PDA

View Full Version : Is it justifiable to execute criminals?



Nixt
27-11-2009, 05:13 PM
A large number of countries across the world execute criminals, some for serious offences and others for offence that may not even exist in your country. My question is, do you think the execution of criminals is fair and whatever your opinion - why do you think this?

Note I am asking whether you agree with capital punishment as a whole rather than whether or not it should be introduced in the UK. Although the nature of the debate would basically be the same thing.

Pros of Capital Punishment



Imprisonment for some criminals is simply not enough. For example, Murderers take a life and so why should we not take their life as punishment?
Capital punishment is most certainly a deterrent. Surely criminals will be put off breaking the law for fear of losing their life over it.
Many people are killed by murderers who have been released or on probation. This could be prevented by using the death penalty.
If certain criminals were executed, the tax payer would save money and prevent prison overcrowding.

Cons of Capital Punishment



Capital Punishment essentially involves the government agreeing to killing. You are essentially sanctioning murder by killing criminals.
In America, 23 innocent people were killed after receiving the death penalty in the 20th Century. How can you possibly justify the killing of innocent people - even if the amount is only small.
There is evidence that suggests there is racial bias in the implementation of the death penalty.
30 mentally challenged individuals have been executed in the US since 1976. Is this fair?
In application of the death penalty, you are ruling out the possibility of rehabilitation. What if the individual could change their behaviour?


What do you think?

Ardemax
27-11-2009, 05:32 PM
In my opinion, I think it's wrong. Exactly what you've said also, if you get the suspect wrong, the questions will be asked.

I don't think two wrongs make a right, so I'm going to start the debate by saying it's in-humaine and is wrong, therefore shouldn't come in place in the UK.

The Professor
27-11-2009, 05:44 PM
There are inherantly evil people such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Houssain who are never going to change and deserve to be shot at dawn, same for serial killers and serial rapists and stuff. For one time murderers who do it out of impulse or something they need a long jail sentence and a new identity and the chance at a new life, if they break that you may as well kill them on the spot because they're only going to be a danger when they're released.

Teabags
27-11-2009, 05:46 PM
simple theory. if they are not going to outlive their sentence. Give them the chop.

Alkaz
27-11-2009, 05:48 PM
If pople wasnt murdered there would be no need for it, how ever people do so they deserve it. The small minority will kind of be ok as people know that there are evil people being executed 10x as many who are innocent.

Smits
27-11-2009, 05:49 PM
It's only right in exceptional cases. That's what i think. For example, murder committed more than once, and with intent, or serious offenses on a child.

GommeInc
27-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Legal murder is opinionated - murdering serial rapists, murderers and the like have no serious proof to declare it sensible to go through with it. At the end of the day, it's short-term ideas based on nothing but opinion - "Should this man die because he killed x?" Hardly an idea you want to hear. It should be a definite yes or a definite no, though killing of any sort, whether it be for justice or just thoughtless murder, is always pointless and proves nothing - people will always kill each other, so legally killing them off creates a circle of "Kill the killer who killed the killer". I'd rather be in a country that doesn't kill people off like barbarians they evolved from. Besides, loads of people who have commited serious crimes like these probably do not fear death, so where's the justice in that? Let them suffer and show an example :/

It's pointless and not needed in a civilised society, especially when serial rape is apparently the be all and end all :S

Black_Apalachi
27-11-2009, 06:16 PM
My religion (or lack of) is a big factor in my opinion on this. When I believed in God, I always thought the death penalty was just a fast-pass to being with God (assuming He allowed you into heaven blah blah blah). But now as an atheist, I think I fear death myself a lot more and realise how much of a punishment it would really be, rather than just thinking once you're dead, your punishment is over so it's a bit pointless.

All of this is assuming the country in question is running with a fair law justice system without making mistakes. When you introduce points regarding innocent or mentally disabled people being punished, it opens a whole new can of worms. Of course it can't be right to run that risk. I mean, imagine if you just happened to be the one innocent person who is mistakenly executed. It's simply unimaginable.

In my opinion, being locked in prison for literally your entire life, is on par with being killed. Assuming it's a quick and painless death, I see it like this; obviously the period leading up to it would be unbelievably frighting and torturous, but once it's done, that's the end of your punishment. A bit like getting an injection, but obviously on a much larger scale. However being locked up for life without parole, is just day after day of the same thing without any hopes or aspirations. Not even a hope that one day you may be free. It would be absolutely soul-destroying.

I also used to think capital punishment was wrong because nobody has the right to say who lives or dies but now I see it as we all live with a full understanding of the law. We always know whenever we may be breaking the law and what the punishment could be. With that understanding, any penalty is fair and if I lived in a country that does practice capital punishment, I tell you what, I most definitely wouldn't be committing any crimes. On the other hand, I reckon I have a bigger fear of spending my life in prison than I do of death.

-:Undertaker:-
27-11-2009, 08:12 PM
There are inherantly evil people such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Houssain who are never going to change and deserve to be shot at dawn, same for serial killers and serial rapists and stuff. For one time murderers who do it out of impulse or something they need a long jail sentence and a new identity and the chance at a new life, if they break that you may as well kill them on the spot because they're only going to be a danger when they're released.

You missed out George W Bush and Tony Blair.

On death penalty, no it doesn't make us worse than the killer. When they killed they forfeited their right to live in the eyes of the law, and i'd gladly pull the switch on any cold-blooded murderer.

Wig44.
27-11-2009, 08:34 PM
Yes, an eye for an eye. However, I think that each case has to be reviewed and gone through with a fine tooth comb. If a man has killed his wife in assisted suicide (which can even be murder) and gone to prison for it he does not deserve death. Say a woman has an abusive boyfriend, who frequently beats and rapes her. She puts a hammer under her bed incase he gets too rough. One night he comes home drunk and starts raping her, so she reaches under her bed and gets the hammer and then smacks him around the head with a hammer. He later dies. That IS classed as murder, yet she would NOT deserve to be cooked for that. One final case is: A 19 year old man is a drug addict, he comits armed robbery on a shop for money, lets say it's his first major offense. A member of public jumps in and tries to help and the 19 year old pulls the trigger, killing the member of public. You could say this is exactly the sort of scum that deserves to roast, but the 19 year old is absolutely mortified at what he has done, and has killed the person because he was jumpy and scared. He doesn't deserve to die, though he does deserve a prison sentence and rehabilitation.

If you understand what I am trying to say, it's that there should either be NO guidelines or very minimalistic guidelines - that may seem like it over complicates each case - but each case should be treated seperately as cases are very rarely the same. As I said earlier, I think each case has to be reviewed in more detail when they kill. This doesn't happen now. Things like age should be factors in this.

Ardemax
27-11-2009, 08:40 PM
You missed out George W Bush and Tony Blair.

On death penalty, no it doesn't make us worse than the killer. When they killed they forfeited their right to live in the eyes of the law, and i'd gladly pull the switch on any cold-blooded murderer.

An eye for an eye would only make the world blind.

If someone kills a murderer, aren't you as bad as them? You're commiting the same act, therefore it's a never ending cycle?

Japan
27-11-2009, 08:52 PM
America and various other countries have the death penalty in place, but their murder/crime rates haven't gone down.

We can't say that the death penalty will act as a deterrent. If someone is caught illegally downloading music and films, they can get an unlimited fine and possibly a prison sentence. Does that stop anyone? No.

-:Undertaker:-
27-11-2009, 10:25 PM
An eye for an eye would only make the world blind.

If someone kills a murderer, aren't you as bad as them? You're commiting the same act, therefore it's a never ending cycle?

In that case if you follow that quote, we'd still have both eyes but we'd be ruled by Nazi Germany.

..and no, because they forfeited there right to live. A state execution is totally different to a murder.

FlyingJesus
27-11-2009, 11:10 PM
people will always kill each other, so legally killing them off creates a circle of "Kill the killer who killed the killer".

Well no it kinda stops once the criminal's dead


An eye for an eye would only make the world blind.

No it would make two people with 1 less eye


If someone kills a murderer, aren't you as bad as them? You're commiting the same act, therefore it's a never ending cycle?

No-one's suggesting vigilante attacks on murderers should be allowed except maybe Dan might because he's a bit weird but a controlled punishment system that involves the death sentence does not make the state liable to punishment in return. Going by your idea we should never discipline anyone in any way - oh and by locking up criminals the jailor ought also to be locked up for his breach of the other's human rights of course, and his jailor also and so on. It just makes no sense


America and various other countries have the death penalty in place, but their murder/crime rates haven't gone down.

No but it could be argued that it's substantially less than it would be without. I'm not going to say that because no-one knows for sure, but you can't make up facts like that


We can't say that the death penalty will act as a deterrent. If someone is caught illegally downloading music and films, they can get an unlimited fine and possibly a prison sentence. Does that stop anyone? No.

Actually it does stop a lot of people even if it doesn't fix the problem. If that weren't so no-one in the world would pay for music and films

-:Undertaker:-
28-11-2009, 02:10 AM
It shouldn't act just as a 'deterrant' as many argue, its also called justice.

Black_Apalachi
28-11-2009, 08:26 AM
It shouldn't act just as a 'deterrant' as many argue, its also called justice.

A deterrent is the most important thing. Justice just for the sake of it is for bitter people. If someone in my family was murdered and the murderer was executed, I'd be scared of the "guilt" coming back to haunt me, as if I had some control over whether they lived or died. I've heard lots of stories where family members have forgiven such criminals so it could easily have a bad effect on you if "you had them killed" as it were. However I would never feel any sympathy for them if they were just sent to prison for their life so why risk punishing yourself with the psychological effects?

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 09:42 AM
No-one's suggesting vigilante attacks on murderers should be allowed except maybe Dan might because he's a bit weird but a controlled punishment system that involves the death sentence does not make the state liable to punishment in return. Going by your idea we should never discipline anyone in any way - oh and by locking up criminals the jailor ought also to be locked up for his breach of the other's human rights of course, and his jailor also and so on. It just makes no sense


Well I suppose there's other arguments for not to have the death pentalty because if you think about it, would you want to spend 25 years in a cell, 23 hours a day doing nothing but sitting down, 1 hour to go outside, or would you rather 5 minutes in an electric chair, or be drugged, which is harmless?


A deterrent is the most important thing. Justice just for the sake of it is for bitter people. If someone in my family was murdered and the murderer was executed, I'd be scared of the "guilt" coming back to haunt me, as if I had some control over whether they lived or died. I've heard lots of stories where family members have forgiven such criminals so it could easily have a bad effect on you if "you had them killed" as it were. However I would never feel any sympathy for them if they were just sent to prison for their life so why risk punishing yourself with the psychological effects?

Yeah, it's a factor again. Like some religions would never dream of killing anyone for the wrong doing's.

Butterfly
28-11-2009, 10:43 AM
I think anyone sent to prison, and gloats about it should be shot.

Santorefish
28-11-2009, 10:58 AM
if somone has murdered, and has admitted to it, should be executed, why should they live if they have taken an inocent mans life

alexxxxx
28-11-2009, 12:23 PM
i don't think that execution is really justice. justice for who? the murdered? they haven't got their life back.. the family of the victim? they don't get their family member back... the murderer? they don't have a real punishment, they escape a life of imprisonment, anxiety and having to live with the guilt of it.

justice for murder can never be achieved.

AlexOC
28-11-2009, 12:42 PM
It's an easy way out for criminals. I would prefer to see murderers rot in prison than escape it so easily.

Tash.
29-11-2009, 07:33 PM
This is such a tricky subject, there are so many things to consider and both sides are correct in their own way.

On the one hand I think why should someone who has murdered someone or altered someones life so badly get away with completing their lives, albeit in a prison cell? Alot of these prisons have been shown to have quite comfortable living conditions too, it's not as if they're bored with nothing to do. Personally, i'd be happy for there to be no death sentence as long as the prison service was cleaned up. I don't see how criminals should get to live so comfortably. Repeat offenders don't even seem to care about going there, they're more happy in there than on the outside. That's not prison to me.

I just don't think that introducing the death penalty will help anything, it's been proven that miscarriages of justice arent that rare afterall and I for one wouldn't want to be involved in anyway with the death of an innocent person.

GommeInc
29-11-2009, 10:37 PM
i don't think that execution is really justice. justice for who? the murdered? they haven't got their life back.. the family of the victim? they don't get their family member back... the murderer? they don't have a real punishment, they escape a life of imprisonment, anxiety and having to live with the guilt of it.

justice for murder can never be achieved.
Excellent post :) Finding justice in execution isn't plausible, yes the murderer ended someone's life, but is it justice to end theirs the same way? No, simply because they won't suffer - there life is just ended, hardly a lesson in justice, surely you'd want them to learn a lesson by living with the guilt? Why anyone would want control over someones life is beyond me, people seeking justice in capital punishment seem worse than the criminals, because they have the control over someones fate.

I'd hate to be friends with, or know someonee who felt it necessary to chant "KILL 'IM" at someone convicted of murder, these uncivilised people should be locked away just like the criminals they're convicting.

-:Undertaker:-
29-11-2009, 11:32 PM
i don't think that execution is really justice. justice for who? the murdered? they haven't got their life back.. the family of the victim? they don't get their family member back... the murderer? they don't have a real punishment, they escape a life of imprisonment, anxiety and having to live with the guilt of it.

justice for murder can never be achieved.

Justice for the victim.
Justice for the family.
Justice for the friends.

Prison is a joke thanks to the European Union and New Labour with their human rights.

On the issue of 'guilt' in general - why would you feel guilt, nothing to feel guilty about. I didn't murder my mother/father/friend so i've nothing to be guilty about.

GommeInc
30-11-2009, 01:59 AM
Justice for the victim.
Justice for the family.
Justice for the friends.

Prison is a joke thanks to the European Union and New Labour with their human rights.

On the issue of 'guilt' in general - why would you feel guilt, nothing to feel guilty about. I didn't murder my mother/father/friend so i've nothing to be guilty about.
None of that makes sense - how is it justice? And you've not killed anyone, so you're not guilty? Kinda goes without saying...

Ardemax
30-11-2009, 06:30 AM
Undertaker that is not justice, that is us 50 years ago.

If you honestly think killing a murderer is justice, then how low are you to the crime they have commited? They might not even have commited murder, yet still get the death penalty, is that justice?

What if you got it wrong? 5 Years later you discover the real murderer and "oopsies"... you can't do anything about it.

-:Undertaker:-
30-11-2009, 03:34 PM
That is justice, that person took away a life, they forfeit their right to live. Of course it's justice, its like me saying 'well how is prison justice' - it is. Ideally what I would do is hold a referendum on the issue and settle it once and for all, although i'd expect it to not pass.

Ardemax
30-11-2009, 04:07 PM
Justice should be something to fit the crime, ie. a punishment. Although murder for murder sounds fair, it isn't.

What about the mad people? What about the disabilities who kill?

Killing someone else is in-humaine and unfair, I'd rather see them rot in a cell.

-:Undertaker:-
30-11-2009, 04:12 PM
A execution for a murder is fair, you forfeit your right to life if you murder someone else. On 'rotting in prison' - murders dont rot in prison, even in the United States where prison is far worse than the ones we have, they feel at home, they like it there - most of them have always lived rough and been involved in gangwars, in prison its the same just that they dont have to worry about money, food or a bed at night to sleep in.

FlyingJesus
30-11-2009, 05:10 PM
Ideally what I would do is hold a referendum on the issue and settle it once and for all, although i'd expect it to not pass.

The reason there isn't a referendum on it is because opinion polls show that the general public would likely vote it in on the majority


Justice should be something to fit the crime, ie. a punishment. Although murder for murder sounds fair, it isn't.

So what judgement fits murder if not losing your own life?


What about the mad people? What about the disabilities who kill?

What about them? They've still killed someone and murder is still illegal

Ardemax
30-11-2009, 05:19 PM
A execution for a murder is fair, you forfeit your right to life if you murder someone else. On 'rotting in prison' - murders dont rot in prison, even in the United States where prison is far worse than the ones we have, they feel at home, they like it there - most of them have always lived rough and been involved in gangwars, in prison its the same just that they dont have to worry about money, food or a bed at night to sleep in.

I'm sorry but if you were told you would be in prison for 25 years or you could die just then. I think I'd know the easier way out.

Invent
30-11-2009, 05:40 PM
I'm sorry but if you were told you would be in prison for 25 years or you could die just then. I think I'd know the easier way out.

If I was given the choice of either of those I'd pick the former like most other sane people I imagine...

alexxxxx
30-11-2009, 06:21 PM
Justice is getting something in return for the bad deed that someone has caused upon you. Someone grafitting on a church and then being made to clean all the grafitti off in the town/village is justice. A family of a murdered victim doesn't recieve anything for the death of a loved one, all an execution is the removal of someone elses life, it's not like that life can somehow be transfered into the corpse of the dead to see them reanimate. All we have is two dead bodies. The family and friends can never be repaid.

Ardemax
30-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Yeah, and again, what if you got it wrong?

We suddenly don't have magical healing powers.

-:Undertaker:-
30-11-2009, 07:24 PM
The reason there isn't a referendum on it is because opinion polls show that the general public would likely vote it in on the majority

So what judgement fits murder if not losing your own life?

What about them? They've still killed someone and murder is still illegal

Oh does it? - I always thought it'd lose if put to a referendum. Well there we have it, yet another thing which the elite are afraid of, none of them represent us (Lib/Lab/Con) and they are totally arrogant in how they refuse to do what the public want.


I'm sorry but if you were told you would be in prison for 25 years or you could die just then. I think I'd know the easier way out.

That is you, as I said before, most of these people don't mind even the roughest prisons because its a more secure and better life than they have ever had. It is easy for you to say that while sat in a warm home, with a loving family, with friends - but these people aren't like that.


Justice is getting something in return for the bad deed that someone has caused upon you. Someone grafitting on a church and then being made to clean all the grafitti off in the town/village is justice. A family of a murdered victim doesn't recieve anything for the death of a loved one, all an execution is the removal of someone elses life, it's not like that life can somehow be transfered into the corpse of the dead to see them reanimate. All we have is two dead bodies. The family and friends can never be repaid.

No they can't be repaid you are right, however in the interests of justice that person who is a danger and cost to the state is removed because they forfeitted their right to life, thats justice.

Ardemax
30-11-2009, 09:08 PM
Oh does it? - I always thought it'd lose if put to a referendum. Well there we have it, yet another thing which the elite are afraid of, none of them represent us (Lib/Lab/Con) and they are totally arrogant in how they refuse to do what the public want.



That is you, as I said before, most of these people don't mind even the roughest prisons because its a more secure and better life than they have ever had. It is easy for you to say that while sat in a warm home, with a loving family, with friends - but these people aren't like that.



No they can't be repaid you are right, however in the interests of justice that person who is a danger and cost to the state is removed because they forfeitted their right to life, thats justice.


Unless you've been to a prison im sure we can't comment ;)

Yeah it is easy to say, you kill the murderer -> it's going to be the same effect for that family, you may not think it, but they probably have a loving family and loving friends too.

-:Undertaker:-
01-12-2009, 07:14 PM
Well considering prisons now have Xboxs, gyms and so forth; not to mention a lot of free time, all sorts of meals and so on, I can pretty much say that prisons aren't a nightmare like they should be, hence why crime keeps rising.

On the fact they have a loving family - so? - they killed somebody, they forfeitted their right to life.

Ardemax
01-12-2009, 07:17 PM
Well considering prisons now have Xboxs, gyms and so forth; not to mention a lot of free time, all sorts of meals and so on, I can pretty much say that prisons aren't a nightmare like they should be, hence why crime keeps rising.

On the fact they have a loving family - so? - they killed somebody, they forfeitted their right to life.

It doesn't deter anything?

Haven't you seen America lately?

And not all prisons have Xboxs............................

-:Undertaker:-
01-12-2009, 07:23 PM
It doesn't deter anything?

Haven't you seen America lately?

And not all prisons have Xboxs............................

It does deter people, thats why when Michael Howard (former Conservative Leader and Home Secretary) was in office under Thatcher/Major, he introduced tougher sentences which involved prison and crime fell by a large percentage.

Prison works.

Ardemax
01-12-2009, 08:26 PM
It does deter people, thats why when Michael Howard (former Conservative Leader and Home Secretary) was in office under Thatcher/Major, he introduced tougher sentences which involved prison and crime fell by a large percentage.

Prison works.

Yeah I know it does, I was saying the death pentalty doesn't deter people........

-:Undertaker:-
01-12-2009, 08:28 PM
The death penalty won't deter all people, however it would deter some of them, and if that saves lives then i'm for it.

Bun
03-12-2009, 08:25 AM
to say prison works is debatable. a lot of people re-offend as they know even if they do get caught, it's cushty in there. if somebody takes the life of another, i think they should suffer for it for the rest of their life, the victims' family will have to. this will be more of a deterrant, i'd rather die than suffer a long, long, painful suffering death, having the fact i murdered or raped somebody on my conscience.

galbabe
23-12-2009, 12:13 AM
A large number of countries across the world execute criminals, some for serious offences and others for offence that may not even exist in your country. My question is, do you think the execution of criminals is fair and whatever your opinion - why do you think this?

Note I am asking whether you agree with capital punishment as a whole rather than whether or not it should be introduced in the UK. Although the nature of the debate would basically be the same thing.

Pros of Capital Punishment



Imprisonment for some criminals is simply not enough. For example, Murderers take a life and so why should we not take their life as punishment?
Capital punishment is most certainly a deterrent. Surely criminals will be put off breaking the law for fear of losing their life over it.
Many people are killed by murderers who have been released or on probation. This could be prevented by using the death penalty.
If certain criminals were executed, the tax payer would save money and prevent prison overcrowding.
Cons of Capital Punishment



Capital Punishment essentially involves the government agreeing to killing. You are essentially sanctioning murder by killing criminals.
In America, 23 innocent people were killed after receiving the death penalty in the 20th Century. How can you possibly justify the killing of innocent people - even if the amount is only small.
There is evidence that suggests there is racial bias in the implementation of the death penalty.
30 mentally challenged individuals have been executed in the US since 1976. Is this fair?
In application of the death penalty, you are ruling out the possibility of rehabilitation. What if the individual could change their behaviour?

What do you think?

another con whould be that they might catch and kill someone they think is guility kill that person and find out they were inocent so i think it is wrong + here were i live i don't think the capital punishment is here and which is why i think it is not necery unless it is someone incredably bad who killed hundreds and hundreds of people.


sorry my spelling is quite bad

Smits
23-12-2009, 12:24 AM
The death penalty won't deter all people, however it would deter some of them, and if that saves lives then i'm for it.

Exactly the way i feel, anything that prevents even some people from taking a life, can only be beneficial, right?


another con whould be that they might catch and kill someone they think is guility kill that person and find out they were inocent so i think it is wrong + here were i live i don't think the capital punishment is here and which is why i think it is not necery unless it is someone incredably bad who killed hundreds and hundreds of people.


sorry my spelling is quite bad


It is an interesting point, all be it raised before. Even without the death penalty, many men will spend time in prison, all there lives even, being innocent the whole time. Is this not just as much a waste of life? Yeah, sure they don't die, but i don'th think people sentenced to death would be done so with such unclear evidence. t's probable that if the death penalty did exist, only the worst offenders who have been thoroughhly proven guilty, would be sentenced to death.


to say prison works is debatable. a lot of people re-offend as they know even if they do get caught, it's cushty in there. if somebody takes the life of another, i think they should suffer for it for the rest of their life, the victims' family will have to. this will be more of a deterrant, i'd rather die than suffer a long, long, painful suffering death, having the fact i murdered or raped somebody on my conscience.

Not to mention some people purposely offend because prison life is actually better for them. This brings up something else, prison needs to be tougher on criminals.

Meree.
23-12-2009, 12:27 AM
Exactly the way i feel, anything that prevents even some people from taking a life, can only be beneficial, right?




It is an interesting point, all be it raised before. Even without the death penalty, many men will spend time in prison, all there lives even, being innocent the whole time. Is this not just as much a waste of life? Yeah, sure they don't die, but i don'th think people sentenced to death would be done so with such unclear evidence. t's probable that if the death penalty did exist, only the worst offenders who have been thoroughhly proven guilty, would be sentenced to death.



Not to mention some people purposely offend because prison life is actually better for them. This brings up something else, prison needs to be tougher on criminals.

Always seem to agree with you. +rep

-:Undertaker:-
23-12-2009, 12:38 AM
Who cares if prison works or not? - aslong as they are not able to harm or commit crime against the law-abiding then who really cares. That is how a real justice system, and the system of prison works.

Pazza
23-12-2009, 12:42 AM
I'd agree with the death penalty, however the only thing making me say no, is the fact that even though the criminal should be punished, by killing them you're also punishing their family too.

I just don't think its fair to leave another family to suffer, with the loss of their husband/wife, son/daughter, brother/sister, or what I think is the worse; their child. I really dont think its fair in that respect.

alexxxxx
23-12-2009, 12:43 AM
never is it justifiable to kill someone.

and i especially agree with the post above.

you get 2 (or more) distraught families with the dp. you get one without.

-:Undertaker:-
23-12-2009, 01:50 AM
I'd agree with the death penalty, however the only thing making me say no, is the fact that even though the criminal should be punished, by killing them you're also punishing their family too.

I just don't think its fair to leave another family to suffer, with the loss of their husband/wife, son/daughter, brother/sister, or what I think is the worse; their child. I really dont think its fair in that respect.

They gave up their right to life by killing someone, I know I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with a family member of mine if they killed/raped someone.

GommeInc
23-12-2009, 02:04 AM
It is an interesting point, all be it raised before. Even without the death penalty, many men will spend time in prison, all there lives even, being innocent the whole time. Is this not just as much a waste of life? Yeah, sure they don't die, but i don'th think people sentenced to death would be done so with such unclear evidence. t's probable that if the death penalty did exist, only the worst offenders who have been thoroughhly proven guilty, would be sentenced to death.
Hardly useful or a deterrent then - proving someone guilty takes ages and within that time hundreds of thousands of convictions will take place, therefore doing absolutely nothing as a deterrent, let alone the cost to prove a person is fit to be legally murdered. You're forgetting that prisons aren't going to go anywhere anytime soon, the death sentence is just a pointless add-on sitting above the action taken which is a prison sentence. They will need to be improved (or the opposite, if you will ;)) and will act as a deterrent anyway, once the whole legal system is fixed, though how it ended up like a mess is beyond anyone.

There appears to be no justifiable reason to legally kill off someone - it's double standards. Let's kill someone for killing someone. It seems like a waste of resources and time to bother thinking of capital punishment, when a cheaper option of actual prison sentences could work if the legal system wasn't based on a nanny's idea of what punishment is - a quick clip round the ears and off you go :/ If they were harsher, it will make people think twice about convicting any sort of crime, while a death sentence seems too far and few between each conviction to be any sort of justifiable deterrent.

Not forgetting that a person can be proven innocent in prison without costing any extra to ship 'em off to be killed. It seems a bit of a waste killing off someone, when you could just as well use them as an example and prove you don't have to kill to get your own way, though that depends on the mentally stable and the mentally unstable who murder or rape.

alexxxxx pointed out something :/ At least you only have to worry about one family with prison sentences, rather than two if two people are killed.

iAdam
23-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Alot of this debate will be opinon, and obviously the UK government's opinion is that it is not justifiable as it has been abolished.


However, as a few have mentioned the threat of execution would not deter all criminals, but that is why the punishment is there in the first place, so people can be punished for their crimes not to deter.

I was speaking to someone a few months ago who said that it's a very religious way of doing things in that, you should repay for your sins through suffering. I don't know if this is true or not, so I say the next part in no confidence, as most of the UK is non religious, how is capital punishment justifiable?

Hecktix
23-12-2009, 03:23 PM
thou shalt not kill.

under any circumstances, there are much more fitting punishments than death :)

-:Undertaker:-
23-12-2009, 03:42 PM
Of course it deters people, harsher penalties deter people from committing crime. If you still don't think it does, well heres a better point; harsher penalities keep dangerous people off the streets. It seems this country is obsessed with what the criminals and their family will feel - who gives a damn what Ian Huntley feels about whether or not he should be executed?

This country needs a referendum on this issue as with many other issues, and then it can't be said that nobody wants it/people do want it anymore - the people would then get their say and not the politicians who seem to think they are morally above us in their opinions and views.

iAdam
23-12-2009, 03:57 PM
Never said it doesn't deter people, said it might not deter all people. Which is true.

As oli said, there are far better punishments that death anyway. Prison itself is a torture and frankly if I had the decision of prison and death, i'd choose death.

Tash.
23-12-2009, 04:21 PM
Of course it deters people, harsher penalties deter people from committing crime. If you still don't think it does, well heres a better point; harsher penalities keep dangerous people off the streets. It seems this country is obsessed with what the criminals and their family will feel - who gives a damn what Ian Huntley feels about whether or not he should be executed?

This country needs a referendum on this issue as with many other issues, and then it can't be said that nobody wants it/people do want it anymore - the people would then get their say and not the politicians who seem to think they are morally above us in their opinions and views.

Not all people are the same, some will still go out there and do it so no it doesn't deter all people. And yes, some people who have hearts do worry about the families of these people because often they've done nothing to warrant a member of their family being killed. The person themselves may have done, but that family will have the guilt of what the person has done and then the upset of having their family member killed. Personally I think if you're going to kill someone for revenge (which is what this is) then you deserve to be killed in the same way because you're no better than they are. Just because you think you have a higher moral reason for doing it does not make it right.

And no, a referendum on everything would not make these issues correct. Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it right. There are so many considerations to be taken into account with this issue and regardless of what you think some people aren't capable of taking them into account or giving them the importance that they require. For example, it has happened several times (that we know of, there may be more) where people have been killed when they were innocent. That cannot be taken back and it is beyond wrong.

-:Undertaker:-
23-12-2009, 05:04 PM
Not all people are the same, some will still go out there and do it so no it doesn't deter all people. And yes, some people who have hearts do worry about the families of these people because often they've done nothing to warrant a member of their family being killed. The person themselves may have done, but that family will have the guilt of what the person has done and then the upset of having their family member killed. Personally I think if you're going to kill someone for revenge (which is what this is) then you deserve to be killed in the same way because you're no better than they are. Just because you think you have a higher moral reason for doing it does not make it right.

And no, a referendum on everything would not make these issues correct. Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it right. There are so many considerations to be taken into account with this issue and regardless of what you think some people aren't capable of taking them into account or giving them the importance that they require. For example, it has happened several times (that we know of, there may be more) where people have been killed when they were innocent. That cannot be taken back and it is beyond wrong.

Here is an example of the arrogance shown by politicians, we live in a democracy so the majority view counts, or should do. In that case then, as the vast majority of people don't read the manifestos of the political parties then they don't (in your logic) have the rights or expertise to vote or make that decision, so you might aswell just declare a dictatorship.

Meree.
23-12-2009, 05:07 PM
I've been meaning to post on this thread for ages. I agree with Ardemax. But sometimes in my mind it depends on what the criminal has done. If it's murder, intentionally ment to happen then yeah, maybe it is right then. But what if they got the suspect wrong? Then I believe it isn't right. I think maybe they should bring back the death penalty, but only execute with enough proof. If they don't have enough proof, then they can't. Confusing opinion, but yeah.

Tash.
23-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Here is an example of the arrogance shown by politicians, we live in a democracy so the majority view counts, or should do. In that case then, as the vast majority of people don't read the manifestos of the political parties then they don't (in your logic) have the rights or expertise to vote or make that decision, so you might aswell just declare a dictatorship.

I am not a politician and I don't ever plan on being one so it's not a politicians view point you just got there is it? And yes that could be argued to be the case. However, the election of a political party is not the difference between literal life and death so it's arguably not as important is it? You always take things too far, this debate has nothing to do with democracy versus dictatorship and the two cannot be compared.

Black_Apalachi
23-12-2009, 07:59 PM
thou shalt not kill.

under any circumstances, there are much more fitting punishments than death :)

The one who has not committed sin, cast the first stone.

Tbh if we're quoting the Bible, I don't think we can punish anybody in any way?

galbabe
24-12-2009, 01:23 PM
wouldn't it be better to let them person to be in a cell living with what he done and if he/she has any concience this will prob be worse than death

-:Undertaker:-
24-12-2009, 03:52 PM
I am not a politician and I don't ever plan on being one so it's not a politicians view point you just got there is it? And yes that could be argued to be the case. However, the election of a political party is not the difference between literal life and death so it's arguably not as important is it? You always take things too far, this debate has nothing to do with democracy versus dictatorship and the two cannot be compared.

Oh of course it has, the majority view is such things as leave the European Union, bring back the death penalty, stop overseas aid which runs into the billions while we are in serious debt - is it any wonder why people aren't at all interested in politics anymore when they are just blindly ignored?

You put your view before the majority view; exactly why many on the left side on this forum refuse to accept that this country should, for democracy, have referendums which reflect true public opinion over many issues. Of course, you'd never support a referendum on the issue, and neither would the main political parties because they all know what the answer would be.

Thats not democracy to me, thats an insult to it.

Tash.
24-12-2009, 06:24 PM
Oh of course it has, the majority view is such things as leave the European Union, bring back the death penalty, stop overseas aid which runs into the billions while we are in serious debt - is it any wonder why people aren't at all interested in politics anymore when they are just blindly ignored?

You put your view before the majority view; exactly why many on the left side on this forum refuse to accept that this country should, for democracy, have referendums which reflect true public opinion over many issues. Of course, you'd never support a referendum on the issue, and neither would the main political parties because they all know what the answer would be.

Thats not democracy to me, thats an insult to it.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that although you and I may be interested in those things, and perhaps a few people you know, alot of people aren't. Therefore if they were asked to vote on such things they would be doing so blindly. Alot of people do not know the advantages/disadvantages of staying/leaving the EU, similarly they don't see the potential downsides (such as mistakes in identifying the true perpertrator of the crime) to capital punishment. As this is the case I am happy for others who's job it is to know these things to keep making such decisions. There will be a time when you realise that certain decisions just cannot be made by majority, and therefore referendums on every single matter just won't work.

As for putting my opinion above the majority, no I do not. My opinion matters for as little as yours, i'm merely putting it across. My opinion is that yes there should be referendums on some issues, but having one on every single matter just won't work. As i've said above, there are issues which are highly technical and where certain things must be weighed up and despite what you think the general public do not have the knowledge to do that. Have you never heard of the saying "A person is smart, people are stupid?" because I think in this situation it is very apt. People as a collective are often easily influenced by the stronger or louder opinion amongst them, (in this case it could perhaps be the media or a particular political figure) it's simple psychology.

You intensely despise the labour government which is currently in power, yet you seem to be glossing over the fact that the general public voted these people in, now considering you would consider this to be a bad decision, what makes you think they could make a better decision (given the chance) on the EU, capital punishment or overseas aid?

-:Undertaker:-
24-12-2009, 07:26 PM
The thing you don't seem to understand is that although you and I may be interested in those things, and perhaps a few people you know, alot of people aren't. Therefore if they were asked to vote on such things they would be doing so blindly. Alot of people do not know the advantages/disadvantages of staying/leaving the EU, similarly they don't see the potential downsides (such as mistakes in identifying the true perpertrator of the crime) to capital punishment. As this is the case I am happy for others who's job it is to know these things to keep making such decisions. There will be a time when you realise that certain decisions just cannot be made by majority, and therefore referendums on every single matter just won't work.Do not say people are too stupid to make the decisions, people have their own opinions and their own reasons, they do not 'blindly' vote as you say so - you only say this because the majority view is the opposite of yourself and the left.

The time I say the people do not have the brain power to make their own decisions is when I find democracy dead, its just pure arrogance how you can say this and to be quite honest, you'd fit in perfectly well at Brussels or Westminister where what the people want doesn't matter.


As for putting my opinion above the majority, no I do not. My opinion matters for as little as yours, i'm merely putting it across. My opinion is that yes there should be referendums on some issues, but having one on every single matter just won't work. As i've said above, there are issues which are highly technical and where certain things must be weighed up and despite what you think the general public do not have the knowledge to do that. Have you never heard of the saying "A person is smart, people are stupid?" because I think in this situation it is very apt. People as a collective are often easily influenced by the stronger or louder opinion amongst them, (in this case it could perhaps be the media or a particular political figure) it's simple psychology. So what do you propose? - just cancel elections and the rest of it because people are too easily influenced by the media/others, and just leave the Labour Party/European Union incharge?

This sort of rhetoric was the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union.


You intensely despise the labour government which is currently in power, yet you seem to be glossing over the fact that the general public voted these people in, now considering you would consider this to be a bad decision, what makes you think they could make a better decision (given the chance) on the EU, capital punishment or overseas aid?The Labour Party got voted in, as much as I dislike it and feel that they would lose their grip if the electoral system was overhauled to a much fairer system, they won I accept that. The right decision ultimatley came from that election, not a decision I agree with or support but a decision which is right.

This needs to be applied to the European Union (especially as Labour were voted in with a pledge for a referendum on any EU reformal, which they later went back on) and other important issues such as the death penalty. Until this happens, the country will continue to be ruled by people with the minority view (such as yourself) and dissatisfaction will continue to grow.

Gibs960
26-12-2009, 05:19 PM
In my opinion, I think it's wrong. Exactly what you've said also, if you get the suspect wrong, the questions will be asked.

I don't think two wrongs make a right, so I'm going to start the debate by saying it's in-humaine and is wrong, therefore shouldn't come in place in the UK.

This comment is a load of bull, would you shoot Hitler, I think the answer is yes, if it was going to save millions, would you kill a suicide bomber if it was going to save hundreds, yes. And,
if you get the suspect wrong, the questions will be asked. We have something now called, DNA Identifacation, I think to hell with Jail, put 'em against a wall and shoot 'em, if they've kill someone, give them the treatment they deserve, maybe it makes me as bad as them, to save someone I'd do it, it's either let an innocent man/woman get murdered or kill an sick and evil man/woman to save an innocent person, which one? I'd decide in the blink of an eye. And even more so if it involved someone I cared about.

[Jay]
09-01-2010, 05:04 PM
I think death is less of a punishment, its kind of an easy way out.
Life in jail would be much worse. Also I agree with the innocent killings, sometimes you can never be 100% certain.

Ardemax
17-01-2010, 06:24 PM
This comment is a load of bull, would you shoot Hitler, I think the answer is yes, if it was going to save millions, would you kill a suicide bomber if it was going to save hundreds, yes. And, We have something now called, DNA Identifacation, I think to hell with Jail, put 'em against a wall and shoot 'em, if they've kill someone, give them the treatment they deserve, maybe it makes me as bad as them, to save someone I'd do it, it's either let an innocent man/woman get murdered or kill an sick and evil man/woman to save an innocent person, which one? I'd decide in the blink of an eye. And even more so if it involved someone I cared about.

Would I shoot Hitler? Yes I would, I haven't said I wouldn't. And we're on about executing criminals here, not shooting every mad-man you see.

How would you know a suicide bomber was going to kill hundreds? You don't.

I'm Christian so my beliefs are very much with not judging on other people.

And there can still be uncertainties and mix-ups and sometimes police do get it wrong, so don't tell me it's 100% correct.

Ok answer me this, your dad killed someone, would you rather see him shot or put behind bars?

Gibs960
17-01-2010, 06:43 PM
Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

Inspiration
17-01-2010, 06:54 PM
Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

So your saying you would want a family member to be shot?
Yes although he did murder in the first place GOD teaches us to forgive.
As an earlier post said two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Wouldn't you rather someone suffering in jail rather than an easy way out AKA death?

RedStratocas
17-01-2010, 07:19 PM
this is kinda a confusing question. if you are 100% positive that the person did the crime, say murder, then i would really have no problem with whatever method you used to kill him.

unfortunately this is rarely to ever the case. there are more cons to the death penalty than there are pros. people don't realize how many innocent people are put to death. i think if even ONE innocent person is executed, it doesnt justify executing 1000 serial killers. but there's been far more than just one. not to mention our court system is clogged with appeals from people on death row, causing us to spend more money on trials than it would to just keep these people alive in jail. also, the crimes that warrant the death penalty are so inconsistent that it's absurd. there have been people who have been put to death who have killed one person, but then there's people who have killed an entire family and were released before the end of their lives.

Ardemax
17-01-2010, 08:18 PM
this is kinda a confusing question. if you are 100% positive that the person did the crime, say murder, then i would really have no problem with whatever method you used to kill him.

unfortunately this is rarely to ever the case. there are more cons to the death penalty than there are pros. people don't realize how many innocent people are put to death. i think if even ONE innocent person is executed, it doesnt justify executing 1000 serial killers. but there's been far more than just one. not to mention our court system is clogged with appeals from people on death row, causing us to spend more money on trials than it would to just keep these people alive in jail. also, the crimes that warrant the death penalty are so inconsistent that it's absurd. there have been people who have been put to death who have killed one person, but then there's people who have killed an entire family and were released before the end of their lives.

this ^


Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

you don't understand that innocent people are put to death because they've got the wrong person

AlexOC
17-01-2010, 08:20 PM
You're only the same as the criminals.

DrLacero
17-01-2010, 09:44 PM
When it can be proved beyond shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty, I support the death penalty for certain crimes.

I do not, nor will I ever, support the death penalty until such a time. And I will never support the execution of innocent people as happens a lot under Sharia law.

Sly
23-01-2010, 01:25 PM
I think the crime would have to be pretty bad but I would have no problem with a rapist/paedophile being killed.
Also I think some murders can be justified and let go if they are for the right reasons like say you killed a man 'cos he was doing your wife but if you just shot an old lady 'cos you was in a foul mood then theres no excuse and you should be killed too

RedStratocas
23-01-2010, 01:47 PM
oh and i dont know if anyones mentioned this, i dont really wanna go through the entire thread, but the argument that a lot of people make that the death penalty will prevent people from committing crimes is just absurd. the criminals who commit crimes worthy of the death penalty like murder and rape don't think they're going to be caught at all, so the punishment could be horrible torture and it wouldnt make an ounce of difference.

-:Undertaker:-
23-01-2010, 03:37 PM
You're only the same as the criminals.

..except for the large fact it is within the law, for justice and is humane.

Ardemax
23-01-2010, 03:58 PM
..except for the large fact it is within the law, for justice and is humane.

I'm sorry but you're taking a life in a way which they took another life.

None of that is humane and in my honest opinion should be against the law, which it still is in this country.

Yes the majority would probably want the death pentalty back, but honestly, what are we learning from it? 2 Wrongs make a right? You tell me.

-:Undertaker:-
23-01-2010, 08:12 PM
I'm sorry but you're taking a life in a way which they took another life.

None of that is humane and in my honest opinion should be against the law, which it still is in this country.

Yes the majority would probably want the death pentalty back, but honestly, what are we learning from it? 2 Wrongs make a right? You tell me.

Yeah two wrongs do make a right, you get attacked by another country you attack them back. You get attacked in the street, you attack them back. If not you'll just get pushed around more and more and nobody will ever learn any lessons. Regardless of views and opinions on the subject, it should be put to a referendum so that the British people can decide how they want their country to be run, not the career politicians in the Lib/Lab/Con.

Ardemax
24-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Yeah two wrongs do make a right, you get attacked by another country you attack them back. You get attacked in the street, you attack them back. If not you'll just get pushed around more and more and nobody will ever learn any lessons. Regardless of views and opinions on the subject, it should be put to a referendum so that the British people can decide how they want their country to be run, not the career politicians in the Lib/Lab/Con.

We can't go having a refurendum willy nilly. If we had one for everyone's opinion, not only would we go nowhere but there would be no need for MP's or the government.

And no, 2 wrongs definetely do not make a right.

Tash.
24-01-2010, 01:45 PM
Yeah two wrongs do make a right, you get attacked by another country you attack them back. You get attacked in the street, you attack them back. If not you'll just get pushed around more and more and nobody will ever learn any lessons. Regardless of views and opinions on the subject, it should be put to a referendum so that the British people can decide how they want their country to be run, not the career politicians in the Lib/Lab/Con.

I can't believe what i'm reading here.. 2 wrongs make a right? So you're saying that if you are stabbed in the street it's fine if you stab that person back? Of course it isn't because then you've just committed the exact crime they did to you. It's been known for a long time now that doing something in retaliation to whats been done to you gets you nowhere and infact makes you a very bitter person. You can't argue that killing someone is humane, it's not no matter how you do it.

-:Undertaker:-
24-01-2010, 02:17 PM
We can't go having a refurendum willy nilly. If we had one for everyone's opinion, not only would we go nowhere but there would be no need for MP's or the government.

And no, 2 wrongs definetely do not make a right.

Yes we can, Switzerland holds referendums on various issues all the time which means its people get what they want, not the MPs/government. You only disagree with the idea of holding a referendum on these type of issues because you know what the result would be.

On two wrongs, two wrongs do make a right.

Somebody hits you, you hit them back.
A country attacks you, you attack them back.
A murderer takes a life, he loses his life.


I can't believe what i'm reading here.. 2 wrongs make a right? So you're saying that if you are stabbed in the street it's fine if you stab that person back? Of course it isn't because then you've just committed the exact crime they did to you. It's been known for a long time now that doing something in retaliation to whats been done to you gets you nowhere and infact makes you a very bitter person. You can't argue that killing someone is humane, it's not no matter how you do it.

No, we'd take them to court and if the court finds them guilty it would punish them, the death penalty being used in the most extreme cases. If somebody takes somebody elses life then they have knowingly forfeited their right to life. There is a difference between vigilantism and being tried in a court of justice. Do not preach humanity to me when talking about the likes of Ian Bradey, Myra Hindly and Ian Huntley. If I had my way and the rest of the country, they'd be executed in what I consider a humane way, and thats the best we can give them and the best they deserve, considering how they killed their victims in the most horrific and blood-thirsty ways.

RedStratocas
25-01-2010, 02:53 PM
Yes we can, Switzerland holds referendums on various issues all the time which means its people get what they want, not the MPs/government. You only disagree with the idea of holding a referendum on these type of issues because you know what the result would be.

On two wrongs, two wrongs do make a right.

Somebody hits you, you hit them back.
A country attacks you, you attack them back.
A murderer takes a life, he loses his life.

someone rapes you, you... well nvm.

this may sound ignorant, but i think a referendum would be a mistake since many voters are simplistic and often arrogant about these sorts of issues and don't think through the repercussions. im not even making the argument that it's morally wrong to kill a criminal, im saying it's illogical based on the justice system. on paper and in simple terms, the death penalty makes sense. someone kills someone else, they get killed. but the logistics of it, the absolute FACT that there are a pretty staggering amount of innocent people put to death that we know of, along with the inconsistencies of the court, make the death penalty a mere facade of justice.

and based on your logic of "someone kills you, we kill them" of criminal justice, what would you do about indirect crimes? say a drug trafficker? a drunk driver?

-:Undertaker:-
25-01-2010, 04:51 PM
someone rapes you, you... well nvm.

this may sound ignorant, but i think a referendum would be a mistake since many voters are simplistic and often arrogant about these sorts of issues and don't think through the repercussions. im not even making the argument that it's morally wrong to kill a criminal, im saying it's illogical based on the justice system. on paper and in simple terms, the death penalty makes sense. someone kills someone else, they get killed. but the logistics of it, the absolute FACT that there are a pretty staggering amount of innocent people put to death that we know of, along with the inconsistencies of the court, make the death penalty a mere facade of justice.

and based on your logic of "someone kills you, we kill them" of criminal justice, what would you do about indirect crimes? say a drug trafficker? a drunk driver?

People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

Tash.
25-01-2010, 06:41 PM
People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

Perhaps yes, but we also see that if it was passed it'd be for the wrong reasons. That's what you don't seem to understand whenever someone posts to debate with you. I don't understand how, considering that you live here, you cannot see that a large part of the British society have opinions that are not formed in the correct way. Yes they may have an opinion on the matters you wish to put to a referendum, but they are not all informed ones. This is ok if you want to talk about whether a community centre is built in a local area etc... but really, when you're talking about the death penalty, the difference between perhaps an innocent person being found guilty and sentenced to death (which you cannot take back no matter what you say) or being put in prison (when at least you can attempt to compensate them for your misjudgements). This is not ignorance of the intelligence of the British public, it's actually based on the fact that being around people day to day means you begin to realise you are surrounded by people who would not make an informed decision on these matters. All some people will see is whether or not a killer like Ian Huntley or Myra Hindley should be killed and they will vote yes. They don't quite realise that it's not always as easy to judge whether a person is guilty and no case is simple, there are always mitigating factors. Referendums are foolish and a waste of money. I don't know why i'd be saying this if I didn't believe it, because my voice isn't heard either so i'm not gaining anything from not having a referendum.

Ardemax
25-01-2010, 06:46 PM
Answer me this; if you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

RedStratocas
25-01-2010, 06:52 PM
People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

i disagree. i dont know about the british, but from what i see, people get all wound up and form passionate opinions about subjects like the death penalty, abortion, and gay marriage without well being well-informed. for example, if it were up to the general public in a vote in the u.s., civil rights probably wouldn't have passed until the late 70's, maybe even later. i dont live in the uk lol so i dont really care if there is a referendum or not, i live in the united states, where people from texas gladly execute the mentally handicapped.

i understand your point about executing in cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there has to be a consistency in the evidence that is considered a "smoking gun," if you will.

CrazyColaist
25-01-2010, 11:01 PM
if only they have perfect proof. and not from what was said.

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 03:34 PM
Perhaps yes, but we also see that if it was passed it'd be for the wrong reasons. That's what you don't seem to understand whenever someone posts to debate with you. I don't understand how, considering that you live here, you cannot see that a large part of the British society have opinions that are not formed in the correct way. Yes they may have an opinion on the matters you wish to put to a referendum, but they are not all informed ones. This is ok if you want to talk about whether a community centre is built in a local area etc... but really, when you're talking about the death penalty, the difference between perhaps an innocent person being found guilty and sentenced to death (which you cannot take back no matter what you say) or being put in prison (when at least you can attempt to compensate them for your misjudgements). This is not ignorance of the intelligence of the British public, it's actually based on the fact that being around people day to day means you begin to realise you are surrounded by people who would not make an informed decision on these matters. All some people will see is whether or not a killer like Ian Huntley or Myra Hindley should be killed and they will vote yes. They don't quite realise that it's not always as easy to judge whether a person is guilty and no case is simple, there are always mitigating factors. Referendums are foolish and a waste of money. I don't know why i'd be saying this if I didn't believe it, because my voice isn't heard either so i'm not gaining anything from not having a referendum.


i disagree. i dont know about the british, but from what i see, people get all wound up and form passionate opinions about subjects like the death penalty, abortion, and gay marriage without well being well-informed. for example, if it were up to the general public in a vote in the u.s., civil rights probably wouldn't have passed until the late 70's, maybe even later. i dont live in the uk lol so i dont really care if there is a referendum or not, i live in the united states, where people from texas gladly execute the mentally handicapped.

i understand your point about executing in cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there has to be a consistency in the evidence that is considered a "smoking gun," if you will.

Wrong, you are both only refusing to support the idea of a referendum because you know what the outcome would be, you cannot deny or state that other peoples opinions are worth less aka 'un-informed' just because they do not match your own.

Tash you say referendums are a waste of money yet support the Labour Party, I think that just says all we need to know. Its only a waste of money to you because its giving the people of this country the right to drop your left-wing/Labour policies and choose for themselves how they want their country to be run, not how the leftist elite want it to be run. The only reason someone can be afraid of the outcome of a referendum is if they know they will lose, hence why we do not have the opperunity given to us to have referendums, and hence why the UK and all of Europe has been denied a referendum on the most soverignty-infringing document we have ever had placed on this country and Europe.

Ardemax
26-01-2010, 04:04 PM
Answer please.

If you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 04:05 PM
Answer please.

If you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

I'd accept what the majority of the public wished for, thats democracy.

Ardemax
26-01-2010, 05:25 PM
I'd accept what the majority of the public wished for, thats democracy.

Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 05:30 PM
Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?

How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.

Tash.
26-01-2010, 06:20 PM
Wrong, you are both only refusing to support the idea of a referendum because you know what the outcome would be, you cannot deny or state that other peoples opinions are worth less aka 'un-informed' just because they do not match your own.

Tash you say referendums are a waste of money yet support the Labour Party, I think that just says all we need to know. Its only a waste of money to you because its giving the people of this country the right to drop your left-wing/Labour policies and choose for themselves how they want their country to be run, not how the leftist elite want it to be run. The only reason someone can be afraid of the outcome of a referendum is if they know they will lose, hence why we do not have the opperunity given to us to have referendums, and hence why the UK and all of Europe has been denied a referendum on the most soverignty-infringing document we have ever had placed on this country and Europe.

You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed.

As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.


How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.

I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.

Ardemax
26-01-2010, 06:26 PM
How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.


You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed.

As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.



I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.

Tash got it in one.

I saw you make the point you'd put across about following the public because it's "democracy" as you clearly put it.

So why can't you answer the question?

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 07:37 PM
You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed. If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.


As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.Of course they didn't get us into this mess, this mess is the cycle of capitalism and will and must happen time and time again for economics to succeed. The way Labour handled the economy since 1997 and the way they continue to handle it now is a disgrace, so yes it does make a mockery of what you state when you say you support Labour but claim referendums would add to our debt.

Referendums cost buttons compared to some of the things we spend money on, some of them even daily. Do not use the debt argument, what a shoddy excuse.


I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.Actually no sorry, Ardemaxs example is nothing like holding a referendum on the death penalty, the European Union or same-sex marriages. On what the public wants, yes it is the most important thing. So YES, in terms of democracy, if people voted for a policy made by Adolf Hitler (who somehow has come back to life) then yes, it should be accepted. The fact is that the British people are not Nazis, are not evil and would not vote for a policy such as 'kill all jews' and so forth, so what a poor example which proves nothing.


Tash got it in one.

I saw you make the point you'd put across about following the public because it's "democracy" as you clearly put it.

So why can't you answer the question?

I have answered the question, if it passed then it'd have to be accepted but the fact remains that the vast majority of the British people do not want all jews to be exterminated in death camps therefore it would never even make it to a referendum, or parliament for that matter. Referendums would also protect groups, democracy should not hurt certain groups - that said, criminals are an exception and i'm afraid I put justice before the likes of Ian Bradey and Ian Huntley.

Have Switzerland held a referendum/planning to hold a referendum on exterminating the jews anytime soon? - no, they are not.

Ardemax
26-01-2010, 08:22 PM
If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.

Of course they didn't get us into this mess, this mess is the cycle of capitalism and will and must happen time and time again for economics to succeed. The way Labour handled the economy since 1997 and the way they continue to handle it now is a disgrace, so yes it does make a mockery of what you state when you say you support Labour but claim referendums would add to our debt.

Referendums cost buttons compared to some of the things we spend money on, some of them even daily. Do not use the debt argument, what a shoddy excuse.

Actually no sorry, Ardemaxs example is nothing like holding a referendum on the death penalty, the European Union or same-sex marriages. On what the public wants, yes it is the most important thing. So YES, in terms of democracy, if people voted for a policy made by Adolf Hitler (who somehow has come back to life) then yes, it should be accepted. The fact is that the British people are not Nazis, are not evil and would not vote for a policy such as 'kill all jews' and so forth, so what a poor example which proves nothing.



I have answered the question, if it passed then it'd have to be accepted but the fact remains that the vast majority of the British people do not want all jews to be exterminated in death camps therefore it would never even make it to a referendum, or parliament for that matter. Referendums would also protect groups, democracy should not hurt certain groups - that said, criminals are an exception and i'm afraid I put justice before the likes of Ian Bradey and Ian Huntley.

Have Switzerland held a referendum/planning to hold a referendum on exterminating the jews anytime soon? - no, they are not.

I'm sorry but you failed to answer the direct question, there's no cons about it.

So are you seriously telling me, if the public wanted something as insane as to exterminate a particular group or country, and your cabinet said we couldn't, you would agree with the public?

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 08:23 PM
If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.

for the poltical parties, you are voting on their policies and their manifesto that they publish, you should be making an informed decision on that. it's complete bull poo that you know how that EU works when you thought the council of europe was the same thing as the EU. when it isn't.

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 08:27 PM
I'm sorry but you failed to answer the direct question, there's no cons about it.

So are you seriously telling me, if the public wanted something as insane as to exterminate a particular group or country, and your cabinet said we couldn't, you would agree with the public?

I did answer and you know yourself that I did, hence why you are now asking me whether or not I seriously said that. Yes I am, thats democracy. If a Nazi Party won an election fair and square then a Nazi Party is the democratic government of the country. However what you have ignored is my very point; the vast majority of the British people do not want jews exterminated and would never vote for a Nazi Party - therefore comparing a referendum on the extermination of the jews to a referendum on whether or not the death penalty should be brought back makes no sense.


for the poltical parties, you are voting on their policies and their manifesto that they publish, you should be making an informed decision on that. it's complete bull poo that you know how that EU works when you thought the council of europe was the same thing as the EU. when it isn't.

The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 08:34 PM
The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

Then why bother with elections at all with your logic? if everyone is as 'informed' as everyone else, why should we get a parliament to vote in laws when we can do it ourselves? has it ever occurred to you why perhaps we have a parliamentary democracy, it's because it's impossible for everyone to run the country efficiently or cheaply.

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 08:40 PM
Then why bother with elections at all with your logic? if everyone is as 'informed' as everyone else, why should we get a parliament to vote in laws when we can do it ourselves? has it ever occurred to you why perhaps we have a parliamentary democracy, it's because it's impossible for everyone to run the country efficiently or cheaply.

..because there are too many trivial laws to pass via referendum, it would be ideal to let the people make the choice in nearly everything but is not realistic. However holding referendums on important issues such as the death penalty and the European Union (as Switzerland does) is possible and is needed.

On the parliamentary democracy, Switzerland also has a parliament. Referendums are not expensive and are not unaffordable, infact ideally national and local referendums could be held with council elections every spring depending on what issues were being put to referendum.

You know alex that if put to a referendum the death penalty would most likely return and that the United Kingdom would leave the European Union - yet you can't accept that the people of Britain should make this choice and not people with the same mindset as you, who currently make our laws & regulations.

You may disagree with the general populations right-wing stances on things such as the European Union and the death penalty, but don't question whether people are intelligent enough or not to make their own decisions on issues such as these, because by doing so its little wonder many people are so disillusioned with politics.

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 08:54 PM
..because there are too many trivial laws to pass via referendum, it would be ideal to let the people make the choice in nearly everything but is not realistic. However holding referendums on important issues such as the death penalty and the European Union (as Switzerland does) is possible and is needed.

On the parliamentary democracy, Switzerland also has a parliament. Referendums are not expensive and are not unaffordable, infact ideally national and local referendums could be held with council elections every spring depending on what issues were being put to referendum.

You know alex that if put to a referendum the death penalty would most likely return and that the United Kingdom would leave the European Union - yet you can't accept that the people of Britain should make this choice and not people with the same mindset as you, who currently make our laws & regulations.

You may disagree with the general populations right-wing stances on things such as the European Union and the death penalty, but don't question whether people are intelligent enough or not to make their own decisions on issues such as these, because by doing so its little wonder many people are so disillusioned with politics.

in who's opinion are certain laws 'trivial?' I don't know the whole of switzerland's system, but I disagree that the majority of people should be allowed to ban minarets. surely people should be allowed to practice their religion regardless of what other people think. That's called freedom. That's why I think that the system is very flawed. Who decides what should be set to a referendum and that certain laws passed by the majority could in theory conflict with minority's personal freedoms.

Your reasoning for referendums seems to split from the feeling that the state should not play a large part in people's lives - Why don't we just get rid of the state altogether and let people set their own laws for their own land...

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 09:00 PM
in who's opinion are certain laws 'trivial?' I don't know the whole of switzerland's system, but I disagree that the majority of people should be allowed to ban minarets. surely people should be allowed to practice their religion regardless of what other people think. That's called freedom. That's why I think that the system is very flawed. Who decides what should be set to a referendum and that certain laws passed by the majority could in theory conflict with minority's personal freedoms.That could be done in a number of ways, possibly the parties before an election could set out legally-binding what issues they would put to a referendum - more so, i'd much rather prefer when a certain number of signatures are reached then a referendum can be held. We would have to look closely at the Swiss system to get the full idea though.

On freedom, but to what extent. I disagree with gay marriage, by me voting against it I do not see how that is taking away somebodys freedom. It is democracy and democracy is freedom, therefore by banning minarets (although I disagree with it to an extent) the majority aka the democratic vote has voted to enforce a certain law. A political party could also propose to ban minarets, so do you disagree with elections also?


Your reasoning for referendums seems to split from the feeling that the state should not play a large part in people's lives - Why don't we just get rid of the state altogether and let people set their own laws for their own land...The state should not play a big part in peoples lives, it never works. On the other hand, no state at all does not work either. Therefore that is why I am a conservative - conservatism works.

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 09:10 PM
That could be done in a number of ways, possibly the parties before an election could set out legally-binding what issues they would put to a referendum - more so, i'd much rather prefer when a certain number of signatures are reached then a referendum can be held. We would have to look closely at the Swiss system to get the full idea though.

On freedom, but to what extent. I disagree with gay marriage, by me voting against it I do not see how that is taking away somebodys freedom. It is democracy and democracy is freedom, therefore by banning minarets (although I disagree with it to an extent) the majority aka the democratic vote has voted to enforce a certain law. A political party could also propose to ban minarets, so do you disagree with elections also?

Who initiates the proposal and drafting of a bill? Is it the population or the government?

You are taking away someone's ability to do something that in no way restricts you in any way. How can that not be taking away someone's freedom? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom for those in it. That's why you have safeguards in place, such as in the USA, they have the supreme court, which upholds the constitution which stops the deprivation of the minority's freedoms. If you were to ban all mosques, or gay sex, can you not see how that is depriving someone of freedom? A democracy decided to vote in the nazis who killed the jews and took away their freedoms (and then the populations freedoms). Were the Germans free?

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 09:15 PM
Who initiates the proposal and drafting of a bill? Is it the population or the government?

You are taking away someone's ability to do something that in no way restricts you in any way. How can that not be taking away someone's freedom? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom for those in it. That's why you have safeguards in place, such as in the USA, they have the supreme court, which upholds the constitution which stops the deprivation of the minority's freedoms. If you were to ban all mosques, or gay sex, can you not see how that is depriving someone of freedom? A democracy decided to vote in the nazis who killed the jews and took away their freedoms (and then the populations freedoms). Were the Germans free?

The government would draft the bill and legislation behind it.

I can see how its banning somebodys freedom to an extent, and thats why I would think long and hard about a possible ban on mosques, infact i'd most likely oppose it. Many people disagree with drug use and thus its illegal, are we taking away peoples freedoms to smoke drugs aswell?

On Nazi Germany, theres a lot more behind it than you think - The Nazi Party would never of gained power if it wasn't through bullying tactics, the burning of the Reichstag, the state of emergency imposed and the death of Hindenburg. The Nazis simply did not walk into office as you seem to make out.

Ardemax
26-01-2010, 09:25 PM
I did answer and you know yourself that I did, hence why you are now asking me whether or not I seriously said that. Yes I am, thats democracy. If a Nazi Party won an election fair and square then a Nazi Party is the democratic government of the country. However what you have ignored is my very point; the vast majority of the British people do not want jews exterminated and would never vote for a Nazi Party - therefore comparing a referendum on the extermination of the jews to a referendum on whether or not the death penalty should be brought back makes no sense.



The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

A modern day Nazi party could be seen by some people as the BNP

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 09:33 PM
The government would draft the bill and legislation behind it.

I can see how its banning somebodys freedom to an extent, and thats why I would think long and hard about a possible ban on mosques, infact i'd most likely oppose it. Many people disagree with drug use and thus its illegal, are we taking away peoples freedoms to smoke drugs aswell?

On Nazi Germany, theres a lot more behind it than you think - The Nazi Party would never of gained power if it wasn't through bullying tactics, the burning of the Reichstag, the state of emergency imposed and the death of Hindenburg. The Nazis simply did not walk into office as you seem to make out.

This illustrates the problems with refferendums. They are too polarised. yes or no. Where's the possible answers, yes, if these points are changed, no, never. That's why it's difficult to redraft laws, you have to pretty much guess public opinion on what needs to be changed, re-drafts or edits of current drafts are too difficult with so many different views, it takes an age and a lot of money to sort out a law/bill.

Yeah, you are taking away someone's freedom to use whatever they want to pleasure themselves, and in my opinion, it should be up to responsible adults to decide for themselves. Obviously there are negative externalities of the use of certain drugs (serious addiction and therefore crime to feed the addiction), but perhaps the criminalization of the drug itself is part of the problems caused.

I've had to write countless notes on how the nazi party consolidated power, but at the end of the day that is what happened, they were voted in by the population, using scapegoats for their problems. Promising better lives for the majority at the expense of freedoms of the minority.

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 09:47 PM
This illustrates the problems with refferendums. They are too polarised. yes or no. Where's the possible answers, yes, if these points are changed, no, never. That's why it's difficult to redraft laws, you have to pretty much guess public opinion on what needs to be changed, re-drafts or edits of current drafts are too difficult with so many different views, it takes an age and a lot of money to sort out a law/bill.Not always, on the European Union option you could have a number of options;

a) remain in the European Union as we presently are.
b) stay in the European Union but repeal EU control over the courts, agriculture and other areas
c) Leave the European Union but remain a member of the EFTA.
d) Leave the European Union and other-related bodies and seek independant trade agreements with European nations.

On the expense of drafting laws, please do not bring cost into this again - it costs very little for one law such as this and once its in it will seldom need changing again. The other point is that you support the European Union which costs the state billions in legislation every year and costs billions to business every year who have to enforce silly European regulations.


Yeah, you are taking away someone's freedom to use whatever they want to pleasure themselves, and in my opinion, it should be up to responsible adults to decide for themselves. Obviously there are negative externalities of the use of certain drugs (serious addiction and therefore crime to feed the addiction), but perhaps the criminalization of the drug itself is part of the problems caused.Of course there are negative parts, and many people see mosques springing up over the United Kingdom as a invasion of our culture. I certainly too would not wish to see mosques everywhere. If a party proposes to ban mosques in a general election, what would you do if they won? - nothing, because they are democratically elected. It is the same with socialism, I see it as freedom to be able to set up my own business however socialist parties if they gained office would nationalise all business aka remove property from the individual and give to the state.


I've had to write countless notes on how the nazi party consolidated power, but at the end of the day that is what happened, they were voted in by the population, using scapegoats for their problems. Promising better lives for the majority at the expense of freedoms of the minority.They were not voted in, yes they got votes and fair play although nobody was to know that the emergency act would be enacted by Hitler - but the fact is that if they didn't have their own private army, if they did not bully other parties and politicians and if they did not burn down the Reichstag then they would not have gained power to establish a dictatorship.

On the referendum subject, i'm afraid the minority in the death penalty issue are not worthy of life in my eyes and the eyes of many others, including your average criminal who would love to get hold of Ian Huntley and co.

The majority come before the minority, thats democracy like it or not.

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 09:57 PM
Not always, on the European Union option you could have a number of options;

a) remain in the European Union as we presently are.
b) stay in the European Union but repeal EU control over the courts, agriculture and other areas
c) Leave the European Union but remain a member of the EFTA.
d) Leave the European Union and other-related bodies and seek independant trade agreements with European nations.

And you think this makes referedums a great way of passing laws, when the average guy on the street won't know these things, the benefits and the drawbacks. It's really flawed.


On the expense of drafting laws, please do not bring cost into this again - it costs very little for one law such as this and once its in it will seldom need changing again. The other point is that you support the European Union which costs the state billions in legislation every year and costs billions to business every year who have to enforce silly European regulations.

Great comeback... :rolleyes:


Of course there are negative parts, and many people see mosques springing up over the United Kingdom as a invasion of our culture. I certainly too would not wish to see mosques everywhere. If a party proposes to ban mosques in a general election, what would you do if they won? - nothing, because they are democratically elected. It is the same with socialism, I see it as freedom to be able to set up my own business however socialist parties if they gained office would nationalise all business aka remove property from the individual and give to the state.

So freedom for the majority and oppression for the minority. Sounds great. This has nothing to do with socialism.


They were not voted in, yes they got votes and fair play although nobody was to know that the emergency act would be enacted by Hitler - but the fact is that if they didn't have their own private army, if they did not bully other parties and politicians and if they did not burn down the Reichstag then they would not have gained power to establish a dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results

Quite a number of votes they got there. We have laws to prevent unfair influence by parties and third parties BUT I can't say that this could be true for referendums.


On the referendum subject, i'm afraid the minority in the death penalty issue are not worthy of life in my eyes and the eyes of many others, including your average criminal who would love to get hold of Ian Huntley and co.

The majority come before the minority, thats democracy like it or not.
Not everyone who will vote no in this subject is a criminal. Plus you've highlighted an issue that is a problem.

-:Undertaker:-
26-01-2010, 10:12 PM
And you think this makes referedums a great way of passing laws, when the average guy on the street won't know these things, the benefits and the drawbacks. It's really flawed.Again, implying that the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Your view is not worth more than that of somebody elses just because you consider yourself more educated in certain areas than others, pure arrogance.


Great comeback... :rolleyes:Just pointing out the hypocrisy, thats all.


So freedom for the majority and oppression for the minority. Sounds great. This has nothing to do with socialism.The death penalty is not oppression for the minority, on mosques - yes if the majority in a referendum voted to ban mosques then that should go ahead, even though I have my reservations against it. This is a democratic country and you abide by the laws of this land and its people if you wish to live here. Islam is not part of our culture or history and therefore is a topical issue. Banning mosques is not oppression, is banning ciggarettes from public places also oppression?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results

Quite a number of votes they got there. We have laws to prevent unfair influence by parties and third parties BUT I can't say that this could be true for referendums.I never said they did not get a substancial number of votes, what I have said is that without the things I listed they would never of gained power. On referendums, why, are the evil conservative media going to tell everybody what to do while the Guardian speaks the truth to the workers of the world! :rolleyes: - please, referendums are very fair, a newspaper cannot sway somebodies opinions and neither can a political party. Everyone forms their opinions throughout life, and the people of this country are not stupid or deluded.


Not everyone who will vote no in this subject is a criminal. Plus you've highlighted an issue that is a problem.Criminals should not get a say on this subject, the people should decide what their most important issues/laws are and whether they wish for them or not. It is not up to the European Union or the Lib/Lab/Con elite, or you for that matter to tell the British people that they simply are far too stupid to understand the issues such as the death penalty and the European Union.

Elitist alex, and its exactly what you are being.


Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite) — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect), wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth), specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

alexxxxx
26-01-2010, 10:44 PM
Again, implying that the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Your view is not worth more than that of somebody elses just because you consider yourself more educated in certain areas than others, pure arrogance.

It's not about being stupid. I don't know how to fix a toilet. I don't know how to build a house. I don't know how to fix cars. I don't know how to install electrical sockets. I don't know how to perform a heart operation. That's why I'm not a plumber, a builder, electrician or a surgeon. I don't know know everything to do with making decisions that effect me. That's why i'm not a politician. I appoint my own plumber, my own builder, to an extent my own doctor and my own politician to do the best job that I would like doing.


Just pointing out the hypocrisy, thats all.

Like you've said about UKIP, you don't agree with everything they do, but you agree with their general outline. Likewise with the EU in my case.


The death penalty is not oppression for the minority, on mosques - yes if the majority in a referendum voted to ban mosques then that should go ahead, even though I have my reservations against it. This is a democratic country and you abide by the laws of this land and its people if you wish to live here. Islam is not part of our culture or history and therefore is a topical issue. Banning mosques is not oppression, is banning ciggarettes from public places also oppression?

Banning something is by definition denying someone the freedom in partaking the said action. So yes, banning both mosques and cigarrettes from public places are oppression. However, you can say that people smoking cigarrettes in public places tramples on people's freedom to live a healthy life. A mosque on the other hand does not affect anyone else's freedoms.



I never said they did not get a substancial number of votes, what I have said is that without the things I listed they would never of gained power. On referendums, why, are the evil conservative media going to tell everybody what to do while the Guardian speaks the truth to the workers of the world! :rolleyes: - please, referendums are very fair, a newspaper cannot sway somebodies opinions and neither can a political party. Everyone forms their opinions throughout life, and the people of this country are not stupid or deluded.




They were not voted in,

well evidently they were voted in. just as the electorate was influenced, whether it be violently or via propaganda, in many ways doesn't make the result any less valid at that point in time. The guardian does not speak fact in many areas, nor does many news outlets. But when you start presenting opinion as fact (as you see in FOX NEWS in the USA) and in the mail, guardian, etc you have direct manipulation of ones thoughts of things they are not in direct contact in. When you have Cameron going round to Murdochs house for dinner and the next day announce they will quash some of OFCOMs powers when elected and then the Sun changing their stance, can you not tell that there is some sort of alliance of the state and 'free' media. Glamorization or substantiation sells. The truth often doesn't.


Criminals should not get a say on this subject, the people should decide what their most important issues/laws are and whether they wish for them or not. It is not up to the European Union or the Lib/Lab/Con elite, or you for that matter to tell the British people that they simply are far too stupid to understand the issues such as the death penalty and the European Union.

Elitist alex, and its exactly what you are being.
If elitism gains the best results then yes. However i'd call it specialisation. Just because someone THINKS something works in a certain way doesn't make it TRUE which is what referendum's largest downfall. Just because i believe my migranes come from stress doesn't mean they are, nor should i be able to prescribe my own drugs.

Black_Apalachi
27-01-2010, 01:49 AM
Heyyy, just thought I'd dip my toes into this party. Ardemax you automatically lost the argument when you made the following post;


Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?

Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :L xx

Ardemax
27-01-2010, 06:24 AM
Heyyy, just thought I'd dip my toes into this party. Ardemax you automatically lost the argument when you made the following post;



Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) :L xx

Well then I can simply compare to something else? I picked the dilema off the top of my head to prove that refurendums aren't always that best thing... :S

Everyone wants you to invade a country, bomb them to smitherines, kill innocent people. What would you do. Hold a refurendum? :rolleyes:

-:Undertaker:-
29-01-2010, 12:32 PM
It's not about being stupid. I don't know how to fix a toilet. I don't know how to build a house. I don't know how to fix cars. I don't know how to install electrical sockets. I don't know how to perform a heart operation. That's why I'm not a plumber, a builder, electrician or a surgeon. I don't know know everything to do with making decisions that effect me. That's why i'm not a politician. I appoint my own plumber, my own builder, to an extent my own doctor and my own politician to do the best job that I would like doing.It is exactly what you are saying, you are saying the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions yet you seem to think that the British people can't decide something so simple as the death penalty, yet have the ability to appoint a government which has to control/implements millions of pages of legislation.

A referendum covers one issue, an election covers millions of issues.


Like you've said about UKIP, you don't agree with everything they do, but you agree with their general outline. Likewise with the EU in my case.So you now disagree with the European Union imposing thousands and thousands of pages worth of legislation on this country every year? - i'm glad you've finally come around now to that, which leaves the question that if you disagree with the thousands of pages of legislation the European Union imposes on Europe every year, what is the actual point/function of the European Union?


Banning something is by definition denying someone the freedom in partaking the said action. So yes, banning both mosques and cigarrettes from public places are oppression. However, you can say that people smoking cigarrettes in public places tramples on people's freedom to live a healthy life. A mosque on the other hand does not affect anyone else's freedoms.Of course you can, but you can also say in that logic that not allowing the people of this country to decide their own issues such as allowing/not allowing mosques is oppression. The people should rule at the end of the day, its so simple. Its the reason we fought two world wars and a cold war for.


well evidently they were voted in. just as the electorate was influenced, whether it be violently or via propaganda, in many ways doesn't make the result any less valid at that point in time. The guardian does not speak fact in many areas, nor does many news outlets. But when you start presenting opinion as fact (as you see in FOX NEWS in the USA) and in the mail, guardian, etc you have direct manipulation of ones thoughts of things they are not in direct contact in. When you have Cameron going round to Murdochs house for dinner and the next day announce they will quash some of OFCOMs powers when elected and then the Sun changing their stance, can you not tell that there is some sort of alliance of the state and 'free' media. Glamorization or substantiation sells. The truth often doesn't.Sorry but people know when politicians/newspapers are lieing, people are not stupid. What are you siggesting then - that the free media be banned when an election is held/referendum?. On Cameron, much like when Peter Mandelson was EU trade commisoner and had a meeting holiday with a Russian Steel tycoon on his boat which incidently led to EU taxes/controls on Russian steel coming down & being relaxed, of course the EU and Mandelson claimed the meeting was totally unrelated to the EU's moves. If that doesn't stink to high heaven of how corrupt the EU is then I don't know what does.


If elitism gains the best results then yes. However i'd call it specialisation. Just because someone THINKS something works in a certain way doesn't make it TRUE which is what referendum's largest downfall. Just because i believe my migranes come from stress doesn't mean they are, nor should i be able to prescribe my own drugs.Then you have lost faith in democracy, simple as. I wonder sometimes we millions over the world gave their lives in vain to fight elitism and to establish democracy. The point still stands, you and the left only disagree with referendums because you know fully well what the outcome would be.

Totally undemocratic and is the kind of idea of which crackpots like Robert Mugabe use to run their country, 'I know best so my opinion is worth more than yours' - yes we're only debating the subject of referendums, but all dictators/crackpots throughout history have always followed that line. I despise the fact that this government and past governments have done things which are totally unrepresentative of the views of the population, and you should to. The job of an MP/politician is to represent the people in parliament, they do not. The way to solve this is via referendum where they would have no control over what becomes law and what doesn't, thus abolishing elitism.

The left has always argued that the ruling classes need to be removed to ensure the people vote, yet as history has shown and as you are showing now;- you replace one elite with another.


Well then I can simply compare to something else? I picked the dilema off the top of my head to prove that refurendums aren't always that best thing... :S

Everyone wants you to invade a country, bomb them to smitherines, kill innocent people. What would you do. Hold a refurendum? :rolleyes:

National security issues and economical issues would not be put to a referendum. It is so simple so lets not complicate it; issues such as the European Union, burkas and the death penalty would be the kind of issues we would see put to a referendum nationally, locally we could possibly see referendums coincide with local elections on council leisure spending such as whether the local community wants a park or a swimming pool.

It would actually give the people of this country the right to rule, you and myself can disagree with some of the outcomes as we surely would, but thats democracy. I don't like the Labour Party or anything it stands for but I would never call for it to be banned/its voice taken away. It has a right to govern if its elected, just as a policy has a right to become law if the majority of the population democractically voted for it.

ChickenFaces
30-01-2010, 09:36 PM
Well I think that it's really the details of a case that call for killing a killer or not. It's not black or white, this matter is kind of a gray matter thing.

For instance, a man who kills one woman gets the death sentence, while a woman who kills three men doesn't. It doesn't sound really just, but you don't know the reason behind the sentence if you don't know any details about it. It's not an exact science.

Murcen
01-03-2010, 07:31 PM
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crimes. The countries have outlawed capital punishment to not have higher crimes rates. When a country aboloshes capital punishment they are not plunged into criminal chaos. Even if the death penalty did reduce crime rates, would it be acceptable? The death penalty targets the economicaly disadventaged. Those who can't afford good legal council, those without a voice in society. Even if the death penalty targeted rich a poor, is it acceptable? The death penalty is irreversable and results in the death of innocence. When someone is dead a retrospective parden is of little use to them or their families. Since 1990 in China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Araibia, Yeman and The USA there have been 51 executions of child offenders. Some as young as forteen years old. Even if no more innocence or children killed, is the death penalty acceptable? The death pentalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic Human Rights. Everyone has the right to live and nobody should be subject to toture. The death penalty obviously kills people, but also totures people because of the brutual nature of execution and physcologicaly for forcing people to wait to be killed. They wait sometimes for decades. While others are lead to their deaths. The horror of this waiting is unimaginable. Human rights apply to all Human Beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack of this fundemental rights anywhere, is an attack againts all of us. Criminals are still human beings however much we hate their actions. They may have killed and totured. Do we want to join them?

Swastika
02-03-2010, 12:53 AM
to take a life, the punishment should be the ultimate sacrifice.
it works in america, it could work in britain.

Murcen
02-03-2010, 08:31 AM
to take a life, the punishment should be the ultimate sacrifice.
it works in america, it could work in britain.

It doesn't work in America, I suggest you read my previous post.

-:Undertaker:-
02-03-2010, 04:27 PM
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crimes. The countries have outlawed capital punishment to not have higher crimes rates. When a country aboloshes capital punishment they are not plunged into criminal chaos. Even if the death penalty did reduce crime rates, would it be acceptable? The death penalty targets the economicaly disadventaged. Those who can't afford good legal council, those without a voice in society. Even if the death penalty targeted rich a poor, is it acceptable?

Just because you are poor or disadvantaged does not under any circumstances make you commit crime. Stop making excuses for the criminal scum and actually accept the notion that if you commit the crime then its not your background/who you are who did it, its your choice, the individual choice to take somebodies life.

You would make a very good lawyer for the likes of Ian Huntley and co 'oh its not his fault because he was very hard pressed and under strain from his job as a caretaker' :rolleyes:


The death penalty is irreversable and results in the death of innocence. When someone is dead a retrospective parden is of little use to them or their families. Since 1990 in China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Araibia, Yeman and The USA there have been 51 executions of child offenders. Some as young as forteen years old. Even if no more innocence or children killed, is the death penalty acceptable?

I very much doubt the US has executed child offenders and would ask for proof on that. Is the death penalty acceptable? - well why not let the people of this country which we call a democracy make that decision?


The death pentalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic Human Rights. Everyone has the right to live and nobody should be subject to toture. The death penalty obviously kills people, but also totures people because of the brutual nature of execution and physcologicaly for forcing people to wait to be killed. They wait sometimes for decades. While others are lead to their deaths. The horror of this waiting is unimaginable. Human rights apply to all Human Beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack of this fundemental rights anywhere, is an attack againts all of us. Criminals are still human beings however much we hate their actions. They may have killed and totured. Do we want to join them?

It is also your human right to be free and not locked up in jail so the argument of human rights simply does not stand up at all. It is also not in your human rights to be allowed to kill other people and simply get away with it. Criminals are human beings yes, and its time they (like the rest of us do) start taking responsibility for their own actions. They killed in cold-blood, the state would not. The whole point of court is to see whether you are guilty or not and you are punished for that.

In conclusion we are not like them because we do not kill for no reason/malicious reasons.

Do you support having a referendum on the death penalty?

jrh2002
13-03-2010, 09:50 PM
If they are 100% guilty like serial killers and serial paedos let them fry or swing. I am really fed up with people getting away with murder for lower charges due to being mentally ill etc and think they should be at the front of the queue as they wont get any better. As for the ppl like the bulger killers maybe not the death penalty as they were kids but they should never ever have been let out in the the community again. While we are at it we need to hang some people for treason and letting our country down and they are the ones who think they are doing what the people want.............................

Inseriousity.
13-03-2010, 10:16 PM
It is not justifiable to execute criminals. It was abolished in this country for a reason and that reason was an innocent woman who was hanged for a crime she didn't commit. Humans are not infallible and even those who confess may not have actually committed the crime (protecting someone, mentally insane, compulsive liar, all sorts of possible reasons).

Secondly, as Murcen pointed out, the states where capital punishment is legal does not decrease the crime levels. It's not a deterrent. If you're planning a cold blooded murder, I really doubt any punishment is going to stop you.

Thirdly, death penalty means they are not actually punished. They should be locked up and punished.

As for a referendum, I'd agree with it. It gives the people the right to say what they want and eventually, it's likely it'll get abolished again. I just wonder how many innocent people we'd have to kill before we get there...

jrh2002
13-03-2010, 10:44 PM
It is not justifiable to execute criminals. It was abolished in this country for a reason and that reason was an innocent woman who was hanged for a crime she didn't commit. Humans are not infallible and even those who confess may not have actually committed the crime (protecting someone, mentally insane, compulsive liar, all sorts of possible reasons).

Secondly, as Murcen pointed out, the states where capital punishment is legal does not decrease the crime levels. It's not a deterrent. If you're planning a cold blooded murder, I really doubt any punishment is going to stop you.

Thirdly, death penalty means they are not actually punished. They should be locked up and punished.

As for a referendum, I'd agree with it. It gives the people the right to say what they want and eventually, it's likely it'll get abolished again. I just wonder how many innocent people we'd have to kill before we get there...

Thats why you execute the ones we are 100% sure are guilty and as far as im concenred the insane might as well go with them instead of keeping them alive costing us money but if we do they should NEVER get out.

I think the US has a better justice system than ours as its 3 strikes and your in prison for LIFE. If you commit a murder you don't always get death but still life which means life unless there is some other circumstances involved to let them off a little lenient. The US support their citizens and if you catch somebody robbing your home your hailed as a hero if they leave in a body bag unlike this country where you get arrested just for giving them a slap.

I think most people who have had very serious crimes committed against themselves or their family would feel much better seeing the guilty party dead rather than 10 years of cushy pampering in our long stay holiday camps (even better if u could pull the lever or push the button yourself on the scum). I think we should give long serving prisoners a cyanide pill to keep with them so if it gets to much they can stop being a 50k a year burden on the law abiding folk. How does it cost 50k a year to keep a prisoner? It would be cheaper to put them in a top hotel in the center of london........... Some prisons in America they are in tents in the yard to help over crowding.

If we voted on the death penalty coming back it would win hands down. If the government was tough on crime and the causes of crime as that muppet Blair said then perhaps we would not be so angry at how society is failing and putting the rights of the criminals before that of the victims. Bring back the stocks and give us a good reason to go out on a sunday morning ;)

Anybody seen the old Kurt Russel film Escape From New York? Maybe we should do go the same way and build huge walls and throw in the prisoners for a fight of the fittest who are never released? Or even create our own alcatraz on the unsused scottish islands. Perhaps have an open prison on the gates of Dover so the prisoners sneak out the country in to europe to make up for the foreign criminals sneaking this way with no papers and no proof of identity who then end up with a british passport when we have no idea what they did in their own countries.

-:Undertaker:-
14-03-2010, 12:53 AM
Thats why you execute the ones we are 100% sure are guilty and as far as im concenred the insane might as well go with them instead of keeping them alive costing us money but if we do they should NEVER get out.

I think the US has a better justice system than ours as its 3 strikes and your in prison for LIFE. If you commit a murder you don't always get death but still life which means life unless there is some other circumstances involved to let them off a little lenient. The US support their citizens and if you catch somebody robbing your home your hailed as a hero if they leave in a body bag unlike this country where you get arrested just for giving them a slap.

I think most people who have had very serious crimes committed against themselves or their family would feel much better seeing the guilty party dead rather than 10 years of cushy pampering in our long stay holiday camps (even better if u could pull the lever or push the button yourself on the scum). I think we should give long serving prisoners a cyanide pill to keep with them so if it gets to much they can stop being a 50k a year burden on the law abiding folk. How does it cost 50k a year to keep a prisoner? It would be cheaper to put them in a top hotel in the center of london........... Some prisons in America they are in tents in the yard to help over crowding.

If we voted on the death penalty coming back it would win hands down. If the government was tough on crime and the causes of crime as that muppet Blair said then perhaps we would not be so angry at how society is failing and putting the rights of the criminals before that of the victims. Bring back the stocks and give us a good reason to go out on a sunday morning ;)

Anybody seen the old Kurt Russel film Escape From New York? Maybe we should do go the same way and build huge walls and throw in the prisoners for a fight of the fittest who are never released? Or even create our own alcatraz on the unsused scottish islands. Perhaps have an open prison on the gates of Dover so the prisoners sneak out the country in to europe to make up for the foreign criminals sneaking this way with no papers and no proof of identity who then end up with a british passport when we have no idea what they did in their own countries.

An excellent post, what the left always ignores is popular opinion but what it also forgets is that in the end the majority opinion always wins because that is democracy.

jrh2002
14-03-2010, 08:10 PM
An excellent post, what the left always ignores is popular opinion but what it also forgets is that in the end the majority opinion always wins because that is democracy.

Thanks :) I am not so sure the majority can win now :( if we do it will take many many years to put this mess we are in right but I can only see it getting worse.

I think using America as the example for the death penalty is not the greatest. I think we should look at the middles east and china etc and how a much more severe punishment they have for all crimes from theft and upwards which means they have very low crime rates. We need to do something to stop the yobs running riot and that will hopefully stop them progressing to more serious crimes. Bring back the cain at school, Stop making parents out to be child abusers for giving their kids a slap when needed (Of course parents deserve to be punished if they overstep the mark) Lock criminals up for proper sentences that they deserve and then make them do their full term in prison and increase their sentence if they cause trouble (stop the cushy prisons and make it a punishment). I see today a prisoner stabbed 3 warders :o This guy should now get life or the death penalty as well as being flogged to an inch of his life in front of all the other prisoners. If we dont get tough now then imagine how the place will be in 10 years :( Sadly I have lost my fight when it comes to this country and would sooner leave and watch it sink but would enjoy seeing all left wing anti everything do gooders getting terrorised in the streets and their own homes. If the conservatives get in which is our only hope (no other party is big enough to make it i'm afraid) They need to steal most of UKIP's and some of the BNP's hard line policies (I dont mean the racist bits before ppl start crying). Kill off the stupid human rights bill, Give the benefits system a huge overhaul which works for the deserving few and hang blair the war criminal just like what happened to Saddam (and get rid of his ugly blow up doll look alike wife and all people like her while we are at it).

Smits
14-03-2010, 08:41 PM
An excellent post, what the left always ignores is popular opinion but what it also forgets is that in the end the majority opinion always wins because that is democracy.

it's a shame that 'in the end' may be a VERY long way off with the way things are in this country.

I agree with most things jrh2002 has said. The ONLY way to stop things before they get to late is to get strict. Why should a convicted rapist is allowed to walk our streets, not being checked up on, only to kill? He should be locked away for life after raping one person in my opinion, or at least kept in close supervision.

Adamm
14-03-2010, 08:53 PM
Agree with what jrh2002 says.

The country is far too lenient towards criminals and everyone who I speak to about these things has the same opinion and it's just a shame that the muppets in charge can't see this and are too bothered about being PC and whatnot. Idiots.

Black_Apalachi
15-03-2010, 04:36 AM
Somebody tell me why Joh Venables shouldn't be sent to the US and put in the chair. I'm listening...

Edit: No, scratch that. The police should dump him in the middle of Liverpool during the busiest time of the day.

Don't care what method you choose, but this is probably the first time I've said it is justifiable to execute criminals.

Smits
16-03-2010, 12:24 AM
Somebody tell me why Joh Venables shouldn't be sent to the US and put in the chair. I'm listening...

Edit: No, scratch that. The police should dump him in the middle of Liverpool during the busiest time of the day.

Don't care what method you choose, but this is probably the first time I've said it is justifiable to execute criminals.

Exactly, we could do with those kind of people off our streets and off our planet. The only argument people come up with was 'he was only 10 at the time'


Don't forget his mate either.

&& i'm sure i heard something about somebody calling for the age to be convicted being raised to 12 rather than 10, basically saying he should of walked free.

Black_Apalachi
16-03-2010, 01:06 AM
... && i'm sure i heard something about somebody calling for the age to be convicted being raised to 12 rather than 10, basically saying he should of walked free.

That's a joke! Violent and anti-social behaviour is being carried out by younger and younger children every year. If anything the age should be reduced. Of course, if I was in charge, there would be a very strong emphasis on punishing the parents (more so than the child). A particular detail I have never heard mentioned in relation to the James Bulger case.

Richie
16-03-2010, 03:47 AM
Yes, but only if they are in for life. The government pay far to much money to keep prisoners alive, the money which is being used could be used for better causes. I also think there should be a three strike rule, you go into prison three times you get executed. Yeah to some it might seem unfair, but its not hard to steer clear of trouble, after your first time in prison I'm sure you'd learn from your mistakes, after twice its either someone who wants to be there or wants to cause trouble, third time is taking the piss.

Black_Apalachi
16-03-2010, 04:38 AM
Yes, but only if they are in for life. The government pay far to much money to keep prisoners alive, the money which is being used could be used for better causes. I also think there should be a three strike rule, you go into prison three times you get executed. Yeah to some it might seem unfair, but its not hard to steer clear of trouble, after your first time in prison I'm sure you'd learn from your mistakes, after twice its either someone who wants to be there or wants to cause trouble, third time is taking the piss.

Execution wouldn't exactly be a punishment less than life imprisonment anyway. The three-strike rule could be a bit extreme... there are probably quite a few pretty harmless things which can get you a prison sentence.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!