gcol said:
What I meant is, that I don't think it's a clever or smart opinion, just how I feel.
But you said this:
With my hand on my heart, I could do that without a second thought. If you knew me you'd know I mean it.
So are you now saying that you only wish you could, not that you actually would?
Softus said:
Who's talking about killing murderers?
You are - you wrote this:
The worst criminals - the lifers should be gassed.
Or did you mean that you would gas lifers
except murderers?
I'm talking about extinguishing the lives of people that commit attempted murder, I'm not bothered whether they actually manage it or not - attempted murder warrants execution in my opinion.
Er, you've lost me. I now can't work out who you want to kill and who you want to preserve.
Has any of your family been subjected to attempted murder Softus?
Not that I'm aware of, but what's that got to do with a discussion of whether or not the state should legislate to kill people?
Softus said:
Or is it your argument that the murder of murderers should be legalised?
Not legalised as such so that the public have free reign, that's not what I mean. The death penalty needs re-introducing.
The death penalty is currently illegal, so introducing it would mean legalising the murder of murderers, or the killing of killers, whichever way you want to express it. It would also mean the murder of wrongly convicted non-murderers, or the killing of wrongly convicted non-killers.
Softus said:
If so, what's your plan for dealing with miscarriages of justice that are discovered too late, i.e. after an innocent person was convicted of murder and then murdered?
There will always be the odd case that goes wrong, sh*t happens and I accept that. I accept that there would be big compensation claims every now and then, but in my opinion (and that's all I can offer) wiping out the scum of the Earth is a bigger benefit.
So let me see if I've got this right...
You seriously wish that the law should be changed so that all people convicted of murder should be killed. If someone was later found to be innocent, then you'd give that person's family some money. But if no evidence of the dead person's innocence emerged, then you wouldn't give their families anything.
Have I got that right? Is that how you see it would work?
So would you give money to the family of the murderer's victim? Or is the killing supposed to be the compensation?
Have you asked your MP to table this proposal in parliament? Or don't you feel strongly enough about it to write to your MP? It would be odd if you didn't, since you felt strongly enough about it to suggest it on the open forum.
Just in case you have, I'll now write to my MP and ask him to ensure, at every opportunity that he ever has, to vote against the death penalty. If everyone who had a strong belief did this, then the very thing that was made illegal in 1999 would never again be legal.