The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News0 min ago
Sarah Everard's Murderer
The current law in England and Wales states that the murder of a police (or prison) officer in the course of duty is a factor indicating a murder of ‘particularly high seriousness’, which must attract a minimum sentence of 30 years.
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
davebro - // //I have no problem whatsoever living my life and not thinking about them from one year's end to the next.//
// I find that very cold //
Fair enough.
We all reach accomodations that allow us to live our lives with minimum pain - and we are each a product of our own experiences.
// I have a friend who is in gaol for 19 years for a murder he committed whilst blind drunk. He's a good man, never committed a crime before & never would again. I think about him a lot & write to him sometimes. Fortunately he has no close family but if he did I'm sure his incarceration would be a great burden to them. It's hard to say but perhaps execution might have been kinder although his crime would not merit it under my criteria. //
Impossible to say - we cannot know how anyone else would or does feel about their individual situations.
I know why I have reacted as I have to my family - I am comfortable with my response and my reasons, but as I said, each person has to live with what life gives them.
That is why I am unable to take the casual approach of some other posters in terms of ending someone's life.
// I find that very cold //
Fair enough.
We all reach accomodations that allow us to live our lives with minimum pain - and we are each a product of our own experiences.
// I have a friend who is in gaol for 19 years for a murder he committed whilst blind drunk. He's a good man, never committed a crime before & never would again. I think about him a lot & write to him sometimes. Fortunately he has no close family but if he did I'm sure his incarceration would be a great burden to them. It's hard to say but perhaps execution might have been kinder although his crime would not merit it under my criteria. //
Impossible to say - we cannot know how anyone else would or does feel about their individual situations.
I know why I have reacted as I have to my family - I am comfortable with my response and my reasons, but as I said, each person has to live with what life gives them.
That is why I am unable to take the casual approach of some other posters in terms of ending someone's life.
naomi - //
AH, at 09.12 you were concerned for their innocent loved ones. I'm not.
What's your question? //
My questions are based around the discrrepancies I perceive in your position on captial punishment.
You seem OK with the notion of ending someone's life, but you don't want it to hurt while you do it, which seems strange to me.
Similarly, you confirm that you have no sympathy for the families of criminals who suffer because of the actions of someone to whom they are connected by an accident of birth.
Why are they not deserving of your compassion since they are suffering through no fault of their own?
And you appear to find the notion of amutating the hand of a thief to be barbaric, but again, you are fine with the extinguighing of a life if it is done painlessly.
You also appear to have no issue in treating the extinction of a human life the same as the extinction of a dog's life - both are unable to live in society, so their death is a comparable solution.
If you want to explain further, I am happy to see if I can understand your reasoning, although I am unlikely to agree with it.
AH, at 09.12 you were concerned for their innocent loved ones. I'm not.
What's your question? //
My questions are based around the discrrepancies I perceive in your position on captial punishment.
You seem OK with the notion of ending someone's life, but you don't want it to hurt while you do it, which seems strange to me.
Similarly, you confirm that you have no sympathy for the families of criminals who suffer because of the actions of someone to whom they are connected by an accident of birth.
Why are they not deserving of your compassion since they are suffering through no fault of their own?
And you appear to find the notion of amutating the hand of a thief to be barbaric, but again, you are fine with the extinguighing of a life if it is done painlessly.
You also appear to have no issue in treating the extinction of a human life the same as the extinction of a dog's life - both are unable to live in society, so their death is a comparable solution.
If you want to explain further, I am happy to see if I can understand your reasoning, although I am unlikely to agree with it.
naomi - // AH, //If you want to explain further, I am happy to see if I can understand your reasoning,//
I can't add to what I've already said. Whether you understand it or not makes no difference to me. //
Your standard response when questioned about one or more of your lofty pronouncements - to scoff that you have already explained yourself competely, and the failure to understand is down to my lack of intellect rather than your inadqueate reasoning.
Then top it off with the rude assertion that you don't care whether i understand your view or not.
It's not adult debate, but it is what you always do - unless you can rouse yourself to be offensive again, and then simply absent yourself from the thread, which would again be reverting to type.
You speak as though, because you don't want to hurt someone while you kill them, you would be gratefully accept the syringe and do the job yourself, and sleep soundly afterwards.
That says something about your attitude to your fellow human beings.
But of course, the iron-clad sanctity of your presumption of moral superiority will always protect you from anything approaching the possibility that you may be wrong.
I can't add to what I've already said. Whether you understand it or not makes no difference to me. //
Your standard response when questioned about one or more of your lofty pronouncements - to scoff that you have already explained yourself competely, and the failure to understand is down to my lack of intellect rather than your inadqueate reasoning.
Then top it off with the rude assertion that you don't care whether i understand your view or not.
It's not adult debate, but it is what you always do - unless you can rouse yourself to be offensive again, and then simply absent yourself from the thread, which would again be reverting to type.
You speak as though, because you don't want to hurt someone while you kill them, you would be gratefully accept the syringe and do the job yourself, and sleep soundly afterwards.
That says something about your attitude to your fellow human beings.
But of course, the iron-clad sanctity of your presumption of moral superiority will always protect you from anything approaching the possibility that you may be wrong.
// I think about him a lot & write to him sometimes. Fortunately he has no close family but if he did I'm sure his incarceration would be a great burden//
well done - everyone deserves this. - - they are human
My brudda wrote regularly to an old lag ( big fraud - £5 wiv many many zeroes after ) . he was the only one ....( but he didnt know at the time)
well done - everyone deserves this. - - they are human
My brudda wrote regularly to an old lag ( big fraud - £5 wiv many many zeroes after ) . he was the only one ....( but he didnt know at the time)
AH, I haven't absented myself from the thread - and I haven't been rude. Your questions have been answered in my previous responses. If you have others please formulate them as questions rather than a diatribe of imagined conclusions. If, however, you intend continuing in your usual derogatory fashion, don't bother because I won't encourage you in that.
naomi - // AH, I haven't absented myself from the thread - and I haven't been rude. Your questions have been answered in my previous responses. If you have others please formulate them as questions rather than a diatribe of imagined conclusions. If, however, you intend continuing in your usual derogatory fashion, don't bother because I won't encourage you in that. //
I can't add to what I've already said. Whether you understand it or not makes no difference to me.
I can't add to what I've already said. Whether you understand it or not makes no difference to me.
sp - // I think incarceration for decades is a much worse punishment than death. I recently read a couple of books - 'A Bit of a Stretch' by Chris Atkins and prison sounds [i]horrific[/i]. As I read it I tried to imagine being in jail for thirty years - I found it unimaginable. //
I would agree, although in terms of murder, I regard imprisonment for life as appropriate, not as a punishment, but simply to maintain the safety of society.
Someome who has proven themselves to be capable of taking the life of another has no place in a civilised society, and I believe the law should provide a mechanism to remove them from it.
But execution remains rooted in revenge, which is perfectly acceptable for a lot of people - just not for me personally.
I would agree, although in terms of murder, I regard imprisonment for life as appropriate, not as a punishment, but simply to maintain the safety of society.
Someome who has proven themselves to be capable of taking the life of another has no place in a civilised society, and I believe the law should provide a mechanism to remove them from it.
But execution remains rooted in revenge, which is perfectly acceptable for a lot of people - just not for me personally.
SparklyKid - // Execution is not revenge, it is simply justifiable punishment. //
As I have previously pointed out, a punishment is only actually a punishment if it is suffered under the premise that the guilty party will suffer in some way, and reflect on the punishment, and ideally, not commit the crime again.
If the guilty party is dead, they are unable to experience their punishment, which makes it pointless offering execution as a punishment.
As I have previously pointed out, a punishment is only actually a punishment if it is suffered under the premise that the guilty party will suffer in some way, and reflect on the punishment, and ideally, not commit the crime again.
If the guilty party is dead, they are unable to experience their punishment, which makes it pointless offering execution as a punishment.
10:15, 10:19, totally agree. Andy, I don't understand the confusion of naomi (apparently) being ok to end a life, as long as it is painless. Surely, that is the civilised approach? Wanting someone to have an agonising death, or lose limbs, really is just malicious revenge. I also think, keeping other humans in cages for the rest of their days, can't realistically be seen as less barbaric? Look at the mental torture, sometimes to the point of suicide.
I disagree, that because someone (human or animal) is going to die, that you might as well abuse them too.
I disagree, that because someone (human or animal) is going to die, that you might as well abuse them too.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.