India got it right

[Delwint]

I think you’ll find that’s because a couple of contributors to this post, derailed it to give their ten peneth in what has turned into winkle swinging imho 

[victorismyhero]

And India has more than one problem relating to the whole of this sad affair which will only be cured via education education and more education....

the low regard for females in many areas, the low regard for children inter faith stresses, often times primitive ideas and beleifs all these need to be adressed....It MAY be that given the circumstances adopting a death penalty IS the right solution at the moment for the situation OVER THERE,  But it wont prove as effective in the long term as an education program aimed at changing perceptions held by the men of these areas.

3 minutes ago, Delwint said:

I think you’ll find that’s because a couple of contributors to this post, derailed it to give their ten peneth in what has turned into winkle swinging imho 

is that like cockle whacking????

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, victorismyhero said:

but the discussion about the DP was, or became  "in general"

 

You do know how British law works don't you, you don't have to PROVE it, you have to demonstrate, using evidence and testimony, and present it in front of a jury, who then decide guilt, under the instruction of a judge. 

If we had 100% irrefutable proof, why would we need the jury? 

 

[Gordon R]

victorismyhero - according to you there can never be 100% proof, but you then move onto cite "solid evidence". You need to think before you post, or go back to school. This is a serious subject on whether members would support the death penalty, but one or two pedants want to split the odd hair. Logic is not their strong point and every post highlights their low intelligence.

To those who oppose the death penalty and favour life imprisonment - a lifer murders a prison guard, because he has nothing to lose - then murders another. At what point do the apologists think enough is enough?

[victorismyhero]

really?....and that demonstration of evidence is ..........

 

the jury's job is to consider whether or not your evidence that you present is sufficiently good to stand the required test of fitness of your case or not (with guidance from the judge where needed)

so yes...you DO have to "prove it"

in the middle ages it was more simply known as "evidencing" your case...

 

the word proof in this context is arguably indistinct from evidence, but common useage has given more weight to proof in that by common perception "proof" is unutterably true accurate and immutable whereas evidence is percieved as merely "facts appertaining to" a case...and may ar may not be refuteable.....this however is wrong.

 

evidence becomes proof only upon conviction on the basis of that evidence......

ie

 

I can "prove" you owe me a sum of money...well no I cant, what I may have is evidence that you owe me, perhaps in the form of a note of hand....if it goes to court that evidence will be considered and upon agreement that the note of hand is indeed yours then I will have "proved (actually the judge/whatever) that debt and the evidence is then accepted as the proof thereof....

 

it is not the "case that requires "proving" it is the evidence.

to prove is to "accept" to consider correct and fitting, as in proof reading a book or "prooving" a gun barrel

 

 

 

 

[Gordon R]

So you have nothing to add, but another rambling diatribe. Please don't lecture me on the law - you are ill-equipped.

[victorismyhero]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

victorismyhero - according to you there can never be 100% proof, but you then move onto cite "solid evidence". You need to think before you post, or go back to school. This is a serious subject on whether members would support the death penalty, but one or two pedants want to split the odd hair. Logic is not their strong point and every post highlights their low intelligence.

To those who oppose the death penalty and favour life imprisonment - a lifer murders a prison guard, because he has nothing to lose - then murders another. At what point do the apologists think enough is enough?

and YOU my boy need to change your tone .....

perhaps you are incapable of applying that so called logic of yours, but to make it simple for you

there can NEVER be 100% sure "scientific evidence" for many quite obvious reasons.......however, as in the case of that Rigby, given a number of none connected eye witnesses (especially when backed up by multiple cell phone recordings etc the evidence become overwhelmingly "solid" (although one could I suppose cite the chineese govts films of riots by those falung gong (or whatever) as evidence that even THAT is not 100% solid in ALL cases)

and you are?????

 

I notice that you merely spout dissention, not offer any counter argument???

you dont do "debate do you...merely soap box yaffle and insult......

 

go on "prove" my post above wrong......I can take it...I have been wrong before and i'll be wrong again....

 

 

[Gordon R]

My tone with idiots is condescending - hence my replies to you.

PS - a few freebies:-

Sentences start with upper case.

You don't need to use too much upper case, it makes you look limited.

None Connected should be nonconnected or unconnected.

etc has a full stop at the end.

chineese is really Chinese.

[victorismyhero]

i notice you retreat into the cave occupied by the lowest form of life on forums, unable to refute or debate my points nor produce any coherent counter argument, you slink off into the realm of the grammar nazi.

 

how about addressing the points I raise

 

oh you cant...job done then.......

[Gordon R]

You don't raise any points. You just ramble and contradict yourself.

PS - I think you mean the grammar police. I don't know where the Nazis came into this. I find it in poor taste.

Another freebie - "nazi" should be Nazi. There are many other howlers, but I don't have a spare hour to highlight your shortcomings.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Gordon R

[victorismyhero]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grammar Nazi

 

so you dont feel left out

 

cop out reply by the way......

 

you just cant counter anything I have said...

you do understand that the defendant is not the only thing being "tried" at a trial? (I'll give you a clue...the word try, in this context, means "to test")

 

still, I'll leave you to have the last word as no doubt you will

[Gordon R]

Your attempts to lecture me on the law are rather foolish, as you know little of it. I find that there is no need to counter what you say - albeit very little - as you contradict yourself.

For someone attempting to take the high moral ground, you then sink to the Google level. Very predictable, if a little desperate.

I look forward to seeing if you are a man of your word. I suspect not.

 

[Dougy]

So a group of people witness the rape and murder of an infant, and I'm sorry to go back on topic "NOT" ! 

Some say its not 100% evidence. I say it is and stand by what I say and the Indian government state's.

 

Now you can go back and discuss the ins and out of a ducks bottom.  

[Scully]

12 hours ago, victorismyhero said:

do I have to remind you all that the birmingham six were convicted on supposedly "sound" scientific evidence" which turned out not to be so sound afterall....

if we had have had a DP they would have been hung.....what do you death wishers say to that?....

 

NO evidence is 100% reliable, 100% tamper proof, or 100% unplantable.

all it does is increase the PROBABILITY of guilt, and with a prison sentence the requirement of "without a shadow of doubt " can be somewhat "softer" than with the DP.

If you have a DP, then "without a shadow of doubt" means just that, and THAT will never happen.....

 

also give the propensity today for major trials to be come trial by media (and hence the howling torch and pitchfork brigade) is the DP wise?

 

I also have to ask, on who's behalf do you claim to want this backward form of state revenge to be enacted?

yours,

the victims

the victims family

society (whatever that means)

or what.........

 

 

There was no death penalty in this country in the 1970’s, so they couldn’t possibly have been executed. There was no DNA to convict them, as genetic fingerprinting was yet to be evolved,  but unless I’m mistaken DNA evidence ( or the lack of it ) played a part in their release. 

This thread is about the reintroduction of the death penalty for crimes such as those committed by Huntley etc etc. To try to claim that there can be any doubt as to Huntleys guilt, or the murderers of Lee Rigby is simply ridiculous. 

I don’t care on whose behalf such people are executed, as long as they’re executed.  

Edited April 25, 2018 by Scully
Spelling

[henry d]

11 hours ago, Gordon R said:

If I was a relative of Lee Rigby, I would want his killers dead.

You are not, and his fiance did not want them to win neither

Quote

“if I have any emotions towards them, they’ve won.”

 

[Gordon R]

henry d - you are entitled to your view. I did not claim to be a relative of Lee Rigby, so I am unclear as to why you cite his fiancée. A survey of the whole of Lee's family and friends might not prove as forgiving.

Straight question - would you or others have a change of heart if Lee Rigby's murderers carried on murdering whilst in prison? Not having a pop - I am genuinely interested at what point people would say enough is enough.

[henry d]

12 hours ago, Ttfjlc said:

Kevin Spacey 

Thats him, I knew it was a Kevin.

10 hours ago, Rewulf said:

So basically, you don't like the way I word my posts ? No, it is your lack of logical argument not your words

It makes me wonder why you reply to them to be honest. Because no one is a lost cause

It's funny how no one else seems to have a problem understanding me, perhaps you are just too intelligent? I understand you and I`m not any more intelligent than your average guy in the street, I got 3 O levels and a few CSE`s, a few years ago I was award a BA, big deal lots of people have them.

You have a very dismissive manner Henry, and it's not just myself you seem to have issues with, as a 'youth worker' I would have thought you would be more accommodating of us plebs. Again you use a logical fallacy to try to undermine me (ad hominem) and I wasn`t being dismissive, part of my job is trying to educate people and that is what I do here when I can see a flaw in their argument. I believe that people should attempt to educate themselves throughout their lives as it has benefits for society, the person involved and their close family and friends. Don`t take things so personal, reflect on things, don`t accept things as absolutes even your closely guarded beliefs, test them by coming at them from another viewpoint.

 

[islandgun]

The OP is about India, and yes they have got it right, There are a huge number of rapes and murders in the news recently, Some of the subhuman males seem to think it is their right to do whatever they want, Recently an 8yr old girl was imprisoned and gang raped and eventually killed by a queue of local dignitaries. they need to be hung, and if it makes others think twice, then good. 

[henry d]

11 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

henry d - you are entitled to your view. I did not claim to be a relative of Lee Rigby, so I am unclear as to why you cite his fiancée. A survey of the whole of Lee's family and friends might not prove as forgiving.

Straight question - would you or others have a change of heart if Lee Rigby's murderers carried on murdering whilst in prison? Not having a pop - I am genuinely interested at what point people would say enough is enough.

I cited her as she was at the time the one closest to him and she was brave enough to be able not to condemn her fiance`s killers, his family have recently said they had found peace by immersing themselves in their charity work. I think is marvellous as they have turned what could have been destructive feelings into positive ones, especially as they have suffered from the likes of the MOD, Britain first and the sick fantasist who said his death was a conspiracy, well done them for getting that far.

Its kind of an odd question, I`m just leaving for work but will get back to you later.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

I`m just leaving for work but will get back to you later.

When you get back will there be any chance of posting the link to the claim you made? I’ve asked you to verify two claims now in different threads which you have just ignored. 

[Rewulf]

  12 hours ago, Rewulf said:

So basically, you don't like the way I word my posts ? No, it is your lack of logical argument not your words

It makes me wonder why you reply to them to be honest. Because no one is a lost cause

It's funny how no one else seems to have a problem understanding me, perhaps you are just too intelligent? I understand you and I`m not any more intelligent than your average guy in the street, I got 3 O levels and a few CSE`s, a few years ago I was award a BA, big deal lots of people have them.

You have a very dismissive manner Henry, and it's not just myself you seem to have issues with, as a 'youth worker' I would have thought you would be more accommodating of us plebs. Again you use a logical fallacy to try to undermine me (ad hominem) and I wasn`t being dismissive, part of my job is trying to educate people and that is what I do here when I can see a flaw in their argument. I believe that people should attempt to educate themselves throughout their lives as it has benefits for society, the person involved and their close family and friends. Don`t take things so personal, reflect on things, don`t accept things as absolutes even your closely guarded beliefs, test them by coming at them from another viewpoint.

Youre a very funny man Henry.

You say lack of 'logical argument' 
Its logical to me, otherwise I wouldnt bother writing it, but its not logical to you ?
Perhaps its your logic that is flawed ?

Are you taking me under your wing ,to put me right ? Bless 

You understand me ? ? But what about my 'lack of logical argument ?? Now Im confused.
Whats even more confusing is your education level ! I thought by your superior moral and intellectual stance , I was dealing with a multi Phd level brain!

And here we go with the 'dismissive' tones of the logical fallacy (ad hominem) retort, not for the first time either.
Its a way of nullifying my argument, because you cannot find an answer to counter it, or (heaven forbid) agree with it , or find common ground.

If part of your job is to educate people, I certainly hope you dont use the same tone as you do on here, otherwise you will not be Mr popular.
Yes I come here to be educated, and I am on a daily basis, my mind is very open, always has been, and no I dont take it personally, I am an extremely laid back person.
Your views are your own, and mine are mine, if I see a different perspective that works with my current worldview ,I will take it on board.

But you need to practice what you preach.

 

[henry d]

Rather than answer the above, HERE is the first link on google for you to help you understand what logical fallacies are and how to apply them to discussions, this will be a lot quicker than me typing and it has come from a reasonable source that started more than 3000 years ago and has been adapted over those years by people with better reasoning than you or I.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

When you get back will there be any chance of posting the link to the claim you made? I’ve asked you to verify two claims now in different threads which you have just ignored. 

Can you refresh my memory? Sorry if it looks like ingnoring you I am a bit busy, but will try to sort it out

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

Rather than answer the above, HERE is the first link on google for you to help you understand what logical fallacies are and how to apply them to discussions, this will be a lot quicker than me typing and it has come from a reasonable source that started more than 3000 years ago and has been adapted over those years by people with better reasoning than you or I.

Henry seriously, I know WHAT they are !

And so do you, you use them all the time.

Once again, you have completely ignored the 'meat' of the argument, refused to answer the bit you find unpalatable or difficult, and dismissed me with an 'educational' link
'So I can better understand' - condescending much ?

Why dont you just reply to posts with your opinion? Instead of trying to belittle the poster from your (supposed) moral high ground.

Theres nothing wrong with disagreeing with a thread subject, I do sometimes, and take stick for it, but I dont try to dismantle the other persons view by calling into question their morals or intellect.
Again ,practice what you preach.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You say lack of 'logical argument' 
Its logical to me, otherwise I wouldnt bother writing it, but its not logical to you ?

So why write this if you know what a logical fallacy is? Why use them in these discussions?