SNACR Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Given this comes at the same time as the copper that killed Ian Tomlinson's, basically got off in a whitewash and the Hillsborough revelations, I couldn't countenance the special case of a death penalty for killing a copper unless there was much better evidence they were being held to account for their own misdemeanors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinAndPlatonic Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's called on a "case by case basis". As an example have a look at Robert Black. He was actually caught red handed with a child tied up in the back of his van by the father, who actually happened to be a serving Scottish Policeman. I think you are trying to be too prescriptive, that won't work. I`m not sure what you mean by prescriptive. I believe there is no way we will ever be totally 100% sure that all people hung,electrocuted or shot by a state, in a system that approves of capital punishment is fool proof. Until or if there ever is, then it isn`t good enough showing examples of where you think there is. Edit to add isn`t every court case ..."case by case" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 People need to separate their emotional reactions from practicality. I'd quite like to see paedophile's heads put in microwaves until their brains boiled out of their eyes, but the reality is that someone would have that done when they didn't deserve it. Until coppers and judges are perfect humans, no death penalty for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Collateral damage. There would be less dead innocents at the end of the year with the death penalty deterrent. Without death penalty 1000 innocents dead With death penalty deterrent 700 innocents dead but 2 were wrongly convicted 'murderers' killed by the state. net gain still 300 innocent lives saved What if the 2 wrongly convicted were your children, would you trade them to save the lives of the complete strangers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinAndPlatonic Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 There are certain tariffs (sentence guide lines if you like) that a judge can award a guilty person, hence a case by case basis would be exactly that, Robert Black was banged to rights (that's 100% guilty, no ambiguity), he should have been executed. Still, if after reading about him or watching the documentary (C5 on demand) you still wouldn't execute him then I suggest you are really in the camp which wouldn't execute on moral grounds. Channel five.? Now there is a channel that makes 100% true documentaries You are free to suggest anything, but I still state that it is not on moral grounds I am against the death penalty. Edit : PS you mentioned (guide lines if you like)...so it is still left up to a fallible person such as a judge to decide if someone is guilty then, even though, it is after looking at all the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I take it then, you'd have no problem with a father (who upon finding his child being abused), feeding the perpetrator his own b0llocks then? Tricky. Suppose he just suspected but didn't actually witness anything? This is going to happen a lot more often than the clear-cut situation you mention. I'd tend towards leniency for the father in most circs, but the law is there for us all, in theory at least, and that must include paedos however disagreeable that may be. And even for paedos, there's the evidence of the chap with the brain tumour (Google if you don't know) which strongly suggests they can't help themselves much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 As an example have a look at Robert Black. He was actually caught red handed with a child tied up in the back of his van by the father, who actually happened to be a serving Scottish Policeman. You're 100% certain about that one? There's no doubt whatsoever that it wasn't a fit up by the cops for whatever reason. It's unlikely, but it does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Belgrano Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Excellent BBC documentary on iplayer a month or two back. Talked about the pre-police days in the 18th century. Public hangings for many minor crimes, moved to hangings for serious crimes. The big change was in the end the hanging was done inside the jails. The documentary went on to talk about the various anomilies the laws threw up. Talk of a crime involving the murder of a Policeman in the 60's. One of the criminals was less than 16 (i think) he got prison although he was the one who fired the gun. His mate was older and used the expression "let him have it". Did he mean shoot him, or hand over the weapon? he was never the less hanged....... Lot's of interesting interviews on the subject with Albert Pierpoint, who was quiet a celebrity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermaus Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Correction it was the Bentley case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case god he had an uphill paper round didn't he? 19 years old he looks 45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I wonder if a relative of a murder victim was allowed to kill the convicted murderer, rather than the state, how many would actually be able to go through with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheBlueCat Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 No because I don't trust the police and judicial system to be 100% competent and honest. Killing someone is, at least with current technology, irrevocable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I don't need to be but everyone involved, including the father, is. There's no such thing as certainty. Most likely person to murder a child? Their mother or father. Least reliable form of evidence? Eyewitnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 No because we'll end up killing innocent people. Mistakes happen. if you are going to remove the state, im all for that but whilst the state remains then there is no socionomic solution because there is a financially retarded popn who will accept state violence for the greater good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Belgrano Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 thanks for the corrections, terrible events in Manchester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkandrew Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It is isn't it. Although I disagree with the senior copper (on C4 news), who thinks a cop killer should get a longer sentence than a killer of someone not wearing a uniform. Quite. There is an arguement, supported from time to time by the government when politically expedient to do so, to waive penalties for killers of police. Its sort of 'goes along with what you signed up for' and 'robot of the state'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinAndPlatonic Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Well, if you can't trust someone to sit in judgement is anarchy the answer then? Anarchy ... ugh? just because I do not trust fallible human beings to decide if a person is to die...just do not have the death penalty. That`s the answer....end of.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I used to be massively against it. Not anymore. The number one thing that gets really pissed off is the argument "it's not civilized for the state to kill people". It's more uncivilized to NOT protect the civilized citizens from the totally feral bits of society, if you want to use that argument. You can protect citizens by properly locking them up...Once you start killing people (an eye for an eye, revenge, whatever you want to call it), you start to become no better than the criminals themselves - society wants to rise above this. Put the most evil in solitary confinement if need be - no TV, no access to outside world, no "creature comforts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEATH Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 How about a referendum and we note the people that vote against the death penalty so we know where to house the murderers when they get out after 10-15 years. Only fair I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 How about a referendum and we note the people that vote against the death penalty so we know where to house the murderers when they get out after 10-15 years. Only fair I think. Maybe those who vote for the death penalty could do the killing rather than leave it to a third party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Thou shalt not kill. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Maybe those who vote for the death penalty could do the killing rather than leave it to a third party? I think you will find that there will be a queue round the block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snafu Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You can protect citizens by properly locking them up...Once you start killing people (an eye for an eye, revenge, whatever you want to call it), you start to become no better than the criminals themselves - society wants to rise above this. Put the most evil in solitary confinement if need be - no TV, no access to outside world, no "creature comforts". Some criminals like prison you know? Like, quite a few. No big deterrent. Lose your life, more at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I think you will find that there will be a queue round the block. Maybe, a lot of people make the macho instant claim that they'd have no problem killing someone. While that's clearly true in self-defence, in the heat of the moment defending loved ones and under some situations of coercion or training, would they be able to pull the trigger/push the button when face to face with another human being in a calm situation of execution after a conviction? The evidence suggests either not at all, or at least not without suffering psychological damage themselves. If they were, without any bother, it would suggest sociopathy. I understand that many relatives who, after only witnessing executions of the murderers of their loved ones, actually change their minds about the death penalty. This (in many cases) delusional belief of one's own (and others') ability to kill I think can lead to problems in judging human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Thou shalt not kill. That is all. Bless. It's always justified in times of war and that's killing non-criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.