Planet Rugby Forum

Frodder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 am

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.

Indeed, there are scores of reasons "why not" in reality even if you take morality out of it.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:45 am

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

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?

Absolutely not, guilt isn’t the issue. The state should not take a life.

An eye for an eye chaps.

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 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.

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.

Okay. So you don't use capital punishment on the "lower profile cases", only the "unrepentant serial killers and perpetrators of mass public terror attacks with hundreds of witnesses". That solves that problem (and is also more-or-less what I have been saying from the beginning).

So, the above as a given in a hypothetical world, would you then support capital punishment?

Frodder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 am

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.

I'm not comfortable keeping child-rapists and torturers around for no very good reason.

To be clear, I'm not "comfortable" with capital punishment either. It's not a "comforting" thing to discuss. That's beside the point.

A5D5E5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 am 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.

Sort of with you. However, I suspect drone strikes targeting known terrorists end up killing innocents including children.

Mog referred Margin back to his question 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.

I couldn't help wagering that Mog would be close to calling for the death penalty on members of the Australian Defence Force.

Or are "war crimes" excluded?

shereblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:16 am

A5D5E5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 am 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.

Sort of with you. However, I suspect drone strikes targeting known terrorists end up killing innocents including children.

Mog referred Margin back to his question 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.

I couldn't help wagering that Mog would be close to calling for the death penalty on members of the Australian Defence Force.

Or are "war crimes" excluded?

Once we have somebody safely under control then I wouldn't exclude any crime including war crimes, genocide etc.

I know that drones are not surgical, and it causes me a lot of difficulty, but I see them in much the same way as any weapon of war - they cause (and I hate the phrase) collateral damage.

A5D5E5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:25 am

shereblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:16 am

A5D5E5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:00 am 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.

Sort of with you. However, I suspect drone strikes targeting known terrorists end up killing innocents including children.

Mog referred Margin back to his question 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.

I couldn't help wagering that Mog would be close to calling for the death penalty on members of the Australian Defence Force.

Or are "war crimes" excluded?

Once we have somebody safely under control then I wouldn't exclude any crime including war crimes, genocide etc.

I know that drones are not surgical, and it causes me a lot of difficulty, but I see them in much the same way as any weapon of war - they cause (and I hate the phrase) collateral damage.

Drone killings are pretty extensive. Tens of thousands in the usual hotspots I would guess. In the real world (ie our Western world) I accept that they are a necessary evil and may save innocent lives. For so long as "we" have the best toys.

I would have concerns about rules of engagement however regarding some targets not actively involved in combat. In particular those not even on any "kill list" who are designated suspected terrorists by the CIA or Special Forces.

In my view, maximum permissible transparency is generally desirable. Or you get out of control units (as outlined in the Brereton Report on Aussie Special Forces Units) who probably promote so called terrorism.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:45 am

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

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?

I believe its wrong for the state to punish it's citizens by murdering them. You don't but you will vote with me because you know the state will kill innocents by mistake

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:26 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:45 am

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

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?

I believe its wrong for the state to punish it's citizens by murdering them. You don't but you will vote with me because you know the state will kill innocents by mistake

As I've already said, it's not about "punishing".

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

Driving and vaccination are necessary for a functioning society in the 21st Century.

Capital punishment isn't.

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?

Bloody hell - I actually, totally, agree with something Bimbo has posted.

It isn't that I think that some people don't deserve to die, or that I give two hoots about them, I just don't think we should sully ourselves by killing them.

What about, instead of using it as a deterrent, use it as a way of protecting the public? I mean those that are imprisoned until they die, no chance for parole? Offer it to them as an alternative to dying in prison. Those that think they have a chance of getting out again, because they believe they have a genuine case, or have power over the right people, obviously wouldn't go for it, but others might if offered it. But would the general public stomach that?
Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:30 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:26 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:45 am

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

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

I believe its wrong for the state to punish it's citizens by murdering them. You don't but you will vote with me because you know the state will kill innocents by mistake

As I've already said, it's not about "punishing".

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:18 am 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.

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

The Running Man was set in 2017-19.

Simon Cowell gets the show going for real, with regional heats where the worst offenders are set loose in Cardiff, Liverpool etc on a Saturday night. Anyone who makes it to the loos in Wetherspoons gets to compete in the grand final, postcode hoping across South London.

Survive that, and they get to live on an abandoned oil rig in the North Sea.

Great entertainment and we get to thin out a few wrong 'uns.

Win win.

diarm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:41 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:18 am 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.

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

ovalball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:36 am

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?

Bloody hell - I actually, totally, agree with something Bimbo has posted.

It isn't that I think that some people don't deserve to die, or that I give two hoots about them, I just don't think we should sully ourselves by killing them.

Bimbo hacked

I was thinking that myself a few minutes ago. An opinion so obviously wrong, that even Bimbo doesn't want to play devil's advocate with it.

It's also very expensive.

“Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms … ($232.7 million per year) … and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).”

-California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008

ovalball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 am It's also very expensive.

“Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms … ($232.7 million per year) … and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).”

-California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008

Not if you just kill em without appeals etc, silly.

There is also in the case of the moors murders - child murders who were defiantly guilty.. When they were arrested the death penalty still existed and was removed when they were on remand.

What has been forgotten over the last 30 years is right up to the early 90s there was a campaign who believed Myra was innocent and had been lead by Iain Brady, It was only in the 90s that her active role was admitted by them both the the campaign stopped,

If she had been hanged there would be a good chance that there would be an active campaign talking about misarrange of justice now (in the same way as Ruth Ellis)

msp. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:59 amIf she had been hanged there would be a good chance that there would be an active campaign talking about misarrange of justice now (in the same way as Ruth Ellis)

Love the term misarrange of justice, greta typo.

I wouldn’t put Ellis in the classic miscarriage of justice category, but it certainly highlighted the issue with mandatory sentencing.

Timothy Evans was the real shocker for me.

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.

It’s a key part of the media’s business plan to make you angry and scared.

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.

And yet, Harris might become POTUS.

Mr Mike wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:38 am

msp. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:59 amIf she had been hanged there would be a good chance that there would be an active campaign talking about misarrange of justice now (in the same way as Ruth Ellis)

Love the term misarrange of justice, greta typo.

I wouldn’t put Ellis in the classic miscarriage of justice category, but it certainly highlighted the issue with mandatory sentencing.

Timothy Evans was the real shocker for me.

Congratulations on your longevity.

Mick Mannock wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:43 am

Mr Mike wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:38 am

msp. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:59 amIf she had been hanged there would be a good chance that there would be an active campaign talking about misarrange of justice now (in the same way as Ruth Ellis)

Love the term misarrange of justice, greta typo.

I wouldn’t put Ellis in the classic miscarriage of justice category, but it certainly highlighted the issue with mandatory sentencing.

Timothy Evans was the real shocker for me.

Congratulations on your longevity.

high fat diet and no sleep, what do scientists know.

Live long and prosper.

I wonder if my idea of holding the London Marathon, monthly, and then every 15 minutes of the race shooting the last 6 people, will get any traction?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:44 am

diarm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:41 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:18 am 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.

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:11 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:44 am

diarm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:41 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:18 am 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.

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

As I mentioned, I already addressed that point.

Margin_Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:35 am Driving and vaccination are necessary for a functioning society in the 21st Century.

Capital punishment isn't.

What about drones?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:16 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:11 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:44 am

diarm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:41 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:18 am 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.

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

As I mentioned, I already addressed that point.

Is this what you are referring to?

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

In it's favour is that it's a string of sentences that can be readily understood. Against it is that it doesn't present anything like a coherent argument.

As an example, you state you would not vote for a system that kills innocents but, on the very topic of the death of innocents, question why a line should be drawn regarding the death of 'accused child rapists'.

Strident posts with glaring logical inconsistencies make one look a bit of a mug, y'know.

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:16 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:11 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:44 am

diarm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:41 am

Well this is a load of bollox.

People are wrongly convicted all the time. It can be due to human error, failures in criminal technology, miscarriages of justice or even conspiracy.

If the person is locked up, and in 10 or 20 years new evidence comes to light, they can be released. If they have been wronged by individuals or the state, restitution can be made. It is still wrong and awful what has happened to them but they can still be given something of their life back.

Once you have killed them, there is no coming back. I can't quite believe that even needs spelling out.

You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

As I mentioned, I already addressed that point.

Is this what you are referring to?

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

In it's favour is that it's a string of sentences that can be readily understood. Against it is that it doesn't present anything like a coherent argument.

As an example, you state you would not vote for a system that kills innocents but, on the very topic of the death of innocents, question why a line should be drawn regarding the death of 'accused child rapists'.

Strident posts with glaring logical inconsistencies make one look a bit of a mug, y'know.

I'm not being strident, I'm discussing it quite calmly.

I posed the hypothetical question, if you could be guaranteed never to use capital punishment on an innocent, would you then support it?

So far nobody has. Indicating that rather cheap reasoning is somewhat of a red-herring. What's the real reason?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:41 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:16 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:11 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:44 am
You make fair points, but I've already covered this several times.

Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

As I mentioned, I already addressed that point.

Is this what you are referring to?

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

In it's favour is that it's a string of sentences that can be readily understood. Against it is that it doesn't present anything like a coherent argument.

As an example, you state you would not vote for a system that kills innocents but, on the very topic of the death of innocents, question why a line should be drawn regarding the death of 'accused child rapists'.

Strident posts with glaring logical inconsistencies make one look a bit of a mug, y'know.

I'm not being strident, I'm discussing it quite calmly.

I posed the hypothetical question, if you could be guaranteed never to use capital punishment on an innocent, would you then support it?

So far nobody has. Indicating that rather cheap reasoning is somewhat of a red-herring. What's the real reason?

A personal answer to that: I think that people and their lives are important. They are the only things that really matter. Including really bad people.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:41 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm In it's favour is that it's a string of sentences that can be readily understood. Against it is that it doesn't present anything like a coherent argument.

As an example, you state you would not vote for a system that kills innocents but, on the very topic of the death of innocents, question why a line should be drawn regarding the death of 'accused child rapists'.

Strident posts with glaring logical inconsistencies make one look a bit of a mug, y'know.

I'm not being strident, I'm discussing it quite calmly.

I posed the hypothetical question, if you could be guaranteed never to use capital punishment on an innocent, would you then support it?

So far nobody has. Indicating that rather cheap reasoning is somewhat of a red-herring. What's the real reason?

You really are funny mog

Gwenno wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:37 am What about, instead of using it as a deterrent, use it as a way of protecting the public? I mean those that are imprisoned until they die, no chance for parole? Offer it to them as an alternative to dying in prison. Those that think they have a chance of getting out again, because they believe they have a genuine case, or have power over the right people, obviously wouldn't go for it, but others might if offered it. But would the general public stomach that?
Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent?

That is potentially open to so much abuse, as are many of the comments/suggestions above. For me its not about innocents may/will die, its just repugnant and sets our base as a society much lower. Plus it has not shown to work. I do however appreciate some arguments counter to this have merit, I just don't think they come close to tilting the scale the other way, imho.

koroke hangareka wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:41 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:16 pm

MungoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:11 pm
Yeah. If someone is really, really guilty of really, really abhorrent crimes then it's OK to kill them.

Because folk get fitted up for committing really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And judges make mistakes in law in cases featuring really, really abhorrent crimes never.

And juries find defendants guilty of really, really aboorrent crimes on the basis of bullshit evidence never.

Pfft.

As I mentioned, I already addressed that point.

Is this what you are referring to?

Regarding killing innocents, firstly, you are right, I wouldn't vote for any system that did that. Secondly, a certain amount of "inncoents being killed" is already widely accepted by the State in everything. Driving laws, for example. Mandated vaccines apparently, even if it is one-in-a-million. There's a number they (and we) are willing to accept for everything.

Why we should draw a line when it comes to accused murderer child-rapists I have no idea.

In it's favour is that it's a string of sentences that can be readily understood. Against it is that it doesn't present anything like a coherent argument.

As an example, you state you would not vote for a system that kills innocents but, on the very topic of the death of innocents, question why a line should be drawn regarding the death of 'accused child rapists'.

Strident posts with glaring logical inconsistencies make one look a bit of a mug, y'know.

I'm not being strident, I'm discussing it quite calmly.

I posed the hypothetical question, if you could be guaranteed never to use capital punishment on an innocent, would you then support it?

So far nobody has. Indicating that rather cheap reasoning is somewhat of a red-herring. What's the real reason?

A personal answer to that: I think that people and their lives are important. They are the only things that really matter. Including really bad people.

I agree with this very much, but I would extend it to the natural world too - animals, the environment... after how some humans are treated, I next abhor what we do with the rest of the planet some times. Let's not go down that tangent on this thread though.

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.

If you found out, for certain, that a good mate had murdered somebody, would you tell the police?

like many people i would not loose much sleep if a child murder, serial killer was hanged, nor would i celebrate. It just seems wrong to me and a backward step.