capital punishment..ivan milat..j.knight.p.dupas..and any other scum

[Rosy]

If you argue that the death penalty should not be applied because it is considered barbaric, won't deter others and won't bring the victims back or whatever, then you have to apply your arguments to any sort of punishment you propose. I'm trying to point out no punishment is capable of achieving any of these points.

I haven't really argued those things though and it seems to me you're trying to put words in my mouth, so to speak. I don't believe in execution for whatever reason and thankfully it's against the law in our country. Long may it remain that way. Amen.

 

[AngryAnt]

What doubt do you have that Julian Knight commited that crime then?

This has to be a troll.

I ain't going to explain the separation between the legal concepts of reasonable doubt and sentencing three times.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I haven't really argued those things though and it seems to me you're trying to put words in my mouth, so to speak. I don't believe in execution for whatever reason and thankfully it's against the law in our country. Long may it remain that way. Amen.

You have mentioned that the death penalty won't bring the victims back. Other posters have argued the other points against the death penalty.
Execution so to speak is legal in this country, it is not applied where humans are the culprits though. I have mentioned this in an earlier post which has been ignored and once again I would like to point out that humans seem incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions while at the same time condemning other animals to fates which we aren't prepared to impose on ourselves.

 

[Tiger74]

You have mentioned that the death penalty won't bring the victims back. Other posters have argued the other points against the death penalty.
Execution so to speak is legal in this country, it is not applied where humans are the culprits though. I have mentioned this in an earlier post which has been ignored and once again I would like to point out that humans seem incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions while at the same time condemning other animals to fates which we aren't prepared to impose on ourselves.

Wait, are you seriously comparing putting a bolt gun to the head of a cow to that of executing a human being?

Don't PETA have a mung bean BBQ or something you are missing?

 

[Liverpool]

This has to be a troll.
I ain't going to explain the separation between the legal concepts of reasonable doubt and sentencing three times.

Then stop wasting everybody's time on this thread.

There is no reasonable doubt, or any doubt whatsoever, that Julian Knight committed this crime in Hoddle Street...therefore, he should be given an injection.
I'm not asking for capital punishment to be a deterrent....I'm either asking for the state to have the death penalty undertaken for a crime such as this or the families of the victims to have the final say in what punishment he should receive.

That to me is a pretty simple concept.

Look at the Bali-bombers who are laughing and joking about slaughtering 88 Aussies.....and the victim's families saying they want them executed.
If the same crime happened here, why shouldn't these victims get the right to say whether scum like this should be killed or not?
At least then the families wouldn't have to endure this smiling cretin every year on their TV if he is injected and thrown in a hole 6-feet under.
At least the families can then grieve just for their loved ones and not wondering if these scumbags will one day get out or whether they are going to be let out on day trips and the like as part of their politically-correct soft-*smile* 'rehabilitation'.

Look at Julian Knight...trying to send letters to his victims...why should they be tormented by someone who should not be on thsi planet while their loved ones were gunned down in cold blood on their way home from work and the like?

It's time people like you woke up and smelt the roses....we are dealing with rabid dogs like Knight, Phillips, Milat, etc....and how to you get rid of a rabid dog.

 

[1eyedtiger]

No, I said in my earlier post that if my dog escapes and bites someone it will more than likely be put down but apparently it's ok for humans to go about doing pretty much as they please knowing that they will never be subjected to the same punishment. I'm a person that doesn't expect any more out of anyone else than I would of myself and I don't see any difference here.

If it's ok to put a dog down for biting someone (even if it only results in minor injury), then it's ok to put down a human who has murdered another. Anything else is a cop out and just shows the arrogance of the human race.

What did the cow do anyway?

There is big difference between punishment and killing for food.

 

[Tiger74]

No, I said in my earlier post that if my dog escapes and bites someone it will more than likely be put down but apparently it's ok for humans to go about doing pretty much as they please knowing that they will never be subjected to the same punishment. I'm a person that doesn't expect any more out of anyone else than I would of myself and I don't see any difference here.

If it's ok to put a dog down for biting someone (even if it only results in minor injury), then it's ok to put down a human who has murdered another. Anything else is a cop out and just shows the arrogance of the human race.

What did the cow do anyway?

There is big difference between punishment and killing for food.

Mate the difference is one is a dog, and the other is a human being.

We have a pup in this house, and my wife loves it like her daughter, but at the end of the day, it is just a dog.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Mate the difference is one is a dog, and the other is a human being.

We have a pup in this house, and my wife loves it like her daughter, but at the end of the day, it is just a dog.

And at the end of the day, mass murderers such a Julian Knight are just scum.
And why should dogs be subjected to harsher penalties than humans who should know better?

It is just a dog. I'm sure Hilter thought of them as just jews too.

 

[Tiger74]

And at the end of the day, mass murderers such a Julian Knight are just scum.
And why should dogs be subjected to harsher penalties than humans who should know better?

It is just a dog. I'm sure Hilter thought of them as just jews too.

Now you are seriously comparing the murder of 6 million Jews to putting down stray and feral dogs?

You really need to go eat your lentils while wearing your hemp poncho at the PETA love-fest

 

[AngryAnt]

Then stop wasting everybody's time on this thread.

You sir, are the time waster.

You are wasting everyone's time - including your own - because you don't understand the law. You don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt. You don't understand that reasonable doubt applies to a verdict of guilty or not guilty - and has nothing to do with sentencing.

There is no reasonable doubt, or any doubt whatsoever, that Julian Knight committed this crime in Hoddle Street...therefore, he should be given an injection.

If there was reasonable doubt, he would have been found not guilty. REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SENTENCING. Once he was found guilty, reasonable doubt or otherwise then has nothing to do with how he is sentenced. If the judge had the death sentence as an option, then and only then would they consider the facts of the case AS ALREADY PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and then choose whether the death sentence would apply.

This concept has nothing to do with the death sentence, or any sentence. By telling you this I am not arguing for or against the death sentence - I am pointing out a very very basic fact about the legal system.

Am I making any headway here?

 

[Tigers of Old]

If it's ok to put a dog down for biting someone (even if it only results in minor injury), then it's ok to put down a human who has murdered another. Anything else is a cop out and just shows the arrogance of the human race.

I've read some pretty laughable arguments on PRE before but this is right up there.

BTW I'm not too keen on killing dogs either.

 

[Liverpool]

You sir, are the time waster.

You are wasting everyone's time - including your own - because you don't understand the law. You don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt. You don't understand that reasonable doubt applies to a verdict of guilty or not guilty - and has nothing to do with sentencing.

If there was reasonable doubt, he would have been found not guilty. REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SENTENCING. Once he was found guilty, reasonable doubt or otherwise then has nothing to do with how he is sentenced. If the judge had the death sentence as an option, then and only then would they consider the facts of the case AS ALREADY PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and then choose whether the death sentence would apply.

This concept has nothing to do with the death sentence, or any sentence. By telling you this I am not arguing for or against the death sentence - I am pointing out a very very basic fact about the legal system.

Am I making any headway here?

No one cares about 'reasonable doubt' Antman...this thread is based on AFTER the court case and the punishment handed down.

Of course reasonable doubt has nothing to do with the actual sentencing, however the circumstances surrounding the crime mean that certain murderers get different sentences compared to other murderers.

In the case of Julian Knight where he was caught red-handed...then he is definitely up there on my list for the needle.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No one cares about 'reasonable doubt' Antman...this thread is based on AFTER the court case and the punishment handed down.

Of course reasonable doubt has nothing to do with the actual sentencing, however the circumstances surrounding the crime mean that certain murderers get different sentences compared to other murderers.

In the case of Julian Knight where he was caught red-handed...then he is definitely up there on my list for the needle.

I don't think you understand what the Antman is saying.

Do you think any judge, once a verdict has been reached, will say, "well because we can't be 100% sure, we won't sentence you to death" vs. "it was clear that you committed the crime and thus execution is warranted"????

I think not.

Once the verdict is reached, sentencing is based on the crime. Our justice system is based on proving beyond reasonable doubt and thus there are a number of examples of innocent individuals being convicted. Although you certainly can't fully compensate someone for years of wrongful imprisonment, the alternative of capital punishment is a tad more irreversible.

This is one of many arguments against the death penalty. It is an important one though, because the occasional state sanctioned murder of an innocent citizen vs. the benefits of capital punishment need to be weighed. I for one see NO benefit of capital punishment outside of the base motivations of vengeance....which when satisfied can be more damaging in the long term. So the decision is easy.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

And at the end of the day, mass murderers such a Julian Knight are just scum.
And why should dogs be subjected to harsher penalties than humans who should know better?

It is just a dog. I'm sure Hilter thought of them as just jews too.

This is one of the crazier things I have read on PRE.

However, what will killing the 'scum' that is Julian Knight achieve for you personally, the victims of the crime or for Australian society as a whole?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Exactly...you can't say how you will feel....so what we are really getting is an 'outsiders perspective' of doing the right thing in a perfect world, from someone who hasn't faced the pain of losing a loved one FOREVER in often tragic, horrific, and barbaric circumstances...where the family every day wonders what pain and agony that family member went through before they were killed.
Ask say Sofia Rodriguez's family....the 8 year old girl who Dante Arthurs strangled, stripped,and digitally penetrated her before propping her naked body against the cubicle wall and fleeing.
Would giving this cretin a needle cause a cycle of more violence and vengeance?
Put simply, no.

As far as I can tell, nor can you. You seem to like to outline the details of these barbaric crimes as if that will strengthen your arguments. Everyone involved in this debate is well aware of and equally disturbed by the nature of these crimes. Your repetition of them is a cheap shot to appeal to the base emotions, which seems to be your modus operandi.

So state-sanctioned murder doesn't cause more violence and vengeance? How do you know? Your assertions aside. What sort of message does it send? Do you want to live in a society where if a member of someone's family is murdered, the response is to murder the perpetrator. You take that concept out of the courtroom and you have a vendetta mentality, which if you look at human history only results in a cycle of bloodshed that can span generations.

The alternative to this is for the state to protect the populace from these sick individuals through incarceration and to make a clear statement that the killing of another human being, outside of self defence, is utterly taboo and is not the answer to any problems.

Actually, this was something I raised earlier in one of the threads (either this one of the 'Justice' one).
I think if we aren't going to have a state sanctioned death penalty, then at least give the victim's family a chance to do what they feel is appropriate.
They are the one's feeling the pain....and if they feel the death penalty is too harsh and that jail is the best option, then they would get my support for making this decision...as I think they have more of a right than people making an 'outsiders view' of political correctness.

Why don't you extend that logic to any crime.....I think you will find yourself in an unworkable and unjust cul de sac.

As others have stated, the killing of the perpetrator(s) achieves nothing and will not stop the pain of the victim's loved ones and, if they were the ones with the choice to do it, may ultimately do more harm than good.

 

[Rosy]

Am I making any headway here?

antman = :brickwall ;D

 

[AngryAnt]

.. redundant post.

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't think you understand what the Antman is saying.

Do you think any judge, once a verdict has been reached, will say, "well because we can't be 100% sure, we won't sentence you to death" vs. "it was clear that you committed the crime and thus execution is warranted"????

Thanks PT. I sometimes get the feeling I am flogging an executed horse when it comes to explaining things to Livers.

 

[Six Pack]

I appreciate yr efforts, Antman, you help clarify issues for me, in a simple way that i can understand.

 

[ssstone]

Prison doesn't act as a deterrent?

not to peter dupas it didnt.