How much does it cost to employ 315 nurses?

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
26,004
10,770
263
That's a different argument to what Brighton was suggesting.
The burden of proof remains the same but the sentencing triggers the death penalty.
There’s also been 20+ successful appeals against whole life sentences. So what next? Include life sentences? Because everyone of those appeals the sentence was downgraded to life with a right to apply for parole. There‘a some real scum bags on the list too including “Mr Whiting” who somebody seems to think is still on a full life sentence. Some are even now free men under the terms of the GFA.
 
Last edited:

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
7,360
2,816
163
Shall we take the example of someone like Dylann Roof? People saw him do it, he admitted he did it and spoke at length about why he did it. As guilty as is humanly possible.
Yes but what happens when you think so is that guilty but turns out they are not?

You kill someone innocent.

So thus there is no moral argument for the death penalty that isn't flawed.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
21,321
6,679
263
Coventry
That's a different argument to what Brighton was suggesting.
The burden of proof remains the same but the sentencing triggers the death penalty.
Yes but what happens when you think so is that guilty but turns out they are not?

You kill someone innocent.

So thus there is no moral argument for the death penalty that isn't flawed.
People saw him do it and he was quite proud of having done it. If you can’t accept even that is proof then why waste our time convicting anyone for a crime?
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
20,450
21,867
263
People saw him do it and he was quite proud of having done it. If you can’t accept even that is proof then why waste our time convicting anyone for a crime?
Really? You can't see the flaw in different levels of sentencing depending different levels of evidence?
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
7,360
2,816
163
Sorry there I was more responding to DOD
you were changing the argument yet again, at no stage did I say anything about the guilt of Dylan Roof. I said there will be people who people will say are 100% guilty who won't be.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
21,321
6,679
263
Coventry
you were changing the argument yet again, at no stage did I say anything about the guilt of Dylan Roof. I said there will be people who people will say are 100% guilty who won't be.
He's a counter example and there are quite a few others who would be as well. If people see the guy doing it and he's boasting about it or otherwise admitting it, the guilt can't even be questioned. Then one stage below that you have the likes of Bundy, the Wests, Shipman etc where the physical evidence is overwhelming even without the circumstantial. What these people did is indisputable and in many cases with serial killers the true number of victims will be higher than the confirmed figure.

If you want a moral case about why such characters deserve to live then make one but don't go off on this tangent about them maybe being innocent
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
7,360
2,816
163
He's a counter example and there are quite a few others who would be as well. If people see the guy doing it and he's boasting about it or otherwise admitting it, the guilt can't even be questioned. Then one stage below that you have the likes of Bundy, the Wests, Shipman etc where the physical evidence is overwhelming even without the circumstantial. What these people did is indisputable and in many cases with serial killers the true number of victims will be higher than the confirmed figure.

If you want a moral case about why such characters deserve to live then make one but don't go off on this tangent about them maybe being innocent
he does not counter anything and is yet another strawman

What I was saying was no matter how guilty someone may appear to be sometimes they are not guilty. Thus you run the risk of killing an innocent man.

As I said I have not entered into a conversation about the guilt of any individual person so please stope with the fucking strawman, tangent deflections.
 

dutchman

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2010
3,920
1,304
163
Spon End
So he should've been executed anyway is what you're saying?
Not at all. I'm saying that if he indeed "had a mental age of thirteen" then he was not totally responsible for his actions and should have been incarcerated in a suitable institution, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer.
 

dutchman

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2010
3,920
1,304
163
Spon End
I’ve never said he wasn’t responsible for his actions. I said him being trialed, convicted and hung for murder was wrong, which it was as 40years of appeals proved. How are you not getting this?
No you said that he was tried today he would only serve a couple of years in jail on account of having a mental age of thirteen.

Here's the post:

 

Philosorapter

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2013
2,677
1,252
213
Great little documentary here.

 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,378
18,040
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
For the record though I do think in cases of the truly abhorrent crimes where guilt is flagrantly obvious I think the criminal has forfeited the right to live. It’s the estimated 4% of cases where an innocent person is executed by the state that have me believe it should never be reinstated as a blanket punishment for murder
Whats abhorrent? How do you codify that into law in a way that’s equitable and not open to abuse? There’s people that think gay sex is abhorrent, or abortion, or massive fraud, or terrorism, or child neglect.

I was reading an article recently with a concept of “censorship jealousy” that quite powerfully argued for free speech absolutionism on the grounds that say you ban hate speech against one group youve then got to allow it for more and more groups until you’re banning blasphemy and vegan jokes.

Same applies here. You say crime against kids are abhorrent. I ask why not the elderly. Someone else says why not racist murders. Someone else asks why murder is worse than rape. Someone else neglect or abuse. Someone else that destroying people’s livelihoods is the same. And so on and so on.

And that bar doesn’t stay in one place over time.

I think there’s also something about officially losing redemption as a concept that I don’t like as a society. It’s not something I have fixed thoughts on, but the idea that people can cross a line and never be allowed back no matter what troubles me.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
21,321
6,679
263
Coventry
Whats abhorrent? How do you codify that into law in a way that’s equitable and not open to abuse? There’s people that think gay sex is abhorrent, or abortion, or massive fraud, or terrorism, or child neglect.

I was reading an article recently with a concept of “censorship jealousy” that quite powerfully argued for free speech absolutionism on the grounds that say you ban hate speech against one group youve then got to allow it for more and more groups until you’re banning blasphemy and vegan jokes.

Same applies here. You say crime against kids are abhorrent. I ask why not the elderly. Someone else says why not racist murders. Someone else asks why murder is worse than rape. Someone else neglect or abuse. Someone else that destroying people’s livelihoods is the same. And so on and so on.

And that bar doesn’t stay in one place over time.

I think there’s also something about officially losing redemption as a concept that I don’t like as a society. It’s not something I have fixed thoughts on, but the idea that people can cross a line and never be allowed back no matter what troubles me.
We’re talking about murder, the most serious crime in the legal system and it always will be. The law does already discriminate between different types and my comment is centred around your Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers compared to ‘red mist’ killings. I don’t expect my opinion to become law I just don’t see why they deserve to stay alive after what they’ve done and their guilt is as obvious as can be.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,378
18,040
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
We’re talking about murder, the most serious crime in the legal system and it always will be. The law does already discriminate between different types and my comment is centred around your Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers compared to ‘red mist’ killings. I don’t expect my opinion to become law I just don’t see why they deserve to stay alive after what they’ve done and their guilt is as obvious as can be.
Theres murder and murder though. Look at this list of crimes ranked by significance. Actually a terror attack ranks above murder and murder during rape above child murder. What number would you put as the threshold for the death penalty?

7110AD3E-7F02-40C4-96E4-0F950B482ED5.jpeg
D091EFD2-DEB1-45AC-AC6F-DB0CDA77EAAC.jpeg
That’s from the 70s, you can already see things that would’ve changed today.

And again, are you saying you’re 100% confident in the neuroscience that humans can pass a point of no return morally? I’m not.