Death penalty in the UK, yes or no???

[videojetman]

I suppose we could imprison rapists etc for life.
But we need to take away their ability to commit such crimes.
People still commit rape in prison.
Surely it will be cheaper in the long run just ridding the planet of clearly guilty monsters.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Justice reasons can change. That is just the current law.
War is no different in reality. We kill to put our opinion on the word or stop others putting thiers on us.
We serve justice to put our opinion of how things should be and stop people putting what they think is fine on us.

One is just within a country, the other is between countries.

 

[Neil]

Justice reasons can change. That is just the current law.
War is no different in reality. We kill to put our opinion on the word or stop others putting thiers on us.
We serve justice to put our opinion of how things should be and stop people putting what they think is fine on us.

One is just within a country, the other is between countries.

You're oversimplifying and conflating things.

Principles on justice don't tend to be changed much at all. Semantics and laws might vary, but the fundamentals rarely change.

As to war - as I said, firstly it's a different concept entirely, and secondly, it's not quite as blase as you imply. Once combat is effectively over, and combatants are captured, the Geneva convention doesn't just allow us to off them for expediency or any other reason - they then are subject to law, it's not just some wild west free-for-all.

Soldiers are prosecuted for killing enemy combatants if breaking the rules of engagement, or when they no longer present a threat.

 

[The History Man]

What a lovely idea. Occasionally.

 

[longun]

to this discussion i add......... why not?

don't forget everyone, we are all allowed our opinions etc, so please don't let this go down the routes other discussions have..... please

 

[FluffyChicken]

We used to kill, other places still kill if people do wrong on a local level. No reason we shouldn't and couldn't do it again if the democratic vote says we want to. It just opinions of what people think is right and wrong.

We still kill if they happen not to be captured. People often get in the way in war. Like I says its really just a larger level of two people imposing each others opinions.

 

[Neil]

We used to kill, other places still kill if people do wrong on a local level. No reason we shouldn't and couldn't do it again if the democratic vote says we want to. It just opinions of what people think is right and wrong.

We still kill if they happen not to be captured. People often get in the way in war. Like I says its really just a larger level of two people imposing each others opinions.

In being vague and cutting to the chase, you're ignoring significant factors we expect from the justice system, that aren't present during combat in wars - process of law, and presumption of innocence - those trivial things that are actually rights.

When not in a position of having a metaphorical gun to our head, we are allowed the consideration of the justice system, rather than a snap judgement of a soldier with several conflicting principles they're supposed to adhere to.

So as well as considering that in the case of the justice system, it's not an imminent threat, any more, then consideration applies, riddle me this - there used to be the death penalty in England, but no longer - that just because of latte drinking, beard wearing Gruniad readers?

Don't you think there's actually some evoluation of society and civilisation that we've evolved to a scenario that doesn't make the justice system potentially tantamount to the savagery it's attempting to judge over?

 

[The History Man]

No. Expedient disposal of those who transgress (in extremis) the rules of or continue to pose a threat to the greater good.

 

[Neil]

No. Expedient disposal of those who transgress (in extremis) the rules of or continue to pose a threat to the greater good.

And the only civilised way of doing so, that after the thousands of years we've had to get it right, is just to off somebody, is a supposed rational response?

Seems a bit knee-jerk to me. Surely there could be other options?

But on the other hand, let's go all Logan's Run - lets just off people when they turn 30 (or whatever it was), or unemployed, or on any other benefits... - we won't have to worry about getting too old, ugly and wrinkled, middle aged, incontinent (well hopefully), worries about pensions will be a thing of the past, and you needn't worry about MAMILs.

Sounds good to me - let's do that - it'll be expedient.

Plus, if we combine that other great staple (see what I did there...) of sci-fi from the 70s - Soylent Green, we could also sort out world hunger, too.

I'm a fecking genius.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Evolution of society... It changes to popular opinion of course. Assuming you have a choice. Murdered people tend not to, so why should the culprit.

Why should we go and kill people in wars because they have done wrong..., society says so!
So why not kill murders?
It all just levels of the same thing.

A good country vote is needed, see what popular opinion is*.


*of them that care either way.