Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The death penalty is an interesting issue, in that it is generally held by all sides in the debate that if a free vote were to be given to the population, there would be overwhelming support for it. The political system could therefore be accused of being undemocratic at the very root of the system...!
If the idea of overwhelming support is correct, (I don't know for sure but The Oracle says otherwise,) the lack of a free vote is because the politicians know the general public are far too stupid to understand the complexities of the situation.

This theory is proven by looking at the buffoons the general public vote in as politicians - unfortunately that's where the theory undermines itself.
 
The progressive movement wanted to modernise britain and this was one of those ways to do it.

Would have been a lot more difficult if we hadn't used the testimony of a serial killer to hang an innocent man....

Among those bedwetterpinkocommiedegenerates who pushed for abolition... Enoch Powell
 
Media not political? are you sure about that?
Quite, they may make political comment and align themselves to a political party, but they don’t make political decisions (just influence them).

I guess it’s who you are defining political.
 
You made the assertion, you prove it - beyond all reasonable doubt.
The fact that it has never been put to the public or adopted as a party policy is sufficent proof of my assertion...

Like the dog barking in the night....!
 
The fact that it has never been put to the public or adopted as a party policy is sufficent proof of my assertion...

Like the dog barking in the night....!
Just an assumption then.

Would you like a referendum for everything? Or shall we just let the MPs get on with what they are supposed to do? (Even if that is badly).
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
...shall we just let the MPs get on with what they are supposed to do? (Even if that is badly).
Stealing and bitching ?

Apologies, you said what they're supposed to do.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Exactly, I wasn't trying to have a pop at dingerr, merely draw attention to my own moral view and compare it with others and find myself in agreement with regards the death penalty, but, seriously at odds, with what happens after the abolition.

There could be something like: manslaughter, Murder by Instance (to signify some discretion) and outright 'murder', of which their is no tariff for the final category.
Thing is, every case is different, yet the law must apply to all. The judge is the only one who has access to all the facts and all the pertaining law. Everybody else is merely passing opinion.

Again, I've no idea where I'm going with this, if anywhere and am responding out of politeness.
 
Quite, they may make political comment and align themselves to a political party, but they don’t make political decisions (just influence them).

I guess it’s who you are defining political.
I think it's clear what you mean, not imbued with or exercising legislative or executive authority. I agree that's accurate.
 
Stealing and bitching ?

Apologies, you said what they're supposed to do.
We are all of the opinion they are pretty shit, but look at the fiasco when the population is invited to do their job for them.

There needs to be a Referendum Act that does not allow Referendums, it needs to be entrenched by requiring a referendum to repeal it.
 
We are all of the opinion they are pretty shit, but look at the fiasco when the population is invited to do their job for them.

There needs to be a Referendum Act that does not allow Referendums, it needs to be entrenched by requiring a referendum to repeal it.
It's arguable that the fiasco is down to the politico's prioritising personal political advancement ahead of the national interest, rather than the result of an advisory plebiscite...
 
Thing is, every case is different, yet the law must apply to all. The judge is the only one who has access to all the facts and all the pertaining law. Everybody else is merely passing opinion.

Again, I've no idea where I'm going with this, if anywhere and am responding out of politeness.
What judge ? the one who passes sentence and then 15+ years after the fact, the murderer can be released. If the system wanted to avoid trampling all over the memories of a victim, it should be open and legal with an adversary who argues they should stay in the clink.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
What judge ? the one who passes sentence and then 15+ years after the fact, the murderer can be released. If the system wanted to avoid trampling all over the memories of a victim, it should be open and legal with an adversary who argues they should stay in the clink.
Yes, of course, these judges, advocates and policy makers clearly never considered any of this and know nothing of the law, justice or criminality.

You should go to them with your moral compass and years of legal and social attitudes training and put this all right.
 
I´m not sure I understand your point of view but I thought it was pretty obvious that executing innocent people is problematic and something to be avoided.

The reason that we must ensure that there are no mistakes made in convicting and sentencing people is that after killing them, you cant then apologise and resurrect with a quick pay off and a ¨sorry about that old chap, the police stitched you up and the DNA evidence was flawed¨.

Accept what for suspects who are not guilty?
You are displaying a cognitive bias, in judging a decision based on outcome, rather than the decision-making process itself. Observation, not criticism.

Nothing is absolute or foolproof. There will never be a time when there is no possibility of a mistake, which means that, were decisions made only on guaranteed outcome, it would become impossible to make a decision.

I'm going to yet again bring in the case of the justifiable killing of the Brazilian electrician. Because it pertains.

I've yet to see a condemnation of the decision to kill him on ARRSE. Yet he was an innocent man, never even charged with anything. And nobody has given answer to my question - 'If the decision to kill him had not been taken, and his subsequent innocence been established, should the decision-maker concerned be criticised for not killing him, when she had the chance to do so?' For it's been argued that she had a duty to make the decision to kill, given the info that she had at the time.

Now, if the mistake is justifiable, or allowable, in this specific case, why not for judicial killing of those found guilty of capital offences, regardless of the possibility of mistakes?

I'd be interested to know how people hold two disparate views at the same time as, when I had a better cognitive process, I tried to make my moral thinking coherent and consistent across scenarios, when trying to find out what my opinion on any issue was.
 
I'm going to yet again bring in the case of the justifiable killing of the Brazilian electrician. Because it pertains.
No it doesn’t, de menezes was killed in a legal security operation and not as a result of the justice system.

There is an extensive thread on de menezes.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top