Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

You're right, but I'll let you into a little secret. As much as I enjoy pointing out to the ageing internet hardman how stupid he is, I'm not involved enough to google 42,000 different sites to see what happened to them.

If I was a betting man, knowing that the Germans put a lot of effort into covering up what they'd done at the extermination camps and also knowing that the SS were well aware of how even their front line comrades were treated when captured by the Soviets, I'd put my money on the number of camps that were taken by Ivan while still manned by any kind of significant number of SS personnel being somewhere around 0.


so, you reckon tha the number that you stated of camp guards killed in reprisal actions was wrong afterall?...and that those tiny amount of camps that you mentioned , where the guards fecked off sharpish - out of 42,000 in existence, was a pretty pointless statement?
 
so, you reckon tha the number that you stated of camp guards killed in reprisal actions was wrong afterall?...and that those tiny amount of camps that you mentioned , where the guards fecked off sharpish - out of 42,000 in existence, was a pretty pointless statement?
Do you reckon that if you started to post while sober then you'd know what the number I posted was?

The 42,000 includes every single Holocaust related site - camps, ghettos, slave labour sites (ie, factories, farms etc), brothels, all kinds. There were over 3,000 sites in Berlin alone. I'd be willing to bet that most (especially in the East) would have been abandoned by the Germans long before they fell to the Allies.

Quite why you're so attached to your fantasies that there was some mass slaughter of camp personnel baffles me if I'm honest. Barely any of them were even prosecuted, let alone being machine gunned as they surrendered.
 
I don’t know, what is the difference?
Either way it’s barbaric, doesn’t deter crime and has no way of reversing the sentence when you inevitably string up the wrong person.
You realise sharia law isn't just chopping off hands and heads dont you - Its rather broad in what it can cover**

Its possible to be pro death penalty but anti Sharia law without holding the daily mail over your head and screaming Tommy Tommy come save us threes Muslimists etc.

In the same way its possible to believe Israel has a right to exist - without being a supporter of the Israeli regime.

Or be anti immigration without being a member of the BNP or indeed believing water and other utilities should be nationalised doesn't mean you fly the red banner and shout ooh ooh Jeremy Corbyn etc

In short its possible to have some views that coincide with the views of another group whilst being generally opposed to that groups views - something most people can grasp (outside of Momentum/ Corbyn supporters and conspiracy theorists - who cannot or will not accept nuance or a non binary position)

In other words your original statement was somewhat flawed - although I suspect you were trying for bites - to which tired tech obliged


Personally I dont like it because of where it places women - although I realise that makes me a racist anti Islamic misogynistic feminist homophobe** depending on who your talking to and what todays special interest group is - Oh and probably a transphobic because somewhere along the line ive assumed gender - that's a dead cert I do it every day -

** Loony left - "im not wining the argument" applied Logic 101 - in a discussion a bout x and Y - if losing the debate the moment someone says" I dont like x because Y" this will inevitably result in some fuckwit hurling abuse at you because you didn't mention A C D or Z and therefore must support X on those issues
 
Could Diplock style courts be the answer to this?
If it is, it's the wrong question. The purpose of a trial is to ensure justice not secure a conviction.

With a person's life in the balance, a juryless trial would quickly lose what little legitimacy it had. I can't think of a surer way to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.
 
Do you reckon that if you started to post while sober then you'd know what the number I posted was?

The 42,000 includes every single Holocaust related site - camps, ghettos, slave labour sites (ie, factories, farms etc), brothels, all kinds. There were over 3,000 sites in Berlin alone. I'd be willing to bet that most (especially in the East) would have been abandoned by the Germans long before they fell to the Allies.

Quite why you're so attached to your fantasies that there was some mass slaughter of camp personnel baffles me if I'm honest. Barely any of them were even prosecuted, let alone being machine gunned as they surrendered.

Ha ha, i've no fantasy of mass slaughter, or of guards being machine gunned, so you may need to carry on being baffled Otto, I just like to point out that you mentioned a tiny number of camps to try to prove your point and give examples where they were abandoned as if to state 'Look, there were no guards here, so they couldn't have been killed by inmates'...........i

I then showed you and others that their were many, many more camps - 42,000 - or environments that may as well have been camps - where it is perfectly concievable that on liberation, the inmates did kill some of the guards or kapos, and were allowed and encouraged to by the liberators.

I then showed you that as 80% plus of the camps were in the East ,and that the Soviets records hadn't been released, your argument about the small numbers killed was total bolloxs and you had absolutely feck all to back up your assumption that most were abandoned before the Sovs got there, basing this on the thought that the guards were German and not locals - the Ukrainain guards fecked off with the Germans


And all of this is due to the general premis of the thread being that the death penalty is wrong due to our human rights.....even for guards who took delight in killing children and old ladies, whereas my argument being that when you deliberately stop acting like a civilised person, your lose your Human rights.

Anyhoo, you're still a thick, bluffing cnut . who learns a tiny amount about something then decides that you know everything.
 
Could Diplock style courts be the answer to this?
Certainly not, without exceptional justification they are contrary to your human right of a fair trial and if they were used where the death penalty is a possibility it would be a step towards a police state and state execution - far removed from justice.
 
As I understand it in the USA a death sentence can only be carried out after, at least, the following.

Guilty/not guilty trial.
Death/not death trial.
Automatic appeal.

I believe if the crime is to extreme a good showing at the first, with the right level of contrition, often avoids an unpleasant result at the second trial.
 
Ha ha, i've no fantasy of mass slaughter, or of guards being machine gunned, so you may need to carry on being baffled Otto, I just like to point out that you mentioned a tiny number of camps to try to prove your point and give examples where they were abandoned as if to state 'Look, there were no guards here, so they couldn't have been killed by inmates'...........i

I then showed you and others that their were many, many more camps - 42,000 - or environments that may as well have been camps - where it is perfectly concievable that on liberation, the inmates did kill some of the guards or kapos, and were allowed and encouraged to by the liberators.

I then showed you that as 80% plus of the camps were in the East ,and that the Soviets records hadn't been released, your argument about the small numbers killed was total bolloxs and you had absolutely feck all to back up your assumption that most were abandoned before the Sovs got there, basing this on the thought that the guards were German and not locals - the Ukrainain guards fecked off with the Germans
The fact that you're still too stupid to understand that the Germans were very busy concealing as much evidence as they could of what they'd been doing in the East then bugging out before Ivan came over the horizon is truly hilarious. You really think the SS were going to hang around some ghetto or war factory in some three horse town in Poland and wait for the T-34s to turn up or do you think they were going to retreat with the rest of the German forces?

Nobody has said that not a single guard was murdered. Again, if you'd occasionally sober up between posts you might be able to understand that.

And all of this is due to the general premis of the thread being that the death penalty is wrong due to our human rights.....even for guards who took delight in killing children and old ladies, whereas my argument being that when you deliberately stop acting like a civilised person, your lose your Human rights.
You start taking human rights away from some people you start making it easier to take them from everyone. It really is that simple. Who gets to decide who loses their human rights? Is it all murderers? What about the ones who are convicted and then turn out to be innocent? I mean, under your system, your hero Blackman would have swung long before his wife started her weepy tour of daytime TV and fat old critters started hanging round outside court rooms in badly shaped berets.

Anyhoo, you're still a thick, bluffing cnut . who learns a tiny amount about something then decides that you know everything.
For someone who repeatedly fails to understand what they're replying to and whose posts look like the results of a hand grenade in a tin of alphabetti spaghetti, that's pretty funny.
 
It’s typical of Capitalist governments to want to kill their “loyal subjects” - a proper socialist society would rehabilitate and treat all those that Capitalists would murder.

MsG
 
I'm not sure that he meant that, as it could be argued that they carried out the 'Death Penalty' to someone who deserved it.

If they had found an unknown German, and had no first hand evidence that he had committed any crimes in the camps, and then killed him - then that would be Murder.
Yeah but it was not a judicial killing was it. I have no issues with beating an SS camp guard to death however by the end of the war, the SS were not a volunteer force anymore and were having their ranks filled with just about anyone not on the banned list. The chances are, being in the SS did not mean you were a terrible person (towards the end).

The best option in these cases and the course of action most often chosen was for everyone to turn a blind eye until things calmed down and order was restored. There was a period of about 6-12 months where a lot of revenge took place and everyone knew that if they were going to get their revenge, they had to do it quickly before the legal system was enforced properly again.
 
It’s typical of Capitalist governments to want to kill their “loyal subjects” - a proper socialist society would rehabilitate and treat all those that Capitalists would murder.

MsG
How exactly do you go about "rehabilitating" the likes of Ian Huntley, Rose West, Robert Black or this example

Arthur Hutchinson (murderer) - Wikipedia

Why should working class tax payers have to shell out for bed and board for these types?
 
whereas my argument being that when you deliberately stop acting like a civilised person, your lose your Human rights.
My argument is that human rights law should not be written for civilised persons, but rather with the lowest of the low in mind. That it should decree the minimal rights accorded to the lowest, and thus to all, just for being a human
 
Do we have a summary of the reasons for and against the death penalty here yet?

I note that ¨the chance to rehabilitate if they are still alive¨ is a common one, getting the conviction wrong is another.

Those are both problems that can be solved while still bringing the death penalty back.

Example: A psychopathic serial killer cannot be rehabilitated and they often admit to their crimes anyway. Why keep them alive?

In a tribal society, we would just banish or kill off the worst of convicted offenders and this has three main advantages,
1- it removes them from the gene pool which we can probably agree is a good thing and
2- we never have to risk having them in our society again.
3- The money saved from housing and feeding a prisoner for 30 years can be spent on rehabilitating those who can actually be turned back onto the right path and an overall improvement in conditions for them too.

We would just need to figure out a system that cannot be abused by politics and remains independent from the whims of partisan politics and certain growing religions. This is the toughest problem to handle. It would have to be a foolproof system so that it could not be abused by say a Far Left government or say in 50 years time by a religiously motivated government.

I don't expect the death penalty to be a deterrent, life imprisonment is not a deterrent either so that argument cancels itself out.

The farming out of prison services to private industry also complicates this and I would expect them to object, strenuously to any reduction of potential revenue.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top