Death Penalty

[JAStewart]

they tortured a BABY

whereas I am only advocating punishment to fit the crime

 

You are no better than them still, regardless of who it was done to.

 

torture is torture.

[sheepshagger]

INNOCENCE is the difference the baby was an innocent a baby for crying out loud any one who can do that to a bairn deserves to suffer, as I have no belief in an after life punishment has to start and end in this life.

and for those that do believe in an after life then any crap suffered by them will be as of nothing once their dead.

So justice is served and no real harm done either

[JAStewart]

I don't believe in judgement after death, and yet I still disagree with death penalty.

 

What could be a slower death than the rest of your life in solitary confinement? (I know that that is not what they got but surely thats better than lethal injection etc)

[Njugle]

Sorry SS, i still don't get it. At what age does torture become acceptable then, if you say it is okay to torture an adult and not a child. How about a bad child? How about those two kids who killed the other kid on the railway tracks a few years ago, they tortured him before killing him. Should they be tortured then? Suddenly it has become okay for the 'just' to torture a child then, if that child is not innocent?

 

What emotion would one feel in the issue of this 'justice'? Pleasure? Satisfaction? Achievement? I can understand the pleasure in revenge over someone during a card game, or scoring a goal, but which emotion you exhibit while mutilating another human or animal, bad or good for the purpose of 'justice'? It makes my skin crawl to think of it. I can understand the reasoning of capital punishment, but not torture for 'justice'.

 

Prison, for most, is not the Butlins holiday camp the right wing make it out to be. A book such as "Hard Cell" by Cook and Wilkinson paints a picture of crime and justice that is worthwhile contemplating.

[DePooperit]

The fact remains that this is a pointless discussion. The death penalty isn't going to come back in this country unless there's a major upheaval of a sort that we can't predict at the moment. But dissatisfaction with the justice system is increasing, and that could easily lead to increased vigilanteism - or maybe we should call it sheepshaggerism - in other words, to an insidious breakdown of law and order. That's the issue - the death penalty is an Aunt Sally.

 

And why shouldn't Sheepshagger's views be called extremism? Is it politically incorrect to call extremism extremism nowadays?

[sheepshagger]

When has an expression of views and an open exchange of opinions been pointless depooperit, only when we are ruled by a dictatorship,

or maybe it should be known as a depooperitship

funny thing is this is the first poll that I've ever seen come out in favour of not bringing back the death penalty.

sad as it is the majority does not rule. it is the vocal minority that sways the politicians

[sheepshagger]

You say my views are extremist!

If I was advocating the death penalty for drink driving then maybe you would be justified calling me an extremist.

stop reading others posts that try to tell folk what I'm saying, and actually read what I write

just because you disagree with me does not make me an extremist

[Gibber]

...i was merely addressing the point as to where you draw the line. There is a genuine debate as to whether the act of consuming alcohol or drugs and then commiting a related 'loss of responsibility' crime thereafter should not be reconsidered legally to account for the fact that consuming the substance that affected behaviour was an act of free will in the first place and thus does not negate responsibility.

Thus, if murder was punishable by execution, the death penalty would apply for firstly, and most importantly, choosing to consume a substance that affects behaviour and secondly choosing to drive a vehicle thereafter, for instance. It makes the offence pre-meditated, in a round about fashion.

I was trying to keep it short.

 

 

Yes where you draw the line is something to debate but I think you were trying to come up with a crime that most people wouldn't warrant the death penalty for (yet is still up for debate as murder) to try to show that the death penalty is always inappropriate. I wouldn't want all murders treated the same, there can be degrees of intent, duress and extenuating circumstances.

 

But if a person fcuks a 4 year old up the ass then start slicing bits off with a kitchen knife for their own pleasure then I would want that person extinguished. And if the 4 year old's parents want that too you'd have to be pretty uncivilised to deny them that need.

 

Not quite what i said either, my point about SS's original post was that he implied from the outset that he would not accept any other opinion, making it's appearance in a discussion or debate thread questionable and the tone one of offense. And, for the record, i never called him an extremist either.

 

ok

 

As to the debate, the points SS makes may be rational and even logical, but rationality and logic do not always lead to the best possible outcome.

To use the same analogy i have used elsewhere on this matter, humans may well be animals with a tendency toward civillisation, but to remove the civillisation renders us merely animals, but the sad fact of this is that animals do not kill or mutilate for revenge. So is revenge a measure of our greater ability than other animal species?

 

Yes. Animals don't have a complex system of laws with prescribed sentences for commiting crimes either. (Although the Animals of Farthing Wood might have some kind of rudimentary system in a very limited form.....But thats a cartoon.)

 

So there is no revenge element in justice? No just desserts? No reap what you sow?

 

Liberty like the right to life is also a basic human right, doesn't imprisoning people mean we give up our civilised treatment of other human beings and reduce us to animals too? or is that just reserved for the right to life?

 

Imprisonment is only for deterrence and ideally (although I can't think of a worse way to obtain it than while in a prison); rehabilitation?

 

I'm hungry for revenge! give me my just desserts and serve them cold. If I want forgiveness and cheek turning I'll turn to religion, the most civilised of all human creations.

[JAStewart]

And if the 4 year old's parents want that too you'd have to be pretty uncivilised to deny them that need

 

Wrong. Who are they to decide the fate?

[DePooperit]

An exchange of views which can alter nothing is pointless because it detracts attention from the real issues. To say that to point that out is like 'dictatorship' is to make a completely false equation between me saying that a discussion is pointless, and that discussion being banned. It's simply an attempt to gain a point by twisting the meaning of words.

 

Extremism, on the other hand, means exactly what I say it does. An extreme is one end of a spectrum of views. Being in favour of the death penalty is not extremist. But if institutionalised public torture and maiming by injured parties is not extreme, then please tell me what lies further in the same direction. If extreme views can be protected from being called 'extreme' by some sort of inverted apolitical incorrectness, then words mean nothing and we may as well start voting for the Sheepshagger party now.

[Gibber]

And if the 4 year old's parents want that too you'd have to be pretty uncivilised to deny them that need

 

Wrong. Who are they to decide the fate?

 

I would have thought they would have some interest in the sentencing of their child's murderer.

[JAStewart]

And if the 4 year old's parents want that too you'd have to be pretty uncivilised to deny them that need

 

Wrong. Who are they to decide the fate?

 

I would have thought they would have some interest in the sentencing of their child's murderer.

 

Yes but their judgement will be irrational as they are arguing from a position of emotion rather than logic. I'm sure you can think of examples when emotion has made a silly decision over logic, if I can use this example: Mel Gibson's movie, the Passion of the Christ, it tries to make emotion go over logic, and guilt-trip you into believing it/and Christianity. Thats just one random example that I could think of.

[Gibber]

 

 

Yes but their judgement will be irrational as they are arguing from a position of emotion rather than logic.

 

Here's to logic!

 

http://engineblockers.googlepages.com/SPOCK-WTF.gif

[JAStewart]

Yes but their judgement will be irrational as they are arguing from a position of emotion rather than logic.

Here's to logic!

http://engineblockers.googlepages.com/SPOCK-WTF.gif

 

IE: argument over?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Wrong. Who are they to decide the fate?

I gotta say in a case like that if I were the parent the decision on their fate would depend very much on if the law got to them before me and could protect them for the rest of their life. That would be a personal decision to break the law and not one I'd be asking for legal back up with.

The law is as it is and it's most likely for the best as the price for system error or abuse would be high on this one.