Don't forgot Pop, the good old US of A is awash with all kinds of firearms, legal and illegal. Firearms dramatically increase man's ability to kill!
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Just want to ask all the anti death penalty people here, if a dog was to bite you and cause an injury, would you want that dog to be destroyed? But you'd fight to the death to prevent the death penalty for the person who comes along and randomly kills your entire family in a botched robbery?
The dog acts out of instinct and probably doesn't know any better.
Humans are supposedly intelligent beings with the knowledge of right and wrong and should know better.
I know which one should be judged more harshly.
Additionally, what is more brutal, the society that executes violent criminals who are a risk to the rest of the community, or the society that lets violent criminals live to wander the streets and do more damage?
The dog acts out of instinct and probably doesn't know any better.
Humans are supposedly intelligent beings with the knowledge of right and wrong and should know better.
I know which one should be judged more harshly.
Additionally, what is more brutal, the society that executes violent criminals who are a risk to the rest of the community, or the society that lets violent criminals live to wander the streets and do more damage?
I wouldn't wish for a dog to be destroyed for biting me. I'd like harsh penalties and education for it's owner who is responsible for training and restraining it. I simply don't believe in deliberate murder whether it's legal or otherwise. I also don't believe convicted murderers should have wall to wall luxuries, funded sex changes, unlimited internet, legal aid etc either.
TigerForce said:
And that's why I included my understanding in terms of "crimes of passion". I can't predict to a certainty how I'd react but I can be fairly sure that if I happened upon someone being violent with a member of my family I think my instinctive, natural reaction would be violent in their defence, depending on what I found maybe even fatally so. If I found out later, would I be as violent and reactive? I'm not as sure. Do I think this is how "The State" should do business, absolutely not. I would like to live in a society that is able to think about, and talk about these issues without reducing it to base, emotive "an eye for an eye" sentiments.
KnightersRevenge said:
Isn't that what lead to the continuous 'all talk, no action' outcries of bureaucratic governments we still have? ;D
I'm quite sure executions are previewed and verified before any action is taken.
There are many stats to look at, but saying that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrence, is the same as any other warning that doesn't work mainly because of ignorant and naive morons who act with brazen attitudes (road deaths, speeding, hooning are good examples) no matter how many times these occur or the cops yell out. Then again, maybe we have a society which has grown with the latest fad in becoming a 'martyr' after committing a crime (hence, they want to be killed). How's Jihadi John doing out there?
TigerForce said:
Verified how? We know for a fact that people innocent of the crime of which they were convicted, have been killed (DNA, new evidence etc...) My point was I would like to live in a society that after proper consideration and thought would not conclude that murder was the solution as I don't believe it is ever a solution.
KnightersRevenge said:
If a jury decides the death penalty, I'm sure they would 'review' (not preview....sorry wrong word I used) and then verify that decision before action is taken. Isn't that the 'thought and consideration' you mentioned?
Going by your 'innocent man' method, wouldn't there be prisoners remaining in jail for years before they are executed which gives their lawyers time to prove his/her innocence?
My original point in the death penalty was more for the criminals who are 100% guilty no matter how many times you look at it (I gave Jihadi John as a perfect example)
TigerForce said:
And we are back to TF's "this person is 60% guilty, this person is 87% guilty, hang on, this guy is 110% guilty!"
Guilty is a binary concept TF - you are guilty or not guilty, just like you are pregnant or not pregnant.
antman said:
What's the binary code got to do with this?
0 or 1, black or white, yes or no..... haven't I already mentioned 'guilty'? Isn't that what we're talking about already? How does 'not guilty' come into this?
Just saying, again, that certain types who are proven guilty deserve death penalty more than others who are also proven guilty. You mentioned it before with extenuating or exacerbating circumstances. Wouldn't you agree that someone like Julian Bryant deserves it more than someone committing manslaughter.....all depending on the case. I know KR mentions circumstances with innocent people killed but I'm sure they'd be held in jail long enough to prove their innocence before any execution takes place.
Motion to censure Brandis in the Senate is passed! Ouch -
I move that the senate censures the attorney-general (Senator Brandis) for:
(1) failing to defend the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, from malicious attacks;
(2) seeking to obtain the resignation of Professor Triggs by facilitating the offer of an alternative role that would have required her to relinquish her position as President;
(3) refusing to fully account for his conduct when appearing before a committee of the Senate;
(4) undermining Australia’s commitment to upholding human rights; and
(5) being unfit to hold the office of Attorney-General.
I move that the senate censures the attorney-general (Senator Brandis) for:
(1) failing to defend the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, from malicious attacks;
(2) seeking to obtain the resignation of Professor Triggs by facilitating the offer of an alternative role that would have required her to relinquish her position as President;
(3) refusing to fully account for his conduct when appearing before a committee of the Senate;
(4) undermining Australia’s commitment to upholding human rights; and
(5) being unfit to hold the office of Attorney-General.
TigerForce said:
Not binary code - a binary decision. Guilty/Not Guilty. In your previous post you again said "Death Penalty if 100% guilty!!!" Is there any other type of guilty but 100%?
Anyway, whatever. You are in favour of the death penalty, I get that. Move on.
antman said:
Unanimous decision by a jury of 12 or 13 would equal 100% guilty. I'm not saying there's any numerical formula used. Don't take things so literally.
Yes, move on, coz Blue Tie Tone's gotta confront a possible spill soon.
TigerForce said:
Again you miss the point. It doesn't matter if it's unanimous or not, it's guilty or not guilty. Binary. It's a pretty simple concept.
And now you have yet another approach - unanimous juries. So far we've had "number of witnesses", judge decisions "according to law", and executions being "previewed". Seems like a bit of a dog's breakfast TBH tf.
Roll on the leadership spill.
antman said:
You're the one who's mushed the words for it to become a dog's breakfast. You keep harping on with this binary stuff. OK, we now know the accused is guilty, OK? A decision has been made. The binary component we now see is 'guilty', OK? Now we talk about the sentence (death penalty or not), OK?
My original point below might sound a bit generalised but it's just saying that a death penalty would be more appropriate (deserved) for a convicted person who committed murder in front of many witnesses who have testified against him/her, pled guilty, and was given a unanimous verdict by the jury, when compared to someone who was only voted 60/40, 70/30 etc.. by a jury (i.e. some jurors have a reason/opinion as to why he/she could be 'not guilty') Do I have to mention Julian Knight for the umpteenth time?
TigerForce said:
The point here is who deserves the death penalty. We already know the person is guilty.
Your Thin Blue Line reply about witnesses committing perjury can happen, but as that story panned out, he was still alive and released later which is what I meant about 'review' (I posted that 'preview' was an incorrect word I typed) and verification of a jury's decision before any execution takes place. The convicted is jailed but there would be time for appeal and re-trials etc... before execution is confirmed so all is not lost.
