-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
capital punishment..ivan milat..j.knight.p.dupas..and any other scum
- Thread starter ssstone
- Start date
Liverpool said:
You either consider the taking of another human's life, outside of self-defence, as a morally bankrupt position, or you don't.
Clearly you are motivated by vengeance and perceived justice, when in actual fact an execution will achieve nothing. You also seem to consider it a simple act to take another human being's life when you so easily refer to the killing of someone as a 'humane injection'.
Perhaps you are not so different from that which you claim to despise.
Panthera tigris FC said:
All I have to say to you Panthera, is that it is very noble of people going against the death-penalty...however, if it was their child that had been raped, tortured, and stabbed to death.....would you and others be so noble in your defence of the cretin who did this to your loved one then?
Very easy to take the politically-correct stance here and now....but next time you type something, take a hard look at one of your family members, read what Milat did to his victims....cutting spinal cords so he could rape his victim because they couldn't move....imagine the horror and pain your family member would have gone through at the hands of this animal......and then think whether you would be so soft in your argument then if you faced him in the courthouse.
Liverpool said:
OK - you cannot be serious. It's a simple concept - case proved beyond reasonable doubt - guilty. Let me repeat - sentencing has nothing to do with a prosecution's case being strong or weak - if a case is weak, reasonable doubt, innocent. Simple. I don't know how I can explain this in another way so you can understand.
Sentencing is to do with the circumstances of the crime as proven, not the strength of the case. God give me strength.
Liverpool said:
Yes Livers, I take this stance because I am politically correct.....pffft.
Your argument appeals to our base nature and it is a regular argument for the pro-death penalty crowd. However, I can't say for sure how I would feel in such a case and I certainly hope I will never have to deal with such a case, but I do know that the reality is that vengeance achieves nothing but a cycle of more violence and vengeance. I personally don't want to live in a society with state-sanctioned murder....it would seem that both vengeance and vigilantism appeal to you as morally acceptable approaches.
What do you say about family members of victims that have asked for the murderer to not face the death penalty? Are they taking the 'soft' approach, as you say?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Exactly...you can't say how you will feel....so what we are really getting is an 'outsiders perspective' of doing the right thing in a perfect world, from someone who hasn't faced the pain of losing a loved one FOREVER in often tragic, horrific, and barbaric circumstances...where the family every day wonders what pain and agony that family member went through before they were killed.
Ask say Sofia Rodriguez's family....the 8 year old girl who Dante Arthurs strangled, stripped,and digitally penetrated her before propping her naked body against the cubicle wall and fleeing.
Would giving this cretin a needle cause a cycle of more violence and vengeance?
Put simply, no.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Actually, this was something I raised earlier in one of the threads (either this one of the 'Justice' one).
I think if we aren't going to have a state sanctioned death penalty, then at least give the victim's family a chance to do what they feel is appropriate.
They are the one's feeling the pain....and if they feel the death penalty is too harsh and that jail is the best option, then they would get my support for making this decision...as I think they have more of a right than people making an 'outsiders view' of political correctness.
Liverpool said:
Killing someone else won't stop that though. Unfortunately the family carry that torment forever. Nothing will bring their loved ones back. If you give them the right to decide the culprit's faith you could scar them forever. I wonder if they would make a different decision depending on time since the crime, ie if what they thought in the weeks following it would differ from what they'd choose year's later.
rosy23 said:
Spot on rosy.
I wish that could happen but obviously it can't.
Anything else is just pure revenge killing and doesn't matter which way you word it.
It doesn't ease the pain of losing someone you love and if anything makes the burden greater.
rosy23 said:
Killing someone will prevent that person from destroying another family though. This isn't about bringing someone back or deterring others. There is no punishment on earth that will achieve either. Prison doesn't act as a deterrent or bring the deceased back, so are you suggesting that we should abolish prison too?
antman said:
What doubt do you have that Julian Knight commited that crime then?
rosy23 said:
I don't know.....ask one of the families who had their son/daughter blown to smithereens in Bali, and see if they want smiley-Amrozi killed or not.
But she, and every other family member interviewed, wanted to see the immediate execution of the three terrorists sentenced to death for their role in the blasts. They all condemned a Labor Party suggestion that they should be spared as part of a wider push against capital punishment.
"They still get to breathe every day, to see their families," Mrs Kotronakis said. "Kill them, get rid of them. They shouldn't have the right to breathe our air."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/victims-families-outraged-that-bali-bombers-attended-party/2007/10/11/1191696076832.html?s_cid=rss_world
This article was from last month...5 years after the blast.
And from the mouth of a family member of victims who were killed....that is the view I take more credence in than that of the multitude of do-gooders out there.
Sorry 1eyed I don't think the abolish prison comment is worthy of a reply. That's a silly question.
As for the rest of my post you quoted it was a direct reply to something Livers said so I find your post out of context especially when I never mentioned or considered a "deterrent" factor.
As for the rest of my post you quoted it was a direct reply to something Livers said so I find your post out of context especially when I never mentioned or considered a "deterrent" factor.
The question with capital punishment is this:
How can a society say murder is wrong when you have it sanctioned by the state?
Capital Punishment does NOT work, look at America for example there is no imperical evidence that murder rates on a per capita basis for example are less in states that have capital punishment versus those that do not.
The costs are prohibitive after all an inmate is on Death Row for about 10 years due to legal processes.
It is not infallible either, what do you tell the family of someone when the state has convicted the wrong person?
How can a society say murder is wrong when you have it sanctioned by the state?
Capital Punishment does NOT work, look at America for example there is no imperical evidence that murder rates on a per capita basis for example are less in states that have capital punishment versus those that do not.
The costs are prohibitive after all an inmate is on Death Row for about 10 years due to legal processes.
It is not infallible either, what do you tell the family of someone when the state has convicted the wrong person?
rosy23 said:
You're right, the abolish prison comment isn't worthy of a reply but if you apply an argument in one instance then you must apply that argument across the board. If you argue that the death penalty should not be applied because it is considered barbaric, won't deter others and won't bring the victims back or whatever, then you have to apply your arguments to any sort of punishment you propose. I'm trying to point out no punishment is capable of achieving any of these points.
As for the rest of the post, I agree in that loved ones should not be responsible for the fate of the culprit. They should get a say in what punishment is applied and that should be taken into consideration.
