The Death Penalty

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

[rockhopper penguin 2,264]

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Murder is either right or wrong. The state cannot decide after setting a law that there are arbitrary reasons for not applying it.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Murder is either right or wrong. The state cannot decide after setting a law that there are arbitrary reasons for not applying it.

poor wording you made sound as if they are letting people get away with murder also the same could be said about stealing. Stealing is either right or wrong so why are people forced to pay fines. Imprisonment is legal kidnapping taking people against there will and locking them up like ffs kidnapping is either right or wrong.

[rockhopper penguin 2,264]

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Murder is either right or wrong. The state cannot decide after setting a law that there are arbitrary reasons for not applying it.

poor wording you made sound as if they are letting people get away with murder also the same could be said about stealing. Stealing is either right or wrong so why are people forced to pay fines. Imprisonment is legal kidnapping taking people against there will and locking them up like ffs kidnapping is either right or wrong.

 

Deliberate wording. All thefts are punished. Imprisonment is a means of punishment. Killing is wrong whether committed by individuals or the state. In the case of the state it is arbitrary killing which is arguably the worst crime there is (i'd suggest you try Kafka).

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

 

Just a point of reference.

It is suggested that, due to technological advances, DNA etc, the chances of wrongful conviction is remote to nil.

The famous Hanratty case was finally closed decades later when DNA was extracted from articles at the murder scene which 'proved' Hanratty had committed murder.

Based on that new evidence the 'James Hanratty was innocent' lobby had to drop their claim that a miscarriage of justice had occoured.

Fast forward to recent times and you had the Barry George trial where one of the major reasons the CPS pressed forward in charging George for murdering Jill Dando was the gunpowder residue found in his coat pocket.

On the overturning of his conviction it was stated that this residue could have been due to cross contamination by a careless scenes of crime officer.

The point? Capital punishment would have seen George murdered by the state even though he was actually innocent.

There is not a single fucking reason on this Planet for any state to take the life of an individual because you cannot have a scenario where people could be wrongly convicted, killed and be assumed that it was a risk worth taking.

Anyway, if ive got elements of those cases wrong, fuck it, ive not researched it all, its off the top of my head.

The points still stand though.

[rockhopper penguin 2,264]

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

 

Just a point of reference.

It is suggested that, due to technological advances, DNA etc, the chances of wrongful conviction is remote to nil.

The famous Hanratty case was finally closed decades later when DNA was extracted from articles at the murder scene which 'proved' Hanratty had committed murder.

Based on that new evidence the 'James Hanratty was innocent' lobby had to drop their claim that a miscarriage of justice had occoured.

Fast forward to recent times and you had the Barry George trial where one of the major reasons the CPS pressed forward in charging George for murdering Jill Dando was the gunpowder residue found in his coat pocket.

On the overturning of his conviction it was stated that this residue could have been due to cross contamination by a careless scenes of crime officer.

The point? Capital punishment would have seen George murdered by the state even though he was actually innocent.

There is not a single fucking reason on this Planet for any state to take the life of an individual because you cannot have a scenario where people could be wrongly convicted, killed and be assumed that it was a risk worth taking.

Anyway, if ive got elements of those cases wrong, fuck it, ive not researched it all, its off the top of my head.

The points still stand though.

 

I like and appreciate your point. However mine is slightly different. Even if you are 100% certain of guilt (Ted Bundy for example) the state has no right to sanction the taking of life without giving up it's moral imperative and therefore its legitimacy as a state. Granting oneself the power over life and death is the ultimate totalitarianism.

[YoungWillz 19,047]

Or the state could provide guns to its officers and chase its citizens/inhabitants down and murder them without the need for a trial or evidence. (Menenzes/Anyone in America).

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

 

Just a point of reference.

It is suggested that, due to technological advances, DNA etc, the chances of wrongful conviction is remote to nil.

The famous Hanratty case was finally closed decades later when DNA was extracted from articles at the murder scene which 'proved' Hanratty had committed murder.

Based on that new evidence the 'James Hanratty was innocent' lobby had to drop their claim that a miscarriage of justice had occoured.

Fast forward to recent times and you had the Barry George trial where one of the major reasons the CPS pressed forward in charging George for murdering Jill Dando was the gunpowder residue found in his coat pocket.

On the overturning of his conviction it was stated that this residue could have been due to cross contamination by a careless scenes of crime officer.

The point? Capital punishment would have seen George murdered by the state even though he was actually innocent.

There is not a single fucking reason on this Planet for any state to take the life of an individual because you cannot have a scenario where people could be wrongly convicted, killed and be assumed that it was a risk worth taking.

Anyway, if ive got elements of those cases wrong, fuck it, ive not researched it all, its off the top of my head.

The points still stand though.

 

I like and appreciate your point. However mine is slightly different. Even if you are 100% certain of guilt (Ted Bundy for example) the state has no right to sanction the taking of life without giving up it's moral imperative and therefore its legitimacy as a state. Granting oneself the power over life and death is the ultimate totalitarianism.

 

I don't disagree.

I don't believe in it, period.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

Or the state could provide guns to its officers and chase its citizens/inhabitants down and murder them without the need for a trial or evidence. (Menenzes/Anyone in America).

That's not necessarily the same thing.

Armed officers could legitimately take the life of a criminal if that person is about to take the life of someone.

You cannot have Police standing by watching someone stab/shoot a person dead.

The argument as to whether the Police were justified in shooting before asking questions is another point entirely.

This country doesn't routinely arm our Police but we still have armed response units because we must.

Mistakes have been made but its far less straighforwards than an actual trial by Jury jobbie.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Murder is either right or wrong. The state cannot decide after setting a law that there are arbitrary reasons for not applying it.

poor wording you made sound as if they are letting people get away with murder also the same could be said about stealing. Stealing is either right or wrong so why are people forced to pay fines. Imprisonment is legal kidnapping taking people against there will and locking them up like ffs kidnapping is either right or wrong.

Deliberate wording. All thefts are punished. Imprisonment is a means of punishment. Killing is wrong whether committed by individuals or the state. In the case of the state it is arbitrary killing which is arguably the worst crime there is (i'd suggest you try Kafka).

so is the DEATH penalty.

[Deathray 2,933]

 

Or the state could provide guns to its officers and chase its citizens/inhabitants down and murder them without the need for a trial or evidence. (Menenzes/Anyone in America).

That's not necessarily the same thing.

Armed officers could legitimately take the life of a criminal if that person is about to take the life of someone.

You cannot have Police standing by watching someone stab/shoot a person dead.

The argument as to whether the Police were justified in shooting before asking questions is another point entirely.

This country doesn't routinely arm our Police but we still have armed response units because we must.

Mistakes have been made but its far less straighforwards than an actual trial by Jury jobbie.

 

 

The Menez ruling today seems to imply that they just need to be in the vicinity, or believed to be in the vicinity, of someone who might commit a life-threatening crime for the police to be ok to shoot them.

[YoungWillz 19,047]

 

Or the state could provide guns to its officers and chase its citizens/inhabitants down and murder them without the need for a trial or evidence. (Menenzes/Anyone in America).

That's not necessarily the same thing.

Armed officers could legitimately take the life of a criminal if that person is about to take the life of someone.

You cannot have Police standing by watching someone stab/shoot a person dead.

The argument as to whether the Police were justified in shooting before asking questions is another point entirely.

This country doesn't routinely arm our Police but we still have armed response units because we must.

Mistakes have been made but its far less straighforwards than an actual trial by Jury jobbie.

 

 

I am kind of with you. However, without proper oversight and the establishment's inherent belief (possibly shared by a majority of the population who have never encountered a police officer) that the officer will always be justified in their use of tasers/truncheons/guns/even physical restraint, there is a form of state sanctioned death penalty already in this country.

 

The fact that so few officers are even taken the distance of prosecution, never mind trial, for any offence should put the shiters up anyone.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Just a point of reference.

It is suggested that, due to technological advances, DNA etc, the chances of wrongful conviction is remote to nil.

The famous Hanratty case was finally closed decades later when DNA was extracted from articles at the murder scene which 'proved' Hanratty had committed murder.

Based on that new evidence the 'James Hanratty was innocent' lobby had to drop their claim that a miscarriage of justice had occoured.

Fast forward to recent times and you had the Barry George trial where one of the major reasons the CPS pressed forward in charging George for murdering Jill Dando was the gunpowder residue found in his coat pocket.

On the overturning of his conviction it was stated that this residue could have been due to cross contamination by a careless scenes of crime officer.

The point? Capital punishment would have seen George murdered by the state even though he was actually innocent.

There is not a single fucking reason on this Planet for any state to take the life of an individual because you cannot have a scenario where people could be wrongly convicted, killed and be assumed that it was a risk worth taking.

Anyway, if ive got elements of those cases wrong, fuck it, ive not researched it all, its off the top of my head.

The points still stand though.

not really since executions are meet with tons of appeals so he wouldn't have been executed. You think everyone in prison is innocent the truth is tons of innocent people have served life imprisonment and yet you here no one scream abolish life imprisonment. In fact when you think of it life imprisonment is the same you just wait for the prisoner to go naturally instead of just doing it yourself. The DEATH penalty just speeds up the process.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's getting harder and harder to come with an argument against the DEATH penalty. I have beaten you in this debate loser.

Killing people is wrong. That's why we have a law against it.

and breaking that law is punishable by death.

Just a point of reference.

It is suggested that, due to technological advances, DNA etc, the chances of wrongful conviction is remote to nil.

The famous Hanratty case was finally closed decades later when DNA was extracted from articles at the murder scene which 'proved' Hanratty had committed murder.

Based on that new evidence the 'James Hanratty was innocent' lobby had to drop their claim that a miscarriage of justice had occoured.

Fast forward to recent times and you had the Barry George trial where one of the major reasons the CPS pressed forward in charging George for murdering Jill Dando was the gunpowder residue found in his coat pocket.

On the overturning of his conviction it was stated that this residue could have been due to cross contamination by a careless scenes of crime officer.

The point? Capital punishment would have seen George murdered by the state even though he was actually innocent.

There is not a single fucking reason on this Planet for any state to take the life of an individual because you cannot have a scenario where people could be wrongly convicted, killed and be assumed that it was a risk worth taking.

Anyway, if ive got elements of those cases wrong, fuck it, ive not researched it all, its off the top of my head.

The points still stand though.

not really since executions are meet with tons of appeals so he wouldn't have been executed. You think everyone in prison is innocent the truth is tons of innocent people have served life imprisonment and yet you here no one scream abolish life imprisonment. In fact when you think of it life imprisonment is the same you just wait for the prisoner to go naturally instead of just doing it yourself. The DEATH penalty just speeds up the process.

 

You truly are as thick as fucking shit.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

 

 

Or the state could provide guns to its officers and chase its citizens/inhabitants down and murder them without the need for a trial or evidence. (Menenzes/Anyone in America).

That's not necessarily the same thing.

Armed officers could legitimately take the life of a criminal if that person is about to take the life of someone.

You cannot have Police standing by watching someone stab/shoot a person dead.

The argument as to whether the Police were justified in shooting before asking questions is another point entirely.

This country doesn't routinely arm our Police but we still have armed response units because we must.

Mistakes have been made but its far less straighforwards than an actual trial by Jury jobbie.

 

 

I am kind of with you. However, without proper oversight and the establishment's inherent belief (possibly shared by a majority of the population who have never encountered a police officer) that the officer will always be justified in their use of tasers/truncheons/guns/even physical restraint, there is a form of state sanctioned death penalty already in this country.

 

The fact that so few officers are even taken the distance of prosecution, never mind trial, for any offence should put the shiters up anyone.

 

Well, personally, id not neccessarily trust a Police officer to tell me the right time.

Having said that, and I get your points, there isn't going to be a Police officer in the country who would want to be armed and take the risk that they could be put away for getting it wrong, or so it later transpires.

Personally, Id not do that kind of job, whatever way you cut it, you have a split second decision to make that could see you infront of a jury and, possibly, Imprisoned.

The lack of convictions of Police officers is as much to do with public perception and opinion than anything else.The CPS, obviously, didn't feel that they could secure a conviction and that would have been as much based on previous trials where coppers have been aquitted as anything else.

The public wants it both ways, they want protection from a crazed manic with a machete/ bomb vest but they expect the Police to make the right move everytime all of the time. That's proven to be impossible in the past.

[Cat O'Falk 3,287]

John Battaglia, Texas Child Killer, Wins Execution Delay Over 'Delusions'

[En Passant 2,950]

Proponents of the death penalty are always certain a miscarriage of justice couldn't happen to them or theirs.

Probably explains some of the right wing views on it.

Brought up with a blinkered view of the world from the starting point of a privileged position and it's probably hard to put yourself in the shoes of those less fortunate.

 

Doubtless there are people who fully deserved to be put to death, also undoubtedly considerably more than one person who didn't. One is one too many, QED.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

Proponents of the death penalty are always certain a miscarriage of justice couldn't happen to them or theirs.

Probably explains some of the right wing views on it.

Brought up with a blinkered view of the world from the starting point of a privileged position and it's probably hard to put yourself in the shoes of those less fortunate.

 

Doubtless there are people who fully deserved to be put to death, also undoubtedly considerably more than one person who didn't. One is one too many, QED.

we should be preventing miscarriages of justice by punishing those who purposefully frame people. So many times has a racist officer planted evidence and gotten away with it. Abolishing the DEATH penalty won't prevent these miscarriages people will still spend the rest of their life's in jail for a crime they didn't commit.

[En Passant 2,950]

Are you the re-incarnation of Terry Pratchett? Presumably there is some reason you insist on putting DEATH in caps.

What the heck has framing people got to do with it? And even if it did, where is your evidence for the assertion that they got away with it (gotten is such a horrible term)? You're just making this up as you go along.

If people are wrongly convicted and sent to jail, they can subsequently be released when the miscarriage is discovered, it's not perfect, but I'm sure they feel it's better than had they been executed.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

Are you the re-incarnation of Terry Pratchett? Presumably there is some reason you insist on putting DEATH in caps.

What the heck has framing people got to do with it? And even if it did, where is your evidence for the assertion that they got away with it (gotten is such a horrible term)? You're just making this up as you go along.

If people are wrongly convicted and sent to jail, they can subsequently be released when the miscarriage is discovered, it's not perfect, but I'm sure they feel it's better than had they been executed.

except people are never executed straight away. It's usually 10 to 15 years.

[En Passant 2,950]

 

Are you the re-incarnation of Terry Pratchett? Presumably there is some reason you insist on putting DEATH in caps.

What the heck has framing people got to do with it? And even if it did, where is your evidence for the assertion that they got away with it (gotten is such a horrible term)? You're just making this up as you go along.

If people are wrongly convicted and sent to jail, they can subsequently be released when the miscarriage is discovered, it's not perfect, but I'm sure they feel it's better than had they been executed.

except people are never executed straight away. It's usually 10 to 15 years.

 

Your point being that a miscarriage can only be discovered in that period? So it'll be fine?

Even if that were the case, what about the mental suffering inflicted? Bad enough to be wrongly convicted I'd have thought, but to feel your life is to be extinguished for something you didn't do is a horror I can barely imagine.

 

Your arguing is also all over the place. You don't answer valid criticisms of your original point, you introduce spurious side issues and proffer no evidence for any of it. Ultimately if there is a case to be made for the death penalty (personally I don't think there is), you aren't making it.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

 

Are you the re-incarnation of Terry Pratchett? Presumably there is some reason you insist on putting DEATH in caps.

What the heck has framing people got to do with it? And even if it did, where is your evidence for the assertion that they got away with it (gotten is such a horrible term)? You're just making this up as you go along.

If people are wrongly convicted and sent to jail, they can subsequently be released when the miscarriage is discovered, it's not perfect, but I'm sure they feel it's better than had they been executed.

 

except people are never executed straight away. It's usually 10 to 15 years.

Your point being that a miscarriage can only be discovered in that period? So it'll be fine?

Even if that were the case, what about the mental suffering inflicted? Bad enough to be wrongly convicted I'd have thought, but to feel your life is to be extinguished for something you didn't do is a horror I can barely imagine.

 

Your arguing is also all over the place. You don't answer valid criticisms of your original point, you introduce spurious side issues and proffer no evidence for any of it. Ultimately if there is a case to be made for the death penalty (personally I don't think there is), you aren't making it.

ffs that first part is much happens to everyone in prison.

[En Passant 2,950]

ffs learn to argue coherently.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

ffs learn to argue coherently.

I have been arguing very coherently and responding to every point. Disprovening illogical points doesn't mean arguing incoherently.

[En Passant 2,950]

 

ffs learn to argue coherently.

I have been arguing very coherently and responding to every point. Disprovening illogical points doesn't mean arguing incoherently.

 

The prosecution rests m'lud.