Death Penalty?
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Death Penalty |
Yes |
|
41% |
[ 13 ] |
No |
|
45% |
[ 14 ] |
Not Sure |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
I really wanna spank the Monkey |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
|
Total Votes : 31 |
|
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
No, because this isn't Nazi Germany. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | No, because this isn't Nazi Germany. |
Well maybe they got something right
No of course I don't think that, but if they need to test stuff on live things, use prisoners, not animals.
Why the **** is any kinda f testing still done on animals? It $£$%^%%$ disgusts me and makes my blood boil _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
Post subject: | |
|
1061 wrote: | swoop42 wrote: |
What next harvesting criminals for there meat or organs in a world short on food? |
Can we start by doing chemical testing on them instead of animals? |
Works for me! _________________ “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.†|
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | No, because this isn't Nazi Germany. |
Apparently the Yanks did too. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | David wrote: | No, because this isn't Nazi Germany. |
Well maybe they got something right
No of course I don't think that, but if they need to test stuff on live things, use prisoners, not animals.
Why the **** is any kinda f testing still done on animals? It $£$%^%%$ disgusts me and makes my blood boil |
You eat animals. Would you support a human meat trade sourced from prisoners?
Soylent Green is not supposed to be a utopia, you know.
(By the way, I wasn't kidding earlier—the Nazis passionately opposed animal testing and outlawed it after gaining government. What the doctors did to their prisoners in concentration camps is, of course, one of the 20th century's most horrific occurrences. We should pray that such things are never repeated.)
I'm not opposed to outlawing animal cruelty and finding more ethical means of medical testing, but it should never be done at the expense of basic human rights. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | (By the way, I wasn't kidding earlier—the Nazis passionately opposed animal testing and outlawed it after gaining government) |
Then they weren't all bad then!
Wish our weak lily livered Government would do something proactive - fat chance - this lot are cranking up live export so no chance of anything remotely humane and compassionate coming from them!!
Testing on animals has proved to be almost irrelevant and insignificant for predicting outcome for humans - I give you one example thalidimide _________________ “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.†|
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Meanwhile, back on topic, that great Australian Barry Jones deals well with the death penalty in his fine book, "A Thinking Reed".
I can see an argument that someone so violates the social contract through egregious murder or torture that they put themselves outside normal consideration, so i don't believe that makes capital punishment unthinkable.
The arguments that make sense, however, are that (1) the state has a coercive power over every one of us - probably too much already, in my view; It is best that this coercive power does not include the right to sanction any individual in a manner that is total and irreversible ; (2) in an uncertain world, it is better to lock up 100 people for life than to mistakenly send an innocent person to death ; and (3) it is not necessary to achieve the objective to keepng society safe from savage criminality ; and (4) that the only possible argument for it is that we might be better spending the costs of incarceration on diabetes research, or child cancer or whatever - but that is true of prolonging life in old age, and we simply do not use that calculus. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Interesting, I can't find my previous posts on this. So, I'll do it again.
I support the Death Penalty in the following circumstances:
1. Situation of multiple death/rape
2. Standard of proof is "beyond all doubt".
It would be up to the prosecutor to choose whether to go for a gaol sentence under the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" or go for the death penalty with a standard of proof of "beyond all doubt"
if a prosecutor goes for the death penalty and fails to get the required standard of proof, the person walks free. This minimises the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to death.
With the new standard of proof we make it a situation where only a tiny minority qualify.
The motivation for this scenario is simple. People like this aren't able to be rehabilitated, and there is no discernable value from keeping them alive at an ongoing cost to the taxpayer. So put them down and move on, _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Why rape? It's a crime that while horrendous still leaves the victim able to live their life. I can somewhat understand seeking the death penalty for murderers, upon taking a life they forfeit their own 'right to life', but rape, torture or vicious assault causing bodily damage or even permanent disability should surely be handled differently. The criminal working to pay for the victim's treatment and compensation for pain and suffering while remaining imprisoned for an extended period seems more fair and just to me.
I do agree with you that any death penalty would need to be handed down with a burden of 'beyond all doubt' but considering advances in technology end up with people being found innocent decades later of crimes they were 100%, no doubt guilty of still makes me baulk. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Why rape? It's a crime that while horrendous still leaves the victim able to live their life. I can somewhat understand seeking the death penalty for murderers, upon taking a life they forfeit their own 'right to life', but rape, torture or vicious assault causing bodily damage or even permanent disability should surely be handled differently. The criminal working to pay for the victim's treatment and compensation for pain and suffering while remaining imprisoned for an extended period seems more fair and just to me.
I do agree with you that any death penalty would need to be handed down with a burden of 'beyond all doubt' but considering advances in technology end up with people being found innocent decades later of crimes they were 100%, no doubt guilty of still makes me baulk. |
how about an eye for an eye? sodomize them with a hot poker, sounds fair, they can live _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Why rape? It's a crime that while horrendous still leaves the victim able to live their life. I can somewhat understand seeking the death penalty for murderers, upon taking a life they forfeit their own 'right to life', but rape, torture or vicious assault causing bodily damage or even permanent disability should surely be handled differently. The criminal working to pay for the victim's treatment and compensation for pain and suffering while remaining imprisoned for an extended period seems more fair and just to me.
I do agree with you that any death penalty would need to be handed down with a burden of 'beyond all doubt' but considering advances in technology end up with people being found innocent decades later of crimes they were 100%, no doubt guilty of still makes me baulk. |
With the rape I'm aiming at those violent multiple rapists. Like the bloke who did Jill Meagher.
The kind of people I'd pitch this at are the Julian Knights of the world. It's not so much that they've forfeited the right to live, but that their continued life is of no benefit to anyone. Depriving someone like him of liberty when he's never going to be rehabilitated is an exercise in futility. What possible reason is there for keeping him alive?
Someone like that, where it can be proven beyond ALL doubt that they were guilty, you just put them down. No drawn out appeals process, no stuffing around, no macabre filming of it, just do it quick and be done with it. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Although I have some sympathy for your views on this, I think you've got the wrong angle by talking about "keeping them alive". They're not coma patients on life support; you have to actively decide to end their life to make them die. Most of us would agree that that's a grave thing to do to another human being (not a dog, a person), which is why murder is considered such a heinous crime in the first place, no matter the victim's contribution to society. So, I think doing it to even the worst criminal requires strong justification. That's where the burden of argument has to lie. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | The kind of people I'd pitch this at are the Julian Knights of the world. It's not so much that they've forfeited the right to live, but that their continued life is of no benefit to anyone. Depriving someone like him of liberty when he's never going to be rehabilitated is an exercise in futility. What possible reason is there for keeping him alive?
|
Only that the death penalty exercises a macabre fascination for certain disturbed individuals, and acts as a motivating factor to commit crimes which attract that penalty. That is the only reason I can think of to set against the several good reasons for it. On balance, it's a tough call.
Although we need to be careful that an "extreme circumstances only" death penalty doesn't become a thin end of the wedge thing. It's easy enough to imagine a mad-dog government whipping up some hysteria and then extending it to more and more crimes, including some acts that deserve a medal more than a penalty. (I'm thinking of the recent US whistleblowers as examples.) And if you can't imagine a mad-dog government doing that, you haven't been paying attention for the last 18 months. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
Cat haters should be put to death _________________ Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
nah, just the cats. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|