Punishment

[LordOfTheFiles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

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]

[QUOTE=Paul F]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LordOfTheFiles]

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]

[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Feelingpink]

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]

[QUOTE=Paul F]

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]

[QUOTE=LordOfTheFiles]

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]

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

See how misunderstanding arise

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]

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]

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