.... and when I thought it impossible.... even more drivel.Sound like Trump and his minions.
Come on Big Joe, step up to the plate, release that safety catch and be ready to pull the trigger. Surely you wouldn’t leave it to somebody else to live with the guilt?
I’ve answered the question, tried to be reasonable with the discussion, and even given you an answer to your own question..... and when I thought it impossible.... even more drivel.
The point of the discussion is Capital Punishment or not..... you say no and spend millions I say yes.
You keep deviating from the point of the discussion if you must, hopefully it gives you a lovely warm feeling inside. Has little to no effect anywhere else.
The 'Nottingham murders' killer wasn't actually convicted of murder, he was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of paranoid schizophrenia and placed in a secure mental facility. That decision is now being appealed, but this is what happens with death penalty supporters. They all claim that they are only in favour of it when there's absolutely no doubt, but when you drill down just a little bit into examples of cases they want to see the death penalty for, you see that they have very little concern about wrongful convictions and are in fact simply driven by revenge and bloodlust. This is a case with clear doubt, and yet you've already put a bullet in his head. So yeah, in all these cases, the death penalty is not appropriate, because like every other case, there is always a risk of wrongful conviction. That is a principle that is worth clinging on to, even if it means that occasionally we're paying out money to keep some cunts alive (which is basically what all prison sentences are anyway).What about the cost of looking after these people who have committed heinous crimes? There are enough of them. three in recent times in the UK alone - The Nottingham murders, the Southport Murders The Bushey (John Hunt) Murders - off the top of my head in recent times. None of these people deserve ever to walk the streets again.
I mean the Government are looking at ways of cutting costs and saving money, what is the issue? Surely even the dyed in the wool lefties on here are not going to make the case for them ever being freed?
What actions have I taken?I’ve answered the question, tried to be reasonable with the discussion, and even given you an answer to your own question.
Just more of the same from an angry little person who won’t take responsibility for their own actions.
I got to the last paragraph and read innocent people.The 'Nottingham murders' killer wasn't actually convicted of murder, he was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of paranoid schizophrenia and placed in a secure mental facility. That decision is now being appealed, but this is what happens with death penalty supporters. They all claim that they are only in favour of it when there's absolutely no doubt, but when you drill down just a little bit into examples of cases they want to see the death penalty for, you see that they have very little concern about wrongful convictions and are in fact simply driven by revenge and bloodlust. This is a case with clear doubt, and yet you've already put a bullet in his head. So yeah, in all these cases, the death penalty is not appropriate, because like every other case, there is always a risk of wrongful conviction. That is a principle that is worth clinging on to, even if it means that occasionally we're paying out money to keep some cunts alive (which is basically what all prison sentences are anyway).
Perhaps a more interesting question would be why would you be happy to have killed all of these innocent people for the sake of a few quid?
I don't know what the issue is.I got to the last paragraph and read innocent people.
Thanks
It is absolutely absurd that people continue to think the relatively miniscule cost of keeping people in prison affects other government services or the daily life of the average citizen in any way. I could sit here and complain about how much the government spends on a million other things that drain the coffers more.What about the cost of looking after these people who have committed heinous crimes? There are enough of them. three in recent times in the UK alone - The Nottingham murders, the Southport Murders The Bushey (John Hunt) Murders - off the top of my head in recent times. None of these people deserve ever to walk the streets again.
I mean the Government are looking at ways of cutting costs and saving money, what is the issue? Surely even the dyed in the wool lefties on here are not going to make the case for them ever being freed?
I understand what you're saying but....It is absolutely absurd that people continue to think the relatively miniscule cost of keeping people in prison affects other government services or the daily life of the average citizen in any way. I could sit here and complain about how much the government spends on a million other things that drain the coffers more.
Executing people is also not as cheap as you think it is due to mandatory appeals. Here in the US we have mandatory appeals to make sure there weren't errors of fact or law before an execution is actually carried out, and even then our system isn't perfect and there have been people killed by the state that have been exonerated by DNA evidence years or decades later. I am confident that if the death penalty were ever brought back to the UK, there would also be mandatory appeals that would cost plenty of money. Surely you aren't okay with skipping this step and possibly executing innocent people.
The "it costs too much to keep these people alive" argument holds no water and it never has. If you think these people deserve to be put to death because of whatever crime they committed, that's a moral/ethical argument that people are never going to fully agree on. But if you're arguing it's more practical in some way to put these people to death, those arguments have been debunked time and time again.
I understand what you're saying but....
What right of appeal does the Southport killer have? None
The Nottingham killer? None
The Bushey Killer? None
They were all "caught in the act", so to speak.
So what you're saying is the Southport murderer could be not guilty?This is absolute nonsense.
First, there is always the right of an appeal. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the appeal is hopeless, or if it raises some arguable point, but the right to seek an appeal is absolute.
Secondly, actually committing an act is not necessarily proof of guilt of the crime the defendant is charged with, because in many cases conviction of an offence depend on the intention with which the act was done. If I see a wallet on the floor and pick it up, I can't deny that I've done that act if it's captured on CCTV. But what if I genuinely mistakenly believe it's mine? That's not an offence. But if I know it's not mine and I take it anyway that's theft.
You can catch someone red handed ad still not know whether they are guilty of an offence.
The Nottingham killer was not found guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Had he been convicted of murder, he may well have had a successful appeal.
Comparing indisputable murders with finding a wallet on the street is to use your words "absolute nonsense" and quite frankly ridiculous.
Totally understand, in America its classified as 1st degree murder, as you obviously know.This post is ridiculous.
The reason why murder and theft are comparable, in this sense, is that they are both offences which depend upon the intention of the person doing the criminal act. Do you not understand that homicide is not murder unless the killer intends to either kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim?
A conviction for murder requires proof both of the act of killing someone and the intention with which that act was carried out.
If you don't understand this, maybe do just a touch of reading around the matter.
Well a court found that the Nottingham killings weren't committed with intent to kill, which is why he wasn't convicted of murder.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 guess that's where our thinking goes in different directions.
I don't believe he was charged with Murder (happy to be corrected), but Southport and Bushey?Well a court found that the Nottingham killings weren't committed with intent to kill, which is why he wasn't convicted of murder.
But you want him killed. So you're extending the death penalty to manslaughter too?I don't believe he was charged with Murder (happy to be corrected), but Southport and Bushey?
I believe the charge was Manslaughter... the outcome for the victims and families was exactly the same. Lost loved ones.
Yes. He should have been charged with murder.But you want him killed. So you're extending the death penalty to manslaughter too?
He was charged with murder. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. This was accepted by the prosecution. It was then appealed and the appeal found in favour of the original verdict.Yes. He should have been charged with murder.
I don't want them killed for the same reason I don't want any murderers killed. Because people like you claim to only be interested in clear cut, obvious cases, yet reveal with the slightest probing that you'll happily put to death someone who wasn't found guilty of murder, which means innocent people will be killed if you allow this law, as they always have been and always will be. It's not about what I think about the individuals in this case, it's about the law as a whole. I posted a list of people who'd been wrongfully killed earlier in the thread. You dismissed it without comment, so clearly you don't give a shit about innocent people being killed as long as you get to satisfy your own bloodlust. You claim to be interested only in justice, but you seem to have a very cavalier attitude, as death penalty proponents almost always do, about whether that justice is administered to the right person. You've literally said on this thread that you want someone who wasn't guilty of murder to be sentenced to death.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.
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.He was charged with murder. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. This was accepted by the prosecution. It was then appealed and the appeal found in favour of the original verdict.
I don't want them killed for the same reason I don't want any murderers killed. Because people like you claim to only be interested in clear cut, obvious cases, yet reveal with the slightest probing that you'll happily put to death someone who wasn't found guilty of murder, which means innocent people will be killed if you allow this law, as they always have been and always will be. It's not about what I think about the individuals in this case, it's about the law as a whole. I posted a list of people who'd been wrongfully killed earlier in the thread. You dismissed it without comment, so clearly you don't give a shit about innocent people being killed as long as you get to satisfy your own bloodlust. You claim to be interested only in justice, but you seem to have a very cavalier attitude, as death penalty proponents almost always do, about whether that justice is administered to the right person. You've literally said on this thread that you want someone who wasn't guilty of murder to be sentenced to death.