DanBettin
-
Posts
300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by DanBettin
-
-
10 minutes ago, figgy said:
DanBettin you keep banging on about American laws or components of we want over here. No, non of us as far as im reading want any of the American system of appeal after appeal. All we want is our UK death penalty bringing back, the sentance of judicial punishment as it was in this country not all that long ago.
It would save an awful lot of money and free up places in prisons so other crimes get the jail time they should instead of being let off due to no space.
8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:I tried that, it didn't work.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Gordon R said:
Very honest of you to own up. Do your "facts" include the cost of running trials for murderers who murder again? I think not.
Spot the very slight change.
You post so much drivel, it is hard to know where to start. Your grounds for no death penalty are now firmly based on economics. If I thought the death penalty would save more lives, then blow the cost. Perhaps we could make some savings on overseas aid, MPs' expenses or whatever.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Dougy said:
Yes but it can be done with a total cost of i'd say 100rupees, thats about £1.
So no real need to read the break down of managerial costs and admin fees.
Or would you rather just put them in a corner and tell them off.
Sorry but thats the very reason that the worlds in the state that its in now, so many doo gooders that say that punishment is too harsh.Im sorry but i dont wear rose tinted glasses.
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?
-
6 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:
Who? You're the only person that has mentioned the USA Law.
People are saying that Britain should bring back the death penalty for certain crimes when proof is 100%. Britain had the death penalty way before Europeans stepped foot in the Americas.
Supposing you don't want to mimic the death penalty that the USA have, what do you propose?
-
Just now, Dougy said:
Don't understand the logic in saying that the death penalty doesn't save money.
What's the cost ?
Against feeding and sheltering a person that's raped a child that is as innocent as they can be, to then just toss them aside like a piece of rubbish..
Did you read the studies I posted? Or even google it? Or are you asking rhetorically?
-
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:
Thats because youve contradicted nearly everything youve said.
ok
-
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:
Your definition of 'emotionally driven opinion' is most definitely not the same as mine.
And even if there was emotion involved, so ?You compared American execution costs, with British prison costs !
I would if I was you, youre not making a lot of sense.
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.
-
Just now, Harry136 said:
Just think what the majority of crimes people are locked up for. The death penalty has a 100% no re-offending rate! The sooner we ditch the ECHR the better! I feel that the following crimes are worthy of the death penalty:-
Rape of a child under 10
Multiple rapes
Drug dealing
Drug mules
Burglary
Murder (more than 1 person)
Treason
Terrorism
I think I might have to give up with this conversation
-
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:
Its not emotionally driven, and I still dont think it heated.
It just seems like a more common sense approach to me.
There is massive public resentment to the way laws and sentencing are applied in this country, this leads to a loss of faith in the practice of law and its implementation .
This is not a good place to be.Like I say, put it to a referendum and see what happens ?
Highly unlikely scenario, because they know what the result will be .When 'the modern day measures' have lost the faith and support of the public, something has to change, if a step backwards is needed ,then so be it.
This liberal society has made us weak willed."I don't care...it's better...imagine...seems to me...this is not a good place to be". All opinion.
1 minute ago, figgy said:How can it possibly cost more to execute someone than keep them in prison ?
Not once did i say bring the American system here. Bringing the death penalty back to the UK has nothing to do with America.
Way i and hope India look at is this, go to court found guilty 100% lead out of court either beheaded hanged or shot. cost very little. Body given to organ donation first for donors and then medical science.
I posted the answer to that half an hour ago!? Lot of ignorance in here.
-
2 minutes ago, Harry136 said:
Dan, the costs you have quoted for the death penalty are for the USA. In Britain, when we used to hang people, they got 90 days in the cells, 1 appeal to the Home Secretary then got strung up, so its not that expensive!
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Some parts of it maybe, self defence laws in particular, but thats not the point, its never going to happen like that.
I dont care if it costs twice as much to execute someone, than keep them in prison.
Its better for the victims families, its a better deterrent, and its better for the general public to see justice being done.Put the death penalty to a referendum if they dare !
Imagine knowing the man who raped and murdered your child laughing and joking with other like minded sickos, while you have a life sentence trying to put what he did out your mind, me ,Id sleep a whole lot better knowing he was dead.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Those studies are from American law, a completely different system of justice and execution ?
So you support the death penalty ? If we can prove it 100 %?
I dont see what your argument is then.And trust me ,this argument is in no way heated yet
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:
The "facts" cited above are mainly just opinion. The opinion that prisoners cost more when they are dead, than serving a 30 year sentence is just silly. No doubt someone will start talking about appeal costs, but it's like the Remain campaign - some do not want to face the truth - they still trot out the "what if" argument. Wait any longer and someone will utter the classic line "Think of the children".
I favour the death penalty for murder, but people keep bringing up past mistakes. I would only be in favour in cases which were 100% watertight. For those who still say mistakes could be made - based on that premise, there would be no prisoners in jail at all.
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.
6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:+1
Its not about money ,its about trying to stop people doing it in the first place !
If a deterrent works 1 % of the time ,is it not worth it ?
And before you , or anyone else says 'mistakes have been made' Yes 60 + years ago , when forensic technology was nothing like what we have now.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.
-
13 minutes ago, webber said:
In basic principle not a problem, but best to give me a call on 07785995526 to discuss a couple of points.
webber
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
-
2 minutes ago, Zapp said:
There is going off at a tangent and going round and round in ever more meaningless circles. This has been doing the latter for some time to the detriment of the original discussion.
So? Shouldn't you let a discussion evolve? It's a discussion board. Not all threads are sensible and stay on topic.
-
32 minutes ago, Zapp said:
Let's not derail this any further please. If people want a debate about conspiracies etc please start your own thread.
why? can threads not go off on a tangent?
-
1 minute ago, Hamster said:
See above post ^^
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".
-
16 minutes ago, Hamster said:
On the contrary, just needs one to spot the bleeding obvious.
Is it vegans? I can't stand vegans.
-
2 minutes ago, Hamster said:
Firstly I'd like to unreservedly apologise if I gave you the impression it mattered to me whether you take me seriously or not. Secondly perhaps some things are better left unsaid as there is overwhelming evidence in any case as to what or whom could be benefitting from demonising Russia. FWIW - no I don't think the British were behind the military grade malarky, the thought is something of a flattery to think they alone could pull such a thing unaided (or rather, uninstructed
) they are of course by definition complicit though because at the highest levels of intelligence (not the same thing as government) it's quite inconceivable that they don't know who it/they actually was/were.
The Empires agenda's are being disrupted something chronic, people and even the deep state do erratic, deranged things at times of desperation, war is almost always started by false flags.
Is it top secret?
India got it right
in Off Topic
Posted
What did we used to have? And how does that fit in to modern-day legislation?