|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny.
|
On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation?
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
The trial is there because the process itself is important. You cannot sentence people for things you assume are "obvious". Even if in this particular case things appear to be fairly obvious, where exactly is the line between a crime that's obvious, and one that isn't, and who decides if a specific case has crossed that imaginary line or not? When you commit to making arbitrary decisions on what is worth a trial, and what isn't, you need to take into account countless grey area cases that will challenge that decision making process in the future.
Moreover, I'm fairly sure that historically there were such crimes that appeared obvious on the surface, but were actually a result of convoluted set-ups, extraordinary circumstances, people admitting guilt to cover for the actual culprit, and innumerate other external factors. The role of the judicial system is to find out the truth - not what appears to be the truth.
Finally, it is a matter of integrity. If people like these have the ability to not only commit murder, but also to cause your institutions to suspend the human rights and very principles a civilized society is built upon, then they have caused a lot more harm to the society than the actual crime did. Costs of a trial are a small price to pay to prevent that - and if the crime is so clear-cut and obvious, the process shouldn't take too long anyway.
|
On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have  I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs  I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry.
Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have.
|
On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny.
I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true.
Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act.
There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that?
Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you?
Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you:
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895
|
On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have.
I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything.
It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony.
|
On May 25 2013 01:08 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 22:33 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
A little anecdote about BNP; I lived next to a former cop who votes and is a member of the British National Party while I was at uni, who was thrown off the force for murdering someone on duty(although he was not found guilty of a crime, simply had to resign). This guy was an asshole; I have a story from an elderly neighbour where she put her white goods in a communal area for one day while getting her house painted; when she refused to move them on the day because they annoyed him for some reason, he threatened her life and then proceeded to kick her car mirror off(this is an 80+ year old white British woman, who sat in her flat window every day of the 6 months I lived there, and invited me and my friends over for tea every once and awhile)
I lived with 2 Nigerians, and the first day I moved in, the neighbour came out and physically threatened me and my friend as we carried stuff upstairs(I tried to be nice and apologized if I had caused any noise while moving in, he called me a cunt). Over the course of my stay there, he reported me to the police falsely for "drug dealing", literally called our landlord every day telling him that we were up to criminal activity in the flat and were a major nuisance to him and his wife. Eventually my landlord didn't renew our lease because he said he couldn't take the daily complaints, that we must be doing something wrong. the complex I went to study in was in the same estate as my old flat after we moved, and he confronted me and threatened me physically, calling me a foreign scum, then proceeded to try to get me banned off the estate for "stalking him", despite the fact I had every right to be there, seeing how I paid 9000£ to go to school, and he probably paid far less than that in rent. I
So I have a hard time not considering BNP a fascist organization now.
Edit: update. Breaking news about a air emergency where a Pakistan Airlines flight has squawked an emergency code, and diverted from it's original destination of Manchester to Stansted.Hope nothing bad has happened... So you know one guy who's in a party and who's a complete arsehole. How does that in any way make his party a fascist organization? That's like saying all vegetarians are fascists because of Hitler. I know very little about the BNP, so I cannot give any informed opinion on it, but you can probably find at least one guy like that in any political party.
I never said I "knew one guy". I was merely giving an anecdote to explain to you the kind of people the BNP attracts. He's not the only white British skinhead I know who is either a active member or a supporter. But if you don't believe me go check out their website http://www.bnp.org.uk/
Try not to pick a fight when you don't know what your dealing with.
On May 25 2013 01:10 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:01 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:On May 25 2013 00:30 Nachtwind wrote:This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled. Eijeijei. I was calling death penalty barbaric. Now you´re derailing and using my word in a glorification speech for violance. You lack reading comprehension. You didn´t even understand what i meaned with paradox. I was not telling you that violence is paradox i can´t even understand how you come to this. I was telling you that the system of a not 100% guilty system is paradox. ...the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death... But to solve your bad reading comprehension i´ll show you what i meaned with barbaric Sure there are cases where we the society have decided that we allow forms of violence in our society. Police or self defense for example. Also the concept of good and bad is philosophical. The term i used regarding death penalty was a barbaric act. It´s only satisfying the lowest human feelings and i think those feelings should have no place in how we regulate the base mechanisms of how our society should work. I totally have those barbaric feelings though but i differ between personal view and a general society view.
The question i was asking had the conclusion that a torture/killing of this criminals would lead into more attacks. And only a fair process can normalise the situation like someone already mentioned here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParadoxA paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.I perfectly understood what you meant thanks. I even addressed your inconsistency by saying that the death penalty should only be applied to CONVICTED TERRORISTS who are 100% without a doubt guilty so I fail to see how your paradox is in any way relevant aside from attempting to insult me in a poor and classless fashion. You also fail to make the clear distinction between an execution and murder. Is death during war murder? No because it is sanctioned and justifiable. Have you ever thought that maybe we need to satisfy our base primal instincts in order to be as one with society? It's not like i'm advocating The Purge, I'm just saying we would be better off saving ourselves the resources of having to pay for the basic human rights these prisoners will require until the day they die in incarceration. TL:DR for the people who clearly miss the point. Only Reason seems to be endorsing trial-less killings like the famous Viet-Cong in the video depicted. There's a clear difference between execution through due process and on the spot summary execution. Show nested quote +I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter. You clearly didn´t understood. Posting links of wikipedia didn´t help here because the situation of creating the death of an innocent because he killed a innocent IS paradox. Also i was never talking about war. You start with Show nested quote +I was merely suggesting that if you knew the consequence of hacking a soldier's head off in the street was a long, painful and embarassing death, would you really be so quick to come to our countries with violent intent? I just responded to that. Show nested quote +Have you ever thought that maybe we need to satisfy our base primal instincts in order to be as one with society? It's not like i'm advocating The Purge, I'm just saying we would be better off saving ourselves the resources of having to pay for the basic human rights these prisoners will require until the day they die in incarceration. That is the stupist thing i heared in a very long time. How old are you?
So out of all the sentences I wrote you respond to the one I write about how I would have no problem defended my family with lethal force assuming we are confronted by it? Is he really an innocent having me and my family witnessed him threaten us with lethal force? And bringing this up is in any way productive to this debate?
And I still don't get how you would consider killing these two guys "the killing of an innocent who killed an innocent". That sentence contradicts itself, but I will forgive you as a German who probably doesn't speak English at a native level.
As for the last one, google how much it costs per inmate to house someone in maximum security per year, add it up for the estimated amount of years they will live based on the national average, divide that by 9000 which is the cost per 1 year of tuition per student in this country, add up how many extra students we could endorse to send to higher education instead of keeping someone in a 6x6 cell(which can be considered a worse fate than death for many, especially for someone who clearly was looking for suicide by cop) and ask yourself if this is really "the stupidest thing in a long time".
PS I'm a 25 year old who likes to read a lot about political/social issues and has many friends who studied these subjects at university, so my views are like a composite of thousands of different influences that I pieced together my OPINION of what I consider right. You don't see me calling your opinion idiotic or insulting you directly do you? Oh wait it's because you never really published an opinion on this matter aside from trying to discredit mine!
|
On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895
Take one look at Guantanamo Bay to see the 'justice' the lack of a system delivers.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be imprisoned or anything, just that justice must be SEEN to be done. Failure to do so would give other potential extremists a rallying point - that the UK is imprisoning people without trial. The tyranny and injustice bit doesn't apply in this case, but allowing governments the power to imprison without trial a) puts the democratic system at risk, b) is an incredibly similar system to most dictatorships and c) is a move towards the sort of systems that the extremists would like under sharia law.
|
On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:
Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you?
You are not only talking about those men, you're talking about the system itself.
The consequences of your proposal affect not only these men, they would affect countless other men in the future - some of whom may very well be innocent, but will never get the chance to prove it because somebody decided that the crime they committed was "obvious enough" to warrant an immediate sentence.
That sounds pretty damn tyrannical to me.
|
On May 25 2013 01:54 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:
Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? You are not only talking about those men, you're talking about the system itself. The consequences of your proposal affect not only these men, they would affect countless other men in the future - some of whom may very well be innocent, but will never get the chance to prove it because somebody decided that the crime they committed was "obvious enough" to warrant an immediate sentence. That sounds pretty damn tyrannical to me.
and women -_-
|
On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony.
You operate under the assumption that people always act rationally. I can guarantee you that petty theft still would happen amongst those that sometimes allow their actions to be guided without thought of the conseqeunces. Do you mean to suggest no such people exist?
|
On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony.
So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me.
|
On May 25 2013 01:54 NoxiousNoodles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 Take one look at Guantanamo Bay to see the 'justice' the lack of a system delivers. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be imprisoned or anything, just that justice must be SEEN to be done. Failure to do so would give other potential extremists a rallying point - that the UK is imprisoning people without trial. The tyranny and injustice bit doesn't apply in this case, but allowing governments the power to imprison without trial a) puts the democratic system at risk, b) is an incredibly similar system to most dictatorships and c) is a move towards the sort of systems that the extremists would like under sharia law.
My point about Thomas McCulloch needs no explanation given the article I linked, would you mind explaining why you are referring to Guantanamo Bay?
Okay, I can see why it's important to put them through the meaningless "trial" as a show, fair enough.
|
On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895
You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power.
He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate.
|
On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me.
No, it really depends.
Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol.
Now take rape.
There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me"
and there's
"I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me.
For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe....
I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury.
The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc
Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease)
On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate.
Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now.
Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows...
|
On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony.
Let's see, you are saying if something is obvious there should be no trial, and also that the penalties should be death even for stealing a bar of candy. You sound like a reasonable person 
What would happen to kleptomaniac who are actually sick but because there is no trial they will die anyways ? Are you trying to summon the Godwyn's law into this thread so soon ?
|
On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows...
The trial isn't for "show". The defense puts full effort into the case with the perfect knowledge that they will lose. This doesn't mean they don't try every avenue. That's the correct nature of the beast.
|
On May 25 2013 02:08 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. Let's see, you are saying if something is obvious there should be no trial, and also that the penalties should be death even for stealing a bar of candy. You sound like a reasonable person What would happen to kleptomaniac who are actually sick but because there is no trial they will die anyways ? Are you trying to summon the Godwyn's law into this thread so soon ?
Third and last time I'm going to say this, I understand now why the trial is necessary for show. I was pointing out that the fundamental purpose of trial is to determine guilt and if so determined then severity of sentence, neither of which are negotiable in this situation.
If you'd paid attention to what I've written so far then sentencing people to death for stealing a candy bar with no trial is not what I'm suggesting lol...
|
On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows...
I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration.
|
On May 25 2013 02:12 KillerSOS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:On May 25 2013 01:31 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations. The clothes thing i have to take as a joke. As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell. No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence. Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation? A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money? I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it? I lol at your judicial beliefs I lol at your attempt to discredit my beliefs with irrelevant anecdotes and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Would you have stolen the bag of crisps when you were 15 for the kick of it if the punishment was death? I didn't think so. Next please On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works. I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry. Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have. I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:39 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:37 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary.. You do realise the whole point of a trial is to determine whether people are innocent or guilty, and not just to impose punishments or award remedies? Yes, I do. I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago? On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... The trial isn't for "show". The defense puts full effort into the case with the perfect knowledge that they will lose. This doesn't mean they don't try every avenue. That's the correct nature of the beast.
So, it's for show then?
|
This guy "Reason" only responds to posters he think he has a sufficient chance of putting up a good argument with, I see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
