Death Penalty

#1
Ok, given that in this country we don't have a Death penalty for Murder, terrorism or attempted murder for that matter. Why is it OK to kill suspected Murderers or terrorists?
Or to put it this way while it is agreed that taking a life for a life is bad why is it ok to take a life where one hasnt been taken?

Helmet and CBA on, ready for incomming.
 
#2
WhiteHorse said:
Or to put it this way while it is agreed that taking a life for a life is bad
Well only pantywaist bleeding heart do gooders would agree with that poncy sh*te.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
 
#3
Simple "shoot to kill policy" is standard practice all over the world in dealing with suicide bombers. Experience has taught, for example, the Isralies that you cannot talk to or attempt to arrest a suicide bomber. They are on a mission, to KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE and themselves.

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with someone intent on mass murder, let them blow themselves up and take a lot of innocent people with them, THEN deal with the situation, or prevent it happening in the first place.

These people are brainwashed scum, one of the latest attempted bombers detonated his device whilst standing next to a woman with a small child. What would your choice be? :!:
 
#4
Don't get me wrong, I do think the Death Penalty should be restored for a limited number of crimes. My point was that its OK to kill SUSPECTED threats, just like the guy with the table leg for example, but its not ok to arrest and then execute them. Is it a case of its easier to shoot to kill and avoid all the hassle?

This country then avoids the stigma of being a country with a death penalty, keeping our liberal status when in reality we just kill them before a trail.
 
#5
Actually IIRC we still have the Death Penalty for Treason.

I believe that a gallows is still maintained in a London Prison just in case it is needed.
 
#6
I had heard a similar view, although I think the adoption of the Human rights act finished it off.
 
#7
Duck Dodgers said:
Actually IIRC we still have the Death Penalty for Treason.

I believe that a gallows is still maintained in a London Prison just in case it is needed.
Nope. Tony did away with all that a couple of years ago DD.
 
#8
Awol said:
Duck Dodgers said:
Actually IIRC we still have the Death Penalty for Treason.

I believe that a gallows is still maintained in a London Prison just in case it is needed.
Nope. Tony did away with all that a couple of years ago DD.
You sure? Got a link?
 
#10
The death penalty will not discourage fanatical suicide terrorists, who are SEEKING death to become martyrs. Example: The guy who killed the movie director in Holland a few months ago explicitely demanded in his trial to be executed, even though the Netherlands don't have the death penalty anymore. They prefer a glorius death over the rest of their lives in prison.

Jan
 
#11
Maybe I'm not getting my point across, why is it acceptable to kill an innocent man when we don't kill the guilty ones?
 
#12
It isnt in normal everyday life. However, I think most people agree that when the situation is such that the officers belive there is a real threat to the life of him or others its very different. Even the rules of engagement for armed sentries allows you to shoot if your life is in danger.

If the police calmly walked up to someone in the street they suspected of being involved in a terrorist act and shot them, then that is wrong. However if the officers think there is no other option, then they have to shoot. (IMHO).

Having said that, I think it would have been better - long term - if they had taken the Brazilian alive...... but it is very wrong for people to second guess the judgement made under pressure.
 
#13
There's an element of potentially saving more lives by carrying it out - but still, it's not acceptable to kill the innocent is it? As may be proven when the inquest is finished on the Brazilian and somebody has to face up to British justice
 
#14
WhiteHorse said:
Maybe I'm not getting my point across, why is it acceptable to kill an innocent man when we don't kill the guilty ones?
To my mind at least the difference between the two situations is the alternative we have.
For someone who has been arrested and convicted of a heinous crime, we have the option of locking them up in a small concrete box for the rest of their lives. If we do it right, they are no further threat to anyone.
Where armed police are confronting someone they believe to be armed, or to be a suicide bomber they have a different set of alternatives. Where they can avoid it, they will clearly elect not to shoot. However, they will frequently be in a situation where either they kill the person they believe to be armed, or that person will (so far as they can tell) kill other(s).

So to my mind it comes down to motivation.
Personally, I think it is acceptable to kill someone if doing so protects others (i.e. the consequences of killing them being less bad than the consequences of not doing so, at least as far as the policeman taking the shot can tell).
Vengeance as a motive is for me unacceptable. While it may make people feel better to follow the rule of "an eye for an eye, a life for a life" that is ultimately unproductive, and frequently punishes the family of the criminal more than the criminal (the criminal will spend the rest of their lives in jail in either case - the family know their child/parent/brother will die at exactly a given time and there is nothing they can do about it).
In summary, killing by the state is only acceptable in any case when the alternative is worse. Hence, the death penalty could be justified if it was shown to have a deterrent effect (and despite a lot of effort nobody has actually convincingly shown this yet) or if there was no safe way of imprisoning someone. Shootings by the police are only justified where the result of not shooting is more casualties.

That's my take on it anyway - those of you who disagree feel free to flame away, but please give reasons rather than "it's obvious that"...
 
#16
armourer said:
WhiteHorse said:
Or to put it this way while it is agreed that taking a life for a life is bad
Well only pantywaist bleeding heart do gooders would agree with that poncy sh*te.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
armourer, thats as bad as the muslim world (those outside the uk etc)
 
#17
WhiteHorse said:
Maybe I'm not getting my point across, why is it acceptable to kill an innocent man when we don't kill the guilty ones?
Because there was a percieved threat to life and limb. Therefore the officers have the power to take the appropriate action, and in these circumstances it was to pump him full of lead until he was dead (lest his potential bomb be detonated killing innocent civilians)

Obviously the most agreeable course of action would have been to arrest him and try him in a court of law, but suicide bombers don't give the police that luxury.

We don't kill the guilty ones because we subscribe to the ECHR which protects the right to life, and prevents unethical punishment (which the death penalty is defined as)
 
#18
Isn't hindsight marvellous???

I'd hazard a guess that the officer who shot the brazilian actually believed that opening fire was the only way to stop what he ,at the time, believed to be a terrorist, in the act of using a weapon or operating a device.

THANK FCUK we still have men and women with the power of their own connvictions and who will not be belittled by leftwing guardian reading pillocks who want to let this country go down the sewer.
 
#19
If you read the Guardian you are a communist
 
#20
This 'innocent Brazilian'

Why would an 'innocent ' person be running from armed police?
Personally, i'd have thought anyone with nothing to worry about would of stuck up their hands and allowed themselves to be arrested, and then sued the arrse off the MET for wrongful arrest, as Cherie and her chums love 'em to do.
Spose i'm just being naive..........
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top