Re the death penalty

This is a topic people will never agree on, it's that simple. I see the argument in both death penalty and life in prison for the worst possible crimes, but I lean towards keeping them alive and in prison to reflect on what they have done and never see the outside world again.
 
Scrote said:
I'm pretty sure most theologians will be happy to explain that "Thou shalt not kill" actually translates better as "Thou shalt not murder".
Click to expand...
And that is my point with "organised religions"!

"What God meant to say was..."

As I was brought up as a Catholic we were fed so much made up shat by teachers and priests that had little bearing on the words of Jesus. "Catechism" was a thing and (as I recall) it was all just "What God meant was..." type stuff.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Four words, simple but then it doesn't suit coercion or power so we have to "clarify". Sickening isn't it?
 
Scrote said:
He had a torch.
Click to expand...
Not before he created light he didn't. Light was the very first thing he created. Not a flashlight, then light. I am sure a priest would tell me it's allegory and not meant to be taken seriously, then tell me why god hates gays.

Did you know that the bible mentions the sin of gayness once, yet mentions the sin of eating shellfish 8 times. God seems to have let that one go, misjudging how much his creatures would like a prawn cocktail.

Anyhoo back on track, I suppose given the bible comments we should re-train priests as hangmen cos then it would be heaven sponsored murder.
 
The Kiscko case will always mean I don't support the death penalty
But I certainly hope Castree - whose actions were the root cause of the suffering for poor Stefan - and Couzens are made to serve their full sentence, and suffer absolute hell every single day
How often when scum like them kill themselves do people say 'they took the easy way out', and yet it is often same people calling for the death penalty
 
Glover_elbow said:
Sorry Jm in the case of murderers then rehabilitation shouldn't be an option. unless there's exceptional circumstances then murder should be a full life term
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any exceptional circumstances. Murder is murder - and I wish they were all made to spend the rest of their lives incarcerated
 
TeessideCleveland said:
I don't think there are any exceptional circumstances. Murder is murder - and I wish they were made to spend the rest of their lives incarcerated
Click to expand...
I can get behind this mostly. Murder isn't all the same. A wife, who after years of abuse kills her husband whilst he sleeps. It's murder, but I am not sure the woman deserves to rot in jail.
 
Can the authorities be trusted just to hang the evil ones?

In practice they the tend to hang the ones with learning difficulties, no money, groups disliked by society (say Irish in the 1970s), in the USA people who are black.
 
Redwurzel said:
Can the authorities be trusted just to hang the evil ones?

In practice they the tend to hang the ones with learning difficulties, no money, groups disliked by society (say Irish in the 1970s), in the USA people who are black.
Click to expand...
Half the cabinet would be hanging from trees Red!
 
I find the idea that the state with all its power, cold blooded killing an individual sickening. If killing is wrong, it’s wrong
 
Having watched The Tiger Bay Murder I think the death penalty has to be an absolute certainty of guilt to apply.
3 out of 5 innocent lads could of died if the death penalty was enforced.
 
Transitarmy said:
Having watched The Tiger Bay Murder I think the death penalty has to be an absolute certainty of guilt to apply.
3 out of 5 innocent lads could of died if the death penalty was enforced.
Click to expand...
Absolute certainty of guilt never happens.

Eyes witness testimony is known to be almost useless.

Fingerprints which most people believe are absolute proof are not. In any single print when analysed will match 1 in 100 people.

DNA, now that's absolute isn't it? Nope identical twins have the same DNA, usually. Someone can have 2 sets of DNA and have 1 set shared with a twin. Dna can be secondary which means the owner of the DNA never touched the surface the DNA was taken from.

Ah confessions I hear you say, they must be absolute, right? Not quite 27% of confessions in murder cases in the US judicial system are coerced and false.
 
There is increasing cases where the prosecution have evidence that would be useful to the defendent, but it is deliberately withheld, because it reduces the chance of a conviction. People on the prosecution need successful convictions to give them job security and career progression.
 
as well as the points raised is that of he jury as studies have shown that jurors are less likely to convict if they know the guilt verdict would lead to the defendants execution.

so ironically this would prob lead to less murder convictions than more for the “guilty” parties.
 
zorro_mfc said:
as well as the points raised is that of he jury as studies have shown that jurors are less likely to convict if they know the guilt verdict would lead to the defendants execution.

so ironically this would prob lead to less murder convictions than more for the “guilty” parties.
Click to expand...
That would be particularly true in the uk where a lot of our population are against the death penalty. In some states in the US the death penalty is decided after conviction so the jury know its a possibility but don't know for certain that it will be applied.
 
Redwurzel said:
There is increasing cases where the prosecution have evidence that would be useful to the defendent, but it is deliberately withheld, because it reduces the chance of a conviction. People on the prosecution need successful convictions to give them job security and career progression.
Click to expand...
Not in the uk it's not. Prior convictions are excluded from evidence for good reason.

The crown system in the uk is not as adversarial as the US.

In the US they have inlimine hearings before trial to decide what evidence can be used but it is illeagal for the prosecution to withhold exculpatory evidence and illeagal for the defence to withhold evidence of guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top