Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[Pickman's model]

I bet people call you Sherlock Holmes!

Yeh but they're thinking lestrade

 

[Aaronf]

So then you'd kill the executioner

Is what the executioner does the same as the premeditated murder of three children and the intention for many more?

 

[Calamity1971]

So then you'd kill the executioner

End of thread.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

This isn't much of an argument really. It's only an argument against mandatory capital punishment for certain offences, and nobody has ever argued for that.

No it's not. The point is so straightforward. There are and have been multiple miscarriages of justice. The wrong people convicted of capital offences. That will still happen. You can't legislate for that because our legal system claims to be infallible, until proven otherwise. By which time it might be too late.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is what the executioner does the same as the premeditated murder of three children and the intention for many more?

You know that bit in a debate when someone belatedly realises they've painted themselves into a corner, tries to shift the parameters of the discussion and pisses all over their own argument? That's you with this post.

Take Pierrepont, for example. Executed between 430 and 600 people. How many people do you think an executioner will kill before they're proficient?

 

[Spymaster]

No it's not. The point is so straightforward. There are and have been multiple miscarriages of justice. The wrong people convicted of capital offences. That will still happen. You can't legislate for that because our legal system claims to be infallible, until proven otherwise. By which time it might be too late.

But nobody (that I'm aware of) has ever argued for everyone convicted of a capital offence to be executed. So the point is moot.

 

[Aaronf]

You know that bit in a debate when someone belatedly realises they've painted themselves into a corner, tries to shift the parameters of the discussion and pisses all over their own argument? That's you with this post.

If that assumption makes you feel better or you're right then it's all good but it really isn't right. I think my question is as valid as yours, you're entitled to your opinion so I won't insult it as you have with mine.

 

[Lotte]

War criminals won't get the death penalty either. The likes of Blair will get off.

 

[BigMoaner]

No.

Prisons, very much yes though.

 

[Spymaster]

I think Axel will get justice in prison. Death penalty wouldn't anything compared to what he's going to be on the end of.

This one always amuses me. People who decry CP as medieval but are quite happy to see someone have the shit kicked out of him in prison for 50 years.

On one of the other threads, one of the anti-CP lot were hoping for that little girl's parents to be given a good dousing with boiling sugar water in prison, but capital punishment is barbaric!

 

[xenon]

no. Not for pacifistic reasons. Some people the world could definitely do without and I have no tears for them if they are extinguished. But the state having a power and as you say if one innocent person is executed, other reasons.

 

[Pickman's model]

If that assumption makes you feel better or you're right then it's all good but it really isn't right. I think my question is as valid as yours, you're entitled to your opinion so I won't insult it as you have with mine.

If anything I've been really kind to your opinion. It's drivel. It doesn't stand up to the slightest argument. Is there anything more cold-blooded than executing someone? A term you introduced, cold-blooded. But you don't invoke the majesty of the law, you prate away about 'is an executioner hanging someone as bad as this contemptible young man'. Like that's an argument when it's only an example

 

[Maggot]

We should have the death penalty, but only for people who support the death penalty.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

But nobody (that I'm aware of) has ever argued for everyone convicted of a capital offence to be executed. So the point is moot.

So in your infallible system only the people who are actually really completely guilty will ever be executed, or some of them, and somehow those who have been found actually really completely guilty but aren't actually really completely guilty will be spared. How will you tell the difference?

 

[hash tag]

extinguished

That's a nice, soft, sanitised sort of way to say killing people especially for those that haven't got the stomach for the blatant truth.
This is why the states invented the lethal injection.

 

[kittyP]

Yes I guess it is, I'm struggling to interpret how I feel about what they've done deserving what punishment.

I think that feeling someone deserves to die for what they have done is a different kettle of fish to thinking we should reintroduce the death penalty

 

[Spymaster]

So in your infallible system only the people who are actually really completely guilty will ever be executed, or some of them, and somehow those who have been found actually really completely guilty but aren't actually really completely guilty will be spared. How will you tell the difference?

You're getting yourself tied up in knots.

My view has never been to execute all killers. I do however think that some crimes are so heinous, and the perpetrator's guilt so far beyond all doubt, that they forfeit their right to their own life.

 

[Aaronf]

If anything I've been really kind to your opinion. It's drivel. It doesn't stand up to the slightest argument. Is there anything more cold-blooded than executing someone? A term you introduced, cold-blooded. But you don't invoke the majesty of the law, you prate away about is an executioner hanging someone as bad as this contemptible young man. Like that's an argument when it's only an example

See this is fair enough, even saying your opinion is that someone else's opinion is 'drivel'. Proclaiming publicy though an assumption of what you think someone has done though is unfair if you're wrong when it could influence what other people think.

I didn't belatedly realise or ever think I'd painted myself into a corner, I didn't knowingly try to shift the paramaters of the conversation, if you think I pissed all over my argument then that's your perogative. All I did was say what was on my mind at that moment, no premeditated thinking about what I was or wasn't saying.

 

[xenon]

That's a nice, soft, sanitised sort of way to say killing people especially for those that haven't got the stomach for the blatant truth.
This is why the states invented the lethal injection.

Well I could’ve been more matter of fact. Asphyxiation, electrocution, exsanguination if you prefer. But as I say I am against the death penalty.

 

[ice-is-forming]

We should have the death penalty, but only for people who support the death penalty.

When people are being given life with no parole, I think we should have a process whereby they can choose to apply for capital punishment.

Obviously with all the checks and balances ( although the system, so can't trust it really)

 

[xenon]

You're getting yourself tied up in knots.

My view has never been to execute all killers. I do however think that some crimes are so heinous, and the perpetrator's guilt so far beyond all doubt, that they forfeit their right to their own life.

Is this not an emotional response though? Once you shrine that mechanism how do you guard against mission creep?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

You're getting yourself tied up in knots.

My view has never been to execute all killers. I do however think that some crimes are so heinous, and the perpetrator's guilt so far beyond all doubt, that they forfeit their right to their own life.

Unfortunately (?) you aren't the one making the decisions. Right Wing, Upper Class, Reactionary toffs, pressurised by our despicable media and despicable political establishment are going to be making the decisions. They will make mistakes, deliberately or accidentally. So your indisputably correct judgements are irrelevant.

 

[Ax^]

When people are being given life with no parole, I think we should have a process whereby they can choose to apply for capital punishment.

Obviously with all the checks and balances ( although the system, so can't trust it really)

hmm but would that not be an easy way out for some people as a 40 year stretch death might seem like the better option

 

[Spymaster]

Unfortunately (?) you aren't the one making the decisions. Right Wing, Upper Class, Reactionary toffs, pressurised by our despicable media and despicable political establishment are going to be making the decisions. They will make mistakes, deliberately or accidentally. So your indisputably correct judgements are irrelevant.

Well, this is just wrong. It doesn't have to be like that at all. If, for example, the burden of proof became beyond all doubt, you have an automatic safeguard against killing innocent people, and you could reinforce that with sentencing juries, independent commissions, etc. It's really not a good argument.

 

[Spymaster]

Is this not an emotional response though? Once you shrine that mechanism how do you guard against mission creep?

You just don't do it. You have an extremely defined set of circumstances, enshrined in law, that you don't go beyond.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, this is just wrong. It doesn't have to be like that at all. If, for example, the burden of proof became beyond all doubt, you have an automatic safeguard against killing innocent people, and you could reinforce that with sentencing juries, independent commissions, etc. It's really not a good argument.

This is touchingly naive. Changing the burden of proof to 'beyond all doubt' would not end miscarriages of justice. The justice system is administered by human beings who are often wrong about what is to be doubted or not.

 

[ice-is-forming]

hmm but would that not be an easy way out for some people as a 40 year stretch death might seem like the better option

They won't suffer enough you mean ?

 

[planetgeli]

Well, this is just wrong. It doesn't have to be like that at all. If, for example, the burden of proof became beyond all doubt, you have an automatic safeguard against killing innocent people,

Birmingham 6 done on the Griess test, playing cards as nitro-glycerine. Seen as infallible at the time, later discredited.

Evidence withheld. How are you going to stop that? You can't.

Or are the forced confessions enough?

Go tell the Birmingham 6 beyond all doubt.

 

[Spymaster]

This is touchingly naive. Changing the burden of proof to 'beyond all doubt' would not end miscarriages of justice.

It would remove the possibility of executing people who are innocent.

And leave the insults aside please. You know I always wipe the floor with you on this. Let's keep it civilised.

 

[Ax^]

They won't suffer enough you mean ?

lask me ten years ago and I would of said yes

but these days would depend the case

for most murder caes don't think it would give the family of the victims proper closure, if the last thing the killer did was taken control of their own future

they removed it from someone else