|
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 02:16 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:12 KillerSOS wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
You have a strange definition of the word show.
|
On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles 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... 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.
The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn.
Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I.
Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too.
You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die.
Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale.
This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo.
I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve.
Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world.
|
|
|
^ Good Riddance
On May 25 2013 02:19 KillerSOS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:16 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:12 KillerSOS wrote: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:[quote] 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? You have a strange definition of the word show.
Put simply, a trial is to determine guilt and if guilt is determined then sentence must be determined thereafter. Do you agree?
If the guilt is already known and the sentence guaranteed, then how is it not a trial purely for show?
How would you define a show trial?
|
On May 25 2013 02:23 FruttisSC wrote:
Muslims.. what a fucking disgrace to humanity, i live in Warsaw (Poland) and I'm really disgusted since we got mosque here, they are walking through the streets, many people are scared seeing them but yea.. Europe is being invaded by killers and that's fucking unacceptable.
It is wrong to single out a single religion. And it is wrong to simply associate a religion with killers.
|
On May 25 2013 02:16 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:12 KillerSOS wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
It's for show only if it's about determining guilt like in your Vlad Tepes' Wallachia with death sentences for everything. It's actually also to determine the sentence, not just guilt. There's a prosecutor and defense lawyer and whatnot arguing laws and the judge evaluating and calculating the sentence. And the "show" part is for transparency. Transparency because you probably wouldn't like getting a letter from the authorities mentioning your sister will be gone and in prison for the next three years without explaining anything to you.
|
It is a joke that it took 20-30min for the police to come and people didn't do jack to help the poor guy and just stood there taking pictures.
Also it is a joke that the media portrays this women that did absolutely nothing as some sort of "hero". A hero would have been someone that busted a cap in this guys ass before he could finish his beheading.
|
On May 25 2013 02:18 ianjamesbarnett wrote:
This guy "Reason" only responds to posters he think he has a sufficient chance of putting up a good argument with, I see.
He has no chance of putting up a good argument with anyone. The purpose of such an argument can only be to sway the opinion of third parties, but his ideas are so absurd that few people are going to have their opinions changed by his posts.
He is probably just trolling anyway, who would even try to argue for executions without trial?
|
On May 25 2013 02:28 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:16 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:12 KillerSOS wrote: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:[quote] 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? It's for show only if it's about determining guilt like in your Vlad Tepes' Wallachia with death sentences for everything. It's actually also to determine the sentence, not just guilt. There's a prosecutor and defense lawyer and whatnot arguing laws and the judge evaluating and calculating the sentence. And the "show" part is for transparency. Transparency because you probably wouldn't like getting a letter from the authorities mentioning your sister will be gone and in prison for the next three years without explaining anything to you.
What on Earth are you talking about?
|
I watched the video of the guy being gunned down and wonder.. why did they hurt him so bad? Surely police force in England is trained to shoot under pressure and to disable moving targets, isn't it? He seemed to have dropped his weapon before the first shot so he was less of a threat.
Sure, there's less motivation when you know he just killed a soldier (which might as well have been a policeman) but this seemed like a big mistake and should have disciplinary consequences.
|
On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote: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:
[quote]
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... 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. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world.
So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death.
|
On May 25 2013 02:13 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:08 Godwrath 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. 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...
A trial is not for show. It is there to determine guilt and the resulting penalty. Without a trial, who would decide if the suspect is "obviously guilty"? Some random police officer? Because someone needs to make that decision. And there is a very good reason we have the seperation of powers in our systems. Legislative, Executive, and Iudicative NEED to be seperated if you want to have a good system that is hard to corrupt. This is the basis of our modern western society. If some random guy just made the decision that something is obvious and kills the perpetrator (since apparently any crime should be punishable by death if it is obvious, so why waste time and money getting that guy to an execution facility), you have a major potential for corruption and abuse. If you do not see the problem with such a system, i am honestly at a loss of words.
If someone is "obviously guilty" it should not be hard to prove that in court. This does not mean that the court is "for show". It still serves its purpose. You just have to actually prove that guilt with something else then "it is obvious".
|
On May 25 2013 02:31 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:18 ianjamesbarnett wrote:
This guy "Reason" only responds to posters he think he has a sufficient chance of putting up a good argument with, I see. He has no chance of putting up a good argument with anyone. The purpose of such an argument can only be to sway the opinion of third parties, but his ideas are so absurd that few people are going to have their opinions changed by his posts. He is probably just trolling anyway, who would even try to argue for executions without trial?
I have responded to every single person who has spoken to me today, don't talk about me like I'm not here or that I'm being selective or picky about who I choose to reply to. If you've got something to say, then say it.
I don't know why you're making me repeat myself here. I've already stated that I understand why the trial is necessary for reasons other than simply determining guilt and sentence. Just to make it clear to you, and anyone else who likes to read snippets of my posts and discount the rest....
I AM NOT SUGGESTING EXECUTIONS WITHOUT TRIAL
|
On May 25 2013 02:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:13 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Godwrath 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. 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... A trial is not for show. It is there to determine guilt and the resulting penalty. Without a trial, who would decide if the suspect is "obviously guilty"? Some random police officer? Because someone needs to make that decision. And there is a very good reason we have the seperation of powers in our systems. Legislative, Executive, and Iudicative NEED to be seperated if you want to have a good system that is hard to corrupt. This is the basis of our modern western society. If some random guy just made the decision that something is obvious and kills the perpetrator (since apparently any crime should be punishable by death if it is obvious, so why waste time and money getting that guy to an execution facility), you have a major potential for corruption and abuse. If you do not see the problem with such a system, i am honestly at a loss of words. If someone is "obviously guilty" it should not be hard to prove that in court. This does not mean that the court is "for show". It still serves its purpose. You just have to actually prove that guilt with something else then "it is obvious".
"It is there to determine guilt and the resulting penalty."
Yeah, that's what I keep saying.
If the guilt is already determined because everyone saw it, it's on videotape, it's all over the news and the internet and the perpetrators confessed then in my opinion it's a show trial as there is no determination to take place. We've both stated, using your own words here that a trial is "there to determine guilt and the resulting penalty."
When that is already done pretrial then in my opinion it's a show trial, though I have already previously acknowledged why it's still necessary so I'm not sure why people are still going on about this...
I'm sorry if that definition offends or upsets you, but that's what it is to me.
I'm not suggesting en masse sentencing without trial....
|
On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote: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:[quote] 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... 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. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death.
You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death.
The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar?
Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society.
|
And you just don't get my point. If it is obvious, it is easy to prove in trial. You still have to prove it in trial. It is not a "show trial", it is an important part of the process. Firstly, not "everyone" saw it. There is not a single thing that ever happened that "everyone" saw. Videos can be faked. Stuff like that. You need to be able to prove something in court.
The point is that noone can decide if something is obvious, except the judge. He gets this obvious evidence presented to him, and makes the decision. And for a trial to be fair, the guilt needs to not be predetermined. That is also an important thing of our system. You are innocent, until someone can prove in court that you are guilty. The opinion of the masses is irrelevant, evidence is irrelevant unless it is able to convince a judge. Which means that the trial is an important part of the whole process. There is no "obvious" or "predetermined" guilt.
|
On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote: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:[quote] 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:
[quote]
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. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society.
Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars.
|
On May 25 2013 02:45 Simberto wrote:
And you just don't get my point. If it is obvious, it is easy to prove in trial. You still have to prove it in trial. It is not a "show trial", it is an important part of the process. Firstly, not "everyone" saw it. There is not a single thing that ever happened that "everyone" saw. Videos can be faked. Stuff like that. You need to be able to prove something in court.
The point is that noone can decide if something is obvious, except the judge. He gets this obvious evidence presented to him, and makes the decision. And for a trial to be fair, the guilt needs to not be predetermined. That is also an important thing of our system. You are innocent, until someone can prove in court that you are guilty. The opinion of the masses is irrelevant, evidence is irrelevant unless it is able to convince a judge. Which means that the trial is an important part of the whole process. There is no "obvious" or "predetermined" guilt.
Just answer my questions, numerically, please, before I respond to you.
What would you estimate the % chance to be that these men are
1. actually innocent of the crime
2. going to be found innocent in court
also the % chance that
3. the videotape was faked
I'll give you my answers, I'll even let you guess so as not to ruin the fun.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote: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:[quote] 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 [quote] 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:
[quote]
Yes, I do.
I think I made that pretty clear 19 minutes ago?
[quote] 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. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars.
lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death?
get a grip seriously
|
i wonder how the people who cared about someone would react if that someone was executed over something as petty as clothing theft...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
