Leave the death penalty in the past where it belongs.

Even by your patently poor standards of comprehension, that statement is plumbing new depths.



Please explain how you can create a martyr by NOT killing them

Looking at the Daily Mail article: I see they have carefully selected from the many photos to ensure maximum distress: the writing certainly approvs of the executions.

But then it is the Mail!

approves

The state plans and kills people outside of battlefield action - you consider that appropriate yet executing someone which is also state planned is not OK?

You do not have to die to be a martyr - obviously your inability to comprehend has once again shown itself



An example of a martyr in our lifetime Nelson Mandela!!

Isn't it kinda ironic that those on the right who whinge about the creeping face of Islam and Sharia law are the ones who want to bring back state killing.

If we were being so very specific then the argument would be, is inherently hypocritical for the state to denounce killing by the individual when there isn’t a clear and present danger to life or of serious injury when the state kills individuals when there isn’t a clear and present danger to life or of serious injury.

Pure sophistry. You've just tortuously re-worded it to entirely omit the fundamental point.



It would be almost as ludicrous to apply the same logic to fines - is it inherently hypocritical for the state to extract a fine from a thief, who himself took a similar amount of money from a shop?

I'd contend that killing someone is far more likely to give them martyr status than not doing so.

I'd also be prepared to consider that there might be a fair bit of propaganda mileage in not killing them.

Irrelevant. It's to do with whether someone is a danger/threat to life and what choice the state has. An enemy soldier/combatant on the battlefield is obviously a threat to life and can be legitimately killed (assuming they aren't surrendering). Someone who is in custody is not a threat and so there is no need to kill him, the state has a choice. In the case of someone like Bin Laden, due to the unique circumstances, I would say the state (the US in this case) had little to no other choice. If Bin Laden had been arrested by the Pakistanis and extradited to the US then I would be against the US killing him, as they could then prosecute him through the courts. As he wasn't legally arrested/detained (according to US law) the legal route wasn't an option. In this unique case I think killing a man like Bin Laden was the correct thing to do.

No, it is the fundamental point. The only justification for either the individual and the state is in response to a clear and immediate threat, not as a punishment or revenge.



No, clearly not. But nobody would argue that it was. Similarly nobody would argue you had an inalienable right to steal, rape or murder. Most right thinking people would argue you had an inalienable right to life. The act of taking away that right to life is only mitigated when it is in response to a clear and immediate threat.



It is inherently hypocritical for the state to, in a premeditated act of revenge or punishment, kill a person for killing a person in a premeditated act of revenge, punishment or passion.



It is not hypocritical to ask a thief to pay financial restitution for their crime.

No, it's a convoluted and barely intelligible assertion. Not a "point".





Says who? Oh, you mean in your opinion. But obviously those legislatures that have passed the death penalty DO justify it as both punshment, which in THEIR opinion fits the crime, and to serve as a deterrent. (Incidentally, I don't know of ANY modern justice system where "revenge" is ever a consideration. If you do, please let me know).





So then you admit [i some[/i "right thinking people" (whatever they are) would NOT argue you had an inalienable right to life. Therefore, if you consider them to also be "right thinking", you must be agreeing that their view is reasonable, if minority.





Oh come on man, you're just regurgitating the same weak point in slightly different words. Leaving aside your errant insertion of the concept of "revenge", what you mean is that's your opinion, you are not entitled to claim it as an indisputable truth.





Well, I don't think they actually "ask", and suspect making payment optional wouldn't be very successful. But that nit-pick aside, I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

It is perfectly intelligible. If you are struggling with your comprehension skills, there are adult learning classes available.



I assumed that it was obvious that I was expressing my opinion and also the situation under our laws. There are countries with many crazy laws, and the potential for many more, they aren’t relevant to me however.. I cant be responsible for what you are and aren’t aware of. If you don’t see that vengeance forms part of any reason for a death penalty, I cant help your naivete.



No. I think that even if I agreed 100% with everything else they said, if someone said they didn’t believe in an inalienable right to life, they would be ‘otherwise’ right thinking. But on this effort they are clearly wrong. However, even if someone were to ‘win’ the argument over whether or not we have an inalienable right to life, it still doesn’t address that the state or the individual doesn’t have the right to take away life.

No, it may be my opinion that it isn’t justified, it is clear fact that it is hypocritical. You may not mind that hypocrisy, you may be happy with that hypocritical position. It doesn’t alter that it is hypocritical.

Im not agreeing with you, even a little bit. A thief paying back what he stole puts the victim back to where they were. Killing the perpetrator doesn’t bring back the victim, we just have another person dead.

What on earth does "forms part of any reason" mean? Whatever, it has nothing to do with what I am discussing. It doesn't form part of the judicial process and that is all I am talking about. You can't show me an example, and that's because there isn't one. Do you somehow have this notion that in the sort of places I am referring to, where the death penalty exists, the laws which govern when the death penalty can be given are in fact a sham, because "really" it is secretly about "vengeance"? This is emotive and conspiracist rubbish. A judge imposing the death sentence has to do so judicially, and even if he feels personally "vengeful" (or indeed personally opposes the death penalty).



The defendant will die if the factors laid down in the relevant law are made out, and not otherwise. Unless "Vengeance" is a legally permissible factor written in some relevant law, your neo-conspiracist "vengeance" theory is an irrelevance.





Legally, in the jurisdictions under discussion, it indisputably does have that right. Otherwise nobody would be executed.



Also, you skate over the point that in several situations, the state or the individual DOES, indisputably, have the right to take away life. That fact destroys both this argument, and your "inalienable" argument. The "right to life" is not a 100% guaranteed indisputable thing, it has exceptions, and so what we are in fact discussing (or should be) is the extent to which a death penalty is or is not added to the list of exceptions. To pretend that exceptions don't already exist doesn't help your case.



But as you are either too dim to accept the point, or being deliberately obtuse, let's take a concrete example.



The state has discovered a plot by Mr. X to detonate a bomb at Wembley during the Cup Final; a police marksman finds Mr. X, poised with his finger above the detonator button. The marksman has Mr. X's head in his sights, and his finger on the trigger. He and asks the relevant representative of the state, his commanding officer, whether or not he should take the shot. In your view, does the state have the right to take away Mr. X's life, or should the state let him press the button, killing large numbers and maiming more, and then arrest him once he's done it and prosecute?





You're becoming totally submerged by emotive claptrap. You're trying to convince me that a judicially imposed death penalty after due process of law is the same as the murder/s which the defendant carried out. You are confusing the [ioutcome[/i (bothe defendant and victim/s end up dead) with the [iprocess[/i (the defendant, knowing if he murdered, may be subject to the death penalty, nevertheless with no justification and intentionally murdered some victim; the court, under due process of law, does not murder anyone, it carries out the law which that jurisdiction requires it to do. It does end his life, but it isn't a murder, as even you must surely see.



Would the marksman, or the commander, be hypocrites if the shot is fired?





Well, I'll confess I did know this. When you are on one of your crusades, you wouldn't agree with me even if I said today was Wednesday.





Risible nonsense.

a) fines do not go to the victim, they go into the judicial pot

b) if an order for financial compensation to the victim is made, that is separate and apart from the penalty imposed

c) it does not "put the victim back to where they were". If you want an example of naivete, read your claim again. Being mugged, robbed or burgled is a very distressing experience and can have significant psychological effects, even down to sometimes leaving some people changed forever. I reckon your claim that if caught, giving the victim their money back "puts the victim back where they were" is about as asinine and ill-considered a remark as even you have ever made.





But it indisputably does restore the sort of parity between victim and perpetrator for which you seem to be arguing?

It means it forms part of the reasons for it. No im saying vengeance is one of the reasons for having the death penalty as punishment. Not any of the strawmen you have built about a judges personal vendetta. But ‘revenge’ on the perpetrator being a big part of the reason that a state would have the death penalty as a sentence.



And revenge is a reason why a states law would facilitate the death penalty.



As I said many countries have many crazy laws, they aren’t relevant to me.



Only when there is a clear and immediate threat to safety.

Here there is a clear and immediate threat to safety, here it is justified as a necessary evil, where other non-lethal attempts to protect the safety of others have been exhausted.



If either the police marksman or his commanding officer, couldn’t justify the killing on that basis then they would be guilty of, and charged with, and go through the legal process for murder.



Individuals are obliged to follow the legal process. The state decides the legal process. The individual executing on order of the state (including the sentencing judge) are not guilty of murder. A state which obliges a judge to sentence death is..

If they are protecting the safety of innocent parties no. If they pull the trigger for any other reason. Yes.



I doubt you would argue today was wednesday.





It seems you have spent quite a lot of time here writing something just to agree with the principle of what I put, just disagreeing with the description I gave, which seems pretty pointless to me.



But yes, a fine for a burglar or mugger is an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator. The death penalty isn’t. Because the victim is already dead, they no longer exist so there is no-one for the perpetrator to have parity with. It acheives nothing, it gives no lessons, it rehabilitates nothing. It needlessly ends a life.



There is another fundemental and clear reason why your attempts to draw parity between those two penalties are just overly verbose nonsense. A fine, Community Service, imprisonment are all not only punishments for breaking the law, but attempts to rehabilitate the offender. The death penalty isnt, its just killing someone.

100% of inmates sentenced to the death penalty and had the sentence carried out didn't offend again.

I am certain that in none of the jurisdictions under discussion is "revenge" a reason for a death penalty being imposed.



I am certain that in none of them is "revenge" ever mentioned in the law, or in the process.



NO modern jurisdiction has, or claims to have "revenge" as any part of the judicial process. Punishment - yes. Deterrence - yes. Revenge - certainly not.



It is YOUR straw man that, even though you have NOTHING to contradict these facts, nevertheless "revenge is one of the reasons for having the death penalty". Whose reasons? Where did they give these reasons? This is such a vague and general claim that it isn't even sensibly capable of discussion. Which is why I haven't discussed it. If you gave an example of an instance of this, maybe there would be something to discuss, but you don't.





You say "is". What evidence do you have? Where has this ever been shown? Which jurisdiction, which statute? Give us ONE example of where this has ever happened in any such jurisdiction as we are discussing.





So, if you murdered someone in a state that had the death penalty, that would be the case for your defence? Good luck with that.





No, it really isn't. "Parity"?? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're tying yourself in knots. The [iother[/i kind of jursdiction, where mediaeval concepts such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" hold sway, certainly and directly call for parity between perpetrator and victim. In the most direct way. Following a murder, making the perpetrator as dead as his victim indisputably restores parity between victim and perpetrator. Doesn't it? If not, then can you explain to me why a death sentence could not be an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator?





You've obviously been thinking very deeply about this, to realise that a death sentence is not an attempt to rehabilitate the offender. Well done on achieving that insight, but who said it was?



Rehabilitation is a laudable aim, but there have always been some offences viewed as so heinous, that the perpetrator will never be rehabilitated. In our jurisdiction, under present law, they would get a whole of life tariff.



A fine is also manifestly NOT an "attempt to rehabilitate", but is a "PUNISHMENT". It may also be thought to be a deterrent. But how on earth do you say forcing me to pay money on pain of imprisonment is rehabilitative?





Well, no, I wouldn't, because it just is. It is a fact, deduced from the fact of what time it is, and the fact of my location in the world. It brooks no argument, but I'll concede that it might not be Wednesday on your planet.

100% of criminals who weren’t caught, didn’t go through any type of legal process and weren’t sentenced to death, who died of natural causes didn’t offend again either.

Er, I suspect that prior to their demise, it's very likely many of them did. Bein' criminals, an' all . . .

The only fact you are expressing is that you aren’t aware of it. Im not going to argue with you about what you are and aren’t aware of. It would take far too long for us to list the things you don’t know.

Why not try the US. Evidence below.



Whereas if you were a homosexual in Uganda im sure you would think their laws perfectly fair and reasonable.



Interesting you should mention mediaeval concepts such as an eye for an eye. [iMay 19-21 poll*, Gallup asked Americans why they favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. More than half of those who favor the death penalty cite something about revenge (i.e., "an eye for an eye", 37%), the convicted deserving to be executed (13%), justice (4%), or fair punishment (3%) as their reason for supporting the death penalty. Eleven percent of supporters cite saving taxpayers money because executed prisoners would not have to be incarcerated. Although deterrance is often mentioned as a major benefit to society of executing those convicted of murder, only 11% of death penalty supporters volunteer that as a reason for supporting it. Seven percent of those who favor the death penalty do so because they believe it keeps the criminal from repeating the crime. [/i



Are you arguing that something you would describe as a mediaeval concept is also reasonable? I would have thought we had moved forward a bit more than that.



Nobody said it was an attempt to rehabilitate. I can only assume you have deliberately misunderstood why it was brought up .



Prisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them

I would also suspect that prior to being executed it is very likely that many criminals sentenced to death would have also committed crime.

And it's almost certainly the case that nothing like 100% of those executed were guilty of the crime for which they were executed.

Translation: You can’t produce anything, not one thing.





Because it is not evidence of what I asked you for. The fact that in any given country, out of millions of inhabitants, a significant amount of support can be found for prety much any proposition (even the frequent occurrence of alien anal probes), does not equate to any one of those views forming part of the judicial process. If a US state executes a criminal, many residents may personally feel that some measure of revenge has been exacted, but that doesn't mean that the concept of revenge was involved in the decision whether or not he should die, which would be based on laws enacted, processes followed and decisions made with a total absence of the concept of revenge. Get it?





Homosexual? Uganda?? As we were neither discussing Uganda, nor homosexuality, nor what laws I think "fair and reasonable", I nominate that for your second-weirdest remark to press.





No, I "mentioned" it as it is the ultimate manifestation of "parity" between offender and victim, which YOU seem to favour as an aim. [iI'm[/i the one who [idisputed your[/i remark about "parity" between perpetrator and victim as some sort of aim. Remember?





Any given concept is either reasonable or not, depending what it is. Its age is not relevant. That the earth isn't flat is a pretty ancient concept, but I think it is reasonable. Aliens bent on performing anal probes is a very recent concept, but I don't think it's a reasonable one.



Again, the "parity" concept was introduced by you, not me.





Beside your point entirely, but anyway if you've looked it up, then you'll know that they can only do so on compassionate grounds of great age or infirmity. Not because they have become fully rehabilitated.



Plus, you've got it the wrong way round, since it [iused to be[/i the Home Secretary who decided how long you'd serve, but now that decision is made by the Trial Judge. The Home Secretary's role and power in the process has been greatly reduced, not increased, as you seem to believe.



Moving on, following the recent ECHR ruling, Jeremy Bamber was quoted as saying:



That's perhaps as twisted logic as anything you've come up with.

Except I have.



I don’t know how I can make it any clearer or how many times I can say it to you. Im not saying that the judiciary is acting out of vengeance, im not saying that an individual judge is conducting a personal vendetta, im not saying any of the strawmen you keep inventing. I have said, numerous times, that a state, which facilitates a death sentence, is doing so, in a large part, out of a wish for revenge. Do you understand?



Why is Uganda and their death penalty irrelevant when you have repeatedly tried to expand the argument to not just the law in this country but elsewhere? You have repeatedly asked for examples, why isn’t Uganda an example?





So you did mention it? Im not sure what you are disputing here, whether you mentioned it which you admit you did, or whether i thought it interesting and relevant to the debate.

Mediaeval can be used as a pejorative term to describe something as primitive. I assumed this was the context in which you were using it, im not sure why you would be using it in the context of a period of time between the 5th and 15th century. Was this not the case?



Im not sure why you are now making things up. I have in no way made any comment on whether the power of the home secretary has increased or decreased. Nor did I state that the home secretary gave the minimum sentencing. I made the factually correct statement [iPrisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them.[/i Which you couldn’t argue against so you seem to have made up something you could argue against.