Bring back the death penalty

[otolith]

Balance of probabilities is used in civil cases. Criminal cases are "absolute facts", in so much as such things exist.

[Patrick Bateman]

Red Devil said:

Oh, really? History suggests your view is incredibly naive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III_murde...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_repatriation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audouville-la-Hubert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 25th May 02:22

Clearly he wasn't meaning since the beginning of time. How many of these since WW2?

[TheLordJohn]

Patrick Bateman said:

Red Devil said:

Oh, really? History suggests your view is incredibly naive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III_murde...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_repatriation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audouville-la-Hubert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 25th May 02:22

Clearly he wasn't meaning since the beginning of time. How many of these since WW2?

You're wasting your breath.
It's clearly appropriate to use information from centuries ago to support his argument.

I wonder what you've done to serve your country? Wonder if you'd shoot at a group of people trying to shoot you and your mates?

[Red Devil]

Patrick Bateman said:

Clearly he wasn't meaning since the beginning of time. How many of these since WW2?

What makes you think this sort of thing magically stopped in 1945? The above were relatively easy to find. If you look a little deeper you will find similar atrocitiess took place in Vietnam and Bosnia. It wasn't just civilians that were massacred.

[gazchap]

Derek Bentley is reason enough not to support the death penalty, and Jean Charles de Menezes is reason enough not to trust the state to sanction assassinations.

IMO.

[jondude]

Red Devil said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Clearly he wasn't meaning since the beginning of time. How many of these since WW2?

What makes you think this sort of thing magically stopped in 1945? The above were relatively easy to find. If you look a little deeper you will find similar atrocitiess took place in Vietnam and Bosnia. It wasn't just civilians that were massacred.

The danger with this line of thought is you are very wrongly aligning different events and, more dangerously, it can lead to legitimising the London attack. In essence, that we should show understanding.

If you want to draw parallels, try to research how many Brits have gone to a foreign country, lived there most if not all of their lives and taken citizenship, then walked around high streets with machetes to kill the locals?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

gazchap said:

Jean Charles de Menezes is reason enough not to trust the state to sanction assassinations.

IMO.

That was a dreadful case, but it's not what I have in mind. He was someone who was never on the radar of the security forces, but was picked up on the day as apparently acting suspiciously, followed and shot, wrongly. That could still happen again today under current law. Armed police have the right to shoot if they deem it necessary.

I'm referring to people who are well known to the security forces as people dedicated to the overthrow of our society, who are actively encouraging/facilitating the destruction of our state.

[waynedear]

skirk said:

The death penalty is far too good for this pair of Barbarians......i would keep them alive for as long as possible....but make sure that every remaining second of their lives was filled with extreme pain.

Eyes clamped open and head restraints and forced to watch endless 'Loose Women' should do the trick

[nyxster]

unfortunately then they get their 72 virgins,

Detention for the rest of their life, in a stone windowless prison in the outer hebrides with no blanket, pillows or toilet paper and doing hard labor like breaking rocks on a diet of gruel is the answer.

Make prison the most uncomfortable, depressing and horrific place to spend time and you punish people much better than death.

We have a good existing model for it , it's called travelodge.

[Red Devil]

jondude said:

Red Devil said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Clearly he wasn't meaning since the beginning of time. How many of these since WW2?

What makes you think this sort of thing magically stopped in 1945? The above were relatively easy to find. If you look a little deeper you will find similar atrocitiess took place in Vietnam and Bosnia. It wasn't just civilians that were massacred.

The danger with this line of thought is you are very wrongly aligning different events and, more dangerously, it can lead to legitimising the London attack. In essence, that we should show understanding.

If you want to draw parallels, try to research how many Brits have gone to a foreign country, lived there most if not all of their lives and taken citizenship, then walked around high streets with machetes to kill the locals?

Well done for completely missing the point. If you care to look again you will discover that I was responding to the undermentioned very specific, and demonstrably incorrect, statement by Snowboy.

Snowboy said:

The armed forces kill in combat.
They don't kill unarmed surrendered people.

The continuing inter-relation of Islam and politics is far greater than most other major world wide faiths. If you don't believe me about that inter-relation look up the Constitution of Medina (aka The Charter of Medina).

You have to try and understand someone's mindset before you have a hope of influencing their actions. Propaganda/indoctrination can hold an entire nation in its grip as this individual was well aware..

[highflyer]

Just thought I would ask the question
So what happens next ? a lengthy court case, sentenced to murder and get life imprisonment and us the tax payer pay for it ? probably out in 10
or do they get a nice cosy job in MI5 ?

[HTP99]

highflyer said:

Just thought I would ask the question
So what happens next ? a lengthy court case, sentenced to murder and get life imprisonment and us the tax payer pay for it ? probably out in 10
or do they get a nice cosy job in MI5 ?

Do you really think that they will be out in 10 years, they will be locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

[Gwagon111]

HTP99 said:

Do you really think that they will be out in 10 years, they will be locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

That won't be long.

[HTP99]

Gwagon111 said:

HTP99 said:

Do you really think that they will be out in 10 years, they will be locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

That won't be long.

Quite!

[BJG1]

andygo said:

Except in this case they aredefinately guilty though. Aren't they?

But solitary confinement on less than gourmet food would be an option.

Our burden of proof is already "beyond all reasonable doubt" and people later turn out to be innocent.

[BJG1]

Pip1968 said:

Sorry if this has already been posted but this is what is wrong. Allowing people with these beliefs to stay in a land that is foreign to them. They are here because they remain free and have a freedom which they abuse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22650053

Pip

Only the people who committed this particular crime weren't in a foreign land at all, were they? They came from a Christian background and were race (if not born, I'm not sure) in the UK.

[Gwagon111]

BJG1 said:

Our burden of proof is already "beyond all reasonable doubt" and people later turn out to be innocent.

Hence the reason the 'supermax' model works. The miscarriages of justice can be dealt with, the genuine cases suffer a fate worse than death.

[robrobc]

mikeveal said:

Stick 'em in a leather padded cell and feed 'em pork chops from now until the day they die.

No death penalty, no glorious martyrdom.

You see this is what happens when you have a knee jerk reaction..........................
There is no point feeding them pork......they will not eat it..............far, far better to disguise the pork so it masquerades as q**rn or similar and then, in maybe ten or fifteen years time accidentally let slip that they have been eating pork for the last xx years.

That may make them somewhat unhappy

Glad to help

[TwigtheWonderkid]

1. I think the Koran allows for the eating of pork or any non halal foods if no other alternatives are available.

2. We do not need to bring back the death penalty as we still have it. The maximum penalty for treason is still death in the UK. Charges of treason are very rare, and realisticly the only time a charge of treason and a call for the death penalty would be made would be for the murder of the reigning monarch.

But technically speaking, as these animals are dedicated to the overthrow of our democratic system, a charge of treason could be brought. I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but just pointing it out.

[Snowboy]

Red Devil said:

Snowboy said:

The armed forces kill in combat.
They don't kill unarmed surrendered people.

Oh, really? History suggests your view is incredibly naive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III_murde...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_repatriation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audouville-la-Hubert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 25th May 02:22

Not naive.
Just current.

Also, an awful lot of context has been lost in the quotes.

The original quote was based on the distinction between the military killing people in combat vs the state executing guilty prisoners after a trial.