Jokes0 min ago
What Would Be Your Choice?
Yet another random attack - this time in London leaving one innocent woman dead and five injured. If it happened in France, the Police would have shot the bstrd dead...taken the scum off the planet. Here he gets tasered, spends a night in hospital then questioned, then no doubt a jail sentence (at Britains expense) awaits...maybe reduced for mental health claims. And hey the police will probably get accused of being overly aggressive. Would you rather see instant extermination or a prison sentence? Personally I think the greater deterrent is death, but then some of these attackers are seeking martyrdom
Answers
'Would you rather see instant exterminatio
12:33 Thu 04th Aug 2016
ummmm - //But death isn't a deterrent. You only have to look at death row to know that! //
Indeed.
If society imagines that anyone about to commit an act that would result in a death sentence if convicted, stops and thinks 'Hmmm, I'd better not do this - if I am caught, I could be executed ...' - then society is a fool.
Indeed.
If society imagines that anyone about to commit an act that would result in a death sentence if convicted, stops and thinks 'Hmmm, I'd better not do this - if I am caught, I could be executed ...' - then society is a fool.
-- answer removed --
AOG - ///// But death isn't a deterrent. You only have to look at death row to know that! ///
Being on death row doesn't necessarily mean the inmate is going to die.
But even if a killer is killed one knows for certain that is one less, and that particular one won't kill again. //
That's true, but that makes the death penalty revenge, and not a deterrent, so why is society dishonest with itself, dressing up state-sanctioned murder as one thing, when it is clearly another.
Being on death row doesn't necessarily mean the inmate is going to die.
But even if a killer is killed one knows for certain that is one less, and that particular one won't kill again. //
That's true, but that makes the death penalty revenge, and not a deterrent, so why is society dishonest with itself, dressing up state-sanctioned murder as one thing, when it is clearly another.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Not sure how the death penalty or death row got into this question seem s the OP is more geared around death during capture.
The problem in this country is that if someone is taken alive then some scum 'ooman rights lawyer, on legal aid, gets the piece of scum off or given a ridiculous low sentence so they are out to kill again. Without doubt if shot during capture that cannot happen so society is clearly that little bit safer.
The problem in this country is that if someone is taken alive then some scum 'ooman rights lawyer, on legal aid, gets the piece of scum off or given a ridiculous low sentence so they are out to kill again. Without doubt if shot during capture that cannot happen so society is clearly that little bit safer.
YMB - //Without doubt if shot during capture that cannot happen so society is clearly that little bit safer. //
That has the additional benefit of saving the time and money involved in a pesky trial, and the possibility that the accused my actually be not guilty.
Still, who wants to bother with all that, when you can just shoot someone based on an instant decision.
That has the additional benefit of saving the time and money involved in a pesky trial, and the possibility that the accused my actually be not guilty.
Still, who wants to bother with all that, when you can just shoot someone based on an instant decision.
Lee Rigbys killers come to mind, police didn't shoot to kill so it ended up with a very long and expensive trial, at our expense btw! It was clear as day that the two scum committed the murder yet we gave them their day in court, why? Now it is costing us thousands keeping them behind bars, 3 square meals a day, heating, laundry, TV all supplied, living better than most pensioners and low paid workers!!
YMB - //So you use the ridiculous, put words in my mouth, and try to demean me to try and counter. //
If I was keen to put words in your mouth, I would have commenced my post with 'So you think ...' - the standard preamble to putting another point which has nothing to do with yours whatsoever.
But I'm not - so I didn't.
I will cheerfully admit to demeaning your argument - I believe it deserves it, but that that is not the same as demeaning you as a person, which was not my intention.
If I was keen to put words in your mouth, I would have commenced my post with 'So you think ...' - the standard preamble to putting another point which has nothing to do with yours whatsoever.
But I'm not - so I didn't.
I will cheerfully admit to demeaning your argument - I believe it deserves it, but that that is not the same as demeaning you as a person, which was not my intention.
saintpeter - //Lee Rigbys killers come to mind, police didn't shoot to kill so it ended up with a very long and expensive trial, at our expense btw! It was clear as day that the two scum committed the murder yet we gave them their day in court, why? Now it is costing us thousands keeping them behind bars, 3 square meals a day, heating, laundry, TV all supplied, living better than most pensioners and low paid workers!! //
Your point is one that is raised with regularity when the subject of the death penalty is debated.
My point is consistent, and I will happily trot it out one more time -
We are blessed to live in a civilised society.
Because our society is civilised, we have a justice system which considers evidence fairly and dispassionately, so that the innocent are able to avoid punishment, and the guilty receive it, and every effort is made to ensure that those two concepts are not reversed.
Again because our society is civilised, we do not have a death penalty, so murderers are incarcerated, often for the rest of their lives, and again because we are civilised, the punishment is removal of liberty, not condemnation to live in squalor or violence, or any of the other scenarios that some people would wish.
These are the prices we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. It's not perfect, but compared to the vigilante alternative that some would welcome, I think it was and is the best we can do in an imperfect world.
Your point is one that is raised with regularity when the subject of the death penalty is debated.
My point is consistent, and I will happily trot it out one more time -
We are blessed to live in a civilised society.
Because our society is civilised, we have a justice system which considers evidence fairly and dispassionately, so that the innocent are able to avoid punishment, and the guilty receive it, and every effort is made to ensure that those two concepts are not reversed.
Again because our society is civilised, we do not have a death penalty, so murderers are incarcerated, often for the rest of their lives, and again because we are civilised, the punishment is removal of liberty, not condemnation to live in squalor or violence, or any of the other scenarios that some people would wish.
These are the prices we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. It's not perfect, but compared to the vigilante alternative that some would welcome, I think it was and is the best we can do in an imperfect world.
He should be deported to Somalia so we don't have to pay the huge fees it will cost to sentence and jail him here. I don't mind if we pay Somalia a fee to deal with him. But why should we pay to keep him in jail for decades when we could be using that money to help innocent British people?
Also, it annoys me that this case is described by the police and media as random, when he probably deliberately attacked Western looking people, but if a white guy attacked a few non-whites he would undoubtedly be labelled racist.
Also, it annoys me that this case is described by the police and media as random, when he probably deliberately attacked Western looking people, but if a white guy attacked a few non-whites he would undoubtedly be labelled racist.
Morality doesn't change with specific incidents. Murder is still a barbaric form of punishment that should not be used by the State. Worrying about cost in a society that can afford to apply the law fairly, merely cheapens one's moral stance.
On top of which countries with a death penalty prove it is no deterrent as they still have such incidents. Those with mental issues aren't going to weight things up, those that do are often prepared to die anyway, for some martyrdom is an aim.
On top of which countries with a death penalty prove it is no deterrent as they still have such incidents. Those with mental issues aren't going to weight things up, those that do are often prepared to die anyway, for some martyrdom is an aim.
Old_Geezer - //Morality doesn't change with specific incidents. Murder is still a barbaric form of punishment that should not be used by the State. Worrying about cost in a society that can afford to apply the law fairly, merely cheapens one's moral stance. //
I agree - if my taxes are used to feed and house a murderer until his death by natural causes, then I am happy to pay them, because the alternative is for the state to murder him on my behalf, and that is barbaric.
I agree - if my taxes are used to feed and house a murderer until his death by natural causes, then I am happy to pay them, because the alternative is for the state to murder him on my behalf, and that is barbaric.
