So the death penalty....

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:32

Harlequin said:
actually sharia law demands an eye for an eye - ergo , by the opinions of *some* posters , they would welcome islam

So, have you ever been victim of a crime that you believe requires the death penalty for the perpetrator?

Harlequin · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:35

dirtychinchilla said:
So, have you ever been victim of a crime that you believe requires the death penalty for the perpetrator?

are you saying child rapists should be allowed free to live and observe more potential victims after being `rehabilitated` or not?

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:37

Harlequin said:
are you saying child rapists should be allowed free to live and observe more potential victims after being `rehabilitated` or not?

You haven't answered my question.

In response to yours, my belief is that child rapists should either be rehabilitated, if possible (which I don't honestly think that it is, in this instance), or jailed for a very long period of time.

deuse · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:40

What's all this "revenge" crap being spouted? If it's law then it's not revenge. But if you think it is then
do you think that every time someone gets fined for something the police are having their revenge? no it's the law. Grow up.

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:41

deuse said:
What's all this "revenge" crap being spouted? If it's law then it's not revenge. But if you think it is then
do you think that every time someone gets fined for something the police are having their revenge? no it's the law. Grow up.

Obviously the law is always right.

ubersonic · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:44

Dj_Jestar said:
Are you implying that someone emotionally invested in a crime (as a victim) is a better judge of punishment than those not?

No I was implying that they can relate to the crime better than those who haven't been involved in some way, actually yes I am implying what you said now I think about it.

You see, too most people murder is just a word, they know what it means but cannot relate to it, how many people root for the "heros" in TV shows like Sons of Anarchy or Breaking Bad when in reality those "heros" are just likeable villains, it's because the viewers cannot relate to anything their seeing and so are unconnected/desensitised.

deuse · 15 Aug 2014 at 11:44

dirtychinchilla said:
Obviously the law is always right.

That's why we have a justice system in place so a person can challenge it. It's simples really.

timebomb26 · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:05

ubersonic said:
No I was implying that they can relate to the crime better than those who haven't been involved in some way, actually yes I am implying what you said now I think about it.

And there in lies the biggest flaw. As everyone has pointed out, a victim is most likely not going to be acting rationally. A drunk driver runs over a kills a child. Now maybe the parents wants that person killed. In this case is that an appropriate punishment?

TheVoice · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:12

Harlequin said:
which thread are you reading? seems its an average split - those who support child rapists and leaving them alive - or removing the stain from the planet.

so - do you see yourself as the next Jimmy Saville then?

Why is it that those in favour of the death penalty always assume that if you're against it, you're in favour of child rapists and murderers?

Quite an offensive post, really.

Harlequin · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:14

TheVoice said:
Why is it that those in favour of the death penalty always assume that if you're against it, you're in favour of child rapists and murderers?

Quite an offensive post, really.

so is child rape `quite offensive`.

Harlequin · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:15

dirtychinchilla said:
Obviously the law is always right.

that's why there is something called `due process` , and in this country , we still have innocent until proven guilty (apparently)

timebomb26 · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:19

Harlequin said:
so is child rape `quite offensive`.

What is your obsession with this point?

Child rape is horrific and obviously any one found guilty should be punished, but some of us believe the punishment shouldn't extend to death.

Is that hard to understand?

LordSplodge · 15 Aug 2014 at 12:41

Harlequin said:
which thread are you reading? seems its an average split - those who support child rapists and leaving them alive - or removing the stain from the planet.

so - do you see yourself as the next Jimmy Saville then?

Can you argue your point for supporting capital punishment rationally or are you going to use weighted, emotionally charged, wording all the while?

timebomb26 said:
What is your obsession with this point?

He is trying to use the argument that if you don't support killing people you are pro supporting child rapists. Fallacy at its finest.

pitchfork · 15 Aug 2014 at 13:29

ubersonic said:
And therein lies the problem, your argument basically boils down to "Hitler liked that too, that must make it bad". I was simply pointing out with facts/reasoning that just because an opinion is the same as Hitler's doesn't necessarily make it a bad opinion as he had a number of good ones.

Hitler was in favour of Volkswagen, does that make Volkswagen bad?

Hitler was in favour of Autobahns, does that make Autobahns bad?

Just because a bad man favoured something does not make it bad by association.

I never said anything remotely close to that, please quote me, go on. You seriously have no idea

Correct it's not hence why I didn't connect those too >.>

ubersonic said:
Pitchfork said:

Hitler killed the disabled because they were no good to society - is that a path you really wish to go down?

Click to expand...

Hitler also invested billions in prosthetic research so ensure any soldier who returned from the war disabled wouldn't be a burden on society, thanks to him prosthetic limbs today are 20 years ahead of where they should be. Point being just because Hitler was okay with something doesn't necessarily make it bad (I'm am talking about executing murderers here not euthanizing the disabled or Jews).

Here is me making a point about hitler killing people because they were "of no further use to society" just as the other guy stated we should kill the mentally ill if they commit crimes because they are of no further use to society.

At no point did I comment on Hitlers investment in prosthetics for soldiers, it's totally unrelated to the point in hand.

And there you are throwing up some irrelevant trash about hitler investing in disabled soldiers.

I was using that fact to counter your argument, that in itself gives it meaning.

It had nothing to do with the original argument and wasn't a counter argument. It was some pretentious tit going "I know a fact about the war and amputees, let me show everyone how interesting I am"

Other than that can only assume you're either a Nazi sympathiser or have next to no grasp of the English language.

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 13:29

Harlequin can lend no weight to his opinion, he's simply out for blood and won't admit it.

Harlequin · 15 Aug 2014 at 14:11

dirtychinchilla said:
Harlequin can lend no weight to his opinion, he's simply out for blood and won't admit it.

And you must somewhat stupid , since I haven't given my `opinion` on the death penalty and what I think - you are just assuming. again.

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 14:13

Harlequin said:
And you must somewhat stupid , since I haven't given my `opinion` on the death penalty and what I think - you are just assuming. again.

People are going to make assumptions when you call them child rapist sympathisers constantly for not supporting the death penalty.

Dj_Jestar · 15 Aug 2014 at 14:14

Harlequin said:
And you must somewhat stupid , since I haven't given my `opinion` on the death penalty and what I think - you are just assuming. again.

You choose to question somebody else's intelligence with grammar like that?

Harlequin · 15 Aug 2014 at 14:35

dirtychinchilla said:
People are going to make assumptions when you call them child rapist sympathisers constantly for not supporting the death penalty.

What you have said is how the court system currently view things ; case point - a judge recently saying the victim impact statement has no effect on sentencing , which ties to all the `rights` convicted criminals have. How many times have we read in the media about victims being ignored?

That IMO , is the entire problem - victims are more often side-lined , those who`s lives have been intruded upon - whether by child rape , or burglary or assault or fraud , get little support , almost a `heres a cup of ted and biscuits , you`ll be fine` - oh and heres the bill for said tea and biscuits.

as for the death penalty *some countries* see it as the ultimate deterrent , whereas others do not :

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182579#.U-4MRpt0yUk

the debate over the death penalty is not just the UK ofc , the link above hints at changing times in Israel - whilst they have capital punishment , an increasing call for it to be actually used.

dirtychinchilla · 15 Aug 2014 at 14:38

Well, once you start using Israel as a good example of how to treat humans, you're obviously lacking more than good grammar, so I'm done "debating" with you.