General News

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, Sly said:

I agree with this. Within the next 20 years, I can almost see you changing to the United States of Europe and being run centrally. 
 

The world is a much closer place then it once was. 

 

Throughout history, crazy people have done crazy stuff. 
 

Religion or even ethnicity is a convenient stand to hang that hat on. 
 

Human life is human life. 
 

If anything the world needs to become borderless and allow for immigration. At the same time, carry on like we are with climate change and our little island will get battered by extreme weather and people way seek to move away from the UK. 

 

Maybe some utopian think I know. 

On some issues at least, this idea may not simply be uptopian, but utilitarian, as it will be the best (or perhaps even only) chance of maintaining human civilisation as it is.

 

Global problems require global solutions and cooperation. If we're not up to that as a species...well, we'll be penalised for it.

 

This is not some lofty moral argument about "all the people together". It's the simple calculus of survival.

Edited 24 January by leicsmac

[ozleicester]

woohoo... Gen news closed and it wasnt me
 

 

[Muzzy_no7]

9 hours ago, Otis said:

Capital punishment won't be brought back and especially for under 18s.

IMO, Letting him rot in jail is a bigger punishment, day after day with next to no chance of release.

Costs the tax payer in excess of 55K per year per prisoner and in his case it will be a hell of a lot more due to likelihood of solitary confinement, being on a protected wing and the already huge costs of Police escorts for him etc. 

 

Amount of persons in our prisons is going up at a quicker rate than the general population in terms of a %. 

[Nalis]

9 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I really struggle to understand why anyone cares what nationality anyone is when we're all human beings with the same needs, worries, desires and fears as anyone else.

 

It's how you deal with all these things that matters, not where you're from. Someone from Senegal or Bolivia or Cambodia is as likely to make a commendable attempt at living their best life as someone from the UK. No better; no worse.

 

People often (correctly) go on about how much war and division religion has brought to the world, but the concept of national identity is equally guilty (especially when you tie it into some kind of divine right)!

 

As two wise men once said, "be excellent to each other".

Very true

 

Can't stand even seeing a pic of the Southport killer in the same way I cant stand seeing a pic of Lucy Letby.

[The Doctor]

11 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Watched a Neil Degrasse Tyson short today, and he was talking about how Stonehenge is more impressive than the pyramids because it’s impressive nature is in the ‘gaps’ rather than the stones as it maps to a clock. Sorry, thought that was impressive if true (which it likely is due it being that bloke)

not so much a clock as the solstices (although I guess you could argue that's a type of long-term clock, but I'd argue more for a calendar being the closest equivalent)

[leicsmac]

And the mask keeps slipping.

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And the mask keeps slipping.

Did Futurama ever have a Donald Trump head in a bottle?

[The Doctor]

I mean, we expected this right? only Cleveland was non consecutive before the Cheeto Caligula, and that was before term limits so he was always gonna push for the non consecutive means term limits don't apply stuff.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On some issues at least, this idea may not simply be uptopian, but utilitarian, as it will be the best (or perhaps even only) chance of maintaining human civilisation as it is.

 

Global problems require global solutions and cooperation. If we're not up to that as a species...well, we'll be penalised for it.

 

This is not some lofty moral argument about "all the people together". It's the simple calculus of survival.

In the words of Ellen Ripley, 

 

I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them f*****g each other over for a goddamn percentage.

[Fox in the North]

 

[Zear0]

20 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

 

He makes a good point, which is always dragged out whenever people discuss capital punishment.  His point is that there has been historic miscarriages of justice in incidence of poor work by detectives (incorrect DNA testing, circumstantial, unreliable witnesses etc.)   Not sure it's applicable in the case of someone committing a crime in plain sight of 40+ people.

 

I'm no in favour of it, just not sure the above is relevant to this case.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

He makes a good point, which is always dragged out whenever people discuss capital punishment.  His point is that there has been historic miscarriages of justice in incidence of poor work by detectives (incorrect DNA testing, circumstantial, unreliable witnesses etc.)   Not sure it's applicable in the case of someone committing a crime in plain sight of 40+ people.

 

I'm no in favour of it, just not sure the above is relevant to this case.

It's a darkly fascinating debate that's been done on here before.

 

When the burden of proof to lock someone up for life (and therefore be able to release and compensate them if you get it wrong) is "beyond a reasonable doubt", what does the burden of proof have to be when you take someone's life as a result (which is, needless to say, irrevocable)?

[Fox in the North]

8 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

He makes a good point, which is always dragged out whenever people discuss capital punishment.  His point is that there has been historic miscarriages of justice in incidence of poor work by detectives (incorrect DNA testing, circumstantial, unreliable witnesses etc.)   Not sure it's applicable in the case of someone committing a crime in plain sight of 40+ people.

 

I'm no in favour of it, just not sure the above is relevant to this case.

For me, I think the problem is when you make an exception, even in a case as obvious as this, it opens the window just a little on allowing a punishment and it could snowball from there. It’s like with assisted dying, the ramifications are very complex and potentially dangerous.

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

For me, I think the problem is when you make an exception, even in a case as obvious as this, it opens the window just a little on allowing a punishment and it could snowball from there. It’s like with assisted dying, the ramifications are very complex and potentially dangerous.

Yeah it’s the legal and culture creep that scares me most about it and it’s a thing populists have a habit of doing - using emotionally charged examples for legal and culture creep. It’s easy to say this guy should have the death penalty without thinking how that changes the law and defining the reasons he should get it and others don’t as therefore opening up the option for milder examples- we like to think law is black and white but its often very subjective and interpretative as you can’t account for all examples.

 

Same thing with when they put those climate protesters in prison for 5 years or stripped that girl who was born and raised in uk and had no other citizenship of her citizenship because she had parents or grandparents from Bangladesh, they were emotionally charged examples but you’ve set up precedents now that rogue governments or parts of the legal system can use in the future. UK law is based on case laws and you’re setting up legal precedents that judges and lawyers can use in the future as precedents for milder examples. 

Edited 24 January by Sampson

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

For me, I think the problem is when you make an exception, even in a case as obvious as this, it opens the window just a little on allowing a punishment and it could snowball from there. It’s like with assisted dying, the ramifications are very complex and potentially dangerous.

 

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Yeah it’s the legal and culture creep that scares me most about it and it’s a thing populists have a habit of doing - using emotionally charged examples for legal and culture creep. It’s easy to say this guy should have the death penalty without thinking how that changes the law and defining the reasons he should get it and others don’t as therefore opening up the option for milder examples- we like to think law is black and white but its often very subjective and interpretative as you can’t account for all examples.

 

Same thing with when they put those climate protesters in prison for 5 years or stripped that girl who was born and raised in uk and had no other citizenship of her citizenship because she had parents or grandparents from Bangladesh, they were emotionally charged examples but you’ve set up precedents now that rogue governments or parts of the legal system can use in the future. UK law is based on case laws and you’re setting up legal precedents that judges and lawyers can use in the future as precedents for milder examples. 

Exactly.

 

The slippery slope isn't a fallacy.

[Foxdiamond]

12 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

For me, I think the problem is when you make an exception, even in a case as obvious as this, it opens the window just a little on allowing a punishment and it could snowball from there. It’s like with assisted dying, the ramifications are very complex and potentially dangerous.

As much as we hate the scum in question capital punishment will never come back. 

[Sampson]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Exactly.

 

The slippery slope isn't a fallacy.

It was interesting reading about the Netherlands and euthanasia during the recent debate on assisted dying in the uk and how it’s become a clear example of legal creep because it’s so hard to define who should be eligible of it and who shouldn’t because cases can be so different. I do think people should be allowed the choice to die but it was a totally valid argument about legal creep in assisted dying law and it’s exactly the same concerns I have about the death penalty. 

[Foxdiamond]

I remember the furore over the 1966 Braybrook Street murders of 3 Police Officers. The convicted murderers avoided the death penalty as hanging had been suspended about 8 months before the verdicts. There was no doubt about their guilt

[Dunge]

This case is probably about as clear a case as you can have in favour of the death penalty. He unequivocally did it. He has zero remorse about it. He would do it again. He is a danger to life and society. And, at his young age, there could be 60 or 70 years of incarceration ahead of him that the state has to pay for.

 

Regardless, I still believe two arguments hold for why we shouldn’t apply the death penalty:

 

1. It’s impossible to define a discrete cut-off between definite and non-definite. This would be on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it is still a spectrum, and for something as absolute as death, that’s a problem.

2. More of a moral point, but we shouldn’t lower ourselves to his level.

[Foxdiamond]

21 minutes ago, Dunge said:

This case is probably about as clear a case as you can have in favour of the death penalty. He unequivocally did it. He has zero remorse about it. He would do it again. He is a danger to life and society. And, at his young age, there could be 60 or 70 years of incarceration ahead of him that the state has to pay for.

 

Regardless, I still believe two arguments hold for why we shouldn’t apply the death penalty:

 

1. It’s impossible to define a discrete cut-off between definite and non-definite. This would be on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it is still a spectrum, and for something as absolute as death, that’s a problem.

2. More of a moral point, but we shouldn’t lower ourselves to his level.

I once saw a documentary about the effects on prison warders who had guarded condemned prisoners before execution. Even knowing the crime and trying to remained detached it was very difficult for staff to deal with mentally 

[ramboacdc]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And the mask keeps slipping.

Not a chance of an amendment in the constitution. They don't have 66% of congress

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

Not a chance of an amendment in the constitution. They don't have 66% of congress

For the time being.

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

Not a chance of an amendment in the constitution. They don't have 66% of congress

I’ve heard some variant on “don’t worry, they’ll never actually get the vote” enough times over the past 9 years to not trust it sadly. 

Edited 24 January by Sampson

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Fox in the North said:

For me, I think the problem is when you make an exception, even in a case as obvious as this, it opens the window just a little on allowing a punishment and it could snowball from there. It’s like with assisted dying, the ramifications are very complex and potentially dangerous.

Very much aligned there on both issues.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

 

Conservatives have such an obsession with "deterrents" that they'll spaff all their time on it rather than actually dealing with the ****ing issue. That video is a full 11 years before Patel and Johnson set up Rwanda while at the same time sending legal immigration up 400% and purposefully starting the small boats crisis.

 

Bunch of ****ing *****.