In another thread that covers Angus Sinclair's 37 year imprisonment for a double murder, I posted that he should hang.
We as a country currently have no death penalty and our politicians have taken it upon themselves to ensure it remains so.
I wish that we did, so that people like: Angus Sinclair, Roy Whiting, Ian Brady, Dennis Nilsen, Donald Neilson, Steve Wright, Levi Bellfield... and others like them... are humanely despatched.
What are your thoughts?
Am I out of kilter with most of society or have our politicians got it wrong and I am amongst a majority?
|
|
The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Bobby George and and a whole host of others might tell you why it's not a good idea.
|
>> The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Bobby George and and a whole host of others
>> might tell you why it's not a good idea.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case
|
On the other hand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Forsyth.
One of the events that increased the pressure to stop capital punishment.
IIRC he was the youngest hanged. Not the brightest as I recall. He was fighting with the police soon after the event and that caused them to investigate him a little deeper.
He was in my year at grammar school for a few weeks prior to going elsewhere.
I was pulled in to alibi a guy I knew who lived a few doors away from the victim.
An early unwanted meeting with the police.
Having been the prime (not involved) witness to a traffic accident and subsequent proceedings.
Plus a great friend of mine having to go on the stand and state ( in effect ) that the previous well meaning witness was totally wrong leads me to believe that mistakes are a serious possibility so I would not support CP.
|
>> We as a country currently have no death penalty and our politicians have taken it
>> upon themselves to ensure it remains so.
Are you sure?
What about treason?
Carnal knowledge of the monarch?
Theoretically, of course.
|
Treason is no longer a capital offence, no crime is so you can have as much carnal knowledge of the monarch you like and you'll live to tell the tale.
Interestingly we keep being told how public opinion favours the death penalty, but when Ireland (A country with very similar social views to GB) held a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty around the turn of the century it was rejected by about 2-1. I suspect for the same reason juries were less willing to convict in murder trials when we did have the rope, it's all right shouting down the pub about hang 'em high but when all the implications are spelled out it's a different story.
No matter how I might feel about the perpetrators of certain crimes I do not want to live in a country where the state has the power of life or death over it's citizens.
|
Not.
Because
- it provides absolutely no recourse for a miscarriage of justice. "Sorry we killed you" does not cut it.
- Its proven not to work
- brings society down to the level of the killer
- in many ways its the easy option for the scroat - the cowards way out
However, I feel that there should be such a thing as a life sentence. It should be a whole life tariff with no recourse, at all, to parole or release on license under any circumstances.
|
|
I am against. It is wrong to kill someone....... but we will kill you for killing!
|
>>ur politicians have taken it upon themselves
Taken it upon themselves? Outrageous. What do they think they are, elected representatives or something?
|
>> >>ur politicians have taken it upon themselves
>>
>> Taken it upon themselves? Outrageous. What do they think they are, elected representatives or something?
Elected representatives should consider and reflect what the electorate wish. If I think they often do not and it 'may' be so in this case, then my phrasing it as I did would be correct.
|
>>and the politically correct have grabbed the so called moral high ground on it
I believe that the death penalty is ineffectual, pointless, hypocritical and immoral.
Do I therefore gather that you believe me to be one of the politically correct?
|
"ineffectual"
Wrong!
They wouldn't 'do it' again.
|
|
Re-offending rate is remarkably low. Against. Breach of The European Convention on Human Rights and rightly so. Even the Americans are beginning to realise it's wrong.
|
>>"ineffectual"
>Wrong!
Right!
Its not a deterrent.
|
"Its not a deterrent."
Well, I don't know for definite of course, but I think that if I were dead I wouldn't have the wherewithal to reoffend. But that's just logical ol' me!
|
|
If you were dead, it would be impossible to deter you. That's just literal ol' me.
|
>> I believe that the death penalty is ineffectual, pointless, hypocritical and immoral.
>>
>> Do I therefore gather that you believe me to be one of the politically correct?
>>
No, I do not.
|
|
Two wrongs don't make a right !
|
When Plod cannot be trusted with the little things, like issuing me with a section 59 2.5 years ago you may recall, they absolutely CANNOT be trusted to produce concrete evidence where a life is concerned. I am sure we have all seen situations where we have thought that the perp' should be hung drawn and quartered, but the reality is a different beast. Always thought I would support cap P, but not now.
Zero's post, somewhere above (or below) or somewhere, sums it all up very well. 'tas been a long day. Tea and bed beckons.
MD.
|
Not.
I do not trust the police. I have seen they lost an iPhone handed to them, threw away a set of house and car keys a minute after I had handed them over. Reported.
More seriously, in local cases, lose a £100k plus Mercedes parked in their car park. They had a grievance against the owner. The CCTV failed minutes before the theft.
More seriously still, cold bloodedly shooting to death (murdering) a naked man in his own bedroom. The files and evidence went missing so no charges stuck and a chief constable was sacked by the Home Secretary over the incident.
I know most police officers are honest, but when it comes to someone’s life you don’t want to meet a dodgy one.
|
|
No! it should never ever return..ever!
|
|
We'll certainly you seem to be in a minority on this forum. A minority of one in fact so far. Quite remarkable and not what I expected.
|
>> We'll certainly you seem to be in a minority on this forum. A minority of
>> one in fact so far. Quite remarkable and not what I expected.
Give it a bit longer.
|
|
Although we are just a tiny sample opinion poll wise, it is nevertheless interesting that a forum which could be reasonably considered right of centre has so far come down overwhelmingly against.
|
The only possible argument in favour is effect in deterring others. Nothing in either period pre '65 in UK or now in US suggests that argument holds.
Against is the basic Human/Constitutional rights issue and the massive number of miscarriages of justice that would have occurred had we retained it.
Absence of death penalty is a basic measure of civilisation. Faffing around with egregious examples like Sutcliffe, Belfield and Shipman (who probably killed my Grandmother) proves nothing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 Nov 14 at 22:24
|
The drug fuelled **** who mugged my 76yo mother in broad daylight, outside her home, affecting her confidence so much that she had to sell up & move, would be a prime candidate. No use to society and his removal from the human race would improve the gene pool. I saw up close & personal the huge distress it caused an innocent elderly lady and I would happily have seen his life terminated.
Ten years on she is still affected by the mugging. I really don't care about the circumstances that led up to him descending to such a level of beastiality and the subsequent repercussions. Good riddance to a waste of organs. Those that are left after a lifetime on drugs.
Not very PC but I care not.
|
I understand prison isn't the holiday camp many would have us believe.
Couldn't we just give those with a long sentence a length of rope and turn our backs? Save the country a few bob!
|
A similar (but significantly more warped) logic is employed by the thug who stamps on your head for nudging him in a pub.
Or who stabs someone for keying their car
Or who kills someone who he believes raped his daughter.
It's also used by the very worst pieces of crap who control the underworld using a veneer of 'natural justice'... eg. the IRA/UDA dishing out punishment beatings/kneecappings to drug dealers or rivals, and 'Big Mags' Haney and her extended family of drug-dealing scumbags in Sitirling marching the streets to protest at paedophiles.
I can easily understand your viewpoint, but cannot justify it as a way for the State (or anyone else) to kill someone.
|
>> Not very PC but I care not.
You don't care when you are in a furious murderous rage with someone unknown to you who has offended you or someone close to you. You don't even care that suggesting the death penalty for mugging looks, and is, barmy, so angry are you with the mugger.
Anyone can understand that and sympathise. Fortunately though the law is made by people who have to weigh everything very carefully and make allowances for the frequent mistakes, booboos and injustices which are inevitable in any human system. Personal vengeance may seem tempting but is frowned on by society for very good reasons.
|
Not...never been in favour. Even as a bobby at the time of the last ones hanged. I remember the scenes outside Strangeways on the morning they topped one there.
I'd bring back the birch for muggers and preventive detention for habitual crims though. There is a birching stool and some good flogging tools in the police Museum in Manchester...so no real expense there !
Evem if we still had the death penalty, it had been modified to only certain classes of murder by ( I think ) 1963. So Sutcliffe, Brady and most other sex or child killers would have lived. On the other hand, Cregan, Sams and the Black Panther would have swung.
|
Interesting.
It would seem I'm very much in the minority ...unless some don't wish to put their heads up above the parapet!
|
I'm in favour, at least for some, who proudly admit to their crimes, who show no remorse and know they will live while their victim won't.
Why should they have a long life, protected from the same worries innocent, hard working people have?
No financial worries to pay bills, kept warm, three sguare meals a day and a roof over their heads.
Many of the cases I deal with on a daily basis for the PDF would give their right arm for this, yet their crime is living a life of hard work and staying within the law.
Pat
|
|
I'm in favour, along the lines of what Pat says.
|
>> Many of the cases I deal with on a daily basis for the PDF would
>> give their right arm for this, yet their crime is living a life of hard
>> work and staying within the law.
if you are seriously trying to suggest that lorry drivers would prefer to be in jail, then I am afraid they are either profoundly stupid or you are talking r*******.
|
>>if you are seriously trying to suggest that lorry drivers would prefer to be in jail, then I am afraid they are either profoundly stupid or you are talking r*******. <<
Trying to twist my words again Z?
You are not thick as two short planks so why do you try to appear to be?
You know full well what I mean, but this is just an example of why I rarely voice my views on anything on here these days.
Pat
|
>> >>if you are seriously trying to suggest that lorry drivers would prefer to be in
>> jail, then I am afraid they are either profoundly stupid or you are talking r*******.
>> <<
>>
>> Trying to twist my words again Z?
No your words,
You actually suggested that prison for murderers was a soft option compared to some poor hardworking down trodden lorry driver.
>> You are not thick as two short planks so why do you try to appear
>> to be?
>>
>> You know full well what I mean, but this is just an example of why
>> I rarely voice my views on anything on here these days.
>>
>> Pat
it goes like this
You make a view, nearly always managing to couch or twist it i in terms of how bad it is for lorry drivers, people disagree, you sulk and take it personally.
|
Not sure I follow you logic here Pat. The judicial killing of a half a dozen or so murderers a year is not going to make any difference to the welfare of the poor.
And I somehow doubt that even those in the most straightened circumstances would swap their situation for thirty years in a maximum security wing.
|
>> The judicial killing of a half a dozen or so murderers a year is not going to make any difference to the welfare of the poor. <<
I agree but on the other hand, it might well be a deterrent.
The cost of keeping them imprisoned would at least be going to a more worthy cause.
Pat
|
"I agree but on the other hand, it might well be a deterrent."
So you have abandoned your original argument in favour of one of the possibility of deterrence, one which has been has generally been accepted as unsubstantiated.
"The cost of keeping them imprisoned would at least be going to a more worthy cause."
An economic justification for execution seem particularly unpleasant.
|
>>An economic justification for execution seem particularly unpleasant. <<
Funny that, so does murder to me.
Z, when you start seeing lorry drivers as human beings, the same as any other trade, or indeed person in need of help, then I may discuss this.
Until then, I shall accuse you of racism against lorry drivers.
Pat
|
|
thats fine by me. send them all back I say.
|
>> >>An economic justification for execution seem particularly unpleasant. <<
>>
>> Funny that, so does murder to me.
>>
>> Z, when you start seeing lorry drivers as human beings, the same as any other
>> trade, or indeed person in need of help, then I may discuss this.
I do seem them as other human beings the same as any other. The problem is you do not. you see them as special, better, more deserving than anyone else. You also seem to manage to convince yourself that lorry drivers are treated worse than anyone else.
|
>>The problem is you do not. you see them as special, better, more deserving than anyone else. You also seem to manage to convince yourself that lorry drivers are treated worse than anyone else.
<<
I see this post by Z got a thumbs up.
While I am not prepared or justify my opinions on either the death penalty or racism, I am happy to defend myself on this one.
My remark about 'people' needing help was exactly that ...people, not lorry drivers.
Yes, the charity I'm involved with is for lorry drivers, but the vast majority of cases we deal with are referred to us by other charities simply because they discover on their application forms that the person has an HGV licence.
SSAFA and the CAB are the two most common.
Those two charities never actually hand out financial help, only advice or seek financial help from other charities for their claimants and point them in the most likely direction.
Of course, RP knows this, and soon Bromp will too, and so the claims will continue to come in whenever they and SSAFA get a request for help and discover the claimant holds an HGV licence. It's called targeted help and it is as it should be.
I don't think they/we are special or hard done by. I do think we work hard, long hours and when illness, or accidents, partly born about by those long hours, strikes, there is more help available for a foreigner who has arrived in this country whether legally or illegally than there is for one of us....OR for any other person who may make a claim to a charity pertaining to their given profession.
So, can we now put the continual sniping about 'poor hard done by lorry drivers' to bed please?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 15 Nov 14 at 15:28
|
>> I don't think they/we are special or hard done by. I do think we work
>> hard, long hours and when illness, or accidents, partly born about by those long hours,
>> strikes, there is more help available for a foreigner who has arrived in this country
>> whether legally or illegally than there is for one of us....OR for any other person
>> who may make a claim to a charity pertaining to their given profession
I've bolded part of that Pat because I think you're wrong. Understandably so because the way these things are presented by media and politicians bolster that view and ignore the facts.
I'm not sure of current SoP for those arriving from EU, it's a moving target as HMG are re-arranging the goal posts. They're certainly no more generously treated than the indigines. Not to say they get no help because eg homeless families with chidren might. The situation for single under 25s is just as grim as for UK born/bred - nothing much doing. That bit is getting worse; expect many more sleeping bags on the High St.
Those arriving in this country illegally either remain below the radar in the black economy or alternatively claim asylum. The consequences of the former in terms of exploitation need no emphasis. Asylum is not the cakewalk popular myth would have.
Here's what HMG says:
www.gov.uk/asylum-support
And this is an overview from a charitable body in same position vis a vis refugees as your charity is for drivers:
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1
|
"Funny that, so does murder to me."
No doubt that is so but it's not not really relevant is it?
You are citing the saving of money as a justification for the state killing people. An argument that seems to me at least as immoral and fraught with dangerous implications.
|
>>
>> The cost of keeping them imprisoned would at least be going to a more worthy
>> cause.
>>
I doubt it would even save any money, in cases in the US it would cheaper to lock them up for life, than a death sentence. Death row is hugely expensive, and people are often on there for a very long period.
|
well In summary I make that 11 against, 2 for, 1 for but except for lorry drivers, and at least one don't know.
I too am surprised, I thought - on here - the ayes would have it.
|
>> The only possible argument in favour is effect in deterring others.
>>
Not if we listen to the new fashion for considering the views of victims, and involving them in sentencing. They might have the good old-fashioned motives of revenge and retribution.
Personally I don't think victims and their families should have any part in the justice process beyond giving evidence, if they have any - they are far too involved to be capable of an objective view.
No, I'm not in favour of the death sentence. Simply because it is unbecoming of a civilised nation.
Anyone in favour should ask himself whether he would really be capable of looking a stranger in the eye and then pulling a lever that sends him to his death. If there is someone who really could then I don't think I would want to know him.
(Battlefield conditions are completely different and different considerations apply.)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sat 15 Nov 14 at 11:54
|
Parts of this topic remind me of something that happened a few years ago. I used to enjoy sitting around discussing current affairs and the like with a friend.
One day, during one of these discussions, he suddenly said "Let's face it, John, you're never going to win an argument with me." I realised that, if that was his aim in any discussion with me, then there was no point in having one. The friendship didn't last long after that.
|
|
A lot of people don't know the difference between a discussion and an argument, or think there is always a right and a wrong answer.
|
>> A lot of people don't know the difference between a discussion and an argument, or
>> think there is always a right and a wrong answer.
Sometimes there is a very clear morally wrong and right answer. If you are on the morally wrong side of that answer the best thing to do is muddy the waters then cry foul from the murk.
|
I never have arguments with people. If they are wrong though it's my social responsibility to point that out to them so that they can realise the error of their ways and can at least have the chance to become a better person. It's for their own good and I take comfort in the knowledge that I'm contributing to their education.
I see it as a form of charity.
;-)
|
>> Parts of this topic remind me of something that happened a few years ago. I
>> used to enjoy sitting around discussing current affairs and the like with a friend.
>>
>> One day, during one of these discussions, he suddenly said "Let's face it, John, you're
>> never going to win an argument with me." I realised that, if that was his
>> aim in any discussion with me, then there was no point in having one. The
>> friendship didn't last long after that.
friendships are rarely born of opposing views.
|
I never argue with anyone. I KNOW that they are wrong.
So why argue?
:-)
|
Quite right madf,I can see you are also a charitable person, willing to take the time to help people understand the error of their ways.
They appreciate it eventually.
;-)
|
>> Quite right madf,I can see you are also a charitable person, willing to take the
>> time to help people understand the error of their ways.
>>
>> They appreciate it eventually.
No-one appreciates anything they get for free. Cut out this charity malarky, make them pay up front for it
|
>>friendships are rarely born of opposing views.
I don't quite agree.
I think friendships need a similar morality and ethics. I think there needs to be a certain meeting over interaction style.
But I think different politics, different religions, different likes and/or dislikes etc. etc. are quite possible.
|
|
I share an office with three other people these days. One (as previously mentioned) is a very left wing and politically we agree on very little, the other ( a History graduate) is a self styled anarchist, the third also a History graduate with a Master's is the moderator...he steers the centre path and is the generator of our occasional discussion topics. None of agree about much, but I consider all of them to be friends and enjoy the group's company and the individual's company, I have drunk with all of them and not fallen out. None of us talk about reality TV or Soccer - two are musicians which is an occasional topic. In fact it's an excellent mix and a very pleasurable little talking shop during breaks. I will miss the two youngsters when they leave at the end of the month...
|
>>
>> I think friendships need a similar morality and ethics. I think there needs to be
>> a certain meeting over interaction style.
>>
I have more and more come to the conclusion that friendship depends solely on having a similar sense of humour.
Perhaps humourless people are like blood group 0 and can be friends with anyone, but to someone who finds life in general a bit of a laugh it is difficult relating to the overly-serious.
|
This may surprise you - but I am undecided.
Years ago I would have said "hang 'em high" and even now when I see the Islamic State madmen calming sawing off a person's head (yes I've seen a couple of truly vile videos), that urge comes over pretty strongly.
But do I have the confidence to send an "ordinary" convicted murderer to the hangman - I am not sure.
Perhaps if "life" meant "full term life" in a really secure confinement, the answer would be easier.
|
Confidence, Rog? You mean the confidence that you really were killing the guilty party? Or the confidence that it is morally defensible to kill another human who isn't putting you or others in immediate danger?
Could you pull that switch yourself, sir, with a sure and steady hand?
And then could you still tell yourself, sir, that you're better than I am?
Steve Earle, 'Billy Austin', 1988
|
|
I'm fence sitting on this one, with slight inclinations to the first of your alternatives.
|
Possibly the issue upon which I feel the strongest of any, no fence sitting. I have long-since concluded that the death penalty is morally, logically and economically indefensible on almost every level.
Morally - to take a life is wrong, or so I have been taught all my life, to lower 'the state' to the level of the (quite-possibly guilty) perpetrator does precisely that, brings everyone to the lowest common denominator. The death penalty is 'giving in' to our basest instincts, nothing more. I would ask whether its supporters are truly prepared to accept this with all it implies for society?
Logically - the criminal justice system is not infallible (I am not saying it is inherently bad, it is perhaps the best we can devise), what is the possible remedy for miscarriages of justice ? Furthermore, it is highly likely that the death penalty does not provide any deterrence. Put simply it serves no purpose other than revenge.
Economically - Even in the USA it takes years of expensive legal processes before a convicted (possibly unsafely) criminal is finally executed. Assuming supporters in the UK would afford condemned people the same level of protection (to minimise the chance of miscarriages) then the cost argument versus life imprisonment is flawed.
In my final analysis, the argument 'for' the death penalty is emotional - revenge, albeit a universal human trait I'd argue it is not the one of which many of us would be proudest. The more compelling arguments against the death penalty are numerous and work on many levels.
|
|
A good argument there, idle_chatterer
|
Maybe it's time for me to declare my angle then..as I started the thread.
I think that the truly vast majority of all human beings are decent people. It matters not where they come from, what god they worship, what language they speak, etc...they are all of the same decent disposition.
However.
Amongst us, fortunately fairly small in number, are some truly evil people. It matters not to me whether they have a form of insanity or are just evil (I think the two inter-act and sometimes the difference is very hard to tell).
I think the 'strong' should look after the 'weak'.
Therefore the truly evil should be well and truly sat on to protect others.
In our civilised society and 'yes' despite some people's willingness to try to prove otherwise, this country is one of the most civilised... we fail miserably to properly protect some people.
I think we should do better and that the tide of civilised behaviour needs a balance when you are dealing with the truly evil...in other words, being nice to evil doesn't work... so we need to kick ass occasionally...
... and for me that includes the death penalty.
We have one of the better legal systems in the world. We have unbelievable checks and balances to go through before someone can be convicted at court, all interviews are taped and video recorded, all suspects may have a lawyer, there are appeals procedures, etc. Invent a few more for death cases, it matters not to me.
Yes there have been past mistakes and I'm not saying any system can be 100%, however the current system has come on leaps and bounds and it is my opinion that the death penalty is suitable to get rid of vermin.. and that would include on cost grounds, re-offending grounds, closure for the victim's family, deterrence, etc.
|
>> however the current system has come on leaps and bounds
and there, in a crux is the fatal flaw in your argument. In my opinion its getting worse. Policeman even lying to get revenge at politicians? Tailing the Lawrence family to try and dig up dirt and discredit them? Selling details to newspapers?
Sorry the police are rapidly loosing the trust of the public, and the court system and the CPS is becoming a joke.
And even you admit that no system can be 100%, but you are happy for the innocent to be topped by the state?
At the time would you have been happy that the Birmingham 6, the guildford 4 had been hanged? What would you say now, opps sorry Schiesse happens?
You say the weak need to be protected by the strong? True but happily the innocent have been protected from the gung ho by the majority. We are civilised because we have done away with the death penalty.
The irony is however, even if we had not removed the death penalty from the statute books, would anyone actually have been sentenced to death in the intervening years? No chance..
|
I feel similarly to WP that there are some utterly worthless, evil people who just need to be got rid of, where I differ is that they should be locked up for life, not killed.
Judicial killing is still killing, and gives some legitimacy to it; and there's the certainty of some mistakes.
The US, for example, gains nothing from the retention of the death penalty as far as I can see, other than damage to its reputation.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 16 Nov 14 at 11:45
|
I am in favour of it.
Countries where death penalty exists, often it is executed in rarest of rare cases only.
It works like a deterrent [to some extent]
Tax payers don't have to fund murders
Life imprisonment often means one can get parole at certain date
Actually the answer is not very straight forward. If someone performs a revenge killing that is not same as someone did a cold blooded murder [OK, I know it is not as simple as that].
The Mumbai terrorist got hanged - I think right decision.
Norgegian mass murderer was not killed - wrong decision
|
That's a paper-thin set of arguments, Movi.
1. There is no evidence of any deterrent effect.
2. It's cheaper to kill 'em than to keep 'em. I'm afraid that debases you as a human being.
3. Parole is available. Yes. That recognizes that some murderers cease to be a danger in time while others don't and can be kept safely out of the way.
|
"I am in favour of it."
Me too. Let's start with Terry Wogan and Michael Parkinson. I'll pull the lever.
|
|
What's Terry Wogan done to upset you?
|
>> What's Terry Wogan done to upset you?
Quite, Tony Blackburn must surely be higher up the list.
|
|
If we're having a clear out of old duffers on TV put John Craven on the list for me. Glad to pull the lever or simply beat him over the head with a brick if it saves money.
|
|
Really, CGN. You come across as a rather nice, gentle, easy going sort of fellow.
|
|
He is. He's after Craven's job.
|
|
I am Clk Sec, - It's just John Craven. I've developed an irrational and completely unfair and unfounded dislike of the man. Pass me the brick
|
I heard him on the Saturday morning programme on R4 a couple of weeks back talking about his 'inheritance' tracks - music that reminded him of his past and that which he would pass on.
He spoke glowingly of his father who was a Japanese POW for 3 years and came back from Japan weighing under 6 stone, and who was overjoyed that his son didn't reject him after seeing his friends being snubbed by their own young children who'd never really known their dads before they went off to war.
Apparently his old man developed appendicitis in the camp, and since there was no medical facility he was given a load of home-brew rice sake to stupify him, and then had the appendix removed by an army surgeon using sharpened bamboo.
Doesn't reflect on JC himself but was a good yarn.
|
I don't wish Lorraine Kelly any actual harm, perish the thought, but I do wish there was a way of fairly humanely permanently silencing her. I recognise that there is always the option of judicious use of the TV remote but my wife will keep putting her back on.
;-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Mon 17 Nov 14 at 15:49
|
Sudden frivolous impulses to kill or maim annoying faces on the box are quite common I would think. But maintaining and nurturing them is a sign of mental illness (I would also think).
The list is endless... Russell Brand, Bruce Forsyth, that infuriating gay comedian with the horn-rimmed specs, a number of politicians and a thousand others.
In reality they are all probably perfectly nice, cultivated individuals, and of course they are 'successful' by definition. Perhaps it's just envy really. Real screen villains like Richard Nixon and Jihadi John are quite rare.
|
>> Really, CGN. You come across as a rather nice, gentle, easy going sort of fellow.
>>
It just shows how even decent people can if pushed too far be provoked into killing someone in a crime passionelle. That is exactly why GKN should be shown mercy, were he to commit this crime, and be spared the hangman's noose.
|
>> >> Really, CGN. You come across as a rather nice, gentle, easy going sort of
>> fellow.
>> >>
>>
>> It just shows how even decent people can if pushed too far be provoked into
>> killing someone in a crime passionelle. That is exactly why GKN should be shown mercy,
>> were he to commit this crime, and be spared the hangman's noose.
I am not completely sure where I stand on the question of capital punishment.
I was watching a Police, Camera, Action type programme a few evenings ago. The BiB had arrested a miscreant escaping from the scene of a burglary. He lied about everything. When he was identified and his criminal record was read out, he had a list of convictions as long as your arm.
In my opinion he had forfeited the right to live with normal human beings. If I had a button which I could press which would have removed him from the face of the earth, I would have pressed it.
Is that capital punishment? Or simply a fantasy?
|
>> Is that capital punishment? Or simply a fantasy?
It's the omnipotent capital punishment fantasy of someone who thinks a tealeaf ought to be topped.
|
>> a miscreant escaping from the scene of a burglary. He lied about everything.
>> When he was identified and his criminal record was read out, he had a list
>> of convictions as long as your arm.
>>
>> In my opinion he had forfeited the right to live with normal human beings. If
>> I had a button which I could press which would have removed him from the
>> face of the earth, I would have pressed it.
Normal. In such circumstances I declaim to my captive audience (the boss) "What is he for!" (it's not a question) "He should just be got rid of!".
We will need a solution to population pressure at some point. It's only an extension of the principle of all new television programmes (the melodramatic elimination of participants) to give viewers a voting button.
Don't be surprised if that happens in the year 2525, or after the "see what happens" approach has failed!
|
Is that capital punishment? Or simply a fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
Mama just killed a man.....
:-)
|
"Don't be surprised if that happens in the year 2525"
In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today
|
|
If everyone had Duncan's death button humanity would be extinct in no time.
|
>> If everyone had Duncan's death button ...
I wouldn't be using it. The smugness of the commentary in Police, Camera, Action type programmes gets right up my nose and tends to put me on the side of the miscreants.
|
>> If everyone had Duncan's death button humanity would be extinct in no time.
>>
No. I think you have missed my point. I don't really wish to kill him, I just want to, er, vanish him.
His mates would be going round saying "Ave u scene Bergler Bil, laytlee, Darren?" "Naw, e whent owt 2 luke a' a job an e nevver cum bak"
I didn't KILL him, I simply removed him from the face of the earth.
|
Of course we all know what you mean Duncan. Even so, what difference would it make to the future of humanity if we gave it its proper name of 'removal button'?
In a long life I have come to realise that everyone will want everyone they know to vanish sooner or later, perhaps just for a fleeting moment. If they vanish they're gone for good and you can't think better of it. A bit like the capital punishment conundrum in a way.
:o}
|
>>In my opinion he had forfeited the right to live with normal human beings. If I had a
>>button which I could press which would have removed him from the face of the earth, I
>>would have pressed it.
>>
>>Is that capital punishment?
No, its not capital punishment because it is not aimed at the offender. It is removal from society on society's behalf.
It has issues;
Definition; you may remove pedophiles, presumably you would not remove shoplifters. So one needs to draw a line. The definition of that line is verging on the impossible, bearing in mind that you would have to write an objective definition which could be applied in all cases.
Applicability; Is doing something that the majority don't like sufficient for removal? It probably isn't, or at least shouldn't be. How, then, does one decide?
All in all, prison as a removal process is probably the only practically workable approach.
|
I have no time for pedophiles something about this crime which makes me shudder.
No problem putting a noose around the perp and make them disappear.
|
>> I have no time for pedophiles something about this crime which makes me shudder.
>>
>> No problem putting a noose around the perp and make them disappear.
Only they didn't disappear, they became tomorrow's miscarriage of justice.
Then what?
|
>> I didn't KILL him, I simply removed him from the face of the earth.
>>
I believe in previous generations this was known as "transportation for life". Unfortunately, modern technology has reversed this and we now get Australian soap operas and Fosters lager as part of their planned revenge.
|
>> we now get Australian soap operas and Fosters lager
An excessively vicious response from Australia, if you ask me. Unrelenting as well.
|
|
Sending Rolf over was below the belt, though.
|
|
And where, R O'R, do you stand on that pun?
|
>> And where, R O'R, do you stand on that pun?
>>
With my back to the wall.
|
>> And where, R O'R, do you stand on that pun?
you working him with your hand?
|
Gawd forbid we get the masses to vote on crime and penalties...
www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
|
|
Just goes to show how utterly thick some folk are. Now, talking of Capital P.
|
Another reason not to revert to the death penalty:
After a man spent nearly four decades in prison, the witness to the crime admits he lied and never saw the crime!
tinyurl.com/o7enhar
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 21 Nov 14 at 18:16
|
Death penalty: In favour or not - WillDeBeest
