Bring Back Death Penalty

[Kermit power]

Double post removrd

Edited by Kermit power on Saturday 6th October 13:05

[thinfourth2]

Bedazzled said:

thinfourth2 said:

I love how retarded this argument is

So you rubbed your two brain cells together and came up with that little gem; it sounds like something a fat American teenager would say, yet apparently it's the best input you can provide to this debate. Feel free to offer something constructive or fk off.

I love the intelligent arguments that come from the lets kill people side

[thinfourth2]

So the problem appears that jails are too soft and sentences are too short.

Solution

Lets kill murders



Remind me never to get you it fix my clock that is running slow

You chop my leg off

[martin84]

I'm not going to read over the whole thread but I'll just throw in my 2 pence on this subject;

From a purely practical point of view the return of the death penalty would be very dangerous. Down the years many injustices have been uncovered and in some of those cases - such as murders - other countries would've ended up killing innocent people. What level of evidence is strong enough to justify the death penalty and who on Earth would be in charge of deciding that? Would Barry George have been sent to the chair after one of the flimsiest - and subsequently overturned - murder convictions you've ever seen? What about Steve Wright who was convicted based on circumstantial evidence? Lots of circumstantial evidence but circumstantial all the same.

I don't believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent and on the matter of the two Manchester policewomen killed I also don't think it protects the Police. Last year in America more than 3 police officers were killed on duty every week and there's around 16,000 murders in the US every year. Some people think the death penalty deters drug crime. What they overlook is most drug dealers live under the constant threat of being killed and gangland executions tend to be rather less humane than what the US Government has on offer. If you're not afraid of that then you're not afraid of the injection. More than 50% of US prisoners are in prison on drugs charges as they imprison more of their citizens than the Russians did under Soviet rule.

From my own idealogical point of view the death penalty represents revenge rather than justice. Yes I understand people would rather see the likes of Brady put in the ground rather than living off the taxpayer and I understand if anyone here lost their child that way they'd want to flick the lever themselves. All the more reason why parents of dead children aren't in charge of sentencing policy.

[Colonial]

Bedazzled said:

Do you really think using words like retarded is intelligent, or funny, or adds anything to the debate? Grow up.

People like you make me despair for humanity.

[tank slapper]

Bedazzled said:

He was convicted of murder, his first appeal was thrown out after 5 minutes by the judges ruling unanimously that "none of the grounds of appeal was well-founded" and he abandoned his second appeal in order to obtain release on compassionate grounds, just prior to a UK/Libya trade deal. He then enjoyed a remarkable recovery and according to Wiki the US attempted to re-extradite him but were refused by the rebels. You can choose to believe some nutty conspiracy theory if you wish, but as far as the justice system is concerned he was guilty; and imho the world would be a better place without him for those 3 years, if people only had the courage of their convictions.

Have you read Paul Foot's report on the matter? The trial was extremely flawed, and it doesn't require any conspiracy theories to see that. Given the option of going home straight away when you are terminally ill, against fighting for an unknown amount of time through the courts with no guarantee of ever getting out which would you choose?

[thinfourth2]

Bedazzled said:

Colonial said:

People like you make me despair for humanity.

Thanks for sharing. I expect I'll get over it, given time. Anything to add to the debate, other than a cheap shot, or can your brain not quite stretch that far?

So it appear debate is emotive stuff like think of the children and insults

[Tonberry]

Bring back the death penalty? Sensationalist bks.

Anybody would think that we're a developed first world nation.

[davepoth]

IMO, the question to ask isn't "should we kill murderers?" but "Am I happy with having the blood of an innocent person on my hands in the case of a miscarriage of justice?" To which the answer is usually no. Justice is fallible, and I would rather have every murderer in a cushy prison than know that the state has killed an innocent person in my name.

[NailedOn]

pacman1 said:

Oi, sunshine, you have a valid point, but don't go changing my posts and putting words in my mouth without reference to what I said, however flippant.
A simple strike thru of my op with your alteration would be fine.
This is an emotive subject, and there are some feckwits on PH, and I ain't one for gettin' embroiled unless it's of my choosing. Capiche?

Point taken.
How do you strike-through?

[zip929]

thinfourth2 said:

So the problem appears that jails are too soft and sentences are too short.

Solution

Lets kill murders



Remind me never to get you it fix my clock that is running slow

You chop my leg off

So if your relatives were the victims of a heinous crime you would maintain that you give the perpratators a second chance? I doubt it?
Always ok to be pc when it does not affetct you or your immediate family.

[thinfourth2]

zip929 said:

thinfourth2 said:

So the problem appears that jails are too soft and sentences are too short.

Solution

Lets kill murders



Remind me never to get you it fix my clock that is running slow

You'd chop my leg off

So if your relatives were the victims of a heinous crime you would maintain that you give the perpratators a second chance? I doubt it?
Always ok to be pc when it does not affetct you or your immediate family.

Could you please highlight where i said give them a second chance

As i didn't say that


What i did was point out how moronic the solution was of killing people because jail sentences are too short

[zip929]

thinfourth2 said:

zip929 said:

thinfourth2 said:

So the problem appears that jails are too soft and sentences are too short.

Solution

Lets kill murders



Remind me never to get you it fix my clock that is running slow

You'd chop my leg off

So if your relatives were the victims of a heinous crime you would maintain that you give the perpratators a second chance? I doubt it?
Always ok to be pc when it does not affetct you or your immediate family.

Could you please highlight where i said give them a second chance

As i didn't say that


What i did was point out how moronic the solution was of killing people because jail sentences are too short

Where do you sit on this? I believe if you conscsioulsy take a life than you should forfeit your life.

[TheHeretic]

zip929 said:

Where do you sit on this? I believe if you conscsioulsy take a life than you should forfeit your life.

That is all very well, assuming you have the right person.

[Oakey]

zip929 said:

Where do you sit on this? I believe if you conscsioulsy take a life than you should forfeit your life.

Like that utter bd Colin Stagg? Thank god we burnt that fker at the stake, eh?

[thinfourth2]

zip929 said:

Where do you sit on this? I believe if you conscsioulsy take a life than you should forfeit your life.

Okay someone kills someone then we should kill him.

But what about the person that performs the execution then we must kill them also

And the person that executes the executioner must also be executed

and so on and so on




Of course I could also argue that being locked up until the day you die is a far worse fate then going for a very long sleep

[zip929]

TheHeretic said:

zip929 said:

Where do you sit on this? I believe if you conscsioulsy take a life than you should forfeit your life.

That is all very well, assuming you have the right person.

I would agree, it must be beyond all doubt.
Who decides this? It must be a jury.

Let's face it the current system does not seem to deter many from their crimes.

If I was a relative of a victim of murder I would not be happy that the person who killed my relative could be out walking about in 15 years. Why do they deserve a second chance? What about my desceased realtive? Do they get a second chnance, because they happened to meet some asshole at the wrong time? There is far too much emaphasis placed on the rights of the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Makes me sick. You kill someone you lose your rights, what about the rights of the person you killed?
This pc soceiety gets on my tits!

[TheHeretic]

zip929 said:

So if your relatives were the victims of a heinous crime you would maintain that you give the perpratators a second chance? I doubt it?
Always ok to be pc when it does not affetct you or your immediate family.

Objective/Subjective. Justice should not be subjective.

[Oakey]

zip929 said:

I would agree, it must be beyond all doubt.
Who decides this? It must be a jury.

Let's face it the current system does not seem to deter many from their crimes.

If I was a relative of a victim of murder I would not be happy that the person who killed my relative could be out walking about in 15 years. Why do they deserve a second chance? What about my desceased realtive? Do they get a second chnance, because they happened to meet some asshole at the wrong time? There is far too much emaphasis placed on the rights of the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Makes me sick. You kill someone you lose your rights, what about the rights of the person you killed?
This pc soceiety gets on my tits!

Like Colin Stagg yeah? Or are you just going to ignore that inconvenience?

[zip929]

Oakey said:

zip929 said:

I would agree, it must be beyond all doubt.
Who decides this? It must be a jury.

Let's face it the current system does not seem to deter many from their crimes.

If I was a relative of a victim of murder I would not be happy that the person who killed my relative could be out walking about in 15 years. Why do they deserve a second chance? What about my desceased realtive? Do they get a second chnance, because they happened to meet some asshole at the wrong time? There is far too much emaphasis placed on the rights of the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Makes me sick. You kill someone you lose your rights, what about the rights of the person you killed?
This pc soceiety gets on my tits!

Like Colin Stagg yeah? Or are you just going to ignore that inconvenience?

Beyond all doubt.
Where there is doubt, then no.
In the case of the 2 polcie officers shot dead, is there doubt?
I would say not. Let's be rid of that piece of garbage disguising itself as a human.