Planet Rugby Forum

Always been against the death penalty, but with the increase in barbarity, over population, lack of deterrent for killers and the cost of imprisonment I think they should reinstate the death penalty.

The news is full of crazy arse wipes killing people, getting 10 years and they are out ready to kill again. Meanwhile the victims families pay forever. There are just too many people on the planet, need to cull the psychos, bogans and teenage joyriders.

Nice.......

This will be good.

Hear, hear!

It's just common sense.

The Optimist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:00 am Always been against the death penalty, but with the increase in barbarity, over population, lack of deterrent for killers and the cost of imprisonment I think they should reinstate the death penalty.

The news is full of crazy arse wipes killing people, getting 10 years and they are out ready to kill again. Meanwhile the victims families pay forever. There are just too many people on the planet, need to cull the psychos, bogans and teenage joyriders.

Can I ask you what exactly led you to oppose the death penalty in the first place? Given that the revelation that has led to your change of mind seems trite.

If we reintroduce the death penalty they will kick us out of the EU

I think we've underestimated the role violence plays in keeping things civil. People, even kids, should get a whack if they are being dickheads. We've completely overplayed our ability to reason.

The sanctity of human life from conception to grave for me.

Look at the countries with capital punishment.

It's just a disgrace. Utterly barbaric.

Personally I think we need to defund the police and just trust people more.

Also, remove doors from houses.

Execution

Costing the NZ tax payer a fortune per year, could be better spent on feeding the poor, building hospitals ... anything but this twat.

The Optimist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:00 am Always been against the death penalty, but with the increase in barbarity, over population, lack of deterrent for killers and the cost of imprisonment I think they should reinstate the death penalty.

The news is full of crazy arse wipes killing people, getting 10 years and they are out ready to kill again. Meanwhile the victims families pay forever. There are just too many people on the planet, need to cull the psychos, bogans and teenage joyriders.

How many state executions do you think would be needed, Mr Gates?

The Optimist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:29 am


Execution

Costing the NZ tax payer a fortune per year, could be better spent on feeding the poor, building hospitals ... anything but this twat.

Is that you, Garth?

With all due respect, the NZ police and CPS don't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to prosecuting and convicting alleged murderers.

I think there should be the death penalty, for the most severe crimes, and only if guilt is totally unquestionable. Not as a punishment or deterrent either, as I really don't think the people that commit the kind of crimes we're talking about actually care too much.

It seems to me that the original primary opposition to this is a hypocritical religious one, "thou shalt not kill", "all life is sacred". Although it's been adopted by well-meaning softies, I don't believe they're thought it through before having a knee jerk reaction over it.

All life is sacred? Really? Why? Why should society keep an unrepentant child-rapist, torturer and murderer alive? It's not about "punishing" that person or "setting an example" or "revenge". It's simply the fact that that person's best contribution to society is as fertilizer for the prison gardens and keeping them alive is expensive.

He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.


Dear god what an idiot.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Dear god what an idiot.

The first thing is true, the second thing is not. The private prison institution in the US that relies on locking people up for minor offences is morally reprehensible. As for other countries you could just as easily argue that locking someone in a concrete box for life, often with extended periods of isolation, is a "slippery moral slope".

It's just not a slippery moral slope unless you're going by religious doctrine.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:58 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Dear god what an idiot.

The first thing is true, the second thing is not. The private prison institution in the US that relies on locking people up for minor offences is morally reprehensible. As for other countries you could just as easily argue that locking someone in a concrete box for life, often with extended periods of isolation, is a "slippery moral slope".

It's just not a slippery moral slope unless you're going by religious doctrine.

So “ shall not kill “is required for humanity..... humanists argue otherwise.

Bloody atheist.

Sorry, it’s an absolute for me. The choice to take a life where avoidable isn’t right for the state. They lose all moral authority.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Apart from the personal abuse which I deleted from the quote, I agree with Bimbo.

Meanwhile the victims families pay forever.

How will that change?

Sensible Stephen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:48 am Personally I think we need to defund the police and just trust people more.

Also, remove doors from houses.

If you have limited funds and police not trained to be doing the soc7al work they are being asked to do would you not consider redistributing funds and responsibility

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:02 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:58 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Dear god what an idiot.

The first thing is true, the second thing is not. The private prison institution in the US that relies on locking people up for minor offences is morally reprehensible. As for other countries you could just as easily argue that locking someone in a concrete box for life, often with extended periods of isolation, is a "slippery moral slope".

It's just not a slippery moral slope unless you're going by religious doctrine.

So “ shall not kill “is required for humanity..... humanists argue otherwise.

Bloody atheist.

Sorry, it’s an absolute for me. The choice to take a life where avoidable isn’t right for the state. They lose all moral authority.

And your argument is purely religious, based in a book that also teaches that if a girl has sex before marriage, she should be dragged to the steps of her father's house and stoned to death by the men of the village.

I think we can safely summize that particular text is not any source of moral truth or righteousness.

Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:08 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:02 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:58 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Dear god what an idiot.

The first thing is true, the second thing is not. The private prison institution in the US that relies on locking people up for minor offences is morally reprehensible. As for other countries you could just as easily argue that locking someone in a concrete box for life, often with extended periods of isolation, is a "slippery moral slope".

It's just not a slippery moral slope unless you're going by religious doctrine.

So “ shall not kill “is required for humanity..... humanists argue otherwise.

Bloody atheist.

Sorry, it’s an absolute for me. The choice to take a life where avoidable isn’t right for the state. They lose all moral authority.

And your argument is purely religious, based in a book that also teaches that if a girl has sex before marriage, she should be dragged to the steps of her father's house and stoned to death by the men of the village.

I think we can safely summize that particular text is not any source of moral truth or righteousness.

So you’re arguing that only religion keeps people from committing murder. ?

Enzedder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:07 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Apart from the personal abuse which I deleted from the quote, I agree with Bimbo.

Any form of justification for taking someone and forcing them to do anything at all is a "morally slipperly slope". As far as "morals" go, there's a bee's dick of difference between locking someone is an isolated concrete box for the rest of their life and humane execution.

In fact, one could easily make a strong philosophical argument that the most moral thing to do is execution. Philosophically, Sam Harris argues that "good" is "whatever action causes the least amount of net suffering", not to the individual, but to all living things as a whole.

If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered a bunch of children, says vile, unrepentant and distressingly hurtful things after the fact, and guilt is absolutley assured, you really want to keep this person alive, albeit locked up for the rest of their life, because you believe this to be the most "moral" course of action?

Such cases are not unheard of. Some would argue that it's immoral not to execute such a person. Keeping them alive actually causes more suffering.

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Referendum would be good as I don't want to oppose the will of the people. At least in this case the outcome is defined so they do know what they are voting for.

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I agree but I'm an out of touch scientist/engineer.

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

At least I certainly am not. I'm talking about cases such as described earlier. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered a bunch of children, says vile, unrepentant and distressingly hurtful things after the fact, and guilt is absolutley assured.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:08 am

Sensible Stephen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:48 am Personally I think we need to defund the police and just trust people more.

Also, remove doors from houses.

If you have limited funds and police not trained to be doing the soc7al work they are being asked to do would you not consider redistributing funds and responsibility

I would call for an overhaul of the system and not use misleading slogans that give people the wrong idea.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

That’s exactly what support for the death penalty means in reality.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:43 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

That’s exactly what support for the death penalty means in reality.

Assume that if that's the reality, then I dont support capital punishment. I don't believe that has to be the reality, regardless of what has happened before, but just put that aside for a minute.

If, hypotheotically, we could be 100% sure of guilt, does that mean you would then support the death-penalty?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

At least I certainly am not. I'm talking about cases such as described earlier. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered a bunch of children, says vile, unrepentant and distressingly hurtful things after the fact, and guilt is absolutley assured.

People who implement capital punishment legislation don't usually do so to kill innocents, but it absolutely happens.

Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life and occur everywhere to varying degrees. Set aside the moral argument for and against capital punishment, just one innocent individual being killed by the state is one too many for me.

You also get a situation like you do in the US where your sentence even when guilty will very much defend on the calibre of your legal representation. That's one thing when looking at the difference between 10 and 20 years in jail, completely another when talking about life and death.

Margin_Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:47 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

At least I certainly am not. I'm talking about cases such as described earlier. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered a bunch of children, says vile, unrepentant and distressingly hurtful things after the fact, and guilt is absolutley assured.

People who implement capital punishment legislation don't usually do so to kill innocents, but it absolutely happens.

Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life and occur everywhere to varying degrees. Set aside the moral argument for and against capital punishment, just one innocent individual being killed by the state is one too many for me.

You also get a situation like you do in the US where your sentence even when guilty will very much defend on the calibre of your legal representation. That's one thing when looking at the difference between 10 and 20 years in jail, completely another when talking about life and death.

See the question I asked in the post directly above yours.

We're talking about the real world here MOG, not hypotheticals

Margin_Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:55 am We're talking about the real world here MOG, not hypotheticals

No, I'm literally talking about hypotheticals. What is your answer?

Killing 1 innocent person in a million seems ok right now if it involves a vaccine.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:56 am Killing 1 innocent person in a million seems ok right now if it involves a vaccine.

True! Solid point. However I'm not sure these chaps support vaccines either.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:55 am

Margin_Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:55 am We're talking about the real world here MOG, not hypotheticals

No, I'm literally talking about hypotheticals. What is your answer?

Would, I support the death penalty in that make believe scenario? Still nope.

I have seen documentaries about people who got out of Prison due to improvements in dna etc.
It really exposes the tunnel vision a lot of cops have about the first suspect they came across.

I find myself in a self contradictory position on this. On the one hand, I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance, even for the most terrible crimes and when guilt is certain.

On the other hand, I don't have any real issue with drone strikes targeting individuals who are known terrorists. I guess it just feels a bit more like military rather than judicial action.

I've been aware of my personal difficulty over this for some time and have come to accept it so feel free to criticise my hypocrisy.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:34 am

Petej wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:25 am

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:09 am Ian Hislop and Priti Patel discuss the death penalty on Question Time

https://youtu.be/YtwDrjYvFeY

Perhaps we should put it to a referendum? Ian Hislop is on a panel show and priti patel is home secretary. Priti Patel has been elected to represent the likes of bimbo et al which I'm sure she does admirably. Ian Hislop isn't elected and represents an out of touch elite.

Ian Hislop rightfully points out that the numerous miscarriages of justice in the UK over the years makes the introduction of the death penalty a not terribly smart thing to do unless you think killing the wrong person from time to time is acceptable collateral.

I think that's a cheap point. If you're killing innocents, you're doing it wrong. Nobody is arguing for capital punishment, "and we acknowledge we'll be killing a few innocents along the way".

At least I certainly am not. I'm talking about cases such as described earlier. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered a bunch of children, says vile, unrepentant and distressingly hurtful things after the fact, and guilt is absolutley assured.

No government are going to casually admit that now and again they occasionally kill the wrong person, but if you introduce capital punishment you have to tacitly accept that in an imperfect justice system that will eventually happen. Unrepentant serial killers and perpetrators of mass public terror attacks with hundreds of witnesses are not really going to be the problem, it's the lower profile cases where the f*ck ups are going to happen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

Hahaha look at the numbers. Easy to get that up with a targeted campaign. Good uk election issue for Tories as well due to the split vote in opposition. Going by the mother-in-law and other olds would be popular in that demographic.

Enzedder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:07 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:56 am He world has never been less barbaric. The world is the most lawful and peace abiding it has ever been in history. The premise is wrong.

The state should kill people to save money is some slippery moral slope.

Apart from the personal abuse which I deleted from the quote, I agree with Bimbo.

Meanwhile the victims families pay forever.

How will that change?

With Enz and Bimbo. I simply cannot be comfortable with the Death Penalty as a lawful option.