Bilo Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 That is one criteria that should never be considered. You could have a sadistic rapist and murderer whose victim's family held strong religious/pacifist views and totally forgave him and on the other hand there could be someone who killed someone in a fight and whose victims family were hellbent on revenge. There should be a uniform set of sentences based on the severity of the crime. That's a very good point. As hard hearted as it sounds, I would argue that the last people to decide sentencing should be the victim's families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 Re the cost: anyone who thinks we'd adopt a model more like China than the. US is a retard. We'd be exactly like the Yanks and just as flawed. I was well up for taking dissidents round the back of the prison, shooting them, selling their organs and charging their family for the bullets as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 He who lives by the sword, should DIE by the sword. Sort this country out, and change the law, by re introducing the death penalty. However, with the namby pamby, so called human rights brigade, whining and bleating their pathetic ideals, I sadly doubt if this will happen. I would love to see murderers publicly flogged to death, by the families of the victims. Any that don't feel so inclined, well, I would be more than happy to oblige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 Jesus tap-dancing Christ. As a country we're supposed to be quite civilised and yet people want us to return to the deeply flawed "eye for an eye" crap we used to have in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 Degree of viciousness Motive How the crime was committed; especially the manner in which the victim was killed. Outcome of the crime; especially the number of victims. Sentiments of the bereaved family members. Impact of the crime on Japanese society. Defendant's age (in Japan, someone is a minor until the age of 20). Defendant's previous criminal record. Degree of remorse shown by the defendant. Those are the criteria apparently. Disgusting. No consideration of: Number of items stolen by postman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 Disgusting. No consideration of: Number of items stolen by postman? That's definitely a mitigating circumstance if ever I heard one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 As long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much guaranteed to occasionally execute an innocent person. One is too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 3 August 2011 Share Posted 3 August 2011 One is too many. Ten is not enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Genuinely can't believe that people would seriously consider bringing back the death penalty. Especially considering that all of those people who would like the reintroduction have no knowledge of how the legal system works, the ratio decidendi for murder is 'beyond reasonable doubt' I would hardly consider that justification to take somebody's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 So you completely ignore Ashley's post with pretty much the same content but completely take the piss out of accooling? Did you take the chance to act like a condescending tool because of some of his previous controversial posts and thought it would be funny to try and take the piss further? Firstly, I can't address individually everyone's ignorance on this subject - it would take too long and I had stuff to do yesterday. Secondly, yeah you are probably right that I targeted acooling - not because his posts are 'controversial' simply because his posting on some topics are blindly ignorant, sometimes offensive and becoming more frequently so. My tone was condescending, though who 'the tool' is in these exchanges is far more subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 He who lives by the sword, should DIE by the sword. Sort this country out, and change the law, by re introducing the death penalty. However, with the namby pamby, so called human rights brigade, whining and bleating their pathetic ideals, I sadly doubt if this will happen. I would love to see murderers publicly flogged to death, by the families of the victims. Any that don't feel so inclined, well, I would be more than happy to oblige. Hey DT, You may find some like minded opinions here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Hey DT, You may find some like minded opinions here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/index.html Yep, that just confirms you as the tool. Seriously can we have one discussion on here where someone who expresses an opinion that isnt left of centre doesnt have some sort of Daily Mail article/caption/debate thrown at them. I thought I left that behind in politics at the age of 18. Is the Mail even that right wing anymore anyway? From what I see it seems to be more of a celeb magazine now and from the headlines that catch the eye I would have the Express as considerably more right wing (I love how people call you that as if it's something to be ashamed of ) People have different views, accept that, some of the stuff thrown across here is all a bit pathetic to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 That is one criteria that should never be considered. You could have a sadistic rapist and murderer whose victim's family held strong religious/pacifist views and totally forgave him and on the other hand there could be someone who killed someone in a fight and whose victims family were hellbent on revenge. There should be a uniform set of sentences based on the severity of the crime. Very very good point. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 As long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much guaranteed to occasionally execute an innocent person. One is too many. Not really, I would hope that any criteria for this were it happen could never be based on circumstance. It would have to go on DNA and or CCTV etc for any sort of lethal injection to even be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Yep, that just confirms you as the tool. Seriously can we have one discussion on here where someone who expresses an opinion that isnt left of centre doesnt have some sort of Daily Mail article/caption/debate thrown at them. I thought I left that behind in politics at the age of 18. Is the Mail even that right wing anymore anyway? From what I see it seems to be more of a celeb magazine now and from the headlines that catch the eye I would have the Express as considerably more right wing (I love how people call you that as if it's something to be ashamed of ) People have different views, accept that, some of the stuff thrown across here is all a bit pathetic to be honest. Unbelievable. A proportionate response to a post that was basically suggesting state sanctioned public murder of convicted offenders by the families of their victims - and you say I'm the tool. Really, Matt? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Unbelievable. A proportionate response to a post that was basically suggesting state sanctioned public murder of convicted offenders by the families of their victims - and you say I'm the tool. Really, Matt? Really? Yeah does look a tad over the top actually, I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Yeah does look a tad over the top actually, I apologise. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Genuinely can't believe that people would seriously consider bringing back the death penalty. Especially considering that all of those people who would like the reintroduction have no knowledge of how the legal system works, the ratio decidendi for murder is 'beyond reasonable doubt' I would hardly consider that justification to take somebody's life. The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision. Whereas, being proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the standard of proof that needs to be established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision. Whereas, being proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the standard of proof that needs to be established. oooOOOooo - Jurisprudence on foxestalk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Hey DT, You may find some like minded opinions here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/index.html Unlike some people, Nick, I really do not object to other people's views, so long as I can put mine forward. Of course, I expect to get bashed by others, who don't agree, and can take it on the chin without flinching. We can go to war, and kill. and not even be bothered about what kind of person they were. Now, when it comes to convicted murders, there are those who do care, about them also dying. Funny old world, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Unlike some people, Nick, I really do not object to other people's views, so long as I can put mine forward. Of course, I expect to get bashed by others, who don't agree, and can take it on the chin without flinching. We can go to war, and kill. and not even be bothered about what kind of person they were. Now, when it comes to convicted murders, there are those who do care, about them also dying. Funny old world, is it not? I'm not impressed with our foreign policy or the related death toll as a result. Capital punishment is highly expensive, does not increase desistance from murderous activity and is not defensible legally or ethically in terms of state sanctioned killing in the name of retribution, connotations of 'justice' or punishment. It's like being back in 1982 just having this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Sorry my mistake you're right, not looked at any Law since finishing my first year haha. But you can see where I'm coming from. Also It's a lot of pressure to put on the judge/jury and could possibly even end up in people getting off as the Judge is not willing to make such a sacrifice. Just look at the countries who do use the Death Penalty, hardly in touch with a modern society are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Has anyone got the statistics for the murder rate in Britain for the last 40 years? I know you can get the world ones but I think it much more logical to just look at each country in question when discussing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 I'm not impressed with our foreign policy or the related death toll as a result. Capital punishment is highly expensive, does not increase desistance from murderous activity and is not defensible legally or ethically in terms of state sanctioned killing in the name of retribution, connotations of 'justice' or punishment. It's like being back in 1982 just having this discussion. Or conservative America, which amounts to the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 4 August 2011 Share Posted 4 August 2011 Unbelievable. A proportionate response to a post that was basically suggesting state sanctioned public murder of convicted offenders by the families of their victims - and you say I'm the tool. Really, Matt? Really? Gosh. Look who won "Most Hated Poster of the Month"... Does this mean I have to pass on my trophy? I reckon I had it for keeps after Walkers and Ultra pissed all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.