G hall continues to use inflammatory language which is also contradictory in terms:-:-

Originally Posted by :
It is also interesting to note how many pro executioners regard the state murder of an innocent as a worthy price to pay - does that not make them as guilty of murder of anyone executed and by their own logic they also should be executed (my bold)

&

Originally Posted by :
So is state sponsored murder justice then my bold

From the Oxford dictionary :-

murder
• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another. 2 informal a very difficult or unpleasant situation or experience.
• verb 1 kill unlawfully and with premeditation. 2 informal spoil by poor performance. 3 informal, chiefly Brit. consume (food or drink) with relish.

If a State has the death penalty as one of it’s penalties for committing murder then this is enshrouded in it’s ‘Laws’ and therefore cannot be illegal and, ergo 'State murder' is contrary to logic.

We like to think we live in a democracy. One definition of that is the ‘people’ have a say in governance. In a true democracy it is the will of the majority that is encapsulated in the State’s laws. On this principle I think you are being inconsistent as follows:-

I assume that you post on this forum because you are against the EU. Various surveys would suggest that a ‘majority’ of UK voters feel the same and want, for an example, a referendum on, for a start, the Lisbon Treaty. So, it would seem you are happy to support a majority view when it suits you but when it doesn’t, you accept the impositions of a minority.

I don’t know how many times g hall has accused me (and quite a few others) of:-

Originally Posted by :
As you may realise Clippo hates anyone who disses his religion based on the Rev Al Gore and the mantra AGW AGW

This is the debating argument he always resorts to when he can’t provide evidence to contradict my arguments, particularly in the E & E thread.

I have laid my criteria out for believing an idea or concept or anything else many times. Very simply,
a) is the person saying it ‘qualified’ to present the argument ?
b) is it supported by independent research (if scientific, has it been peer-reviewed and validated by other independent research) ?
c) does it ‘agree’ with my life’s experiences ?

Now, in the topic of Man-Made Global Warming, g hall and acolytes have almost never presented evidence which meets even the first 2 criteria.

I don’t ‘hate’ anyone with different ideas – just give me ‘reliable’ evidence to support the alternative. (He’s also got, as you can see, some sort of ‘complex about Al Gore).
[Rep]

Getting back on track, it may seem to be a statement of the obvious, but many crimes are ‘personal’ and crimes of violence are the most personal.

I can accept that other people may have differing ideas of punishments for crimes, based on their own lives’ standards & morals. However, I do also believe in the will of the majority in many areas of Governance.

From the figures that Tony Bennett provided in the Barry George thread, there has been a consistent majority in the UK for the Death penalty punishment for certain murders. However, no successive UK government or, since we are now subservient to, the EU have had the democratic honesty to re-instigate the DP. (It would be interesting to know if anybody has ‘DP opinion data’ for other EU countries).

So, the ‘problem, it seems to me is to try to please most of the people, most of the time:-
To this end I have proposed the following before in posts several times long ago.

Suppose a mechanism were made for every voter to indicate a punishment preference in respect of their possible illegal death (i.e. murder).
I would suggest that the ‘electoral role’ could be used for this as follows:- Upon receipt of the electoral role enquiry form annually (just had mine) to see who is eligible to vote, there could be a ’box’ to tick if you were in favour of the death penalty for someone convicted of your murder. You could also list the other people residing at that address, children for example, and the appointed guardian (normally one of the parents), could indicate what punishment should be applied if one of those dependents is murdered.

Now, I don’t have time to go into the fine detail of ‘ifs’ & buts’ but suppose I was found guilty of murdering g hall, for example, (unlikely since I don’t even hate him from the last post :-) ) but presumably he will have put ‘no death penalty’ on his form, so I would get life whatever that was at the time. On the other hand, if he was found guilty of murdering me, then he would swing.

(nb, the punishment preference would not be publicly available & like ’previous convictions’, would only be consulted by the court after a guilty verdict).

I would respect a rational critique of this scheme..
[Rep]

The state should not have the right to execute its citizens, period.

There's no proof the death penalty works as a deterrent, and in many cases it's actually more expensive than lifetime imprisonment (by the time you factor in the appeals process, which would need to go all the way to the Lords/Supreme Court - whichever is in use by then).
[Rep]

I agree with Westcountryman on this.

I agree with what Clippo says also on opinon polls showing majoritys in favour of the death penalty, but this as yet has not shown itself in terms of electoral support and that is the true poll that matters.

Of course the debate is irrelvant as our membership of the EU means the death penalty cannot be restored.

I wonder what right anyone on this forum who supports the death penalty thinks they have to take a life and where they think that authority comes from.

I could never support the death penalty, it is an act of barbarity which has rightly long since been abolished. There is no evidence that our society will be strengthened if we respond to acts that we may consider inhuman by further inhuman behaviour.
[Rep]

RJT and Westcountryman I know we disagree on other issues however I would just like to say that I agree with your arguments and as an American organisation has it about state murder "Not in my name"
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
The state should not have the right to execute its citizens, period.

).

Well that's not strictly true. Certain police are allowed to use firearms depending on the situation, and execution can be be justified.
And even if the execution is carried out in the wrong circumstance, the police are excused from major penalties against them.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
Well that's not strictly true. Certain police are allowed to use firearms depending on the situation, and execution can be be justified.
And even if the execution is carried out in the wrong circumstance, the police are excused from major penalties against them.

Armed police is one thing, but when you've got the prisoner safely in custody it's another matter entirely.
[Rep]

Yes, but you didn't clarify the means of execution :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
Yes, but you didn't clarify the means of execution :-)

Sorry, I was referring to the state executing someone having been found guilty by a court of law.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Armed police is one thing, but when you've got the prisoner safely in custody it's another matter entirely.

Yes I quite agree, I think we know whatever our views of the quality of police in this country when faced for example with an armed siege situations that they face a difficult job where split second reactions are required.


I take the point raised about them being excluded from major penalties, of course though where someone is shot by the police it is right and proper that there should be an investigation to ensure procedure and guidlines are follwed to ensure that the risk of innocent people being shot is minimised. Such investigations should be indepnedant, the police should not ' police themselves' in such matters.


On an unrelated matter I was thinking that despite the fact that in my view we have the worst government to ever soil the front bench of the HOC every country I know of that has the death penalty has a worse one, often with appaling records on human rights as well. But that may be coincedental.
[Rep]