What is the difference?

Originally Posted by kernow:
Between, Foxes who love killing Chicken and a Psychopath who loves killing people?

Answer= Foxes are killed by pest controllers, Psychopaths are deemed to have psychological problems and are looked after by the state(taxpayer) for 30+ years!

Foxes do not have human rights (sorry, animal lovers, they just don't), and there is probably little hope of turning a fox vegetarian in order to save chickens. We understand that a fox is an animal with a nature which we are unlikely to be able to change given any period of time.

With a psychopath, perhaps there is some hope for rehabilitation, or if not, at least the chance to learn more about mental illness in order that we can better understand it and learn methods of rehabilitation, medical treatment, or identification of the illness at an early stage in order to treat it before it becomes a problem, and to help the psychopath become a productive member of human society.

Perhaps I'm too naive.

[Rep]

Above a certain intelligence/evolution level, animals don’t normally (except in extreme cases) kill their own species – they usually kill for food.

Psychologists are forever finding excuses for all sorts of human behaviour and ‘murder’ is a fertile ground for them. I simply say (like for example, C-Steam & Kernow in earlier posts and possibly 70+% of the UK population) that there is no ‘excuse’ for certain murders and that by doing this the murderers give up their own rights to live, let alone be rehabilitated.

The anti-death penalty minority supporters also have been very clever by implying that revenge is a ‘base’ emotion which religious people will generally feel guilty about having. However, in my opinion, in all forms of ‘conflict’ (war, sport, ideas etc), “getting one’s own back”, aka revenge, is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

A very current story which, frankly, enraged me was the disclosure yesterday in the DT that a euphemistic “home office official” (& maybe Foreign Office officials) had delayed Scotland Yard’s assistance to the Antiguan authorities in investigating the murder of the Welsh honeymoon couple. The reason, apparently, was that Antigua still has the death penalty option and ‘we couldn’t be seen to be helping to identify a criminal who might subsequently be hanged’.
Antigua honeymoon shooting: Death penalty fears delayed UK police help - Telegraph

Who the hell are these ‘officials’? Are they civil servants or elected MPs ?
In whose name do they speak ?

Certainly not mine!

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
Psychologists are forever finding excuses for all sorts of human behaviour and ‘murder’ is a fertile ground for them. I simply say (like for example, C-Steam & Kernow in earlier posts and possibly 70+% of the UK population) that there is no ‘excuse’ for certain murders and that by doing this the murderers give up their own rights to live, let alone be rehabilitated.

Is not being in control of a normal mental capacity not a reasonable mitigating factor when explaining why you killed someone?

Originally Posted by Clippo:
A very current story which, frankly, enraged me was the disclosure yesterday in the DT that a euphemistic “home office official” (& maybe Foreign Office officials) had delayed Scotland Yard’s assistance to the Antiguan authorities in investigating the murder of the Welsh honeymoon couple. The reason, apparently, was that Antigua still has the death penalty option and ‘we couldn’t be seen to be helping to identify a criminal who might subsequently be hanged’.
Antigua honeymoon shooting: Death penalty fears delayed UK police help - Telegraph

Who the hell are these ‘officials’? Are they civil servants or elected MPs ?
In whose name do they speak ?

Certainly not mine!

Huh? I have to agree here. Also, if the UK has a problem with the death penalty, there is the small matter of our special friendship with the US in which we turn a blind eye to 'rendition' flights and 'military trials' which could end in the death penalty but are not held publicly, nor does the defendant have the benefit of a jury of their peers.

Double standards, anyone?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
The anti-death penalty minority supporters also have been very clever by implying that revenge is a ‘base’ emotion which religious people will generally feel guilty about having. However, in my opinion, in all forms of ‘conflict’ (war, sport, ideas etc), “getting one’s own back”, aka revenge, is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

With you all the way on that one Clippo!

[Rep]

whypatcondellisntfun wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Is not being in control of a normal mental capacity not a reasonable mitigating factor when explaining why you killed someone?

Of course it is but…. the issue, imo, becomes the degree of being in control or not.

The fact that having a low IQ, (supposedly for example in the case of Barry George – he’s said to be too thick to have been able to do it !) is an ‘excuse for committing murder is not logical. By definition, half of the population’s IQ is lower than the average and if IQ is a normal distribution approx. 16% of the population have IQ’s comparable to George. Are they then excused for committing rape & murder? Should I view everybody who has epilepsy as a potential murderer?

In the true case of psychopathic schizophrenia then yes if that person has murdered before diagnosis then that is a mitigating factor. But if that person murders after being diagnosed then some psychologists are being criminally negligent.

I freely admit I know little about psychiatric disorders but as I said in an earlier post, it seems to me excuse after excuse is being made for criminals of all types when the real reason is ‘wrongdoers’ not being ‘punished’ sufficiently.

[Rep]

The basic obvious difference which makes your question somewhat naive is that foxes and humans are 2 very different species but your question does allow the promoters of state sponsored murder a chance to present their blood lust again

and further foxes like virtually all animals kill to eat I would suggest that they are not the only animal which gets in a killing frenzy, the problem is of course that we are ascribing human motivations and actions to a different animal

The theory is also that humans are evolved enough to have empathy for each other and hence the great majority "humanise" with each other

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

[Rep]

There's a kind of Hitlerite tendency on this forum on occasions. "Putting down" human beings. I suppose a lot of "undesirables" could be put down. Does it make us a better people? I'd say NO, and I'd be watching my back in case I upset one of those doing the putting down!

[Rep]

G hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
The theory is also that humans are evolved enough to have empathy for each other and hence the great majority "humanise" with each other

It is, as you said a theory – against which goes the actions of numerous tyrants and ‘ordinary’ people.

&

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

No it doesn’t. By that logic, and using Tony Bennett’s figures elsewhere, if the death penalty were carried out then 65%-80% of the UK population should be executed. How stupid is that.

This statement is riddled with other inaccuracies and ‘inflammatory’ statements & indirectly raises the point that I made earlier – anti-death penalty campaigners try to create a guilt complex in those in favour of the DP.
Nobody, (that I know at least), desires the execution of an ‘innocent’. That is why I suggested elsewhere an independent examination of all ‘death-penalty’ cases to minimise the risk of an ‘innocent’ being executed.

A major factor that separates humanity (or even higher animals generally) from others is the creation of ‘societies’ to enable the majority to live meaningful lives. A consequence of that is there must be rules or ‘laws’ that everybody in that society must abide by. If an individual breaks any of those laws then some form of punishment has to be applied – otherwise what is the point of having laws.
To most people, the desire to live their lives free of violence is a major, if not the major, desire. To that end, crimes of violence, of which murder is the ultimate has to be punished the most severely.

I put it to you that there is little or no chance that many extreme murderers can ever be re-habilitated (even by claiming being ‘born-again’) &

I put it to you suppose your child, (female or even male), or your wife were raped (& literally ‘sh*gged to death), or violently murdered, would you be so forgiving of the perpetrator ?

I think not !

PS. I see in today’s DT that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted by a group of Belgian paedophiles. If it transpires, (& I hope to God, even tho’ I’m an atheist), that she has subsequently been murdered by these people, then how should they be punished ?
Madeleine McCann 'was snatched by paedophile ring to order' - Telegraph

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
G hall wrote:-

This statement is riddled with other inaccuracies and ‘inflammatory’ statements & indirectly raises the point that I made earlier – anti-death penalty campaigners try to create a guilt complex in those in favour of the DP.
Nobody, (that I know at least), desires the execution of an ‘innocent’. That is why I suggested elsewhere an independent examination of all ‘death-penalty’ cases to minimise the risk of an ‘innocent’ being executed.

A major factor that separates humanity (or even higher animals generally) from others is the creation of ‘societies’ to enable the majority to live meaningful lives. A consequence of that is there must be rules or ‘laws’ that everybody in that society must abide by. If an individual breaks any of those laws then some form of punishment has to be applied – otherwise what is the point of having laws.
To most people, the desire to live their lives free of violence is a major, if not the major, desire. To that end, crimes of violence, of which murder is the ultimate has to be punished the most severely.

I put it to you that there is little or no chance that many extreme murderers can ever be re-habilitated (even by claiming being ‘born-again’) &

I put it to you suppose your child, (female or even male), or your wife were raped (& literally ‘sh*gged to death), or violently murdered, would you be so forgiving of the perpetrator ?

I think not !

PS. I see in today’s DT that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted by a group of Belgian paedophiles. If it transpires, (& I hope to God, even tho’ I’m an atheist), that she has subsequently been murdered by these people, then how should they be punished ?
Madeleine McCann 'was snatched by paedophile ring to order' - Telegraph

Well said Clippo! You and I are in the majority with our view's, even though the, Lilly Lib' PC Human Rights appeasers try and claim otherwise!!

[Rep]