Posted by Splatfly on Thursday, 08 March 2007 23:20:04

First of all I don't see how someone who brutally murders someone can be called brave, I believe that that is a mistake in your typing.

Liberal thinkers are the most intelligent thinker that you can get, liberals can think about both sides of the argument fairly, which is very different to the labour and conservative bias for which ever solution gets them the most money without any thought for facts or public interest.

I assume from what you have wrote that the murderer had been dealt with by the police for urinating, before going to murder the poor gentleman. If that is the case then that is completely unacceptable, revenge is intolerable and so is premeditated murder. I agree with you, when proven without doubt , premeditated murder especially as a revenge attack, should be punished with death.

Posted by Graham on Friday, 09 March 2007 01:31:24

Dear MrBlueSky:

Keep taking the tablets.

Oh, and shut up if you disagree.

Cheers,
Graham.

Posted by JustAStudent on Friday, 09 March 2007 01:47:46

The mindset which calls for the premeditated killing of human beings to be sanctioned and carried out by the state is closer to the mindset of the murderer than any other.

These are people actively advocating the extinguishing of life, calling for acts of death and horror, and yet their tone is of one taking the moral high ground. Murder is wrong, and is perpetrated by those with a sick mind and an indifference to human life.

However in no way is it justifiable for the state to act in the same sickening manner by capturing people, holding them in a room for a few years and then taking them out to be executed in cold blood. And this purely to satiate the devilish braying of those who feel they hold such great moral superiority that they can deal out death according to their whims.

Nobody can see all ends, nobody can preordain the path that the future will take, and therefore nobody can see all the consequences that may come from the decision to end someones life.

Wow... How horriffic does that sound? The decision to end someone's life. That people could sit in a room and discuss cold heartedly the decision to end someone's existence who is already inprisoned and can do little further harm is so alien to me.

I can't help but think that people who are so ready to call for killing and death by bringing back execution should perhaps be a little more wary of doing so, as they seem rather closer to how a murderer may think, than a rational human being. They may end up installing their own punishment. For a start they apparently find it very easy to justify taking people's lives.

Evil is genetic, you say? Utter rot, anyone who can say that and seriously believe it is not worth listening to. I would point you to the fact that, if one goes back far enough, you likely share the same common ancesters as the people you wish to kill. How then does the genetic basis for "evil" enter the gene pool? Hmm? Random "evilness" mutations? That kind undermines your nice plan that they should be killed, since randomness seems a rather poor basis for the doling out of executions. Or is it the environmental factors? Oh, you already said that that was, and I quote, "bolloks".

Hatred doesn't solve anything, you have to be optimistic about human nature and act in a way that allows people to grow up to be well adjusted. If you can say that in 30, 40, 50 years a man cannot be rehabilitated, a man cannot change his ways, then you have a depressing view of humanity.

Also your point about nice, "cosy" cells. The punishment element of prison comprises of the restriction of liberty. Those who commit these barbaric acts are twisted people, I am not going to defend them, as they do not deserve it.


However, prison is certainly no gravy train, and many of the people in prison are there for so-called victimless crimes. They will never know their children, their wives, their families, their mothers. No hope, no opportunity, no optimism about the future. That would be soul destroying to most people without any need for them to be chained to the walls and fed gruel. In essence they are living in a hell on earth from which they will not escape for many years. Indeed, that is why people convicted of relatively minor offences end up hanging themselves before they ever become eligible for release. Spend a little time thinking about what it would actually mean to go to prison, and then you will see that you most certainly would not describe it as cosy.

Why is it not enough to simply to incarcerate them so that they do not commit more crimes? What amount of suicides and self-mutilation in custody would be agreeable, in order that you don't feel they are being treated too cosily? I implore you to think a little more about these issues before asking for executions and dungeons. If after that thought you still are of the same view, I can only suggest that you may simply be suffering from an unsavoury mind. Counselling could help you to see the importance of human life.

I would say, however, that there should be a presumption that life means life for murderers. If the individual then goes on some 30, 40, 50 years later to be considered by authorities at the prison to be a thoroughly changed person who shows great remorse for what he has done and uses every opportunity to improve life for his fellow man, and to make amends for what he has done, I would say that prison has done its job and so release would then become acceptable.

Posted by Splatfly on Friday, 09 March 2007 03:08:06

The sacrifice of an individual for the survival of the species is natural.
This does not mean that murder is ok it means that the elimination of someone who shows, even after pre-thought of the consequences, that they are content on the premeditated killing of other people with out trial or jury, only leaves us the right to protect the rest of the community by the permanent removal of that murderous, homicidal person. To give such a person the right to live when they have taken the life of someone else is just as sick as killing them and I know which solution the prison service would prefer.

Posted by Stjimmy on Friday, 09 March 2007 10:19:25

Evil is genetic although your philosphers tell you boo hoo its broken homes, broken homes I tell you and misunderstood.

Evil is not Genetic, if you took the child aged one of a mass murderer and put them on the other side of the world to grow up with a different family you think they would become a mass murderer.

Dont be so thick, and shut up if you dont agree!

Posted by CornishEurals on Friday, 09 March 2007 13:23:18

It's a pity that some people have to resort to aggression to put their point accross.

The problem with the death penalty is that mistakes can be made and guilt can be attributed to the innocent.

There are three areas that need to be considered when considering a sentence for someone who has been found guilty of a crime - PROTECT the public, PUNISH the guilty, ENSURE that it does not happen again.

So, the death penalty would satisfy the first one because it means that the public are protected from that one individual.
The death penatly also satisfies the second one because the person found guilty has been punished.
And of course that person will never be able to do it again because they would be dead.

However, I wonder how many people will be murdered in Iraq in the name of Saddam as a result of his execution?

I wonder how many people in London, possibly law enforcers, would be murdered in retaliation of a gang member being executed.

The key to this is not to neccesarily treat the guilty with kid gloves but to find another way of dealing with them other than the death penalty but at the same time satisfying the three areas mentioned above.

Prison protects the public, but only for the period of time that the people found guilty are kept inside.
Removal of freedom also acts as a punishment but even in prison individuals have freedom to take drugs, be violent to other inmates, etc.
And incarceration alone does nothing to ensure that the person found guilty won't do it again when released.

It's a bit like "THE WAR ON DRUGS". Okay, punish people for taking drugs blah blah blah. But unless we deal with the underlying causes for the drug taking/dealing then those individuals will always return to it.

So, we have to deal with the underlying causes for crime.

In 80% of all crime it's causes stem from a lack of means. Money is only what we use to get what we need/want. For most people, if you have what you need/want you won't break the law. If you have means then it is unlikely you will shop lift, if you have some kind of meaningful occupation it is unlikely you will vanadlise telephone boxes, if you are satisfied with the way your life is going then it is unlikley that you will turn to drugs.

So much money has been pumped into CCTV but this simply monitors the bad behaviour and doesn't prevent it.

We have to deal with the social structures that encourages crime or it will continue to escalate, which is what David Cameron really meant with the whole Hug a Hoodie rubbish.

The death penalty is inhumane and as a human I am totally against it, even if the person found guilty has misplaced their humanity.

Posted by Popple on Friday, 09 March 2007 15:05:02

"The death penalty is inhumane and as a human I am totally against it, even if the person found guilty has misplaced their humanity".

The death penalty is a problem and so is the killing of innocent babies in abortion!

 

Comment edited by Popple on Friday, 09 March 2007 15:07:11

Posted by CornishEurals on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:01:55

"The death penalty is a problem and so is the killing of innocent babies in abortion!"

I think that is going off the subject a little bit, but you may have a point. - Although I don't agree with it.

Using your comparison it means we should consider executing women who abort and the Doctors who carry out the operation.