death penalty

[kingo15]

In the case of lee rigbys killers yes then there is 100% every reason for them to get the death penalty. Plus if the figure to keep them alive for 1.6 million pounds. Then im sure we can all think of better places that can be spent. Esp in the armed forces. I am with the yes bring it back for the most horrific crimes and with unreasonable doubt.

But lets face it Brussels will never allow it and we must obey them

[islandgun]

I really believe that death is to good for Lee Rigby's killers as i said earlier their stay should be very unpleasant and very long

[955i]

I understand what you are saying but you can't have a little,it has to be all in or all out,the morality side is another argument,this is quite simply is the death sentence 100% fool proof,and unfortunately it is no,so you cannot justify it.

Nothing is 100% foolproof so sometimes you have to decide on an acceptable margin of error.

 

As a point, and not trying to be disparaging, you have been in the military and would have been willing to (or maybe have) take someone's life for no reason other than they disagreed with this countries ideals.

 

I would say that not 100% is as justified.

[Kes]

I understand what you are saying but you can't have a little,it has to be all in or all out,the morality side is another argument,this is quite simply is the death sentence 100% fool proof,and unfortunately it is no,so you cannot justify it.

If it is 100% foolproof as a precondition then I feel I can, we have seen a number of absolute guilty's recently.

If ANY doubt exists then life (with hard labour and no reconsideration of sentence /appeal).

 

I feel the tide should turn to the benefit of the victims relatives - if they say yes or no - then I'd happily go with their choice.

[welsh1]

 

Yes at my expense, and other tax payers, I do not want to pay to keep murderers, rapists, pedo's in cushy hotels, I want anyone like those pieces of scum that slaughtered Lee Rigby to go in a furnace and turned to carbon and smoke. My taxes are paying to keep huntley, brady and that peroxide bitch (before she did the decent thing and croaked) in far better accommodation then a lot of ex serving military people, nurses, police, honest people can afford, I am sick of listening to soft tree hugging lefties preaching about human rights, sod that, hang them, shoot them , burn them, do what ever, just get rid of them, they stopped having human rights when they murdered, raped and ******** children.

This thread always goes the same way,if you go down the execution route you will eventually execute the wrong person,and it is unacceptable that an innocent person should die.

No matter how the daily fail portrays prison it is not a holiday, people do not pop out to the pub or order a Chinese takeaway or have a girlfriend or just walk in the park,go shopping etc they are stuck in a monotonous regime where they have no say and no control over any aspect of their life,let them have 40 years to live in an area the size of a football pitch and slowly go insane knowing that everything they do is the decision of someone else.

 

 

 

In the case of lee rigbys killers yes then there is 100% every reason for them to get the death penalty. Plus if the figure to keep them alive for 1.6 million pounds. Then im sure we can all think of better places that can be spent. Esp in the armed forces. I am with the yes bring it back for the most horrific crimes and with unreasonable doubt.

But lets face it Brussels will never allow it and we must obey them

100% right 100% of the time,can you guarantee it?

[Westley]

Its going to cost £1.6m EACH to keep Lee Rigbys killers in prison. There's no doubt they were guilty. So why not execute them. But if I was told I was to be executed id want to pick how I was to die. I'm scared of needles and hate electric shocks!!

 

If we execute them, that is it.......job done. Problem is there will be some rather miffed Legal Representatives who would lose out financially on the string of appeals which doubtless will now follow, all at no cost to the already convicted Defendants.

[four-wheel-drive]

The problem with hanging people is the real nasty people who should be hung will fain that they are mentally ill and will still end up in broudmore and people who just panic and shoot someone would be hung then you have the innocent people who are perhaps a bit simple and cannot take all of the police constant questioning and say that they did it just to make them stop.

[chipper]

YES.

[welsh1]

Nothing is 100% foolproof so sometimes you have to decide on an acceptable margin of error.

 

As a point, and not trying to be disparaging, you have been in the military and would have been willing to (or maybe have) take someone's life for no reason other than they disagreed with this countries ideals.

 

I would say that not 100% is as justified.

you are correct i was in the military,if someone is trying to kill you on a battle field then you will engage within the rules of engagement,you do not randomly shoot people no matter who is ordering you.

 

As has recently been seen if you decide to act outside the rules of engagement and all the conventions of war then you will be tried and sentenced(10 years),every thing a soldier does in a theatre of war has to be 100% justified.

 

 

When an innocent life is the margin of error,i do not accept that is justified margin of error.

[FalconFN]

 

If we execute them, that is it.......job done. Problem is there will be some rather miffed Legal Representatives who would lose out financially on the string of appeals which doubtless will now follow, all at no cost to the already convicted Defendants.

Erm, that's exacty what would happen if we had the death penalty, take a look at death row in the states, people spend decades going through every legal avenue.

[overandunder2012]

 

If we execute them, that is it.......job done. Problem is there will be some rather miffed Legal Representatives who would lose out financially on the string of appeals which doubtless will now follow, all at no cost to the already convicted Defendants.

in the usa it costs more in legal costs to execute a man than it costs to jail him for life

[955i]

you are correct i was in the military,if someone is trying to kill you on a battle field then you will engage within the rules of engagement,you do not randomly shoot people no matter who is ordering you.

 

As has recently been seen if you decide to act outside the rules of engagement and all the conventions of war then you will be tried and sentenced(10 years),every thing a soldier does in a theatre of war has to be 100% justified.

 

 

When an innocent life is the margin of error,i do not accept that is justified margin of error.

That was my point, most men on the battlefield have not committed a crime, many of them may have been forced into it by the regime they live under, and the only reason it is happening is that their country disagrees with ours.

 

Many innocent men die on both sides but it seems to be OK if its politically motivated.

 

I don't really see the difference in thousands dying over an huge error in judgement (which is what most conflicts boil down to) and taking the risk of a 90% certainty on an individual

 

EDIT: I know this may seem like an odd comparison, but it is how it occurs to me

Edited February 26, 2014 by 955i

[overandunder2012]

That was my point, most men on the battlefield have not committed a crime, many of them may have been forced into it by the regime they live under, and the only reason it is happening is that their country disagrees with ours.

 

Many innocent men die on both sides but it seems to be OK if its politically motivated.

 

I don't really see the difference in thousands dying over an huge error in judgement (which is what most conflicts boil down to) and taking the risk of a 90% certainty on an individual

what if the innocent man is you would you be so keen?

[FalconFN]

I feel the tide should turn to the benefit of the victims relatives - if they say yes or no - then I'd happily go with their choice.

I do agree that families are often sidelined and ignored in the legal process which is wrong but would that sort of choice not put a huge burden on the victim's family? It could leave them with a life-long burden that they either have the death of someone else on their hands too, or they allowed someone the hate to live. Or worse, they change their mind years later and can't live with the guilt.

[955i]

what if the innocent man is you would you be so keen?

Of course not, but how many false convictions do you hear of these days compared to the total number of convictions?

 

I would imagine that the margin of error is somewhere around 0.01% if not less

[welsh1]

That was my point, most men on the battlefield have not committed a crime, many of them may have been forced into it by the regime they live under, and the only reason it is happening is that their country disagrees with ours.

 

Many innocent men die on both sides but it seems to be OK if its politically motivated.

 

I don't really see the difference in thousands dying over an huge error in judgement (which is what most conflicts boil down to) and taking the risk of a 90% certainty on an individual

But you are talking totally different scenarios that cannot be compared,soldiers have rules laid out to which both sides(should)adhere to,and they are a last resort after all other options have failed.

 

To compare the military to a nutter who wakes up one day and decides to randomly murder an innocent person with no warning or thought for that person is way out of the park.

[Balian]

Yea, an eye for an eye..simples.

[955i]

But you are talking totally different scenarios that cannot be compared,soldiers have rules laid out to which both sides(should)adhere to,and they are a last resort after all other options have failed.

 

To compare the military to a nutter who wakes up one day and decides to randomly murder an innocent person with no warning or thought for that person is way out of the park.

So there you have it, a nutter has woken up and decided to kill someone. 100%. Death penalty justified.

 

And I am not comparing the military to nutters, I am asking what is the difference between one innocent man and thousands.

 

You can't justify one and not the other.

 

Half the time the wars we are involved in are none of our business except for the possibility of financial gain for governments.

Edited February 26, 2014 by 955i

[welsh1]

So there you have it, a nutter has woken up and decided to kill someone. 100%. Death penalty justified.

 

And I am not comparing the military to nutters, I am asking what is the difference between one innocent man and thousands.

 

You can't justify one and not the other.

 

Half the time the wars we are involved in are none of our business except for the possibility of financial gain for governments.

I am sorry but if you cannot comprehend between military forces and the directive they operate under,and a random killer,then i cannot see how we can debate this point any longer.

[Gimlet]

 

 

Is prison there to correct, punish or protect our citizens?

 

All three.

And I agree, death is a poor punishment. Its the shortest sentence you can get.

And apart from the miscarriages of justice which are an inevitability when you have trial by media as we do, I cannot stomach the thought of the state awarding itself power of life and death over its citizens, which is what it amounts to, jury or no.

[digger]

I have just finished a book by an ex vietnam vet about the act of killing. Very good and informative read ( Im not odd, I have a general interest in WW2 and found it in a charity shop).

His view was the act of killing is broken down into three basic forms -

1. Actionary - the response to a real not percieved threat. As in a soldier being fired upon. Rarely murder, usually manslaughter in civillian life.

2. Pre meditated - snipers etc into which murderers fall

3. Reactionary -anger at past events ( seeing a mate killed ) which can lead to group escalation. Also covers murder specifically.

[islandgun]

I do agree that families are often sidelined and ignored in the legal process which is wrong but would that sort of choice not put a huge burden on the victim's family? It could leave them with a life-long burden that they either have the death of someone else on their hands too, or they allowed someone the hate to live. Or worse, they change their mind years later and can't live with the guilt.

absolutely , my first reaction was as Kes pointed out its the families choice, then after consideration i came to the same conclusion as above except Falcon FN put it better than I could.

[955i]

I am sorry but if you cannot comprehend between military forces and the directive they operate under,and a random killer,then i cannot see how we can debate this point any longer.

Yes I can, but my point is how can a country justify the death of a 100% innocent man in the forces (whichever side and whichever country) over a false idea, but rail against the death of an individual when there is a 99.9% certainty that they did the crime?

 

It is hypocrisy.

 

I am not saying anything about the military, rules of engagement etc

 

I am looking at how a government will allow thousands of innocent deaths in a pointless war but will not take the hard line in their own garden because of human rights

[markbjones01]

Prison cells and prisoners get better accommodation and food than i do in the Army, its pathetic really

 

They do not !! have you ever been to a prison?

[mossy835]

i say bring it back, but being a nanny state we wont, there are two many do gooders out there.