A nasty hombre breaks into your house and is about to rape your kids and wife,cut their throats ,whilst you watch,then slowly cut chunks off you till you die in agony and self pity. What are you going to do . Option 1 give him a lecture about his human rights for when he's been caught, before he kills you. Option 2 try and restrain him without bruising him. Assuming you succeed ,you can then inform him that you hope the courts give him his human rights. Option 3 kill him , but only once he's commited a crime i.e. raped or killed your family Option 4 kill him as soon as he is inside your house. Ok " human rights and no other way " soft touch dummies option 1 means you and your family die, -- oh my how you wish he'd have been executed after his last murder. option 2 realisticly your going to die , after all he's been freed after a brief spell in clink, he's been pumping iron and learnt how to be an even harder bastard inside because you didnt fuckin kill him after his last murder. DOH! option 3 Your the sort that cant believe that anyone can be such an animal and you can "talk him out of it"---" yeah right" , anyway he kills your family and guess what you get lucky and kill him !. --- the human rights you uphold probably mean you're charged with manslaughter , but hey thats the system . option 4 You kill him . -- What anybody in their right mind would do and not condone you for it. Your probably still charged with manslaughter, but at least you've kept your family safe. Now heres the thing hand wringers . You people would see him kill your family and rightly want him dead, but not if he killed mine or anyone else's. You'd give him his human rights. The difference with me and others is that I would want him dead not just for killing my family but for killing yours.
Grasped it perfectly well, Pete. What I am saying, amongst other things, is that there is money spent keeping prisoners alive and in relative comfort whilst there are people convicted of no crimes whatsoever, who do not receive the same consideration. In a society of limited resource, keeping the worst criminals alive and in comfort, you are spending money simply to salve your conscience whilst allowing innocent citizens, who have a better claim to that resource, to suffer. I think this is immoral. ECHR prevents people being unfairly tried and executed but you seem to refuse to acknowledge the issue in its full societal context. What some people are arguing is that it should be possible to fairly try someone and have them executed fairly. I might play devil's advocate at this point and argue that where there is insufficient certitude to execute, there is insufficient evidence to imprison. Obviously that leads to an ineffectual and impractical legal system - which is what some folks argue is the case with having no death penalty. You also argue from the point of view that there are basic human rights for everyone, set in concrete (or rather, in statute). Anything that violates a person's human rights is inherently wrong. The argument I am offering here is that human rights are assumed and acknowledged for all but that it should be possible under the judicial system, with safeguards, to withdraw said rights for certain types of criminal. When you argue that this is wrong, or immoral, simply because human rights cannot be not subject to withdrawal in this way, you are offering a circular or self-referential argument - which means it is quite unconvincing. You need to do better! On the other hand, if you are simply arguing that you cannot institute a death penalty because of ECHR, then yes, OK, that is another part of the justice system that needs looking at. When you look at the issue under a microscope, you end up making judgement calls which, when you pull back to examine the whole, are unsatisfactory. This is the danger with "experts", they assess the minutiae and do not wish to see the bigger picture, the wider implications and needs of the situation. For myself, I am ultimately undecided about capital punishment. Neither side of the argument seems compelling to me and I find myself wavering at times - which means of course that I should definitely not be in favour of capital punishment!
the self defence point is a way of showing why "the human rights brigade" are so hypocritical. If he murders your children and wife you want the most severe punisment, .ie. ,death , hanging poision, whatever but neitherless capital. But not if it's not your family ,oh no , it's not to close to home ,so lets treat him as a human being. Bollocks. I want him dead to protect your family (as well as mine ) . I know I will never murder anyone , However I would find and kill anyone that murdered my closest family , if it was rape of a minor I'd kill them, my wife ,well they'd never rape again because I would cut their cock off,after a severe beating, even if that meant I'd be killed by the court for it.self defence not a doubt. I will never be persuaded that there isn't a need for capital punishment because it is no good having a legal system that cannot protect me or my family from a person that should not be alive to reoffend.
I hear what you are saying, Ian. I just don't find that argument as compelling as most people seem to do. We live in an imperfect society, people are wrongly imprisoned, wrongly murdered, wrongly denied healthcare, wrongly (accidentally) run down in the street. Perhaps people will be wrongly executed too, no matter how many safeguards you put in place. Indeed. I accept that this is my personal worldview, and maybe it's skewed, but my own conscience has a hard time dealing with the fact that some pretty vile characters are not only still alive, they are being considered for parole from time to time. That troubles me much more.
Seeing as ghettoes, concentration camps etc have been mentioned. Hitler et al, jail for life or execution?. Not much doubt of guilt there.
Or we could base our judicial process on reality, not on Charles Bronson movies and your ludicrously fevered imagination.
Since I posted this yesterday I'm now an idiot, hypocritical, a lefty hand wringer and am apparently talking bollocks. It's good that some people bring intelligent discussion to forums......
The "protect your family" argument shows why advocates of the Death Penalty are so hypocritical. How is killing the person suspected of killing your family protecting them? They are still dead and my family is no safer from the killer than if he was locked away with no release. It's not about justice, or protection or deterrence. It's about revenge which is no basis for a legal system, not least because of the risks of getting the wrong person. The massed ranks of Keyboard Warriors, Internet Hardmen and deluded fantasists that create ever more complex scenarios and ever weaker strawman arguments in a series of misguided and poorly thought attempts to "prove" how much they hate bad people than the next one and how safe we'd all be if only their warped views of justice were implemented miss some fairly simple points, 1 The Death Penalty does not deter murder 2 The Death Penalty does not make us any safer than life imprisonment 3 The Death Penalty is shown to be more expensive than life imprisonment 4 The Death Penalty may actually be a causative factor in increasing the murder rate 5 (and quite frankly this one trumps all the others) Sometimes we get it wrong and convict the wrong person Still, all that pales into insignificance compared to cutting off someone's cock after a sever beating eh?
A nod to your extensive expertise Sir! I never meant to imply I was an expert, I do apologise if I gave that impression since I'm merely an individual with an opinion and a preference. As I've noted already, I don't expect to sway you or those who think like you to side with me - equally, you should not expect to sway me to your opinions. I stand by my assertion that some murderers are identifiable as being 100% guilty - are you suggesting there is an element of doubt possible in the Roy Whiting case? That he might be proven innocent at some point down the line? Again, as I've written in a previous posting, I am expressing my own views and I subscribe to Capital Punishment - not because of any deterrent factor but, ultimately, because I do not believe a murderer deserves to live where a victim has lost their Life. Simple as that. I have to say too, I wouldn't "fight and die" to protect my views on Capital Punishment - as you profess you would do to keep your ideals on Human Rights enshrined. I prefer to accept the will of the Democratic process even if it means I do not always get my own way because ultimately, I believe in Democracy in order for a Society to work as a whole. Here's a harsh thought for ya - my opinion, you understand and I have no Psychological qualification: People who argue against Capital Punishment *think* they have an understanding of the true value of a Life but they don't - they belittle and cheapen the lost Life of the victim. They discard the victim - "they are dead now, nothing will bring them back so let's move on and forget them; let's tell the murderer what a naughty person they have been and try and rehabilitate them, let's SAVE THE MURDERER and show Society what good, Civilised folk we are!" :wink: Indeed, my Good Fellow's, let's protect and nurture the very worst of Criminals, let's believe we can change their mentality and let's accept their apologies - let's send the message out to Society that if you kill someone and get lucky with your Solicitor you could be cruising the streets in 5 - 15 looking for your next victim; or just a quick shag, maybe you have decided to go straight...the victim? The person who died? Oh, they're dead now, they don't care anymore and the Family needs to get over it and move on. No, I would want the Murderer to forfeit everything that they took away from their victim. End of! @Shadow: revenge no basis for a legal system? Hmmm, not so sure I agree...nah, actually, I don't - I subscribe to revenge and I openly admit it. You are quick to preach about 'deluded fantasists and keyboard warriors' but I wonder how you would react to a loved one being raped and murdered before your eyes, would you extol the virtues of a Ghandi then? If you have had this experience you have my condolences and maybe you are indeed the better man to be so forgiving. I couldn't forgive and that's why you and I will never agree. But I will always live within the realms of the law of the land in which I reside and so the 'revenge' would have to be sanctioned by Society and if it isn't, all I can do it vote for it when able - I guess you are fortunate in that you get to see your beliefs held where all I can do is express that I do not agree with you and never will. :biggrin:
Criticise me for my beliefs all you want Ian and Shadow ,but the murderer cant come and visit you tonight ,because he's dead in my book. In yours he's free to come around and have his wicked way with you. I know what I prefer ,but if you want to sit up all night and chinwag with him ,then feel free.
They still can't find the little 5 year olds body and the police have enough evidence to charge The bastard with murder.
The problem seems to be that there are some people in society who hold sway over us all. I've said before that I'm for the death penalty under certain circumstances I.e undoubted guilt. If there is any possibility that the person may be innocent, then life imprisonment, and by that I mean life with no chance of parole. They then still have the opportunity to prove their innocence, and be compensated if we've made a mistake. I still can't see how it costs more to kill someone who has been correctly convicted than it would to keep them in prison. If the law were changed to reintroduce the death penalty, then anyone committing murder would know they faced the death penalty. However, I think we need to start by toughening up our current laws on carrying knives and guns in public. If you "carry" then you should expect to be put away, and it shouldn't be for a short time. This debate will unfortunately run and run because there are so many different views on which way we should go. Maybe it's time for our politicians to have a referendum on the subject, along with one on leaving the E.U. And then at least the nation will have spoken.
Do you know what the current laws are? up to four years just for carrying a knife minimum 5 years for carrying a gun
But they're not being enforced unfortunately. Double them and enforce them and reduce the amount of parole time allowed for good behaviour.
I'm sat here wondering just what is it that goes through the mind of somebody who abducts a small girl ( as it's usually a young girl) then kills her!!! Is it power over something so small and helpless??? What deterrent will stop this?
There's no deterrent that's going to work on sick people like that. The only thing we can do is ensure they are never allowed back into society to do it again. Either the death penalty or life meaning life!
Bang on. Asking them to change their ways is never going to stick, if that is how they are then they will always be that way. It would be the equivalent of asking you to never ride motorcycles again??
All this talk of it cost's more to send someone to the Gallows! Last time i looked a 3m length of rope was £6.99 at screwfix!
