Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Voted no, mainly because of the regular miscarriages of justice and the conviction of innocent people still occurring in our justice system.
So surprised that it's this close on the poll. I would have expected a forum of somewhat intelligent tech enthusiasts to consider the flaws with the death penalty.
Then again, this is GD
I
It is a common major intellectual failing with "lefties" that because they are generally intelligent, thoughtful and educated people, they tend to make the massive error that their world view has to be the correct one and therefore they simply cannot comprehend why other equally intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people might take a totally different viewpoint.
Why does everyone seem to jump to the conclusion that if the death penalty was brought back it would be dished out like parking tickets?
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Obviously if we're talking state-sanctioned death penalties, we'd not be talking about untrained doctors using black market drugs or anything. It'd be rare enough(in my ideal situation) that there wouldn't exactly need to be a plethora of stock or willing doctors needed.Except they struggle to get the drugs so use cocktails of drugs to try and get the same effect but has resulted in awful pain and suffering on a number of occasions. Combined with inappropriately trained people botching the process because doctors don't want to be involved.
"When done correctly" - you mean in perfect situations.Not entirely true...
Hanging, if done correctly, results in instant death from a broken neck.
Shooting when done correctly is also quick.
The guillotine is the controversial one as there are plenty of reports of people being conscious after the chop.
Obviously if we're talking state-sanctioned death penalties, we'd not be talking about untrained doctors using black market drugs or anything. It'd be rare enough(in my ideal situation) that there wouldn't exactly need to be a plethora of stock or willing doctors needed.
"When done correctly" - you mean in perfect situations.
There is no 100% sure way to know whether the neck will break on falling, or whether a shot is going to definitely kill somebody, even at near point blank, pointed directly at the brain. People survive all kinds of crazy gunshots.
Either way, my point still stands - none of these are humane. They are spectacle. There are far better ways of doing it that dont involve decades, or centuries old barbarism.
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Support for the death penalty dropped below 50% for the first time last year. OCuk is better than average but only just.
I perceive you might be some sort of Leftie
In all seriousness, I really do not mean to provoke offense here, (And, indeed I do not know if I am even correct in your case, but the above statement does fit the typical pattern)
It is a common major intellectual failing with "lefties" that because they are generally intelligent, thoughtful and educated people, they tend to make the massive error that their world view has to be the correct one and therefore they simply cannot comprehend why other equally intelligent, thoughtful, and educated people might take a totally different viewpoint.
Obviously if we're talking state-sanctioned death penalties, we'd not be talking about untrained doctors using black market drugs or anything. It'd be rare enough(in my ideal situation) that there wouldn't exactly need to be a plethora of stock or willing doctors needed.
I'm not basing the strength of a position based on my age, and I didn't say my view is better than yours.
The fact that miscarriages happen proves, in some cases, that 'beyond reasonable doubt' hasn't worked. I certainly don't believe the death penalty ever has or ever would work as a deterrent.Who decides if the evidence is irrefutable and incontestable? Where is the line drawn? Are you saying that our current "beyond reasonable doubt" test is not enough to apply the death penalty?
Not necessarily. If you grow up in a village/small town and never leave for a meaningful length of time and work fairly basic jobs, does fifty years of experience there outweigh the experience of someone with twelve years living in different countries, studying relevant topics and getting multiple degrees etc? So say fifty years of age and as I described vs thirty years of age and as I described. I'd say no.
Why does everyone seem to jump to the conclusion that if the death penalty was brought back it would be dished out like parking tickets?
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Why should they? How is it worth all the cost just to do so? What's the benefit?
Why does everyone seem to jump to the conclusion that if the death penalty was brought back it would be dished out like parking tickets?
Take the Lee Rigby murder: broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, CCTV/mobile phone footage, caught at the scene, admission of guilt. I can't think of a better example at the moment, but where the evidence of guilt is irrefutable and incontestable, why shouldn't they be given a death sentence?
Dale Cregan, I mentioned that piece of filth some posts back.