The Death Penalty.

[GStar]

G Star

PMSL at the thought of the stocks being used after the uefa cup final.

Haha, 150,000 Rangers fans locked to the floor as they're pelted with rotten shit for an afternoon.

Not fun - but thats exactly the point!

 

[mackenzie]

Yes I would Mackenzie and that'd be for the simple reason that it'd send out a message - kill someone and you stand to be killed yourself. We need that tough stance on murder. It'd reduce knife crime I predict.

So, you would execute someone who was driven mad by physical abuse. Like Ruth Ellis? She deliberatley killed...she went to the pub and shot the bastid. I don't for one minute think that the violence was the sole reason she did it, but having a miscarriage after being kicked in the stomach is one of the reasons she was sent over the edge.

Would you execute her? Or were there mitigating circumstances that possibly allowed the fact that she was mentally unhinged by what he did to her?

There's no room for sentiment in justice. She could have easily sought mental help.

Could she? I'm not so sure.

She was also executed because she was "not the right sort" as considered at that time by the Establishment,and she was also used by another man who escaped justice but was a massive factor in her state of mind. He also gave her the gun and probably encouraged her to do what she did.

I know the Class system is not the same these days, but it goes to show that sentiments and indeed the current thinking often impede real justice.

 

[Main Stand Hotdog]

Yes I would Mackenzie and that'd be for the simple reason that it'd send out a message - kill someone and you stand to be killed yourself. We need that tough stance on murder. It'd reduce knife crime I predict.

So, you would execute someone who was driven mad by physical abuse. Like Ruth Ellis? She deliberatley killed...she went to the pub and shot the bastid. I don't for one minute think that the violence was the sole reason she did it, but having a miscarriage after being kicked in the stomach is one of the reasons she was sent over the edge.

Would you execute her? Or were there mitigating circumstances that possibly allowed the fact that she was mentally unhinged by what he did to her?

There's no room for sentiment in justice. She could have easily sought mental help.

That would be the logical view point, when shit like that happens to you though you may not be able to think logically.

 

[mackenzie]

And what are the most "extreme crimes?"

By introducing something like that you are saying that one life is more valued than another.

I'm not being argumentative as such, just pointing out how difficult such a step would be if it was re introduced.

I wont argue with that, its a very difficult line to draw. Common sense would have to play a role... too much grey area in the "Prove beyond a reasonable doubt" section of justice.

OJ Simpson's case is prime example, a minor oversight and a technicality and he is aquitted.


But serial killers, mudering rapists etc the most extreme and brutal crimes.

Although it would be up to judge and jury ultimately if 'lesser' crimes could be considered for the same punishment.

And what if a burglar (for example) crept into a house in the middle of the night and the end result is the death of the homeowner by heart attack because he was startled.What if it was the burglar's first offence? What if the homeowners family wanted the burglar to be treated the same as anyone else that had caused death?

And how do a jury decide on such a grey area? It would be a lottery.

And that is why it will never be reintroduced, particularly now.

 

[GStar]

And what if a burglar (for example) crept into a house in the middle of the night and the end result is the death of the homeowner by heart attack because he was startled.What if it was the burglar's first offence? What if the homeowners family wanted the burglar to be treated the same as anyone else that had caused death?

And how do a jury decide on such a grey area? It would be a lottery.

And that is why it will never be reintroduced, particularly now.

Just because its a first offence should make no difference the person in question knew they were breaking the law when they entered another person's property in order to take thier possesions... therefore they should be dealt with accordingly, for example:

Did Ben Kinsella or the other 25-30 kids that have died in London this year have an option to live before someone took their life?
Obviously not - or they'd still be here; so why should the offender be given a different set of rules?

I guess the argument would be that if i was corned by a gang and felt i was in danger and i used a knife and took someone's life, should i now also give up all rights to life i had? I guess thats a fair point, and if i was in that position i'd probably feel hard done by.

Then again, if these punishments had been in place in the first instance, would we have the situation we have now?

The old addage that you have to break a few eggs to make an ommlette; the situation right now is fucked up, people literally getting stabbed everyday, you've got to come down hard to make a difference, so yes, its possible one or two people could be hard done by in the short term, but it would be for the long term benefit of a much larger community (ie the country).

I wouldn't say we should introduce "a life for a life" law either, every case is unique, but bringing the Death Penalty back, along with humiliating
punishments and one's that either last for the rest of your life or expose you to your own community will surely be a big deterent and would be the most effective way to tackle the issues we're facing.

 

[mackenzie]

I guess the argument would be that if i was corned by a gang and felt i was in danger and i used a knife and took someone's life, should i now also give up all rights to life i had? I guess thats a fair point, and if i was in that position i'd probably feel hard done by.

You wouldn't just feel hard done by....you'd be feeling a rope around your neck or a needle with a lethal injection.However, I take on board the rest of what you say. I too want something (anything) to act as a deterrent, but Capital Punishment is not the answer. Pierrepoint never thought it a deterrent and he hung them.

 

[GStar]

I guess the argument would be that if i was corned by a gang and felt i was in danger and i used a knife and took someone's life, should i now also give up all rights to life i had? I guess thats a fair point, and if i was in that position i'd probably feel hard done by.

You wouldn't just feel hard done by....you'd be feeling a rope around your neck or a needle with a lethal injection.However, I take on board the rest of what you say. I too want something (anything) to act as a deterrent, but Capital Punishment is not the answer. Pierrepoint never thought it a deterrent and he hung them.

Not necessarily, as i siad, I wouldn't support "A life for a life"... but there are cases where it should be used, and the fact it is there, it is an option and it has/can/will be used would also act as a deterent.

 

[C_T_I_D]

I guess the argument would be that if i was corned by a gang and felt i was in danger and i used a knife and took someone's life, should i now also give up all rights to life i had? I guess thats a fair point, and if i was in that position i'd probably feel hard done by.

I suppose what that brought up in my mind and it's a good point and involves me contradicting myself - how do you judge between murder and self defence and the mistakes you could potentially make with the end result being the 'formal' and 'official' law of ending one of their lives.

It'd take the 'self defence' law and make it void really wouldn't it?

Mackenzie, I'm not saying this should be the defining answer and nailed on this is what we should do, but something needs to be done because the rate of knife crime is really worrying. It'll get to the point where you don't feel safe to walk the streets for fear of some loony stabbing you up.

There just needs to be something done that will ensure we feel safe walking our streets, that our taxes are contributing to a law that protects the innocent citizens and that justice is done against the most violent of crimes. Would you agree that in extreme crimes, for example the incest austria cellar case, the death penalty could be bought back specifically for that sort of one?

 

[GStar]

I guess the argument would be that if i was corned by a gang and felt i was in danger and i used a knife and took someone's life, should i now also give up all rights to life i had? I guess thats a fair point, and if i was in that position i'd probably feel hard done by.

I suppose what that brought up in my mind and it's a good point and involves me contradicting myself - how do you judge between murder and self defence and the mistakes you could potentially make with the end result being the 'formal' and 'official' law of ending one of their lives.

It'd take the 'self defence' law and make it void really wouldn't it?

I'd disagree there, theres a lot of ways to defend yourself, if you feel you absolutely must, without 1. Using and 2. Carrying, a knife.

 

[C_T_I_D]

Examples required GStar.

Kids nowadays carry knives because it fills them with the feeling of safety and it can be used as a deterrent. What superior way of self defence would you propose to teenagers who fear gang trouble?