Extradite killers to the USA.

stmol32

topper75 wrote: »

Murder: person who dies is innocent

Execution: person who dies was a murderer

Too subtle for you?

By that logic :

Gangster B Kills Gangster A
Gangster C kills Gangster B because of Gangster A
Gangster D kills Gangster C because of Gangster B
Gangster E kills Gangster D because of Gangster C

Therefore no-one is guilty of murder except Gangster B

Junkyard Tom

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you think they would have a problem with that?

I'd say an 'Executioner Duty' clause tied to a yes vote would see a crushing defeat for the yes camp. Of course there would be those tough guys like you who'd happily flip the switch, and then go hunt buffalo with a penknife, but then people like that are exceptional.

jimgoose wrote: »

Is there anything at all to be said for Punishment By Catapult??

The Trebuchet version would be my preference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQLYHt-DM0Q

ohnonotgmail

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I'd say an 'Executioner Duty' clause tied to a yes vote would see a crushing defeat for the yes camp. Of course there would be those tough guys like like you who happily flip the switch and then go hunt buffalo with a penknife but then people like that are exceptional.

very kind of you to say so

Junkyard Tom

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

very kind of you to say so

You're welcome champ. Tell us about the time you knocked out a charging bull with one punch, again.

ohnonotgmail

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

You're welcome champ. Tell us about the time you knocked out a charging bull with one punch, again.

you would only pass out from the awesomeness, just like the last time

topper75

stmol32 wrote: »

By that logic :

Gangster B Kills Gangster A
Gangster C kills Gangster B because of Gangster A
Gangster D kills Gangster C because of Gangster B
Gangster E kills Gangster D because of Gangster C

Therefore no-one is guilty of murder except Gangster B

Would executing Gangster B for murder solve this problem?

Why, I do believe it might. You need to introduce a state-sponsored justice system into your model fast before it gets out of control! Preferably not a liberal state.

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No. you end with a prisoner that can basically do whatever they like.

Yes, prisoners serving life are often found out on the golf course, quaffing champagne and oysters whilst cavorting with super models.

Regardless, prison conditions should be more humane. Once you get past (if, indeed you are able to) an archaic need to impose harsh conditions on an individual you can start to look at the societal benefits to an appropriate prison regime.

Magico Gonzalez

catallus wrote: »

But lots of crimes occur in prisons too!

Indeed, caused by the conditions imposed by the prison system.

Do crimes occur in US death row prisons?

Hint, they do.

ohnonotgmail

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Yes, prisoners serving life are often found out on the golf course, quaffing champagne and oysters whilst cavorting with super models.

Regardless, prison conditions should be more humane. Once you get past (if, indeed you are able to) an archaic need to impose harsh conditions on an individual you can start to look at the societal benefits to an appropriate prison regime.

sigh. what a pathetic reply.

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sigh. what a pathetic reply.

Well, the first sentence was necessarily sarcastic given the generally inane thrust of your point (if we don't kill prisoners who commit grave crimes they "do whatever they want" in prison), the second sentence is a statement addressing what we as a society want to achieve with our justice system.

It find it odd either sentence seemingly leaves you unable to respond with more than a misplaced sense of the validity of your own populist, paper thin argument.

dont bother

i was going to say to bring in the death penalty for murderers, but then i thought about it, and how "justice" works in this country, and came to the conclusion that, if you ever defend yourself against scum in a fight or you're being bet in the street, and you accidentally kill someone, then you would also be liable for the death penalty.

i think they just need to send out plane tickets to all the tax paying upstanding citizens who contribute to society, get them on the planes, send them off for a while, and then.... NUKE the entire country and start again without the scum.

ohnonotgmail

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Well, the first sentence was necessarily sarcastic given the generally inane thrust of your point (if we don't kill prisoners who commit grave crimes they "do whatever they want" in prison), the second sentence is a statement addressing what we as a society want to achieve with our justice system.

It find it odd either sentence seemingly leaves you unable to respond with more than a misplaced sense of the validity of your own populist, paper thin argument.

is that the royal "we" you are using?

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is that the royal "we" you are using?

If it troubles you so, read the paragraph without the "we." Use "the justice system" if it helps you to the end of the sentence.

Semantics, a false friend for many a fool.

ohnonotgmail

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

If it troubles you so, read the paragraph without the "we." Use "the justice system" if it helps you to the end of the sentence.

...

meh, got bored after that.

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

meh, got bored after that.

Semantics, then "meh".

I suppose those were the last options open to you.

ohnonotgmail

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Semantics, then "meh".

I suppose those were the last options open to you.

nah, i still have patriotism to fall back on.

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nah, i still have patriotism to fall back on.

Indeed.

ohnonotgmail

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Indeed.

and if you can tell me why that is the case i will admit you were right.

end of the road

Hachiko wrote: »

In light of the tragic events in Glasgow, I see no reason why say the governments of Ireland and the UK could reach some agreement to send people convicted of crimes like this to the USA, where they can be put on death row.

Seriously, crimes like this are the lowest of the low and I am sure the cost of sending these vile people abroad can be subsidised by tax payers.

I am all in.

so. we get someone else to deal with our problems, who has more problems then we ever could have, just to satisfy the blood lust of a couple of wild animals who continue to support a backward punishment? and with all the appeals and the costs involved, we'd be bankrupt within a year. the death penalty is gone from ireland and the uk, it was abolished for good reason, get over it, move on, its not coming back

topper75

dont bother wrote: »

i was going to say to bring in the death penalty for murderers, but then i thought about it, and how "justice" works in this country, and came to the conclusion that, if you ever defend yourself against scum in a fight or you're being bet in the street, and you accidentally kill someone, then you would also be liable for the death penalty.

Troubled as our system is, it is still capable of taking mitigating factors into account. Nobody gets an injection/rope/chair in any system in the world that I know of for merely defending themselves.

end of the road

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

I'm all for that but the do gooders in this country would never allow it.

who are these "do gooders" oh, they only exist in your head because you can't get what you want, grand so. now, in the real world, whats stopping the death penalty from being brought back, is EU law, and the fact the people voted to remove it altogether as they realized it achieves nothing and has no place in a modern country. but, if ranting about mythical "do gooders" helps, then don't let me stop you

Magico Gonzalez

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if you can tell me why that is the case i will admit you were right.

You say tomato, I say tomato, let's call the whole thing off.

I'll sleep soundly enough without your admissions. My views are there in black and white in my previous posts.

topper75

"wild animals" "backwards"

Interesting terms. A system where there is retribution through an established system for crimes commited is a mark of civilisation. No retribution, on the other hand, is what happens in the wild e.g. Mad Max.

Backwards is a term used by liberals for anything they don't like. They tend to label their own suggestions as forward or progressive. What do they think they are progressing to when people who commit heinous crimes are not facing meaningful retribution?

end of the road

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

A lot of u.s states have outsourced there prison systems to private companies, these would be glad to take our inmates for a fee.

yeah. the reason being "get it done on the cheep and f//k the problems" . keep the issues seen and not heard if you will. look at the problems its caused. private companies have no place being involved in such a system. its the states job.

end of the road

Whosthis wrote: »

The prison system in the U.S is a multi-billion dollar industry. Most prisons have capacity quotas, I would imagine they'd be delighted to take our prisoners. Have a read of this http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_prison_state_of_america_20141228

no wonder america is the way it is with this nonsense. no incentives for prisoners to reform or go straight. everything is put in their way so they will fail and end up back in prison to be screwed for more proffit by these paracitic companies (sorry i mean pay off their debt) disgusting. while our prison system is far from perfect in terms of rehabilitation, at least in some ways it tries. it needs to try harder though. but yes . we should send our lot out there so these paracites can proffit off slavery instead.

end of the road

Hachiko wrote: »

or even a country like Thailand, i am sure they would love our tax money to send these cretins to the lovely jails they have., the cost of sending them away to a place like that would be a lot less than it costs the tax payer in Ireland/UK to keep them in jail, and feeding the pricks.

it wouldn't. it would cost more

Magico Gonzalez

topper75 wrote: »

"wild animals" "backwards"

Interesting terms. A system where there is retribution through an established system for crimes commited is a mark of civilisation. No retribution, on the other hand, is what happens in the wild e.g. Mad Max.

Backwards is a term used by liberals for anything they don't like. They tend to label their own suggestions as forward or progressive. What do they think they are progressing to when people who commit heinous crimes are not facing meaningful retribution?

The argument is that retribution is transitory and does not address the wider needs of the society it seeks to protect.

It does not act as a deterrent, the most important issue. For me as important is the understanding that the justice system is fallible. By killing people you are making an absolute statement that the justice system is perfect and always correct. If you are killing people and do not believe in that perfection then what? You are ok with the idea of "accidentally" killing a handful of people every year as a trade off to the ideal of killing as an act of permanent restitution to the victims family? I don't believe that holds true.

Admitting the fallibility of the justice system should prevent us from killing criminals and should force us to constantly monitor and review the justice system against a clear set of measurable objectives. How many times did we get it wrong on, how many times were the police force complicit in falsifying evidence etc etc.

If anyone can read Debra Milke's story and still think state killing of prisoners is wise, well..I would feel genuinely worried about their sense of morality.

end of the road

topper75 wrote: »

Whereas the halting of all murder here coincided with the removal of the punishment from our books?

The only shine I see is off the glazed eyeballs of liberals and dogooder innocents from privileged backgrounds who don't grasp how heinous the crime of murder really is.

a post full of old rabel with the usual buzz terms thrown in . people like you need to get it into your heads that not everyone who has experienced a murder will think the same, and that being effected by murder isn't exclusive to the non privileged

end of the road

topper75 wrote: »

Murder: person who dies is innocent

Execution: person who dies was a murderer

Too subtle for you?

which means those carying out and sanctioning the execution are also murderers. so can the family of the executed have those people killed in revenge? after all the death penalty is a life for a life so therefore such execution of the judge and executioner would be acceptable and legitimate surely.

end of the road

catallus wrote: »

When properly implemented, the death penalty results in a recidivism rate of precisely zero.

so does life in prison. but neither stop others from murdering. but if you really are against killing, then you won't support killing to show killing is wrong, because it actually shows that it is right