Capital Punishment

[morqthana]

This is where ellal quietly disappears into the ether…..

Yep, gone to ground. Only reply I’ll get to that will be some sort of personal attack calling me a thug troll or some such swervy shyte.

Well, since you're in the business of criticising people for disappearing into the ether, and going to ground, and since, I'm sure, you would deny that you're a hypocrite, you will soon be replying to this without personally attacking me, won't you.

IRA apologist.

Using intelligence and reason, and ONLY intelligence and reason, please show how that accusation is justified.

 

[Vinty]

is the death intended to be a punishment too

Death is the ultimate punishment.
If a Judge asked any murderer upon conviction, do you prefer natural life in prison or hanged until you are dead.
What do you think the convicted murderer would chose.
The only problem I have with the death penalty is that the wrong person could be hanged.
There are some people in society who are so evil that death is the only way the victims families can find closure.
Keeping someone convicted of murder alive while their victims families are grieving for their lost one, is unnatural.

 

[Vinty]

I'm interested in Highwayman's suggestion that when an accused is not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he should be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour.

And that when a person is considered to be guilty, no trial is necessary before deciding to kill him.

That's a bit like the Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven' rather than not Guilty or Guilty.

 

[Vinty]

Talking of the IRA, you do know what the IRA did to keep local thugs and villains in order, don’t you? It worked

True to a point.
They used to give the villains a warning first, if they ignored it, they would be given an appointment time to turn up at to be shot, to be fair the IRA always called for an ambulance to collect them after they had been dealt with.
However if the thug was connected to a an IRA member , then, maybe the restorative justice guidelines would be interpretated differently.

 

[Mottie]

They used to give the villains a warning first, if they ignored it, they would be given an appointment time to turn up at to be shot, to be fair the IRA always called for an ambulance to collect them after they had been dealt with.

True Gentlemen.

 

[Mottie]

Well, since you're in the business of criticising people for disappearing into the ether, and going to ground, and since, I'm sure, you would deny that you're a hypocrite, you will soon be replying to this without personally attacking me, won't you.

There’s a world of difference between an off-duty soldier being targeted and slaughtered in the street during peace time to avenge Muslims over past events and one killed during an ongoing conflict. Nosey thinks there’s no difference where, when, how and why someone is killed if they are a soldier and mentioned the IRA. Perhaps you should be asking him why he thinks one is no less heinous than the other unless you feel the same way.

 

[noseall]

There’s a world of difference between an off-duty soldier being targeted and slaughtered in the street during peace time to avenge Muslims over past events and one killed during an ongoing conflict.

Not to most people no. A soldier being murdered is just as tragic whether that's by a dark person or a any other terrorist. Different for RWR racist Reform voting types, I agree.

 

[Mottie]

Not to most people no. A soldier being murdered is just as tragic whether that's by a dark person or an any other terrorist. Different for RWR racist Reform voting types, I agree.

My point was, off duty soldiers not involved in any conflict were not targeted and slaughtered in the streets by religious fanatics in the good old days.

 

[Highway Man]

HWM said:-

Maybe he wants to tattoo something on their forehead, or make them wear some kind of symbol, or their crime number etched on their wrist.

Car theft is not an aggravated offence, unless there is some aggravating factor associated with it.
I didn't make any mistake. I was fully aware of what I was saying, and of what HWM was suggesting.

No this is once again your trait of twisting sentences and words to suit your version, you missed out the all important couple of words just before you cut and pasted my comment, the first two words were "for aggravated" offences. Perfectly clear to those that have a comprehension of the English language.

 

[Highway Man]

Perhaps we should dunk them in water. If they drown they were innocent, but if they survive, they're guilty, so then you'll execute them.

HWM's suggestions are developing into farce. He's doing it intentionally so he can claim it was all a joke really.
Next he'll be suggesting some form of foundational legal document to establish guaranteed rights such as fair trials.
We could call it something like the "Great Charter".

Once again I could not be clearer on this, no joking about it but I would reject your suggestion of dunking them in water to establish guilt, I find that quite ridiculous and would pass that off as mere folly. You can call it what you want, the great charter or whatever, criminals who commit serious crime as in the examples that I have given in previous posts where there is no doubt that the offender is guilty, then this would carry an automatic death sentence. There is no right to a fair trial either, those rights were lost upon commiting such crimes.

 

[MNW67]

Once again I could not be clearer on this, no joking about it but I would reject your suggestion of dunking them in water to establish guilt, I find that quite ridiculous and would pass that off as mere folly. You can call it what you want, the great charter or whatever, criminals who commit serious crime as in the examples that I have given in previous posts where there is no doubt that the offender is guilty, then this would carry an automatic death sentence. There is no right to a fair trial either, those rights were lost upon commiting such crimes.

The problem there is that it becomes a slippery slope. We need to keep the transparency afforded by the trial process, even if in these sort of cases it seems pointless.

 

[MNW67]

No they weren't.

Your words were aggravated burglary and theft of cars. Two entirely different offences. One has the added descriptor of aggravated, and the other doesn't.
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.

The adjective 'aggravated' can carry over to cover both 'burglary' and 'car theft. So, it actually meant 'aggravated burglary and aggravated car theft'.

If an adjective (or determiner) appears before a list of two or more nouns, it is usually interpreted as modifying all of them.

 

[Highway Man]

The adjective 'aggravated' can carry over to cover both 'burglary' and 'car theft. So, it actually meant 'aggravated burglary and aggravated car theft'.

Exactly this and well he knows it, he is just being a silly billy and trying to twist again to somehow elevate himself but failed and went in the oppoosit direction of down rather than up. ?Funny isn't it how he and only he missed the obvious.

 

[transam]

How about bumping off those off who break into trade vans stealing tools ???

 

[Highway Man]

Would this be retrospective? Would it apply to, say crimes committed before the Great Charter?

I doubt there would be any benefit to try this notion as the days of the Magna Carter have well past their sell by date and the offenders would be dust by now.