Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Now you have to pay for food and a facility to house the criminals. When such a senseless crime is committed (like this one for instance) you should just take them out back after trial and shoot them. Done.

Agreed. I wish our British legal system thought this way.

What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

I've never ever got a decent answer to this question.

Bullockist wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

I've never ever got a decent answer to this question.

Everyone is guilty of something. On that logic, non are innocent.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

Well the very very obvious answer is we don't shoot those who are innocent. But those who are proven guilty come down with a serious case of lead poisoning.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

Well the very very obvious answer is we don't shoot those who are innocent. But those who are proven guilty come down with a serious case of lead poisoning.

The point being that there is a list ten miles long of people who have been "proven guilty" and later turned out to be completely innocent, imprisoned because of police stich-ups, incompetent handling of evidence, racial profiling, or the assignation of a shoddy free lawyer. Many of them have been on the USA's death row.

So I'll ask the pertinent question again: how many innocent lives is it worth to fulfill the revenge fantasies of death penalty supporters?

Anyone else think the titled is really badly worded?

"Reasonless murder of an eight year old girl" or "Eight year old girl murdered for no reason" or "murder of an eight year old girl, for no reason" would all be better...

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Anyone else think the titled is really badly worded?

"Reasonless murder of an eight year old girl" or "Eight year old girl murdered for no reason" or "murder of an eight year old girl, for no reason" would all be better...

It was irking me too. My vote goes for the second one.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happens in the hypothetical situation where we discover that the people we thought were guilty weren't?

Well the very very obvious answer is we don't shoot those who are innocent. But those who are proven guilty come down with a serious case of lead poisoning.

The point being that there is a list ten miles long of people who have been "proven guilty" and later turned out to be completely innocent, imprisoned because of police stich-ups, incompetent handling of evidence, racial profiling, or the assignation of a shoddy free lawyer. Many of them have been on the USA's death row.

So I'll ask the pertinent question again: how many innocent lives is it worth to fulfill the revenge fantasies of death penalty supporters?

Not to mention that it's pretty hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone. Shouldn't the executioner be killed then, for killing the criminal?

Killing someone isn't wrong by itself. It would have to be murder for it to be wrong.

Otherwise, anybody who killed someone accidentally, in self-defense, or as an act of war would be guilty of murder. They aren't.

So its perfectly acceptable to execute someone for murder because they have proven they are a menace to society and their life is forfeit. They must be removed to protect society because while they are alive they remain a threat. Not many dead people that continue to murder.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So its perfectly acceptable to execute someone for murder because they have proven they are a menace to society and their life is forfeit. They must be removed to protect society because while they are alive they remain a threat. Not many dead people that continue to murder.

Except people can be falsely accused of murder, trials for the death penalty tend to be more expensive as it's as you're dealing with the live of people and you could also remove the threat by turning the criminal into a well-behaved, law-abiding, productive citizen.