woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 15 hours ago, Gladys said: The deterrent argument is fundamentally flawed. If capital punishment was an effective deterrent, there would have been very few murders whilst it was a punishment. It is state revenge, pure and simple. Forget about deterrents for violent crimes; they do not work. Much better to argue that the punishment is about revenge, retribution or redress, nothing more. I'm not squeamish, Gladys. Call it what you will. I do know that the reoffending rate for executed criminals is comfortingly zero. Edited January 26 by woolley 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 hours ago, Declan said: Of course they do. But that doesn't mean anybody has the right to kill them. Disagree profoundly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 hours ago, Declan said: Of course they do. But that doesn't mean anybody has the right to kill them. Quite clearly the people carrying out the execution have been given the right 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: Quite clearly the people carrying out the execution have been given the right And who is to say that nobody has the right to do this anyway? To which higher authority are we deferring? Society make its own rules in the interests of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, woolley said: And who is to say that nobody has the right to do this anyway? To which higher authority are we deferring? Society make its own rules in the interests of the majority. Sometimes. It'd be in the interests of the majority to execute most of the billionaires and redistribute their wealth, but we don't do that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 10 minutes ago, HeliX said: Sometimes. It'd be in the interests of the majority to execute most of the billionaires and redistribute their wealth, but we don't do that. Wealthy = murderer. Interesting take on morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, woolley said: Wealthy = murderer. Interesting take on morality. That's not what my post says. It says redistributing the wealth would be in the interests of the majority. Though most billionaires have caused a lot of suffering. Not sure how you'd compare that to murdering, mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 28 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: Quite clearly the people carrying out the execution have been given the right So. Nobody has the right to give that right to anyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 26 minutes ago, woolley said: And who is to say that nobody has the right to do this anyway? To which higher authority are we deferring? Society make its own rules in the interests of the majority. There is no higher authority and in the absence of one I don't think we should defer to the likes of Donald Trump, Suella Braverman or Alf Cannon. Ultimately, the decision to execute someone will always come down to limited number of people not society - and they'll be fallible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 21 minutes ago, Declan said: So. Nobody has the right to give that right to anyone. quite clearly in certain states of the USA the courts do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 27 minutes ago, Declan said: So. Nobody has the right to give that right to anyone. Says who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Well me obviously. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 17 hours ago, Gladys said: However, as seems to be the case in the US, once given the death sentence, just do it without the interminable appeals and delay or do not have it as a punishment at all. If a state is confident that its justice system is robust and will always deliver the correct verdict, just get on with it. Prisons in the US are practically businesses. They get money from the state for however many they have incarcerated, and also make a bit on the side through using prisoners as slave labour. So it's worth keeping as many prisoners alive, as long as possible. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, woolley said: I'm not squeamish, Gladys. Call it what you will. I do know that the reoffending rate for executed criminals is comfortingly zero. And the reincarnation rate for anyone executed following an incorrect conviction is uncomfortably zero also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 9 minutes ago, Gladys said: And the reincarnation rate for anyone executed following an incorrect conviction is uncomfortably zero also. You're taking the same disingenuous line as Helix. Plenty of cases have no doubt at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.