts....common denominator, YOU think. Any argument to the contrary of your thoughts are dismissed, why, because you think.....An emotive subject where opinions vary drastically, personally, I am in favour of the death penalty. Do you care, of course not, because you think....
That's nice.
But how many innocent people being sentenced to death do you consider acceptable?
Why is it "nice"? Do you feel being condescending will help your argument? And as to your question...none. How many people being murdered due to any real lack of deterrent to you find acceptable?
Then you cannot also support the death penalty. The two are mutually exclusive.
As for your question, the death penalty is not a deterrent. But if we pretend that it is then the answer is all of them."Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. I would choose that scenario over your option any day and every day. And as for your "fact" that the death penalty is not a deterrent, you do know your opinion is NOT fact and that for every study you find to support your "fact" there us one to disprove it. I accept you stance on the death penalty, I don't agree with it, but i accept it is your view....you however seem to lack the same acceptan e of any view that differs from your own. | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. " There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. | |||
"At the same time as I cannot give you a figure for innocents " Why can't you? It's your personal limit. Have you tried thinking about it? " However there is one infallible truth. Dead people don't re-offend, the odd released murderer does. Are you happy with this? " I accept it as the price we pay for not having innocent people sentenced to death. So, yes. | |||
" Then you know that innocent people being sentenced to death in an inevitable result of having the death penalty in such a system. Which raises the question - why waste time demanding that people tell you of people who have been wrongfully executed? For posterity I'd like you to view your b"elieve all women" type arguments in this way. Be consistent
Well done on continuing your trend of stupifying ignorance.
Believe all women means that when someone makes an accusation of sexual assault, you actually take it seriously.
Not that you believe it unquestioningly.
Now, feel free to misrepresent this simple concept at your leisure."Words have meanings. Be accurate in your speech. | |||
" There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. " What is a false r*pe charge but a death of reputation, a destroyed life and sometimes involves murder or vicious assault by vigilante groups. Be consistent. | |||
" Then you know that innocent people being sentenced to death in an inevitable result of having the death penalty in such a system. Which raises the question - why waste time demanding that people tell you of people who have been wrongfully executed? For posterity I'd like you to view your b"elieve all women" type arguments in this way. Be consistent
Well done on continuing your trend of stupifying ignorance.
Believe all women means that when someone makes an accusation of sexual assault, you actually take it seriously.
Not that you believe it unquestioningly.
Now, feel free to misrepresent this simple concept at your leisure.
Words have meanings. Be accurate in your speech. "I don't find this to be an issue but I'll be sure to take your advice with the seriousness it deserves. | |||
" There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. What is a false r*pe charge but a death of reputation, a destroyed life and sometimes involves murder or vicious assault by vigilante groups. Be consistent. " Are those the penalties the legal system places on people convicted of a crime? No? How strangely non sequitur of you.... | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite." I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain. | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain. "You're being dishonest. There is no difference between the two questions you're posing. If, as you say, no innocent people being sentenced to death is acceptable to you, then how do you reconcile that with supporting the death penalty, a practice that, as you say, means that innocent people being sentenced to death is inevitable. So, you're either lying about finding innocent people being sentenced to death unacceptable Or You're a hypocrite because you genuinely mean that you find innocent people being sentenced to death unacceptable, but you support the death penalty anyway. And if that is what having class is, then I'll wear your accusation of having none with pride. | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain.
You're being dishonest.
There is no difference between the two questions you're posing.
If, as you say, no innocent people being sentenced to death is acceptable to you, then how do you reconcile that with supporting the death penalty, a practice that, as you say, means that innocent people being sentenced to death is inevitable.
So, you're either lying about finding innocent people being sentenced to death unacceptable
Or
You're a hypocrite because you genuinely mean that you find innocent people being sentenced to death unacceptable, but you support the death penalty anyway.
And if that is what having class is, then I'll wear your accusation of having none with pride."Oh I am sure you do, wear it with pride....and very transparent it is. You seem to wallow in insults when you think you "big" words aren't having the desired effect...a true keyboard warrior...and proud of it. At least you can cal, a spade a spade and see yourself for what you are....good on you. | |||
| |||
"I guess that's a no on some introspection on the whole "I won't accept a single innocent person being sentenced to death, but the death penalty is OK with me" angle then?" It's simple really....there is a choice of two unacceptable choices, we can't abstain, we have to choose....both have their flaws and we feel neither is idea...it comes down to opinion and how we weigh both up. Unless you are saying that freed murders who re-ofend and the very small %, in your eyes, who would be deterred by the death sentence are an acceptable price to pay? How would you then feel if one of those that re-ofended did so with a family member of yourself? I am guessing you are going to say that it would make no difference to your opinion on the matter....then I would say you are the liar if so. | |||
"It's simple really....there is a choice of two unacceptable choices, we can't abstain, we have to choose....both have their flaws and we feel neither is idea...it comes down to opinion and how we weigh both up. Unless you are saying that freed murders who re-ofend and the very small %, in your eyes, who would be deterred by the death sentence are an acceptable price to pay? " I don't know how you've missed it, as it's a question I've answered several times already, but yes, the status quo is a something I am willing to accept that because the alternative of even a single innocent people being sentenced to death is unacceptable. That's what something being unacceptable means. " How would you then feel if one of those that re-ofended did so with a family member of yourself? I am guessing you are going to say that it would make no difference to your opinion on the matter....then I would say you are the liar if so. " As it stands, it does make no difference. That could happen, but I'm not willing to trade innocent people being sentenced to death in the here and now on the off chance that maybe something terrible might not happen in the future. If you're asking after a hypothetical murdering of someone close to me, then I'm sure with my mind clouded with rage and grief I'd be baying for blood. Which is why I'm glad I live in a country where capital punishment is outlawed - to protect wrongly accused people from the blind rage of the grief stricken. | |||
| |||
"for every study you find to support your "fact" there us one to disprove it." This is not true. The evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent is not 50:50 for/against. Not close. | |||
| |||
"It's simple really....there is a choice of two unacceptable choices, we can't abstain, we have to choose....both have their flaws and we feel neither is idea...it comes down to opinion and how we weigh both up. Unless you are saying that freed murders who re-ofend and the very small %, in your eyes, who would be deterred by the death sentence are an acceptable price to pay? I don't know how you've missed it, as it's a question I've answered several times already, but yes, the status quo is a something I am willing to accept that because the alternative of even a single innocent people being sentenced to death is unacceptable. That's what something being unacceptable means. Your argument is full of holes...on the one hand you are saying that it's unacceptable for one single innocent person to be wrongly sentenced to death but on the other hand it's "acceptable" if a re-offender kills an innocent person...both ways an innocent person dies. Should it not be down to which is more likely to happen, in other words the least unacceptable (if you would like to explain what that means to me in your condescending manner again please) And my opinion is based on today's forensic science and technology being able to almost eliminate the possibility(not completely but enough to make it the right choice, imo) of an innocent person being wrongly sentenced to death. How would you then feel if one of those that re-ofended did so with a family member of yourself? I am guessing you are going to say that it would make no difference to your opinion on the matter....then I would say you are the liar if so. As it stands, it does make no difference. That could happen, but I'm not willing to trade innocent people being sentenced to death in the here and now on the off chance that maybe something terrible might not happen in the future. If you're asking after a hypothetical murdering of someone close to me, then I'm sure with my mind clouded with rage and grief I'd be baying for blood. Which is why I'm glad I live in a country where capital punishment is outlawed - to protect wrongly accused people from the blind rage of the grief stricken." | |||
| |||
"For or against, everyone has an opinion, as they should. If someone is convicted of murder, by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence that made their decision of guilt nearly 100% accurate. That means nearly no one innocent would face the death penalty. But, nearly no one, is not zero, so, is nearly no one innocent being put to death acceptable? Some would say yes, and others would say no, of course. I think the question should be, is, " based on many factors, including the cost to house federal prisoners, which by the Federal Register of the US government, from the Director of Prisons, average yearly cost to house a single prisoner, as of 2015, was $ 31,977.65 us. dollars, $ 87.61 per day " , is nearly no one innocent getting the death penalty tolerable?, not acceptable ! To ensure justice has been served "in the eyes" of the people effected by the murder, and for the public to perceive that justice has been done correctly, and the murderer punished accordingly, I would say yes, it is tolerable. The benefits of it being "tolerable", "for justice sake in the public mind", "or as a deterrent for murder, which it has been a deterrent in some causes "fact", which saved the lives of those individuals", "or the ridiculous expenditure of taxpayer dollars to house these convicted murderers for the rest of their life, which the corrupt corporations that run these prisons reap the huge profits from", "and other benefits not mentioned", totally outweighs any argument someone has against using the death penalty in violent premeditated murder cases ! Logically, if you consider "all" the factors, the "pros" will always win over the "cons" in this argument. But, that being said, the far reaching powers of wealth that control such things, will always choose to do what's most profitable for them, while trying to maintain an acceptable balance between both issues, just to pacify the general public ! So, there is no use wasting your time debating back and forth on this subject, its a mute debate. " Are you putting a price on life? | |||
"I guess that's a no on some introspection on the whole "I won't accept a single innocent person being sentenced to death, but the death penalty is OK with me" angle then?" That is bullshit! You have already said in answer o my post: He has answered that... Overseeing over 1.2 million (Rudolf Höss commandant of Birkenau death camp) is not enough to merit the death penalty. "First correct thing you've said." Therefore all your posturing about innocents being executed after miscarriages of justice is nothing more than you looking for a way to justify your position. Thus suggesting that you feel it requires some legitimisation. Now if you were to say "I am a member of The Society of Friends" (a Quaker) or "I am a registered pacifist and conscientious objector" and " I am fundamentally opposed to all violence" then I for one would have a lot more respect for you and your position. but clearly this is not the case because Quakers and true conscientious objectors open with a statement of who and what they are. | |||
" If you're asking after a hypothetical murdering of someone close to me, then I'm sure with my mind clouded with rage and grief I'd be baying for blood. Which is why I'm glad I live in a country where capital punishment is outlawed - to protect wrongly accused people from the blind rage of the grief stricken." I don't see how wanting a murderer of a close family member dead is either "Blind rage" or "Vengeance" (a word you used in an earlier response). I see it as wanting justice, an eye for an eye if you will. Now if we are talking "We think xyz did it, but no conclusive evidence so far that it was them or that it was premeditated" Then they wouldn't get charged or they would be charged with manslaughter so no death sentence. Thing that makes people want its return in the UK is not vengeance or retribution but the fact the justice system fails us every single day.. A lesser murderer (one off event type) can be back on the street in ten years (usually more like fifteen though). If life truly meant life as it did for Brady & Hindley then very few would probably advocate its return. On another post someone mentioned financial cost @ $30k. Here in the UK the figure is nearer £100k py. Not that cost should have an influence but in the UK it does as successive governments have failed over the last thirty years to build enough new prisons & increase space to keep up. Ergo offenders rarely serve their full sentence, sentences which for a lot of crimes are inadequate in the first place. So some in the UK have an overall feeling that justice is rarely served as full terms are rarely served. Off to work S | |||
| |||
"John..I'll frame it this way and just answer yes or no to these two questions please. You seem happy that some innocent people maybe be charged when it comes to r*pe accusations but you abhor the idea of innocent people being sentenced to death. Is the difference in your opinion to do with the punishment? Prison + sex offenders register is acceptable for an innocent person but death is not? " We know our legal system makes mistakes, you can be released from prison and removed from a register You can't be unkilled. | |||
" Therefore all your posturing about innocents being executed after miscarriages of justice is nothing more than you looking for a way to justify your position. " One ought to be able to justify their positions. It's a good thing. Well done on accusing me of having reasons for why I believe what I do. | |||
" I don't see how wanting a murderer of a close family member dead is either "Blind rage" or "Vengeance" (a word you used in an earlier response). " It is literally revenge. The phrase you use to pretend you're talking about justice "an eye for an eye" literally describes revenge. " "We think xyz did it, but no conclusive evidence so far that it was them or that it was premeditated" Then they wouldn't get charged or they would be charged with manslaughter so no death sentence. " Once again, you make the argument that the legal system makes no mistakes. You are, of course, wrong. So I won't be accepting your naïve faith as anything more than that. Also "no conclusive evidence" seems like a really weak case for anything, let alone manslaughter. Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about. " Thing that makes people want its return in the UK is not vengeance or retribution but the fact the justice system fails us every single day.. " That and they're idiots. OK, just because they're craven idiots who want someone else to carry out their impotent murder fantasies and pretend it's justice. | |||
"You murder someone, you die, end of, no ifs, no buts. And how do you square that with the fact that the justice system can and does make mistakes? Outside of Evans name one? No Googling.... S" Birmingham 6, Guildford 4. That's 10 people found guilty of murder who it turned out were actually innocent straight of the top of my head. | |||
| |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain. "This just doesn't make sense. When asked how many innocent people being executed you would find acceptable you say none but then, in the very next sentence say that you willing to accept that innocent people will be executed as the lesser of two evils. Either innocent people being executed is acceptable or unacceptable, you can't say that it's unacceptable buy you accept it. Can you not see that? | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain.
This just doesn't make sense. When asked how many innocent people being executed you would find acceptable you say none but then, in the very next sentence say that you willing to accept that innocent people will be executed as the lesser of two evils.
Either innocent people being executed is acceptable or unacceptable, you can't say that it's unacceptable buy you accept it. Can you not see that?"You say that like everything is black or white, it's not...in life there are things i find unacceptable but just have to accept them. Are you saying that you find capital punishment unacceptable? If so, what exactly are you doing, in a proactive way, about that? At a guess, nothing....you have just accepted that things you find unacceptable go on, that you can't change. | |||
"John..I'll frame it this way and just answer yes or no to these two questions please. You seem happy that some innocent people maybe be charged when it comes to r*pe accusations but you abhor the idea of innocent people being sentenced to death. Is the difference in your opinion to do with the punishment? Prison + sex offenders register is acceptable for an innocent person but death is not? We know our legal system makes mistakes, you can be released from prison and removed from a register You can't be unkilled." Just as we know accused r*pists get fucked up by society both in and out of prison. I'd probably rather be dead than falsely accused of r*pe and the vigilantism and stigma that comes with it. | |||
"John..I'll frame it this way and just answer yes or no to these two questions please. You seem happy that some innocent people maybe be charged when it comes to r*pe accusations but you abhor the idea of innocent people being sentenced to death. Is the difference in your opinion to do with the punishment? Prison + sex offenders register is acceptable for an innocent person but death is not? We know our legal system makes mistakes, you can be released from prison and removed from a register You can't be unkilled. Just as we know accused r*pists get fucked up by society both in and out of prison. I'd probably rather be dead than falsely accused of r*pe and the vigilantism and stigma that comes with it. " I commend your commitment to trying to shoehorn this in here. Maybe one day you'll learn not to be terrified of women. | |||
"I generally am opposed to the death sentence in all circumstances. I see if as barbaric and no better than any other murder. " I too am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and agree that it is barbaric and totally unacceptable. However, whilst it may be no better than murder it is not actually murder. By definition murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. An execution carried, after following due process and in accordance with the law is a legal killing so cannot be called murder. It's still totally unacceptable to me. No it's, no nuts, unacceptable means I won't accept it under any condition or circumstances. | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain.
This just doesn't make sense. When asked how many innocent people being executed you would find acceptable you say none but then, in the very next sentence say that you willing to accept that innocent people will be executed as the lesser of two evils.
Either innocent people being executed is acceptable or unacceptable, you can't say that it's unacceptable buy you accept it. Can you not see that?
You say that like everything is black or white"In this case, it is. You can't find innocent people being executed unacceptable and at the same time say that you're prepared to accept innocent people being executed. There is no moral grey area, it is black or white. | |||
"Wrong...and you won't like that will you? You asked how many I considered acceptable....my answer was none. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, I find none executable but accept some are inevitable...there is a difference. There isn't. The price of having the death penalty as a punishment is that innocent people will be sentenced to death. That cannot be avoided, hence mutual exclusivity. You admit as much, but the try to get around that by wringing your hands and going "Ohh, I don't want any innocent people to be sentenced to death, but it can't be helped". If you find the price of the death penalty to be unacceptable, you cannot also support it. Doing so makes you either a liar or a hypocrite. I think you will find you asked how many innocent people being sentenced to death I found acceptable, not whether I found the death penalty acceptable...none is still my answer, but in my eyes it's the lesser of two evils. You never asked if I thought the price was UN acceptable...like I said, the lesser of two evils. Again you have resorted to name calling, I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite, and I will rise above your insinuations and have some class and refrain from retaliating in similar vain.
This just doesn't make sense. When asked how many innocent people being executed you would find acceptable you say none but then, in the very next sentence say that you willing to accept that innocent people will be executed as the lesser of two evils.
Either innocent people being executed is acceptable or unacceptable, you can't say that it's unacceptable buy you accept it. Can you not see that?
You say that like everything is black or white, it's not...in life there are things i find unacceptable but just have to accept them. Are you saying that you find capital punishment unacceptable? If so, what exactly are you doing, in a proactive way, about that? At a guess, nothing....you have just accepted that things you find unacceptable go on, that you can't change. "It's either unacceptable or acceptable. It can't be unacceptable but acceptable. I find capital punishment unacceptable and I campaign and argue against at every opportunity. You claim that you think innocent people being executed is unacceptable but then argue for the one thing that makes what you say is unacceptable to you even more likely. You clearly don't find innocent people being executed unacceptable, in fact you clearly believe that innocent people being executed is an acceptable price to pay. | |||
"It's either unacceptable or acceptable. It can't be unacceptable but acceptable. I find capital punishment unacceptable and I campaign and argue against at every opportunity. You claim that you think innocent people being executed is unacceptable but then argue for the one thing that makes what you say is unacceptable to you even more likely. You clearly don't find innocent people being executed unacceptable, in fact you clearly believe that innocent people being executed is an acceptable price to pay." A question: If it could be shown that having rapid capital punishment available reduced murders by more than those put to death by the state, would you change your position? | |||
"It's either unacceptable or acceptable. It can't be unacceptable but acceptable. I find capital punishment unacceptable and I campaign and argue against at every opportunity. You claim that you think innocent people being executed is unacceptable but then argue for the one thing that makes what you say is unacceptable to you even more likely. You clearly don't find innocent people being executed unacceptable, in fact you clearly believe that innocent people being executed is an acceptable price to pay. A question: If it could be shown that having rapid capital punishment available reduced murders by more than those put to death by the state, would you change your position?" No. | |||
| |||
" Maybe one day you'll learn not to be terrified of women." Ha ha ha ha | |||
". There is no moral grey area, it is black or white. " And yet your views around the treatment of innocent people are all over the place 
Just a puppet trying and failing to fit a broken ideology into reality.
| |||
". There is no moral grey area, it is black or white. And yet your views around the treatment of innocent people are all over the place
Just a puppet trying and failing to fit a broken ideology into reality.
"OK. | |||
| |||
| |||
" The capital is more to punish them mentally then physically. Because if they are aware of the death date and time then the remaining life is hell and on top of that the jail condition is surely living in hell." I think that society ought to try and hold itself to a higher standard than those it punishes. A radical concept, I know... | |||
| |||
"It's either unacceptable or acceptable. It can't be unacceptable but acceptable. I find capital punishment unacceptable and I campaign and argue against at every opportunity. You claim that you think innocent people being executed is unacceptable but then argue for the one thing that makes what you say is unacceptable to you even more likely. You clearly don't find innocent people being executed unacceptable, in fact you clearly believe that innocent people being executed is an acceptable price to pay. A question: If it could be shown that having rapid capital punishment available reduced murders by more than those put to death by the state, would you change your position?" No. Unacceptable means unacceptable. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Just unacceptable. I completely fail to recognise the moral argument that, in order to stop some innocent people being murdered, it's OK for the state to kill innocent people. It's not a numbers game. | |||
| |||
"I guess that like most people who jaw on about being "tuff on crime" they're happy to play a numbers game because in their heads, they always assume they'd never be on the receiving end of of a miscarriage of justice and then subjected to their own poor ideas." I just don't get you!! You are ok with the same miscarriage when it comes to false r*pe accusations. | |||
"I guess that like most people who jaw on about being "tuff on crime" they're happy to play a numbers game because in their heads, they always assume they'd never be on the receiving end of of a miscarriage of justice and then subjected to their own poor ideas. I just don't get you!! You are ok with the same miscarriage when it comes to false r*pe accusations." OK. | |||
"..for the perpetrators of the bus attack and murder of a young girl in 2016. I'm equivocal about the death sentence in general but, so long as it's a fair trial and those found guilty actually are, this is one sentence I'd support, in that I hope it sets the way for future regard to the severity and consequences, of this crime. Do others feel the same?" Yes | |||
| |||
