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

[Mijiblob]

Yeah but 'they also can't be rehabilitated' is just as true.

Personally, having experienced how someone who committed a heinous crime then was rehabilitated can go on to benefit society, I'd like to see more effort made to rehabilitate criminals, than consideration given to angry knee-jerkers bent on killing folk...

 

[Mijiblob]

No, but it's one you think you already have the answer for.

Oh you know what I think now, do you? Clairvoyent are you? I'd be interested in you proving this, seeing as how you consider not being able to provide evidence with which to back up claims as spouting 'wind and pish'.

I haven't read much on the soldier case so haven't commented on it.

Go have a read. Come back and tell us what you think.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Yeah but 'they also can't be rehabilitated' is just as true.

Personally, having experienced how someone who committed a heinous crime then was rehabilitated can go on to benefit society, I'd like to see more effort made to rehabilitate criminals, than consideration given to angry knee-jerkers bent on killing folk...

But they also have the possibilty to reoffend and someone else might be unlucky and have to be given a death penatly like thes first person for no good reason.

Why take the chance ?

 

[Mijiblob]

But they also have the possibilty to reoffend

Everybody has the potential to offend. Using that logic, you'd have to kill everyone to ensure no-one got murdered...

Why take the chance ?

Because in a decent, civilised society, there is the presumption of innocence before guilt is proven. You cannot administer pre-emptive 'justice' based on the possibility of summat happening, because then you are presuming guilt before innocence can be proven.

Which would kind of really f-up the whole foundation of our legal system.

 

[Bats]

Aye, that logic leads to this:

Clearly the only sensible precaution.

 

[technodup]

No, but it's one you think you already have the answer for.

Oh you know what I think now, do you?

With questions as loaded as this one, yes.

Interesting that you have very strong views re the Woolwich case, but apparently not so worked up over the other case. Why is that? Care to explain?

I have made no comment whatsoever on the soldier case so I'm not sure how you know my feelings on it. As I've already said I haven't read about it.

Stop fannying about with less than subtle hints. If you want to say something just say it. I'm a big boy.

Otherwise stfu.

 

[FluffyChicken]

But they also have the possibilty to reoffend

Everybody has the potential to offend. Using that logic, you'd have to kill everyone to ensure no-one got murdered...

Why take the chance ?

Because in a decent, civilised society, there is the presumption of innocence before guilt is proven. You cannot administer pre-emptive 'justice' based on the possibility of summat happening, because then you are presuming guilt before innocence can be proven.

Which would kind of really f-up the whole foundation of our legal system.

In your idea of society... in a decent civilised one people wouldn't kill in the first place?
One idea of civilisation is Murders are not civilised, therefore do not need to be treated like the rest of us, but treated in their idea of civilization.

Or some shite like that.

 

[Mijiblob]

With questions as loaded as this one, yes.

Why do you think my question was 'loaded'?

Stop fannying about with less than subtle hints. If you want to say something just say it. I'm a big boy.

Otherwise stfu.

Miss! Miss! Technofud is being mean and nasty to me! :cry:

 

[videojetman]

Yeah well, so's "they can't kill if they're up to their chin in strawberry jelly".

at least they would get their just desserts.

 

[Mijiblob]