Death Penalty vote back in the forefront

[Pubey]

I'm wondering how many of those who are against this are parents? Seems to me some of the most emotive posts in favour are from people with children.

I've missed your sweeping generalisations:winking:

 

[osymandus]

I've missed your sweeping generalisations:winking:

Though i suspect more accurate then we think . Many people with a strong emotive disposition will ignore other ideas or evidence if it simply doesn't favor their world view (goes back to his psychology books):dim:

 

[southendkid]

It always puzzles me the way that people believe that the State can't do anything right, but when it comes to determining if people are guilty, they are so certain of its perfect infallibility that they're eager to grant it the right to kill people.
Can't remember who said that but it's true
if we know the occasional guy is going to unfairly die, how is that any different to criminal action?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It always puzzles me the way that people believe that the State can't do anything right, but when it comes to determining if people are guilty, they are so certain of its perfect infallibility that they're eager to grant it the right to kill people.
Can't remember who said that but it's true
if we know the occasional guy is going to unfairly die, how is that any different to criminal action?

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

 

[southendkid]

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Never liked omelettes myself, I'd rather just make life actually mean life, prevents murderers from getting out and repeat offending, gives the opportunity for new evidence to prove innocence in the future.

 

[maninasuitcase]

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

A rather casual attitude to the taking of a life by the state.

I think I prefer the presumption of innocence which states:

It is better that 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death.

 

[southendkid]

A rather casual attitude to the taking of a life by the state.I think I prefer the presumption of innocence which states:It is better that 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death.

Actually while I disagree with the death penalty I can't agree with that, assuming the guilty men could have been executed that means you've let 100 murderers go, in which case it's likely more than 1 innocent person may die, just because you didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean you couldn't be partly responsible for those murders

 

[Beefy]

Actually while I disagree with the death penalty I can't agree with that, assuming the guilty men could have been executed that means you've let 100 murderers go, in which case it's likely more than 1 innocent person may die, just because you didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean you couldn't be partly responsible for those murders

What if you're the innocent man?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

A rather casual attitude to the taking of a life by the state.

I think I prefer the presumption of innocence which states:

It is better that 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death.

I think you're taking a rather casual attitude to the havoc that 100 guilty men could inflict on the innocents in society.

 

[southendkid]

What if you're the innocent man?

Then you wouldn't be happy, I'm not saying it's an ideal situation but you could use that argument the other way and say if you let everyone go 'what if your the next murder victim?' You wouldn't be worrying about this situation if they just stayed in prison until there is evidence to suggest they are innocent

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It's interesting reading this thread and comparing it to some of the ones on immigration, race or religion. In those there are countless protestations that we are a Christian country yet here is a subject that is irrevocably tied up with religion and seven pages in I'm not sure there has been a single mention of Christianity and its New Testament values (as distinct from the eye for an eye philosophy of Judasim in the Old Testament). Is this the creeping influence of Muslim that we are so often warned against when so many are suggesting adopting Sharia Law principles?

If this is a Christian country, or at least based on Christian values (if not necessarily belief in an actual God), shouldn't our laws reflect such principles as let he who is without sin shall cast the first stone and turn the other cheek. These Christian principles teach us respectively not to sit in judgement and not to seek revenge. If people have such a lust for blood and revenge, should they not be moving to a country practicing Sharia Law rather than subverting our Christian values?

I hope no one has a loved one murdered, but if I did suffer that tragedy I sincerely hope that I wouldn't be consumed by hatred as I'd be a second victim.

The other emotion that has been strangely lacking in the discussion is that of guilt. I can only imagine that the guilt I'd feel if I was to kill someone (whether accidentally, in a crime of passion, in cold blood or through state sanctioned murder like the death penalty) would be a far worse punishment than being killed. Just having to live with that on your conscience would be a (crime and) punishment in itself.


**ducks**

 

[maninasuitcase]

I think you're taking a rather casual attitude to the havoc that 100 guilty men could inflict on the innocents in society.

It is the concept on which our judicial system is based. It can be traced back from the Supreme Court in America in 1895 to Rome and Ancient Greece and even the bible, so it is hardly a new idea.

But if you prefer to execute people on what they could do, as opposed to what they have actually done, then we have to be thankful you are not in charge.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's interesting reading this thread and comparing it to some of the ones on immigration, race or religion. In those there are countless protestations that we are a Christian country yet here is a subject that is irrevocably tied up with religion and seven pages in I'm not sure there has been a single mention of Christianity and its New Testament values (as distinct from the eye for an eye philosophy of Judasim in the Old Testament). Is this the creeping influence of Muslim that we are so often warned against when so many are suggesting adopting Sharia Law principles?

If this is a Christian country, or at least based on Christian values (if not necessarily belief in an actual God), shouldn't our laws reflect such principles as let he who is without sin shall cast the first stone and turn the other cheek. These Christian principles teach us respectively not to sit in judgement and not to seek revenge. If people have such a lust for blood and revenge, should they not be moving to a country practicing Sharia Law rather than subverting our Christian values?

I hope no one has a loved one murdered, but if I did suffer that tragedy I sincerely hope that I wouldn't be consumed by hatred as I'd be a second victim.

The other emotion that has been strangely lacking in the discussion is that of guilt. I can only imagine that the guilt I'd feel if I was to kill someone (whether accidentally, in a crime of passion, in cold blood or through state sanctioned murder like the death penalty) would be a far worse punishment than being killed. Just having to live with that on your conscience would be a (crime and) punishment in itself.

The lawmakers and media elites are racing towards complete and utter secularism (with the obvious exception clause where Islam is the respected religion of peace), but you are right, this country and its laws, its rights and its freedoms, is rooted in a Christian tradition. However, I think you are misusing Matthew 5:39 for your own mischievous ends. When Jesus said 'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,' he was telling his followers that they shouldn't seek retribution when they felt they had been wronged. I appreciate that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to extend this instruction to a demand that society should forgive its wrongdoers, but if you take that to its inevitable conclusion, then there would be no punishment, not even a few weeks in a cushy open prison.

Christ obviously felt that there needed to be rules, and there needed to be appropriate measures taken - his actions in clearing out the money lenders from the temple show this. He admonished us for seeking to avenge personal assaults, but he didn't recommend that we should construct a society where 'anything goes'.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It is the concept on which our judicial system is based. It can be traced back from the Supreme Court in America in 1895 to Rome and Ancient Greece and even the bible, so it is hardly a new idea.

But if you prefer to execute people on what they could do, as opposed to what they have actually done, then we have to be thankful you are not in charge.

I believe that you were the one who had pronounced them to be guilty in your original quotation, so I am referring to punishing them for what they have done. This would have the added bonus of protecting the innocent from what they might do in future. Try again.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The lawmakers and media elites are racing towards complete and utter secularism (with the obvious exception clause where Islam is the respected religion of peace), but you are right, this country and its laws, its rights and its freedoms, is rooted in a Christian tradition. However, I think you are misusing Matthew 5:39 for your own mischievous ends. When Jesus said 'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,' he was telling his followers that they shouldn't seek retribution when they felt they had been wronged. I appreciate that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to extend this instruction to a demand that society should forgive its wrongdoers, but if you take that to its inevitable conclusion, then there would be no punishment, not even a few weeks in a cushy open prison.

Christ obviously felt that there needed to be rules, and there needed to be appropriate measures taken - his actions in clearing out the money lenders from the temple show this. He admonished us for seeking to avenge personal assaults, but he didn't recommend that we should construct a society where 'anything goes'.

I'm not arguing for a society in which anything goes, I'm arguing that seeking the death penalty is seeking revenge. That is over and above a punishment necessary to achieve an orderly society.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I would hope that even the Littlejohn haters out there might see some merit in what he has to say in his column on this:

Vote online? Be careful what you click for...

'People would vote for anything on a whim and later come to regret it. Voting for policies online would be like pressing the One Click button on Amazon after a few sherberts. You’d end up with something you didn’t really want and certainly couldn’t afford. Be careful what you click for.While an internet plebiscite might have the advantage of getting us out of the EU and demolishing those hideous wind farms, we might wake up to find that we’ve elected Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister and introduced the death penalty for bankers.
We don’t want gimmicks, we want MPs to reflect the views of the paying public and stop serving their own self-interests. As Sir George Young says: what else is Parliament for?'

 

[applelover]

I believe that you were the one who had pronounced them to be guilty in your original quotation, so I am referring to punishing them for what they have done. This would have the added bonus of protecting the innocent from what they might do in future. Try again.

Thanks for the -ve rep for not being ok with innocent people being executed. I've only got 5pts now :raspberry:.

Simple question rusty, are you ok with colin stagg being executed to meet your desire for punishment? Yes or no?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thanks for the -ve rep for not being ok with innocent people being executed. I've only got 5pts now :raspberry:.

Simple question rusty, are you ok with colin stagg being executed to meet your desire for punishment? Yes or no?

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would be OK with it. I would also introduce the death penalty for complaining about rep comments.

 

[applelover]

Your focus seems to be entirely on curing and rehabilitating the criminal - you don't pay any attention to justice for the victim and the concept that one should be held accountable and punished for one's misdeeds. I firmly believe that there is evil in the world, and it is the responsibility of the righteous man to punish that evil.

You say i don't believe in justice but the post you comment on states

'For me Napper is where he should be, in a maximum security mental institution for the rest of his life'

'I must admit i'm not a believer in 'evil', Taylor is obviously as twisted as they get and there isn't a doctor in the world who could gaurantee that he could be rehabilitated which leaves us with a big problem. If he could be 'cured' I have him serve 20-25 years and then be released.'

How can life incarceration for Napper and 20-25 years for Taylor if he can be cured can be described as having no element of punishment? You don't want justice you want to satisfy bloodlust.

Can somebody who knows rusty personally confirm whether he's really as he appears on these boards? Is he sincere or is he just playing out a role to provoke reaction?

 

[applelover]

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would be OK with it. I would also introduce the death penalty for complaining about rep comments.

Can I just confirm that Rusty Shackleford is ok with the execution of innocent people? Just for the record.