DanBettin

What did we used to have? And how does that fit in to modern-day legislation?

Well I've asked a few times now to be clear on what exactly it is you propose then so I can understand what I'm missing? The only person that got back to me was Dougy with his poundland idea. I was merely using the USA as an example since it's the most relevant.

Again, missed the point entirely. I'm not for the death penalty at all, but I don't think it's too harsh a punishment. Are you implying the two statements are contradicting? They're absolutely not. Do your "facts" include the cost of running trials for murderers who murder again? I think not. Ok - maybe it's a deterrent, show me the proof. I shown you a study before that proposed it wasn't. Why is nobody else here talking about studies, evidence, facts and figures? If it's just an emotional indulgence into how bad we'd like to punish scumbags then let me know and I'll give the conversation a miss.

You think you can implement the death penalty and all fees surrounding it with a budget of £1 per case? Why is it either what you've said, or put them in a corner and tell them off? Who'd want to do that? You're being silly. I don't think the death penalty is too harsh at all, I don't wear rose tinted glasses either, I think if it were cost effective and the conviction is made with 100% certainty the death penalty is the right measure to take. Have you read any of what I've said at all?

Supposing you don't want to mimic the death penalty that the USA have, what do you propose?

Did you read the studies I posted? Or even google it? Or are you asking rhetorically?

ok

I think you've missed the point of nearly everything I've said. EDIT: I'll go over it, again! "Your definition of 'emotionally driven opinion' is most definitely not the same as mine. And even if there was emotion involved, so ?" I did say, I totally understand emotion coming into play, the answer to 'so' is that it can't determine whether a law is right or not. It's far too subjective. You compared American execution costs, with British prison costs ! People in this thread would like to bring a component of American law over to Britain, I'm doing what most would deem common sense. I would if I was you, youre not making a lot of sense. I haven't been inconsistent whatsoever, and very little of what I've said is opinion.

I think I might have to give up with this conversation

"I don't care...it's better...imagine...seems to me...this is not a good place to be". All opinion. I posted the answer to that half an hour ago!? Lot of ignorance in here.

Don't shoot the messenger, the studies show the modern-day death penalty is not as cost-effective as is being argued here. If you want to ditch the modern-day measures and go back to stringing people up that's a different argument, I think it's a massive step-backwards, but that is just my opinion.

Well your response there is emotionally-driven opinion, and I totally get that - but it's not enough to draw up a law, as I've said before. And I don't want to get into a heated debate of opinion (none of the facts I've cited are opinion). Not least because zapp will probably police it and close the thread...again. And you may not care if it costs twice as much, but I was only addressing the OP's claim that it wouldn't.

If there were a case were, somehow, the conviction was made with 100% certainty, and the death penalty was cheaper, I believe the ruling should be the death penalty. I'm not coming at this from a moral perspective. The real issue is the certainty of the conviction and the cost-effectiveness of the death penalty. Forensic evidence, mostly, tackles the first point - but not entirely. The cost-effectiveness of the death penalty we're yet to see evidence for. And yes, absolutely - a completely different system of justice and execution, but one that you'd like to see implemented here - so what a perfect example to look at.

What were the opinions? The purpose of a study is that it's a peer-reviewed report of facts, actually click the link and read. And are you not an advocate of learning from mistakes? Also, let's assume a case is "100% watertight, and the death penalty was cheaper, I would 100% back the death penalty. That's not the case. It wasn't me who brought up money, the OP said it's cheaper, it's simply not. I believe studies more than I believe a heated PW post. With regard to a deterrent, you make a more valid point - but no, it's not an effective deterrent. https://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-that-death-penalty-is-a-deterrent-against-crime-43227 --------- Let me just reiterate this, because I think it's important: Assuming we had 100% certainty the accused were guilty, and we had evidence that the death penalty was cheaper, I would 100% back the death penalty.

I feel like this is one of those threads that could develop into a full-blown debate. I'll leave my 2 cents here. I'm not for the death penalty, at all. First and foremost, people have been wrongly convicted and put to death because of it. That's a fact. One of the most common arguments is the notion that it saves money, and people are VERY quick to jump to this conclusion without knowing the facts. Studies that effortlessly debunk the idea that the death penalty is a money-saver: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty The UK government also release stats regularly on costs per prisoner per year: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-performance-statistics-2016-to-2017 so you can do the math and see it's not effective to simply kill off pedos and save money. That's not how it works at all. These people charged with these offences are simply scumbags, I couldn't care about them whatsoever, but if you want to talk hard facts with regard to financials, they shouldn't be put to death. If it's more an emotional thing, which is understandable, I'd argue it's not sound basis for legislation. So I massively disagree, India didn't get it right.

So I see the thread regarding Syria has closed because of 'name calling' by Zapp, who also threatened to close another related thread because it went 'off topic'. I'm not asking rhetorically - genuine question, are there rules somewhere outlining what exactly we're allowed to talk about and how? Or is it down to the discretion of moderators to put an end to discussion on a discussion board? Shame if so, it's otherwise a brilliant forum with loads of help available - and this is an 'off' topic' area after all.

Envy anyone who managed to attend this, sounds like a great event. I don't think I'm at a level I could perform well at anyway, for now, but I have my sights set on next year. Congrats to all of you, haven't seen a bad score posted in this thread yet, done very well.

No problem, will do. Only a 'maybe' for now, anyway. I'll definitely be there, my guests are known to be flakey.

Quick one mate - I may bring a guest who doesn't have an SGC - is that OK? Or would they need a safety briefing etc. beforehand? I don't know many grounds that do require this, but I know a few - so thought it was worth checking.

See you on Sunday

So? Shouldn't you let a discussion evolve? It's a discussion board. Not all threads are sensible and stay on topic.

why? can threads not go off on a tangent?

Entirely pointless exercise to elude to something you're not happy to be clear about mid-discussion. It's on par with "I've got something to tell you but I can't".

Is it vegans? I can't stand vegans.

Is it top secret?