9 dead in USA Church Shooting.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 17 of 23 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

sydtheeagle England 22 Jun 15 3.06pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 22 Jun 15 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 Jun 15 3.09pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 Jun 15 3.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 3.22pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 2.13pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.06pm Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 1.44pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 12.18pm The victims of the murderers are certainly not the people they were a decade ago. Scrap all the endless appeals, allow them one and if that fails, go ahead. Society is protected by removing a killer from its midst and saving money avoiding long prison sentences. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 12.19pm) But society ISN'T protected by the presence of the death sentence. That's exactly the point. If society gained any benefit then violent crime would be lower in countries with the death penalty than those without it. And so far as I know, it isn't. You can argue that it makes everyone feel better to remove killers, but you can't claim it affords any protection to society at large by doing so. As for saving money, there are some costs that simply have to be borne by civilised societies. A functional penal system is one of them. Besides, executing people isn't much cheaper than imprisoning them for life, so far as I am aware. Yes, limiting their right to appeal would reduce that cost but I don't think -- when you're taking away a person's life -- short cuts are something you want to look for. Society is protected in that the murderer is not around to do it again if released - many murderers are released and a significant number kill again. Deterrence is difficult to measure. Perhaps there would be even more murders in the US if some if all States abolished the death penalty. The same society that is not protected from wrongful conviction and execution by the state? At least 35 released murderers killed again after release 2001-2011 according to the BBC: [Link] How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) Only 13 of them would have bee eligible for a death penalty, and one of those killed someone whilst awaiting parole for Murder (so still inside, so not released). Counting people who are convicted of manslaughter is irrelevant to the argument, as they would not have received a death sentence. So that's 12 people. Just over one per year, of the average of around 650 murders per year, or 0.002 percent of murders commited each year (are committed by someone who previously was convicted of murder). I've no idea how many people are wrongfully convicted of murder each year*, but as you're saving 1.2 people per year. Of course that's not accounting for the fact that not all murderers would have gotten a death penalty either in the UK (and very few people were actually hanged even if they were sentenced to death). So you need to divide that 1.2 people saved per year, by the percentage of murder cases receiving a death sentence and then reduce it again by sentences commuted Or you could be realistic, and look at the most serious murder cases, as those that got death penalties typically were, and question how many people serving minimum tariffs of 30 years upwards to whole life sentences, have committed murders after being released from prison? So even if we say 50% of murder cases received a death sentence that was carried out, you've got a 0.6 people per year being saved. The truth is, for a 0.002% drop on murders, the death penalty isn't a very effective means of reducing murders in the UK. Each year 770 convictions in the UK are quashed by the Court service, via the court of appeal (1989-1999), and a further 3500 convictions per year overturned at Crown court (from Magistrates court). There are usually between 600-700 murders in the UK each year. I would say the line between saving lives and taking lives is very narrow, to negligible. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 3.22pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 2.13pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.06pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 1.44pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 12.18pm

The victims of the murderers are certainly not the people they were a decade ago. Scrap all the endless appeals, allow them one and if that fails, go ahead. Society is protected by removing a killer from its midst and saving money avoiding long prison sentences.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 12.19pm)

But society ISN'T protected by the presence of the death sentence. That's exactly the point. If society gained any benefit then violent crime would be lower in countries with the death penalty than those without it. And so far as I know, it isn't. You can argue that it makes everyone feel better to remove killers, but you can't claim it affords any protection to society at large by doing so. As for saving money, there are some costs that simply have to be borne by civilised societies. A functional penal system is one of them. Besides, executing people isn't much cheaper than imprisoning them for life, so far as I am aware. Yes, limiting their right to appeal would reduce that cost but I don't think -- when you're taking away a person's life -- short cuts are something you want to look for.

Society is protected in that the murderer is not around to do it again if released - many murderers are released and a significant number kill again. Deterrence is difficult to measure. Perhaps there would be even more murders in the US if some if all States abolished the death penalty.

The same society that is not protected from wrongful conviction and execution by the state?

At least 35 released murderers killed again after release 2001-2011 according to the BBC: [Link]

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

Only 13 of them would have bee eligible for a death penalty, and one of those killed someone whilst awaiting parole for Murder (so still inside, so not released).

Counting people who are convicted of manslaughter is irrelevant to the argument, as they would not have received a death sentence.

So that's 12 people. Just over one per year, of the average of around 650 murders per year, or 0.002 percent of murders commited each year (are committed by someone who previously was convicted of murder).

I've no idea how many people are wrongfully convicted of murder each year*, but as you're saving 1.2 people per year.

Of course that's not accounting for the fact that not all murderers would have gotten a death penalty either in the UK (and very few people were actually hanged even if they were sentenced to death). So you need to divide that 1.2 people saved per year, by the percentage of murder cases receiving a death sentence and then reduce it again by sentences commuted

Or you could be realistic, and look at the most serious murder cases, as those that got death penalties typically were, and question how many people serving minimum tariffs of 30 years upwards to whole life sentences, have committed murders after being released from prison?

So even if we say 50% of murder cases received a death sentence that was carried out, you've got a 0.6 people per year being saved.

The truth is, for a 0.002% drop on murders, the death penalty isn't a very effective means of reducing murders in the UK.

Each year 770 convictions in the UK are quashed by the Court service, via the court of appeal (1989-1999), and a further 3500 convictions per year overturned at Crown court (from Magistrates court). There are usually between 600-700 murders in the UK each year.

I would say the line between saving lives and taking lives is very narrow, to negligible.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 3.23pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 3.23pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 22 Jun 15 3.25pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Of course I'm bothered. How do you work out that I'm not? The difference is that the 35+ murder victims were killed by criminals. The one innocent person will have been killed by the state. Unless you think the state should be held to the same standard of behaviour that applies to a murderer then you have little choice but to take my position on this. Edited by sydtheeagle (22 Jun 2015 3.25pm) Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 22 Jun 15 3.25pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Of course I'm bothered. How do you work out that I'm not? The difference is that the 35+ murder victims were killed by criminals. The one innocent person will have been killed by the state. Unless you think the state should be held to the same standard of behaviour that applies to a murderer then you have little choice but to take my position on this.

Edited by sydtheeagle (22 Jun 2015 3.25pm)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 Jun 15 3.37pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things. The point is you and syd seemed more concerned about the death of a murderer than you do about the victims of murder. You Jamie spent what must obviously taken you some time on convoluted refutation of various statistics. If I could be arsed, I expect I could come up with some refutation of the refutation, but I'm not. (Gone up? BBC no doubt has played down the figures anyway - bound to be more! It said they had killed after release, didn't say how many, I expect there were some multiples.) Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 Jun 15 3.37pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things.

The point is you and syd seemed more concerned about the death of a murderer than you do about the victims of murder. You Jamie spent what must obviously taken you some time on convoluted refutation of various statistics. If I could be arsed, I expect I could come up with some refutation of the refutation, but I'm not. (Gone up? BBC no doubt has played down the figures anyway - bound to be more! It said they had killed after release, didn't say how many, I expect there were some multiples.)

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 3.54pm
Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 2.21pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 2.08pm Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 1.57pm Quote black eagle. at 22 Jun 2015 1.41pm Someone who says i must kill black people,supports apartied,pictured with a racist flag and then kills innocent people is beyond rehabilitation. Dylon Roof is an evil evil person,he deserves whatever punishment comes his way. Most people who kill are beyond rehabilitation if you ask me. He's going to be in jail forever but you can't kill them by any method other than those allowed by law, and you can't bump him up the queue because his crime seems more evil than that of another, already sentenced to death before him. And you'd be wrong. 95% of paroled lifers never commit a serious criminal offence in their lifetime (though I suspect that more due to the time involved than prison service). It does seem weird how difficult it actually proves to legally kill someone in the US. The grounds for appealing a death sentence are massive in law (well they're the same as for any sentence more or less, but with other sentences you've got the prospect of parole, time served and deals to consider and the state has the prospect of 'making it right' after the fact). So it proves a very expensive and consuming process, because essentially you've got appeals on the basis of fairness, predical sentencing, fair trial, proper representation, constitutional law, due process etc stuff that you'd never bother with, where you were tried, poltiical bais etc... Which you'd never really bother with if you weren't facing death. 95% of paroled lifers isn't 95% of people who kill (murder, not manslaughter/defence etc) and, yes, them being old and frail is more likely the reason than any rehabilitation as such. Unfortunately, that's as close the details available gets, people who receive life sentences. Its not so much the old and frail, as most people who get a life sentence serve about 15-20 years, but that people really change in 15-20 year, and most of those people killed people for very specific reasons. As it stands, see my reply to Durben, in a 10 year period, 13 people previously convicted of murder committed a murder, of which one was currently serving a life sentence, in prison (and hadn't been released). So that's 1.2 people out of 600-660 convictions for murder each year, are killed by a convicted murderer. If you execute every murderer then you save one life per year, and gain an bonus life every fifth year. However, against that you need to subtract one person for every overturned murder conviction. So for example, when the Guildford four and Birmingham six convictions were overturned, you would have been -9 lives saved that year. 770 Crown Court convictions are overturned on average each year. If only 0.01% of those are murder convictions, then you've actually killed more people than you saved that year. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 3.54pm

Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 2.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 2.08pm

Quote Stuk at 22 Jun 2015 1.57pm

Quote black eagle. at 22 Jun 2015 1.41pm

Someone who says i must kill black people,supports apartied,pictured with a racist flag and then kills innocent people is beyond rehabilitation.

Dylon Roof is an evil evil person,he deserves whatever punishment comes his way.

Most people who kill are beyond rehabilitation if you ask me.

He's going to be in jail forever but you can't kill them by any method other than those allowed by law, and you can't bump him up the queue because his crime seems more evil than that of another, already sentenced to death before him.

And you'd be wrong. 95% of paroled lifers never commit a serious criminal offence in their lifetime (though I suspect that more due to the time involved than prison service).

It does seem weird how difficult it actually proves to legally kill someone in the US. The grounds for appealing a death sentence are massive in law (well they're the same as for any sentence more or less, but with other sentences you've got the prospect of parole, time served and deals to consider and the state has the prospect of 'making it right' after the fact).

So it proves a very expensive and consuming process, because essentially you've got appeals on the basis of fairness, predical sentencing, fair trial, proper representation, constitutional law, due process etc stuff that you'd never bother with, where you were tried, poltiical bais etc...

Which you'd never really bother with if you weren't facing death.

95% of paroled lifers isn't 95% of people who kill (murder, not manslaughter/defence etc) and, yes, them being old and frail is more likely the reason than any rehabilitation as such.

Unfortunately, that's as close the details available gets, people who receive life sentences. Its not so much the old and frail, as most people who get a life sentence serve about 15-20 years, but that people really change in 15-20 year, and most of those people killed people for very specific reasons.

As it stands, see my reply to Durben, in a 10 year period, 13 people previously convicted of murder committed a murder, of which one was currently serving a life sentence, in prison (and hadn't been released).

So that's 1.2 people out of 600-660 convictions for murder each year, are killed by a convicted murderer. If you execute every murderer then you save one life per year, and gain an bonus life every fifth year.

However, against that you need to subtract one person for every overturned murder conviction. So for example, when the Guildford four and Birmingham six convictions were overturned, you would have been -9 lives saved that year.

770 Crown Court convictions are overturned on average each year. If only 0.01% of those are murder convictions, then you've actually killed more people than you saved that year.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 3.59pm
Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.37pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things. The point is you and syd seemed more concerned about the death of a murderer than you do about the victims of murder. You Jamie spent what must obviously taken you some time on convoluted refutation of various statistics. If I could be arsed, I expect I could come up with some refutation of the refutation, but I'm not. (Gone up? BBC no doubt has played down the figures anyway - bound to be more! It said they had killed after release, didn't say how many, I expect there were some multiples.) Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm) I'm currently studying Psychology and Criminology with the Open University. I don't view the victim or the perpetrator as being more important, I see both objectively. It doesn't matter how takes your life unjustly, state or individual. My concern is that the ideology of 'they won't do it again' is as much as risk to innocent people, as it is a protection of them. If executing people delivered something like a 10-20% reduction in murder, then it might be something to consider (even then the execution should by for a greater good, such as execution by organ harvesting). A 0.002% isn't worth the risk. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 3.59pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.37pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm)

I'm currently studying Psychology and Criminology with the Open University. I don't view the victim or the perpetrator as being more important, I see both objectively. It doesn't matter how takes your life unjustly, state or individual.

My concern is that the ideology of 'they won't do it again' is as much as risk to innocent people, as it is a protection of them. If executing people delivered something like a 10-20% reduction in murder, then it might be something to consider (even then the execution should by for a greater good, such as execution by organ harvesting).

A 0.002% isn't worth the risk.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 4.00pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.25pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Of course I'm bothered. How do you work out that I'm not? The difference is that the 35+ murder victims were killed by criminals. The one innocent person will have been killed by the state. Unless you think the state should be held to the same standard of behaviour that applies to a murderer then you have little choice but to take my position on this. Edited by sydtheeagle (22 Jun 2015 3.25pm) Actually only 12 of those listed in the BBC details were convicted of murder, and not currently in prison. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 4.00pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.25pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Edited by sydtheeagle (22 Jun 2015 3.25pm)

Actually only 12 of those listed in the BBC details were convicted of murder, and not currently in prison.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 15 4.02pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Objectively you need to weight the risks against the returns, if enough lives are saved by the loss of one innocent life, then objectively, and regrettably, the decision has to be the loss of innocent life. We do this all the time with military actions and policy. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 15 4.02pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Objectively you need to weight the risks against the returns, if enough lives are saved by the loss of one innocent life, then objectively, and regrettably, the decision has to be the loss of innocent life.

We do this all the time with military actions and policy.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

black eagle. south croydon. 22 Jun 15 4.04pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 2.35pm Quote black eagle. at 22 Jun 2015 2.03pm Your entittled to your opinion Syd and i welcome it. Your right the families have found it in their hearts to forgive Roof but at the end of the day in regards to threads like this it is all about opinions. My brother and sister are against the death penalty but i am for it in cases like this. i make no apology saying Roof should be put to sleep because that's what he deserves in my opinion. Re: point 1, ditto. Your view pains me but it's your right to hold it and yes, it is about opinions. Even if you are pro the death penalty, and I concede that everyone has the right to form their own opinion on that question, I would still prefer you not to use language that equates the value of a human life with that of an animal. You may think this is splitting hairs but I think the distinction is important. We (people) are sentient in a way that animals are not. We are capable of thinking and changing ourself and self-analysis and introspection to degrees that appear not to be available to beasts. Cogito, ergo sum was not penned by or for a cow -- Cartesian dualism is not the backstop of the animal world. In other words, there isn't moral equivalence between humans and animals and the way you state your views should -- I think -- be chosen more carefully than appears to be the case. That Dylan Roof is scum is true beyond any shadow of doubt. But he's human scum and that's how he should be treated. If you want to equate him with an animal (which would mean his possessing significantly less intelligence and critical faculties than the average human being) then almost by definition you would find it inappropriate to execute him since he would be too mentally limited to know any better with regard to his actions. And we don't execute the mentally subnormal (thank goodness.) Only if you conceive of Roof as a thinking, sentient human (not animal) could you possibly conclude that he is responsible for his actions and should, therefore, be put to death with that in mind. So in a way, your language contradicts your conclusion. Why? Because you're writing emotionally rather than thoughtfully, I suspect. The death penalty is a complex and difficult subject, however simple you and others may wish to make it. When it comes to deciding to kill people, even if you think it's right, we should always take more time than less. There is no going back, ever. Point taken Syd,yeah maybe i should'nt use the term put to sleep describing Roof. I know we are a nation of Animal lovers,i like Animals although i don't have pets anymore. Animals are better than Roof. Roof should be punished while animals put to sleep. there you go i'm not all bad.
Alert a moderator to this post

black eagle.

south croydon. 22 Jun 15 4.04pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 2.35pm

Quote black eagle. at 22 Jun 2015 2.03pm

Your entittled to your opinion Syd and i welcome it.

Your right the families have found it in their hearts to forgive Roof but at the end of the day in regards to threads like this it is all about opinions.

My brother and sister are against the death penalty but i am for it in cases like this.

i make no apology saying Roof should be put to sleep because that's what he deserves in my opinion.

Re: point 1, ditto. Your view pains me but it's your right to hold it and yes, it is about opinions.

Even if you are pro the death penalty, and I concede that everyone has the right to form their own opinion on that question, I would still prefer you not to use language that equates the value of a human life with that of an animal. You may think this is splitting hairs but I think the distinction is important.

We (people) are sentient in a way that animals are not. We are capable of thinking and changing ourself and self-analysis and introspection to degrees that appear not to be available to beasts. Cogito, ergo sum was not penned by or for a cow -- Cartesian dualism is not the backstop of the animal world. In other words, there isn't moral equivalence between humans and animals and the way you state your views should -- I think -- be chosen more carefully than appears to be the case.

That Dylan Roof is scum is true beyond any shadow of doubt. But he's human scum and that's how he should be treated.

If you want to equate him with an animal (which would mean his possessing significantly less intelligence and critical faculties than the average human being) then almost by definition you would find it inappropriate to execute him since he would be too mentally limited to know any better with regard to his actions. And we don't execute the mentally subnormal (thank goodness.)

Only if you conceive of Roof as a thinking, sentient human (not animal) could you possibly conclude that he is responsible for his actions and should, therefore, be put to death with that in mind. So in a way, your language contradicts your conclusion. Why? Because you're writing emotionally rather than thoughtfully, I suspect.

The death penalty is a complex and difficult subject, however simple you and others may wish to make it. When it comes to deciding to kill people, even if you think it's right, we should always take more time than less. There is no going back, ever.

Point taken Syd,yeah maybe i should'nt use the term put to sleep describing Roof.

I know we are a nation of Animal lovers,i like Animals although i don't have pets anymore.

Animals are better than Roof.

Roof should be punished while animals put to sleep.

there you go i'm not all bad.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 Jun 15 4.10pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.59pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.37pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty. Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm) I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty. Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then? Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things. The point is you and syd seemed more concerned about the death of a murderer than you do about the victims of murder. You Jamie spent what must obviously taken you some time on convoluted refutation of various statistics. If I could be arsed, I expect I could come up with some refutation of the refutation, but I'm not. (Gone up? BBC no doubt has played down the figures anyway - bound to be more! It said they had killed after release, didn't say how many, I expect there were some multiples.) Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm) I'm currently studying Psychology and Criminology with the Open University. I don't view the victim or the perpetrator as being more important, I see both objectively. It doesn't matter how takes your life unjustly, state or individual. My concern is that the ideology of 'they won't do it again' is as much as risk to innocent people, as it is a protection of them. If executing people delivered something like a 10-20% reduction in murder, then it might be something to consider (even then the execution should by for a greater good, such as execution by organ harvesting). A 0.002% isn't worth the risk. Hmmmm.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 Jun 15 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.59pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.37pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2015 3.23pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 3.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 22 Jun 2015 3.06pm

Quote derben at 22 Jun 2015 2.55pm

How many innocent people were executed in the last ten years of the death penalty? If less then 35, then I would say we would be ahead of the game in having a death penalty.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 2.56pm)

I would say that if a single innocent person was executed, ever, then you have all the reason you need for not having the death penalty.

Not too bothered about the 35+ people killed by the released murderers then?

Its gone up? You shouldn't count manslaughter as murder. Killers and murderers are two very different things.

Edited by derben (22 Jun 2015 3.41pm)

I'm currently studying Psychology and Criminology with the Open University. I don't view the victim or the perpetrator as being more important, I see both objectively. It doesn't matter how takes your life unjustly, state or individual.

A 0.002% isn't worth the risk.

Hmmmm.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 17 of 23 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

9 dead in USA Church Shooting.

Site Map

Sponsors