Capital Punishment.

[Kinkybyname]

I'd have it like the old days before VAR - argue about any dodgy decisions in the pub afterwards over a pint

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Like I say we have a difference of opinion and I'm happy with that. If there was any shadow of doubt then no they should not be executed. People may have been hanged in error in the past, but taking that attitude you would have little to no reforms in the legal process.

Indisputably guilty of murder like the Southport and Bushey cases yes let the bastards hang. As for Nottingham, he committed those crimes and should have been charged with murder - as I previously explained. That is my opinion and I accept that you are entitled to have an alternative - fine.

The reason I "dismissed" your list is that it is irrelevant in as much as I have said if there is no doubt, whereas without in depth research I cannot and do not need to prove anything.

How can you say only in 'no doubt' when you have expressly stated on this thread that you would execute a man who was not found guilty of murder, not once, but twice? This is the problem. Your standard for 'no doubt' clearly contains a lot of doubt, because it includes a textbook example of a case where guilt cannot be established.

Just spare a thought for the Nottingham murders families and John Hunt and his family and the Southport murders families.

Why do death penalty advocates think that their viewpoint is the only one that respects the families of victims?

Lets just agree to differ as I have no intention of changing my "bloodlust" cravings just as you have no intention of changing your happy go lucky everything is rosy in the garden outlook.

If you say so.

 

[stonerblue]

Yes. He should have been charged with murder.

Do you not want the Bushy and Southport killers killed? The clear cut murder of children and innocent women, or is murder in these cases acceptable in your mind?

BTW I am happy to accept other people will have views different to mine as is their right, but I will vehemently disagree as is my right.

No it's not 'acceptable, and questioning whether it is for those that disagree with you is, using the buzzword of the forum, a cunts trick

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

How can you say only in 'no doubt' when you have expressly stated on this thread that you would execute a man who was not found guilty of murder, not once, but twice? This is the problem. Your standard for 'no doubt' clearly contains a lot of doubt, because it includes a textbook example of a case where guilt cannot be established.


Why do death penalty advocates think that their viewpoint is the only one that respects the families of victims?


If you say so.

You’re debating a guy that believes “If X happens, then Y is the result.”

Not just on this subject, but in most he debates. There’s no nuance nor any mitigating factors that should change the XY result in his mind.

 

[BigJoe#1]

You’re debating a guy that believes “If X happens, then Y is the result.”

Not just on this subject, but in most he debates. There’s no nuance nor any mitigating factors that should change the XY result in his mind.

I think this argument applies both ways and to many on here.... present company included.

I am prepared to acknowledge others points of view exist and accept their argument, shame others cannot, again present company included.

 

[BigJoe#1]

No it's not 'acceptable, and questioning whether it is for those that disagree with you is, using the buzzword of the forum, a cunts trick

So unless I conform then I'm a ****? Fair enough all I can say is it takes one to..... nah don't bother.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I think this argument applies both ways and to many on here.... present company included.

I am prepared to acknowledge others points of view exist and accept their argument, shame others cannot, again present company included.

You can believe what you like. It’s not going to change anything.

You just try to antagonise people. It’s a pointless exercise entering into debate with you.

 

[BigJoe#1]

You can believe what you like. It’s not going to change anything.

You just try to antagonise people. It’s a pointless exercise entering into debate with you.

Then why do persistently bother then?.... err no response required thanks.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Then why do persistently bother then?.... err no response required thanks.

I didn’t.

 

[hilts]

Wow..... just wow.

Really have nothing more to say to such incomprehensible drivel.

If Starmer ever approves then @The Future’s Blue! will turn into Billy the Kid in seconds :-)

 

[Chris in London]

Totally understand, in America its classified as 1st degree murder, as you obviously know.

I find it hard to understand how you can believe any of these crimes were committed without intent to kill? I suggest they all were.

I don't know because I only know the verdict. The Nottingham verdict was that the killer lacked the relevant intention necessary for murder. That's why the verdict was manslaughter. AFAIK the verdict in the other cases was in each case murder. The jury in each case could ONLY reach that verdict if they were sure on the evidence that the killer (a) committed the act of killing their victims and (b) had the intent necessary for a murder verdict. They obviously were satisfied in those cases to that very high standard.

Where I part company with you is that a jury's decision about what is going through someone's mind at the point they commit a homicide is in my view an inadequate basis for authorising the state to take someone's life.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

If Starmer ever approves then @The Future’s Blue! will turn into Billy the Kid in seconds :-)

Sad ****.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Sad ****.

Who Starmer...? whilst I'm minded to agree I never expected that from you. Still he is about to face a revolt about his benefits cuts and cutting jobs along with Employers NI contribution, so I get where your coming from.

 

[BobKowalski]

Yes. He should have been charged with murder.

Do you not want the Bushy and Southport killers killed? The clear cut murder of children and innocent women, or is murder in these cases acceptable in your mind?

BTW I am happy to accept other people will have views different to mine as is their right, but I will vehemently disagree as is my right.

Why do you feel so strongly on this issue? What does it mean for you personally?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Why do you feel so strongly on this issue? What does it mean for you personally?

It's an odd one isn't it? In the post you quoted, he basically says that he thinks the court made a mistake in its decision. He then says he wants to give this court the power of life and death over people.

This is why I don't believe death penalty advocates when they claim to be interested in 'only' using it when the evidence is completely indisputable, because everywhere that implements it shows that this doesn't actually happen. You see people celebrating the use of the death penalty in notoriously corrupt systems like India, for example, with no concern as to whether the people charged were actually the real culprits. And you know for a fact that as soon as it was brought in, people on that side would be campaigning to expand its use. Pressure would be put on politicians as soon as a murderer didn't get the death penalty for whatever reason. The worst rapists? Death penalty. Drug smugglers? Death penalty. Someone who accidentally killed someone while committing a robbery? Death penalty. Someone accused of treason? Death penalty. And before you know it, you're killing someone with an IQ of 70 who was tricked into smuggling drugs like Singapore did recently.

 

[west didsblue]

Why do you feel so strongly on this issue? What does it mean for you personally?

There’s a certain group of people who seem to feel the need to try and outdo each other to prove their alpha manliness by making up more and more gruesome punishments that they want to see meted out for certain types of offenders. In reality it’s just another type of virtue signalling.

Laws have been developed and evolved over the last millennium to deal with offenders of all types and the law continues to evolve. I don’t really get why some people think their gut reaction over a particularly heinous crime is more appropriate than the law, other than they must be a bit thick.

 

[stonerblue]

So unless I conform then I'm a ****? Fair enough all I can say is it takes one to..... nah don't bother.

not sure what you mean by 'conform'?
I made a simple point, and that was if you accuse others of not caring about murdered children because they don't agree with the death penalty then you're a bit of a twat.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

not sure what you mean by 'conform'?
I made a simple point, and that was if you accuse others of not caring about murdered children because they don't agree with the death penalty then you're a bit of a twat.

It’s a common theme with some death penalty advocates isn’t it? Talk about how the victim’s family might feel etc. Does it occur to them that a lot of those people may themselves be against the death penalty?

 

[hilts]

It’s a common theme with some death penalty advocates isn’t it? Talk about how the victim’s family might feel etc. Does it occur to them that a lot of those people may themselves be against the death penalty?

If they say might feel then that kind of covers your point does it not?

 

[dronefromsector7G]

If they say might feel then that kind of covers your point does it not?

Why bring it up though? It’s pretty obvious that the families are going to feel a bit shit so what is the point in referencing it when making a case for capital punishment?