Capital Punishment.

[hilts]

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?

I'm not in favour of capital punishment as a rule but only because mistakes are made, I don't accept an argument of my morals are more worthy than yours or anyone else, its also hugely hypocritical(big surprise on here) that posters see fit to argue laws have been made so that's it but are quite happy to argue against laws when it suits ie they have a different opinion.

I am a big advocate of victims of crime having at the very least an input into sentencing. While it's easy to sit here and say off with their heads it's also very easy to say send em to jail when it's not their kid who is dead. You cannot and shouldn't take emotion out of something so abhorrent. I wouldn't feel the slightest regret in a slam dunk conviction child killer being put under the ground.

Some would say that view is outdated and barbaric. And who decided what was barbaric and outdated? I wasn't asked and neither were you. I don't have to accept the opinions of others whose decisions were made on my behalf without my consent. We have the right to question the rule makers

It's a moral question about punishment and everything else like deterrents costs etc is just deflection to justify an opinion.

I'm not sure why killing a child murderer is counted as barbaric but we can rationalise murder of humans and other animals rather easily.

 

[BobKowalski]

I'm not in favour of capital punishment as a rule but only because mistakes are made, I don't accept an argument of my morals are more worthy than yours or anyone else, its also hugely hypocritical(big surprise on here) that posters see fit to argue laws have been made so that's it but are quite happy to argue against laws when it suits ie they have a different opinion.

I am a big advocate of victims of crime having at the very least an input into sentencing. While it's easy to sit here and say off with their heads it's also very easy to say send em to jail when it's not their kid who is dead. You cannot and shouldn't take emotion out of something so abhorrent. I wouldn't feel the slightest regret in a slam dunk conviction child killer being put under the ground.

Some would say that view is outdated and barbaric. And who decided what was barbaric and outdated? I wasn't asked and neither were you. I don't have to accept the opinions of others whose decisions were made on my behalf without my consent. We have the right to question the rule makers

It's a moral question about punishment and everything else like deterrents costs etc is just deflection to justify an opinion.

I'm not sure why killing a child murderer is counted as barbaric but we can rationalise murder of humans and other animals rather easily.

I would argue that you can have justice or you can have revenge. For justice to prevail you endeavour to remove the emotion from the crime and judge it dispassionately. Once you allow victims or families of victims to have a say then you are in revenge or forgiveness territory and that makes for bad or uneven justice. Emotion clouds judgement.

 

[hilts]

I would argue that you can have justice or you can have revenge. For justice to prevail you endeavour to remove the emotion from the crime and judge it dispassionately. Once you allow victims or families of victims to have a say then you are in revenge or forgiveness territory and that makes for bad or uneven justice. Emotion clouds judgement.

If someone removes emotion how can they possibly understand the seriousness and effect of a crime, compassion and anger are emotions. The argument is only about the suffiency of the punishment.

I believe you can serve punishment, justice and revenge all in one go. These are all natural responses to heinous crimes and even smaller ones.

We see things differently and as I said thats fine I'm just not having the rather dodgy illogical arguments spouted by some.

If one believes killing a child murderer is wrong then they must believe killing any living creature is wrong. That's when their civilised society(decided by whom) argument and moral posturing falls apart dramatically.

 

[BobKowalski]

If someone removes emotion how can they possibly understand the seriousness and effect of a crime, compassion and anger are emotions. The argument is only about the suffiency of the punishment.

I believe you can serve punishment, justice and revenge all in one go. These are all natural responses to heinous crimes and even smaller ones.

We see things differently and as I said thats fine I'm just not having the rather dodgy illogical arguments spouted by some.

If one believes killing a child murderer is wrong then they must believe killing any living creature is wrong. That's when their civilised society(decided by whom) argument and moral posturing falls apart dramatically.

You do not need emotion to understand the seriousness of a crime and in practice there will always be an emotional response, but we cannot allow the investigation, the prosecution or the judgement of a crime to be swayed by that emotion.

A surgeon is advised not to operate on a relative, police officers from investigating a crime in which there is a personal interest, jurors have to declare if they know the defendant or victim etc. This is because of the potential for emotional bias and impaired judgement. A victim or a relative of a victim should not have a say in the process because they, understandably, will bring emotional bIas into the equation and this will degrade the impartiality of the justice system.

Morality is not a factor in this argument. It is established practice and for good reason.

 

[hilts]

You do not need emotion to understand the seriousness of a crime and in practice there will always be an emotional response, but we cannot allow the investigation, the prosecution or the judgement of a crime to be swayed by that emotion.

A surgeon is advised not to operate on a relative, police officers from investigating a crime in which there is a personal interest, jurors have to declare if they know the defendant or victim etc. This is because of the potential for emotional bias and impaired judgement. A victim or a relative of a victim should not have a say in the process because they, understandably, will bring emotional bIas into the equation and this will degrade the impartiality of the justice system.

Morality is not a factor in this argument. It is established practice and for good reason.

My days of going round in circles have ended, if you don't think emotions had anything to do with sentencing laws then knock yourself out.

Live long and prosper Spock:-)

 

[Grassland Blue]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

 

[stonerblue]

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?

Emotional blackmail

 

[stonerblue]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

Oldham's sounding nice these days..

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

See the Arena bomber has attacked prison officers and inflicted ‘life threatening injuries’ upon them. I’d be more than happy if he was first in the queue.

 

[mosssideblue]

See the Arena bomber has attacked prison officers and inflicted ‘life threatening injuries’ upon them. I’d be more than happy if he was first in the queue.

I’m sure the prison officers will see something nasty happens to the scrote

 

[halfcenturyup]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

Shanghai?

 

[Eccles Blue]

See the Arena bomber has attacked prison officers and inflicted ‘life threatening injuries’ upon them. I’d be more than happy if he was first in the queue.

Why was someone who has injured prison officers before let anywhere near hot oil?
That should be the first question asked surely by the inquiry.

 

[flook]

I would argue that you can have justice or you can have revenge. For justice to prevail you endeavour to remove the emotion from the crime and judge it dispassionately. Once you allow victims or families of victims to have a say then you are in revenge or forgiveness territory and that makes for bad or uneven justice. Emotion clouds judgement.

Having a loved one injured or killed, deliberately in the context of what's being discussed, is an emotional subject. Why would you not want it to form part of the justice system? The precedent is already there to some degree in the form of victim impact statements

 

[flook]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

This same country has a poor human rights record, has no "due process" as we in the west understand it, has no free speech, at least in terms of criticism of the government, and is pretty shit at football.

It would be nice to have the benefits you mention without these downsides, sadly however, it seems that human nature precludes this.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

Shanghai?

More like Singapore

 

[Grassland Blue]

This same country has a poor human rights record, has no "due process" as we in the west understand it, has no free speech, at least in terms of criticism of the government, and is pretty shit at football.

It would be nice to have the benefits you mention with these downsides, sadly however, it seems that human nature precludes this.

Who is controlling the narrative that China has a poor human rights record?
As for freedom of speech, there are only 3 topics which are frowned on.
Gov, Politics and religion.

 

[Alvin-blue-qhd]

In China the majority of academics believe that the death penalty should be abolished. It's the general public who insist capital punishment should be retained.
杀人偿命，欠债还钱，天经地义。
( Killers must pay with their lives, and debtors must repay what they owe—this is the natural order of things.)

 

[Pedestrian]

I am currently in a country which has set firm boundaries.
You do not smell drugs as you walk around the towns and cities, which are very clean.
You do not see the unfortunates in life trying to beg money almoat as soon as you get off a train or bus.
The people are interested in you and can't do enough for you.
The crime rate is very low, I believe, because everyone is aware of the enforced boundaries, one of the punishments being death.
Compare this to the chaos in the U.K. where so many want to be 'a special case' and feel they can behave however they want with no comebacks.
Perhaps if our boundaries were as rigidly enforced, very few people would come close to being dealt with in such an extreme way.
It starts with feet on the seats, littering, children running around in pubs, youths and others driving (and riding) recklessly etc. The list of this sh1t ia a very long one.
Thoughts.

This it the same shite ex-pats in Benidorm/thailand/australia spout all the time. I’m from Manchester but live in Newcastle. Commute regularly for the match. I don’t recognise your description as matching either city.

 

[Pedestrian]

I’m sure the prison officers will see something nasty happens to the scrote

He’ll be ghosted for a period.

 

[Grassland Blue]

This it the same shite ex-pats in Benidorm/thailand/australia spout all the time. I’m from Manchester but live in Newcastle. Commute regularly for the match. I don’t recognise your description as matching either city.

In Manchester walk from Piccadilly rail station to the Morrisons end of the 'gardens'.
In Newcastle come out of Central station main entrance and cross the road to Greggs.
You will witness some of the type of people I am referring to.