Poll: DELETED_74993

[Gackt]

What about soldiers? They're murderers and killers, and some are even worse.

They've taken lives, so if a death penalty were to come into force, which is obviously not going to happen, then they should hang like the rest of them.

I'm sure someone will come along to say something both patriotic and useless about how "they're defending their country" or whatever as if because the government says it's okay, then it's suddenly "okay".

They've killed. So they should hang.

If people want to be simplistic about the issue, then there. Simple.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Looking it from that angle is a very good and valid point.

 

[petemyster]

I say bring back the death penalty only if there is way to be 100% convinced someone is guilty. And then they are terminated extremely quickly (in the court room it self... Guilty! Zap!).

Your right, and get rid of lawyers aswell. The judges can be rule the streets and do it all themselves

 

[bam0]

What about soldiers? They're murderers and killers, and some are even worse.

They've taken lives, so if a death penalty were to come into force, which is obviously not going to happen, then they should hang like the rest of them.

I'm sure someone will come along to say something both patriotic and useless about how "they're defending their country" or whatever as if because the government says it's okay, then it's suddenly "okay".

They've killed. So they should hang.

If people want to be simplistic about the issue, then there. Simple.

Killing isn't always murder. Simple.

 

[Gackt]

Killing isn't always murder. Simple.

I never said it was. But there's often premeditation, which is the malice aforethought needed to class it as murder. I'm sure there's some "law" that makes it "lawful" killing and thus "legal", but that wasn't my point.

That aside, it's killing. You're taking a life. You've caused pain and suffering to the victim and their families. An eye for an eye.

 

[Strife212]

I never said it was. But there's often premeditation, which is the malice aforethought needed to class it as murder. I'm sure there's some "law" that makes it "lawful" killing and thus "legal", but that wasn't my point.

That aside, it's killing. You're taking a life. You've caused pain and suffering to the victim and their families. An eye for an eye.

We should lock up all the police officers as well because they arrest people. I'm sure there is some "law" that makes it a "lawful" arrest and thus "legal".

 

[Nitefly]

I never said it was. But there's often premeditation, which is the malice aforethought needed to class it as murder. I'm sure there's some "law" that makes it "lawful" killing and thus "legal", but that wasn't my point.

Murder requires 'the Queen's peace', which is usually more of an archaic formality than anything else, but that helps explain the difference that is being discussed.

Regardless, that's just a technical thing. I think most people can morally distinguish between a soldier killing as part of his duty and a typical murder.

 

[semi-pro waster]

But that's the point, you've proven someone guily of independent crimes multiple times, so it becomes improbable that you're putting someone innocent to the gallows, even if they were innocent of one of them.

I mean it doesn't even need to be 3 offences it could be 4 or 5 just 3 strikes is a catchy title, but once you reach 3 or more the odds of killing someone innocent become so astronomical that it's become implausible.

They could potentially be innocent of the crime that sends them to execution but because of past transgressions they're condemned. It discounts the idea that once you've served your time you start with a clean slate so to speak, every crime committed turns into a totting up exercise.

I'd also expect there to be an appeals process whether de facto or de jure because on that third crime they're liable to challenge any or all of their convictions, probably just the one that looks most unsafe, and in that way delay the process for a long period. "An incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for months or years. A competent lawyer can delay one even longer." - Evelle Younger.

I'm shocked that so many people are in favour of corporal punishment o_O

I'm not, it always seems to find favour on here even if it's less well supported (or maybe the apathy is greater) in the wider British Isles.

Killing isn't always murder. Simple.

Something like Voltaire said? - "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.".

 

[Gackt]

We should lock up all the police officers as well because they arrest people. I'm sure there is some "law" that makes it a "lawful" arrest and thus "legal".

Arresting someone isn't killing someone.

Murder requires 'the Queen's peace', which is usually more of an archaic formality than anything else, but that helps explain the difference that is being discussed.

Regardless, that's just a technical thing. I think most people can morally distinguish between a soldier killing as part of his duty and a typical murder.

Both are taking lives.

And if you take a life, surely you give up your right to live?

 

[Strife212]

But it's still eye for an eye, no one else is allowed to lock people up.

 

[Nitefly]

Both are taking lives.

And if you take a life, surely you give up your right to live?

I haven't been paying particular attention to who is arguing what and thus I have no idea what you are arguing for here...

But the two are very easily distinguishable.

 

[King Damager]

I'm shocked that so many people are in favour of corporal punishment o_O

This...

I know the statistics that if it were put to public vote it would be passed as more people in the population are in favour in general polls...

Now not to say anything stereotypical or offensive, but frankly I thought it was the uninformed people that voted for it... I'm quite worried that so many people on the forums are in favour....

As all those who have already stated, what about those who have been wrongfully convicted....

Between 2000 and 2010, 50 people in the US who were placed on Death Row have been exonerated, (some post humously)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates


The US are trying to get rid of the Death Penalty and we're trying to bring it back? How stupid is Britain becoming trying to adopt things that even the Americans are intelligent enough to stop!

kd

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Plenty of monsters out there who are never going to be rehabilitated or let out, so no idea why we keep them there e.g. Huntley?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

It does actually, say that for a conviction you have to achieve beyond reasonable doubt.

So you mean the decision would or wouldn't be with a majority jury verdict?

There is a small chance that they are in fact innocent, for arguements sake 1 in a 100,000. If they've been found guilty of 3 seperate crimes, the odds that they were in fact innocent of all three is 1 in 1 000,000,000,000,000 (1 in a quadrillion).

I think this is a probabilistic fallacy, no? The chances of someone being found wrongly guilty of a crime in three instances are all independent. The fact he was wrongly found guilty in trial one in no way changes the probability of the same happening in trial 2... just like it is perfectly possible (the same 1 in 4million odds) of winning the lottery two weeks in a row... not 4million*4million. You're also making up numbers to justify your point, so I don't accept the argument.

I think it's more than coincidence that California experienced the biggest drop in crime overall of all the US states in the 5years since they implemented a 3 strike rule.

And yet they still have higher crime and murder rates than the UK, by some margin. Scandinavian countries have vastly less than both the UK and US... and they have (by our pleb's Daily Mail standards) the 'softest' of penal systems. Go figure.

 

[Destination]

What about soldiers? They're murderers and killers, and some are even worse.

They've taken lives, so if a death penalty were to come into force, which is obviously not going to happen, then they should hang like the rest of them.

I'm sure someone will come along to say something both patriotic and useless about how "they're defending their country" or whatever as if because the government says it's okay, then it's suddenly "okay".

They've killed. So they should hang.

If people want to be simplistic about the issue, then there. Simple.

Rubbish
Complete rot thrown across the lines of the thread to derail it

First you spoke against it o the grounds we couldn't trust the govt, given our legal system is meant to be distanced, this was mere deflection
Now you're speaking against killing in war, more deflection.


As for the above conversation, I quite like the three strikes and you die for certain crimes, but should we give these people the chance to comit a third crime, rape, murder, child abuse.

Gackt, you spoke of the reasons for crime being the true enemy, if shown to be genetic for things such as paedophilia, how would you proceed with deterants etc if you can't rehabilitate due to genetics?

 

[Gackt]

Rubbish
Complete rot thrown across the lines of the thread to derail it

Not at all.

First you spoke against it o the grounds we couldn't trust the govt, given our legal system is meant to be distanced, this was mere deflection

Actually, those were valid points.

Now you're speaking against killing in war, more deflection.

My comments are tongue-in-cheek to those who would comment on the issue in the most simplistic manner possible, not realising it is a much more complex issue than "kill the scum lol". And frankly, I think it is still a valid point.

As for the above conversation, I quite like the three strikes and you die for certain crimes, but should we give these people the chance to comit a third crime, rape, murder, child abuse.

Is there any evidence to suggest that they might use it as a reason to do two and then leave it at that? Perhaps giving a mindset "well, I can do it twice before they try to kill me" and then going out and doing it twice?

Gackt, you spoke of the reasons for crime being the true enemy, if shown to be genetic for things such as paedophilia, how would you proceed with deterants etc if you can't rehabilitate due to genetics?

I don't know. I don't pretend to have all the solutions or answers, but in this case, I would hope that we'd show some sort of compassion or understand in that these things are either "natural" or that the person is almost a "victim of genetics" and that it would be approached as such instead of simply ridding the world of them hoping that the "defect" will go away, much like killing babies born with disabilities in the hope that you'll only be left with "strong" people.

Whatever the 'solution', my morality, my education, my instinct and every other fiber of my being says that it isn't the death penalty.

 

[Jokester]

So you mean the decision would or wouldn't be with a majority jury verdict?

It would be to the same standards used today.

I think this is a probabilistic fallacy, no? The chances of someone being found wrongly guilty of a crime in three instances are all independent. The fact he was wrongly found guilty in trial one in no way changes the probability of the same happening in trial 2... just like it is perfectly possible (the same 1 in 4million odds) of winning the lottery two weeks in a row... not 4million*4million.

Indeed it doesn't affect the chances of being wrongly convicted on each individual trial as, as you correctly point out, they are completely independent events. But the odds of being wrong convicted in 2 trials is indeed multiplicative specifically because of that fact, in the same way of getting 2 heads in a row is 1 in 4 or 3 heads is 1 in 8.

You're also making up numbers to justify your point, so I don't accept the argument.

Don't believe the hype Hatter, the vast majority of people in prison really are guilty . Even if 1 in 1000 cases ended up with an innocent person being jailed, it would still lead to odds of 1 in a billion for a 3strike rule!

And yet they still have higher crime and murder rates than the UK, by some margin. Scandinavian countries have vastly less than both the UK and US... and they have (by our pleb's Daily Mail standards) the 'softest' of penal systems. Go figure.

Apples and oranges though isn't it.

 

[Gackt]

Even if 1 in 1000 cases ended up with an innocent person being jailed, it would still lead to odds of 1 in a billion for a 3strike rule!

If just one innocent person is put to death, that's too many. I can't be comfortable knowing that an innocent person has died for my "security". :/

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Don't believe the hype Hatter, the vast majority of people in prison really are guilty . Even if 1 in 1000 cases ended up with an innocent person being jailed, it would still lead to odds of 1 in a billion for a 3strike rule!

It doesn't matter - capital punishment will solve nothing, cost a fortune and might mean we wrongly put someone to death. Where is the positive?

 

[Gackt]

It doesn't matter - capital punishment will solve nothing, cost a fortune and might mean we wrongly put someone to death. Where is the positive?

DEM PEDOS CANT REOFFEND LOLZ