Capital punishment/whole life terms

[Buce]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I hope I was one of the exceptions to your bet, I may vote in the opposite way to you, but I'm not a barbarian otherwise 

 

Actually, you were, though I suspect your gender may have had a subconscious influence on that.

 

46 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Hmmm, yeah..

 

I've always found that pro choice are generally anti capital punishment....yet anti abortion campaigners tend towards being supportive of the death penalty 

 

Surely you are either fully pro life or fully.pro death? 

 

I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here.

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Actually, you were, though I suspect your gender may have had a subconscious influence on that.

 

 

I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here.

I think the argument is that if you've previously claimed to be pro-choice then you are pro-killing and therefore a hypocrite for speaking out against the death penalty.  Of course the reality is that in both cases the key arguments revolve around not imposing irreversible life-changing consequences upon innocent parties.

By the same token if you've previously claimed to be pro-life then you're a hypocrite for calling for the death penalty.  Tbf capital punishment is genuinely the opposite of being pro-life so in this case yeah it's a bit hypocritical.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think the argument is that if you've previously claimed to be pro-choice then you are pro-killing and therefore a hypocrite for speaking out against the death penalty.  Of course the reality is that in both cases the key arguments revolve around not imposing irreversible life-changing consequences upon innocent parties.

By the same token if you've previously claimed to be pro-life then you're a hypocrite for calling for the death penalty.  Tbf capital punishment is genuinely the opposite of being pro-life so in this case yeah it's a bit hypocritical.

 

As far as I can see his argument is based on an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

And I don't get how it relates to political leanings (my original observation).

 

I am stoned, though.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As far as I can see his argument is based on an unsubstantiated assertion.

 

And I don't get how it relates to political leanings (my original observation).

 

I am stoned, though.

It is unsubstantiated but the political leanings is based on the idea that if you're right-wing you're pro-life and pro-death, if you're left wing you're pro-choice and anti-death.  If I've understood it correctly.  I am also stoned.  It's a veritable meeting of the sages.

[Paninistickers]

18 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It is unsubstantiated but the political leanings is based on the idea that if you're right-wing you're pro-life and pro-death, if you're left wing you're pro-choice and anti-death.  If I've understood it correctly.  I am also stoned.  It's a veritable meeting of the sages.

I'm not stoned, but, Carl, you've been more eloquent than me in explaining my own post

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It is unsubstantiated but the political leanings is based on the idea that if you're right-wing you're pro-life and pro-death, if you're left wing you're pro-choice and anti-death.  If I've understood it correctly.  I am also stoned.  It's a veritable meeting of the sages.

 

Ah, the penny drops.

 

He is saying that there is an inherent contradiction in simultaneously holding those views? I hadn't really thought about it that way. I suppose it does echo the stereotypic voter but I'm not sure that would be true in reality. Anti-abortionists, as far as I can see, come pretty exclusively from the religious right; of all the posters on here who have expressed support for capital punishment, I doubt that many of them are anti-abortion.

 

Neither do I see a contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-DP, since (I imagine) the pro-choice argument is based on the belief that a fetus is not alive.

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I'm not stoned, but, Carl, you've been more eloquent than me in explaining my own post

 

There's the problem, right there!

[spacemunky]

Not only am I pro Capital punishment, I believe it should be used for many offenses, including failing to signal a turn, teeing off before the group infront of you is clear and socks with sandals.

[Captain...]

5 hours ago, Line-X said:

Put this in the Pitchfork thread by accident and it was meant for here...

 

As the longest serving female inmate in California's 'correctional system', the case of Patricia Krenwinkle is particularly interesting. Having been sentenced to death in 1971, a year later the California death penalty was ruled unconstitutional and her sentence was commuted to life. Now 73 years old, she has been in a women’s prison in Riverside County for 47 years, longer than any other woman in the state. From memory she has had 14 appearances before a parole board who have recognised her exemplary behaviour, commended her for a clean disciplinary record, her study for a bachelor’s degree and her work training service dogs and counseling fellow inmates. Krenwinkel has two key factors working in her favor both revolving around age. Because she was 21 at the time of the Manson murders, she is considered a youthful offender under a law that came into effect in 2016. Also, commissioners must recognise the elderly have a lower risk of future violence.

 

Although the severity of the crime is justifiably and duly taken into account, it does not predict her future risk to public safety. That’s why some argue the law requires her release. To me, it's one of the best examples of the way in which public outcry can completely eviscerate and override someone’s constitutional rights. In spite of the severity if the crime and the contention that in the case of something so utterly heinous you forfeit your right to fair treatment - but that’s not how the law works. It's precisely the same for Van Houten and Davis (the Tex Watson situation is arguably far more serious). The infamy and horror of the Manson Family killings were permanently and indelibly etched upon American society and sentiment which is why when she becomes eligible for yet another parole hearing next year, she is likely to remain incarcerated. 

 

Last year Van Houten, now 71, qualified last July for release from a state prison, but California law gives the governor final say over whether an inmate is suitable for parole. She was not present at the Tate murders but participated in the La Bianca homicide. There are many many killers that have committed far graver acts but have served far shorter sentences (such as Pitchfork) - and have been released. Van Houten is being judged on the stigma of her Manson association and the high profile crimes which have become cultural lore - as opposed to her individual role and actions within that. Gov. Gavin Newsom, has twice overruled the parole board’s decision, characterizing Van Houten as a “danger” where there is no evidence to support that reversal. Very simply, he fears the attention that this attracts and the public outrage and backlash and does not want to be associated with it. Decisions concerning less publicised cases go unnoticed. Ultimately though, to the relatives of the victims, they don't - irrespective of the case - and they are all consigned to their own personal torment. If I was impacted by the Manson crimes, I would understandably never want the perpetrators to see the light of day...but the law does not - or should not - work like that. 

Aren't we all judging Pitchfork now though on his infamy. If he wasn't local and it wasn't close to home, figuratively and literally, would it have received this much attention on here. Killers and rapists probably get released more often than we are aware of.

[Houdini Logic]

On 07/06/2021 at 17:48, PAULCFC said:

Child killers definately and police...If there is irefutable evidence....put them in a cell for 5 years(or enough time to try and prove innocence)Then get rid.

Thats a bit harsh... they can be a bit up their own arse sometimes but they're just trying to do their job...

[PAULCFC]

17 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Thats a bit harsh... they can be a bit up their own arse sometimes but they're just trying to do their job...

Worded that a bit wrong!

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Surely, you only have a "copper-bottomed argument" if:

a) You assume that because absolute proof is impossible in some cases, it is impossible in every case; or

b) If absolute proof is possible, you'd be prepared to consider state executions as justice or justifiable?

 

Take the real case of the killing of Lee Rigby. From memory, a number of people on a bus saw the attack and some even filmed it. The convicted murderers stayed at the scene with bloodied weapons. People in the street approached, tried to help the prone victim and the perpetrators spoke to them and told them why they'd done it. One of them was videoed (possibly by himself) saying why they had killed Rigby. When the police arrived, the perpetrators attacked them with guns and knives. There could conceivably have been grounds for "diminished responsibility" (though there weren't) but surely there was absolute proof that they committed the killing.....insofar as there's absolute proof of anything (cue Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" is the only proven fact! ).

 

Take a hypothetical case: if an anti-VAR fanatic runs onto the pitch during the FA Cup Final and massacres the ref in front of 22 players, 90,000 fans and millions of TV viewers, is that not as close to absolute proof as you're ever going to get?

Of course, some people will always doubt anything - the moon landings, man-made climate change, the earth existing for billions of years. Do you accept the hypothetical possibility of absolute proof? Because if you do, then you inevitably have to face the other question - whether it's acceptable for the state to carry out "justice killings" on our behalf - don't you?

 

I'm not downplaying the risk of miscarriages of justice. I'm well aware of multiple miscarriages of justice in the 70s & 80s - multiple people who'd have been wrongly executed, if we'd had capital punishment. Indeed, if we'd had capital punishment, it's possible that the first suspect in the Pitchfork case might have been wrongly executed - a young lad with learning difficulties wrongly confessed to one of Pitchfork's murders at police interview, initially. But for me that argument about wrongful convictions is secondary as I wouldn't want the state to kill people as "justice" even if/when there was absolute proof of guilt of awful crimes.

Yep, with cards fully on the table, I believe both a.) and b.) there - to a degree, anyhow. 

 

However, I would consider b.) to be moot for at least the foreseeable future, because I do think the burden of absolute proof is that high and it needs to be that high when dealing with taking someone's life - by definition, the most precious thing there is. I can see why that might run into rather crackpot territory viz. "what is real?", but the way I see it there is always at least a miniscule amount of doubt behind every conviction, and that isn't acceptable when someone's life is at stake. Enough to lock Lee Rigby's killers up for life? Absolutely. Enough to take their lives? No, I would say not.

 

I get the moral arguments about the acceptability of the State killing people (and for me that depends very much on circumstances) but for me the bigger issue will always be the system being imperfect and as such an innocent person having their life taken from them, which is utterly unacceptable to me. Better a thousand hardened criminals live in jail than one innocent person die, so to speak.

 

 

 

[Gordon the Great]

15 hours ago, Cujek said:

How would you prevent say for example, a raging lunatic, attacking someone out of the blue, with no motive, with no reason and no justifcation.

 

how can you prevent random acts? you cant.

 

if you were to prevent all crime, then you have to have a law enforcement officer on every street corner ready to pounce on any wrong doer.

 

Im sure you are a really nice fella and i dont mean this personally.

 

but your post is why liberals in this country make me so angry, most would rather sit around smiling at criminals trying to engage them, and buying them flowers to apologies for them being arrested by the mean police.

 

where are have the balls in this country gone? where is the steel nowadays? we used to be tough on the worst offenders, now i see child abusers getting suspended sentences, like what the actual F, you have basically ruined a child's life and perhaps their entire family as well, what right does someone that does that have to be in society, none thats what.

 

violent offenders that attack people without provocation, again, get in a hole, if youve done it once you will do it again and it might be worse next time, just get rid.

 

Victims of these crimes, do not have a second chance, why should the vile scum who do it have a second chance?

Brilliant, brilliant post.