Let's see them doing the Tyburn Jig!
OffTheBackAdam
Posts: 1,869
Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
0
Comments
-
Not been found guilty by the justice system yet so steady on...
0 -
Yeh but you can tell by how close his eyes are together that he's guilty!
Summer - Canyon Ultimate CF SLX 9.0 Team
Winter - Trek Madone 3.5 2012 with UDi2 upgrade.
For getting dirty - Moda Canon0 -
Thats true. Let's burn 'em.0
-
He looks like a Jeremy Kyle subject to me.
"....at the end of the day"
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
0 -
What else floats on water?
A DUCK!0 -
They are obviously guilty and anyone who defends them in court should be hanged with them.0
-
It's always the one who makes the emotional appeal on tv !!Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Remember the "people of Portsmouth" being outraged to find a paedeatrician in their midst. The beast.Death or Glory- Just another Story0
-
That's so true, I think I'll start a thread "What not to do if you murder someone"MattC59 wrote:It's always the one who makes the emotional appeal on tv !!
Item number 1: Do a TV interviewSummer - Canyon Ultimate CF SLX 9.0 Team
Winter - Trek Madone 3.5 2012 with UDi2 upgrade.
For getting dirty - Moda Canon0 -
Good old European Convention on Human rights
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
The problem being what do you do when you get it wrong, just the once? Say 'Well, they were probably guilty of something...' ???0
-
The title is "Let's see ..." I guess we'd auction the TV rights, and look at the ratings.TheEnglishman wrote:The problem being what do you do when you get it wrong, just the once? Say 'Well, they were probably guilty of something...' ???
The point is, once they've got that far, they're a loser. So Hang 'em High!
Might kill a load of inocents, but you have to balance that against the additional number of nurses who could be employed, paid for by the advertising revenue.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel << Give them this0
-
Anyone care to disagree that this bit of scum shouldn't swing?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?0
-
OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Anyone care to disagree that this bit of scum shouldn't swing?
No he shouldn't swing. Lock him up for the rest of his days but then have the image of every one of his victims on a constant loop shown in his cell. Also non-stop Arabic music piped into his cell 24/7 for the rest of his days. If he ain't officially mad now I'd make sure he was f*cking radio rental by the time his pathetic life was over.0 -
Do you think Breivik's conviction is unsound?johnfinch wrote:How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Cornerblock wrote:No he shouldn't swing. Lock him up for the rest of his days but then have the image of every one of his victims on a constant loop shown in his cell. Also non-stop Arabic music piped into his cell 24/7 for the rest of his days...
Arabic music ? Don't you mean Barry Manilow and an endless loop of The Sound of Music?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Do you think Breivik's conviction is unsound?johnfinch wrote:How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?
No, of course not. But you can't be convicted unless it looks like a sound case. Hang Breivik and you have to hang others. Eventually you'll start killing innocent people.
Put it this way - you have a room full of 100 convicted murders and a machine gun, and you know that only 98% of convictions are safe, so in all probability there are 2 innocent men/women in there. You are given the choice between either machine gunning them all or letting them pass through the room and into a prison where they will serve life sentences (unless of course their convictions are quashed). What would you do?0 -
johnfinch wrote:OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Do you think Breivik's conviction is unsound?johnfinch wrote:How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?
No, of course not. But you can't be convicted unless it looks like a sound case. Hang Breivik and you have to hang others. Eventually you'll start killing innocent people.
Put it this way - you have a room full of 100 convicted murders and a machine gun, and you know that only 98% of convictions are safe, so in all probability there are 2 innocent men/women in there. You are given the choice between either machine gunning them all or letting them pass through the room and into a prison where they will serve life sentences (unless of course their convictions are quashed). What would you do?
Shoot 98 and hope I picked the right 2 to save, probably best to have a massive game of eeny meeny miney mo to select the 2 otherwise it wouldn't be fair 0 -
So it's OK to torture someone but wrong to kill them?pinarello001 wrote:Cornerblock wrote:No he shouldn't swing. Lock him up for the rest of his days but then have the image of every one of his victims on a constant loop shown in his cell. Also non-stop Arabic music piped into his cell 24/7 for the rest of his days...
Arabic music ? Don't you mean Barry Manilow and an endless loop of The Sound of Music?Ecrasez l’infame0 -
BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
So it's OK to torture someone but wrong to kill them?pinarello001 wrote:Cornerblock wrote:No he shouldn't swing. Lock him up for the rest of his days but then have the image of every one of his victims on a constant loop shown in his cell. Also non-stop Arabic music piped into his cell 24/7 for the rest of his days...
Arabic music ? Don't you mean Barry Manilow and an endless loop of The Sound of Music?
Well you either believe in the Death Penalty or you don't, I do not, for reasons others have already given. Eventually an innocent person will be executed, which has happened.
Now you use the word torture, a bit over the top if you ask me, I am not proposing waterboarding or giving the murdering bastard electric shock treatment, but what's so wrong with giving him a constant reminder of all the lives he took. Granted the music treatment may, just may border on mental torture, (especially if it's Copacabana, Mandy or Edelweiss on a constant loop!) but I'd have no qualms in making Breivik's time behind bars as uncomfortable as possible.0 -
johnfinch wrote:OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Do you think Breivik's conviction is unsound?johnfinch wrote:How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?
No, of course not. But you can't be convicted unless it looks like a sound case. Hang Breivik and you have to hang others. Eventually you'll start killing innocent people.
Put it this way - you have a room full of 100 convicted murders and a machine gun, and you know that only 98% of convictions are safe, so in all probability there are 2 innocent men/women in there. You are given the choice between either machine gunning them all or letting them pass through the room and into a prison where they will serve life sentences (unless of course their convictions are quashed). What would you do?
I'm still waiting for an answer.0 -
johnfinch wrote:johnfinch wrote:OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Do you think Breivik's conviction is unsound?johnfinch wrote:How many murder convictions need to be overturned before proponents of the death penalty understand why some of us are against it?
No, of course not. But you can't be convicted unless it looks like a sound case. Hang Breivik and you have to hang others. Eventually you'll start killing innocent people.
Put it this way - you have a room full of 100 convicted murders and a machine gun, and you know that only 98% of convictions are safe, so in all probability there are 2 innocent men/women in there. You are given the choice between either machine gunning them all or letting them pass through the room and into a prison where they will serve life sentences (unless of course their convictions are quashed). What would you do?
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Shoot, let's not take any chances0 -
Just do a survey of the countries in the world that have the death penalty, and the ones which do not - and then decide which club you want to be a part of.
For me, civilised people don't kill people (except as a matter of mercy but that's a whole different debate) and there the argument stops for me.Faster than a tent.......0 -
A very difficult debate. To some failure to instigate a life for a life may condone the killing. Loved ones do not feel they get justice with sentencing in which life does not mean a lifetime's incarceration.
Many believe that the penal system now is generally too soft. Criminals have "rights" when surely loss of liberty should constitute a loss of those rights enjoyed by the law abiding public.
And what of the cost? Incarceration is expensive. Community service, is it working? Some would suggest re-introducing corporal punishment, the short sharp shock! Would you re-offend if it meant getting birched and not emptying bins for a week?
Perhaps the punishment should be decided by the victim of the crime. That's fairly egalitarian isn't it?0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:A very difficult debate. To some failure to instigate a life for a life may condone the killing. Loved ones do not feel they get justice with sentencing in which life does not mean a lifetime's incarceration.
Many believe that the penal system now is generally too soft. Criminals have "rights" when surely loss of liberty should constitute a loss of those rights enjoyed by the law abiding public.
And what of the cost? Incarceration is expensive. Community service, is it working? Some would suggest re-introducing corporal punishment, the short sharp shock! Would you re-offend if it meant getting birched and not emptying bins for a week?
Perhaps the punishment should be decided by the victim of the crime. That's fairly egalitarian isn't it?
Death penalty is plenty more expensive in the states than a full life sentence.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:A very difficult debate. To some failure to instigate a life for a life may condone the killing. Loved ones do not feel they get justice with sentencing in which life does not mean a lifetime's incarceration.
Many believe that the penal system now is generally too soft. Criminals have "rights" when surely loss of liberty should constitute a loss of those rights enjoyed by the law abiding public.
And what of the cost? Incarceration is expensive. Community service, is it working? Some would suggest re-introducing corporal punishment, the short sharp shock! Would you re-offend if it meant getting birched and not emptying bins for a week?
Perhaps the punishment should be decided by the victim of the crime. That's fairly egalitarian isn't it?
Death penalty is plenty more expensive in the states than a full life sentence.
Not so. The cost of appeals for clemency might ramp the cost up but the cost of throwing the switch (cheaper again if you do it on the night tariff) must be fairly negligible compared to the cost of 20 or 30 years of incarceration.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:A very difficult debate. To some failure to instigate a life for a life may condone the killing. Loved ones do not feel they get justice with sentencing in which life does not mean a lifetime's incarceration.
Many believe that the penal system now is generally too soft. Criminals have "rights" when surely loss of liberty should constitute a loss of those rights enjoyed by the law abiding public.
And what of the cost? Incarceration is expensive. Community service, is it working? Some would suggest re-introducing corporal punishment, the short sharp shock! Would you re-offend if it meant getting birched and not emptying bins for a week?
Perhaps the punishment should be decided by the victim of the crime. That's fairly egalitarian isn't it?
Death penalty is plenty more expensive in the states than a full life sentence.
Not so. The cost of appeals for clemency might ramp the cost up but the cost of throwing the switch (cheaper again if you do it on the night tariff) must be fairly negligible compared to the cost of 20 or 30 years of incarceration.
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051The states considering abolition, including Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and New Hampshire, have shifted the debate about capital punishment, at least in part, from morality to cost. Studies show that administering the death penalty is even more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. The intensive jury selection, trials and appeals required in capital cases can take over a decade and run up a huge tab for the state. Death row, where prisoners facing execution are kept in separate cells under intense observation, is also immensely costly.
A recent study by the Urban Institute, a think-tank, estimates that the death penalty cost Maryland's taxpayers $186m between 1978 and 1999. According to the report, a case resulting in a death sentence cost $3m, almost $2m more than when the death penalty was not sought.
Do I get a badge or something?0
