People like THIS!?!?

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

What should be done to people like this!?

Poll ended at Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:42 pm

Regular justice - jail time, protected from the other inmates.
1
5%
Jail time, but no special treatment.
3
14%
Bring back the death sentence for cases like this (where there's no doubt of guilt).
11
50%
Classify the type of crime as one that justifies torture (preferably until death).
7
32%
 
Total votes: 22

Nitters
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by Nitters » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:15 am

OriginalJax wrote: 100 paracetamol tablets wouldn't cost much. If watching somebody who periodically and systematically tortured a little child over a period of years curl up as their liver disintegrates is too painful, you could probably just let somebody from a victim's family put a bullet in the offenders head - they'd do it for free, and the bullet wouldn't cost much.
And then sentence the victims family to death for murder? Surely anyone who can willingly and gleefully put a gun to someones head and pull the trigger is a danger to society?

At any rate, what you are advocating is revenge. If you build a society whose idea of justice is perverted into "justifiable" murder you will in turn breed distrust, hatred, persecution and malice. And it would not stop at the "serious crimes" you mention - just take a look at some of the posts in this thread.

Incidentally, when you start throwing the word sub-human around which you then justify with financial "Kill them, because it's too expensive to keep them locked up" arguments, you walk a very dangerous path. Maybe you'd like to apply the same thinking to disabled people? They're very expensive to keep - are they worth it, or are they, in your terms sub-human?

And then what of corporate murder? If a company fails to provide adequate protection for employees, which in turn leads to a death should the board of directors be lined up against a wall and shot? Should the family of the victim be the ones to pull the trigger so that they might find "comfort"?
#define QUESTION ((bb) | !(bb)) - Shakespeare.

User avatar
Shin_Gouki
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:11 am
Location: Shadow Moses Island, Fox Archipelago

Post by Shin_Gouki » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:14 am

People like this are depleting badly needed food, water and oxygen supplies.
真・豪鬼

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26849
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:29 am

Nitters wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote: I've already stated I consider the odd mistake an acceptable risk.
So when it happens to you, your spouse, your children or anyone else you care about is that an "acceptable risk"?
Yes. That is, by definition, included in the terminology. They have 3 strikes. If they are choosing to commit crime and thereby volunteering for the process, its hardly reasonable for me to object when they reach 3rd strike.

The odds of someone reaching 3rd strike and being innocent every time is pretty slim.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

Nitters
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by Nitters » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:59 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:The odds of someone reaching 3rd strike and being innocent every time is pretty slim.
Perhaps not, but there could be extenuating circumstances - such as depression - which your three strike system will neither know nor care about.
#define QUESTION ((bb) | !(bb)) - Shakespeare.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26849
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:12 pm

Nitters wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:The odds of someone reaching 3rd strike and being innocent every time is pretty slim.
Perhaps not, but there could be extenuating circumstances - such as depression - which your three strike system will neither know nor care about.
Don't get me started down that road...

I stand by it. 3 strikes and out. Its bad enough having criminals running around, but mental criminals is even worse.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8705
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:16 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote:Is this the part where I'm supposed to argue against your 'comeback'.

It'd be less than 4% if they'd actually get on with killing them instead of having them sit in prison. The American system is a joke.
I've already stated I consider the odd mistake an acceptable risk.

You can cut their hands off if you do it from the neck ;)
I'm sorry, you think killing them instantly REDUCES the number of false positives?

And I'm going to do you the favour of assuming you don't believe that last line of paragraph 2.

Dudley, I fail to see how it's more expensive to execute a person than to keep them alive, healthy, clothed, fed and entertained for the rest of their life, though.
Because you make DAMN sure you're right before executing them, appeals cost.
The odds of someone reaching 3rd strike and being innocent every time is pretty slim.
Which basically means you're advocating a 2 strike system.

Or rather, effectively 1. Since after the first it'll be easy to get a 2nd conviction and of course they won't go straight to a 3rd striker for every crime since of course there's no corrupt police.... oh.

--

I cannot seriously believe that people are arguing for a system that deliberately kills innocents.

How does that make you any less guilty of murder than the other murderers?
Last edited by Dudley on Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26849
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:25 pm

And therein lies your failure to comprehend.

Its not deliberate killing of innocents.

Its accepting that it can (and probably will) happen by accident.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

Nitters
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by Nitters » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:55 pm

My final contribution to this seemingly endless bout of tautology:
Antiriad2097 wrote:And therein lies your failure to comprehend.

Its not deliberate killing of innocents.

Its accepting that it can (and probably will) happen by accident.
These would be preventable accidents by not having the death penalty in the first place; in current legislation a preventable accident leading to the death of one or more individuals can be (and often is) tried as manslaughter - a far more heinous crime than the most determined repeat burglar could ever hope to commit in a life time of breaking and entering.
#define QUESTION ((bb) | !(bb)) - Shakespeare.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26849
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:59 pm

But in current legislation we have no death penalty. Laws would need to be amended.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8705
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:50 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote:And therein lies your failure to comprehend.

Its not deliberate killing of innocents.

Its accepting that it can (and probably will) happen by accident.
No, it's deliberately choosing to kill people knowing that some you kill will be innocent.

I'm surprised you'd even dare make that argument given your laughable "Suicide" post.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:53 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote:But in current legislation we have no death penalty. Laws would need to be amended.
I think there is still the death penalty for treason?
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8705
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:54 pm

paranoid marvin wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:But in current legislation we have no death penalty. Laws would need to be amended.
I think there is still the death penalty for treason?
Not since 1998.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26849
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:57 pm

Dudley wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:And therein lies your failure to comprehend.

Its not deliberate killing of innocents.

Its accepting that it can (and probably will) happen by accident.
No, it's deliberately choosing to kill people knowing that some you kill will be innocent.

I'm surprised you'd even dare make that argument given your laughable "Suicide" post.
Its a worthwhile sacrifice for the greater good.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:06 pm

Antiriad2097 wrote:
Dudley wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:And therein lies your failure to comprehend.

Its not deliberate killing of innocents.

Its accepting that it can (and probably will) happen by accident.
No, it's deliberately choosing to kill people knowing that some you kill will be innocent.

I'm surprised you'd even dare make that argument given your laughable "Suicide" post.
Its a worthwhile sacrifice for the greater good.
the greater good of who?

It certainly wouldn't make me feel any safer knowing I could be plucked off the street and summarily executed by the father of a child someone else has murdered/abused and who has the blessing of the State doing so
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
will2097
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Contact:

Post by will2097 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:08 pm

Why is it liberals always think no-one is going to die? And if people do happen to die - it's some sort of government plot?

I live the quietest, crappiest, dullest, quaintest place in Britain. And I've lived here (on-and-off) for 12 years. Really - it's a like a home for the terminally slow. And you know what? I like it.

However, the tranquility of this piece of England has increasingly been encroached upon. For example in the last month: Next door got robbed and their car stolen, and some girl got raped on the bit of grass land literally 200 yards from my house. That's the second rape this year and robbery has been on the increase. Here? FFS? It's like an enormous middle-England retirement home.

Criminals need to be punished. Violent criminals need to be killed.They need to be scared or dead.

I think this country has gone about as far as it can censored footing around with this 'oooh what if we kill 1 innocent person' routine or 'prison is for rehabilitation not punishment' crap. Seriously. It hasn't worked. I think if 1 innocent person dies for the sake of 66,000,000 other people then so be it. Better than 66,000,000 people living in fear because of an impudent toothless law system held in place by a few soap dodging wannabe hippies.

And yes - if was the 1 I wouldn't like it, but the fact is, we are all going to die one day, and having witnessed a few deaths recently, being executed by the British government is unlikely to be the worst. Left swimming in your own bodily fluids because some mincing-liberal chooses to spend money keeping kiddie fiddlers alive, rather than spending it on pensioners springs to mind for some reason.

They spend £50,000* a year keeping kiddie fiddlers, rapists and murderers alive, and then they give pensioners £60 a week? What? Why? WTF? So one innocent person doesn't die and a rapist can become a valuable member of society. Yeah - great. Nice message. So - what is it?Thanks for all the income tax you gave us old man over those 40 years you worked - but sadly you didn't kill any one, some Germans maybe back in the 1940s, that sadly, doesn't count, so you can f**k-off.

And you You hold the Guildford 4 up as some symbol of truth? Oooooh what if they died? The world would stop spinning? The cure for cancer lost? The 4 consisted of a Heroin addict and a shop lifter wasn't it? - ooooh great loss. Pfft.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests