If you could guarantee the verdict, would you pull the rope?

[FerrousOxide]

I guess it boils down to: Do you think it’s wrong to kill people? If “Yes”, don’t do it, if “No”, why exactly are you executing people?

A jury can only go on the evidence put in front of them. Are you confident that nobody in the police, or the DNA lab, or the admin that types up the report, or anywhere in the chain could ever, EVER be bought (probably through blackmail, rather than money)?

If the answer is No, then you’d better pray that you never annoy the wrong person/get seriously unlucky. OK, the odds maybe vanishingly small, but they’re not zero.

[Blown2CV]

not a big fan of mob rule and pitchforks, especially with the advent of social media. I've unfriended a few serial posters on FB who always share posts which 'out' someone for doing something illegal like stealing, sex offences etc... but without any shred of objectivity or evidence... these things just get shared around, and the vitriol in some of the commenters is scary when they have no idea whether the thing they are commenting on is true or even has any basis. If I wanted I could create a fake story about a neighbour i've fallen out with, identifying them as a paedophile or something... post it on one of these type of groups/pages and watch it all bounce round the internet courtesy of knuckle-draggers... i mean it could really ruin their lives, and it would be a piece of piss to do. I am certain it goes on. So yea, not a fan really.

[Vaud]

Genocide (Hitler, etc)... no problem.

A self confessed mass murderer, who voluntarily opted for the death penalty vs a life in prison (as in there is no rehabilitation)... with sufficient safeguards in place... yes, sure.

[Pints]

Vaud said:

Genocide (Hitler, etc)... no problem.

A self confessed mass murderer, who voluntarily opted for the death penalty vs a life in prison (as in there is no rehabilitation)... with sufficient safeguards in place... yes, sure.

What sort of safeguarding? As in, he/she doesn't suffer during the process?

[Vaud]

Pints said:

What sort of safeguarding? As in, he/she doesn't suffer during the process?

Safeguarding, as in it is not a spur of the moment decision by the guilty party.

Extensive screening by docs, etc.

Method? I leave that to the experts.

[King Herald]

EggsBenedict said:

King Herald said:

Where I live, in the Philippines, the new president has orchestrated over 4000 'cullings' of drug suspects. Not convicted felons, not people under charge, just random suspects. Nobody here seems to see anything wrong with that. It seems acceptable to simply go shoot someone who you either think sells drugs, or more likely someone you don't like, or have some beef with.

We're not hearing anything about any murders being investigated either.

Just ironic to be reading a thread about whether to bring back the death penalty, in my home country, when all around me here people are dying like flies.

Edited by King Herald on Saturday 3rd December 16:08

That is surely mad. And shows (1) an astonishing disregard for life and (2) how badly law enforcement has failed in that part of the world.

In terms of the OP, no, I wouldn't want my country to start killing its own citizens. The definition of 'they definitely did it' is too difficult to nail down. It's worth also searching YouTube for 'Hislop death penalty' for a quite funny view of why we should not bring back this form of punishment.

I try to point out to locals that this is a sign that the whole legal system has failed, that the country is falling apart, but no, they are convinced this is a step forward....

Biggest problem here is outright, shameless, blatant corruption, not drugs.

We're leaving in a week or so, enough is enough.