"I would bring back the death penalty" is not the nicest of views.david and julie said:ban-all-sheds said:Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.masona said:I would bring back the death penalty.
Not the nicest of replies Ban.
Masona wants to kill people - all I did was to call him an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****. (BTW - the asterisks were mine - the choice of substitute word I leave to the Dear Reader).
Are we? And if we are, is it crime involving the level of violence which you think should attract the death penalty?On a serious note, we are clearly facing a problem with the ammount of violent crime.
I'm sure that the death penalty for littering would deter litterers, but that wouldn't make it right. And given that the USA has (mostly) the death penalty and has a much higher murder rate than the UK, I remain unconvinced about the deterrent argument. How many murders are there that are both premeditated and carried out by sane people?I can understand your (unstated)concerns, which I presume centre around possible mistakes or stitch ups etc, but do you not think that there may be some deterrent value? hopefully making the perpretrators think twice?
But what when the evidence is "indisputable" because the police have lied, cheated and fabricated? The Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six would in your system have been put to death.I don't mean for everyone but definately armed robbery(causing death), premeditated murder etc. I don't mean stringing everyone up, IE when the death was unintended or if the evidence was desputable. But you must admit the cost of keeping the likes of Sutcliffe could be better spent.
What does it say about a society that is prepared to have innocent people murdered by the state?
I would not introduce violence against offenders carried out by the state.What would you do to reduce violent crime?
PS - we've been here before:
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14951
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30168
You want to kill people.
I don't.