Man on death row for 25 years walks free

[Mr Clowning]

I take it you also think one labour voter should be put to death to compensate for each innocent person killed in the wars they involved us in.

 

How are you coming up with this stuff ? The clue is in the word 'War'.

 

Innocent people do get killed in wars, yes, but you don't set out to do that and have rules and regulations to try keep it to a minimum. Your saying we should have laws that do the opposite of that in regards to people victims of miscarriages of justice.

[ivanava]

And so must be the same for them, or are you different ?

If you haven't realised that all humans are different, with different likes and dislikes, then I'm afraid you are out of your depth in this discussion.

 

 

 

 

If the worst thing imaginable is being locked up for a long time then why would you want to give them a release from that punishment, surely you adopt a punishment that will try to put others off and as you say yourself the worst thing for you would be locking up and not being executed.

Because I'm not vindictive and would prefer the food, water and care they receive goes to some more worthy of it.

 

 

 

No I am not saying that, I have not mentioned war which is a totally different thing where you kill in defense of the nation. Have you noticed how we don't kill everyone in the country when we go to war and try to just kill the enemy ?

 

Why is it different, surly it is state sanctioned murder to drop bombs on innocent people.

 

But your asking me to come up with statistics to show we already have the best policy when it is you that's suggesting we change it so its for you to come up with some figures which you cannot or you would have already.

 

So you simply assume that because it is government policy it must be the best policy. If that is how you form opinions, who am I to argue.

 

 

That does not make sense, how do you know who is more deserving of life, who are you to make that judgment, or even the state ?

 

I doubt I will change your mind if you value the life of a murder higher than the life of someone that as done no wrong.

[mjw47]

I take it you also think one labour voter should be put to death to compensate for each innocent person killed in the wars they involved us in.

 

I imagine you will also want one of the no voters put to death each time a convicted criminal is released from prison and goes on to kill an innocent person.

 

No to the first,but would definitely consider putting a few politicians to death as they were the ones responsible.

 

Actually, as I don't believe in the death penalty I'd even spare them, as far as execution is concerned, but would definitely like to see a few in prison.

 

I am in favour of life meaning life though, so a murderer would not get any opportunity to kill an innocent person again.

[skinz]

Not at all, I'm saying the worst punishment for me would be locked up for life.

Not if you had telly and a Ps2..

 

My bold:

Then commit suicide, or are you suggesting the state remove that right because the state fears losing retribution?

 

Like you I couldn't think of a worse situation than losing my freedom for the rest of my life. If I decide to commit suicide in order to avoid that then I've made the decision. What you have failed to grasp is mans natural ability to survive..it goes against his natural instinct to want to die in order to not die...being as "life is worse than death".

 

Regarding the man who's been released..let's go back 25yrs. Using your logic and you had the judicial power, but not at the time know of his innocence, but only his perceived guilt.. would you have executed him?

[ivanava]

How are you coming up with this stuff ? The clue is in the word 'War'.

 

Innocent people do get killed in wars, yes, but you don't set out to do that and have rules and regulations to try keep it to a minimum. Your saying we should have laws that do the opposite of that in regards to people victims of miscarriages of justice.

 

So in your world its OK to risk killing an innocent person in war, but it isn't OK to risk killing an innocent person whilst protecting innocent people from murderers, the law also doesn't set out to convict an innocent person, but every now and then someone that is innocent will be found guilty. The only way to avoid such miscarriages of justice is to avoid prosecuting criminals.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 19:34 ----------

 

Not if you had telly and a Ps2..

 

why would you want to provide murderers with more entertainment, more food and more care than people that haven't murderers anyone.

 

 

My bold:

Then commit suicide, or are you suggesting the state remove that right because the state fears losing retribution?

 

Like you I couldn't think of a worse situation than losing my freedom for the rest of my life. If I decide to commit suicide in order to avoid that then I've made the decision. What you have failed to grasp is mans natural ability to survive..it goes against his natural instinct to want to die in order to not die...being as "life is worse than death".

 

Plenty of prisoners try to commit suicide and some succeed whilst some fail because of staff intervention.

 

 

Regarding the man who's been released..let's go back 25yrs. Using your logic and you had the judicial power, but not at the time know of his innocence, but only his perceived guilt.. would you have executed him?

I wouldn't have sent him to prison because there was clearly no evidence against him. In his shoes though I would have still preferred to die 25 years ago.

[Mr Clowning]

So in your world its OK to risk killing an innocent person in war, but it isn't OK to risk killing an innocent person whilst protecting innocent people from murderers, the law also doesn't set out to convict an innocent person, but every now and then someone that is innocent will be found guilty. The only way to avoid such miscarriages of justice is to avoid prosecuting criminals.

Do you realise how stupid your argument is ?

 

Why not go the whole hog then and genetically screen everyone and put them down at birth just in case they turn into murderers ?

 

The logic is stupid, if a murder commits murder then that's on his/her conscience. If an innocent person is killed then its on all our consciences.

 

You cannot give us any figures on how many people you would save so there fore I don't believe you and as we are talking peoples lives then we need to see some facts, so please 'put up or shut up' as they say.

[ivanava]

Do you realise how stupid your argument is ?

You haven't even put forward a counter argument, you have an opinion which is different to mine, you can't explain why you have the opinion you hold, but anyone with a different opinion must be stupid, that says more about you than it says about me.

 

 

The logic is stupid, if a murder commits murder then that's on his/her conscience. If an innocent person is killed then its on all our consciences.

That is an illogical argument, you appear not to mind how many innocent people die as long as you can't be held in any way responsible. Would it not play on your conscience if innocent people die as a consequence of your inaction.

 

 

You cannot give us any figures on how many people you would save so there fore I don't believe you and as we are talking peoples lives then we need to see some facts, so please 'put up or shut up' as they say.

 

There isn't a requirement for you to believe me, I'm not even asking you to believe me, all I can do is express my opinion which is based the information I have seen. You appear intend on convincing me that I am wrong, yet you have failed to provide a single shed of evidence to change my mind.

[JFKvsNixon]

My opinion is that either you believe that the death penalty is morally ok, or you believe that it is morally wrong, numbers do not come into it. It is more of a qualitative argument rather than a quantitative argument. I was only asking for figures earlier on to try to understand another posters opinion, and I was interested in the facts that they said that they were basing their opinion on.

 

I really do not understand how it can be argued for on the basis of numbers.

[Mr Clowning]

You haven't even put forward a counter argument, you have an opinion which is different to mine, you can't explain why you have the opinion you hold, but anyone with a different opinion must be stupid, that says more about you than it says about me.

 

 

I have said several times, if your really not stupid then locate the previous pages and read it.

 

I have not said your stupid for having a different opinion, I say that for what that difference is.

 

Show us how many murderers have killed on release so we can form an opinion on whether its worth what your saying would be better, your trying to convince with just your opinion alone and I feel that maybe where your going wrong.

[ivanava]

I have said several times, if your really not stupid then locate the previous pages and read it.

 

I have not said your stupid for having a different opinion, I say that for what that difference is.

 

Show us how many murderers have killed on release so we can form an opinion on whether its worth what your saying would be better, your trying to convince with just your opinion alone and I feel that maybe where your going wrong.

 

Scouring the internet for all the convicted murders that have killed after release would be very time consuming, and because I am not trying to change your mind it would be a pointless waste of my time. But if you feel strongly enough about showing me that I am wrong, I would be happy to read your research after you have presented it.