death sentence in the uk?

[vidcc]

For the sake of argument UK citizens carry out these bomb attacks out of sympathy for groups such as AQ. or just because they disagree with the war.


Should this be classed as treason and should the death penalty be returned for such crimes or should a more inventive punishment be applied (please supply).


I believe assuming they survive they should be executed. The downside is that this does of course make them martyrs :angry: .

I don't see it as a deterrent but purely punishment.

I realise that there are circumstances that would prevent it in reality but for the sake of the thread those can be overcome

[GepperRankins]

i agree with deportation, not execution.


maybe make them sit and listen to what all the other muslims say about them first. i'd feel pretty disgusted at myself if i'd tried this in the name of islam and every muslim i saw called me a n00b and told me i suck at being a muslim. like what they're doing now.


also simply deporting them takes away they're martyrdom and leaves them free to be spat on for the rest of their lives

[vidcc]

i agree with deportation, not execution.


maybe make them sit and listen to what all the other muslims say about them first. i'd feel pretty disgusted at myself if i'd tried this in the name of islam and every muslim i saw called me a n00b and told me i suck at being a muslim. like what they're doing now.


also simply deporting them takes away they're martyrdom and leaves them free to be spat on for the rest of their lives
That is fine for citizens that are immigrants but how and where to do you deport someone born in the country?

[GepperRankins]

the sea :01:

[GepperRankins]

if we were to introduce the death sentence to kill these guys we'd just piss more people off and aggrivate the problem

[GepperRankins]

Find an uninhabited (and uninhabitable) island and air-drop them in.

If all's right between them and Allah, he can do what he will for/to them, and they'll be glad for it.

Right? ;)
i hope you're not suggesting allah is on your side :smilie4:

[Biggles]

I doubt if the death penalty would have any relevance. As I recall, one of the captured bombers in Indonesia demanded the death penalty so he could have his martyrdom.

The difficulty is these people really believe this mad stuff.

We want the backing of every pro-British Muslim in the land. A calm and balanced approach is what we need. If we catch them, convict them and jail them and forget about them.

[vidcc]

if we were to introduce the death sentence to kill these guys we'd just piss more people off and aggrivate the problem

I think just the capture and jailing would achieve this. There have been many "terror attacks" done in conjunction with demanding the release of prisoners.
Would prison not have the same thing as was seen with the IRA where they wanted "political prisoner" status ?

@ biggles

The relevance to me is punishment and revenge pure and simple to make us feel better.

[GepperRankins]

punishment and revenge?

for a start i don't believe revenge can possibly do anything but make the situation worse.

i believe there'll be enough punishment in prison for them too. the main thing is that they can't co-ordinate any terrorism from in their cell.


what's political prisoner status?

and again, i believe execution would increase the risk and gain sympathy for terrorists

[vidcc]

@ gepper

I do understand your reasoning and it is valid.


Punishment is revenge in itself but I was using it in a broader sense of "you try to kill us we will kill you"

History has shown that imprisonment alone is used as a reason to attack so I say what the hell lets execute them.


This (http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/specstat.html) may give you some idea about "political prisoner"

[manker]

Deterence won't work, clearly, with suicide bombers. The punitive measure should, presumably, be unpalatable to them. Execution isn't, therefore keeping them incarcerated - forcing them to benefit our society by doing menial tasks - is a better option. I don't care if it costs the state more.

Denying them rudimentary means with which to worship and not bowing to their specific dietry needs for the remainder of their lives would be a far greater punishment.

I fail to see how I'd feel better if a failed suicide bomber was executed.

[bigboab]

One of the many things I cant comprehend is why is it if you take a piece of land of another country thousands will be killed because of your action. But if you assassinate a the leader of a country, in most cases you will be fed and watered by that country for the rest of your life.

Is a piece of land worth more than a persons life?

[JPaul]

Life in prison, with no prospect of parole. Given nothing but the necessities of life. No entertainment, no cigarettes, nothing but food and water.

Made to work to help pay for their keep.

Keep them alive as long as possible and let others see what they would be in for. Don't make martyrs of them, that just encourages other mentalists to do the same.

The death penalty is wrong. It is barbaric and speaks badly of societies which have it.

[bigboab]

I think I would change my opinion on the death penalty pretty quick if one of my kids was murdered by a paedophile. Albeit I would probably like it to be summarily.

[manker]

I think I would change my opinion on the death penalty pretty quick if one of my kids was murdered by a paedophile. Albeit I would probably like it to be summarily.Is empathy not a strong point, Boab :D

I wouldn't change my mind simply because the issue is directly affecting me all of a sudden. I think your statement is a bit nimbyish.

[bigboab]

I think I would change my opinion on the death penalty pretty quick if one of my kids was murdered by a paedophile. Albeit I would probably like it to be summarily.Is empathy not a strong point, Boab :D

I wouldn't change my mind simply because the issue is directly affecting me all of a sudden. I think your statement is a bit nimbyish.

Is this another new word of yours?:lol:

I assume and hope that it has not affected you. You do not know how you would react if it did. If you ever get the chance try and visit a Criminal Mental Institution. Some 'things' in these establishments make Hannibal Lecter look like Mother Teresa. Hope I got that the right way round.:)

[vidcc]

Deterence won't work, clearly, with suicide bombers. The punitive measure should, presumably, be unpalatable to them. Execution isn't,

How about burying them against their religious beliefs after execution in the case of religious fanatics?

[manker]

Deterence won't work, clearly, with suicide bombers. The punitive measure should, presumably, be unpalatable to them. Execution isn't,

How about burying them against their religious beliefs after execution in the case of religious fanatics?Wouldn't that negate your point about executing them being less problematic than incarceration wrt future attacks.

If we start burying them wrapped in pigskin, or whatever, it will raise the ire of fanatics worldwide far more than simply locking them up sans privileges.

[bigboab]

What about not naming them. There cant be anything worse than saying Saint Whatshisname? You know the one that bombed such and such.

Make it against the law for the papers to publish the names of bombers, suicidal or otherwise. Take away their notoriety.

[manker]

Is empathy not a strong point, Boab :D

I wouldn't change my mind simply because the issue is directly affecting me all of a sudden. I think your statement is a bit nimbyish.

Is this another new word of yours?:lol:

I assume and hope that it has not affected you. You do not know how you would react if it did. If you ever get the chance try and visit a Criminal Mental Institution. Some 'things' in these establishments make Hannibal Lecter look like Mother Teresa. Hope I got that the right way round.:)It's not a new word. It's an acronym that's fairly widespread, I thought.

If a situation like that affected me then I'd obviously feel rage and want to kill the guy with my bare hands. Assuming I don't get the opportunity, I believe I'd reflect on the matter and defer to my original mindset that killing people for retribution simply isn't on and that life incarceration is a much more fitting punishment.

However, as you correctly say, it is impossible for me to know this 100% percent.

[bigboab]

It's not a new word. It's an acronym that's fairly widespread, I thought.[/QUOTE]
It is not spread in my back yard though.:lol: I thought a man of your standing would have said nimbyistic. Far be it for me to correct you.:ph34r:

[manker]

It's not a new word. It's an acronym that's fairly widespread, I thought.
It is not spread in my back yard though.:lol: I thought a man of your standing would have said nimbyistic. Far be it from me to correct you.:ph34r::dry:

[Busyman]

Find an uninhabited (and uninhabitable) island and air-drop them in.

If all's right between them and Allah, he can do what he will for/to them, and they'll be glad for it.

Right? ;)
;)

Prison island.

"No Escape" style.

That way there is no killing by the state.

It amounts to exile.

[vidcc]

Wouldn't that negate your point about executing them being less problematic than incarceration wrt future attacks.

I didn't say it would be less problematic, I just don't think it would cause any more or less attacks either way

If we start burying them wrapped in pigskin, or whatever, it will raise the ire of fanatics worldwide far more than simply locking them up sans privileges.

The fanatics ire is raised whatever.

It has been suggested that these particular suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. It is this view that makes recruitment of volunteers easier for the fanatics. If it were made known that they would be buried wrong and thus denied the afterlife (I think that's what happens if buried in pigskin but I am open to correction) perhaps recruitment will be harder.


I am for addressing the root causes of terrorism but I believe those that carry it out must be punished. As was said in another thread, it is possible to see the reason without saying it's justification.

[GepperRankins]

i'm thinking life in prison is hell of a lot more scary than execution for someone who considers themselves dead and were willing to kill themselves. more reason not to try it without the death sentance

[JPaul]

i'm thinking life in prison is hell of a lot more scary than execution for someone who considers themselves dead and were willing to kill themselves. more reason not to try it without the death sentance
Pretty much what I think. However no niceties, food and water and no recreation type thing.

That's more of a problem for a suicide bomber, one would have thought.

[manker]

I didn't say it would be less problematic, I just don't think it would cause any more or less attacks either way

If we start burying them wrapped in pigskin, or whatever, it will raise the ire of fanatics worldwide far more than simply locking them up sans privileges.

The fanatics ire is raised whatever.

It has been suggested that these particular suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. It is this view that makes recruitment of volunteers easier for the fanatics. If it were made known that they would be buried wrong and thus denied the afterlife (I think that's what happens if buried in pigskin but I am open to correction) perhaps recruitment will be harder.


I am for addressing the root causes of terrorism but I believe those that carry it out must be punished. As was said in another thread, it is possible to see the reason without saying it's justification.I see, I thought you were saying it would cause less problems just to execute them. I misunderstood.

I actually think it would cause more problems. Especially the wrapping of corpses in pig skin.

Also, it would kinda validate their claims that the bombers will be rewarded in the afterlife because the leaders would twist it and preach to their followers that even the infidels believe that you'll be rewarded because they're trying to prevent it from happening.

If it's possible, they'd be even more determined to succeed in blowing themselves up :pinch:

Of course, they have to be punished. As I said, locking them away until they die of natural causes with no privileges would be a fitting punsihment. Much more so than giving them what they want - which is death.

[manker]

;)

Prison island.

"No Escape" style.

That way there is no killing by the state.

It amounts to exile.

I guess we Americans aren't qualified to comment on the British question, B.
Sure you are, I didn't think you were serious tho'.

Dropping them off in a place where they can commit ritual suicide with relative ease and among their kith seems a rather benevolent method with which to deal with these folk.

Kinda like saying "Ah well, you fecked up your suicide last time - we'll take you to a place where even the stupidest amongst you simply cannot fail' :huh:

[vidcc]

I guess we Americans aren't qualified to comment on the British question, B.


Why not? It's not like only Americans reply to threads with American issues. We have the death penalty but not in every state and not everyone in the states that have it agree with it. I guarantee that there are many in the UK that would like to see its return.


The reason I specified British is because they abolished the death sentence but held it for treason for a while before abolishing it completely.

It strikes me that if the bombers were born in the UK or naturalised citizens then such acts are at least tantamount to treason if not actually treason.

[JPaul]

I guess we Americans aren't qualified to comment on the British question, B.

I guarantee that there are many in the UK that would like to see its return.


How do you "guarantee" this, pray tell.

Can you back up this assertion, or is it just a meaningless figure of speech.

[DanB]

I say treason and kill them, but, five bullets to the head of a suspet sits just as well with me.

As far as I am concerned the safety of the majority outweighs the human rights of the minority

[vidcc]

I guarantee that there are many in the UK that would like to see its return.



How do you "guarantee" this, pray tell.



I will refund any monies payed to me if found to be false



Can you back up this assertion, or is it just a meaningless figure of speech.




I have many friends and relatives in the UK...... I didn't say how many people is "many" and if there were a referendum I suspect the current situation would remain.

Many does not mean most.

[GepperRankins]

i hope you're not suggesting allah is on your side :smilie4:

Well, since you've asked, I think he actually must be, if what mainstream Muslims have been said to believe about their religion is true... :huh:
sorry. i thought you'd gone all neo-con on us.



i'm athiest so i don't believe god is on anyones side. if he was real i reckon it'd be difficult for him to work out whos side he's on too :ermm:

[JPaul]

Many does not mean most.

Who said it did.

Unless you can quantify the number you cannot reasonably make comment on it. Therefore I assume you can, what constitutes "many", in this context.

[JPaul]

Well, since you've asked, I think he actually must be, if what mainstream Muslims have been said to believe about their religion is true... :huh:
if he was real i reckon it'd be difficult for him to work out whos side he's on too :ermm:
Which actually sounds more agnostic than atheist.

[vidcc]

Many does not mean most.

Who said it did.

Unless you can quantify the number you cannot reasonably make comment on it. Therefore I assume you can, what constitutes "many", in this context.


There is a product on the market that can cure you.

http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/961/dulcr6tb.jpg

[JPaul]

Who said it did.

Unless you can quantify the number you cannot reasonably make comment on it. Therefore I assume you can, what constitutes "many", in this context.


There is a product on the market that can cure you.

http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/961/dulcr6tb.jpg
So, here's the deal.

You made a comment about "most" people in the UK which you can't actually substantiate. When asked to do so you post a cliche, in the form of a picture.

Is there any prospect of you actually answering the question, or is that as good as you are likely to get.

[Rat Faced]

Treason is still a capital offense in the UK, as is Piracy and Mutiny.

It will never be enacted however, as it is also against the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, which Jack Straw ratified in 1999.

ie: We'd have to withdraw from a EU treaty, in order to re-introduce the Death Penalty.

[Busyman]

I guess we Americans aren't qualified to comment on the British question, B.
Sure you are, I didn't think you were serious tho'.

Dropping them off in a place where they can commit ritual suicide with relative ease and among their kith seems a rather benevolent method with which to deal with these folk.

Kinda like saying "Ah well, you fecked up your suicide last time - we'll take you to a place where even the stupidest amongst you simply cannot fail' :huh:
If they commit suicide, it's out of the state's hands of committing murder.

The state should not play babysitter to keep someone alive.

@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:

[manker]

Sure you are, I didn't think you were serious tho'.

Dropping them off in a place where they can commit ritual suicide with relative ease and among their kith seems a rather benevolent method with which to deal with these folk.

Kinda like saying "Ah well, you fecked up your suicide last time - we'll take you to a place where even the stupidest amongst you simply cannot fail' :huh:
If they commit suicide, it's out of the state's hands of committing murder.

The state should not play babysitter to keep someone alive.
That's where we disagree. I think the state should babysit criminals til they die.



@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:Guns haven't been banned in the UK :blink:

[manker]

And what the feck has guns ownership got to do with this thread anyhow.

[Busyman]

If they commit suicide, it's out of the state's hands of committing murder.

The state should not play babysitter to keep someone alive.
That's where we disagree. I think the state should babysit criminals til they die.



@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:Guns haven't been banned in the UK :blink:
Uh yeah...hard as fuck harder than a US citizen to get one and even then choices are more limited. :dry:

Mmk?

edit: actually if they are exiled to an island then there would be a certain amount of babysitting since ya can't let them swim off. :lol: :lol:

So, I'm glad you agree...ultimately

[DanB]

mmk

[Busyman]

And what the feck has guns ownership got to do with this thread anyhow.
Oh my bad. I don't pm people that much so I slipped that one in to j2 hence that @j2 thingie.

Guns and death penalty are banned so, right, there, yes there, there's the link..yesyes.

[manker]

That's where we disagree. I think the state should babysit criminals til they die.



@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:Guns haven't been banned in the UK :blink:
Uh yeah...hard as fuck harder than a US citizen to get one. :dry:

Mmk?As hard as fuck harder than a US citizen. That's pretty fucking hard :D

So anyway, since guns became as hard as fuck hard to get in the UK, burgularies have gone up? I wasn't aware. Where did you read this.

[manker]

And what the feck has guns ownership got to do with this thread anyhow.
Oh my bad. I don't pm people that much so I slipped that one in to j2 hence that @j2 thingie.

Guns and death penalty are banned so, right, there, yes there, there's the link..yesyes. :lol: :D

Mmk.

[Busyman]

That's where we disagree. I think the state should babysit criminals til they die.


Guns haven't been banned in the UK :blink:
Uh yeah...hard as fuck harder than a US citizen to get one. :dry:

Mmk?As hard as fuck harder than a US citizen. That's pretty fucking hard :D

So anyway, since guns became as hard as fuck hard to get in the UK, burgularies have gone up? I wasn't aware. Where did you read this.
A little birdie told me. :rolleyes:

I leave you all to Google away........

It's off-topic anyway so don't mind little old me. :rolleyes:

[manker]

Uh yeah...hard as fuck harder than a US citizen to get one. :dry:

Mmk?As hard as fuck harder than a US citizen. That's pretty fucking hard :D

So anyway, since guns became as hard as fuck hard to get in the UK, burglaries have gone up? I wasn't aware. Where did you read this.
A little birdie told me. :rolleyes:

I leave you all to Google away........

It's off-topic anyway so don't mind little old me. :rolleyes:That's alright, it's always pretty funny when vid gets all irate 'cause a few people go off-topic in one of his threads.

Btw, Googling is for lewsers - I thought you knew - so just tell me where ya read it :D

[MCHeshPants420]

Burgularies are down in the UK.

[GepperRankins]

here's a way to look at it. it has been mentioned a few times but went over your heads.


if you were a bit loopy and ready to give your life as a suicide bomber.

you had convinced yourself you were ready to die in a few days.

which then sounds more appealing?

1) if you succeed you kill yourself and others and be a martyr
if you fail you face the death penalty in a few months and claim your martyrdom and attention still

2) if you succeed you kill yourself and others and be a martyr
if you fail you spend as long as you would naturally live, humiliated as a typical prisoner along with rapists and theives. by the time you die you have fallen from public interest. you, your collaborators and sympathisers have now forgotten about the romanticism of your martyrdom

[MCHeshPants420]

2) if you succeed you kill yourself and others and be a martyr
if you fail you spend as long as you would naturally live, humiliated as a typical prisoner along with rapists and theives. by the time you die you have fallen from public interest. you, your collaborators and sympathisers have now forgotten about the romanticism of your martyrdom

In the example you give I can think of nothing more poetic as punishment to this sort of criminal. Having said Harold Shipman and Fred West aren't that much alive these days...

[GepperRankins]

2) if you succeed you kill yourself and others and be a martyr
if you fail you spend as long as you would naturally live, humiliated as a typical prisoner along with rapists and theives. by the time you die you have fallen from public interest. you, your collaborators and sympathisers have now forgotten about the romanticism of your martyrdom

In the example you give I can think of nothing more poetic as punishment to this sort of criminal. Having said Harold Shipman and Fred West aren't that much alive these days...
i bet they always knew they were taking the cowards way out too

[manker]

Dropping them off in a place where they can commit ritual suicide with relative ease and among their kith seems a rather benevolent method with which to deal with these folk.

Kinda like saying "Ah well, you fecked up your suicide last time - we'll take you to a place where even the stupidest amongst you simply cannot fail' :huh:

Just so, but if proof of their ritual suicide never gets off the island, their fundamentalist brethren would perhaps wonder...

My gut tells me also that ritual suicide amongst a batch of like-minded people would somehow lose it's aspect, don't you think?

There's a certain undesirable but pervasive "sameness" to that particular rite.

It also nicely fits that old nugget that goes something like: "If a tree falls in the forest..."

That has special appeal for me.I guess it wouldn't cover them in glory among their stock as much as if they succeeded in the first place but it's still some way better than living to old age among infidel wastrels.

It's one thing not having proof of this ritual suicide but another entirely to have indubitable proof to the contrary. I think I know which of these two methods of punishment a failed suicide bomber would choose.

It struck me as you going easy on a perpetrator of a heinous crime, which isn't like you at all.
Oh, fuck it...let's just adopt the old Soviet method of "disappearing" people; that way we can torture and interrogate them, and do with them as we please-perhaps auction them off cheaply for use as pinatas on the birthdays of the children of Christian/infidel nations, and post the footage on the net?

Sounds like the ticket to me....
Now that's more like it :lol:

Cheap pinatas for infidel children :lol: :D

[maebach]

Cheap pinatas for infidel children :lol: :D

true. I think they should (if they can) find the families and friends. And interrogate them, if they don't comply, execute them. I believe what manors and behaviour a person acquires partially comes from childhood, family and friends.

[Barbarossa]

@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:

eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm

Burglaries have gone DOWN 20% in the last year, and car crime has also dropped by 17%.

It's violent crime and gun crime that have increased, by 7% and 6% respectively.

[manker]

Cheap pinatas for infidel children :lol: :D

true. I think they should (if they can) find the families and friends. And interrogate them, if they don't comply, execute them.Don't be ridiculous.

Btw, if you're going to spam eight threads in five minutes with meaningless drivel to get your post count up, do it in GamesWorld.

You might get moderated but at least I won't have to read it.

[Busyman]

@j2 - It is interesting that since guns have been banned in the UK, there has been a rise in home invasions. Who'd have thunk it? :huh:

eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm

Burglaries have gone DOWN 20% in the last year, and car crime has also dropped by 17%.

It's violent crime and gun crime that have increased, by 7% and 6% respectively.
Maybe you can google home invasions.

How is your gun crime up anyway when handguns are banned?

I usually hear something like better reporting.

[manker]

eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm

Burglaries have gone DOWN 20% in the last year, and car crime has also dropped by 17%.

It's violent crime and gun crime that have increased, by 7% and 6% respectively.
Maybe you can google home invasions.

How is your gun crime up anyway when handguns are banned?

I usually hear something like better reporting.That's only in the last year, handguns have been banned for many years - so it's got nothing to do with it.

What's with telling everyone to google. I thought you were against that sort of thing. Besides, you should provide some reliable stats for us.

At the moment, everyone thinks you're talking out of your arse.

[Barbarossa]

Maybe you can google home invasions.


I just did, thanks for that, and I stand by my statement. Which source did you get your stats from then? :unsure:



How is your gun crime up anyway when handguns are banned?

I usually hear something like better reporting.


Hmmm, I guess that's something for YOU to "google"... :dry:

Also, I don't think it is better reporting, gun-crime has always been well reported, because it is still so relatively uncommon in this country.

Hey, here's some actual facts for you!


Firearms offences rose 6% in the official figures to just under 11,000, in which 73 people were killed, five more than the previous year.

[Busyman]

Maybe you can google home invasions.

How is your gun crime up anyway when handguns are banned?

I usually hear something like better reporting.That's only in the last year, handguns have been banned for many years - so it's got nothing to do with it.

What's with telling everyone to google. I thought you were against that sort of thing. Besides, you should provide some reliable stats for us.

At the moment, everyone thinks you're talking out of your arse.
Stats are stats and I see burglaries were googled and I'm taking it that those stats are correct as reported by your Home Office via BCS/recorded crime.

So you win.

[Busyman]

I just did, thanks for that, and I stand by my statement. Which source did you get your stats from then? :unsure:

So home invasion equals burglary?

Oic.

[GepperRankins]

I just did, thanks for that, and I stand by my statement. Which source did you get your stats from then? :unsure:

So home invasion equals burglary?

Oic.
trick question?

what percentage of home invasions are not burglaries? i'm guessing they would have had to shoot up 20 fold at least to counter balance the 20% drop in burglaries

[MCHeshPants420]

This thread has gone quite surreal.

[GepperRankins]

This thread has gone quite surreal.
i reported it :happy:

[MCHeshPants420]

So home invasion equals burglary?

Oic.
trick question?

what percentage of home invasions are not burglaries? i'm guessing they would have had to shoot up 20 fold at least to counter balance the 20% drop in burglaries

We'll have to Google and see if there has been a 20%+ rise in 'People running into your house but not stealing stuff' crime.

[GepperRankins]

i was thinking there could be coups and kidnappings but i doubt they even make up 0.1% of home invasions

[MCHeshPants420]

i was thinking there could be coups and kidnappings but i doubt they even make up 0.1% of home invasions

Don't forget the huge rise in illegal shortcutting, the massive increase of peeping toms and the chronic problem of tramps hiding under your bed.

It soon mounts up.

[manker]

i was thinking there could be coups and kidnappings but i doubt they even make up 0.1% of home invasionsNot much point trying to qualify this contextually inane statement about home invasion not necessarily being burglaries.

Busyman is trying to deflect from the fact that he was talking out of his arse.

[GepperRankins]

do drunk people walking into the wrong house count as home invasions too?


even with all these things i can't see it reaching 1%

[MCHeshPants420]

Cottaging sounds like it should be a home invason crime.

[GepperRankins]

maybe the definition of home invasion is so badly defined that guests are invaders, so the increase of house parties over the last year easily made up that drop in burglaries

[Barbarossa]

I just did, thanks for that, and I stand by my statement. Which source did you get your stats from then? :unsure:

So home invasion equals burglary?

Oic.

I would have said yes, home invasion is a type of burglary, and at least one definition backs me up, however this could be a "tomayto, tomahto" situation we have here, because I see from wikipedia that "Home Invasion" is a legally defined offence in your country, and so you can be charged with it for an intent other than burglary. :mellow:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=home%20invasion

http://www.answers.com/topic/home-invasion

If you had directed me to wikipedia, or in fact had provided a source in the first place, we wouldn't have had this pointless discussion... :frusty:

[MCHeshPants420]

Gate-crashing a house party.
Illegal house-sitting.
Reverse burglary.

[MCHeshPants420]

maybe the definition of home invasion is so badly defined that guests are invaders, so the increase of house parties over the last year easily made up that drop in burglaries

You always end up with people at your party that you don't know and didn't invite so perhaps they are included in the figures.

[GepperRankins]

home invasion isn't badly defined.

now where's stats to suggest it's increased?

[Busyman]

So home invasion equals burglary?

Oic.

I would have said yes, home invasion is a type of burglary, and at least one definition backs me up, however this could be a "tomayto, tomahto" situation we have here, because I see from wikipedia that "Home Invasion" is a legally defined offence in your country, and so you can be charged with it for an intent other than burglary. :mellow:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=home%20invasion

http://www.answers.com/topic/home-invasion

If you had directed me to wikipedia, or in fact had provided a source in the first place, we wouldn't have had this pointless discussion... :frusty:
Sorry, I didn't look at wiki.

Home invasions don't always involve burglary annnnnd all burglaries aren't home invasions. :1eye:

I leave you to google...

[Barbarossa]

home invasion isn't badly defined.

now where's stats to suggest it's increased?

Maybe they're hidden within the violent crime increased. Maybe it's just really boisterous party gatecrashers? :unsure:

[GepperRankins]

I would have said yes, home invasion is a type of burglary, and at least one definition backs me up, however this could be a "tomayto, tomahto" situation we have here, because I see from wikipedia that "Home Invasion" is a legally defined offence in your country, and so you can be charged with it for an intent other than burglary. :mellow:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=home%20invasion

http://www.answers.com/topic/home-invasion

If you had directed me to wikipedia, or in fact had provided a source in the first place, we wouldn't have had this pointless discussion... :frusty:
Sorry, I didn't look at wiki.

Home invasions don't always involve burglary annnnnd all burglaries aren't home invasions. :1eye:

I leave you to google...

home invasion
n.

Burglary of a dwelling while the residents are at home.


there would still have to be a massive increase to counter the 20% fall in overall burglaries. or or an even bigger drop in burglaries when no-one is in. or a mix of both. impossible i reckon

[bigboab]

The only reason for a decrease in the crime rate is the fact that people cannot be bothered reporting it anymore. Unless it is a 'high profile' case the police cant be arsed pursuing it.

If someone burgles your house and you call the police. The standard reply from 'plod' is. 'You will get the insurance money for it'. Is somebody is assaulted they say 'Unless we see them doing it, we cant do anything about it'.

If the burglary involved a priceless painting or the assault was likely to end up in a murder case. There would be more 'brass plod' around your house than in the local scrap yard.

[manker]

The only reason for a decrease in the crime rate is the fact that people cannot be bothered reporting it anymore. Unless it is a 'high profile' case the police cant be arsed pursuing it.

If someone burgles your house and you call the police. The standard reply from 'plod' is. 'You will get the insurance money for it'. Is somebody is assaulted they say 'Unless we see them doing it, we cant do anything about it'.

If the burglary involved a priceless painting or the assault was likely to end up in a murder case. There would be more 'brass plod' around your house than in the local scrap yard.So the fact you need a crime number for any insurance claim didn't come into your reasoning at all.

[Busyman]

The only reason for a decrease in the crime rate is the fact that people cannot be bothered reporting it anymore. Unless it is a 'high profile' case the police cant be arsed pursuing it.

If someone burgles your house and you call the police. The standard reply from 'plod' is. 'You will get the insurance money for it'. Is somebody is assaulted they say 'Unless we see them doing it, we cant do anything about it'.

If the burglary involved a priceless painting or the assault was likely to end up in a murder case. There would be more 'brass plod' around your house than in the local scrap yard.
I have read something similar regarding the lack of reporting. However, surveys are conducted to kinda make up for it.

About half of England's burglaries are home invasions compared to a tenth of the USA's being home invasions. Home invasions also include rape, murder, etc., which get treated more seriously.

We have more gun violence in general but a correlation can be made that burglars are less likely to pay a visit while we're home.

[Barbarossa]

The only reason for a decrease in the crime rate is the fact that people cannot be bothered reporting it anymore. Unless it is a 'high profile' case the police cant be arsed pursuing it.

If someone burgles your house and you call the police. The standard reply from 'plod' is. 'You will get the insurance money for it'. Is somebody is assaulted they say 'Unless we see them doing it, we cant do anything about it'.

If the burglary involved a priceless painting or the assault was likely to end up in a murder case. There would be more 'brass plod' around your house than in the local scrap yard.

The BCS (British Crime Survey) shows the same percentage drop in burglaries, as the recorded crime figures. I see no reason for people to lie on a survey.. :unsure:

Also, as Manker said, to claim on the insurance after a burglary, you need to have a police crime number.

@busyman - I think we are now in sort of agreement! ;)

[JPaul]

We have an offence known as Hamesucken (http://www.lawguru.com/dictionary/term.php?id=2884&searchtext=HAMESUCKEN)

How kewl is that.

[Busyman]

And you've got buggery. :blink:

I don't think we (the USA) call it that.

[JPaul]

And you've got buggery. :blink:

I don't think we (the USA) call it that.
I take it you mean "you've" in a plural type of way.

[bigboab]

The only reason for a decrease in the crime rate is the fact that people cannot be bothered reporting it anymore. Unless it is a 'high profile' case the police cant be arsed pursuing it.

If someone burgles your house and you call the police. The standard reply from 'plod' is. 'You will get the insurance money for it'. Is somebody is assaulted they say 'Unless we see them doing it, we cant do anything about it'.

If the burglary involved a priceless painting or the assault was likely to end up in a murder case. There would be more 'brass plod' around your house than in the local scrap yard.So the fact you need a crime number for any insurance claim didn't come into your reasoning at all.

F*ng Crime Number.:ph34r: I cant even find a wee pink off the shoulder number for this wedding I'm going to.:rolleyes:

The last crime I reported, stolen Strimmer, the police were not interested in the number of the strimmer. His reply was your insurance will pay for it. Considering you pay the first £50/100 pound of any claim it is not worth the bother.

@Barbara:) People dont lie?:ohmy:

[marlboroman1]

I don’t think that any one could be charged with treason for this bombing as it was not a political or state target but if it had of been aimed at government or Royal family. Then they could be charged with treason, if they were the sentence would be death by hanging and it would probably have be public execution. If the government wanted to avoid this they would have to change the law

[marlboroman1]

:shutup:

[manker]

Where did Sara's, mine, Dave's and Busy's posts go from the end of this thread that we posted last night?

[vidcc]

I don’t think that any one could be charged with treason for this bombing as it was not a political or state target but if it had of been aimed at government or Royal family. Then they could be charged with treason, if they were the sentence would be death by hanging and it would probably have be public execution. If the government wanted to avoid this they would have to change the law
Does it have to be a political or royal target then? Isn't waging war against your own country treason?

The government would have to re-introduce the death penalty for treason.

[Busyman]

Where did Sara's, mine, Dave's and Busy's posts go from the end of this thread that we posted last night?
Deleted it seems.

Either Sara or Deletion IKE.

Oh well. :rolleyes:

[GepperRankins]

they broke the mod-member confidentiality rule :dry:

[DanB]

Where did Sara's, mine, Dave's and Busy's posts go from the end of this thread that we posted last night?

where they good?

[Busyman]

Where did Sara's, mine, Dave's and Busy's posts go from the end of this thread that we posted last night?

where they good?
Well someone (who shall remain nameless) snitched to a mod that the thread had gone "off-topic" instead of making an on-topic post.

Nevermind that there were ongoing discussions in the thread and, as manker pointed out, an evolution into something else.
Nevermind also that no post had been made, on or off-topic, for a bit. :ermm:

I was probably pointed out as well that the person who snitched was named and pointed out by the snitch. :lol: :lol:

[DanB]

Ah, teh heavyhandedness.

Was it vid?

[GepperRankins]

i just wanted to know if it was possible to split the thread as there were clearly two different arguements

[vidcc]

Ah, teh heavyhandedness.

Was it vid?

no

[DanB]

heh heh sorry vid :P


Did they have their post deleted too?

[Busyman]

Ah, teh heavyhandedness.

Was it vid?
He wouldn't bother with shit like that. :dry: Just make an on-topic post...problem solved.

[Rat Faced]

The government would have to re-introduce the death penalty for treason.

No they wouldn't.

They would merely have to withdraw from a certain EU treaty, which they would have to do anyway before trying to introduce any legislation for a death penalty for anything :P

Its still on the books, however the EU Human Rights treaties have precedence..

[vidcc]

The government would have to re-introduce the death penalty for treason.

No they wouldn't.

They would merely have to withdraw from a certain EU treaty, which they would have to do anyway before trying to introduce any legislation for a death penalty for anything :P

Its still on the books, however the EU Human Rights treaties have precedence..

So in reality the difference is?

[Rat Faced]

Anywhere from 6 months to forever...

The existing legislation would automatically come into effect on withdrawing from the treaty.

It takes forever to get those bastards in Parliament to pass any new legislation not in their own direct interests :rolleyes:

[vidcc]

Anywhere from 6 months to forever...

The existing legislation would automatically come into effect on withdrawing from the treaty.

It takes forever to get those bastards in Parliament to pass any new legislation not in their own direct interests :rolleyes:

You've gone off on a tangent. i just asked how what you wrote differs from what i said...that it would need to be re-introduced.

However I think you may be incorrect about it still being on the books. The Crime and Disorder Act.1998 (googled :) ) removed it as far as i can tell. The treaty you are talking of was a "never again" treaty.


Edit: this would have save me some reading (http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/answers/deathpenalty.shtml) :angry: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Thanks for that. :)

I hadnt realised that the The Crime & Disorder Act abolished the death penalty, it wasnt even mentioned in the summary we were given about it. :lol:

If that BBC thing is right, then the only Capital Offence now is Mutiny, which means only in the Armed Services in time of war probably....

If we ever withdraw from that treaty that is... :blink:

I withdraw my comment sir ;)

[Voetsek]

Treason still carries the death penalty

[vidcc]

Treason still carries the death penalty

where?

[vidcc]

Thanks for that. :)

I hadnt realised that the The Crime & Disorder Act abolished the death penalty, it wasnt even mentioned in the summary we were given about it. :lol:

If that BBC thing is right, then the only Capital Offence now is Mutiny, which means only in the Armed Services in time of war probably....

If we ever withdraw from that treaty that is... :blink:

I withdraw my comment sir ;)
I thought as you did until I used google.with it being the treaty..(busy/j2... it can serve to educate as well as make us appear "learned" :lol: )

I knew it had been abolished but not the details as to how.

I think where we got confused was that the treaty removed the military crimes thing...I think. :unsure:

[Voetsek]

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thoughts.html

[vidcc]

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thoughts.html
An interesting read but doesn't answer the question

[vidcc]

Looking at the arrests in hackney today it doesn't look like those two at least were ready to die.

[99%]

could you sign the paper/push button/do the deed of putting them to death?

[vidcc]

could you sign the paper/push button/do the deed of putting them to death?

Yes.

If one believes in something such as the death penalty then one must be willing to stand by those beliefs.
Take in though that although I support the death penalty I do believe that it should only be an option where there is no doubt whatsoever. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough.

[99%]

@vidcc - ironical to your last reply is ofcourse that you posses a shark as your signature..killer guilty of no doubt whatsoever.

in the spur of anger i could probably indulge in my revenge anger for justice sake
(no i didnt take this from a movie (i think/hope..)
but once conciousness is back what greater punishment is there than to be put in a cell for the rest of your life - the mind is all you have.
problem is that humans adapt - adapting to a cell life is possible which then becomes normal life... which ofcourse is unjustifiable to the victims of the pain.
death sentence should be at the moment of criminality not when he/she is "normal" conciounse non killer mode. (although it would enhance awarness of "mortality")

Awarness of what you are missing or have missed due to your "action" could be a form of treatment in a sick calvinist guilt way- implement this in prisons and the victims might get some justice...

a friend (psycologist) of mine's job is to analyze whether criminals in prisons who are on the verge of committing suicide - interesting job - lots of stories.

where is/ how can you /how much justice is enough for the action?

impossible

[vidcc]

@vidcc - ironical to your last reply is ofcourse that you posses a shark as your signature..killer guilty of no doubt whatsoever.

Can you tell me how you equate a shark to murder carried out by humans?

[99%]

exactly






is there such a thing as "natural born killers"?
at the moment it seems that the naive, believe islam is ment for that purpose (damn tabloids)
humans do kill for food - everyday & ALOT
but not cannibalism..
humans kill humans for Reason (whatever definition their "reason" may have)

is not HomoSapians prime difference the ability to think?

then the difference between a shark and a human is very similar - sharks kill for a function - humans kill for "reasonable" function.

do sharks kill sharks? i don't know i doubt it
hence my little theory is obsolete

[GepperRankins]

vidcc is full of shit. he couldn't execute someone, he just thinks it justifies his stupid arguement

[vidcc]

vidcc is full of shit. he couldn't execute someone, he just thinks it justifies his stupid arguement


As you have no idea who I am or my past how can you say that.

Some people don't deserve to live. the difference between myself and a vigilante is that I would only do it by legal process with fair trial.

[bigboab]

vidcc is full of shit. he couldn't execute someone, he just thinks it justifies his stupid arguement


As you have no idea who I am or my past how can you say that.

Some people don't deserve to live. the difference between myself and a vigilante is that I would only do it by legal process with fair trial.

I agree Vid. When there is absolutely no doubt, then the death penalty should be carried out.

@ 99% The difference between human beings and sharks, other than the obvious ones, is that some 'human' beings kill other human beings for fun, profit, plain cruelty and various other reasons. Sharks kill for food. There may still be a few humans that kill other humans for food, but they are few and far between.


P.s. when killing on vigilante and sudden revenge rampages , mistakes can be made.:ph34r:

[JPaul]

As you have no idea who I am or my past how can you say that.

Some people don't deserve to live. the difference between myself and a vigilante is that I would only do it by legal process with fair trial.

I agree Vid. When there is absolutely no doubt,
When could you say that there was "absolutely no doubt". The person saying "I didn't do" it raises a doubt. That's the whole point of the word "reasonable" being used.

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

[RioDeLeo]

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.

[manker]

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Going back to JP's point about the jury all having to be eye witnesses; if they were not, then it could be that the evidence of the actual eye witnesses is false, police corruption can influence matters. Even if one jury member wasn't an eye witness then the jury cannot convict with no doubt whatsoever.

Video evidence can be doctored by unscrupulous lawmen.

Hardly likely but even if there is a tiny, 0.00001% chance of the eye witness' account being false or the video evidence being falsified, then the case isn't 'absolutely without doubt'.

Yes, it's pedantic but lawyers are pedantic chaps. Only passing sentence if the conviction can be made 'absolutely without doubt' would mean that the sentence is never passed.

[JPaul]

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.
Tell me something, which you did not see yourself, of which you are absolutely (Definitely and completely; unquestionably.) certain.

Now tell me something which you did see yourself, which later turned out to be incorrect. You must have seen these experiments done. Where people are "absolutely" certain of what they saw and it turns out to be wrong.

The confession argument is specious. Confession is only one part of proof and must be supported by other evidence.

There is no such thing as "absolutely no doubt". Absolutely no doubt about it.

[vidcc]

There are cases where there is no doubt.

As an example. A terrorist with explosives that fail to go off in a crowded train apprehended at the scene....would that be "doubtful"?

[JPaul]

There are cases where there is no doubt.

As an example. A terrorist with explosives that fail to go off in a crowded train apprehended at the scene....would that be "doubtful"?
Yes there is always doubt.

How, for example do you prove (with absolutely no doubt) he intended to explode them. Or that he was not forced to do it by someone else.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty with regard to crime.

[vidcc]

he sets the detonator off manually but it fails to set the explosives off.


How about a sniper on top of a roof apprehended in the process of shooting people. He has already killed several before the police arrive on the roof to catch him.

[JPaul]

he sets the detonator off manually but it fails to set the explosives off.


How about a sniper on top of a roof apprehended in the process of shooting people. He has already killed several before the police arive on the roof to catch him.
How do you know he set the detonator off.

Someone had his family prisoner and they would be tortured and murdered if he didn't do it.

Almost by definition he is not of sound mind. He is randomly shooting people.

[RioDeLeo]

How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Well l obviously didn't mean all confessions, l'm not that stupid, and of course other things must be considered. What l was alluding to were cases where maybe the crime is filmed, the person is known, eyewitnesses knew them, they were caught red-handed, they admitted it, etc.. Some people are so obviously guilty that the only way to bring doubt into it is with a lot of effort, and by using mathematics and philosophy. Or, as you say, by being pedantic.

[bigboab]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.

[JPaul]

How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Or, as you say, by being pedantic.
The law is pedantic.

Well it is in the UK.

Which is what we are talking about.

[vidcc]

If he can show that to be the case he has a defence


So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty.

He picks selected targets. Passes all psychological exams and says he is glad he did it because they deserved it



The una bomber who documented his crimes and stood up proud and unrepentant.... the btk killer who gave graphic cold details of how and why he killed..... Hitler.... pol pot..... the man that killed Sarah Payne..... the Yorkshire ripper...dahmer.... osama bin laden....charles manson....Ian Brady.

[JPaul]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.
Yeah, good suggestion.

Feck all the people who are released on appeal. Sometimes many years later.

[JPaul]

If he can show that to be the case he has a defence


So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty.

He picks selected targets. Passes all psychological exams and says he is glad he did it because they deserved it



The una bomber who documented his crimes and stood up proud and unrepentant.... the btk killer who gave graphic cold details of how and why he killed..... Hitler.... pol pot..... the man that killed Sarah Payne..... the Yorkshire ripper...dahmer.... osama bin laden....charles manson....Ian Brady.

"So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty." No I was replying to your scenarios.

You can quote as many cases as you want. The fact is that absolutely means "Definitely and completely; unquestionably.".

It is impossible to have absolutely no doubt (in legal terms). Which as I said is why we use "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why the judge always takes a lot of time to describe what that means, to the jury.

Even if you see something with your own eyes there is still doubt. This has been proven many times.

[bigboab]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.
Yeah, good suggestion.

Feck all the people who are released on appeal. Sometimes many years later.

Some of them to murder again.

[vidcc]

If he can show that to be the case he has a defence


So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty.

He picks selected targets. Passes all psychological exams and says he is glad he did it because they deserved it



The una bomber who documented his crimes and stood up proud and unrepentant.... the btk killer who gave graphic cold details of how and why he killed..... Hitler.... pol pot..... the man that killed Sarah Payne..... the Yorkshire ripper...dahmer.... osama bin laden....charles manson....Ian Brady.

"So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty." No I was replying to your scenarios.

You can quote as many cases as you want. The fact is that absolutely means "Definitely and completely; unquestionably.".

It is impossible to have absolutely no doubt (in legal terms). Which as I said is why we use "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why the judge always takes a lot of time to describe what that means, to the jury.

Even if you see something with your own eyes there is still doubt. This has been proven many times.


I disagree.

[GepperRankins]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.
where?


i don't see how executing a man because there is no reasonable doubt is gonna help society, neither do i see how executing a man who is no doubt guilty can forward society

[JPaul]

Yeah, good suggestion.

Feck all the people who are released on appeal. Sometimes many years later.

Some of them to murder again.
Some to return to their families and live good productive lives, never having done anything wrong in the first place.

[JPaul]

"So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty." No I was replying to your scenarios.

You can quote as many cases as you want. The fact is that absolutely means "Definitely and completely; unquestionably.".

It is impossible to have absolutely no doubt (in legal terms). Which as I said is why we use "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why the judge always takes a lot of time to describe what that means, to the jury.

Even if you see something with your own eyes there is still doubt. This has been proven many times.


I disagree.

So, you're still wrong.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

[bigboab]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.
where?


i don't see how executing a man because there is no reasonable doubt is gonna help society, neither do i see how executing a man who is no doubt guilty can forward society

It has got us to the state that the taking of another life is just another crime. You would get more years in jail for robbing a train.

[GepperRankins]

where?


i don't see how executing a man because there is no reasonable doubt is gonna help society, neither do i see how executing a man who is no doubt guilty can forward society

It has got us to the state that the taking of another life is just another crime. You would get more years in jail for robbing a train.
i doubt that's how criminals see it and i doubt it has any effect on crime figures

[vidcc]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.
where?


i don't see how executing a man because there is no reasonable doubt is gonna help society, neither do i see how executing a man who is no doubt guilty can forward society

how is life without parole helping society ?

I view death as punishment only. I don't believe it is a deterrent and I don't care one way or the other if it forwards society or not.

I don't think death is appropriate for all cases, each case is unique and should be taken on its own merits.

Added to my response to your previous comment, I would have no problem being the executioner for some cases but I would for others...which is why I set a high standard of proof.

[bigboab]

It has got us to the state that the taking of another life is just another crime. You would get more years in jail for robbing a train.
i doubt that's how criminals see it and i doubt it has any effect on crime figures

So you actually have doubts then? You'll get thrown out the Drawing Room.:lol::lol:

[JPaul]

where?


i don't see how executing a man because there is no reasonable doubt is gonna help society, neither do i see how executing a man who is no doubt guilty can forward society

It has got us to the state that the taking of another life is just another crime. You would get more years in jail for robbing a train.
There we agree.

Crimes against people seem to be taken less seriously than crimes against property. That is also wrong and should be redressed.

[GepperRankins]

crimes against rich peoples property. like boab pointed out before, if your house is burgled there's not much point in reporting it

[Rat Faced]

Just about anyone is capable of taking someone elses life.

Most of those that say they arent, are naive or stupid..


Millions of years of evolution have not removed instinct, they just cover it over and let us use reason and justification to help do this. This is why the reasons for "murder" are looked at so closely by Judges before any punishment is given out.

It takes time for armies to train civilised people to kill, and 99.9% of those bullets fired are wasted in firefights by lots of scared shitless men/kids. Many of the soldiers never ever kill anyone, even in battles. And this is while the blood is hot and you dont have time to think...


Anyone that can take anothers life in cold blood; whether they are a psychopath or someone carrying out an execution, to me, are equally guilty of being "Of Unsound Mind".

Both can allow baser instincts to overcome reason on-call, and as such are both a danger to a civilized society.


Those that can kill someone diliberatly and cooly, then justify it to themselves scare me the most.

I'd rather have a pint with a murderer that does not try and justify what he did, than with an employed executioner any day of the week.

[vidcc]

@ rat

I am fine if people disagree with the death penalty but I have to say your last sentence is a little twisted.

As to not justifying themselves I don't think that is possible.... even if they say they did it "because they could" they are making a justification to themselves. The flimsiness doesn't matter.

Perhaps you are thinking of someone that "repents" and admit they were wrong to do it. But that is an after thought. If they thought it was wrong they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Either way preferring to drink with someone that killed an innocent person over one that killed a guilty one after a fair trial.... :ermm:

[GepperRankins]

i agree with rat faced. i was gonna post the same before but didn't.


if you can plan then kill a defensless person on a schedule, there's something wrong with you.

[lyric101]

Am I the only one who sees talk of the death sentance foe would be SUICIDE bombers ironic? Surely death is what they wanted? Why give it to them? Why reduce ourselves to their level? The UK will not bring back the death sentance, ever, regardless of the crimes perpetrated upon her

[GepperRankins]

Am I the only one who sees talk of the death sentance foe would be SUICIDE bombers ironic? Surely death is what they wanted? Why give it to them? Why reduce ourselves to their level? The UK will not bring back the death sentance, ever, regardless of the crimes perpetrated upon her
we kinda went over that already but it got ignored because it pwned the pro murder people

[vidcc]

i agree with rat faced. i was gonna post the same before but didn't.


if you can plan then kill a defensless person on a schedule, there's something wrong with you.
I disagree. If you can plan then kill an innocent person on a schedule, there's something wrong with you.

I see it this way:

These people obviously see nothing ethically wrong with killing innocent people themselves so logically they see no ethical reason to not have the death penalty....... after all, to them killing is ok.

[99%]

according to one of the religions - everyone is guilty until proven innocent and only god can judge you, and he will on a certain date - all peoples (heaven / hell-you decide)
According to another religion there is a list of something like 10034 (not sure) people who will go to heaven (innocent)
According to another one your next life will get worse if you have been naughty or better if you have worked out the code.

No religion condones the the taking of an innocent life
- but whom is truelly innocent in the eye of allseer

The dudes who fired the hiroshima bomb are innocent or guilty? He (and all those in chain of command) who told them to do it is innocent or guilty? or was it merely a trendy and cool thing to do at the time?

Death is too easy - lifelong punishment is a better form of "payback".

[GepperRankins]

an executioner would spend all their time building up to killing someone strapped down in a chair. a normal human can't kill a fellow human like that. i'd be surprised if an animal would do it, with the exception of looking for food.

[vidcc]

Am I the only one who sees talk of the death sentance foe would be SUICIDE bombers ironic? Surely death is what they wanted? Why give it to them? Why reduce ourselves to their level? The UK will not bring back the death sentance, ever, regardless of the crimes perpetrated upon her

Who said they have to be suicide bombers?

But of those that are they are not just committing suicide. They wish to kill others, and if they fail in that well then hard cheese they can die a failure. I made it quite clear that I don't view it as a deterrent.

I realise that in reality the UK will not return capital punishment but that doesn't prohibit debate about it.

[vidcc]

according to one of the religions - everyone is guilty until proven innocent and only god can judge you, and he will on a certain date - all peoples (heaven / hell-you decide)
According to another religion there is a list of something like 10034 (not sure) people who will go to heaven (innocent)
According to another one your next life will get worse if you have been naughty or better if you have worked out the code.
As there is no god all of this is Irrelavant to me


No religion condones the the taking of an innocent life
- but whom is truelly innocent in the eye of allseer


I agree but I'm pretty sure in there is something about taking a guilty life.

Death is too easy - lifelong punishment is a better form of "payback".

Well if death is "too easy" what is the ethical problem with it? Somehow I thought the argument was that death was "cruel"

[Rat Faced]

if you can plan then kill a defensless person on a schedule, there's something wrong with you.

Whereas someone that killed in the heat of the moment at least understands that nothing he/she can say justifies the act of killing another Human Being.

I'm not a Christian, however i'm pretty sure that one of the big 10 that they continually ignore, is: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"..

Always seemed to me a little hypocritical in that the people that are most outspoken about keeping the Death Penalty in the USA, are those that describe themselves as devout Christians... (and no, i aint talking about you vdcc :P )

[JPaul]

I see it this way:

These people obviously see nothing ethically wrong with killing innocent people themselves so logically they see no ethical reason to not have the death penalty....... after all, to them killing is ok.
So you think it's OK to emulate the ethics of murderers.

We, the nay sayers, take the opposite view. i.e. that we should not lower ourselves to their level.

[Rat Faced]

Nay sayest I :unsure:



... and now to trot off to the pub :)

[bigboab]

Can I assume that everyone against the death penalty thinks that those responsible for the Holocaust and other mass war crimes, should only have been given life sentences?

[Busyman]

Can I assume that everyone against the death penalty thinks that those responsible for the Holocaust and other mass war crimes, should only have been given life sentences?
Yes

[GepperRankins]

yeah.




surely, someone who doesn't believe in god should be more prolife because they know a person only has one

[JPaul]

Can I assume that everyone against the death penalty thinks that those responsible for the Holocaust and other mass war crimes, should only have been given life sentences?
I can only speak for myself, but yes.

Life meaning life obviously. With my other conditions on how they should be treated.

[vidcc]

I see it this way:

These people obviously see nothing ethically wrong with killing innocent people themselves so logically they see no ethical reason to not have the death penalty....... after all, to them killing is ok.
So you think it's OK to emulate the ethics of murderers.




Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference

[Snee]

As there is no god...
Prove it.


Whereas someone that killed in the heat of the moment at least understands that nothing he/she can say justifies the act of killing another Human Being.

I'm not a Christian, however i'm pretty sure that one of the big 10 that they continually ignore, is: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"..

Always seemed to me a little hypocritical in that the people that are most outspoken about keeping the Death Penalty in the USA, are those that describe themselves as devout Christians...
They are old school, "eye for an eye"-type people. I reckon.

Some of the same crowd are prolly against abortions as well.

[GepperRankins]

So you think it's OK to emulate the ethics of murderers.




Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
as far as i see the difference between "murderers" and "innocent people" is the ability to pre-meditate and carry out a killing of a defenceless person

[Snee]

Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
as far as i see the difference between "murderers" and "innocent people" is the ability to pre-meditate and carry out a killing of a defenceless person
It's all stupid anyway, today there isn't one legal system on the planet that's good enough to ensure that only the guilty will be executed, so, in order to spare the lives of innocents a death penalty isn't feasible even if one would consider killing the guilty to be justice.

IMO, it doesn't matter if only one person in a hundred or more is wrongfully executed, it still isn't worth it.

[99%]

naive question - but has this question / issue not been debated countless times over the last few decades?
was there not a debate about death penalty in uk ages ago?

it seems the conclusion is still the same - disagreement due to the value of life?

[vidcc]

surely, someone who doesn't believe in god should be more prolife because they know a person only has one

Why?

I am pro innocent life. (abortion issues and medical things aside) and the fact that we only get one makes the taking of an innocent worse.
Take Sarah Payne...Someone that believes in god can take comfort in the fact that she would be in heaven or some other afterlife.... I don't have that.

Knowing that the guilty person will have no afterlife is a bonus and an entirely just punishment for someone that ended the "one life" of an innocent.

[vidcc]

Prove it.



This is my belief and I stand by it..... prove there is one and I will change my mind. But as that can't happen I feel secure in my belief.

I used to use less obvious in my words but I was accused of being agnostic so now I make it clear i am an athiest. :)

[JPaul]

So you think it's OK to emulate the ethics of murderers.




Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
1. That makes you as bad as them.

2. What if they are innocent, found guilty often does not equate to "did it".

3. In which case you are emulating the ethics of murderers, while dealing with innocent people.

At least you are honest and admit that it is a revenge thing. Even if it does mean you are willing to kill innocent people.

[JPaul]

surely, someone who doesn't believe in god should be more prolife because they know a person only has one

.... and the fact that we only get one makes the taking of an innocent worse.

That's what he's fucking saying.

You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.

[vidcc]

.... and the fact that we only get one makes the taking of an innocent worse.

That's what he's fucking saying.

You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.
How?
Where have I said we should risk executing innocent people?


I already set the level at no doubt of guilt. I have stated on other threads that the system we have here at present needs to be tightened to remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. All they have to do is raise doubt no matter how thin to remove death as an option. Just beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough.

[Snee]

Prove it.



This is my belief and I stand by it..... prove there is one and I will change my mind. But as that can't happen I feel secure in my belief.

So you believe then.

Not being a religious sort of person like yourself, believing that what others believe in isn't believable seems sort of silly to me, but to each their own, and so forth.

[GepperRankins]

That's what he's fucking saying.

You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.
How?
Where have I said we should risk executing innocent people?


I already set the level at no doubt of guilt. I have stated on other threads that the system we have here at present needs to be tightened to remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. All they have to do is raise doubt no matter how thin to remove death as an option. Just beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough.
it's practically impossible to prove there's no doubt

[vidcc]

it's practically impossible to prove there's no doubt

But not impossible.

We have a case here where a man was due to appear in court on a rape charge. He escaped by killing his guard, taking her gun and in his escape killed several others including a judge.

There is absolutely no doubt he did it.

edit:
But if there cannot as you suggest be a case with no doubt then why are you arguing as there will never be a death sentence issued

[JPaul]

That's what he's fucking saying.

You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.
How?
Where have I said we should risk executing innocent people?


I already set the level at no doubt of guilt. I have stated on other threads that the system we have here at present needs to be tightened to remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. All they have to do is raise doubt no matter how thin to remove death as an option. Just beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough.
I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.

ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.

If so why would we want it in the UK.

[GepperRankins]

i don't believe that even if there isn't doubt every so often, the guilty should be killed

[JPaul]

OK let's even look at it from a practical viewpoint.

If you introduce no doubt then you must also keep reasonable doubt - everyone agree.

Then the Judge must instruct the Jury something like this.

If you find him guilty with absolutely no doubt, no tiny iota of doubt, not even one of you. Then return a no doubt verdict and I can sentence the accused to death.

If you return a reasonable doubt verdict, then I can sentence the accused to a maximum of life.

Do you really think that 15 people would all be willing to say "yes, there is not the slightest doubt that this person is of sound mind and that they premeditatedly murdered another person and I am willing to see them die because of it".

Maybe in your country but I don't think so in mine. Which is what we are talking about after all.

[Snee]

it's practically impossible to prove there's no doubt

But not impossible.

We have a case here where a man was due to appear in court on a rape charge. He escaped by killing his guard, taking her gun and in his escape killed several others including a judge.

There is absolutely no doubt he did it.

But, if he's found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, that would make it unfair not to convict others that have been found guilty of the same crime to the same sentence.

And since, in the real world anyway, no court is perfect, there is bound to be more than one wrongful conviction, and some will look, at the time, as if there isn't a doubt the right person was caught.

Those who have been wrongfully condemned have a chance of having a life if they are later proven innocent in a society without death penalties, this won't happen if they already are dead and buried.

[JPaul]

SnnY, see my two verdict solution.

It rox.

[Snee]

SnnY, see my two verdict solution.

It rox.
It's definitely better, but somehow I think it'd still be fallible.


Maybe I need to have a little more faith in people, tho' :unsure:

[JPaul]

SnnY, see my two verdict solution.

It rox.
It's definitely better, but somehow I think it'd still be fallible.


Maybe I need to have a little more faith in people, tho' :unsure:
It be better because it would never happen.

Serpently knot hear.

[vidcc]

I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.
I think our system is too lax and open to error so you take this part correctly. I also don't think we should execute those under the age of majority.



ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.
No. I support it but think the system that leads to it needs fixing. I am very specific about its use as a punishment and do not give it blanket support as it stands.



If so why would we want it in the UK.

You don't have to have it. As I already explained I raised the topic because Britain only recently withdrew it for treason even though it had been abolished for other capital crimes long before. And the issue was these particular home grown terrorists being "traitors"


I am fine with anyone that objects to capital punishment on moral grounds. I just don't share those morals.

[JPaul]

I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.



I think our system is too lax and open to error so you take this part correctly. I also don't think we should execute those under the age of majority.



ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.
No. I support it but think the system that leads to it needs fixing. I am very specific about its use as a punishment and do not give it blanket support as it stands.



How can you support it at all whilst it is still based on a "beyond reasonable doubt" proof. Which is what your country has (as far as I know).

I object to it on two grounds.

1. Moral

2. We get it wrong and innocent people die.

[bigboab]

OK let's even look at it from a practical viewpoint.

If you introduce no doubt then you must also keep reasonable doubt - everyone agree.

Then the Judge must instruct the Jury something like this.

If you find him guilty with absolutely no doubt, no tiny iota of doubt, not even one of you. Then return a no doubt verdict and I can sentence the accused to death.

If you return a reasonable doubt verdict, then I can sentence the accused to a maximum of life.

Do you really think that 15 people would all be willing to say "yes, there is not the slightest doubt that this person is of sound mind and that they premeditatedly murdered another person and I am willing to see them die because of it".

Maybe in your country but I don't think so in mine. Which is what we are talking about after all.

Taking your principle in mind. If someone stands accused of rape and their DNA was found inside the rape victim. If there was the slightest doubt in other aspects of the evidence then they should be found not guilty. Would I be correct in assuming that?

[JPaul]

OK let's even look at it from a practical viewpoint.

If you introduce no doubt then you must also keep reasonable doubt - everyone agree.

Then the Judge must instruct the Jury something like this.

If you find him guilty with absolutely no doubt, no tiny iota of doubt, not even one of you. Then return a no doubt verdict and I can sentence the accused to death.

If you return a reasonable doubt verdict, then I can sentence the accused to a maximum of life.

Do you really think that 15 people would all be willing to say "yes, there is not the slightest doubt that this person is of sound mind and that they premeditatedly murdered another person and I am willing to see them die because of it".

Maybe in your country but I don't think so in mine. Which is what we are talking about after all.

Taking your principle in mind. If someone stands accused of rape and their DNA was found inside the rape victim. If there was the slightest doubt in other aspects of the evidence then they should be found not guilty. Would I be correct in assuming that?

No

[vidcc]

But, if he's found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, that would make it unfair not to convict others that have been found guilty of the same crime to the same sentence. Each case is taken on it's own merrit...yes it's unfair that a no doubt case gets death when in all likelyhood the one with beyond reasonable doubt did it but gets life, but then that's a risk you play when you take an innocent life....tough luck


And since, in the real world anyway, no court is perfect, there is bound to be more than one wrongful conviction, and some will look, at the time, as if there isn't a doubt the right person was caught.

Those who have been wrongfully condemned have a chance of having a life if they are later proven innocent in a society without death penalties, this won't happen if they already are dead and buried.


that's why we have appeals

[vidcc]

How can you support it at all whilst it is still based on a "beyond reasonable doubt" proof. Which is what your country has (as far as I know).
.
I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now? :blink:

I object to it on two grounds.

1. Moral

2. We get it wrong and innocent people die.

I don't share your moral objection and the no doubt part removes the "getting it wrong"



Do you really think that 15 people would all be willing to say "yes, there is not the slightest doubt that this person is of sound mind and that they premeditatedly murdered another person and I am willing to see them die because of it".

Maybe in your country but I don't think so in mine. Which is what we are talking about after all.

You can't say it could never happen. But if as you believe it couldn't, you get to never have executions anyway..so why the problem?

[JPaul]

I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now? :blink:


So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.

Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.

[JPaul]

You can't say it could never happen. But if as you believe it couldn't, you get to never have executions anyway..so why the problem?
See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.

[vidcc]

I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now? :blink:


So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.

Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.
NO.

We have cases where there is no doubt already, I support it for those. I do not believe those cases should get a pass because others are only beyond reasonable doubt. I have already said I think beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough...do I need to say it again?

[bigboab]

You can't say it could never happen. But if as you believe it couldn't, you get to never have executions anyway..so why the problem?
See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.
What would you do if you were in the army and ordered to kill someone?

[vidcc]

See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.

I see a difference in ethics..the murderer has no problem taking innocent life. I do have a problem with that.

I am fine with your belief that all killing is wrong even though i don't share that belief.
I don't accept the rest about risk of executing innocent people as my criteria requires reform to eliminate that risk

Edit:

If you oppose it on moral grounds why would you need a second reason? :unsure:

[JPaul]

So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.

Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.
NO.

We have cases where there is no doubt already, I support it for those.
No you don't.

Unless you think you can make such judgements by reading newspapers and watching television. Which would just be bizarre.

How many such case have you actually sat thro' the whole proceedings. I would venture very few.

You are therefore basing this "no doubt" on a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, allied to what you have seen in the media.

Which would mean that there was "no doubt", in your opinion, based on reporting.

I don't think that vidcc has no doubt (based on the above) = absolutely no doubt.

You can't go killing people based on opinion. Well you can in the US, but we don't do it in the UK. Which is what we're talking about.

[Snee]

Each case is taken on it's own merrit...yes it's unfair that a no doubt case gets death when in all likelyhood the one with beyond reasonable doubt did it but gets life, but then that's a risk you play when you take an innocent life....tough luck
Yeah, tough luck indeed if you've been convicted of something you didn't do.

As far as I'm concerned the only case where there would be absolutely no doubt would be one where everyone responsible for the conviction of the guilty party had witnessed the crime, and where they all agreed on what happened and all forensic evidence (gathered by infallible methods) pointed to the same.

Witnesses can be unreliable, policemen can be corrupt, dna analyses can fail. So much can go wrong, because it is all run by human beings, who are, by nature, imperfect.

A case can look as if there is no doubt whatsoever at the time, but there may be a million reasons as to why it really isn't as certain as everyone thinks it is.


And an appeal won't always do, if you aren't lucky.




No legal system in the world is good enough for us to be absolutely certain everything is set right.

[JPaul]

If you oppose it on moral grounds why would you need a second reason? :unsure:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

What is that supposed to mean.

[JPaul]

See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.
What would you do if you were in the army and ordered to kill someone?
Do you mean like assasinate.

[vidcc]

Yeah, tough luck indeed if you've been convicted of something you didn't do. How could an innocent person be convicted with no doubt?... my way is a safer route for the beyond reasonable doubt people.


As far as I'm concerned the only case where there would be absolutely no doubt would be one where everyone responsible for the conviction of the guilty party had witnessed the crime, and where they all agreed on what happened and all forensic evidence (gathered by infallible methods) pointed to the same.



to start with the witnesses can't be the jury. but lets say the crime was captured on live tv...up close so the accused could be clearly seen and all the forensics matched your standard.

that ok?


but again I ask if "no doubt" is impossible to achieve why are you so adamant that an innocent person could be convicted?
So by your reconing I have set the standard so high that there will be no executions.

[JPaul]

He has a doppelganger.

[vidcc]

If you oppose it on moral grounds why would you need a second reason? :unsure:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

What is that supposed to mean.
Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?

So if it is wrong full stop you don't need any other argument to oppose it.

If any killing is wrong why would you need to say it's also wrong because we make mistakes....the first covers everything.


As I said I accept the moral view even though I don't agree with it....

Still it killed an afternoon

[vidcc]

He has a doppelganger.

:pinch:

[Snee]

How could an innocent person be convicted with no doubt?... my way is a safer route for the beyond reasonable doubt people.


As far as I'm concerned the only case where there would be absolutely no doubt would be one where everyone responsible for the conviction of the guilty party had witnessed the crime, and where they all agreed on what happened and all forensic evidence (gathered by infallible methods) pointed to the same.



to start with the witnesses can't be the jury. but lets say the crime was captured on live tv...up close so the accused could be clearly seen and all the forensics matched your standard.

that ok?


but again I ask if "no doubt" is impossible to achieve why are you so adamant that an innocent person could be convicted?
So by your reconing I have set the standard so high that there will be no executions.
If no doubt really means no doubt, I haven't got a problem. However, I don't think that's realistically possible, not if you are thinking of being able to execute people. 'cos if the notion of no doubt was followed to the letter it wouldn't be possible to convict anyone to a death penalty.

As for live tv, I think it's possible to get the wrong idea as we'll never be able to see the scene in full or have the full context.

As for forensics, my point was that there aren't any perfect methods today.
If there were, sure, but again it isn't realistically possible.

[JPaul]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What is that supposed to mean.
Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?


No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.

[JPaul]

He has a doppelganger.

:pinch:

No matter how unlikely, it is possible.

Therefore "absolutely no doubt" does not hold.

[vidcc]

Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?


No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.
ok you think capital punishment is wrong full stop. so if it's morally wrong to execute the guilty why would you need to say it's wrong to execute the guilty because we might make a mistake an execute the innocent?


when is killing morally right then?

[JPaul]

No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.
ok you think capital punishment is wrong full stop. so if it's morally wrong to execute the guilty why would you need to say it's wrong to execute the guilty because we might make a mistake an execute the innocent?


when is killing morally right then?

:lol:

The irony of vidcc spamming his own thread, because of being unable to post a cogent defence for an untenable position.

Fan-tastic.

[vidcc]

:pinch:

No matter how unlikely, it is possible.

Therefore "absolutely no doubt" does not hold. it's possible that he could switch places in front of the camera after being arrested at the scene or between being taken to lock up and trial.

take your rod and line elsewhere. :dry:

[Rat Faced]

Recently, there have been a few people convicted with "No Doubt" evidence from experts and forensics that have been released due to the original evidence now being "Unsafe"...


Throughout the world, i have lost count of how many people have been released after new evidence came to light, however there was no doubt when they were convicted...


To take the life of another Human Being, in cold blood... is wrong. Even if found "Guilty" by a jury of his peers.

Eyewitness evidence is some of the most unreliable..ask any copper. Yet most are convicted on this.

Forensic Science continues to evolve... what was "Proven" with it 10 years ago, is now "Disproven" now.. With the same evidence.




Anyone that says "Proven without Doubt" is daft, unless they were there. And even if it is... the reason why must come into play. Maybe the guy wasnt "innocent", but escaped justice and the father caught up with him...

There are too many variables, even without the fact that we're civilised and should know better... the Death Penalty is just wrong.

[JPaul]

No matter how unlikely, it is possible.

Therefore "absolutely no doubt" does not hold. it's possible that he could switch places in front of the camera after being arrested at the scene or between being taken to lock up and trial.

take your rod and line elsewhere. :dry:
Pas de rod, je ne fish pour le tiddler.

[vidcc]

ok you think capital punishment is wrong full stop. so if it's morally wrong to execute the guilty why would you need to say it's wrong to execute the guilty because we might make a mistake an execute the innocent?


when is killing morally right then?

:lol:

The irony of vidcc spamming his own thread, because of being unable to post a cogent defence for an untenable position.

Fan-tastic.
I see you are giving your fingers a rest and typing with your ass again..... nevertheless i would like to know when you consider killing morally right

[Rat Faced]

Its never morally right, sometimes its necessary.

If someone is convicted, then its no longer necessary.


Edit:

Morals are not universal.

Therefore, please read as "For Me" its never Morally Right.

[JPaul]

:lol:

The irony of vidcc spamming his own thread, because of being unable to post a cogent defence for an untenable position.

Fan-tastic.
I see you are giving your fingers a rest and typing with your ass again..... nevertheless i would like to know when you consider killing morally right
Not when the victim is of no threat to anyone else. Which is what this (your) thread is about.

I see that you have gone from poor debate to cheap insult, it saddens me that you spammed your own thread.

Perhaps you won't be so precious the next time someone else does it.

[vidcc]

Not when the victim is of no threat to anyone else. Which is what this (your) thread is about.
that still doesn't answer the question. give me an example.

If you think that they are of no threat to anyone once in prison perhaps you could explain how this is to the families of the dead prison guards.

I see that you have gone from poor debate to cheap insult, it saddens me that you spammed your own thread.

Perhaps you won't be so precious the next time someone else does it.


ahh did didums get upset...there therehttp://img335.imageshack.us/img335/4871/cry8pm.gif

[JPaul]

ahh did didums get upset...there therehttp://img335.imageshack.us/img335/4871/cry8pm.gif

:lol::lol::lol:

[GepperRankins]

Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?


No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.
maybe it works like kung fu movies. vid has only one point, so for us to argue with more than one is dishonourable :unsure:

[JPaul]

No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.
maybe it works like kung fu movies. vid has only one point, so for us to argue with more than one is dishonourable :unsure:
:lol: :h4r5h:

[vidcc]

No

Re your other "point"

Why would I only have one reason to hold an opinion. The fact that I find capital punishment morally wrong would not preclude me from having other reasons.
maybe it works like kung fu movies. vid has only one point, so for us to argue with more than one is dishonourable :unsure:

His two reasons are covered in one. Perhaps like the robot in red dwarf. he knows it's technically one reason but felt it was so important it's worth saying twice.

[JPaul]

maybe it works like kung fu movies. vid has only one point, so for us to argue with more than one is dishonourable :unsure:

His two reasons are covered in one. Perhaps like the robot in red dwarf. he knows it's technically one reason but felt it was so important it's worth saying twice.
Please to be keeping posting.

I am intrigued as to how much of an arse you want to be making of yourself.

[vidcc]

His two reasons are covered in one. Perhaps like the robot in red dwarf. he knows it's technically one reason but felt it was so important it's worth saying twice.
Please to be keeping posting.

I am intrigued as to how much of an arse you want to be making of yourself.
:sleep1:

[JPaul]

:lol:

Not predictable at all.

[GepperRankins]

maybe it works like kung fu movies. vid has only one point, so for us to argue with more than one is dishonourable :unsure:

His two reasons are covered in one. Perhaps like the robot in red dwarf. he knows it's technically one reason but felt it was so important it's worth saying twice.
*don't want to risk killing an innocent person
*don't want to lower oneself to be a killer also
*against ones religion/morally wrong


what's the one arguement?

[JPaul]

His two reasons are covered in one. Perhaps like the robot in red dwarf. he knows it's technically one reason but felt it was so important it's worth saying twice.
*don't want to risk killing an innocent person
*don't want to lower oneself to be a killer also
*against ones religion/morally wrong


what's the one arguement?
Hoi, don't explain it.

"oneself" :blink:

[GepperRankins]

well, i couldn't think of the right word :(

[JPaul]

well, i couldn't think of the right word :(
One's self, mayhap.

[GepperRankins]

you mean you'd be the executioner? http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/PWNED.gif


gotta drink this MD 20/20, it's the law

[JPaul]

you mean you'd be the executioner? http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/PWNED.gif


gotta drink this MD 20/20, it's the law
The = Mad Dog :phear:

and a fair law it is too.

[GepperRankins]

i've decided it will be easier if i drink this vodka i've had under my desk since the radio thing first :minesweeping:

[JPaul]

i've decided it will be easier if i drink this vodka i've had under my desk since the radio thing first :minesweeping:
Sensible option there, The.

[vidcc]

what's the one arguement?
already posted

[GepperRankins]

what's the one arguement?
already posted
you know, at the moment i don't have any qualms with drawing this out forever and ever and ever

[vidcc]

already posted
you know, at the moment i don't have any qualms with drawing this out forever and ever and ever
Well i have better things to do, it's getting near the time to read my kids bedtime story to them . so knock yourself out.

[GepperRankins]

ok. where were we? one point...


i don't understand. you started by saying j'pol should only have one point, everyone looked a bit like this: :huh: then you explicitly said he had in fact only one point

i mean like dude wtf know what i'm saying?

[JPaul]

you know, at the moment i don't have any qualms with drawing this out forever and ever and ever
Well i have better things to do, it's getting near the time to read my kids bedtime story to them . so knock yourself out.
You'd think that at 19 and 15 they could do it themselves.

Go figure, retired boy.

[GepperRankins]

lmao. i finished the vodka btw

[JPaul]

lmao. i finished the vodka btw
No shit, where's the hairspray.

[GepperRankins]

does that contain alcolol?

[JPaul]

does that contain alcolol?
It's volatile at STP, which must go for something.

I assume the OH (hydroxyl) is there.

[GepperRankins]

sexually transmitted penis?


i got rid of the taste then burped it back into my mouth :(

i think i'll give it ten minutes

[JPaul]

sexually transmitted penis?


i got rid of the taste then burped it back into my mouth :(

i think i'll give it ten minutes
Even money you'll wish you hadn't posted that.

[GepperRankins]

oops


what do you know. alcolol really does make you suck




at hand-eye co-ordination and such


at computer games, i mean

[Busyman]

Frankly I would want the least amount of tax money and grief spent on a person like Timothy McVey and to have dropped his ass off "nowhere" and make sure he never leaves.

Everyone else in prison need to do hard labor or face some amount of minor torture as a deterrent.

There are prisoners so hardened that they stay in solitary confinement almost all the time.

There are folks that kill just to go to jail 'cause they get meals and a warm bed.

That needs to change.

I rather not have a death penalty and prefer exile.

Btw this discussion of "there is no such thing as no doubt" is bullshit.

If someone is sitting minding their business on live TV and a fella comes up and slits that person throat, he's guilty with "no doubt".

There are plenty more instances of guilty "on paper" but I think you all know that.

Many guilty verdicts that were overturned years later were shaky and convictions were simply 60/40 in favor of I believe he was guilty enough .

[JPaul]

Btw this discussion of "there is no such thing as no doubt" is bullshit.

If someone is sitting minding their business on live TV and a fella comes up and slits that person throat, he's guilty with "no doubt".

The "absolutely no doubt" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" refers to the burden of proof.

Would you kill a man based on television evidence. Are you 100% sure (not 99.999999999 etc) that what you see on TV is accurate. Are you so convinced that it couldn't be faked, that no-one could lie. Are you so convinced by identification evidence that you have not the slightest doubt of it's accuracy. Bearing in mind that absolutely means just that, no doubt whatsoever, no matter how small.

vidcc has already told us this, that he would kill a man, based on his confidence that your media report thing with absolutely no doubt. I'm surprised you feel the same way.

[JPaul]

I'd like to read a bit more of that "ass-typing", if it's not too much trouble...

It seems the only sensible thing. :huh:
Thank you, my arse has been in particularly good form lately.

[GepperRankins]

ha. and that's not even out of context :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Btw this discussion of "there is no such thing as no doubt" is bullshit.

If someone is sitting minding their business on live TV and a fella comes up and slits that person throat, he's guilty with "no doubt".

The "absolutely no doubt" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" refers to the burden of proof.

Would you kill a man based on television evidence. Are you 100% sure (not 99.999999999 etc) that what you see on TV is accurate. Are you so convinced that it couldn't be faked, that no-one could lie. Are you so convinced by identification evidence that you have not the slightest doubt of it's accuracy. Bearing in mind that absolutely means just that, no doubt whatsoever, no matter how small.

vidcc has already told us this, that he would kill a man, based on his confidence that your media report thing with absolutely no doubt. I'm surprised you feel the same way.
I sure would although I would like an alternative that does not drain the victims substantially by having them pay for the criminal for the rest of their life nor kills them.

There are too many instances of 100% guilt. Video coupled with dna coupled with confessions with numerous witnesses or 2 out of 3, 3 out of 4....blah, blah, blah.

In many cases I don't subscribe to SnnY's far-fetched theories although the OJ case intrigues me.

[JPaul]

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.

[Busyman]

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.
Yeah if all those things work together then there has to be a vast conspiracy straight out of a movie.

I saw a person's brain blown out (got bits of brain on me). They were both friends of mine. I believe the shooter should have been put to death. He even killed someone in prison later with a shank. Before he was caught he shot and killed someone else and wounded 2 others.

He was convicted without my testimony since "I and another friend of mine were never there" so to speak.

There's also this fella (a convicted sex offender) who supposedly killed the mother, boyfriend, and 10 year-old son (something like that) and kidnapped the younger daughter and son, killed the son and sexually molested the daughter over and over (she survived).

Maybe he really didn't do it but so far from what I heard, saw, on TV and read, it ain't lookin to good for him. It's one of the worst cases of home invasion I ever heard of.

[JPaul]

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.
Yeah if all those things work together then there has to be a vast conspiracy straight out of a movie.

I saw a person's brain blown out (got bits of brain on me). They were both friends of mine. I believe the shooter should have been put to death. He even killed someone in prison later with a shank. Before he was caught he shot and killed someone else and wounded 2 others.

He was convicted without my testimony since "I and another friend of mine were never there" so to speak.

There's also this fella (a convicted sex offender) who supposedly killed the mother, boyfriend, and 10 year-old son (something like that) and kidnapped the younger daughter and son, killed the son and sexually molested the daughter over and over (she survived).

Maybe he really didn't do it but so far from what I heard, saw, on TV and read, it ain't lookin to good for him. It's one of the worst cases of home invasion I ever heard of.


Killing him would do what, get the revenge that vidcc wants. Fair enough if that's the kind of society you want.

We don't, therefore we don't have a death penalty. We don't want to emulate people like that, we want to be civilized.

[Snee]

They aren't "far-fetched" theories, forensic evidence turns out to be fooked all the time, eyewitnesses are often crap, and even live footage can give you the wrong impression (for instance, having two people, one outside the picture, one on camera, fire a gun at the same time from roughly the same angle, is going to look as if the one that was on camera hit whatever the person outside the picture was aiming at).

And the worst part of it is that people trust it far too much, sometimes.


Any society today needs to put people in prison, the situation would be impossible otherwise, but at least, if there is no death sentence, no one dies for a crime they haven't commited just 'cos the system is flawed.

I don't know how often it happens, maybe it isn't very often at all, but it still does. Gven the nature of your legal system, and the available technology, it's a certain thing.

[JPaul]

Please bear in mind that it was your countryman who suggested the death penalty was OK when there was "absolutely no doubt", it was one of mine who agreed with it. Tho' how he can support it (capital punishment) when you still work to the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is beyond me.

I was simply trying to explain that, as long as he used the word "absolutely", then that was a virtual and practical impossibility.

There are those of us who take the position that it is never right. Certainly not as a form of societal revenge. That is simply barbaric.

It would not surprise me if those who support it's use also described as barbaric the removal of a thief's hand as a form of punishment. Even tho' that is as nothing compared to the taking of his life. His only life in the view of our atheist friends.

[Busyman]

They aren't "far-fetched" theories, forensic evidence turns out to be fooked all the time, eyewitnesses are often crap, and even live footage can give you the wrong impression (for instance, having two people, one outside the picture, one on camera, fire a gun at the same time from roughly the same angle, is going to look as if the one that was on camera hit whatever the person outside the picture was aiming at).

And the worst part of it is that people trust it far too much, sometimes.


Any society today needs to put people in prison, the situation would be impossible otherwise, but at least, if there is no death sentence, no one dies for a crime they haven't commited just 'cos the system is flawed.

I don't know how often it happens, maybe it isn't very often at all, but it still does. Gven the nature of your legal system, and the available technology, it's a certain thing.

Well it is far-fetched.

You often do that SnnY. You did the same in the gun thread.
I should call you Fire Marshall Bill. :lol: :lol:

Pick and choose an example that bolsters your argument. I could tell you that a fella killed Jay Leno on live TV while the studio audience watched and you'll say "but, but, but". Butbutbut STFU. :dry:

I think the legality of what evidence can be used to put someone to death needs to be strengthened. I mean for all I know there are folks on death row because of circumstantial evidence.

At least JP's view of state :ermm: sponsored murder has more teeth.

[Busyman]

Please bear in mind that it was your countryman who suggested the death penalty was OK when there was "absolutely no doubt", it was one of mine who agreed with it. Tho' how he can support it (capital punishment) when you still work to the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is beyond me.

I was simply trying to explain that, as long as he used the word "absolutely", then that was a virtual and practical impossibility.

There are those of us who take the position that it is never right. Certainly not as a form of societal revenge. That is simply barbaric.

It would not surprise me if those who support it's use also described as barbaric the removal of a thief's hand as a form of punishment. Even tho' that is as nothing compared to the taking of his life. His only life in the view of our atheist friends.
Who is your countryman?

I think it's barbaric on some levels to have victims pay for criminals welfare.

"You killed my 5 year-old son...go to sleep in warmth and have a meal"