- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Hanging would be a good start..
I little awkward if someone is later found to be innocent though, wouldn't you say?
Hanging would be a good start..
I little awkward if someone is later found to be innocent though, wouldn't you say?
It really boils down to this:
You believe that it is acceptable, given certain circumstances, to kill people.
I don't.
.
Are you then, an atheist?
i am, but how is that relevant to the discussion?
Steve.
There's another word for atheism. ...cowardice.
......I suppose the point is should Jury's decide with their Heart, or minds?
Killing prisoners who no longer present an ongoing threat is morally equivalent to murder, in my opinion.
In that case, I don't really care too much, and personally who cares what way the ship was steering at the time, it remained a threat unless it was sat on the sea bed, or holed up in port.
What I meant by an "ongoing" threat was someone who is actively engaged at that moment in time in seriously life-threatening behaviour. A Michael Ryan type of situation, for example.even if they would present an ongoing threat when released ? and for that matter present an ongoing threat to fellow prisoners, guards, and other prison workers in the meantime ?
Okay. "Morally equivalent to murder". I thought I'd made that clear in the original post you quoted. And I don't see how police shootings or war would apply to my position anyway, given that I explicitly said killing to stop immediate threats to life was morally defensible.Its not murder if its done within the law - if it was all warfare would be murder, and every police involved shooting.
To my mind execution is a perfectly reasonable final sanction for paedophiles, terrorists, rapists, and murderers - not in every case of course, but judges have leeway when sentencing anyway.
even if they would present an ongoing threat when released ? and for that matter present an ongoing threat to fellow prisoners, guards, and other prison workers in the meantime ?
I don't like the idea of whole life tariffs. Who can say what anyone will be like in 20, 30, 40,... years time?If someone represents a ongoing threat, then they would not be released as their parole would be refused. The most dangerous prisoners (in the UK) are given a whole life term which means they will never be released.
Its not murder if its done within the law - if it was all warfare would be murder, and every police involved shooting.
To my mind execution is a perfectly reasonable final sanction for paedophiles, terrorists, rapists, and murderers - not in every case of course, but judges have leeway when sentencing anyway.
I don't like the idea of whole life tariffs. Who can say what anyone will be like in 20, 30, 40,... years time?
I prefer the idea of indefinite sentences, up to and including whole life if necessary, for those accused of the most heinous crimes.
Not fundamentally, no. As I've said before, after a certain point and in certain cases you're just exercising pointless retribution to satisfy people's vindictiveness.You don't think that there are some crimes so reprehensible, that the perpetrator deserves to never be free again?
Not fundamentally, no. As I've said before, after a certain point and in certain cases you're just exercising pointless retribution to satisfy people's vindictiveness.
If someone can be released and be of some, even slight, utility to society I don't see the point of keeping them banged up for something horrible they did thirty yeara ago.
However, I have nothing against people spending their whole lives in prison if that's necessary to protect the public.
I don't like the idea of whole life tariffs. Who can say what anyone will be like in 20, 30, 40,... years time?
I prefer the idea of indefinite sentences, up to and including whole life if necessary, for those accused of the most heinous crimes.
Again, not fundamentally, no. It might be the case that they remain dangerous for the rest of their life, in which case they should remain in prison. Or they may overcome whatever personal demons led them to commit such an atrocious act and they may become useful and productive in any number of ways. In the latter case would we not just be keeping them in prison out of a mixture of spite and our inability to master our own disgust? And we as a society are more civilised and mature for forgiving them.You don't think then, that someone who, for instance, rapes and sodomises a baby is not already past being of any use to society?
The answer to that isn't to treat prisoners more harshly, it's to treat the poor better. And if you think prisoners live in "luxury", you don't know what you're talking about.The one thing that always sticks in my mind was talking to and elderly lady who had been badly beaten a robbed.
She felt very bitter about the fact that although the guilty parties were now imprison, they would be enjoying a full 3 course christmas
dinner in a nice warm prison.
She on the other hand could only afford to heat one room on her pension and would be having a small basic meal as once again she
couldn't afford anything else.
Before everyone jumps in and states the obvious, she had no living relatives to help her out and most of her friends were in the same position.
How can keeping prisoners in luxury with all the extra they want be a punishment, when they get out they will have to survive on what
they get, probably from the state (us) so why not keep them to those basic standards inside.
Seems fundamentally wrong to me that they get a better standard of living then their victims, many of whom will never recover from what
they have suffered
Again, not fundamentally, no. It might be the case that they remain dangerous for the rest of their life, in which case they should remain in prison. Or they may overcome whatever personal demons led them to commit such an atrocious act and they may become useful and productive in any number of ways. In the latter case would we not just be keeping them in prison out of a mixture of spite and our inability to master our own disgust? And we as a society are more civilised and mature for forgiving them.
I'm an atheist. But I do feel there's a lot to be said for the Christian principle of forgiving even the worst among us.
keeping prisoners in luxury with all the extra they want be a punishment
No. I'm saying defending the rights of the offender and defending the rights of the victim are not mutually exclusive.So let me get this straight Ghoti & Applemint, what you are both saying is the rights of the offender are far more important then the effect they have had
on someone and possibly ruined the rest of their lives ?
Who said I wouldn't give a thought to the child in question? That's your own projection.People like you truly scare me.
You would rather look after the future of a child rapist than give a single thought to the child in question.
I'm not talking about keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives Out of spite or revenge. I'm suggesting that some....very few, but some, crimes are so sick. ..so inhuman...that the perpetrator should spend the rest of their days in prison.
Overcome their demons? You're dangerous in your own right.
They should make their decision based on the cold hard facts presented to them, and if they can't decide what is fact then that qualifies as reasonable doubt and they must either aquit or declare their individual inability to the judge. Gut feeling and suspicion have no place in jury service.
"Paedophile" has no meaning in law. The relevant legislation doesn't mention the word.So what makes someone a pedophile? The age thing is simply a convention here, which has been written into law. I'm not defending it, just pointing out that there's more than to your point than a simple he/she's under 16, the other party is a pedophile.