He shouldn't be given the opportunity even if he's been assumed no longer to have the capability.
Incidently btw, the police don't particularly protect us, they are really there as a mopping up service when the laws of the land aren't follow. The protection is a myth.
The thing that protects us, is peoples agreement to abide by laws. Laws are irrelevant if the masses don't follow them.
You can't have much confidence in our police officers if you think they're at threat from a pensioner
Is this pensioner armed?
Incidently btw, the police don't particularly protect us, they are really there as a mopping up service when the laws of the land aren't follow. The protection is a myth.The thing that protects us, is peoples agreement to abide by laws. Laws are irrelevant if the masses don't follow them.
This is right on the money. It's not like the Sweeney where they are foiling armed robberies all the time. They turn up after the fact in most cases and after a risk assessment in all cases.
Well, exactly. Which is pretty logical, whether you like it or not.
It's also a straw man, because no-one here is advocating capital punishment on that basis.
Agreed if you destroy the myth, the masses won't be deterred and you might need a bigger mop.
He shouldn't be given the opportunity even if he's been assumed no longer to have the capability.
Does that mean that convicted criminals in general should never be released?
What was "inherently contradictory" about my question? Killing can prevent killing - one person dies to save a hundred. Nothing particularly illogical about that.
As well as 'logic', the principle of 'contradiction' seems to be causing you problems as well
I think the parole boards motives are more to do with freeing up a prison place.
And this mans PUNISHMENT should have been to stay locked up for the rest of his natural life.
Did killing Bin Laden do any good?
It's also a straw man, because no-one here is advocating capital punishment on that basis.
Nothing to do with straw men, I'm just pointing out that you can make a logical argument in favour of the death penalty. I was answering dbcooper's post, nothing more.
And binners, stating that I don't understand "logic" or "contradiction" is not the same as actually showing I don't. Happy to be enlightened, though.
I think the parole boards motives are more to do with freeing up a prison place.
Sure, that's why he had the very short sentence of 48 years. 🙄
Nothing to do with straw men, I'm just pointing out that you can make a logical argument in favour of the death penalty. I was answering dbcooper's post, nothing more.
You haven't answered his post. He believes that killing is wrong as a moral absolute.
And binners, stating that I don't understand "logic" or "contradiction" is not the same as actually showing I don't. Happy to be enlightened, though.
Mogrim - I'm sorry but if you can't fathom out why advocating killing people, including innocent ones if necessary, to prevent other people from killing people*, is both illogical and inherently contradictory, then you're wasted here.
You could make a fortune writing a column for the Daily Mail, or coming up with ideas in a right wing think tank. Or as an American talk show host 😀
* Theres absolutely no proof it actually does BTW.
mogrim - Member
Nothing to do with straw men, I'm just pointing out that you can make a logical argument in favour of the death penalty. I was answering dbcooper's post, nothing more.And binners, stating that I don't understand "logic" or "contradiction" is not the same as actually showing I don't. Happy to be enlightened, though.
If logic is based on what percentage of morality you are willing to accept, then aye you can make a logical argument based on anything. If morality is a scale of 1-10, those with the morality of 1 would come up with some pretty interesting laws and punishments! 😆
If you start off from the premise that killing is wrong, it's illogical to enforce that by killing.
I think the parole boards motives are more to do with freeing up a prison place.
Sure, that's why he had the very short sentence of 48 years.
Not long enough for what he did,
You haven't answered his post. He believes that killing is wrong as a moral absolute.
I know what he believes, but that doesn't automatically make it a logical decision, it makes it a moral one. Which is what I've said all along.
Killing is wrong unless a judge/jury decide it's appropriate.
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends.
I learned that justice never ends.
I learned that murderers die for their crimes.
Even if we make a mistake sometimes.
That's what I learned in school today.
That's what I learned in school.
With all due respect you really know the square root of sod all if you believe the parole board are ever motivated by a desire to free up a prison space .
Sentencing is far more complex and subtle that mere punishment and it allows for the possibility for rehabilitation redemption and indeed mercy. I believe that the bloke is 78 and was many years ago a real bad bstrd perhaps though given that for a host of good reasons we don't kill convicts there comes a time when they have been punished enough worked on enough pose no real threat and can be moved from punishment in prison to constant supervision and monitoring in the wider community.
I oppose mandatory life means life for cop killing. What if a police man attacks me for no reason I lawfully defend myself but then go a shade too far and get an unnecessary blow in that kills him , what if a cops wife victim of years of spousal abuse snaps and kills him when off duty , what if I attack a policeman and a pregnant woman tries to save him am I more culpable if I kill the policeman in the fight than the have a go heroine. And so on ad infanitum we try to have flexible sentencing rather than mandatory for the very simple reason that there is quite simply no end to the range and variety of ways in which human beings can and do offend also no end of variety of offenders and motives.
why just policeman to protect as has been said above ? The courts do in fact as a general rule take a somewhat strong view on cop killers.
Mogrim - I'm sorry but if you can't fathom out why advocating killing people, including innocent ones if necessary, to prevent other people from killing people*, is both illogical and inherently contradictory, then you're wasted here.
Presumably by that same logic you think we shouldn't have any armed police?
Many years ago a bad bastard, now an old bad bastard.
And i do think the severe lack of prison spaces effects sentencing and the square root of sod all is sod all surely but don't quote me as I am no mathematician.
Presumably by that same logic you think we shouldn't have any armed police?
What on earths that got to do with anything?
I can accept the premise that armed police are necessary, in a society where some criminals might be armed. While I don't accept that those armed police should then be shooting unarmed men 8 times in the head for the crime of having the wrong skin tone, while carrying a rucksack.
Same kind of logic, really. Its all about proportionality. And yet another example of pointless deaths at the hands of the judicial system/overzealous police. This one in a much more Judge Dredd way than sentencing innocent men to hang, obviously.
But by the 'logic' you're espousing, Charles De Menzies death was entirely necessary? And a price worth paying?
"And i do think the severe lack of prison spaces effects sentencing"
it does but not at this end of offending,and this case is not about sentence the sentence was life , this is about the parole boards decision as to when life becomes life licence. As anybody will tell you the parole board has no concern with taking up prison places if space needs to be made it can easily be made with low tariff offences and Home Detention Curfews for low risk petty offenders. Nobody ever lets a high risk serious offender out just because they want his bed.
Theres also the small matter of actually being (for the most part) a civilised society. Civilised societies don't put people to death. What you're hankering after is this....
Oh no Im not, you may be after a bit of tabloid-like STW headlining I`m just asking a couple of questions.
there's a serious lack of critical thinking going on in some of these posts.
Which is, presumably, we have evidence, courts, sentencing guidelines parole boards, prisoner re-rehabilitation units, offender half way houses, and re-employment schemes, rather than say...the baying mob.
But by the 'logic' you're espousing, Charles De Menzies death was entirely necessary? And a price worth paying?
I don't think so, but I don't doubt a lot of people would answer yes.
Incidentally, this kind of discussion is closely related to the "Trolley Problem". Interesting reading, and food for thought for moral absolutists who argue killing is [b]always[/b] wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/us/10foot.html
Edit: another link: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/05/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-new-research-on-a-classic-debate/
Charles De Menzies - it wasn't just the policeman's decision though was it? All a bit of a c0ck up but our legal system says it's OK to kill someone who is believed to be about to kill others.
It is not in any way similar to the trolley problem as the trolly problem clearly states that certain actions lead to certain events so you have to choose. The difference here is that there is no certainty with the death penalty that any action will lead to any outcome other than people will die.
The difference here is that there is no certainty with the death penalty that any action will lead to any outcome other than people will die.
There is the certainty that a dead person won't kill anyone ever again.
I oppose mandatory life means life for cop killing. What if a police man attacks me for no reason I lawfully defend myself but then go a shade too far and get an unnecessary blow in that kills him , what if a cops wife victim of years of spousal abuse snaps and kills him when off duty
Neither of those examples would fit the reasoning anyway - it's the murder of police officers who [i]are acting in the course of their duties[/i] that is the aggravation.
I've met enough crims over the years that don't view Police Officers as human..
The thinking being that the brain of the Police Officer is wired up differently, and so they're considered to be an inferior species..
So you could argue perhaps, that in some ways his crime deserved a [i]lesser[/i] sentence perhaps more in line with unlawfully killing an animal
the trolley problem is kinda irrelevant no? the killing has already been done with a murderer. so it's not an either or scenario.
mogrim - Member
The difference here is that there is no certainty with the death penalty that any action will lead to any outcome other than people will die.
There is the certainty that a dead person won't kill anyone ever again.
If everyone is dead, no one will kill again. that's silly logic.
If everyone is dead, no one will kill again. that's silly logic.
<insert Judge Death picture here />
again lack of critical thinking, Trolley problem is not applicable here.
Trolley problem is about unintended consequences of two bad choices; kill one or kill 5, and it says nothing about the problem faced by what to do with people that murder, it's not the same dilemma. Here the problem is one of punishment not choice, the bad choice has already been made, adding the extra death, the moral absolutists say: you are merely compounding the original error with no advantage or resolution other than revenge. which is morally unjustifiable.
innit
Thanks mogrim the trolley problem is really interesting but the Death Penalty issue is much less factually clear cut and so fits better to resolution by moral absolutes there is no cogent evidence that the death penalty achieves anything by way of crime reduction it certainly has no deterrent effect , the truth is very few convicted killers go on to do it again even without the death penalty. The death penalty may in fact cause crime, offender commits capital crime may as well go on a spree as they can only hang me once or may as well use lethal force to evade justice for same reason (The Dead Man Walking idea.) The Death Penalty also puts additional pressure on a jury who may well acquit when they would otherwise convict.
The greatape that is great but still opens an infinite can of worms can I get off if my copper victim made the slightest procedural mistake ? I commit robbery an on duty police man sees me I shoot at him miss, an off duty policeman on his way home rushes to help I kill him .
the trolley problem is kinda irrelevant no?
again lack of critical thinking, Trolley problem is not applicable here.
Apologies (for once): I thought most people would understand I meant the family of problems, not the single specific case of 1 man vs. 5.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/How_To_Get_Off_Our_Trolleys
Your link is behind a paywall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man
These 5 scenarios? still don't see their relevance...
incidently, I'd leave train on it's original course, if the five dumb ****s are on a rail line and haven't allocated one as lookout, then that's their problem! 😆 The lone guy you can maybe understand might not see the train as that's a health and safety nightmare right there, and it's unfair to send him to his death based on his companies negligence! 😆
There is the certainty that a dead person won't kill anyone ever again.
As long as you are certain they did kill in the first place.
Your link is behind a paywall.
Is it? Weird, so it is. And I've just been reading it... Odd.
Anyway, the relevant bit:
Imagine applying our trolley logic to the case of the death penalty. Imagine further that a new study showed that, without question, the death penalty really does cut down the number of murders committed in any given year. Surely, under such (admittedly hypothetical) circumstances, the lever diverting the trolley would be rapidly replaced by the lever operating the executioner’s trapdoor. In fact, the replacement is made easier when we consider that the ‘sacrificed’ individual is likely to be a cold-blooded murderer. The wrinkle here is the word ‘likely’, because, from a purely utilitarian perspective, the occasional execution of an innocent makes no difference to the morality of the death penalty – the net benefit justifies the sacrifice.At this point some readers might be feeling a little uneasy because they can feel that no slope is slipperier than the one we’re now on. So let’s say that it turns out that executing the family of a murderer is even more likely to produce a net reduction in pain and suffering – perhaps the deterrence effect is so strong that we only need to wipe out one family per year to guarantee a violence-free life for the rest of us.
Or, imagine a further series of trolley-like situations. Firstly, a terrorist group hijacks an airliner and demands that David Cameron be handed over to them for ‘revolutionary justice’. If we do not comply with their demands, they will blow up the airliner and all on board. We might construct a utilitarian argument for not giving in to the terrorists on the grounds that doing so will encourage further outrages of the same kind; but is this the only moral reason not to drag Mr Cameron to his death? Most of us would think not.
... and I'm pretty sure what binners' opinion will be about the last bit 🙂
mogrim the trolley dillima and all it's variants are not the same dilemma.
The trolley problem is an ethical decision, the least bad option of two. In it some unintended harm [i]will[/i] come to innocent victims.
The death penalty is not the same dilemma, the harm has already happened, there has been a death, the dilemma is what to do with the person that did the harm that will satisfy the competing needs of justice to be seen to be done from the perspective of the victims family, society in general to be kept from harm, and a suitable punishment handed down to the perpetrator.
Where is that lot does the trolley problem fit in?
Problem with that is the assumptions are bollocks! 😆 so irrelevant to any serious discussion.
[i]Imagine further that a new study showed that, without question, the death penalty really does cut down the number of murders [/i]
see also: for physicists:
First; let us imagine that cows are spherical: and for economists:
First let us suppose we have a can opener.
