Saddam Hussein

168 Comments

• At 2007.01.08 00:28, k said:
  

  I think those who are against the death penalty simply because it is taking a life should remember one thing: a murder victim has no choice in their fate, whereas a murderer has chosen to commit a crime that carries the death penalty, so in effect has chosen to die. If a would be murderer does not want to face the death penalty then they can avoid it by not carrying out a murder.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 01:02, k said:
  

  Read your links insomiac. I notice that all four are green jackets. I think that the Louise Jensen case is defnitly one that Brown should be made to amswer to in the house of commons. Heres a feew questions that I would like to see asked…

  “why did labour fight for the release of these men at the publics expense yet sacrifice thousands of innocent lives to hang Saddam”

  “why can labour afford to pay well over a million to ensure that three british soldiers who kidnapped, gang raped and hacked to bits a young woman were not only released after just ten years, but also recieved pocket money while in prison and extra help now they are back in the uk, yet cannot afford to give soldiers equipment that will save their lives or decent accomadation?”

  “How could labour be so sanctimonious about denmark allwoing a few offensive cartoons when labour had fought and fought for the release of these three British men who had killed a young Danish woman?”

  “why is it that a person can steal underwear and be made to registar on the sex offenders list, yet another person can commit gang rape and murder and avoif any form of registration just because they committd the crime aborad? Apart from the fact that this is racism, the sex offenders registar is either for the publics protection or it is not and by allowing sex offenders to live in britain unchecked because of the geography of their crime, labour are making a mockery out of the system.”

  The miscarriage of justice that was the Louise Jenson case is certainly one that the tories and lib dems should bring up. Not even labour could put a good spin that one and the case can be used to highlight many of labours doubl standards from the wars in afghanistan and irag to womens rights, to the sexual offenders registar, etc. If anyone really wanted to make labour really hated this case would certainly do it.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 11:24, Tayles said:
  

  Thanks for your input, Insomnia. I wasn’t aware that I was evading some killer points made elsewhere, but I’ll try to answer them now.

  1) Deterence- Agreed.
  Thank heavens for that. Let’s move onto point two.

  2) Where is the ‘Sanctity of life’ here then chummy? Blair launches invasion of Iraq despite it is no threat to UK and our civilians. He knows thousands of innocents could die but decides to go ahead anyway as he thinks we’ll still kill less than Saddam and the blood price will be worth it. A trade-off was made in other words. I assume you are not a pacifist and know that mainly civilians die in modern wars. Thats the 3rd time i ve made a similar point here. Care to respond this time?

  Gosh, I didn’t release I had ignored your comments not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES. I humbly beg your forgiveness. I mentioned earlier (I don’t expect you to have picked up on this, because we clearly have a one-way relationship) that I believe that the normal rule of law ceases to exist during a state of war and the purpose of armed conflict should be to restore it. The death of civilians is a regrettable but inevitable consequence of war and should be avoided where possible. I am no pacifist (in fact, I tried to become an office in the Royal Navy as a young man) and I believe that we should fight for what we believe in; but I am no fan of interfering foreign campaigns. Our forces should act in a defensive capacity wherever possible. And they should fight to uphold law, order and freedom. It should be obvious that a sentence of death passed down in a courtroom is a world away from bloodshed on a battlefield.

  3) On costs – Rubbish! It costs approx £37K per year to keep 1 person in jail. People make appeals on their convictions and sentences now. Who says the appeal process need go on endlessly? Saddam appealed once, failed and was hung a few days later.

  You seem to be suggesting that once someone is condemned, their execution should be bundled through as quickly as possible. Obviously not all cases are as cut and dry as Saddam’s. And besides, political expediency demanded his swift demise, so it is hardly representative. Quite clearly, you would happily sacrifice a few innocents for the sake of the majority being dispatched as quickly. So much for the sanctity of life. That’s just penny-pinching sadism. Those who support capital punishment claim that they care so much for the sanctity of life that the death penalty is the only fitting punishment. Putting aside the impenetrable hypocrisy of this view for a moment, surely someone who cares so much for human life that they’re willing to kill for it (?) would never support a system that might allow an innocent person to be executed by mistake. If they do, then seeing criminals put to death satisfies something a lot more dark and primal in people than they are willing to admit.

  You say-”Justice should not be a bugetary concern” but similar life and death decisions are made by NHS consultants every day of the week.

  You’re creating a false dichotomy. You’re assuming that I agree with the organization and decision-making processes in the NHS, which I don’t. Your principles should not be for sale, but ultimately we sometimes have to make trade-offs. However, willfully killing people because it’s cheaper than banging them up is not an acceptable trade-off in my view. There is a world of difference between allowing someone to die and calculatedly executing someone. The former would be avoided if at all possible, whereas you would happily see the latter enforced under the right circumstances.

  Think what your “justice money” could achieve if the money keeping British fiends alive was ring-fenced for the 3rd world. How many AIDS treatments, wells dug, cataract or hare-lip operations? Another trade-off then.

  Again, you assume that I support the idea of the West spoon-feeding the Third World. I don’t. I see what you’re getting at, though. Yes, it is another trade off. Just like the money spent on a mission to the Moon might have built ten hospitals. Or the way that arts funding could be spent on housing and welfare. We want/need all these things and sometimes our priorities cannot be as focused as you suggest. £37,000 a year to keep a prisoner is only a lot of money if we consider it bad value for money. Personally, if that’s what it costs to keep a criminal out of my community, then it represents good value.

  Also, how can the religious and liberals claim a monopoly on compassion and then completely disregard the anguish caused to the victims, families, friends and ride roughshod over their wishes?

  This is a curious point. You seem to be suggesting that my objection to the death penalty shows disregard for victims and their friends and families. This would only be the case if my principles meant that their desire to see the murderer executed was causing them further anguish. It would be impossible to satisfy the inflamed feelings of those with grievances. Maybe they don’t want the murderer killed; perhaps they want him tortured and mutilated. Should that desire be satisfied? I say no. Victims do not have the power of infallible truth. In fact, they are likely to have a skewed take on things. Train crash survivors are unlikely to have a balanced view of how safe it is to travel by train. The parents of drug victims do not have a level-headed view on the pros and cons of drug legalization. Equally, victims of crime are not automatically experts in jurisprudence and are the wrong people to be making cool-minded, impartial moral judgments. If you think that justice should be about emotionally-charged vengeance, then you are calling for the rule of the mob.

  Our government will pay whatever it costs to ensure that British people who commit horrendous crimes in foreign countries escape punishment, but will also pay millions upon millions and sacrifice the lives of thousands to make sure that a foreign leader is hanged. How is this justice?”

  I agree that it’s hypocritical, but for different reasons to you and K. If Blair and his cohorts oppose the death penalty at home, they should have applied their principles universally. They should have said that they think that public executions are reprehensible and that they disagreed with the sentence passed on Saddam. This is what I’ve done and I’ve come under fire for it. Hey ho.

  Turkey Twizzler said- “Rather let all murderers rot in jail than let one innocent person take the drop.” Thats the only good argument against the DS but for the trade-off one against in 2) But before we agree to differ Tayles – As money is obviously no obstacle to your ‘justice system’ – Would you agree that its better that 10,000 killers stay inside forever than risk one of them killing an innocent on release? How much income tax would you be willing to pay yourself to acheive that aim?

  The basis of our legal system is that you should be punished for the crime that you have committed, not for what you might do in the future. The idea that the state kills people is abhorrent enough. But to kill someone for what they might do in the future is something from an Orwellian nightmare. If someone still poses a risk to society, they should not be released. It’s as simple as that.

  Whats wrong with ‘revenge’ anyway?

  Revenge is not a noble sentiment. It’s understandable, but the reason that we don’t let the victim’s family in the prisoner’s cell with a baseball bat is that we believe that justice should be a dignified, equable affair, which represents the higher moral standards that society expects of its citizens. A justice system based on ugly, brutal retribution, up to and including the killing of criminals, hardly reflects a morally upright society and reeks of double standards.

  Oh, so courageous and principled you are! You do at least admit that “stringing ‘em up” IS the will of the majority then?

  Of course I do, but it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it. The majority of people are perfectly capable of being wrong. If the majority of people thought that race discrimination was a good thing, should that particular opinion be satisfied?

  Go on admit it you are an MP! You are someone who believes in democracy only where it conforms to what you already think should happen.

  I am no more a supercilious, self-styled saint than you are a blood-lusting savage. Frankly, your inference is presumptuous and ill-informed. Of course, I believe in democracy – and I believe that people get the country they deserve. However, I also believe that we elect officials to manage our country for us and sometimes they have opinions that do not reflect the majority view. At the risk of sounding elitist, sometimes this system prevents us for introducing rules and regulations that satisfy our basest instincts. One of the advantages of having a representative government is that we have our beliefs and opinions challenged by people with a more measured or informed take on things. A system that merely responded to our narrow, fickle beliefs might not be for the best.

  If I’ve failed to answer anything, then I beseech your forgiveness and beg you to let me know where I have transgressed.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 11:39, Tayles said:
  

  A murder victim has no choice in their fate, whereas a murderer has chosen to commit a crime that carries the death penalty, so in effect has chosen to die.

  The most heinous crimes are committed by sociopaths, who have no sense of consequence. They do not choose to die. They don’t think beyond the satisfaction of some immediate compulsion.

  This doesn’t excuse their crime, of course, and doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be severely punished; but under the circumstances, the more calculated act of killing falls on the state.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 12:35, newmania said:
  

  IS TAYLES THE DEVIL?

  Tayles- You has consistently ignored points that have been made in this thread. Busy I daresay and I am today. Its not a big deal.

  Deterrence- we have no way of knowing there are so many variables in the figures. It would deter me but I don’t see that as central.
  Cost -No not again I can’t stand it. Round and around Idlex might like this as an alternative punishment. It isn’t to me important and we agreed this along long time ago

  The central problem is the injustice of a life taken, the life of an innocent victim, perhaps more than one , perhaps in appalling circumstances. Families wrecked forever and a world that could have been, containing as it did , this good person , never to be. Your view seems to be that although in some circumstances death might be justice, and clearly it” might” be ..it would sap the “moral authority of the state” . The state is right , according to you , to let the perpetrator off , on the victim’s behalf , on behalf of the family and in despite of the clear and apparent injustice heaped upon the innocents.
  I have accepted , ages ago , that there are difficulties costs and risks associated with this rightness but to actually abandon justice as the central concern , at all times, of the courts and penal system is crossing a line that should not be crossed. The ,”moral authority”, of the courts and state cannot be assisted by a lie. If it is clear that social convenience , comfort , cowardice and an inability to decide outweigh the need for justice their authority will be ceded as it has been .This central moral problem has been discussed at length and in my view you have not responded at the depth the arguments have been made.
  . To abandon the option of the death penalty , with all its difficulties , is to signal abandoning a belief in justice and therefore punishment. That both of these concepts that underpin all actions of the courts have , in fact , been abandoned , gives this discussion its wider context. Do you not see this and do you not see the decay of these values and the effect ? I think K has magnificently given examples but we are all aware of the process.

  I `m not convinced you have understood what is at stake. You don’t appear to see the problem of the absence of capital punishment . You are still talking about revenge and jurisprudence as if the relationship between the two had not been deepened on several occasions. This is unreasonable
  On your side it is also true that uncertainty and the soul corrupting effect of actual complicit acceptance of judicial murder we err very much on clemency .”We” do not , for example torture Rose West as she tortured her victims, “we” would only conceivably have an option kill her , and only once . I would have considerably more safeguards and great difficulties in practice . It is the symbolic moral line that we are holding against the tempting claims of moral ease and social convenience.

  I can see that there is a case for drawing the line before the death penalty, as I would draw the line a long way before strict justice. I would like to see from you , some understanding of the costs and risks of taking such a view ,at least. Of the violent barbaric affront , by stealth of course, to the very principle upon which our whole valuable system of jurisprudence rests .

  If there are two words that sums up the degradation of our institutions the Blair government and much of what I detest about the Mandy Blair BBC establishment project they are

  SPIN and STEALTH.

  This avoiding of the real question this endlessly recasting debates away from the discussion and back to the slogan is horribly symptomatic of the same decay

  TAYLES is , in short , the cloven hooved , pointy tailed , black tongued devil.

  I fear him

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 13:13, Tayles said:
  

  Newmania, my friend, I cannot see why I am getting such a hard time for not falling in line with the majority view. It’s not as though I am some lily-livered liberal. I just think that killing people is morally abhorrent and should be avoided where possible. Furthermore, I keep being accused of avoiding people’s questions. I can honestly say that I’ve tried my best to answer them all, but if I’ve missed a few, then I’m sorry. Let’s see what you’ve got to say this time…

  The central problem is the injustice of a life taken. Families wrecked forever and a world that could have been, containing as it did, this good person never to be. Your view seems to be that although in some circumstances death might be justice, and clearly it “might” be, it would sap the “moral authority of the state”. The state is right, according to you, to let the perpetrator off, on the victim’s behalf, on behalf of the family and in despite of the clear and apparent injustice heaped upon the innocents.

  First of all, I don’t remember saying that death might be justice in some instances. At least, not in a trial and punishment context. But the real problem here is that your argument begs the question – i.e. it takes for granted the very issue that is under debate. You begin your argument from the starting point that any punishment less than death is letting the perpetrator off. Of course, if we both agreed that anything less than execution was tantamount to letting the criminal off scott free, then you’d be absolutely right. But this is precisely the point over which we disagree! You can’t demonstrate that capital punishment is wrong by invoking an argument that assumes the idea that it is right is a given! Overlooking this gaffe, you don’t explain why killing the perp represents justice. You speak about the loss of life and the misery of friends/family, but killing the murderer won’t bring the dead back. Perhaps you mean that balance must be restored: an eye for an eye and all that. Surely this is a subjective issue. I believe that this damages the humanity, integrity and authority of the legal system because of its inherent double standards. You have no such compunctions: the state can kill as it sees fit and you would see no contradiction or hypocrisy. While I have been asked time and again to explain my view, I’m yet to see a satisfactory explanation for the hypocrisy inherent in the pro-death standpoint.

  The “moral authority” of the courts and state cannot be assisted by a lie. If it is clear that social convenience, comfort , cowardice and an inability to decide outweigh the need for justice their authority will be ceded as it has been. This central moral problem has been discussed at length and in my view you have not responded at the depth the arguments have been made.

  Not sure what your point is here. Maybe it’s in the bit below. Let’s take a look…

  To abandon the option of the death penalty, with all its difficulties, is to signal abandoning a belief in justice and therefore punishment.

  Again, you seem to start from the preconception that a failure to impose capital punishment shows a disregard for justice. You seem married to execution as a fundamental means of punishment, as if an unwillingness to kill a man from his crimes means that you are setting him free.

  I’m not convinced you have understood what is at stake. You don’t appear to see the problem of the absence of capital punishment . You are still talking about revenge and jurisprudence as if the relationship between the two had not been deepened on several occasions.

  Hogwash. If you think that capital punishment is pivotal to maintain a stable, dignified society, then you must have pretty odd views on what is required to bring the best/worst out of people.
  On your side it is also true that uncertainty and the soul corrupting effect of actual complicit acceptance of judicial murder we err very much on clemency .”We” do not for example torture Rose West as she tortured her victims, “we” would only conceivably have an option kill her and only once.

  So you draw a moral line between torture and killing? If you concede that it is dehumanising to torture criminals, then you should be able to understand that I am applying the same principle to execution. For me, the calculate, clinical nature of state execution is repellent.

  I can see that there is a case for drawing the line before the death penalty, as I would draw the line a long way before strict justice. I would like to see from you , some understanding of the costs and risks of taking such a view ,at least. Of the violent barbaric affront, by stealth of course, to the very principle upon which our whole valuable system of jurisprudence rests.

  Again, if you think that we need the death penalty as a bulwark against barbarism and chaos, then you have a very different outlook on life to me. Nothing I have read here leads me to believe that it will help. In fact, it only adds an element of legitimacy to the business of killing.

  TAYLES is , in short , the cloven hooved , pointy tailed , black tongued devil. I fear him.

  Then I fear you, because you’d probably have me put to death. And quickly too to prevent a retrial.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 13:34, newmania said:
  

  You have , in my humble opinion , missed the point pretty much entirely.
  I leave you to the deep moral abyss in which you have chosen to make your home….

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 14:08, Tayles said:
  

  What is this point I keep missing? Please explain in simple terms, because I am clearly too stupid to see it.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 14:45, k said:
  

  “The most heinous crimes are committed by sociopaths, who have no sense of consequence. They do not choose to die. They don’t think beyond the satisfaction of some immediate compulsion”

  I do not believe this is trye. Simply because very few murderers actually admit their crime, instead they deny they ahd anything to do with it and they try to cover up their crime. If the killers of Amanda Dowling really had no sense of consequence then why was her body buried and made difficult to find. Why do many killers burn their clothes and other evidence? If the killers of Jamie Bulgur really did not realise that they had done something wrong why did they try to make the crime look like an accident-if you have not done anything wrong you do not try to hide the fact.
  The simply fact that a killer trys to hide their guilt proves that they are aware of the consequences. I think the reason why there is such a rise in violent crime is not because of a lack of a sense of consequence, but the exact opposite: a knowledge that there will be very few consequences. A teenager can beat someone to death and the chances are they will be released very qucikly after serving only time for manslaughter and that is only if they are even caught. Todays violent criminal can commit their crimes safe in the knowledge that even if they are caught they will serve very little time in a cushy prison (even open prison) where they will have access to many luxuries that they could not have ever afforded in the outside world. I did hear somewhere that the cheapest way to get a degree is to commit a crime and do it is prison, I do not know whether this is really ture (perhaps something we should ask Boris in the forum), but it goes to show something of the attitude that has spread across the UK in recent years

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 15:37, Tayles said:
  

  I find it hard to believe that murderers do a pre-crime assessment and then go ahead with it on the contemplation of “what’s the worst that can happen?”. I think the situation is more complex that this. It’s true that the justice system in this country is too lenient, but it doesn’t follow that capital punishment should be enforced. Its effectiveness as a deterrent is extremely questionable and is outweighed, in my opinion, by moral objections. Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively on the mindset of modern criminals. As a doctor working with prisoners, he observed: “I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. I am fascinated by prisoners’ use of the passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness. They describe themselves as the marionettes of happenstance.”

  He lists numerous examples of prisoners who look to him to explain or cure their criminal tendencies, and describes the expressions they use most frequently. Describing, for example, their habitual loss of temper, which leads them to assault whoever displeases them sufficiently, they say, “My head goes,” or “My head just went.” Dalrymple attributes these feelings of passivity, entitlement and self-absorption on a number of factors: the enlarged constituency for liberal views, the widespread dissemination of psychotherapeutic concepts, and a widespread acceptance of sociological determinism, especially by the guilt-laden middle classes. On the latter point, he says, “Here the subliminal influence of Marxist philosophy surfaces: the notion that it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. If this were so, men would still live in caves; but it has just enough plausibility to shake the confidence of the middle classes that crime is a moral problem, not just a problem of morale.”

  Dalrymple also considers the effect that the mass media’s constant rehearsal of injustices has upon the population. People come to believe that we actually live in the worst of times and under the most unjust of dispensations. Every wrongful conviction, every instance of police corruption, is so publicized that even those who have performed appalling deeds feel on a priori grounds they too must have been unjustly, or at least hypocritically, dealt with.
  In essence, the agenda of the liberal left contradicts Bacon’s dictum that “chiefly the mould of a man’s fortune is in his own hands.” For the sake of assuaging people’s feelings of exclusion, inadequacy and resentment, this ideology absolves people’s responsibility for their own actions. It defines down depravity, subjectifies the world and lays blame on a powerful minority. It’s little wonder then that the symptoms that Dalrymple outlines are so prevalent. We clearly need to do something about this, but the threat of execution will not alleviate the sense of impotence, passivity and blamelessness that these individuals possess and which drives them to their murderous acts.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 16:23, k said:
  

  passivity and blamelessness seem to be another word for making excuses. of course I doubt that many killers think “whats the worst that can happen”, but the lack of detterrant is in-built in the mind. This attitude demonstrated in your posting shows exactly why, people look to make excuses for bad behaviour and of course the would be killers of the world believes this excuses them and it becomes a fatal loop. It is akin to when parents refuse to tell the child they are wrong for naughtiness if the child is tired, hungry, bored etc and so the child ends up believing that it is ok for them to do what they want so long as there is an excuse, In short they become adults possesed of a lack of self-blame and passivity filled with phrases such as “it was not my fault, my head just goes”

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 17:15, k said:
  

  For instance a child at a school does not think consciously I can do what I want I cannot be caned or expelled, but the subconcious knowledge is there and so children misbehave to a far greater degree than they did thirty years ago.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 18:24, Steven_L said:
  

  < For instance a child at a school does not think consciously I can do what I want I cannot be caned or expelled (k)<

  Yes they do. One of my mates was about the cheekiest chappie you could possibly imagine at school. He go asked to leave a few weeks early from both middle and high schools. He openly admitted that that if they were allowed to cane him for it he would have behaved himself.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 19:37, Jaq said:
  

  I think most right minded people will be sensible of the cost of their actions and weigh them up. Corporal punishment certainly works. But not all people are right minded. It is my opinion that one cannot, for example, educate a paedophile out of finding children sexually attractive, just as you cannot alert an alcoholic to the error of their behaviour and expect them to say ‘oh silly me’ and not want to drink again. Whilst capital punishment undoubtedly is a deterrent, we must accept that there will always be murderers that will not be deterred by anything. Some people just like killing. Some people just like hurting other people and having aggresive physical control. In my experience those people are usually, but not exclusively, men. In todays society I think there is the perception that a strong man can do what he likes. There are no policemen on the beat and the law seems to be unreliable. So unreliable as to be a source of fear and real deterrent to any who would help. I have therefore to agree with the point that Tayles makes above, especially: “We clearly need to do something about this, but the threat of execution will not alleviate the sense of impotence, passivity and blamelessness that these individuals possess”

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 19:43, idlex said:
  

  TAYLES is , in short , the cloven hooved , pointy tailed , black tongued devil (newmania)

  A despicable example of demonisation. Shame on you. What century do you live in, the 16th?

  I’d like to remark that Saddam Hussein is a prime example of what happens when people are demonised. Up until 1990, Saddam was Our Man fighting Crazed Muslim Fundamentalists in the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq was about the most secular modern state in the region, and Saddam was praised as its enlightened ruler. Within days of his invasion of Iraq (given the nod by US ambassador April Glaspie), Saddam was utterly demonised, and accused of every imaginable crime (including killing Kuwaiti babies). Thus tarred and feathered, and utterly demonised, Saddam’s trial and execution was always bound to be a despicable farce.

  Demonisation of anyone ought to be condemned immediately and absolutely. It has no part in rational discourse.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 19:52, Lucien Modo said:
  

  VOX POPULI, VOX DEI.

  Its all very well pondering on the rights or wrongs of hanging Mr. Hussein, but what should have happened to the naughty fellow if he had not hanged?
  If Ma’bood Faadhil had his way Mr. Hussein would have had a lengthy prison term, where he would become practiced in the art of table tennis, and where he would be rubbing shoulders with other incarcerated deposed tyrants, no doubt picking up tips and learning new wangles.
  Then what? Ill tell you! Up in front of a parole board of well intentioned but hopelessly out of touch middle aged liberals, and then released to some council estate in Hull, or some such place.
  I tell you its no joke having to live next door to a former tyrant. We had Augusto Jos Ramn Pinochet Ugarte on the estate a few years back, and no one from the authorities bothered to mention it to the residents committee. All we knew was that one day, an elderly gentleman in a sky blue uniform and a red, white and blue sash was off down to Freddy Tripp the butcher to buy a half pound of lamb mince.
  We didnt dare let any of our dissidents or leftists out to play for fear that they might be killed or tortured. Within weeks that Jorge Rafael Videla was round at Pinochets house, and the two of them could be seen drinking strong cider most of the afternoon. It was a disgrace. Other low lifes were attracted to the estate, like Jos Alfredo Martnez de Hoz, and Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri Castelli. Cashing in their giros, and then off for day trips to Aberystwyth with that Albano Harguindegu in his Hillman Imp, and all at tax payers expense!

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 21:14, Insomniac said:
  

  Tayles-
  Well at least you made an effort to answer SOME of the questions this time.

  However, your points on my replies to your earlier ones.
  1) Deterence, No- not totally agreed! Read it all,-and K s points about crimes such as those in my previous 1st link? In that case the time served for murder/ manslaughter turned out to be 12 out of a 25 year sentence. Likely prison time for abduction and sexual assault/ rape was 7 years served out of 14. Was nt it worth them killing the victim and risking the extra 5 years if they thought they could get clean away with it. (Their “pre-crime assesment” of that lasted approx.1 hour). The dead tell no tales. Its better to be known as a killer than a sex offender in prison and for future employment purposes (assuming these 3 even have criminal records recorded against them in the UK). The more and worse things you do the relatively less time you serve because lesser offences, ie kidnap, rape you then serve that time concurrently alongside the time for the killing itself- not consecutively as would be appropriate. Why dont you just accept that sometimes there is such a thing as an economically rational crime/ criminal instead of generalising that ALL such types are sociopathic?

  2)”I believe that the normal rule of law ceases to exist during a state of war and the purpose of armed conflict should be to restore it. The death of civilians is a regrettable but inevitable consequence of war and should be avoided where possible. I am no pacifist (in fact, I tried to become an office in the Royal Navy as a young man) and I believe that we should fight [ie KILL ] for what we believe in”

  This is what i meant we i said you did not read my previous (3) comments on this point. Do you think John Charles De Menezes was a ‘regretable but inevitable consequence of war’?. How about those targeted by the IRA? If these were all ‘war casualties’ could nt the same be said regarding those killed as part of the ‘Global War Against Murder’ (G.W.A.M.) as the innocent deaths in T.W.A.T. I believe that justice has presently ceased to exist inside my country and that some killing, though regretable, is probably inevitable and neccessary to restore a fear of the decent majority in the hearts of the ‘evil-doers’.

  3) Costs- “you assume that I support the idea of the West spoon-feeding the Third World”
  “Quite clearly, you would happily sacrifice a few innocents for the sake of the majority being dispatched as quickly. So much for the sanctity of life. That’s just penny-pinching sadism. ”

  How many appeals would you grant then ?.I think you answered your own point about “sacrificing innocents” and ‘penny pinching sadism’. Don t you make any distinction between innocent life and people guilty of horrendous crimes being ‘spoon fed’ in jail? Do you think the fiends mentioned in my links above deserve equal or greater human rights than the innocent children in poor countries denied life, clean water and eyesight.? Is that because they are ‘our boys’ and ‘charity begins at home’ for you? IS TAYLES THE DEVIL? (Newmania)- perhaps.

  “The basis of our legal system is that you should be punished for the crime that you have committed, not for what you might do in the future. The idea that the state kills people is abhorrent enough. But to kill someone for what they might do in the future is something from an Orwellian nightmare.”

  We re not talking about people not convicted here. Just people convicted and let out early. Are you happy with that? Personally, i think if they scraped the whole probation service and made the offenders do all their original sentence we could nt be any worse off than we are now in terms of reoffending and would probably be better off

  .” If someone still poses a risk to society, they should not be released. It’s as simple as that.”
  So do you think 70 year old triple cop-killer Harry Roberts should be released, for example? ”

  You also did nt answer my point about how much additional income tax you would pay if life did mean life for murderers. So from your responses (or lack of) i conclude you are defending the present status quo and not merely opposing the DS whatever the crime. And that is your problem Tayles. Whereas i would be willing to compromise, to drop the restoration of the DS and put up with higher taxes if a life sentence was made to mean what it says, you think the system is as good as it could reasonably be or you re not prepared to pay more income tax to improve it. You are a Conservative Tayles- you defend the tyranny of the status quo!

  P.S. I think you meant to say earlier that you tried to become an officer in the Navy. Maybe you should have tried the Royal Greenjackets. I hear they re crying out for recruits!

  NEWMANIA – “Tayles- You has consistently ignored points that have been made in this thread. Busy I daresay and I am today. Its not a big deal.”

  I meant to say has evaded points even though he still has time to write reams of stuff laying out his own views.

  Tayles-”If I’ve failed to answer anything, then I beseech your forgiveness and beg you to let me know where I have transgressed.”

  I have replied again at length to Tayles because he attempted to answer most of my points and has even shown contrition and under those circumstances i can be a very forgiving man.

  The way to discuss (Tayles) is to answer every time you see a question mark , then others can move the discussion along without having to constantly repeat themselves. You (Newmania) explain more eloquently and are a faster typer than me so i ll think i ll leave Tayles to you in future.

  BTW. Why not post that link you mentioned? Is it because it would delay your post . Surely there is nothing there to get anyone here arrested or banned?

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 21:20, Steven_L said:
  

  < Corporal punishment certainly works. But not all people are right minded. (Jaq)<

  That’s right, some people actually enjoy it. The re-introduction of the cane in our schools could concievably encourage misbehaviour by those with a fetish for receiving six of the best from their maths teacher.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 22:20, k said:
  

  i think the Louise jenson case does highlight one important about the death penalty:if it was reintroduced it would not be used and more and more killers would get away with manslaughter sentances. These men had carried out a premeditated murder (they boasted about it in prison) yet were sentanced to manslaughter on very flimsy grounds on the basis that they would get a longer sentance if convicted of murder (and no insomniac they are not registered as sex offenders in the uk and even if they do have a criminal record here it would only be for manslaughter and an employer would be unable to know anything else as they were not actually convicted for kidnap and rape). I think it is fairly certain that there is no way a death sentance would ever be handed out especially if the crime was against as non-briton. The other side of the coin is that our current system has cheapened life so much that there is no real way to deter revenge attacks so will eventually lead to an unofficial form of the death penalty as for many loved ones of murder victims it would be worth spending five years in prison for manslaughter if it meant ensuring some form of justice however uncivilised.

  Perhaps the idea of life meaning life (perhaps even with solitary confinement for particulary sadistic crimes) should be the focus as this would not be such a moral deterrant to a jury as the death penalty so would surely lead to a fairer justice system.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.08 22:24, Andrew Allison said:
  

  Boris: You have articulated everything I wanted to say in a most eloquent way. Blair’s premiership is bankrupt and redundant. The invasion in to Iraq – which I always opposed – passed through the House of Commons on a lie. A hundred people are dying in Iraq every day; the country is in the grips of a bloody civil war with no end in sight either for the Iraqis or our troops.

  This is what you get when a President of the United States is hell-bent on removing a dictator from power, without giving any thought to the history of the country he is invading. This is what you get when you ram democracy down their throats. I cannot see Iraq staying as one country. It was artificial anyway and it needed a dictator to keep it together.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 02:21, Insomniac said:
  

  K SAID–
  “i think the Louise jenson case does highlight one important issue about the death penalty:if it was reintroduced it would not be used and more and more killers would get away with manslaughter sentances.”

  Maybe, I would make it a simple majority recommendation of the Jury. If judges continued to frustrate the popular will- sack and replace them (and take their superannuated pensions away too, that ll teach ‘em). ‘Indepenence of the Judiciary’ ?- blather !

  As far as this case goes i think the original sentence was the right one. However, the so-called mitigating factors for reduction of sentence did not make any sense whatsoever and their automatic early releases less than halfway through (at the presidents whim) was even worse than the UK situation.

  “no insomniac they are not registered as sex offenders in the uk” Do you know this for sure? How?

  “..not actually convicted for kidnap and rape” 5 years abduction and 5 years conspiracy to rape (or sexual assault) but running concurrently to main sentence!

  The series of questions you were asking in the other post would be good aimed at John Reid but you re wrong if you think Labour is mainly to blame and that this case could be used to embarass them. ( They are already hated for many more justifiable reasons and are quite shameless! ) . Those appeals began just after their original convictions in 1996 and they were then thrown out of the army. Questions were asked of the then Tory Minister in charge Nicolas Soames, who stated their 3 appeals would be publicly funded until ‘all legal processes are exhausted’.

  However,I have realised that several things smell fishy about that case. What other former employer does that for its former employees and then gives them £20 per week each pocket money for all of 12 years? The prison is reckoned to be the best in Europe. Why did they have the choice to remain there and not be sent back into the UK system after late 1998 were they could have continued with later restrictions and monitoring ?

  It also highlights the weaknesses of the EU. Former felons now have the right to take up residence in whatever state they choose and yet we have even less input into these 26 other countries “Justice Systems” than our own.

  I would have writtern some questions to John Reid myself but i have realised that he has really got his work cut out and would be unlikely to respond in any way. The whole British system is in meltdown with overcrowding meaning some convicts considered dangerous are being sent to open prisons where they join with many domestic and foreign ‘absconders’- ie people they let out for the day who dont come back !. They dont even dare to count the number of these’absconders’ apparently! Did you see that recent Panorama program about the paedophile killer living at the bail hostel? What a farce that exposed!

  “our current system has cheapened life so much that there is no real way to deter revenge attacks so will eventually lead to an unofficial form of the death penalty as for many loved ones of murder victims it would be worth spending five years in prison for manslaughter if it meant ensuring some form of justice however uncivilised.”

  Yes, I wonder how Tayles and Idlex would react to that- especially if they were sat on the Jury when such a case came up? Its not that i m hardline on the DS but as i said before, the people who oppose it tend to be those who say they support whole life tariffs for murder as an alternative, but then find excuses not to in most cases (for all except notorious serial killers). Either “its inhuman to take away all hope of release” or “its not fair on the prison officers who have to keep them locked-up forever because they ll misbehave”.

  Anyway K , you might get more satisfaction writing to the Justice Minister at the address in the link mentioned (perhaps enclosing a small ,dead, furry animal) telling him you wont be holidaying on his small island as you dont feel safe- in view of the long standing lax attitude to rape and sexual assaults there and the other more recent cases of murder last August .

  Oh well , i m not losing any sleep. I can take care of myself.

  How do you do quotes on here BTW?

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 02:48, Jaq said:
  

  I’m very glad you asked about the quotes insomniac as it makes it more difficult to read posts without them. However, it’s 3am. Allow me to get back to you.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 11:30, Antonine Plato said:
  

  http://platosway.blogspot.com

  Boris,

  I’m not sure if it was a bee gees remix you had, but I believe the lyrics are in fact….

  “Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
  Im a womans man: no time to talk.”

  Hmm, puts a different light on it!

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 12:07, Tayles said:
  

  Insomnia,

  Looks like I’ve let you down again! Let’s go through your last mega-post with my finest of toothcombs and see if we can’t thrash it out once and for all. I’ll be careful not to miss any of those tricky question marks too.

  1) Deterence, No – not totally agreed! Read it all and K s points about crimes such as those in my previous 1st link. In that case the time served for murder/manslaughter turned out to be 12 out of a 25 year sentence. Likely prison time for abduction and sexual assault/ rape was 7 years served out of 14. Wasn’t it worth them killing the victim and risking the extra 5 years if they thought they could get clean away with it.

  This is a curious point. You seem to be changing the argument from one about the validity of the death penalty to one about the failings of the system of imprisonment. It may well be true that people get off lightly with their custodial sentences, and that greater consistency and firmer sentencing is required, but this does nothing to tackle the arguments for or against capital punishment.

  Its better to be known as a killer than a sex offender in prison and for future employment purposes (assuming these 3 even have criminal records recorded against them in the UK). The more and worse things you do the relatively less time you serve because lesser offences, ie kidnap, rape you then serve that time concurrently alongside the time for the killing itself- not consecutively as would be appropriate.

  Again, you seem to be having a different conversation with me here. I don’t remember saying that custodial sentences were fine and dandy or that they weren’t in need of revision. Can we stay on the page please?

  Why dont you just accept that sometimes there is such a thing as an economically rational crime/ criminal instead of generalising that ALL such types are sociopathic?

  The point I was trying to make is that those who kill without compunction or compassion, and those who do without worrying about the circumstances are sociopaths. By that I mean a person “whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience” (American Psychological Institute). I can accept that some people kill in cold blood as the result of calm, collected consideration, but the fact that they have no moral obligation to killing someone suggests sociopathic tendencies. More so, in fact, than those who kill on the spur of the moment and completely out of character. However, despite your comments about how you believe that our custodial system will let these calculating killers off the hook (I presume this is the reason for your sentencing comments) this still doesn’t provide any evidence that it is a deterrent, or that the deterrent it might offer trumps the other concerns I have – specifically the moral dimension, the hypocrisy and the potential for executing innocents.

  2) Do you think John Charles De Menezes was a ‘regretable but inevitable consequence of war’? How about those targeted by the IRA? If these were all ‘war casualties’ couldn’t the same be said regarding those killed as part of the ‘Global War Against Murder’ (G.W.A.M.) as the innocent deaths in T.W.A.T

  Again, this is not really anything to do with the validity of the death sentence, but I’ll humour you anyway. I think that the death of John Charle De Menezes was a regrettable result of a police force who were pumped up by the politics of fear, which had been mercilessly exploited by their superiors and the government. The IRA are terrorist murderers, pure and simple. I don’t agree that they are ‘war casualties’, but if the only way of stopping a terrorist from letting off a bomb was to shoot him, then I would have no problems with that. Before you start get excited, the issue here is preventing a criminal from killing. If we arrest and imprison someone, we achieve the same result. In certain life-and-death situations, we don’t have the luxury of this measured solution, so the bad guy must be ‘taken down’.

  I believe that justice has presently ceased to exist inside my country and that some killing, though regretable, is probably inevitable and neccessary to restore a fear of the decent majority in the hearts of the ‘evil-doers’.

  Again, you keep attacking my failure to address your concerns, but you and Newmania have totally failed to address mine. Yes, I know you think that making the bad guys face the ultimate punishment means you are tough and no-nonsense, but you have done nothing to tackle my points about the hypocrisy or the dehumanizing effects of capital punishment, or the possibility that innocents might be executed. I suppose that, in theory, the death pentaly might deter a murderer or two, but you have to weigh up the pros and cons of any system. After all, if we placed the whole country under house arrest, there would be virtually no crime at all. But would that be an acceptable option?

  3) How many appeals would you grant then?

  You’re begging the question here. Your question assumes that I favour the death sentence and that we are arguing over how many appeals the condemned should be allowed. I can’t answer this question without incriminating myself. It’s like asking me, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

  Don’t you make any distinction between innocent life and people guilty of horrendous crimes being ‘spoon fed’ in jail? Do you think the fiends mentioned in my links above deserve equal or greater human rights than the innocent children in poor countries denied life, clean water and eyesight?

  This is a false dichotomy. You are implying that the Third World is suffering because we don’t have the death penalty in Britain. Our failure to execute a murderer is not condemning a starving African to death anymore than the money spent on a youth centre does. Keeping criminals banged up is an essential use of public money. By your logic, we should kill off as many people as possible to save lives in developing countries. That is a cretinous comparison, frankly. Charity only cures the symptoms of poverty, not the cause.

  Is that because they are ‘our boys’ and ‘charity begins at home’ for you? IS TAYLES THE DEVIL? (Newmania)- perhaps.

  That comment is beneath contempt and has no place in a grown-up discussion. Frankly, you and Newmania should be ashamed of yourselves. My views on Third World aid are based on a genuine desire to give them progress and development, not turn them into a medieval heritage centre or maintain their lifestyle as part of some ‘ethical’ (i.e. mean-spirited, pseudo-Marxist) campaign against wealth and progress. You think that poor Africans choose to live primitively? They want to enjoy the rewards of a modern, prosperous society too. My views are born out of real compassion, not the self-serving or misguided conspicuous compassion that drives popular charity causes nowadays. They need capitalism and self-sufficiency, not patronizing liberal guilt. You can stick your wristbands where the sun don’t shine.

  We re not talking about people not convicted here. Just people convicted and let out early. Are you happy with that? Personally, i think if they scraped the whole probation service and made the offenders do all their original sentence we could nt be any worse off than we are now in terms of reoffending and would probably be better off

  Again, you’re going off topic. See my points above.

  So do you think 70 year old triple cop-killer Harry Roberts should be released, for example?

  Actually my comments answered this question indirectly, although you failed to realize that. If he still posed an obvious threat to society, then don’t release him. If he has served his time and is no longer a threat, release him.

  You also didnt answer my point about how much additional income tax you would pay if life did mean life for murderers.

  If life did mean life it would obviously pose new questions. Some murderers commit their crimes in the most desperate or confused situations. Many feel terrible contrition and, while they deserve to be jailed, they can probably be rehabilitated into society at a later stage having spent a large part of their lives inside and without posing a threat. On this basis, the only criminals who would be sent down for all-life sentences would be the nastiest pieces of work – probably those who would be executed under your preferred system. To get an upper estimate of how many people we might have on death row in this country were capital punishment reintroduced, allow me to indulge in some primitive maths. In the USA, there are about 3300 prisoners on death row. America has five times our population, so if we pro rata that figure to our own, we would end up with a figure of 660. The USA has about 3 times our murder rate, so if we divide that figure by 3, we end up with 220. I’m feeling generous, so let’s round that up to 300. But let’s say that we are stricter than other countries, and double that figure to 600. This is about 10% of the lifers in this country. At a rate of £37,000 each, the cost of keeping those 600 prisoners is £22.2 million per year. Divided between Britain’s 29.4 million taxpayers, that’s 76 pence per person per year to keep these men locked up. I don’t think that’s bad value for money. And before you start repeating your point about how it could be spent better, please refer to my earlier comments.

  So from your responses (or lack of) i conclude you are defending the present status quo and not merely opposing the DS whatever the crime.

  Well of course I am! My principles on the matter agree with the status quo, so I am, in effect, defending it. What a totally inane point.

  And that is your problem Tayles. Whereas i would be willing to compromise, to drop the restoration of the DS and put up with higher taxes if a life sentence was made to mean what it says, you think the system is as good as it could reasonably be or you re not prepared to pay more income tax to improve it.

  Sentencing someone to death is a pretty absolute resolution, and if I find it objectionable, there’s not much room for flexibility. If I conceded that certain crimes deserve death, then my whole stance would become a sham. I am just remaining as consistent as possible. Any why are you still banging on about custodial sentences as if that was part of our original debate?

  You are a Conservative Tayles- you defend the tyranny of the status quo!

  If I agree with the status quo, then I will defend it. I’m sure there are plenty of issues that represent the status quo that you also agree with, and I doubt you view them as a tyranny. On other issues, I am a radical. I find it amusing, however, that you consider a state that doesn’t execute its citizens as a tyranny!

  P.S. I think you meant to say earlier that you tried to become an officer in the Navy. Maybe you should have tried the Royal Greenjackets. I hear they re crying out for recruits!

  I’m a bit old for the military now, but thanks for the tip.

  I have replied again at length to Tayles because he attempted to answer most of my points and has even shown contrition and under those circumstances i can be a very forgiving man.

  How noble of you. I am honoured.

  The way to discuss (Tayles) is to answer every time you see a question mark , then others can move the discussion along without having to constantly repeat themselves.

  Duuuhhh, thanks boss. Me not understand.

  You (Newmania) explain more eloquently and are a faster typer than me so i ll think i ll leave Tayles to you in future.

  Run out of arguments? Bless.

  BTW. Why not post that link you mentioned? Is it because it would delay your post .

  Which link was that?

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 13:30, k said:
  

  Going back to the article.
  As Boris said Britain is against the death penalty and so it is illegal (or so I assume-corret me if I am wrong) for Britain to send a person to a country where they will face execution. So where does Blair stand from a legal point of view since he has argued that he went to war with the intention of making saddam stand trial and made no attmpts to ensure the death penalty was used. Surely that is against our constitution or laws. If Saddam had managed to escape to the UK we would have been able able to send him back to Iraq for trial unless we were certain he would not face the death penalty. Surely Blair should be made to answer why he failed to do this.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 13:45, Steven_L said:
  

  < Surely that is against our constitution or laws (k)<

  Actually the European Convention on Human Rights outlaws the death penalty with the exception of ‘times of war’.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 13:54, k said:
  

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/09/wiraq09.xml

  Surely though that would make saddam a prisoner of war and be outlawed under the geneva convention

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 14:26, Steven_L said:
  

  He was a prisoner of war when the US captured him, but they turned him over to the Iraqi authorities as a wanted murderer. The Genenva Convention hasn’t been updated since 1949. To my knowledge there is no provision that precludes the capturing forces from handing POW’s over to a foreign government who might subject them to trial for other crimes and subsequently the death penalty. It’s the European Convention and our Human Rights Act that would stop us from doing it. Theorectically if Bin-Laben turned up in Birmingham, and the US wanted him to ride the lightening, we wouldn’t be allowed to extradite him.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 15:27, k said:
  

  That is a pretty major loophole

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 15:44, newmania said:
  

  That comment is beneath contempt and has no place in a grown-up discussion. Frankly, you and Newmania should be ashamed of yourselves.?

  What did I do to earn the dark one`s displeasure?I don`t really think you are the devil incaranate Tayles…

  “If I conceded that certain crimes deserve death, then my whole stance would become a sham.”

  That is an interesting admission actually. A lot of people would claim that although justice is served by the death penalty , or might be on occassion , for other reasons it wasnt either workable or desirable. I have mentioned many myself . the most important would be

  1 The affect on the punisher and those who by proxy ,kill.
  2 The possibility of miscarriage
  3 The danger of the state misusing the power in the future
  4 The expense
  5 A general dislike of nastiness (?)

  Few would claim that solely in the interests of Justice, death is not the only possible punishment for crimes one might conceive of. Most of these have been committed.

  One innocent person is dead and his survivors are injured .One guilty person gets out and is very much alive

  The guilty person is far better off than the innocent one and that is not justice.The murder may be multiple or aggravated , take your pick.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 17:10, idlex said:
  

  I don`t really think you are the devil incaranate Tayles… (newmania)

  Then why did you say so? It really is, as Tayles said, beneath contempt.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 19:05, newmania said:
  

  Yes thats right Idlex my allegation that tayles was the ..” cloven hooved , pointy tailed , black tongued devil.”was entirely serious…?

  Are you ?

  I do hope not

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 19:51, Insomniac said:
  

  Newmania-
  I dont see why the Tayles / Idlex axis should take such offence unless they really believe in him,as apparently 2/3 of Americans do!

  K
  On the points related to the link before , did you see the lead news item tonight? You could nt make it up!

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.09 20:02, Nasrin Azadeh said:
  

  It’s when the hunger or the homelessness or the loneliness of someone else becomes something that I feel for myself as an affront – something that makes me less of a person.
  Archbishop of Canterburry

  Yet again in my perpetual fight with EVILS I couldnot access my weblog to publish these impressing words in my space.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 00:55, Insomniac said:
  

  Tayles- you say
  1) “You seem to be changing the argument from one about the validity of the death penalty to one about the failings of the system of imprisonment.It may well be true that people get off lightly with their custodial sentences, and that greater consistency and firmer sentencing is required”
  but then ” My principles on the matter agree with the status quo, so I am, in effect, defending it. What a totally inane point.”

  So you still don’t neccesarily accept that anything needs to be changed do you?. Despite there being final results, like those in the 2 links i posted, almost every week in the papers (sorry if this marks me down as a tabloid reading moron in your eyes). But tell me how you would improve the system and achieve that greater firmness and consistency of sentencing with these untouchable judges then. I m all ears.

  “….Again, you seem to be having a different conversation with me here. ”

  Maybe the discussion has moved on because you responded to my earlier points. We actually wandered off the topic of Saddam Hussein a while ago. Does nt mean i ve conceded anything- just agreed to differ.

  2) Still not sure you ve quite got my point. I ll grant you the law of armed conflict allows for the forseen killing of civilians as a side effect of aiming at a military target, as long as proportionality of force is observed. But this was not a defensive war but a ‘war of choice’, its what used to be called ‘waging a war of aggression’. The invasion of Iraq was not such a’ life and death’ situation for this country’s residents.I think that innocent lives were traded off over there for ‘the greater good of us all’ just as they might be if we executed the wrong person at home. ‘The War on Terror’ is just a convenient label to allow politicians to be able to get away with what they would not normally get away with in peace time.eg De Menezes shooting. The big boys make the rules. Legally the deaths in Iraq might be different – morally i dont think there is much difference between most of the civilian deaths caused by us there and any innocent on the gallows here ( sod the guilty ones). Would you be as supportive if Blair announced a domestic ‘War on Murder’ tomorrow and declared ‘the rules of the game have changed- we ll now shoot on sight all suspected murderers in London.’?

  “Any why are you still banging on about custodial sentences as if that was part of our original debate?”

  To make the point below and as i said its moved on.

  ME”Whereas i would be willing to compromise, to drop the restoration of the DS and put up with higher taxes if a life sentence was made to mean what it says, you think the system is as good as it could reasonably be or you re not prepared to pay more income tax to improve it.”

  Glad to see you ll pay all of 75p a year to keep some dangerous blokes locked up for longer. That does nt seem to be physically possible at the moment so i m not as optimistic of the numbers as you. (Why do we always make the comparisons with the US anyway, with its gun culture, generally much longer custodial sentences than here, and constitutional rights obsessions. Why never how the DS works in Japan or Singapore?)

  “My views on Third World aid are based on a genuine desire to give them progress and development, not turn them into a medieval heritage centre or maintain their lifestyle as part of some ‘ethical’ (i.e. mean-spirited, pseudo-Marxist) campaign against wealth and progress. You think that poor Africans choose to live primitively? They want to enjoy the rewards of a modern, prosperous society too. My views are born out of real compassion, not the self-serving or misguided conspicuous compassion that drives popular charity causes nowadays. They need capitalism and self-sufficiency, not patronizing liberal guilt. You can stick your wristbands where the sun don’t shine.”

  I dont ever wear wristbands – not really keen on any type of jewellry. I find such displays decadent and vulgar.I m all for promoting self reliance in Africa but while we just sit back and wait for capitalism to take root out there they ll just have to keep dying and going blind as you prefer to spend your 75p pa on Jeremy Bamber’s next appeal and Ian Huntley’s food bills than on some wells being dug. Some compassionate Conservative you are!

  And whats all this claptrap about pseudo-marxists. I prefer the traditional ones. At least Uncle Joe would know what to do with those pseudos and you too-Tayles!
  “Run out of arguments? Bless”

  No – But this is more of a a typing contest!
  I may not have been privileged to have honed my debating skills at the Oxford Union, like the Tory toffs, but i still think i d thrash your scaley tale in a stand up one-on-one.

  “Which link was that?”
  I meant Newmania’s

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 12:09, Tayles said:
  

  So you still don’t neccesarily accept that anything needs to be changed do you? Tell me how you would improve the system and achieve that greater firmness and consistency of sentencing with these untouchable judges then. Maybe the discussion has moved on because you responded to my earlier points.

  It does look like we’ve wandered off topic, but you took us there when you began complaining about the inconsistent and feeble sentencing in this country. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a problem and we need to toughen things up. Perhaps we can discuss the best way of achieving this elswhere. But you invoked this point as an argument in favour of the death penalty. In other words: unless we hang ‘em, they’re getting off scott free. You seem to be implying that my objection to capital punishment is based, in part, on the understanding that the current alternatives are sufficiently harsh to preclude its need, and that if you expose the weaknesses of sentencing in Britain you are advancing the case for the death penalty. Furthermore, you are suggesting that imposing the death penalty will compensate for the deficiencies in sentencing. Obviously it’s worth pointing out that, should it exist, only a tiny percentage of criminals would face death, so its enforcement would still leave the rest of the justice system in disarray. But the real reason why this is a redundant point is that my objection to capital punishment is not based on an assumption that current sentencing is adequate. If anything, your argument is self defeating, since it implies that if tougher sentences were imposed, your reason for supporting capital punishment would cease to exist.

  The invasion of Iraq was not such a ‘life and death’ situation for this country’s residents. I think that innocent lives were traded off over there for ‘the greater good of us all’ just as they might be if we executed the wrong person at home.

  Your point assumes that I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq, which is not necessarily so. If the dodgy dossiers were true and the Western world was under imminent threat of attack, there might have been a case for invading. After all, we couldn’t have just arrested the Iraqi regime and dragged them through the courts. However, we can do this in society. When a murderer is caught, he is locked away ‘for the greater good of us all’. This way there is no need to risk executing an innocent. Besides, the talk of needlessly trading off the lives of innocent people at home in order to maintain the image of a tough justice system nauseates me. I suppose you would happily be dragged to the gallows in the knowledge that your death is a helpful part of the propaganda war against crime? It just goes to show that your support for capital punishment is nothing to do with the sanctity of human life; it is a fundamentally misanthropic and sadistic desire to see those who displease you expunged from the earth.

  ‘The War on Terror’ is just a convenient label to allow politicians to be able to get away with what they would not normally get away with in peace time.eg De Menezes shooting. The big boys make the rules.

  Again, this is nothing to do with our conversation about the death penalty. For what it’s worth, though, I think creating a climate of fear gives politicians a sense of purpose and authority that they otherwise lack nowadays.

  Morally i dont think there is much difference between most of the civilian deaths caused by us there and any innocent on the gallows here. Would you be as supportive if Blair announced a domestic ‘War on Murder’ tomorrow and declared ‘the rules of the game have changed – we ll now shoot on sight all suspected murderers in London.’?

  Once more, you’re assuming that I think that invading Iraq was a great idea, that the War on Terror is a legitimate crusade and that the circumstances of war are the same as those in a civil society back home. The point here is that in war there is virtually no way of avoiding innocent deaths – although our forces show more care in avoiding them than some do. The same cannot be said for life back home. If we can avoid killing innocents, we should do so. One of the reasons we should be willing to go to war is to fight for a way of life that respects human dignity and the sanctity of life. We fight to restore peace and bring about a state of affairs in which these principles can be observed.

  Whereas i would be willing to compromise, to drop the restoration of the DS and put up with higher taxes if a life sentence was made to mean what it says, you think the system is as good as it could reasonably be or you re not prepared to pay more income tax to improve it.

  See my earlier comments. I never said that I thought that the current sentencing situation was perfect. It needs toughening up for sure, but you must totally misunderstand my principles if you think that there might be circumstances under which I would consider the death penalty as a means of doing this. I see capital punishment as state sanctioned murder, not a kind of lifestyle faux pas or some wacky policy that I’d rather avoid. Trying to get me to soften my stance on the basis that the current prison system is in chaos or by drawing comparisons with deaths in combat simply implies that I am insufficiently tolerant of murder.

  Glad to see you ll pay all of 75p a year to keep some dangerous blokes locked up for longer.

  Try to imagine some issue on which you cannot imagine compromising. For instance, your right not to be tortured by your neighbour. I don’t imagine that’s as issue you see much room for manoeuvre on. I suspect that wre you to contemplate the means of dealing with your sadistic neighbour, one of the options you probably wouldn’t consider is letting him to pop round occasionally with his drill and pliers. And if you had to fork out money to ensure that his power tools never got close to your body, this probably wouldn’t change your mind either. This would appear to be money well spent, and I don’t imagine that you would think of it in terms of denying Africans a dose of medicine or a square meal. By your rationale, however, any money in Britain that isn’t spent on the grim business of survival is a decadent waste and should be sent overseas. Your comparison is at best disingenuous and at worst witless.

  That does nt seem to be physically possible at the moment so i m not as optimistic of the numbers as you.

  If you have particular principles on something, you can’t just sell them down the river because you don’t foresee an alternative resolution. I’ve got two for you: build more prisons, and get prisoners working again to pay their way.

  I dont ever wear wristbands – not really keen on any type of jewellry.

  Well bully for you.

  I m all for promoting self reliance in Africa but while we just sit back and wait for capitalism to take root out there they ll just have to keep dying and going blind as you prefer to spend your 75p pa on Jeremy Bamber’s next appeal and Ian Huntley’s food bills than on some wells being dug. Some compassionate Conservative you are!

  This is an extremely short-sighted take on things. India, China and much of the South East Asia are dragging themselves out of abject misery by embracing capitalism and establishing property rights. Yes, it is not as easy road, but the price is worth it.

  And whats all this claptrap about pseudo-marxists. I prefer the traditional ones. At least Uncle Joe would know what to do with those pseudos and you too-Tayles!

  So you’re calling for my imprisonment in a gulag or perhaps my summary execution now? By pseudo-Marxist, I mean that there are plenty of apparently well-meaning causes, such as environmentalism, animal rights and charity organisations, whose motivation is, in fact, the same hatred of power and success shared by Marxists (Jeremy Clarkson alludes to this quite amusingly here and here). By extension, they have come to loathe the rich, the West, and finally mankind itself. Look beyond the excruciating sincerity and you will see the same veneration of mediocrity and low horizons, and the vilification of aspiration and excellence. Remember those kids that were bullied at school? They’re getting their own back.

  I may not have been privileged to have honed my debating skills at the Oxford Union, like the Tory toffs, but i still think i d thrash your scaley tale in a stand up one-on-one.

  I’m not sure if you’re accusing me of being a toff, but it’s an amusing accusation if you are. I didn’t go to university, let alone Oxbridge; and I’ve never been on a debating society in my life. Considering the wonky logic, argumentative gaffes, curious tangents, hapless question-begging and petulant name-calling that you have displayed here, I don’t think you’d need me to show you up in a proper debate. You’d do that yourself.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 13:39, newmania said:
  

  Getting very emotional aren’t you Tayles ?I don1t do that a lot myself still… quite exciting

  TAYLES Said -Try to imagine some issue on which you cannot imagine compromising. For instance, your right not to be tortured by your neighbour

  I take it that this at bottom is where you sit Tayles and the problem with this is that you have also said ….

  “If I conceded that certain crimes deserve death, then my whole stance would become a sham.”

  So you feel it should be a perpetual and non negotiable right not to be killed on behalf of the courts as an expression of justice arrived at through due process. Unless you are going to be perversely obsessed with argufying then you must accept that this must on occasion be a dreadful injustice to the victim. Innocent, killed..and who knows perhaps tortured and abused over years …these are real cases. The guilty person merely sits in prison and there is no reasonable balance which is what we take justice to be.

  You have said this is revenge , as if justice might not include revenge. It is revenge but it is also more than revenge, for reasons I have examined at length previously. Some people would say I admit the victim and the family have suffered a grievous injustice and it isn1t good that we care more about the guilty than the innocent however the death penalty raises great difficulties.

  I summarised them as follows

  1 The affect on the punisher and those who by proxy ,kill.
  2 The possibility of miscarriage (of justice)
  3 The danger of the state misusing the power in the future
  4 The expense
  5 A general dislike of nastiness (?)
  6 The difficulty of weighing the right balance of crime and punishment

  So there is line to be drawn for these reason even if you accept , as I do , that theoretically there is no reasons why “torture” or corporal punishment , to put it less emotively might not be a reasonable judicial option.( I am against it for a combination of points 1,2 and specifically 6.)So I accept there is a line , a point at which stop because of the points above.
  The problem of balance disappears in the case of aggravated and cruel murder , for example as the punishment , death , is so much less than the crime.

  What is frustrating about the way you have argued this point is that you are determined not to accept that a problem exists if you do not have capital punishment , when it self evidently does. Someone like Boris would agree with what I say and yet be “anti” because of the sort of these problems (especially 2 actually). You go a great deal further and claim , apparently , that a monstrous crime can be adequately punished by a civilised sentence. It cannot.

  Your general theme is anti state and libertarian and that is why I generally agree with you . You perceive this “state murder ” as you , if I may say so, absurdly ,describe it , to be illiberal but , freedom is not an easy conceopt to apply when a persons right to be untortured and alive has already been removed by an evil man..
  I do not find being anti capital punishment a ridiculous point of view . I do find your reason for doing is ill-considered. You absolutely point blank refuse to admit there is moral problem means that you do not understand the implications of this debate .

  This following is not essential to the capital punishment argument but bears on strands of opinion that often accompany it .

  The death sentence is symbolic of retaining the focus of the courts on “justice” and refusing to accept the tempting claims of ease convenience , “humanity” rehabilitation and so on. Obviously there is a place for these considerations as I have accepted but I have come to think we have gone to far. The courts are a joke the penal system a holiday and the victim an uncomfortable embarrassment . Interestingly, the sort of Liberal wooliness that accepts this elephant in the living room is not Tayles. Your problem comes from a dogmatic notion of Libertarianism.

  Strange isn`t it that the state is the body which has removed capital punishment against the consistently expressed wishes of the people.

  Oh sorry for the grammar and so on if onkly Ruth kelly had been my mother eh ?

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 15:28, Tayles said:
  

  Getting very emotional aren’t you Tayles

  On the contrary, I’ve been remarkably calm and logical. Although the foam is clearly visible at poor old Insomnia’s lips. It’s just getting a bit tiresome having to bat away accusations that are irrelevant to my argument.

  So you feel it should be a perpetual and non negotiable right not to be killed on behalf of the courts as an expression of justice arrived at through due process.

  That’s right.

  Unless you are going to be perversely obsessed with argufying then you must accept that this must on occasion be a dreadful injustice to the victim. Innocent, killed..and who knows perhaps tortured and abused over years …these are real cases. The guilty person merely sits in prison and there is no reasonable balance which is what we take justice to be.

  This is a bizarre point of view, but I’m guessing that this is the point that I am apparently failing to comprehend or respond to, so I’ll do my damnedest to answer it for you. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that if it is unjust for a murderer to kill an innocent person, then a failure to mete out equal punishment to the killer demonstrates a similar lack of justice. Obviously killing someone constitutes a ‘dreadful injustice to the victim’. They’ve had their life taken against their will and what could be more unjust than that? However, the reason that I find you point bizarre is that it tacitly accepts that taking a human life is a terribly unjust act; so by extension it should be equally unjust to take another in response. This is the hypocrisy that I spoke about. Far from refuting my point, your call for revenge only confirms its veracity.

  You have said this is revenge, as if justice might not include revenge. It is revenge but it is also more than revenge, for reasons I have examined at length previously. Some people would say I admit the victim and the family have suffered a grievous injustice and it isn1t good that we care more about the guilty than the innocent however the death penalty raises great difficulties.

  Capital punishment is revenge, but then so is imprisonment in a way. However, by enforcing a humane notion of justice our society is demonstrating that it takes law and order seriously, while upholding principles above those of the savages that deserve to be behind bars.

  I accept there is a line, a point at which stop. The problem of balance disappears in the case of aggravated and cruel murder, for example as the punishment, death, is so much less than the crime.

  So what you’re saying here is that it is the intent rather than the act of taking a life which constitutes the crime? To coldly execute a murderer is justice, but to beat an old lady to death is a crime. I think you’ve touched on the real disagreement between us here. I think that taking a life where it can be avoided is morally reprehensible, whereas you are all for it in the name of balancing the books.

  What is frustrating about the way you have argued this point is that you are determined not to accept that a problem exists if you do not have capital punishment , when it self evidently does. Someone like Boris would agree with what I say and yet be “anti” because of the sort of these problems (especially 2 actually). You go a great deal further and claim, apparently, that a monstrous crime can be adequately punished by a civilised sentence. It cannot.

  Newmania, you are totally misunderstanding me. This is what’s getting me frustrated: a total failure to see where I’m coming from. I am not saying that our judicial system is perfect; nor am I implying that there isn’t a chance that capital punishment might provide a deterrent in some cases. And I’m sure that there are some unforgiving folk out there who won’t rest easy until the killer of their loved one is put to death. I don’t think that capital punishment would be okay if we could overcome a few practical problems; I think that capital punishment is state sanctioned murder. Calling for me to soften my stance and accept that, under the right circumstances, the death penalty is a sensible option is simply accusing me of being insufficiently tolerant of murder. To change my mind, you have to prove to me that capital punishment is, in fact, the moral equivalent of putting someone behind bars. The fact that the murder victim’s loved ones haven’t had their pound of flesh is irrelevant. Their suffering doesn’t make them experts in jurisprudence or the effectiveness of prison; and I don’t think their impartiality and emotion is the right basis on which to recommend suitable punishment. Justice should be fair, humane and blind. And incidentally, I don’t think the idea that having no death penalty is ‘self-evidently’ creating problem. The idea that it would be a cure-all cure is ridiculous.

  Your general theme is anti state and libertarian and that is why I generally agree with you. You perceive this “state murder” as you , if I may say so, absurdly, describe it to be illiberal but freedom is not an easy concept to apply when a persons right to be untortured and alive has already been removed by an evil man.

  Yes, and two wrongs don’t make a right. You cannot simultaneously revile and practice barbarity without being a hypocrite.

  You absolutely point blank refuse to admit there is moral problem means that you do not understand the implications of this debate.

  I think I’ve mentioned this above. You think that when someone is killed, the only way of assuaging the moral outrage and emotional pain that follows is to kill the wrong-doer. You keep accusing me of being blind to your point, but you are yet to explain this contradiction of principles.

  Oh sorry for the grammar

  Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Several generations have been betrayed by the liberal left in this country. Our schools have fulfilled the liberal educators’ every dream, abandoning educational achievement as their goal and systematically replacing it with nurturing self-esteem, leaving pupils unaware of their own ignorance. I did not go to university, but I was lucky enough to enjoy a private education, which did at least instill the notion of knowledge for its own sake, rather than the ‘instrumentalist’ approach of the modern left.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 16:45, k said:
  

  “To coldly execute a murderer is justice, but to beat an old lady to death is a crime. I think you’ve touched on the real disagreement between us here. I think that taking a life where it can be avoided is morally reprehensible”

  So if it is wrong to take the life of a person who has chosen to take a life and thereby chosen to risk the death penalty (those who are mentally incapable do not recieve the death penalty)then by your own reasoning it is also wrong to allow a mentally capable person the right to choose to refuse medical treatment, or in fact do anything that might kill them. Should we also make suicide illegal, after all committing suicide is taking a life, the differrence is the victim has a choice.

  While I disagree with the death penalty for the reasons that newmania stated, I do believe it would solve the problem of deterring a criminal who has already committed a crime against their victim from murdering the victim in order to get away with the initial crime such as rape or sexual assult. I think IDS pondering bringing back the death penalty for child murderers for this very reason, the difference in the prison term for raping a child and murdering and raping a child is very little and only encourages murder. In the case we have mentioned above three fully trained british soldiers got twelve years (in a cypriot court , but the british government fought hard for such a low term) for kidnapping, gang raping and hacking to death a girl they had never met before where as a man in briton was recently told he must serve a MINIMUM of eleven and a bit years for raping two prostitutes. This sort of disparity is very common and only encourages murder of rape and sexual assult victims. However as tayles has said this problem could easily be addressed with a review of custodial sentances. I favour life in solitary confinment for the most sadistic murders.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 16:55, newmania said:
  

  “This is a bizarre point of view” – No it isn’t ?

  “but I’m guessing that this is the point that I am apparently failing to comprehend or respond to,”

  Yes it is central point of justice .Without that you cannot proceed clearly to discuss the Justice system and it is with huge relief I wring at least that out of you.

  ” you are saying is that if it is unjust for a murderer to kill an innocent person, then a failure to mete out equal punishment to the killer demonstrates a similar lack of justice.”

  Well I would want to be a little more subtle about it than that , ( and this is old ground again), buts lets say when the crime is disproportionate to the punishment then there has been an injustice. Would you put a rapist on the naughty step for an hour .Of course not .Chemical castration? Perhaps that’s going to far, thus we decide through the process of evolving jurisprudence an approximation to impersonal justice. That is why it is not revenge and obviously this proportion is something without which we can make no sense of punishment at all. In fact this concept is indeed buckling beneath the weight of “empathy” distaste social convenience, and so on , but I digress…..

  “Obviously killing someone constitutes a ‘dreadful injustice to the victim’. They’ve had their life taken against their will and what could be more unjust than that?”

  Ooo I don`t know , terror torture sexual abuse starvation over along period finally death and many times ? There are many worse things than death and given that we are no immortal that is a handy fact.

  ” However, the reason that I find you point bizarre is that it tacitly accepts that taking a human life is a terribly unjust act; so by extension it should be equally unjust to take another in response”

  Really?
  And here is where you go , most obviously , awry. It is telling that in your version of the equation it is necessary to treat the victim and the perpetrator as if they were equivalent. Can you see that there us a difference between a guilty murderer and an innocent victim? Let us hope so although there is no evidence of it . Kidnap is wrong, Imprisonment for kidnap is not would you accept that ? I think you do admit it so you do accept this notion of proportion that is what we call justice. Then as we can imagine many crimes, for which this sense of “proportion” cannot possibly be met by a stretch at Butlins . It follows that justice can , on occasion only be served by capital punishment .

  Now I have already admitted difficulties of a conceptual and practical kind varying from this simple idea but there seems little point in reiterating. You feel , that execution following due process is the same as murder. You say it would be “it should be equally unjust to take another in response” . You do not see any difference at all.

  This strangely cockeyed equation of victims with criminals is not one I you would apply, I hope , in the case of fraud or some less unpleasant crime. No doubt you would want to sentence to reflect the suffering knowingly inflicted on others . Perhaps not but I hope so . I must assume then that you think there is some peculiar horror associated with the taking of a life which requires you to abandon the views you might normally hold . That the guilty should be justifiably punished in proportion for their crime. You feel that there is line to be drawn , I agree and would not support disfigurement or torture for example . . … You will not accept that there is anything to worry about in that we have, for whatever reasons, good or bad, abandoned or shall we say “adjusted ” the principle.

  My guess is that you are under the modern illusion of immortality and that the contemplation of death is something about which you are incapable of rational thought. It is simply to large a horror to think about .If you cannot think about it of course you will not be equipped to apply t justice in the caser of murder.
  ( Not that all murders are capital offences I am making a different point)

  It is also my guess that you are unlikely to admit to the growing doubts assailing you about the virtually indefensible spot you have pitched your tents in.

  I would prescibe a period of sollemn contemplation .After some years of reading and thinking you may attain the blisful state of understanding that I have be as clever as me . Then you will see that I am right.

  We`ll talk again in few years

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 17:18, Jaq said:
  

  Crikey Newmania!

  Anyway folks – allow yourself to be introduced to BLOCKQUOTE. Remember that: blockquote As some systems just use ‘quote’ (and what’s the betting I get them mixed up?)

  Anyway: on this system you have to use the pointy brackets (next to the ‘M’ on my keyboard) but as they won’t show up in text I’ll use curly ones ‘{‘ and you just substitute pointy one’s.

  So the string you need to type to enclose quoted text will be:

  {blockquote}quoted text{/blockquote}
  Got it?

  and it should look something like this:
  

  My guess is that you are under the modern illusion of immortality and that the contemplation of death is something about which you are incapable of rational thought. It is simply to large a horror to think about .If you cannot think about it of course you will not be equipped to apply t justice in the caser of murder.

  This method can be used for bold: {b}text{/b} or italics {i}text{/i} etc. All you have to remember is to turn the formating on and off.

  Have a go but remember to use the Preview button first, before you post.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 17:21, k said:
  

  If the only reason not to have the death penalty is because it is wrong to take a life then all forms of punishment must be stopped. Why is capital punishment murder yet arrest,imprisonment and fines are not kidnap, false imprisonment and blackmail? Considering that hundreds of people are murdered each year by those who have served time for murder and “manslaughter” then the death penalty would have saved lives, even if it does not act as a deterrant, since it would most certainly have prevented the murderer from reoffending. Of course a system that somehow resembles justice would also solve the problem. The current system only enocurages vioence and by refusing to protect its people the British government is tap dancing on the edges of the european human rights act. This must change. We live in a country where even the prime minister openly disregards the law and faces no consequences, so how can we expect the uneducated thug predisposed to violence to stay within the law.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 17:24, Tayles said:
  

  So if it is wrong to take the life of a person who has chosen to take a life and thereby chosen to risk the death penalty then by your own reasoning it is also wrong to allow a mentally capable person the right to choose to refuse medical treatment, or in fact do anything that might kill them. – K

  The distinction here is that with murder and execution we’re talking about taking the life of another, as opposed to taking your own life. I’m actually undecided on the euthanasia issue, but if pressed on it I think I’d be opposed to it. On the one hand I support the freedom to do with your own life what you see fit, as long as it does no demonstrable harm to anyone else (outside of the grief it my cause loved ones, I suppose). On the other hand, euthanasia in particular cheapens and devalues human life. Everybody knows that doctors take humane measures to hasten death at the end, and we accept that individuals already are ‘free’ to die, since nobody can prevent a determined suicide. But asking the government to endorse voluntary euthanasia is another matter. This is not only about the individuals involved. However desperate some may feel, we should not give official approval to the notion that death is a solution to the problems of living.

  Even the most ‘responsible’ right-to-die organizations advocate suicide as a therapeutic answer to depression. Reports on the issue always confirm fear and depression, rather than pain, as the major role in assisted suicide requests. This is dangerous, but more than this euthanasia destroys the real, if abstract, values that connect us and make us human beings. Cowardice would become lionised as courage and the duty to make the most of what one has would become the duty to throw it away. The meaning of human life would be reduced to the physical, base animal instincts, trapped within the husk of the body. Human dignity would be reduced to bodily aestheticism.

  Should we also make suicide illegal, after all committing suicide is taking a life, the differrence is the victim has a choice.

  I thought it was illegal, although maybe I’m wrong. I wouldn’t want the government to endorse it by making it legal for the reasons above, but since you can’t legislate people into not attempting suicide it would be a bit pointless either way.

  While I disagree with the death penalty for the reasons that newmania stated, I do believe it would solve the problem of deterring a criminal who has already committed a crime against their victim from murdering the victim in order to get away with the initial crime such as rape or sexual assault.

  I can see the logic of this argument, but since my opposition to capital punishment is not based on its effectiveness as a deterrent, you will understand that I could never countenance this solution. Actually, overuse of the death penalty causes problems of its own. In the famous ‘Onion Field’ case of the 1960s a couple of guys kidnapped and killed a police office on the understanding that kidnapping was a capital crime.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 17:42, k said:
  

  Tayles here is a question.
  If it was proven that the death penalty was a deterrant and a much greater deterant than life imprisonment and that no innocents would be mistakenly found guilty (this is hypothetical, so humour me here) would you support the death penalty?

  Surely, if you knew that hanging a convicted murderer would deter x amount of other would be murderers then to refuse to implement the death penalty would be knowingly allowing the murders of innocent men, women and children. Surely this would be putting our own morals above the sanctity of human life.

  using the sancity of human life issue against the death penalty is a tricky one because it assumes that guilt is not important. If, hypothetically, you were told you had to (you have no choice of refusing, again just humour me) kill either one individual or a group of five individuals then you would, I assume, pick the one individual since this would save the lives of four extra people. However, if you saw a gang of five people dragging an innocent person off the street (a child, say) to kill them and the only way to stop them was to kill all five of them, what would you do? Would you allow them to murder the innocent person in order that four extra lives could be saved, after all the sanctity of life and all that or would you kill all five in order to save the innocent?

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 17:47, Tayles said:
  

  Newmania, you are hung up on this idea of proportion with regard to punishment. You seem to think that this is an irrefutable natural law, which trumps any objections I have to the death penalty. You accept that mutilating and torturing a criminal is unacceptable, but to kill them is fine and in proportion.

  Custodial sentencing has a sense of proportion too: murder carries a stiffer term of imprisonment than theft (or it should, at least). You may dismiss two decades in jail as a trip to Butlins, but that is more a call for prison reform rather than a case for capital punishment.

  It follows that justice can, on occasion only be served by capital punishment.

  You steadfastly refuse to understand my perspective. Let’s try a different angle. Urging me to accept that capital punishment is sometimes the only fitting punishment is like telling a vegetarian that eating turkey is the only way to do Christmas dinner. Does that help? If not how about this: it’s like asking a devout Christian to consider devil worship as a cure for their problems.

  In other words, no matter how much of good case you put for the death penalty being a proportional punishment, I ain’t buying it. And don’t expect an epiphany from me any time soon.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 18:01, Tayles said:
  

  Tayles here is a question.
  If it was proven that the death penalty was a deterrant and a much greater deterant than life imprisonment and that no innocents would be mistakenly found guilty?

  No more than I would support house arrest for everyone in Britain to ensure that little or no crime took place. My objections trump any potential benefits. I’m not trying to be some kind of pious prat here and I don’t have some illusion of immortality as Newmania suggested; I just want to live in a country where the government cannot deal out death to its wrong-doers.

  Everyone’s principles are for sale. You have to weigh up the pros and cons of any enterprise before coming to a conclusion. I could still have huge moral misgivings about something and acquiesce to it on the basis that its advantages outweighed its costs. However, there would have to be a truly astonishing and demonstrable benefit to the death penalty before I would budge on it. That, despite Newmania’s insistence, is not self-evident in this instance.

  If you saw a gang of five people dragging an innocent person off the street (a child, say) to kill them and the only way to stop them was to kill all five of them, what would you do?

  I’d kill them without a moment’s hesitation. This is the same situation as the police marksman who takes down a terrorist about to set off a bomb. If he doesn’t have the opportunity to arrest and detain them, there is no alternative. It’s regrettable, but what choice do you have? Contrary to Newmania’s suggestion, I can differentiate between the victim and the wrong-doer.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 18:27, k said:
  

  Tayles,
  But surely if the death penalty was proven to be a detterant and there was no chance of innocents being found guilty then by refusing to implement it the government must be partly responible for dealing out the death penalty to hundreds of innocents.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 19:40, Insomniac said:
  

  Dear Mr.Scaley Tayles (You old devil ),

  “It does look like we’ve wandered off topic, but you took us there when you began complaining about the inconsistent and feeble sentencing in this country. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a problem and we need to toughen things up. Perhaps we can discuss the best way of achieving this elswhere. “

  Glad you agree on that. Maybe, you could start another thread rather than clog up this one anymore.
  “your argument is self defeating, since it implies that if tougher sentences were imposed, your reason for supporting capital punishment would cease to exist.”

  Yes it would, if we could impose and make stick whole-life tariffs for every murderer of innocents.

  “Besides, the talk of needlessly trading off the lives of innocent people at home in order to maintain the image of a tough justice system nauseates me. I suppose you would happily be dragged to the gallows in the knowledge that your death is a helpful part of the propaganda war against crime? It just goes to show that your support for capital punishment is nothing to do with the sanctity of human life; it is a fundamentally misanthropic and sadistic desire to see those who displease you expunged from the earth.”

  Its nothing to do with image. I would nt happily volunteer to be ‘collateral damage’ in one of Blair’s wars either. Does that mean i have to be an absolute pacifist? If i harboured thoughts of ‘revenge’ against a sadistic murderer when i saw him walking early out of the prison gates whistling a merry tune would that make me momentarily as ‘evil’ as him?

  I think a lot of the arguing -past-each-other here occurs because you (and prob. Idlex) have a different conception of ‘evil’ from me (and maybe Newmania K etc). To you it is like some outside force that we all plug into from time to time- a religion based view, i think. To me there is no evil ( well social evils like poverty, yes) outside of what people choose to do in their lives ( humanist view?). Sometimes people reach a point of such malignancy and destructiveness that the rest of us decide they have to go- permanently, one way or another. I dont believe each life has equal sanctity, it depends whats been done with it.

  “Trying to get me to soften my stance on the basis that the current prison system is in chaos or by drawing comparisons with deaths in combat simply implies that I am insufficiently tolerant of murder.”

  To me you seem rather too tolerant of murder. Any legally sanctioned killing is not by definition murder (as you say wrt. Iraq.) But fair enough if you are an absolutist/fundamentalist on the DS. I never said it was good, just that i think it would generaly be the ‘lesser evil’ and preferable to the current situation.

  “Try to imagine some issue on which you cannot imagine compromising. For instance, your right not to be tortured by your neighbour. I don’t imagine that’s as issue you see much room for manoeuvre on. I suspect that wre you to contemplate the means of dealing with your sadistic neighbour, one of the options you probably wouldn’t consider is letting him to pop round occasionally with his drill and pliers. And if you had to fork out money to ensure that his power tools never got close to your body, this probably wouldn’t change your mind either. “

  If i had to deal with him i d definitely ‘get my retaliation in first’ and worry about the consequences later! But i think you are hinting that i am your sadistic neighbour. Well i would nt torture you or anyone else Tayles , even if you or the neighbour did it to me first.( Is that absolutist enough for you.?) I d just kill you (or him) after first giving a stern talking-to explaining why i (regretably) had to take that course of action. And, if you accuse me of being a foaming at the mouth sadist again i will come round and bite you!

  “India, China and much of the South East Asia are dragging themselves out of abject misery by embracing capitalism and establishing property rights. Yes, it is not as easy road, but the price is worth it.”

  Worth what price? In that of easily preventable child deaths today so that others can have ‘jam tomorrow’.

  “Considering the wonky logic, argumentative gaffes, curious tangents, hapless question-begging and petulant name-calling that you have displayed here, I don’t think you’d need me to show you up in a proper debate. You’d do that yourself.”

  If i ve wandered off the point its because i think your overall positions on these things are morally inconsistent and i ve been trying to get inside your thought processes ( not always an easy task ). You seem to want to restrict the terrain of the discussion purely to the question of the DS yes/no, right/wrong. You are probably used to winning the argument on that narrow point in your abstract philosophical way. I am talking ‘lesser evilism’ and trying to deal with the world as it is. This is not the Hutton enquiry. This DS discussion involves wider issues, as with the whole TWAT thing. But now at least you see how frustrating it is to try and answer my points and then have me wander off on a tangent without answering yours back.!

  “So you’re calling for my imprisonment in a gulag or perhaps my summary execution now? “

  I dont have a gulag to put you in Tayles. Regretably, extraordinary means may be the only ones available, so different rules apply in the early stages of the revolution!

  “I’m not sure if you’re accusing me of being a toff, but it’s an amusing accusation if you are. I didn’t go to university, let alone Oxbridge; and I’ve never been on a debating society in my life. “

  “I did not go to university, but I was lucky enough to enjoy a private education, which did at least instill the notion of knowledge for its own sake, rather than the ‘instrumentalist’ approach of the modern left.”

  Well bully for you then! I did nt do any of that.
  (except the instrumentalist bit unfortunately!)

  Heres your agenda.

  Tayles-“Remember those kids that were bullied at school? They’re getting their own back.”

  I m sorry you were bullied in private school Tayles. I ve heard a lot of it goes on there. So in the spirit of true Christian compassion and forgiveness (and because you have ground me down in the war of typing attrition ) I humbly offer you my other cheek for you to strike the final blow. ( Others can decide who ‘won’)

  JAQ- Thanks, I ll give that a go.

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.10 21:29, Jaq said:
  

  Insomniac – you’re very welcome. But remember that using bold instead of blockquote is a bit like raising your voice. Not quite SHOUTING, but almost.

  Anyway, give it a go and if you get stuck, shout!

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
• At 2007.01.11 13:03, Insomniac said:
  

  Thanks JAQ. I ll try and remember that.

  Tayles- by “…… a lot of it goes on there.”

  I did mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging

  Rate This: 0  0

  [Reply]
118 old comments are not displayed. Click to display all comments