Bring Back Death Penalty

[TheHeretic]

zip929 said:

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.

If there is doubt, they should not be in prison. We are back to the 'why are people in prison if there is doubt' point.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

zygalski said:

Prison should be tougher. Life should mean life.

I take it you don't work in the prison service. How do you intend controlling prisoners whilst they are in jail, if there is no change of parole or reduced sentence for good behaviour? Or is that just someone else's problem?

Most murderers end up doing 12-15 yrs. A few less, many a lot more. Does anyone really commit a murder unfazed about the prospect of 12 yrs in jail? I just can't see that. I go stir crazy on a long flight!

[Big Fluffy One]

1. What ratio of miscarriages of justice would you consider acceptable? 1:10? 1:100? 1:1000?
2. Would you still hold the same position if it were your son/daughter/mum/dad dangling at the end of a rope for a crime you knew they didn't commit?

[Ozzie Osmond]

zip929 said:

Let's be rid of that piece of garbage disguising itself as a human.

Why?

What do you think that would achieve?

[tinman0]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yeah, but then they'll just build a dodgy submarine thing out of bits and bobs and power it with a chevy engine...

[marcosgt]

TheHeretic said:

zip929 said:

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.

If there is doubt, they should not be in prison. We are back to the 'why are people in prison if there is doubt' point.

I don't always agree with TheHeretic, but zip929, your argument is hopeless.

If there's doubt don't kill them? We don't convict if there's doubt!

Deliberately killing someone deserves death? So the judge and executioner must be put to death too!

The jury will decide? HOW guilty someone is? There should be no grey in this, least of all decided by layman manipulated by legal experts.

We all emote that someone should die for doing something terrible, but sometimes they didn't and you can't unskilled someone... One single innocent death is unacceptable, so why risk making it two in any given case?

It doesn't seem that the pro-lobby think this through, they just react, as many of us might in the heat of the moment, but the death penalty would mark us a barbaric state, as it does where it exists in the US...

Not to mention all the problems and extra cost they have actually implementing it ...

I'm all for making prisoners work for their keep in prison, but killing them to save costs is a very slippery slope into oblivion!


M

[TheHeretic]

marcosgt said:

I don't always agree with TheHeretic, but zip929, your argument is hopeless.
M

There is a first time for everything!

[Countdown]

Kermit said:

Did Libya carry out the bombing? Without doubt.

There's plenty of doubt.

A lot of people think it was the Iranians, in revenge for the shooting down of the Iran Air airliner in 1986.

[otolith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I take it you don't work in the prison service. How do you intend controlling prisoners whilst they are in jail, if there is no change of parole or reduced sentence for good behaviour?

I'd be perfectly happy if the answer to that were "ice cold water cannon". I realise that may not be legislatively feasible.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

otolith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I take it you don't work in the prison service. How do you intend controlling prisoners whilst they are in jail, if there is no change of parole or reduced sentence for good behaviour?

I'd be perfectly happy if the answer to that were "ice cold water cannon". I realise that may not be legislatively feasible.

Also tricky to manoeuvre it up stairs and along narrow corridors and into cells. I'm beginning to think a combination of anger and macho posturing is replacing common sense and practicality in this debate.

[otolith]

Perhaps. I'm just sure that there are ways of controlling people who know that they will never be released, though I'm aware that there are limits in complying with human rights legislation. My personal view is that I would rather a murderer who deserved it got a full life sentence than was released early, even if that means he gets a lifetime of being made to comply with use of force.

[XCP]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

otolith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I take it you don't work in the prison service. How do you intend controlling prisoners whilst they are in jail, if there is no change of parole or reduced sentence for good behaviour?

I'd be perfectly happy if the answer to that were "ice cold water cannon". I realise that may not be legislatively feasible.

Also tricky to manoeuvre it up stairs and along narrow corridors and into cells. I'm beginning to think a combination of anger and macho posturing is replacing common sense and practicality in this debate.

Absolutely true.
All the 'use of force' supporters are happy in the knowledge that they are not going to be the ones applying that force or trying to control these maniacs. Complete idiots!

[otolith]

XCP said:

Absolutely true.
All the 'use of force' supporters are happy in the knowledge that they are not going to be the ones applying that force or trying to control these maniacs. Complete idiots!

If freeing murderers early is the limit of your imagination for carrot and stick, perhaps you are looking too far afield for complete idiocy.

Quite why you think that a long term reward is the most appropriate incentive for a person so unable to prioritise his long term interests over his impulses that he is serving a life sentence for murder is beyond me.

[drivin_me_nuts]

XCP said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

otolith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I take it you don't work in the prison service. How do you intend controlling prisoners whilst they are in jail, if there is no change of parole or reduced sentence for good behaviour?

I'd be perfectly happy if the answer to that were "ice cold water cannon". I realise that may not be legislatively feasible.

Also tricky to manoeuvre it up stairs and along narrow corridors and into cells. I'm beginning to think a combination of anger and macho posturing is replacing common sense and practicality in this debate.

Absolutely true.
All the 'use of force' supporters are happy in the knowledge that they are not going to be the ones applying that force or trying to control these maniacs. Complete idiots!

I do wonder how many of those who would be happy to see the death penalty enforced would be so willing to do it if they were the ones who had to take part in the execution. Of course some would take pleasure in it... but how many would actually be the one to push the plunger, flick the switch or drop the hatch.

When it's 'someone else' doing it, it's easy. When it's 'I' or 'you', then I suspect it's a rather less appealing exercise in the purging of humanity. Too many people reside in prison innocent and one single person executed by the state who is later found innocent is one death too many. At the moment there are far too many injustices, too many cases where the once 'guilty' are later proven innocent. We become collectively responsible for their deaths if they had been executed. I for one do not want that on my conscience. I sincerely hope that it never ever returns.

[TheHeretic]

otolith said:

If freeing murderers early is the limit of your imagination for carrot and stick, perhaps you are looking too far afield for complete idiocy.

Quite why you think that a long term reward is the most appropriate incentive for a person so unable to prioritise his long term interests over his impulses that he is serving a life sentence for murder is beyond me.

You realise that 'Death', or 'release early' are not the only 2 courses of action available?

[otolith]

TheHeretic said:

You realise that 'Death', or 'release early' are not the only 2 courses of action available?

Can you actually read?

I am against the death penalty.

I believe that for those offenders the pro-death advocates hold up as particularly deserving of execution, a whole life tariff is appropriate.

I believe that the argument that whole life tariffs are impractical because the promise of early release is the only way of controlling prisoners is short-sighted.

[TheHeretic]

otolith said:

Can you actually read?

I am against the death penalty.

I believe that for those offenders the pro-death advocates hold up as particularly deserving of execution, a whole life tariff is appropriate.

I believe that the argument that whole life tariffs are impractical because the promise of early release is the only way of controlling prisoners is short-sighted.

Yeah, I k ow you are. I was simply saying that the pro death bunch seem to think that it is either kill them, or let them out. There are so many more options before getting to executions.

[otolith]

TheHeretic said:

Yeah, I k ow you are. I was simply saying that the pro death bunch seem to think that it is either kill them, or let them out. There are so many more options before getting to executions.

Agreed.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Bedazzled said:

in my opinion their life has no meaning whatsoever, they are literally just a waste of oxygen.

Fortunately your opinion is easily recognised as that of an extremist, out of touch with civilised thinking and behaviour.

Bedazzled said:

I can't get my head around why people think it is ok for our government and intelligence services to order the death of people in some far off country, on our behalf.

You've been watching too many James Bond films.

[Zod]

Bedazzled said:

...?

You ducked the question, btw.

There's a big difference between neutralising a terrorist threat and punishing a convicted criminal. For a start, the former is a military rather than a judicial act.