PDA

View Full Version : Punishment



Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:15 PM
This thread may, possibly, cause a bit of an emotive response so if you read past the first post then dont complain later :flower:

The reason I am posting is to express a belief and to hear any arguments for and against. As a result I am open to changing my mind.

Ok.

I believe the 2 'lads' convicted of killing Anthony Walker should be put to death.

A knee-jerk reaction to the traversty of events? Possibly. A need for capital punishment for repeat serious offenders only? Possibly.

This, however, is how I feel right now. Prison, IMO, is no punishment for the likes of these two. Its probably better quality of living than they get outside.

I apologise if I have offended anyone.

Missy D
1st-December-2005, 04:17 PM
This thread may, possibly, cause a bit of an emotive response so if you read past the first post then dont complain later :flower:

The reason I am posting is to express a belief and to hear any arguments for and against. As a result I am open to changing my mind.

Ok.

I believe the 2 'lads' convicted of killing Anthony Walker should be put to death.

A knee-jerk reaction to the traversty of events? Possibly. A need for capital punishment for repeat serious offenders only? Possibly.
This, however, is how I feel right now.

:yeah: I am with you on this one Paul!

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:23 PM
This thread may, possibly, cause a bit of an emotive response so if you read past the first post then dont complain later :flower:

The reason I am posting is to express a belief and to hear any arguments for and against. As a result I am open to changing my mind.

Ok.

I believe the 2 'lads' convicted of killing Anthony Walker should be put to death.

A knee-jerk reaction to the traversty of events? Possibly. A need for capital punishment for repeat serious offenders only? Possibly.

This, however, is how I feel right now. Prison, IMO, is no punishment for the likes of these two. Its probably better quality of living than they get outside.

I apologise if I have offended anyone.

Would you punish people who blow up pubs in Guildford in the same way?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:27 PM
Would you punish people who blow up pubs in Guildford in the same way?

Firstly, if it was proved that they were responsible in a court of law and

Secondly, the circumstances meant they knew they would take human life eg. if they blew up a pub at 3:00pm ......

then yes. The only leway I have ever given to my view is that it maybe should be restricted to repeat serious offenders. I am starting to come round, however, to the view of some American states that even the first offence warrants the death penalty.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:30 PM
Firstly, if it was proved that they were responsible in a court of law and

Secondly, the circumstances meant they knew they would take human life eg. if they blew up a pub at 3:00pm ......

then yes. The only leway I have ever given to my view is that it maybe should be restricted to repeat serious offenders. I am starting to come round, however, to the view of some American states that even the first offence warrants the death penalty.

And if they were subequently found to be innocent?

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 04:32 PM
This thread may, possibly, cause a bit of an emotive response so if you read past the first post then dont complain later :flower:

The reason I am posting is to express a belief and to hear any arguments for and against. As a result I am open to changing my mind.

Ok.

I believe the 2 'lads' convicted of killing Anthony Walker should be put to death.

A knee-jerk reaction to the traversty of events? Possibly. A need for capital punishment for repeat serious offenders only? Possibly.

This, however, is how I feel right now. Prison, IMO, is no punishment for the likes of these two. Its probably better quality of living than they get outside.

I apologise if I have offended anyone.

The old death penalty argument

ie its better to have 3 dead people then one

sorry i dont buy it

ps before anyone goes down the line im soft

Id put them in prison for LIFE

pps why is the tarrif double because it was racist :mad:

TheTramp
1st-December-2005, 04:32 PM
And if they were subequently found to be innocent?

Bring them back to life....

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:34 PM
Bring them back to life....

Of course. Why don't I ever see the obvious?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:34 PM
And if they were subequently found to be innocent?

That would be terrible but an outcome I would accept as being a horrible mis-carriage of justice.

More often than not people suspected of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but rather scum themselves. I realise this is a major assumption but it is one that I have to make with regard to my answer at the top of this post.

TheTramp
1st-December-2005, 04:37 PM
Of course. Why don't I ever see the obvious?

Don't know. Seemed pretty straightforward to me... :whistle:

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 04:37 PM
I went to the most enlightening talk at Samaritans about six months ago. It was from a couple of prison 'listeners' (Samaritans who are prisoners), deputy prison governors from a men & a women's prisons and someone else who was on the prison mental health team. There were something like 80% of inmates with diagnosed mental health problems. The term "care in the community" seemed to have moved to being "care in the prisons". There were anecdotes about prisoners who never wanted to leave because they couldn't cope with the outside world - and would commit a crime as soon as they left, so they could return to a safe world.

Perhaps this backs up your "prison is too good for them" view (if I've understood correctly) ... but for me, I now wonder about the sanity or otherwise of a majority of convicted criminals and therefore whether it would be right to kill someone because they have mental health problems.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:37 PM
That would be terrible but an outcome I would accept as being a horrible mis-carriage of justice.

More often than not people suspected of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but rather scum themselves. I realise this is a major assumption but it is one that I have to make with regard to my answer at the top of this post.

No - you're allowed to change your mind when you realise you've made an error of judgement.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:38 PM
Id put them in prison for LIFE



I see what you mean but I dont see why they should get the relative comfort and facilities a prison provides , at my expense.
I thought the idea of prison was to rehabilitate people. If you are putting them in there for the rest of their natural lives whats the point. I would end their life.
The loss of another 2 lives? To me it would be no loss at all.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:41 PM
Perhaps this backs up your "prison is too good for them" view (if I've understood correctly) ... but for me, I now wonder about the sanity or otherwise of a majority of convicted criminals and therefore whether it would be right to kill someone because they have mental health problems.

If they have mental health problems as a result of being convicted then this wouldnt be an issue anymore. If they have mental health problems as a result of serving time for a lesser offence then its up to the court to deem whether they be tried as a 'sane' case or whatever the legal term is.
I know what you mean about ....let me try and spell this...institutionalisation? Is that a word?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:42 PM
No - you're allowed to change your mind when you realise you've made an error of judgement.

Absolutley, hence the tragic mis-carriage of justice. It would be a terrible thing. The frequency that currently happens leads me to keep my same opinion.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:46 PM
Absolutley, hence the tragic mis-carriage of justice. It would be a terrible thing. The frequency that currently happens leads me to keep my same opinion.

How many would be acceptable then?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 04:50 PM
How many would be acceptable then?

That question doesnt make sense. If these mis-carriages of justice were happening every week then it would mean there is a problem with our judicial system rather than any punishment guidelines.
Otherwise we would have to give all criminals naughty slips until we fix the judiciary system, just in case.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 04:52 PM
How many would be acceptable then?

7. Any more would seem reckless

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 04:57 PM
That question doesnt make sense. If these mis-carriages of justice were happening every week then it would mean there is a problem with our judicial system rather than any punishment guidelines.
Otherwise we would have to give all criminals naughty slips until we fix the judiciary system, just in case.


No judicial system can be 100% accurate as humans are incapable of perfect decision making. Most human logic is flawed to some degree. I think the main problem we have here is that justice is being seen as a form of vengeance, which probably better models the human condition. However laws and structures are put in place to save us from our more animal instincts and to create a less emotional and hopefully fairer system. I think the death penalty is a result of emotion rather than a just and workable system and therefore should not be considered as a suitable punishment.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 04:58 PM
7. Any more would seem reckless

Yes sir - we've had 7 mis-carriages of justice this year - (notice I got the plural on the right word) I think its about time we reviewed things. That'll take about 10 years.

Dance Demon
1st-December-2005, 04:58 PM
Death penalty will always be an emotive subject. However, it is understandable that people are now thinking that bringing it back might be a good idea. We live in a society where lack of respect for the lives and property of other human beings is becoming the norm. there are instances, where I believe that the death penalty should be given. In the instance of the two lads Paul F is referring to, yes I would sentence them to death.If you hit someone someone on the head with an icepick there is a fairly good chance they will die. if you are deranged enough to do such a thing, you have no place in society, and should suffer the consequences. Recently, a man in Coatbrige ( near Glasgow) was caught in the act of raping a 2 year old girl. He committed this act while on probation and doing community service ( a sentence that was a huge disservice to this community)for serious assault on a 90 year old woman. he is now in prison, in a warm, relatively comfortable environment, getting three meals a day, with a telly etc etc....and in a wing where other criminals cant harm him. all this is paid for by the hard working, law abiding tax payer. Time to bring back the death penalty IMO, along with the birch.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:00 PM
No judicial system can be 100% accurate as humans are incapable of perfect decision making. Most human logic is flawed to some degree. I think the main problem we have here is that justice is being seen as a form of vengeance, which probably better models the human condition. However laws and structures are put in place to save us from our more animal instincts and to create a less emotional and hopefully fairer system. I think the death penalty is a result of emotion rather than a just and workable system and therefore should not be considered as a suitable punishment.

Do I know you?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:01 PM
More often than not people suspected of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but rather scum themselves. I realise this is a major assumption but it is one that I have to make with regard to my answer at the top of this post.

Ok you're scaring me now. I love the word scum as much as the next man, but that is going a touch too far. For example in assault, rape and murder cases, the first suspects are always those closestvto the victim, family, friends etc etc. most od the time these people turn out to be entirely innocent. I am sure a few are a bit scummy, but the vast majority are decent people who happen to be associated with a person to whom a terrible event has happened. Scum??

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:02 PM
Yes sir - we've had 7 mis-carriages of justice this year - (notice I got the plural on the right word) I think its about time we reviewed things. That'll take about 10 years.

Fine then what we shall do is raise the "acceptable" level to twelve a year, which gives us a bit of breathing space. Look at that - justice in action

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:03 PM
Fine then what we shall do is raise the "acceptable" level to twelve a year, which gives us a bit of breathing space. Look at that - justice in action

There's also a bit of scum in my bath, could you sort that out while you're at it.
Thank you kindly.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:04 PM
Death penalty will always be an emotive subject. However, it is understandable that people are now thinking that bringing it back might be a good idea. We live in a society where lack of respect for the lives and property of other human beings is becoming the norm. there are instances, where I believe that the death penalty should be given. In the instance of the two lads Paul F is referring to, yes I would sentence them to death.If you hit someone someone on the head with an icepick there is a fairly good chance they will die. if you are deranged enough to do such a thing, you have no place in society, and should suffer the consequences. Recently, a man in Coatbrige ( near Glasgow) was caught in the act of raping a 2 year old girl. He committed this act while on probation and doing community service ( a sentence that was a huge disservice to this community)for serious assault on a 90 year old woman. he is now in prison, in a warm, relatively comfortable environment, getting three meals a day, with a telly etc etc....and in a wing where other criminals cant harm him. all this is paid for by the hard working, law abiding tax payer. Time to bring back the death penalty IMO, along with the birch.

And perhaps we should shoot people for speeding, or drinking and driving, or assault that leads to murder, or arson that happens to lead to a murder or not paying taxes that leads to an insufficiently funded police force which leads to murder, or.... well a lot of other things

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:05 PM
Do I know you?

I should hope not. You look a touch common to me

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 05:13 PM
If they have mental health problems as a result of being convicted then this wouldnt be an issue anymore. If they have mental health problems as a result of serving time for a lesser offence then its up to the court to deem whether they be tried as a 'sane' case or whatever the legal term is.
I know what you mean about ....let me try and spell this...institutionalisation? Is that a word?I don't know whether the 80% of prisoners with mental health problems were that way before they went to prison.

I also wonder about other mitigating factors (although don't know all the details of the case which has sparked this thread). I can't imagine wanting to wipe a human being off the earth, except in the case of self-defence. But then again, I've always felt loved, always had two parents who were, and still are, there for me, have a great relationship with my sister, had friends when I was growing up and was in with a "good" crowd, have pretty much never been bored or hungry, am free to choose my own husband & job, not had to deal with being the 'outside' race (unless you count being seen as an Aussie in the UK) and so on. I consider myself very, very lucky. So many people don't have these factors in their favour. It's not an excuse to take someone else's life, but, given that I have all of these advantages, I would find it difficult to stand in judgement on another person without these.

Dance Demon
1st-December-2005, 05:14 PM
And perhaps we should shoot people for speeding, or drinking and driving, or assault that leads to murder, or arson that happens to lead to a murder or not paying taxes that leads to an insufficiently funded police force which leads to murder, or.... well a lot of other things

This was a sensible discussion....what happened?.....
When we have tried and convicted someone of a pre meditated or callous murder, where there was intent to take life, is what we should be looking at the death sentence for....i just happen to think that there is no suitable detterent for some of the acts of wanton destruction and violence that we are experiencing every day. Some people receive harsher sentences for tax evasion than others receive for taking a life. Can this be just?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:15 PM
It's not an excuse to take someone else's life, but, given that I have all of these advantages, I would find it difficult to stand in judgement on another person without these.

This looks worryingly like a grown up argument to me. Desist at once!!

David Bailey
1st-December-2005, 05:15 PM
OK, I've already posted on this in, err, some other thread, but I'm against the death penalty for 2 reasons:

1. System mistakes
As has been pointed out, the British justice system has made more than its fair share of serious miscarriages of justice since the abolition of the death penalty. Let's avoid having a system where mistakes are (sans Trampy's healing hands) irreversible.

2. It doesn't deter
The country (USA) with one of the harshest penalties for death also has one of the highest murder rates. As with the "arm the police" discussion, deterrence clearly does not reduce crime - it simply isn't something most criminals think about.



And as for "how many people", it's actually an interesting question.

If we just include the high-media-profile cases, then in the past 15 years, we've had the following high-profile mistakes come to light:
- The Guildford Four
- The Birmingham Six
- The Bridgwater Four
- The M25 Three
- Judith Ward, the Darvell brothers, the Cardiff Three, Danny McName...

So that's at least two dozen people, in the past 15 years, that we know suffered injustice. And that's ignoring the other, lower-profile cases, and the ones we haven't found out about yet. But, what the hell, let's double it and assume 50 people in that period.

So, roughly speaking, since the death penalty was abolished in the 1950's, we'd have an "unjust death" toll - i.e. British citizens who've been wrongly executed by our own government - of maybe 150 people. And to me, yes, that's way too high.

And we're a rich country, we can afford to lock recidivists away for life if need be. Killing someone because it's seen as too expensive to keep them alive is hardly an argument, it's just a morally-neutral cheapskate point.


Ok you're scaring me now. I love the word scum as much as the next man, but that is going a touch too far.
You SCUM!

(there, happy? :innocent: )


For example in assault, rape and murder cases, the first suspects are always those closestvto the victim, family, friends etc etc. most od the time these people turn out to be entirely innocent. I am sure a few are a bit scummy, but the vast majority are decent people who happen to be associated with a person to whom a terrible event has happened. Scum??
It reminds me of Lord Vetinari - "if there is crime, then there must be punishment. If the person punished happens to be a criminal, then that is a happy bonus. But as everyone is guilty of something, generally it all evens out in the end." :eek:

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:16 PM
Ok you're scaring me now. I love the word scum as much as the next man, but that is going a touch too far.

Yes i agree. I had deleted the word scum a couple of times but put it back just out of emotion. This is the wrong word to use.




And perhaps we should shoot people for speeding, or drinking and driving, or assault that leads to murder, or arson that happens to lead to a murder or not paying taxes that leads to an insufficiently funded police force which leads to murder, or.... well a lot of other things

Why are you talking about definitions of crime. I dont want to discuss what crimes it should apply to. In this case its murder. Not manslaughter but murder.

Whether the death sentence be applied to other crimes is a different subject. For now though I just mean murder.

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 05:18 PM
Death penalty will always be an emotive subject. However, it is understandable that people are now thinking that bringing it back might be a good idea. We live in a society where lack of respect for the lives and property of other human beings is becoming the norm. there are instances, where I believe that the death penalty should be given. In the instance of the two lads Paul F is referring to, yes I would sentence them to death.If you hit someone someone on the head with an icepick there is a fairly good chance they will die. if you are deranged enough to do such a thing, you have no place in society, and should suffer the consequences. Recently, a man in Coatbrige ( near Glasgow) was caught in the act of raping a 2 year old girl. He committed this act while on probation and doing community service ( a sentence that was a huge disservice to this community)for serious assault on a 90 year old woman. he is now in prison, in a warm, relatively comfortable environment, getting three meals a day, with a telly etc etc....and in a wing where other criminals cant harm him. all this is paid for by the hard working, law abiding tax payer. Time to bring back the death penalty IMO, along with the birch.

Only one of them hit him on the head with the ice pick, but the other dies too ??

do really think a rapist of a 2yr old is in a 'warm comfortable environment' sounds Daily Mail to me

I bet he has a eye wripped out within a year by a fellow inmate who shouldnt have 'been there' and you know what i dont care

USA making a habit of killing

----------------------------------
Take Action
Stop the 1,000th Execution in United States
Kenneth Boyd is scheduled to be executed in North Carolina on December 2, 2005 which would mark the gruesome milestone of the 1000th execution in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Mr. Boyd's low IQ brings him close to being classified as mentally retarded. As a Vietnam Veteran, he also suffers from painful flashbacks and severe depression. More Actions ยป
---------------------------------------------

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:22 PM
[QUOTE=Dance Demon]This was a sensible discussion....what happened?.....
QUOTE]

It was never that sensible a discussion..

And my point was that proving cold, calculated murder is very, very tricky. Proving and being sure of intent is incredibly difficult. So where do you bring in the death penalty if you cannot prove intent?? So the person that drives dangerously and the tax dodgers are endangering lives, but one would probably not wish to kill them. On the other hand somebody that does kill another person but is mentally unstable, or in a rage or doesn't mean to do that much damage or is under 18, what do we do with them. They have murdered and we may even be able to tenuously "prove" intent, but have they commited an act so evil that the only way to deal with them is to kill them?? I rather think not

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:25 PM
It reminds me of Lord Vetinari - "if there is crime, then there must be punishment. If the person punished happens to be a criminal, then that is a happy bonus. But as everyone is guilty of something, generally it all evens out in the end." :eek:

My old friend Lord Vetinari - he's a card

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:26 PM
And we're a rich country, we can afford to lock recidivists away for life if need be. Killing someone because it's seen as too expensive to keep them alive is hardly an argument, it's just a morally-neutral cheapskate point.


As I said before, innocent people will be tried and convicted. Thats a fact. Its a fact I will live with. One of the biggest problems with prisons is that they act like a training school for criminals. Inmates share ideas and effectively train others for their release.

On the point of crime figures in the states not being lower.....lower than what? What kind of crimes? Do you mean that just as many, if not more, crimes have happened although they have the death sentence? If so can this not be attributed to the social problems escalating, education failing, poverty etc.
What I am saying is that, just because the death sentence is there doesnt automatically bring down crime rates. Of course it wont. There are too many contributing factors.


As for the point on killing someone to save money. This is not my argument. This is one of the outcomes that would result.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:28 PM
My old friend Lord Vetinari - he's a card

Lord Vetinari - LordOfTheFiles - Daniel Vettori..... do you see?

David Franklin
1st-December-2005, 05:29 PM
i just happen to think that there is no suitable detterent for some of the acts of wanton destruction and violence that we are experiencing every day. Some people receive harsher sentences for tax evasion than others receive for taking a life. Can this be just?If you want to argue about relative sentences I can certainly agree with you. Three years for killing someone (recent local case) is ridiculous.

But is the death penalty really more of a deterrent than 20 years in prison? I doubt there are many murders where the villain thought "I'll take the risk - it's only 20 years if I get caught"? The problem isn't the sentence - the problem is that the villain thinks he'll get away with it (*).

In fact I understand studies show the real deterrent is high conviction rates.

(*) Of course the other problem is that often the villain doesn't "think" at all - but in that case arguing about relative deterrent values seems a bit of a lost cause...

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:30 PM
As I said before, innocent people will be tried and convicted. Thats a fact. Its a fact I will live with. One of the biggest problems with prisons is that they act like a training school for criminals. Inmates share ideas and effectively train others for their release.


Yes but I think our point is you can live with it - the other innocent people you'd end up killing wouldn't be able to.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:31 PM
Only one of them hit him on the head with the ice pick, but the other dies too ??



Yes, I have to admit that the other one, whoever didnt commit murder, should not be sentenced to death. That was probably just a reaction.

To clarify, im talking about anyone convicted of MURDER. Not speeding, swearing or stealing mars bars but murder.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:32 PM
Lord Vetinari - LordOfTheFiles - Daniel Vettori..... do you see?

I do see thanks to my glasses that I model both on the field and off. And in the infield, and near the boundary rope...

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:35 PM
Yes, I have to admit that the other one, whoever didnt commit murder, should not be sentenced to death.

"Should" hmmm yes but they would be. I shouldn't put mistakes in my code.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:36 PM
Yes, I have to admit that the other one, whoever didnt commit murder, should not be sentenced to death. That was probably just a reaction. .

If you will allow me to feel a little smug (and I'm going to either way) you have demonstrated a valuable point. Everything to do with your arguments is an emotional response. It is not reasoned, it doesn't demonstrate a need or indicate what the outcome of having a death penalty would be. It is a response where you want to see "justice" done to the iunhuman scum that make you feel sick. Lynch mob rule was done away with years ago because it was barbaric, inhuman and, ultimately, unsuccesful. Law and justice is a tool to protect the state and society, it is not a weapon of revenge.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:37 PM
I shouldn't put mistakes in my code.

Don't try and pretend that you are a programmer and have a good job. We all know that you are one of these "dole scum" chappies that I get to work on my vast country estate

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:38 PM
[QUOTE=Dance Demon]This was a sensible discussion....what happened?.....
QUOTE]

It was never that sensible a discussion..

And my point was that proving cold, calculated murder is very, very tricky. Proving and being sure of intent is incredibly difficult. So where do you bring in the death penalty if you cannot prove intent?? So the person that drives dangerously and the tax dodgers are endangering lives, but one would probably not wish to kill them. On the other hand somebody that does kill another person but is mentally unstable, or in a rage or doesn't mean to do that much damage or is under 18, what do we do with them. They have murdered and we may even be able to tenuously "prove" intent, but have they commited an act so evil that the only way to deal with them is to kill them?? I rather think not

Why are you talking about sentencing (or whatever word means to consider level of guiilt) ? I am not talking about sentencing. I am talking about those that are tried by their peers and convicted of muder.

Mental illness, rage, under 18.....these are all things to be decided by the courts. They all bring about different considerations.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:43 PM
[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

Why are you talking about sentencing? I am not talking about sentencing. I am talking about those that are tried by their peers and convicted of muder.

Mental illness, rage, under 18.....these are all things to be decided by the courts. They all bring about different considerations.

So they are found guilty of murder and then the judge does the sentancing or sentencing, or even incensing. So what you want is a system whereby the judge could use the death penalty as one of the punishments from which they could choose??

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:44 PM
If you will allow me to feel a little smug (and I'm going to either way) you have demonstrated a valuable point. Everything to do with your arguments is an emotional response. It is not reasoned, it doesn't demonstrate a need or indicate what the outcome of having a death penalty would be. It is a response where you want to see "justice" done to the iunhuman scum that make you feel sick. Lynch mob rule was done away with years ago because it was barbaric, inhuman and, ultimately, unsuccesful. Law and justice is a tool to protect the state and society, it is not a weapon of revenge.

Erm, i dont want to be technical here but it wont be me that convicts people. I will make a mistake as I am sat typing on a forum.
I think you will find our legal process is a little more involved than that.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:48 PM
Don't try and pretend that you are a programmer and have a good job. We all know that you are one of these "dole scum" chappies that I get to work on my vast country estate

Aha you fell into my trap, a mention of code and you assume I have a brain - actually I make bar codes for baked beans tins. They just give me a pencil and away I go. Luckily they dont shoot me when I use an 8b instead of a 2B.

David Bailey
1st-December-2005, 05:48 PM
On the point of crime figures in the states not being lower.....lower than what? What kind of crimes? Do you mean that just as many, if not more, crimes have happened although they have the death sentence?
My point was that homicide rates in the States are extremely high (compared to here), and that the death penalty is clearly not a significant deterrent, compared to the other factors you've listed (which I agree with FWIW).


So they are found guilty of murder and then the judge does the sentancing or sentencing, or even incensing. So what you want is a system whereby the judge could use the death penalty as one of the punishments from which they could choose??
Well, then they'd get a chance to put on those cool black hats after all...

And I'm sure we could trust judges not to have any inbuilt prejudice :eek:

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:48 PM
Erm, i dont want to be technical here but it wont be me that convicts people. I will make a mistake as I am sat typing on a forum.
I think you will find our legal process is a little more involved than that.

Well it's a little thing that I like to call society. And it's made up of a lot of people, some of them quite similar to you I would expect. So if you wanted the death penalty and you voted on it and it came into law, then yes it would be you that is involved in the conviction and sentencing of these Qpeople. That's the way it works. And yes the legal systemis more involved than that. Mayhaps (a great word by the way which I wanbt to see in at least the next ten posts) that is why we don't have the death penalty...

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:48 PM
[QUOTE=Paul F]

So they are found guilty of murder and then the judge does the sentancing or sentencing, or even incensing. So what you want is a system whereby the judge could use the death penalty as one of the punishments from which they could choose??

Yep. With an ammendment.
If this were the case I would hope that a new system would be put in place were the ruling came from a collaborative process.
A jury of peers would ascertain guilt and level of it however it is done now. If the collaboration for sentencing could not be agreed then they would not face the death penalty. This would give a voice to any member of the collaborating team that may have a query and may wish to challenge the statutory guidelines

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 05:49 PM
OK, so you've got your convicted murderer, who appears to have had a stable upbringing, is over 18, is perfectly sane and is ready to be killed under your proposal, Paul. But in the six months that it takes the legal wheels to turn so the killing can take place, said convicted murderer finds religion, repents and changes beyond all belief. They have been rehabilitated and would now be a model citizen if you let them out into society. Do you still kill them?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:50 PM
Well, then they'd get a chance to put on those cool black hats after all...

You've gotta love those hats. In fact i think that if we ever do get the death penalty, you and I could go into business selling them. This time next year we'll be millionaires...

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 05:50 PM
Yes, I have to admit that the other one, whoever didnt commit murder, should not be sentenced to death. That was probably just a reaction.



Sorry my Lord we mis understood what you said and killed them both

See how misunderstanding arise :wink:

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 05:52 PM
Aha you fell into my trap, a mention of code and you assume I have a brain - actually I make bar codes for baked beans tins. They just give me a pencil and away I go. Luckily they dont shoot me when I use an 8b instead of a 2B.Ah, with it being winter, I had assumed that you had a code in your noze. Thanks for the clarification. You can have your thread back now. Carry on.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:53 PM
[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles] A jury of peers would ascertain guilt and level of it however it is done now. If the collaboration for sentencing could not be agreed then they would not face the death penalty. This would give a voice to any member of the collaborating team that may have a query and may wish to challenge the statutory guidelines

You see I think it is this jury of peers thing that worries me. Hardly anybody in society is capable or qualified to make decisions like that over people's lives and in general you will find that the type that are are bleeding heart socialists who would rather gnaw their arm off then give the death sentence. I rather like the Egyptian weighing of the heart technique. if it has scales in it, it must be justice

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 05:54 PM
[QUOTE=Paul F]

You see I think it is this jury of peers thing that worries me. Hardly anybody in society is capable or qualified to make decisions like that over people's lives and in general you will find that the type that are are bleeding heart socialists who would rather gnaw their arm off then give the death sentence. I rather like the Egyptian weighing of the heart technique. if it has scales in it, it must be justice

Or we could be judged by a panel of lizards.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:55 PM
Sorry my Lord we mis understood what you said and killed them both

See how misunderstanding arise :wink:

Well we could get some poor people, dress them up as the people we killed and nobody need ever know that the wheels of the justice bus had come off

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:55 PM
Well it's a little thing that I like to call society. And it's made up of a lot of people, some of them quite similar to you I would expect. So if you wanted the death penalty and you voted on it and it came into law, then yes it would be you that is involved in the conviction and sentencing of these Qpeople. That's the way it works. And yes the legal systemis more involved than that. Mayhaps (a great word by the way which I wanbt to see in at least the next ten posts) that is why we don't have the death penalty...

Our legal system is in place, as mentioned before, to protect the accused from the possible emotion of society.
As it is in force today it is deemed to be the most effective method we have. It is the rule of law we live by in this country and is one we have to accept. For what its worth (which isnt much) I do accept it. Whether I agree or not is a different matter.

Cases are currently tried without too much talk of 'over emotion'. The introduction of the death penalty will not change this method.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 05:56 PM
OK, so you've got your convicted murderer, who appears to have had a stable upbringing, is over 18, is perfectly sane and is ready to be killed under your proposal, Paul. But in the six months that it takes the legal wheels to turn so the killing can take place, said convicted murderer finds religion, repents and changes beyond all belief. They have been rehabilitated and would now be a model citizen if you let them out into society. Do you still kill them?

Damn straight! We all know that nobody changes and if you murdered somebody you will be a murderer forever and probably if we let you go would simply go on a killing spree. It's all just an act to avoid the chair. they are all the same these people

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

Or we could be judged by a panel of lizards.

I didnt post the quote in your post.

Give him the chair :devil:

bigdjiver
1st-December-2005, 05:57 PM
I have been told that I could be expected to be arrested within a week, and that I could expect to be remanded in custody for a considerable time awaiting trial. This was based on an afadavit drawn up by an ex-policeman. I had been taking orders to be paid from credit cards, based on a contract. He was working on the basis of what he had been told. I phoned him, and he found the contract, signed by his MD, and withdrew the allegations. If he had not found it, or destroyed it, I would have been in real trouble, because my copy of the contract had been stolen.
I may have found myself in the dock. I may have found myself facing jurors who believed "He would not be there if he was not scum," "Even if he has not done this he has probably done something else to deserve a prison sentence."
It is the nature of many humans to believe the worst. Some readers of this are thinking "He must have done something." All I did was to put my house on the line to finance a mail-order business. Unwise, yes, dishonest, no.
Can I even let Paul F. et al kill the guy that confessed?
DNA was first used on a confessed rapist, who denied a second crime. The DNA evidence cleared him of that crime. It also cleared him of the crime he had "confessed" to. A slow-witted suspect in the hands of the police ...

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 05:58 PM
.

Cases are currently tried without too much talk of 'over emotion'. The introduction of the death penalty will not change this method.

death penalty for who ?

Or is that for someone else to decide

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 05:59 PM
Damn straight! We all know that nobody changes and if you murdered somebody you will be a murderer forever and probably if we let you go would simply go on a killing spree. It's all just an act to avoid the chair. they are all the same these people

If it is deemed by the courts that this person deserves a retrial then a retrial they get.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:00 PM
[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

Or we could be judged by a panel of lizards.

I agree with an awful lot of the opinions that lizards hold, and they make excellent shoes. I'm all for it. Thank the Lord for you Mooncalf, a beacon of light in this dark, dark world

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 06:02 PM
If it is deemed by the courts that this person deserves a retrial then a retrial they get.They wouldn't get a retrial because they carried out the crime. But do they get a second chance at living life if they truly have changed? They could become your ideal neighbour, working hard and paying taxes, watering your garden and feeding your cat while you're away, visiting his or her dear old mum twice a week with flowers ... your choice Paul.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:04 PM
If it is deemed by the courts that this person deserves a retrial then a retrial they get.

Madness, sheer madness. You don't ever get a retrial because you became a nice person. Supressed evidence, incompetent lawyers, alcoholic judge as maybe. But never because you phoned god or read Dostoevsky. Just please tell me why the Death Penalty is a good idea. Let's put this argument to bed. Convince me - why is the death penalty a good idea?? What will it achieve? In what ways is it better than we have now??

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:05 PM
But never because you phoned god

Marvellous. At least I make myself laugh. great days

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:06 PM
I have been told that ...

Oh my god. Why cant you understand that I am not going to sit in judgement on whether someone should be convicted of murder or not.

I will just repeat my points

In the first case....if someone was brought to trial and convicted of murder and who subsequently turned out to be innocent then thats terrible.

The issue of killing them anyway as they may have committed another crime was something i have already said i was wrong to post.

Whether rape should or shouldnt warrant a death sentence is up to whoever. What I have said is that convicted murderers should be executed.

Couple these points with the other point I made where I said that the possibility exists that it could only be attributed to multiple-convicted murderes and we are back on track with what i think.

SO PLEASE STOP GIVING ME SCENARIOS

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:08 PM
They wouldn't get a retrial because they carried out the crime. But do they get a second chance at living life if they truly have changed? They could become your ideal neighbour, working hard and paying taxes, watering your garden and feeding your cat while you're away, visiting his or her dear old mum twice a week with flowers ... your choice Paul.

No it wouldnt be my choice. It would be up to the courts.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:09 PM
Convince me .....

Do you really think a topic such as this can be covered on the ceroc scotland forum enough to allow me or someone more knowledgeable to convince you one way or the other.

Deary me!

I posted my thoughts, you responded. I said I wanted to hear peoples opinions. At what point did i say i wanted to convert anyone?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:10 PM
Nobody else has used the word Mayhaps yet. Come on kids - look lively

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:14 PM
Nobody else has used the word Mayhaps yet. Come on kids - look lively

I ordered some MayHaps on the internet the other day. Instead I got a bag of magic beans. What are the chances...

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 06:14 PM
No it wouldnt be my choice. It would be up to the courts.How would it be up to the courts? You have a convicted murderer who is due to be put to death, under what you suggest. How are they going to get back into court? They can't appeal, because it has been proven that they committed the crime and they are not disagreeing with the evidence nor decision. But they have rehabilitated themselves.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:15 PM
Do you really think a topic such as this can be covered on the ceroc scotland forum enough to allow me or someone more knowledgeable to convince you one way or the other.

Deary me!

I posted my thoughts, you responded. I said I wanted to hear peoples opinions. At what point did i say i wanted to convert anyone?

Ok this is how we will play it. I think the death penalty is a bad idea because I can't believe that killing somebody makes up for the death of somebody else. I also don't believe that we have the ability to allow our judgement not to be clouded by the press/popular opinion or whatever the prevailing fad is to form a watertight judgement that we cannot ever go backon. Thirdly (and I realise this may seem odd) I believe in the basic good of people and that given theb opportunity people can change and achieve great things. And fourthly I know that I couldn't pull the trigger/switch/button and kill another person, and if I can't do it I wouldn't want somebody else to have to do it either.

These factors are how I have come to hold and opinion that the death penalty is not something I can agree with. What factos have made up your mind that it is something this country should have?? I'm not looking to be converted here, I just would like to see how you get to your conclusions.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:16 PM
How would it be up to the courts? You have a convicted murderer who is due to be put to death, under what you suggest. How are they going to get back into court? They can't appeal, because it has been proven that they committed the crime and they are not disagreeing with the evidence nor decision. But they have rehabilitated themselves.

Every crime can be appealed against as far as I now. I am not changing the law process I am offering new punishment.
If the courts decide not to give right to appeal, as there is not sufficient evidence, then they will be killed.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:16 PM
I ordered some MayHaps on the internet the other day. Instead I got a bag of magic beans. What are the chances...

Since you ordered from www.magicbeans.co.uk I would suggest that the chances were fairly high

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:21 PM
Do you really think a topic such as this can be covered on the ceroc scotland forum enough to allow me or someone more knowledgeable to convince you one way or the other.

Deary me!



Do you want someone more knowledgeable to help you persuade other people ? Is that because you can't counter the arguments they have given? If so then maybe the people you're arguing are making a fairly good point maybe you should go with that until you can get someone to help you out.

Now back to the beans.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:23 PM
Do you want someone more knowledgeable to help you persuade other people ? Is that because you can't counter the arguments they have given? If so then maybe the people you're arguing are making a fairly good point maybe you should go with that until you can get someone to help you out.

Now back to the beans.

Ooooo get you!! Little Miss Katty in the corner (forget all that bit I think I must have hit my head or something)

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:25 PM
Ok this is how we will play it. I think the death penalty is a bad idea because I can't believe that killing somebody makes up for the death of somebody else. I also don't believe that we have the ability to allow our judgement not to be clouded by the press/popular opinion or whatever the prevailing fad is to form a watertight judgement that we cannot ever go backon. Thirdly (and I realise this may seem odd) I believe in the basic good of people and that given theb opportunity people can change and achieve great things. And fourthly I know that I couldn't pull the trigger/switch/button and kill another person, and if I can't do it I wouldn't want somebody else to have to do it either.

These factors are how I have come to hold and opinion that the death penalty is not something I can agree with. What factos have made up your mind that it is something this country should have?? I'm not looking to be converted here, I just would like to see how you get to your conclusions.

I believe we have a system that is the best we can get as far as judging somebody's actions go.

I believe people can rehabilitate too. As already mentioned many many times this could come down to multiple serious offenders and not just one case although there is reason for me to want that. I dont believe someone who has killed 2 young children on 2 seperate occassions deserves the right to rehabilitate let alone more incidents of murder. I dont believe that someone who has served a prison sentence, who is released and who then murders someone should be given the chance to rehabilitate.
I dont think a person who is obviously guilty of murdering many young children and burying them should be given the right to rehabiitate.
In all these cases I say sentence them to death.

In other words, I dont believe there is a suitable punishment for some of the hideous crimes that are carried out in this country.


As for pushing the buttons :confused: :confused: Where did that come from. I guarantee there will be someone who will do it

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:25 PM
Ooooo get you!! Little Miss Katty in the corner (forget all that bit I think I must have hit my head or something)

I'm gonna hide under my desk.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:26 PM
Do you want someone more knowledgeable to help you persuade other people ? Is that because you can't counter the arguments they have given? If so then maybe the people you're arguing are making a fairly good point maybe you should go with that until you can get someone to help you out.

Now back to the beans.

So you want me, as someone with no legal background, to convince you it is right or wrong to use the death penalty?
Someone who has not expressed a wish to convert anyone?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:26 PM
As for pushing the buttons :confused: :confused: Where did that come from. I guarantee there will be someone who will do it

You're Pushing my buttons young man...

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 06:27 PM
Every crime can be appealed against as far as I now. I am not changing the law process I am offering new punishment.
If the courts decide not to give right to appeal, as there is not sufficient evidence, then they will be killed.


Perhaps Katie or Trampy or someone who knows more about legal processes than me could comment, but I would have thought that someone being rehabilitated alone would not be grounds for appeal/retrial/second chance in court.

Just looking at punishments ... if someone is jailed for life and rehabilitates themselves, there is a chance that they may, after some time, get out and live a good, clean, wholesome life - perhaps invent the new penicillin or feed the world. If they are killed, this could never happen. I believe that people can change and I don't agree with capital punishment.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:27 PM
So you want me, as someone with no legal background, to convince you it is right or wrong to use the death penalty?
Someone who has not expressed a wish to convert anyone?

I'm confused.

I'm trying to persuade you to change your mind by saying that our argument is better than yours. Do you see?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:29 PM
I'm gonna hide under my desk.

You hide Mooncalf. You better damn well hide Good.

Otherwise you will never win Championship Hide and Seek (All Trademark rights rest with Mr N heather) and the prize is a year's supply of magic beans. WOW!

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:30 PM
Do most politicians and members of the electorate have a legal background?

Alas they just have things called "opinions". Oh and a second term

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:30 PM
Do most politicians and members of the electorate have a legal background?

Your questions have no relevance to my posts.
You asked ME to convince YOU.

Should this ever be a referrendum then I would hope that the government would seek the advice of legal people before putting the point forward. If they dont then Im sure it would lead to lots of discussion.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:31 PM
I'm confused.

That's because you don't have a legal background

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:32 PM
Your questions have no relevance to my posts.
You asked ME to convince YOU.

Should this ever be a referrendum then I would hope that the government would seek the advice of legal people before putting the point forward. If they dont then Im sure it would lead to lots of discussion.

I think we should concentrate more on the bean issue, or at a push the newly formed Championship Hide & Seek (TM) before pointless mudslinging leads to murder most foul. Ok I couldn't resist that.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:33 PM
Your questions have no relevance to my posts.
You asked ME to convince YOU.

Should this ever be a referrendum then I would hope that the government would seek the advice of legal people before putting the point forward. If they dont then Im sure it would lead to lots of discussion.


I didnt ask you to convice me. That was someone else.

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:34 PM
Just looking at punishments ... if someone is jailed for life and rehabilitates themselves, there is a chance that they may, after some time, get out and live a good, clean, wholesome life - perhaps invent the new penicillin or feed the world. If they are killed, this could never happen. I believe that people can change and I don't agree with capital punishment.

I respect your opinion.
My opinion differs as I think certain people dont deserve the right to rehabilitate. Its been great debating it though.

I will have to go in a min as i am off home. i feel guilty for spending so much time on this now.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:36 PM
i feel guilty for spending so much time on this now.

Jessie

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:37 PM
Jessie

thats the problem when i start threads. they tend to be provocative ones which means i have to spend all my time following them up :grin:

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:37 PM
Jessie

Guilty!

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:38 PM
thats the problem when i start threads. they tend to be provocative ones which means i have to spend all my time following them up :grin:

try starting threads about flowers or cold fusion. Then you will have ample time to work

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:39 PM
Guilty!

The correct answer was James

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 06:39 PM
I didnt ask you to convice me. That was someone else.


I have just read back and, no you didnt. My apologies. You asked me to highlight my reasoning which i hope i did :blush:

For what its worth I really do respect your opinion and the fact that you will defend it. That is one of the cornerstones of any society and the fact that we can come on here and discuss it is great.

On the positive side......im now over 1000 posts :clap:

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 06:40 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - Cows belching and breaking wind cause methane pollution but scientists say they have developed a diet to make pastures smell like roses -- almost.

"In some experiments we get a 70 percent decrease (in methane emissions), which is quite staggering," biochemist John Wallace told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Wallace, leader of the microbial biochemistry group at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, said the secret to sweeter-smelling cows is a food additive based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues.



A 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive has just begun, but he said if it proves successful it could be a boon to cutting down on greehouse gas emissions.

"In total around 14 percent of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals. It is worth doing something about," Wallace said. Other big sources of methane are landfills, coalmines, rice paddies and bogs.

Scientists in Australia and New Zealand have also been working to develop similar products amid growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and sheep.


In New Zealand the government in 2003 proposed a flatulence tax, with methane emitted by farm animals responsible for more than half the country's greenhouse gases. The plan was ultimately withdrawn after widespread protests.
"We've had more success than they (scientists in Australia and New Zealand) have. Everyone has been trying different methods. We just got lucky," Wallace said.

mooncalf
1st-December-2005, 06:41 PM
I have just read back and, no you didnt. My apologies. You asked me to highlight my reasoning which i hope i did :blush:

For what its worth I really do respect your opinion and the fact that you will defend it. That is one of the cornerstones of any society and the fact that we can come on here and discuss it is great.

Yes we've had fun.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 06:41 PM
More often than not people suspected of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but rather scum themselves. More often than you might think, the people who are victims of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but scum also. I vote we execute the lot of them, and have done with it.

More tea, Vicar?

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:43 PM
Yes we've had fun.

I am going to have to explain to you what fun is again aren't I...

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:45 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - Cows belching and breaking wind cause methane pollution but scientists say they have developed a diet to make pastures smell like roses -- almost.

I thought we were going to capture this gas and use it to power submarines, windmills, wind up mice and that sort of thing. Where are these plans now?? Hmmmm? Hmmmm? Hmmmmm?

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 06:52 PM
I thought we were going to capture this gas and use it to power submarines, windmills, wind up mice and that sort of thing. Where are these plans now?? Hmmmm? Hmmmm? Hmmmmm?


Gas Chambers

Ghost
1st-December-2005, 06:54 PM
My opinion differs as I think certain people dont deserve the right to rehabilitate.
On the word 'rehabilitate'. If it didn't imply - leave prison - as SimplyPink is putting (The Xena arguement), but instead was more along the lines of 'reallisation'.

ie the criminal is put in prison for life. The possibility exists for them to realise what they have done. Many won't make this realisation. For those that do, not much changes in the world. They're still in prison and the person's still dead. Whether this is worthwhile, I suspect, depends a lot on how you see the world?

The other arguement that no-one's put forward is the "peace of mind to the victims now that the person who killed their son / daughter is dead". I'm against it, but I understand.

Be Well,
Christopher

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 06:56 PM
On the word 'rehabilitate'. If it didn't imply - leave prison - as SimplyPink is putting (The Xena arguement), but instead was more along the lines of 'reallisation'.

ie the criminal is put in prison for life. The possibility exists for them to realise what they have done. Many won't make this realisation. For those that do, not much changes in the world. They're still in prison and the person's still dead. Whether this is worthwhile, I suspect, depends a lot on how you see the world?

The other arguement that no-one's put forward is the "peace of mind to the victims now that the person who killed their son / daughter is dead". I'm against it, but I understand.

Be Well,
Christopher

All good stuff but we are on to the much loftier arguments of bovine farting

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 06:59 PM
More often than you might think, the people who are victims of a crime are not completely innocent bystanders but scum also. I vote we execute the lot of them, and have done with it.

More tea, Vicar?Keep up - Paul's left and now we're just talking hot air. Tea's cold and there are no scones left, although there is a scraping of clotted cream and strawberry jam.

LordOfTheFiles
1st-December-2005, 07:01 PM
[QUOTE=Feelingpink]Keep up - Paul's left and now we're just talking hot air. QUOTE]

But in a well thought out and educational way. obviously

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 07:23 PM
But in a well thought out and educational way. obviously

Are you sure your capable of that my Lord?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 07:23 PM
Im back (at home now)!!!!!! :grin: but my fingers hurt now so I am not going to start up again.





unless im tempted :wink:

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 07:24 PM
Im back (at home now)!!!!!! :grin: but my fingers hurt now so I am not going to start up again.





unless im tempted :wink:

How long is that going to last Paul?:rolleyes:

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 07:29 PM
How long is that going to last Paul?:rolleyes:

:whistle:

I need to cook myself dinner so i cant really start up my volley of posts. All I really wanted to do was get over 1000 posts and make this a faster growing thread than the FL one :blush: :grin:

Time for a chilli jacket potato with cheese
:drool:

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 07:41 PM
:whistle:

I need to cook myself dinner so i cant really start up my volley of posts. All I really wanted to do was get over 1000 posts and make this a faster growing thread than the FL one :blush: :grin:

Time for a chilli jacket potato with cheese
:drool:

Can I come over for some?:flower:

Ghost
1st-December-2005, 07:41 PM
"They tell me it's wrong to murder, but they're going to murder me" ~ a confused Death Row Inmate

There's levels to that I'm probably not going to understand for years....

Take care,
Christopher

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 07:50 PM
Can I come over for some?:flower:

You are more than welcome :)

Msfab
1st-December-2005, 08:01 PM
You are more than welcome :)

Ok ill bring the Cheese! Oh and Im a veggie!:rolleyes:

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 08:25 PM
Ok ill bring the Cheese! Oh and Im a veggie!:rolleyes:

Well, im afraid I have finished my dinner. It wasnt the life changing experience I had hoped for :(

Msfab
2nd-December-2005, 10:14 AM
Well, im afraid I have finished my dinner. It wasnt the life changing experience I had hoped for :(

It would of been the cheese that would have changed everything!

Paul F
2nd-December-2005, 10:34 AM
It would of been the cheese that would have changed everything!


:worthy:
You are wise in the ways of the ancient potato baking art.

:)

stewart38
2nd-December-2005, 10:51 AM
"They tell me it's wrong to murder, but they're going to murder me" ~ a confused Death Row Inmate

There's levels to that I'm probably not going to understand for years....

Take care,
Christopher

Even better if you tell them your going to kill them in 18yrs time after 11 appeals and 3 walks to the 'chair' :sad:

ChrisA
2nd-December-2005, 10:57 AM
Not to offer an opinion, but this is quite topical...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4490842.stm

How many of the 150 miscarriages of justice since the 50s that were mentioned earlier on this thread IIRC would have resulted in executions if they'd spent as long on death row as they tend to in the USA?

Just wondering if the "we shouldn't kill people that might have been innocent" argument weakens if there is a long time between conviction and execution.

Not that I like the whole death row thing either.

Thought "The Green Mile" was awesome though. Very harrowing I found it, felt exhausted by the end, but was strangely glad I'd watched it... :confused:

David Bailey
2nd-December-2005, 11:25 AM
Not to offer an opinion, but this is quite topical...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4490842.stm


That article also mentions death rates per state, which I think are worth reproducing here:

Texas - 355
Virginia - 94
Oklahoma - 79
Missouri - 66
Florida - 60
Georgia - 39
North Carolina - 38
South Carolina, Alabama - 34 each
Louisiana, Arkansas - 27 each
Arizona - 22
Ohio - 19
Indiana - 16
Delaware - 14
Illinois - 12
Nevada, California - 11 each
Mississippi, Utah - 6 each
Maryland, Washington - 4 each
Nebraska, Pennsylvania - 3 each
Kentucky, Montana, Oregon - 2 each
Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wyoming - 1 each
US government - 3

Note: Texas : 22 million people, 355 executions. New Mexico (right next to Texas): 2 million people, 1 execution.

So, even adjusting for populations, unless Texas is 30 times more lawless than New Mexico, you've got to think that most of these executions are more influenced by politics than by justice. Which strikes me as a bad thing.


How many of the 150 miscarriages of justice since the 50s that were mentioned earlier on this thread IIRC would have resulted in executions if they'd spent as long on death row as they tend to in the USA?
Difficult to tell - 150 was pretty much a wild guess on my part, so extrapolating further is even more wild.


Just wondering if the "we shouldn't kill people that might have been innocent" argument weakens if there is a long time between conviction and execution.
It depends on how much you play the numbers game - i.e. what's an acceptable state-sponsored murder rate? To me, the current rate of zero is pretty acceptable.

LordOfTheFiles
2nd-December-2005, 12:27 PM
It depends on how much you play the numbers game - i.e. what's an acceptable state-sponsored murder rate? To me, the current rate of zero is pretty acceptable.

7 is the answer. We mentioned it before. 7 a year - no more, no less

David Bailey
2nd-December-2005, 12:32 PM
7 is the answer. We mentioned it before. 7 a year - no more, no less
Sorry, I forgot. :blush:

So the trick is to wait until 7 have been unjustly killed in one year, then you're OK? I guess the end of December is a good time on that measure...

LordOfTheFiles
2nd-December-2005, 12:35 PM
Sorry, I forgot. :blush:

So the trick is to wait until 7 have been unjustly killed in one year, then you're OK? I guess the end of December is a good time on that measure...

Exactly. And luckily there will always be some people knocking about in prison who have murdered somebody, so if we are say at a very poor 5 state sponsored murders a year, then we can knock a couple off before New Year