blonde poker forum

From the other thread.

Thoughts?

Death penalty. What about miscarriages of justice? New evidence comes to light, convictions are overturned. Not much use if you've killed the "guilty" man

What does "your life is taken from you instantly" mean? Instantly when you're suspected? Instantly when you're convicted right there in the dock?

maybe the judge could just bring the gavel down directly to the defendants head.

but then he'd have to hammer himself instantly too.

who decides who gets the death penalty?

Jury, Judge?

Jury...

Spose a black guy is on trial for murder, and its pretty marginal, lots of circumstantial evidence but nothing that solid. 2 of the Jury are really racist and automatically prejudiced against the guy cos he's black, even if they keep their opinions completely quiet and dont attempt to influence any other jurors that's a pretty massive disadvantage as now only 4/9 unbiased people have to think he did it for him to be killed.

Judge...

Can we really allow one person solely to decide if another lives or dies? Can that really be a thing?? Sounds like the worst thing ever.

Those would be my primary concerns about a judicial death penalty, given the margin for error is exactly 0.

Plus you have the phenomena of people who admit to crime they didnt commit (surprisingly common) and also obviously justifiable self defence.

I think there are plenty of people who deserve to die and the world would be better off without them, but these cases where the wrong person gets executed are such a big injustice its not worth it.

In an ideal world as soon as someone deliberately killed another person they'd just instantly drop dead themselves without anyone having to worry about it. If it could be arranged that they are also cremated at the same time and disappear in to a could of ash that would be quite handy.

In fact let's just get them to drop dead slightly prior to deliberately killing anyone, that would be much better.

You could also argue, it's a little hypocritical to say

"KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG"

"WHAT DID THIS GUY DO?"

"HE KILLED SOMEONE"

"WHAT! THAT'S THE MOST DESPICABLE ACTION A HUMAN CAN MAKE"

"ABSOLUTELY. RIGHT, LET'S KILL HIM THEN"

Obviously murder is different to capital punishment, but...it is still killing someone at the end of the day.

Surprised no one criticising second opinion

Think most people probably hold a more tepid version of that, whereby if you have only just gone on benefits you shouldn't accept the first job offered, but once a certain amount of time has passed, beggers cant be choosers, as it were.

Obviously assuming said person is able to work etc

The easiest argument against capital punishment is that if one innocent man is put to death that makes the state murderers too.

It is the one I usually use, because I cannot see how anyone can refute it.

But the argument David makes here is what I actually believe. If the state is putting people to death, I feel we are falling to their level.

Lock them up and throw away the key sure, but I don't understand why any single person should legally have the power to kill another.

Whilst I think there's some pretty horrible people out there that this planet would be better off not having inhabit it, the thought of one innocent person being put to death is my reason for opposing it. Just check out the Anthony Poter/ Alstory Simin case featured in the 'Murder in the park' documentary.

Pretty sure OP meant a utopian situation where if you murder someone you just die on the spot with zero chance of mistakes?

Would probably put a few people off!

I think if it is clear someone has taken another's life,  ie, video evidence, multiple witnesses, like in some of the recent terrorist attacks, I have no issue with the Death Penalty. Where there is room for doubt, then fair enough.

It angers me to think that such people can have a life in prison, probably better than those poor homeless people on the streets, and invariably, even some that have homes.

I suspect if some of you had a relative or friend murdered, your stance may also change somewhat.

why would that even matter?

even if it were true all that would mean is that you have lost some objectivity.

and it's not always true:  anthony walkers' mother and jimmy mizen's parents for example, publically forgave their son's killers -  there have been dozens of similar example over the last few years.

i bet you could find examples of vicitms of lesser crimes than murder who would want the offenders executed.

its why we strive for objectivity and have judges decide sentences instead of family members.

-----


also, despite the guff you read in the papers, prisons are a brutalising place. violence is rife, they are dangerously overcrowded and it's not unusual to be locked in your cell for 23 hours a day.

i dont want to derail but a shift to smaller prisions built in the community that have zero focus on punishment would do wonders for this country

Obviously in for that, self defence is ok though? Like if someone is trying to kill/harm you and bash him over the head with something and he dies?

if we're messing with omnipotence and omniscience why not set the utopian interjection to make someone unconscious right before they kill someone, so they, you know, dont kill them...

I'm pretty ignorant in general r.e this stuff but the problem seems to be one of those ideological vs practical ones where its difficult to argue with hardline views on this in theory except by just saying "how the hell would you do that?"

Seems from a pretty uneducated opinion that a welfare system that genuinely protects people in our country who need and deserve protecting, with the resources we have, whilst at the same time being completely protected from abuse is close to impossible, or at the very least so difficult that decades of trying from intelligent people have never figured it out. I'd defo have a system that looks after who it looks after and gets abused some than one that doesn't look after people.

I remember an example from a few years ago this girl worked for me, she was ~26-30 and had two kids, the Dad was in prison and by all accounts not the most pleasant of fellows, she worked 16 hours a week for me but wanted to do 26, however we sat and worked it out and because her child benefits and tax allowance was reduced as she worked over 16 hours a week, her NET income all in was actually reduced when she worked 17-22 hours a week, and by the time she worked 26 hours she was less than £20 better off. So she wanted to work more but the benefits system set up in such a way that she was actually penalised for wanting to work. This girl ticked every box as someone she we should be looking after as well.

This must have been 2014 so no idea if its still the same as the spot never came up again but that's gotta be a huge blunder surely?

Also - the media doesn't help with this subject AT ALL I don't blame people who graft their bollocks off year on year and net £18k and then read a headline like "Benefits family of 6 gets £21k p/yr in benefits" getting furious. Shows like Britian on Benefits etc where these families brag about how they get X Y and Z paid for, but just look at these people, they are miserable, live in a shit-hole and yeah they get their lives paid for somewhat unfairly but I'd say it's a pretty horrible way to live and just with the freedom and sense of well being you get by funding your own life makes people even making the same money as these guys are substantially better off.

Really good post. If we could wipe the Daily Mail/Express 'understanding' of the benefits problem from the national consciousness and replace it with this, we'd have a chance of making things better.