no doubt about it, Ian Watkins is a nonce

[Yellow_Fellow]

100% agree. My first thought when reading the last couple of pages of this thread was, "An eye for an eye".

[neilloggie]

Sally clark is another.

http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/

Edited December 23, 2012 by neilloggie

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

100% agree. My first thought when reading the last couple of pages of this thread was, "An eye for an eye".

Edited December 23, 2012 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Most definitely guilty.Never mind all the romantic notions of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,they were still IRA scum and had the police and forensics relied solely on the evidence instead of embellishing it they would all still be in prison rotting where they belong.

My view s that the real miscarriage of justice occurred when they were released.

[thetime]

Could have been guilty.

Could have been guilty.

[eFestivals]

I don't see how wrongful convictions are an argument against capital punishment, more like an argument against a flawed judicial system.

that only makes sense if you believe it's possible to have a flawless justice system - which it isn't.

So then you have to decide if you'd rather people were wrongfully convicted (and murdered by the state - you - because of it) or if you'd rather that the guilty sometimes went free.

[Yellow_Fellow]

We all COULD have been guilty. State genocide!

[scottguesty]

capitol punishment is a subject I have a hard time making my mind upon. Where the evidence is irrefutable, for instance, if someone were to make video footage of themselves engaging in sexual acts with someone far too young. If you could also obtain DNA evidence to back up the video AND have the victim testify in court, then that to me is 3 pieces of evidence strong enough that you could take strong action. wether or not that action should be to end the life of a criminal or not is where I am torn.

On the one hand, if you do choose to go with murdering the perpetrator, you would have the benefits of not having to worry about the criminal reoffending (and potentially harming more innocent people when released), you wouldn't have the same burden on the tax payer, it would be one less person in our overcrowded prisons

On the other hand, there would inevitably be abuses of the system and there would be some innocent lives lost.

the biggest factor to me, is how many innocent lives would we lose through abuses of the system and wrongful convictions, against how many innocent lives are currently lost/severely affected at the hands of reoffenders. that is something I would genuinely be interested in finding out.

[kaosmark2]

you wouldn't have the same burden on the tax payer,

[lightning1000]

The cost of a human life eh?

[Yellow_Fellow]

The cost of a human life eh?

[lightning1000]

the best bit is, the lethal injection is more expensive than the longest sentence.

[Andre91]

Your thoughts were "We should, as a democratic and civilised society, conspire to rape Ian Watkins"

?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Andre91

[Andre91]

Can you seriously not see how that fails with crimes of a sexual nature?

[Gingo]

As Gandhi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Saying that, personally some crimes seem so horrific that they deserve a stronger punishment than inprisonment, however, i am neither for or against capital punishment

[Amy Lawn]

"An eye for an eye and all that", great reasoning there, a meaningless statement that was cooked up a few thousand years ago by mental middle eastern shepherds who attributed it to their all-powerful invisible wizard in the sky. Is this the reasoning you want to apply in 21st century democracy?

[neilloggie]

the best bit is, the lethal injection is more expensive than the longest sentence.

[Yellow_Fellow]

That's only because they allow people to stay on death row for too long.

The cost would be considerably less if they just got on with it a few days after the guilty verdict.

[rug568]

That's only because they allow people to stay on death row for too long.

The cost would be considerably less if they just got on with it a few days after the guilty verdict.

Edited December 24, 2012 by rug568

[chriseede]

Just caught up on the last few pages of this thread. Christ, there's a few more (even bigger) twats here than I thought there were.

[chriseede]

YES. I wasn't talking sexual crimes, the disussion before hand was about getting the death penalty for murder.

[conners]

Just castrate the sick bastards. This kind of thing is all over twitter at the moment and other than putting a gun to their head it's the only appropriate punishment

[2rare2die]

I really do think the justice system in this country is far too soft at times, but corporal or capital punishment isn't the way to go. I do think that severe crime (murder, rape, pedophilia and the like) should be punished by a diminishing of human rights though beyond incarceration.

[mrtourette]

Its the exact reason why it should never be bought back.

Because mistakes will always happen. No system is perfect and if theres the slightest chance a mistake can happen theres no way you can have the death penalty.

Killing someone is wrong by anyone, does not matter if its murder or the state 'murdering' someone.

So as our system is flawed theres no way the death penalty should be bought back...

Or is it okay to kill an innocent man?

Edited December 24, 2012 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

Because if you convict someone incorrectly, and then murder them, you can't bring them back.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mrtourette