What is the difference?

g hall · 08-08-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

G hall wrote:-

It is, as you said a theory – against which goes the actions of numerous tyrants and ‘ordinary’ people.

And which is the majority ?

&

Quote:

No it doesn’t. By that logic, and using Tony Bennett’s figures elsewhere, if the death penalty were carried out then 65%-80% of the UK population should be executed. How stupid is that.

What logic are you on about - is it the fact that some people are quite happy for innocent people to be executed as long as all "murderers" are executed and the fact that I suggested that they are just as bad as any other murderer - simple logic
The only thing stupid is your inability to understand a simple conclusion again

Quote:

This statement is riddled with other inaccuracies and ‘inflammatory’ statements & indirectly raises the point that I made earlier – anti-death penalty campaigners try to create a guilt complex in those in favour of the DP.
Nobody, (that I know at least), desires the execution of an ‘innocent’. That is why I suggested elsewhere an independent examination of all ‘death-penalty’ cases to minimise the risk of an ‘innocent’ being executed.

What inaccuracies ?
Aren't juries supposed to be independent ?
minimise the risk - just 1 is 1 to many especially if you are that 1

Quote:

A major factor that separates humanity (or even higher animals generally) from others is the creation of ‘societies’ to enable the majority to live meaningful lives. A consequence of that is there must be rules or ‘laws’ that everybody in that society must abide by. If an individual breaks any of those laws then some form of punishment has to be applied – otherwise what is the point of having laws.
To most people, the desire to live their lives free of violence is a major, if not the major, desire. To that end, crimes of violence, of which murder is the ultimate has to be punished the most severely.

I put it to you that there is little or no chance that many extreme murderers can ever be re-habilitated (even by claiming being ‘born-again’) &

Since humans became farmers rather then hunters society has evolved to where we are today and rather complex societies have been formed and as you state the vast majority wish to live their lives in peace and quiet
which is where the concept of law and order has come in and evolved for the good of the majority
I have always stated that the deliberate taking of another's life should have the most severe punishment and that is life imprisonment, in a cell 8ft by 8ft, minimal food and water no books or entertainment no exercise just 24/7 in a box

Quote:

I put it to you suppose your child, (female or even male), or your wife were raped (& literally ‘sh*gged to death), or violently murdered, would you be so forgiving of the perpetrator ?

Which is why we have a JUSTICE system NOT a REVENGE system

Quote:

I think not !

I couldn't have put it better myself

Quote:

PS. I see in today’s DT that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted by a group of Belgian paedophiles. If it transpires, (& I hope to God, even tho’ I’m an atheist), that she has subsequently been murdered by these people, then how should they be punished ?
Madeleine McCann 'was snatched by paedophile ring to order' - Telegraph

Make your mind up if you're an atheist then how can you appeal to God typical of your muddled thinking

As for Madeline McCann If they catch who caught her the 8ft box applies
of course if her parents had not left her and her siblings alone this would not have happened and I feel very sorry for her siblings they more then anyone else will suffer

g hall · 08-08-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

Well said Clippo! You and I are in the majority with our view's, even though the, Lilly Lib' PC Human Rights appeasers try and claim otherwise!!

Have you any facts that back up your assertion ?

kernow · 09-08-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

Have you any facts that back up your assertion ?

Just ask anybody their opinion, when they feel they're not being intimitated by the PC Human rights brigade, you'll be shocked!

Clippo · 09-08-2008, 07:50 AM

Kernow,
As you probably realise, there is a long history of bad blood between myself and g hall in debates on this forum.

He has boxed himself into such a difficult corner with the paranoia that he ‘must’ argue with anything I write – so much so that he then makes stupid & inconsistent remarks. Yet again, in this thread, he has thrown his dummy out of his pram and is having a tantrum.

For example :-

Quote:

Which is why we have a JUSTICE system NOT a REVENGE system

&

Quote:

I have always stated that the deliberate taking of another's life should have the most severe punishment and that is life imprisonment, in a cell 8ft by 8ft, minimal food and water no books or entertainment no exercise just 24/7 in a box

I fail to see how this is ‘justice’ – for anyone.

The Bear · 09-08-2008, 09:44 AM

What's so wrong with incorporating revenge for the injured party into the punishment of the guilty?

We don't let the injured party get even for himself, so on that basis we should not only punish the criminal for his breaking of the law, we should also extract revenge on behalf of the injured party that we prohibit him for talking for himself.

There are ways that it could be done, allowing an injured party or his survivors to decide on the revenge quotient of a sentence would be one so that those who are into “forgiveness” could turn down the offer whereas those who want nothing more than to see the likes of a Huntley who has butchered their kid could go for the Full Monty that was on offer.

Northumbrian · 09-08-2008, 02:23 PM

When we were uncivilised we used to execute people for all sort of crimes in all sorts of horrible ways.

When we became less uncivilised we only executed murderers, with the very humane execution of hanging, where death was administered in an instant.

When we became civilised, the death penalty was abolished, replaced with a life sentence which meant exactly that.

Now though, very few murderers receive life imprisonment. Can a society still be civilised, when the loss of an innocent life has become so cheap, when the punishment is so much less than the crime?

g hall · 10-08-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Kernow,
As you probably realise, there is a long history of bad blood between myself and g hall in debates on this forum.

As you may realise Clippo hates anyone who disses his religion based on the Rev Al Gore and the mantra AGW AGW

Quote:

He has boxed himself into such a difficult corner with the paranoia that he ‘must’ argue with anything I write

You answered me

Quote:

– so much so that he then makes stupid & inconsistent remarks. Yet again, in this thread, he has thrown his dummy out of his pram and is having a tantrum.

For example :-

Quote:

g hall
Which is why we have a JUSTICE system NOT a REVENGE system

An emphasis between the concept of revenge and justice mainly for the hard of hearing

Quote:

g hall
I have always stated that the deliberate taking of another's life should have the most severe punishment and that is life imprisonment, in a cell 8ft by 8ft, minimal food and water no books or entertainment no exercise just 24/7 in a box

I fail to see how this is ‘justice’ – for anyone.

So is state sponsored murder justice then

g hall · 10-08-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

What's so wrong with incorporating revenge for the injured party into the punishment of the guilty?

We don't let the injured party get even for himself, so on that basis we should not only punish the criminal for his breaking of the law, we should also extract revenge on behalf of the injured party that we prohibit him for talking for himself.

There are ways that it could be done, allowing an injured party or his survivors to decide on the revenge quotient of a sentence would be one so that those who are into “forgiveness” could turn down the offer whereas those who want nothing more than to see the likes of a Huntley who has butchered their kid could go for the Full Monty that was on offer.

Because JUSTICE should be impartial - that is why the figure on top the Old Bailey or Central criminal court is blindfolded

g hall · 10-08-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northumbrian

When we were uncivilised we used to execute people for all sort of crimes in all sorts of horrible ways.

It's called control

Quote:

When we became less uncivilised we only executed murderers, with the very humane execution of hanging, where death was administered in an instant.

You ever been hanged and can verify the instantaneousness of it only fairly recently with the breaking of the neck and spinal cord can it be called quicker as before it was slow strangulation and then before death a touch of drawing and quartering

Quote:

When we became civilised, the death penalty was abolished, replaced with a life sentence which meant exactly that.

Now though, very few murderers receive life imprisonment. Can a society still be civilised, when the loss of an innocent life has become so cheap, when the punishment is so much less than the crime?

Life should be life
and I'll quote myself because I can

Quote:

I have always stated that the deliberate taking of another's life should have the most severe punishment and that is life imprisonment, in a cell 8ft by 8ft, minimal food and water no books or entertainment no exercise just 24/7 in a box

g hall · 10-08-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

Just ask anybody their opinion, when they feel they're not being intimitated by the PC Human rights brigade, you'll be shocked!

Again have you any facts that support your assertion

and I doubt that I would be shocked and I wonder what the answers would be if it was explained just what state murder involved and if they could do it and the possible effect that the New Justice system could have on them and their families

09-08-2008, 09:44 AM	#15 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	What's so wrong with incorporating revenge for the injured party into the punishment of the guilty? We don't let the injured party get even for himself, so on that basis we should not only punish the criminal for his breaking of the law, we should also extract revenge on behalf of the injured party that we prohibit him for talking for himself. There are ways that it could be done, allowing an injured party or his survivors to decide on the revenge quotient of a sentence would be one so that those who are into “forgiveness” could turn down the offer whereas those who want nothing more than to see the likes of a Huntley who has butchered their kid could go for the Full Monty that was on offer. __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-08-2008, 02:23 PM	#16 (permalink)
Northumbrian Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England Posts: 1,463 Party: Free England Party	When we were uncivilised we used to execute people for all sort of crimes in all sorts of horrible ways. When we became less uncivilised we only executed murderers, with the very humane execution of hanging, where death was administered in an instant. When we became civilised, the death penalty was abolished, replaced with a life sentence which meant exactly that. Now though, very few murderers receive life imprisonment. Can a society still be civilised, when the loss of an innocent life has become so cheap, when the punishment is so much less than the crime?