Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Hes a sadistic paedophile child killer. Do you really think he has anything positive to contribute to society ? Keeping him alive is a waste of tax payers money.

You don't get sentence for being something, you get sentenced for doing something. Which crime should he be called for?

Jumboman wrote: »

I dont see anyone claiming Venables is innocent.

Doesn't answer my question: you have repeatedly stated you don't trust what you read in the media. Now you're linking to it. How do you know what you read is true? Is it a case of confirmation bias - i.e. if it's in line with your way thinking it must be true and if it isn't it must be bull****?

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

What, I'm supposed to do it for nothing?

Aha, it's not about "justice" then?

It's so you can get a nice wad of cash.

So, you don't actually care about the nature of the crimes he's served time for - you just want to off someone and get paid at the end.

catallus

old hippy wrote: »

Aha, it's not about "justice" then?

It's so you can get a nice wad of cash.

So, you don't actually care about the nature of the crimes he's served time for - you just want to off someone and get paid at the end.

Nobody can bring "justice" to the victims of Venables' crimes, or to the family of his first or subsequent victims.

To talk of any action that could bring about "justice" is absurd in this instance. The guy has been sucking air and eating and drinking and in relationships with other people for all his life since the day he murdered a small child.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

Nobody can bring "justice" to the victims of Venables' crimes, or to the family of his first or subsequent victims.

To talk of any action that could bring about "justice" is absurd in this instance. The guy has been sucking air and eating and drinking and in relationships with other people for all his life since the day he murdered a small child.

And you want to murder him, for money.

catallus

old hippy wrote: »

And you want to murder him, for money.

That is incorrect. Using the term murder for lawfully sanctioned killing of criminals is wilfully naive. But that's the only arrow in your quiver oldhippy, don't try and be so presumptuous as to have complete knowledge of my motives.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

That is incorrect. Using the term murder for lawfully sanctioned killing of criminals is wilfully naive. But that's the only arrow in your quiver oldhippy, don't try and be so presumptuous as to have complete knowledge of my motives.

Murder is murder. And you want to do it for a fee.

That pretty much says it all.

catallus

old hippy wrote: »

Murder is murder. And you want to do it for a fee.

That pretty much says it all.

Reducing another person's ideas about anything in this fashion is infantile.

Jumboman

old hippy wrote: »

And you want to murder him, for money.

Murder is the "unlawful" killing of someone it wouldnt be murder if the state allowed it.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/murder?showCookiePolicy=true

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You don't get sentence for being something, you get sentenced for doing something. Which crime should he be called for?

I'm not a lawyer but hes clearly a threat to whatever community he lives in.

Also he will cost the british tax payer millions over his lifetime just for the authorities to keep an eye on him that money could be much better spent on people who really need it.

Do you think any parent will think "sure there is no problem the lad has served his time in prison I will let him play with my little johnny" ? or course they wouldnt. The "law" would be last thing on their minds if venables moved in beside them.

Doesn't answer my question: you have repeatedly stated you don't trust what you read in the media. Now you're linking to it. How do you know what you read is true? Is it a case of confirmation bias - i.e. if it's in line with your way thinking it must be true and if it isn't it must be bull****?

He was convicted of horrific crimes its not a tabloid rumor.

Do you not see a problem with someone like venables walking the streets ? for all we know he could be in Ireland.

TireeTerror

I t does not matter if it costs a lot of money to keep criminals. There is money there to pay for it.

Whether the taking of an others life is defined as murder if its done illegally is not important. As far as I am concerned, if it is sanctioned by the Government then it is also murder. Points of law can be argued back and forth all day, Im not interested in the legal aspects of the discussion. Im purely interested in how we as a society deal with these situations. We can judge and be horrified by the actions of evil people, but to sanction the taking of someone's life as a form of punishment reflects very badly upon us.

Someone mentioned a serial rapist who had done it 4 times. Just pay the bill and keep him locked up.

Some of the views in here are very extreme, and I hope a lot of it is just people getting carried away with things. If not, its a sad world we live in.

lanarty56

I would definitely welcome it.It would make the scumbags in this country think twice about robbing old people homes.

catallus

TireeTerror wrote: »

I t does not matter if it costs a lot of money to keep criminals. There is money there to pay for it.

Whether the taking of an others life is defined as murder if its done illegally is not important. As far as I am concerned, if it is sanctioned by the Government then it is also murder. Points of law can be argued back and forth all day, Im not interested in the legal aspects of the discussion. Im purely interested in how we as a society deal with these situations. We can judge and be horrified by the actions of evil people, but to sanction the taking of someone's life as a form of punishment reflects very badly upon us.

Someone mentioned a serial rapist who had done it 4 times. Just pay the bill and keep him locked up.

Some of the views in here are very extreme, and I hope a lot of it is just people getting carried away with things. If not, its a sad world we live in.

It's a sad world we live in when the rights of the perpetrator are more important than those of the victim.

Why should anyone's tax be used to pay for these sub-human scum to live a life of relative luxury.

The jailing of persons started out as a temporary stop-gap while they were being tried, and then was extended by the elites to those that did not pay their debts. And the whole thing expanded ever-outward, imprisoning vast swathes of the population indefinitely at the behest of the law.

At least in the old days you only had to do the jail-time before you found out your punishment. Now it's used as a punishment by those ivory-towered, cottonwooled tits who faint at the sight of blood!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer but hes clearly a threat to whatever community he lives in.

Also he will cost the british tax payer millions over his lifetime just for the authorities to keep an eye on him that money could be much better spent on people who really need it.

Do you think any parent will think "sure there is no problem the lad has served his time in prison I will let him play with my little johnny" ? or course they wouldnt. The "law" would be last thing on their minds if venables moved in beside them.



He was convicted of horrific crimes its not a tabloid rumor.

Do you not see a problem with someone like venables walking the streets ? for all we know he could be in Ireland.

Again, you have answered neither question I put to you.

Question one required you to state a law.
Question two required you to stare a reason.

What I think of venables is irrelevant (and an opinion I did offer would, in line with yoru assertation that the media cannot be trusted, be questionable).

Amirani

lanarty56 wrote: »

I would definitely welcome it.It would make the scumbags in this country think twice about robbing old people homes.

You support the death penalty for burglary?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lanarty56 wrote: »

I would definitely welcome it.It would make the scumbags in this country think twice about robbing old people homes.

No, they'd still do it. And I seriously doubt you're going to get the death penalty for robbery.

Stereomaniac

I think what's being alluded to here is that people often end up being murdered in the process.

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, they'd still do it. And I seriously doubt you're going to get the death penalty for robbery.

If a burglar beats up say a 80 year woman in their own home (which has happened) then they deserve the death penalty.

Get Real

I think, instead of the death penalty, those that would have been executed for extremely serious crime, should be sent to a special, purpose built prison. One which respects human rights, but at the same time, one which reaches basic necessities. This should also include mandatory counselling, along with tasks that amount to punishment, until death.

I must admit, I do not fully know what kind of conditions should be "agreed upon" but I think that by punishing someone for murder, or other crimes, by murdering them, is actually counter productive.

For those on here saying its ok to kill killers, what if the killer himself murdered someone because his victim committed a vile crime themselves?

Are we saying that thats not ok, but it is for the state to do so?

catallus wrote: »

Why should anyone's tax be used to pay for these sub-human scum to live a life of relative luxury.

I'd like to see punishment for seriously sick crimes last a lifetime. I agree there should be no relative luxury, however, its actually cheaper to keep someone locked up for the rest of their days, rather than kill them.

Death row can take years, many rights are had under the constitution, (this is a study in America), and the cost of constant legal hearings, and resources spent trying to make sure they definitely don't have the wrong person, actually make capital punishment more expensive.

It'd be cheaper to lock someone up for 40 years than to have them on death row for 15. (15 years being the average death row "waiting time")-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_row

In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.

So while I can understand and sometimes agree with opinions on capital punishment on here, saving money isnt an argument for it , its actually more expensive.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.Uiu1MxuKIto

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html (link to report)

catallus

It would be cheaper to drown them in a bucket of water.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

If a burglar beats up say a 80 year woman in their own home (which has happened) then they deserve the death penalty.

Which is neither relevant to the point Lanarty made in the first place or the responce I gave him. And you have some other questions that still need answering, remember?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

For organized crime scum like alan ryan? Yes every time!

catallus

Hey Princess, what makes you so high and mighty to be churning out irrelevant questions and then looking for answers like some kind of school-marm? Nobody needs to answer your questions when you ask them in such a petulant way. Have some manners.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

Hey Princess, what makes you so high and mighty to be churning out irrelevant questions and then looking for answers like some kind of school-marm? Nobody needs to answer your questions when you ask them in such a petulant way. Have some manners.

Em... you don't seem to be familair with the process of "debate" - i.e. asking questions...

If someone presents a flawed argument, as our good friend jumboman did, questions will be asked. When said person runs away, hides, comes back a few weeks later believing the dust to have settled only to present a second flawed argument, the questions will inevitably be put to them again. Alongside fresh ones.

catallus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Em... you don't seem to be familair with the process of "debate" - i.e. asking questions...

If someone presents a flawed argument, as our good friend jumboman did, questions will be asked. When said person runs away, hides, comes back a few weeks later believing the dust to have settled only to present a second flawed argument, the questions will inevitably be put to them again. Alongside fresh ones.

Your condescension would be amusing if it wasn't based on a feeble defence of your wrong-headed disregard for the underlying arguments being presented. You seem to enjoy derailing threads which go against the tyrannical status-quo.

And this is the status-quo being discussed: Would you support the re-introduction of the death penalty?

A lot of people would support the reintroduction of it and "our good friend" and a lot of others have given their opinions. You seem only to be interested in taking a gleeful malicious joy in defending the rights of criminals against their victims.

Sh1tbag OToole

If i was a barbarian then i would support reintroducing the death penalty.

My preferred method of execution would be 'bating over the head with a spiky wooden club'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

Your condescension would be amusing if it wasn't based on a feeble defence of your wrong-headed disregard for the underlying arguments being presented. You seem to enjoy derailing threads which go against the tyrannical status-quo.

And this is the status-quo being discussed: Would you support the re-introduction of the death penalty?

A lot of people would support the reintroduction of it and "our good friend" and a lot of others have given their opinions. You seem only to be interested in taking a gleeful malicious joy in defending the rights of criminals against their victims.

There's no condescention, just stating facts: it's what he did and why I pulled him up on it. It's more condescending to accuse someone of a "feeble defense" and "wrong-headed disregard for the underlying arguments being presented" without actually knowing the person you are addressing or his arrguments.

Saying that such-and-such did this, is not presenting an argument. It's stating why you think it would be a good idea, fair enough, but then I have the right to question these motives and arguments and point out fallacies on which they are based. This is not condescention, this is debate. It's also dragging the thread off-topic because we're not talking about any specific case.

Furthermore, when someone accuses me of having a viewpoint I do not have - as both you and he have done - I have the right to correct them. In your case "denfending the rights of criminals". I have, at times, questioned the validity of the term "human right" but I have never stated I think it should be afforded or recinded.

I've stated my objections repeatedly on this thread - here for example - and every time I do, someone mentions a criminal and asks does he/she not deserve the death penalty. This is not relevant, because I don't oppose the death penalty on those grounds. Also, no one actually does argue against these points - it's a classic strawman.

Feel free to challange my reasons - but only my reasons - and not someone else's. Not with me, anyway.

catallus

I'm sorry but your posts are a bit condescending. I don't need to know you or any other poster to say that about what they post.

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make being a dick valid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

I'm sorry but your posts are a bit condescending. I don't need to know you or any other poster to say that about what they post.

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make being a dick valid.

No they are not. Asking questions is not condescending. And it is not being a dick. If you think it is, report the post.

And you made up other accusations too.

catallus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No they are not. Asking questions is not condescending. And it is not being a dick. If you think it is, report the post.

And you made up other accusations too.

I'm not going to report your posts because they are condescending, that's nonsensical.

Asking questions in the manner you did in your last few posts was; you were using the steamroll method to drive people off-thread. Keep asking the same questions over and over til the initial point is lost and people lose interest.

shootermacg

The sad fact of the matter is, you can program anyone to NOT commit violent crime, so as always the fault lies with the system.

catallus

shootermacg wrote: »

The sad fact of the matter is, you can program anyone to NOT commit violent crime, so as always the fault lies with the system.

The system is only at fault insofar as the subject is willing to abide by the protocol.

When the subject decides it is more profitable to break the rules is it still the fault of the system?

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is neither relevant to the point Lanarty made in the first place or the responce I gave him. And you have some other questions that still need answering, remember?

You didnt answer my question. Do you think its acceptable thst someone like jon venables is walking the streets ?

osarusan

Jumboman wrote: »

You didnt answer my question. Do you think its acceptable thst someone like jon venables is walking the streets ?

You're hardly in a position to start demanding answers when you refuse to answer questions about your own posts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

I'm not going to report your posts because they are condescending, that's nonsensical.

Asking questions in the manner you did in your last few posts was; you were using the steamroll method to drive people off-thread. Keep asking the same questions over and over til the initial point is lost and people lose interest.

If anything, I'm using the steamroll method to keep people on track, to stop them from making stuff up and to help me to understand their points of view, or highlight fallacies in their logic. Wading in to an argument and making wild accusations about a poster and their character when you don't know them is dragging a thread of topic.

You also accumsd me of "being a dick" which is bannable.

Jumboman wrote: »

You didnt answer my question. Do you think its acceptable thst someone like jon venables is walking the streets ?

Asked and asnwered: I do not have enough accurate information about Jon Venables in order to comment. I certainly am hesitant to believe what I read in the media about him recently. However I do not condone the death penalty for crimes committed by ten-year-olds no matter how horrific. And - just to be absolutely clear - this is not same as saying they should be "walking the streets".

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Asked and asnwered: I do not have enough accurate information about Jon Venables in order to comment. I certainly am hesitant to believe what I read in the media about him recently. However I do not condone the death penalty for crimes committed by ten-year-olds no matter how horrific. And - just to be absolutely clear - this is not same as saying they should be "walking the streets".

You would make a great lawyer defending the indefensible. I suppose Jon Venables must be a decent old skin who wouldnt harm anybody:rolleyes:

end of the road

lanarty56 wrote: »

It would make the scumbags in this country think twice

theres that "it will make such and such think twice" statement again, but as usual no evidence to back it up that it would be the case if the death penalty was brought back, of course we all know why that is, its because the evidence actually says that it doesn't, it doesn't work, it never has worked

Jumboman

end of the road wrote: »

theres that "it will make such and such think twice" statement again, but as usual no evidence to back it up that it would be the case if the death penalty was brought back, of course we all know why that is, its because the evidence actually says that it doesn't, it doesn't work, it never has worked

You cant deny that the Death penalty would work for repeat sex offenders.

But you will always have some do gooder trying to defend these sorts of people.

end of the road

catallus wrote: »

It's a sad world we live in when the rights of the perpetrator are more important than those of the victim.

ah yes, this famous statement to try and thankfully fail to guilt people in to agreeing with you, even though we know of course that the statement is infact a load of bull

catallus wrote: »

Why should anyone's tax be used to pay for these sub-human scum to live a life of relative luxury.

why should someones life be taken when they have been told that they were wrong to take a life? killing somebody to show killing is wrong, extremely laughable really only sadly in parts of the US and other countries full of ferrel blood hounds this is a reality

catallus wrote: »

The jailing of persons started out as a temporary stop-gap while they were being tried, and then was extended by the elites to those that did not pay their debts. And the whole thing expanded ever-outward, imprisoning vast swathes of the population indefinitely at the behest of the law.

and? it was part of society moving on.

catallus wrote: »

At least in the old days you only had to do the jail-time before you found out your punishment. Now it's used as a punishment by those ivory-towered, cottonwooled tits who faint at the sight of blood!

i'm actually laughing here, "ivory-towered cottonwooled tits" they still got it right that the death penalty is a FAILURE

Pumpkinseeds

I wouldn't support a reintroduction of the death penalty, although looking around me these days it'd be hard to argue a case against eugenics.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I said:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I do not have enough accurate information about Jon Venables in order to comment.

You said:

Jumboman wrote: »

I suppose Jon Venables must be a decent old skin who wouldnt harm anybody:rolleyes:

Read the posts. Read the arguments made.

con___manx1

i think we should bring the death penalty back. after sentence 2 years of prison before execution. none of this 20 years crap like in america.

end of the road

con___manx1 wrote: »

i think we should bring the death penalty back. after sentence 2 years of prison before execution. none of this 20 years crap like in america.

you do know the reason they have people on death row for years in america is so they can apeal their sentence? after all theirs not only a possibility they aren't guilty but getting the evidence together to try prove it takes a long time

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

Reducing another person's ideas about anything in this fashion is infantile.

You said you'd off him for a fee. That's mercenary and has nothing to do with getting "justice".

catallus

Is it a crime to expect remuneration for carrying out a job? No, oldhippy, it isn't.

Your use of a pat tautology (Murder is murder) to set yourself up as some sort of bastion of justice is simplistic to the point of pathological narcissism. Just because you deem your own precious hands too worthy to be stained by the blood of wrongdoers doesn't make your cowardly attitude any more legitimate.

The snide and smug defence of the killers and rapists and thieves of this world by those who have never had the misfortune to be one of their victims has gone on for far too long.

Amirani

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I wouldn't support a reintroduction of the death penalty, although looking around me these days it'd be hard to argue a case against eugenics.

I don't think it would be that hard to argue. Eugenics is easily one of the most abhorrent beliefs ever pursued by humanity. You may have good intentions of making it exclusively for criminals, but there's a slippery slope that just isn't worth attempting to go down.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

Is it a crime to expect remuneration for carrying out a job? No, oldhippy, it isn't.

Your use of a pat tautology (Murder is murder) to set yourself up as some sort of bastion of justice is simplistic to the point of pathological narcissism. Just because you deem your own precious hands too worthy to be stained by the blood of wrongdoers doesn't make your cowardly attitude any more legitimate.

The snide and smug defence of the killers and rapists and thieves of this world by those who have never had the misfortune to be one of their victims has gone on for far too long.

I've experienced all manner of brutality and unpleasantness over the years. I've been tested to the limit and beaten unconcious. But to indulge in the creepy, wanton bloodlust that just screams Old Testament in some corners or fetishising in others... nah, not for me.

I'd rather be a smug, cowardly narcissist than a wannabe murderer with a hard on for blood and money. Every single time.

heretochat

Reading a story this morning about some farmer in Tipp hanged back in 1941 for the murder of a woman. Some doubts now about his guilt and he may be given a posthumous pardon.. So I would temper any enthusiasm for the re-introduction of the death penalty.. As if there is a miscarriage of justice the executed person cannot be "brought back", while at present the victim of said miscarriage can be released from prison...

I have my own feelings that there is not a sufficient deterrent to serious crime in the country but I am not sure the death penalty would be a welcome re-introduction either.

Amirani

catallus wrote: »

Your use of a pat tautology (Murder is murder) to set yourself up as some sort of bastion of justice is simplistic to the point of pathological narcissism.

That's some stunning exaggeration there.

Billy86

Why do people think the death penalty would be a deterrent for crimes like murder, when in the US it is actually the opposite? States with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates. The same is true for rates (or rather in this case, it is not any lower in states with the death penalty).

It creates a worse SOCIETAL issue, but typically many people can't see the forest for the trees, or just flat out don't want to. Some people want to get ANGRY NOW rather than look at how to cure the problem in the long run.

catallus

NiallSparky wrote: »

That's some stunning exaggeration there.

I do love the smell of stunning exaggeration in the morning!

Look, the re-introduction of capital punishment for serious criminals is a pipe-dream for those of us who see the system as having swung massively in favour of perpetrators. It is a comforting dream, a knee-jerk reaction against what many view as the stagnation and corruption of a system which should be in favour of those who are wronged rather than those who do wrong.

If justice isn't seen to be done (and that it is seen to be done is a massive touchstone in our legal system) then the opinions of many will swing in a more authoritarian direction. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that sometimes the will and imaginations of many will swing to the extreme of the death penalty.

There is blood-lust in every one of us, there can be no denying it, and it is a measure of the better nature of our consciences that many of us subsume it through mercy and empathy. But there is a point up to which our better natures will be bent to the point of breaking, and we have seen it happen in history before, and it isn't pretty.

Too much suffering makes a stone of the heart, to quote a recently passed poet.