Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain

[SWP's back]

Talking out of your arse. They have free will to not join the army Damocles. But once they have joined, they have no say ion where they are posted. If they are posted into any active theatre, such as Afghan, then they have no free will not to engage an enemy intent on killing them.

So, by your reckoning, no one should join the army as that is the only chance they get to exercise their free will? Again, that is about politics, not the the situation on the ground.

No, again you misunderstand what free will is. They can walk away today if they feel like it. Nothing is stopping them from physically refusing to move. They can point blank refuse to go to XYZ. This IS free will. Free will doesn't mean "a decision without consequences", it means "a decision".

My mistake Damocles. I thought you were talking real world, not theoretical. I don't think you understand the bond between soldiers. When they are in theatre, they are not fighting for you, for me, for Queen or country, but for each other and suddenly refusing to fight with and for your "brother in arms" or kill on moral grounds would be more the most alien thing for them imaginable.

In real terms, in the real world, they are sent overseas and into dangerous situations where it is a case of killing to save their own, and their fellow soldiers lives.

You have taken the thread way off topic however and whatever your thoughts on "conscientiously objecting", there is a distinction between killing in combat and the cold blooded killing of human through capital punishment.<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:31 pm --<br /><br />

An eye for an eye is the complete antithesis of Christian values as I perceive them.

I am a profound agnostic but I have no problem ascribing the term 'Christian' in a complimentary sense to someone who embodies the principals of forgiveness, tolerance and a sense of community.

An aspiration to see people killed in any way whatsoever is in no way Christian.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... nt_1.shtml</a>

that's shocked me a little reading that link.

Seems Christians can choose the death penalty as the Bible is highly contradictory and therefore can be used to back up any argument.

Like you say the Bible is full off contradictions and anyone can crowbar in various passages to suit whatever position they feel the need for biblical justification.

But the overarching principal of Christianity, as I see it, is forgiveness and understanding. That is totally incompatible with wanting the return of the death penalty. It is a deeply unchristian thing to wish for.

Yep, I'd agree.

 

[LittleStan]

Yes I'd like it back. People like Huntley should not be free to live his life in comfort. It might not be much of a deterrent but if it stops just a few kids from being murdered then its worth it.

I suspect when most of the do good gang on here grow up and have children some will feel differently.

If it is not much of a deterrent then how would it stop a few kids from being murdered?

I have wo kids and I don't want it back.

 

[malg]

Talking out of your arse. They have free will to not join the army Damocles. But once they have joined, they have no say ion where they are posted. If they are posted into any active theatre, such as Afghan, then they have no free will not to engage an enemy intent on killing them.

So, by your reckoning, no one should join the army as that is the only chance they get to exercise their free will? Again, that is about politics, not the the situation on the ground.

No, again you misunderstand what free will is. They can walk away today if they feel like it. Nothing is stopping them from physically refusing to move. They can point blank refuse to go to XYZ. This IS free will. Free will doesn't mean "a decision without consequences", it means "a decision". They could always object on religious, political or moral grounds too

hahaha.....yeh, right! Your point is a little too simplistic, but I do get it.

Some soldiers actually do refuse and are discharged. Personal choice. Others want to refuse but won't, not because of negative consequences (being discharged, or being called a coward) but because they have such a strong bond with their colleagues that they feel they'd rather put their neck on the line than let their 'muckers' down.

As for restoring the death penalty in the UK, it's an utterly pointless discussion as Parliament would never, absolutely never, vote it back in.

 

[lostmyhouseski]

I don't think it should be restored because as much as forensics has progressed over the years, it still relies on human processing and therefore is open to human error. You tend to hear alot of cases where evidence isn't stored properly, some is misinterpreted etc... I think all of that puts up a pretty strong case for keeping things as they are rather than executing hundereds of innocent people (see USA).Not to mention the pressure police are under to apprehend a suspect,their sometimes questionable interrogation techniques and of course the follies of the jury system.
To me the room for error is too great- you can always release a wrongly convicted person from jail, but you can't bring them back to life

 

[Damocles]

My mistake Damocles. I thought you were talking real world, not theoretical. I don't think you understand the bond between soldiers. When they are in theatre, they are not fighting for you, for me, for Queen or country, but for each other and suddenly refusing to fight with and for your "brother in arms" or kill on moral grounds would be more the most alien thing for them imaginable.

In real terms, in the real world, they are sent overseas and into dangerous situations where it is a case of killing to save their own, and their fellow soldiers lives.

And in the real world, in real term, they can refuse. Again, just because they have enormous peer pressure not to is absolutely no excuse. And I'm pretty sure I understand soldiers, every single member of my family is one or has been one, for generations and our decorations include everything from a VC to a CGC and a few years back a MC. My last name itself descends from a French general in 1066. As a family, we've bled on every continent in the world, Antarctica aside. This doesn't change a thing, and makes my opinion no more or less valid than anybody else's.

Your ideas of "well they can't REALLY do that" are false. Yes! Yes they CAN do that! The idea of "following orders" has never been an excuse, and I don't see why it should start now. You want to talk about the way it is, I know the way it is, and it's wrong, which was my entire point. They don't want to let their friends down. That's fine, but in not letting their friends down they are perpetrating a system in which they can be used as tools of the government rather than protectors of it.

You have taken the thread way off topic however and whatever your thoughts on "conscientiously objecting", there is a distinction between killing in combat and the cold blooded killing of human through capital punishment.

No, there isn't. It's state sponsored execution, no matter which way you try to slant it. The executioners and the crimes differ, but they are essentially the same pursuit.

 

[SWP's back]

My mistake Damocles. I thought you were talking real world, not theoretical. I don't think you understand the bond between soldiers. When they are in theatre, they are not fighting for you, for me, for Queen or country, but for each other and suddenly refusing to fight with and for your "brother in arms" or kill on moral grounds would be more the most alien thing for them imaginable.

In real terms, in the real world, they are sent overseas and into dangerous situations where it is a case of killing to save their own, and their fellow soldiers lives.

And in the real world, in real term, they can refuse. Again, just because they have enormous peer pressure not to is absolutely no excuse. And I'm pretty sure I understand soldiers, every single member of my family is one or has been one, for generations and our decorations include everything from a VC to a CGC and a few years back a MC. My last name itself descends from a French general in 1066. As a family, we've bled on every continent in the world, Antarctica aside. This doesn't change a thing, and makes my opinion no more or less valid than anybody else's.

Your ideas of "well they can't REALLY do that" are false. Yes! Yes they CAN do that! The idea of "following orders" has never been an excuse, and I don't see why it should start now. You want to talk about the way it is, I know the way it is, and it's wrong, which was my entire point. They don't want to let their friends down. That's fine, but in not letting their friends down they are perpetrating a system in which they can be used as tools of the government rather than protectors of it.

You have taken the thread way off topic however and whatever your thoughts on "conscientiously objecting", there is a distinction between killing in combat and the cold blooded killing of human through capital punishment.

No, there isn't. It's state sponsored execution, no matter which way you try to slant it. The executioners and the crimes differ, but they are essentially the same pursuit.

Then you must be ashamed to have so many cold blooded killers (or at the very least, instruments of state sponsored execution) in your family if you cannot make the distinction. That's a shame. I would be proud of that heritage if I were you.

I would also say that unless you have experienced the bond of soldierly brotherhood, then you would never be able to understand it, in the same way that I cannot. But this is the same mantra that I have been told by every member of the armed services that I know that has gone into action. You may say "you know the way it is", but the truth is you don't. You think you do. But you do not, your lineage cannot change that and I'm sure any of our active members on the board will agree.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

Yes I'd like it back. People like Huntley should not be free to live his life in comfort. It might not be much of a deterrent but if it stops just a few kids from being murdered then its worth it.

I suspect when most of the do good gang on here grow up and have children some will feel differently.

If it is not much of a deterrent then how would it stop a few kids from being murdered?

I have wo kids and I don't want it back.

There are people who have murdered been imprisoned released only to murder again

 

[Skashion]

Damocles, in your view, was fighting the Second World War itself immoral. There were many atrocities committed within it which were in my view, but was fighting in it generally - outside said atrocities, immoral? Forget defending the country. In my view there was never a serious invasion threat to these isles anyway but let's say from September 17th 1940 onwards, was fighting in that war - atrocities aside, immoral?

 

[LittleStan]

Yes I'd like it back. People like Huntley should not be free to live his life in comfort. It might not be much of a deterrent but if it stops just a few kids from being murdered then its worth it.

I suspect when most of the do good gang on here grow up and have children some will feel differently.

If it is not much of a deterrent then how would it stop a few kids from being murdered?

I have wo kids and I don't want it back.

There are people who have murdered been imprisoned released only to murder again

and your point is?

What has this to do with it not being a deterrent? For those that get let out to murder again there are also those who were wrongly convicted.

 

[Damocles]

Then you must be ashamed to have so many cold blooded killers (or at the very least, instruments of state sponsored execution) in your family if you cannot make the distinction. That's a shame. I would be proud of that heritage if I were you.

I'm very proud of my heritage :)

And I'm not ashamed to have "instruments of state sponsored execution" in my family, no. Everybody has their own cross to bear, and it isn't my duty to bear theirs. It's like when people say "well, you have to respect my beliefs!"; no I don't, I can find someone's beliefs utterly ludicrous and ridiculous, but I respect their humanity, just as I do for the same type of people who others want to use the death penalty to kill.

I would also say that unless you have experienced the bond of soldierly brotherhood, then you would never be able to understand it, in the same way that I cannot. But this is the same mantra that I have been told by every member of the armed services that I know that has gone into action. You may say "you know the way it is", but the truth is you don't. You think you do. But you do not, your lineage cannot change that and I'm sure any of our active members on the board will agree.

To be fair, you do have a point on this.

Damocles, in your view, was fighting the Second World War itself immoral. There were many atrocities committed within it which were in my view, but was fighting in it generally - outside said atrocities, immoral? Forget defending the country. In my view there was never a serious invasion threat to these isles anyway but let's say from September 17th 1940 onwards, was fighting in that war - atrocities aside, immoral?

I don't profess to be an expert on the Second World War; certainly not fit to lace your boots on it, but from my readings, the war was a defensive rather than offensive war. There was a clear and present danger to Britain and its territories from invasion by another state. I do not see the same threat in any of our current wars.