DrewDon Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Only for Marine A. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Just now, Sergeant Wilson said: It's not acceptable, but you can let them out. Digging dead people up is a bit futile. I don't disagree, obviously. But, as I said above, I don't think that alone is a reason to not have the debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Maybe a bit of a tangent but not unrelated, where do we stand on people who have done their time and go out and commit the same crimes again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefan27 Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, hk blues said: Your first sentence is rather simplistic and assumes everything is black or white - with no grey areas. Beyond All Reasonable Doubt is a tried and tested legal principle - that might be why people keep referring to it, hardly stupid. People are still wrongly imprisoned, that's not being disputed. But I don't accept it as being the point at which all discussion or debate on Capital Punishment comes to an end with no further discussion encouraged. You've made a huge leap with that last sentence - and fallen on your arse! You can discuss it all you want, but you need to explain how you'd stop innocent people being executed, or make it clear that you're fine with the odd innocent person being executed as long as we get the bad yins most of the time. If your solution to the first point is "well you'd have to make sure there was no doubt", that is already the standard and people are often later found to be not guilty. This happens in murder cases too, and if we had capital punishment they'd be dead. That's what makes it a stupid point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said: hk blues is at it. Nobody can be that obtuse, surely. I'm surprised nobody's brought up the idea of limiting appeals to save money and avoid the US-style Death Row scenario, where folk can sit rotting away for decades until the state murders them. That's always a popular argument among folk who like to break humans lives down into dollars and cents. Which particular part am I "at it" with? The issue of reintroducing Capital Punishment for heinous crimes where there is no chance of redemption, or the side issues thrown in to muddy the waters which, frankly, add nothing. If Capital Punishment was introduced, it might encourage the system to sharpen their pencils a bit! Why would we want to limit appeals, other than to save money? Again, we continue to hold up the US system as being the one we take our lead from with no real reason to do so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 1 minute ago, hk blues said: Which particular part am I "at it" with? The issue of reintroducing Capital Punishment for heinous crimes where there is no chance of redemption, or the side issues thrown in to muddy the waters which, frankly, add nothing. If Capital Punishment was introduced, it might encourage the system to sharpen their pencils a bit! Why would we want to limit appeals, other than to save money? Again, we continue to hold up the US system as being the one we take our lead from with no real reason to do so. Its almost like they're using an extreme example (that has very little to do with the UK legal system) to try and make a point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, killiefan27 said: You can discuss it all you want, but you need to explain how you'd stop innocent people being executed, or make it clear that you're fine with the odd innocent person being executed as long as we get the bad yins most of the time. If your solution to the first point is "well you'd have to make sure there was no doubt", that is already the standard and people are often later found to be not guilty. This happens in murder cases too, and if we had capital punishment they'd be dead. That's what makes it a stupid point. No reasonable person would be fine with the odd innocent person being executed, collateral damage if you like. Just as nobody should be fine with the odd innocent person being imprisoned for 20 years, yet some are trying to place it higher on the scale of acceptability. I have never stood behind the reasonable doubt argument, it's flawed but do we have anything better? No. Can we find a way to make it less flawed? Yes, we have (DNA for one thing) and we can continue to enhance what we have . If I'm being picky, I'd say the use of the word "often" is a huge exaggeration, but it's immaterial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 11 hours ago, Jimmy85 said: It absolutely is true. In actual fact it is significantly more expensive. It's hilarious that simply googling "how much does death row cost" throws up any sort of evidence you could ever need yet people argue it can't be true. 2 hours ago, hk blues said: Keep it simple - in cases where the crime is considered heinous enough (not for Joe Public to determine this) and the likelihood of rehabilitation is considered (by the experts - yes, I know) to be zero then Capital Punishment it is. Why would anyone argue against this? The fact it costs more? The morality of it? The fact that the "likelihood of rehabilitation" could be different based on whichever judge/jury's opinion? The fact that we could kill innocent people? If you genuinely can't see the argument against state sponsored murder then I'm not sure you should be involved in debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Maybe a bit of a tangent but not unrelated, where do we stand on people who have done their time and go out and commit the same crimes again. I saw something shared online the other day about how some states in America use chemical castration for repeat sex offenders. No idea if true or not but it’s another topic that will divide the room. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Its almost like they're using an extreme example (that has very little to do with the UK legal system) to try and make a point. Or it could be that it’s the only other rich industrialised democracy with the death penalty in place, and by far the most similar country to ourselves culturally to ourselves to use it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said: Or it could be that it’s the only other rich industrialised democracy with the death penalty in place, and by far the most similar country to ourselves culturally to ourselves to use it. Do we have that much in common with the US ? Apart from language of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Moonster said: It's hilarious that simply googling "how much does death row cost" throws up any sort of evidence you could ever need yet people argue it can't be true. The fact it costs more? The morality of it? The fact that the "likelihood of rehabilitation" could be different based on whichever judge/jury's opinion? The fact that we could kill innocent people? If you genuinely can't see the argument against state sponsored murder then I'm not sure you should be involved in debate. I didn't say I couldn't see the argument against Capital Punishment, I just don't see it as being compelling. And if you see Capital Punishment as murder then I'm not sure you should be involved in debate. What dictionary are you getting your definition from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, hk blues said: Which particular part am I "at it" with? The issue of reintroducing Capital Punishment for heinous crimes where there is no chance of redemption, or the side issues thrown in to muddy the waters which, frankly, add nothing. If Capital Punishment was introduced, it might encourage the system to sharpen their pencils a bit! Jesus, maybe you aren't at it after all I like the dismissal of innocent people being executed as a "side issue" - well played 6 minutes ago, hk blues said: Why would we want to limit appeals, other than to save money? How the f**k should I know, it's a psychopathic argument bandied about by roasters. As such, I'm amazed nobody decided to use it as a counterpoint to the argument that capital punishment is a more expensive option. You're welcome to use it, if you like 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Do we have that much in common with the US ? Apart from language of course. More so than we would with Belarus or Afghanistan, I’d wager. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Just now, chomp my root said: Do we have that much in common with the US ? Apart from language of course. We are both rich (are we?), Industrialised and Democratic. That surely puts as as alike as 2 peas in a pod. No other demographic, economic, social or geographic factors need be considered. Hmmm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, chomp my root said: Do we have that much in common with the US ? Apart from language of course. We have a red, white and blue flag as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 2 hours ago, hk blues said: Keep it simple - in cases where the crime is considered heinous enough (not for Joe Public to determine this) and the likelihood of rehabilitation is considered (by the experts - yes, I know) to be zero then Capital Punishment it is. Why would anyone argue against this? On the basis that mistakes can be made? Yes, they can but that's the beauty of our legal system - beyond all reasonable doubt which, these days, is a pretty firm test. Those who use the "mistakes can be made" argument are therefore saying it's OK to lock someone up for 20 years by mistake because you can let them out when the mistake is uncovered - that's not a compelling argument for me. It's a wee bit more compelling than digging someone up after 20 years and saying "On your way". (I actually agree with your opening sentences.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 chomp my root giving off a heavy vibe that he thinks science has progressed to the level of the CSI series and that killers always confess in the last five minutes of the runtime. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 1 minute ago, BigFatTabbyDave said: Jesus, maybe you aren't at it after all I like the dismissal of innocent people being executed as a "side issue" - well played How the f**k should I know, it's a psychopathic argument bandied about by roasters. As such, I'm amazed nobody decided to use it as a counterpoint to the argument that capital punishment is a more expensive option. You're welcome to use it, if you like The side issue was innocent people being in prison being less worrying in the eyes of some. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 1 minute ago, NotThePars said: chomp my root giving off a heavy vibe that he thinks science has progressed to the level of the CSI series and that killers always confess in the last five minutes of the runtime. Not sure what you're basing that on but that's not the point though is it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.