Bring back the death penalty
Discussion
Don't get me wrong, in cases where there is no shadow of doubt that the convicted party was responsible for such a crime, I would ordinarily support the case for the death penalty. Only to do so here would be to give them exactly what they want (IMO) and I'm sorry, I'm not that generous.
The media coverage, the debate, the drawn out trial, even the discussions taking place on forums of all sorts is for them, the next best thing that could happen. Dead or alive, they want the rest of the country talking about them, so even here we are really playing into their hands. The media will sensationalise, the government will procrastinate, and you and me will still discuss the hyperthetical return of the death penalty. Hurah. They win.
In another country, in another time, this would have been handled very differently. Quietly. And while the do gooders would argue that the methods I am suggesting are barbaric, at least they would deny these guys the attention they so obviously seek. Locked away in stark, dank, and cold cells, I wouldn't kill them... But I'd make them wish that I would, and sadly that would be the only punishment fitting the crime in this particular case I think.
Here, and now, justice must be done, and more importantly (For some) must be seen to be done... Just a shame that lame notions of morality tend to cloud the issues.
The media coverage, the debate, the drawn out trial, even the discussions taking place on forums of all sorts is for them, the next best thing that could happen. Dead or alive, they want the rest of the country talking about them, so even here we are really playing into their hands. The media will sensationalise, the government will procrastinate, and you and me will still discuss the hyperthetical return of the death penalty. Hurah. They win.
In another country, in another time, this would have been handled very differently. Quietly. And while the do gooders would argue that the methods I am suggesting are barbaric, at least they would deny these guys the attention they so obviously seek. Locked away in stark, dank, and cold cells, I wouldn't kill them... But I'd make them wish that I would, and sadly that would be the only punishment fitting the crime in this particular case I think.
Here, and now, justice must be done, and more importantly (For some) must be seen to be done... Just a shame that lame notions of morality tend to cloud the issues.
streaky said:
If imprisoned, the killers will probably be removed from association under Rule 45. Otherwise, they will likely find themselves quartered with other Muslim prisoners, where they will probably be among the like-minded.
Streaky
From memory, rule 45 ('numbers') is more about total segregation from the general prison population rather than simply refraining from Association. I can't remember exactly, but I was under the impression those on the segregation wing still have Association. The two in this case will almost certainly be segregated for their own protection.Streaky
V8RX7 said:
What's your view on the army ?
Presumably you want it disbanded as killing is so wrong.
Yeah, presumably. Presumably you want it disbanded as killing is so wrong.
My time in CS95 says otherwise, but hey, you just keep on making assumptions about people.
Presumably, since you seem to think the army is somehow pro death and you have been quite clear you are in favour of state-sanctioned killing, that you've put your money where your mouth is and you've also taken up arms for your country? No?
Quite frankly, I'm utterly at a loss to see how you make a connection between my supposed desire to disband the army and my lack of support for the death penalty. If you could explain your logic to me, I'd sure appreciate it.
Papa Hotel said:
V8RX7 said:
What's your view on the army ?
Presumably you want it disbanded as killing is so wrong.
Yeah, presumably. Presumably you want it disbanded as killing is so wrong.
My time in CS95 says otherwise, but hey, you just keep on making assumptions about people.
Presumably, since you seem to think the army is somehow pro death and you have been quite clear you are in favour of state-sanctioned killing, that you've put your money where your mouth is and you've also taken up arms for your country? No?
Quite frankly, I'm utterly at a loss to see how you make a connection between my supposed desire to disband the army and my lack of support for the death penalty. If you could explain your logic to me, I'd sure appreciate it.
Your position seemed clear
Papa Hotel said:
let's kill, kill, kill.
Are you for or against killing ?"A report from the Scottish Executive confirmed thatthe number of people dying in violent incidents had rocketed to its highest level since 1995.
Most deadly attacks were fuelled by booze or drugs and stabbings were the main cause of fatal injuries.
There were 125 incidents which resulted in killings in 2002 40 of them in Glasgow alone and 127 people died as a result.
The majority of victims were stabbed to death by friends or relatives who were in a drunken rage."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331201/p...
This article was written in 2005. Last year the drunken Glaswegians "only" managed to kill 19 of each other. Still, that's 18 more than Muslim activists in the last couple of years.
Let's get things in perspective. Killing someone is killing someone....end of. As a people we kill more of ourselves in fun than perceived "outsiders" kill in ernest. I'm not keen on the fact that just because these two nutters are black and followers of Islam something suddenly has to be done.
America is every bit as worse. 32,163 gun related deaths in 2011 get shrugged off yet two brothers lose the plot kill 3 people with a pot full of gunpowder and the knee jerkers are calling for blood.
Most deadly attacks were fuelled by booze or drugs and stabbings were the main cause of fatal injuries.
There were 125 incidents which resulted in killings in 2002 40 of them in Glasgow alone and 127 people died as a result.
The majority of victims were stabbed to death by friends or relatives who were in a drunken rage."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331201/p...
This article was written in 2005. Last year the drunken Glaswegians "only" managed to kill 19 of each other. Still, that's 18 more than Muslim activists in the last couple of years.
Let's get things in perspective. Killing someone is killing someone....end of. As a people we kill more of ourselves in fun than perceived "outsiders" kill in ernest. I'm not keen on the fact that just because these two nutters are black and followers of Islam something suddenly has to be done.
America is every bit as worse. 32,163 gun related deaths in 2011 get shrugged off yet two brothers lose the plot kill 3 people with a pot full of gunpowder and the knee jerkers are calling for blood.
I have always been against the death penalty for the primary reason that it is impossible to pardon a dead person. False convictions can and do occur and although that wouldn't be the case here, odds are it would be eventually and that could never be worth it. Besides, if it was reinstated all we'd be doing is creating two more martyrs for other extremists and fundamentalists to idolise.
Additionally, as someone about to undertake jury service next week, I don't think I would be morally comfortable finding someone guilty knowing that my decision and judgement was sending someone to their death. No matter how guilty they were or what crime they committed, simply being responsible for the life of the person (however depraved) before me would make me somewhat uncomfortable.
The system we have in place is a long way from perfect, however bringing back the death sentence is a backwards step and only makes us closer to the fundamentalist Islamic countries we should be distancing ourselves from.
Additionally, as someone about to undertake jury service next week, I don't think I would be morally comfortable finding someone guilty knowing that my decision and judgement was sending someone to their death. No matter how guilty they were or what crime they committed, simply being responsible for the life of the person (however depraved) before me would make me somewhat uncomfortable.
The system we have in place is a long way from perfect, however bringing back the death sentence is a backwards step and only makes us closer to the fundamentalist Islamic countries we should be distancing ourselves from.
10 Pence Short said:
V8RX7 said:
Are you for or against killing ?
I think the question to you was; how are the two comparable (aside from someone ending up dead)?Either killing people is acceptable to you or it isn't.
Hence my question which no one has answered - How is acceptable for Gov't to use the armed forces to kill in your name but not the courts.
The armed forces kill in combat.
They don't kill unarmed surrendered people.
I think it comes down to whether it's an imminent threat.
That said, I am broadly 'for' the death penalty.
I also believe it's relatively easy to understand two versions of 'guilt'.
One based on the balance of probabilities and one based on absolute facts.
But, I don't like the theatre it has become in the US.
They don't kill unarmed surrendered people.
I think it comes down to whether it's an imminent threat.
That said, I am broadly 'for' the death penalty.
I also believe it's relatively easy to understand two versions of 'guilt'.
One based on the balance of probabilities and one based on absolute facts.
But, I don't like the theatre it has become in the US.
V8RX7 said:
Erm THAT'S THE POINT !
Either killing people is acceptable to you or it isn't.
Hence my question which no one has answered - How is acceptable for Gov't to use the armed forces to kill in your name but not the courts.
the answer would be that killing in combat is effectively self-defence, not executionEither killing people is acceptable to you or it isn't.
Hence my question which no one has answered - How is acceptable for Gov't to use the armed forces to kill in your name but not the courts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff