Harry Roberts released

One is too many

Judging by the reports from the farm where he was being reintroduced back into the community, he is still very much an unreformed character.

Link? evidence?

How many is too many ?

One.

How many is too many ?

1 is too many.

How many ?

How many is too many ?

Examples please.

One innocent person being executed to satisfy your blood lust is one too many. I don’t need to provide any more evidence than that really.

How many ?

How many is too many ?

Examples please.

As noted: 1 is too many

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….

An Example Not only did He have his daughter and wife slaughered by Christie He was hung for it too. Four additional women were murder by Christie as a result.

What does amaze me is how many people are for the death sentence when these threads pop up.

+1 on the “1 is too many”! 😆

More examples? If we’d have had the death penalty in the 70’s and 80’s then an awful lot of people who had the misfortune of being Irish and In the wrong place at the wrong time, would have had their convictions quashed posthumously.

I know its a sweeping generalisation, but I usually just assume that anyone calling for the return of the death penalty is… well…. a bit of an idiot, really.

Feel free to prove me wrong though

To effect change you should be the change you want to see. So if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.

To effect change you should be the change you want to see. So if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.

That sounds really deep until you think about it, then realise it’s bollocks.

That sounds really deep until you think about it, then realise it’s bollocks.

Really mogrim oh wise one, how so? Perhaps you shouldn’t have thought about it.

I can’t see how you can believe that taking someones life is wrong, yet think it is OK to take someones life. It is a simple contradiction.

OK then.

if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.

Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing – assuming you’re willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die. Counter productive? Maybe, maybe not. I know the evidence shows that the death penalty doesn’t reduce crime, but does it increase it? And morally meaningless??? What could have more moral meaning than killing someone?

So, basically: bollocks.

He should not be let out.
Offences against the police should carry a greater sentence.

People wrongly executed vs convicted murderers going on to murder again once released,
You have more chance of being murdered by a once convicted murderer now than of being wrongly convicted and subsequently hung when we had the death sentence.

My tuppence worth.

I know its a sweeping generalisation, but I usually just assume that anyone calling for the return of the death penalty is… well…. a bit of an idiot, really.

I don’t think there has been a call for the return, only the simple statement that one Harry Roberts esq should have been topped all those years ago, which would have saved us all a packet and also the current situation.

Offences against the police should carry a greater sentence.

Why? In any case, he’s served 48 years – that is a longer sentence.

You have more chance of being murdered by a once convicted murderer now than of being wrongly convicted and subsequently hung.

Correct. Because we don’t hang people.

Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing – assuming you’re willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die.

Yep – the ‘logic’ of killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people is completely incontrovertible. You just can’t argue with it.

I retract fully my previous statement about death penalty supporters all being idiots. I’d just never looked at it like that before. Its all clear to me now. Thanks for that. Who feels like he idiot now eh? 😳

Out of interest, who believes that one eyed lunatic who threw grenades at the police should ever be released.

Morally meaningless because you state a moral position that killing people is wrong, yet discard that postion in order to kill those who are wrong, so you can’t defend the position that killing is wrong. It’s really very simple.

Correct. Because we don’t hang people.

When we did.

Out of interest, who believes that one eyed lunatic who threw grenades at the police should ever be released.

A Parole board may well say so. And I would agree with them.

When we did.

Well, maybe it’s just me, but the fact that the state only rarely executed innocent people wasn’t an overwhelmingly good reason for keeping capital punishment.

Killing some people is wrong, others not so.
Some people are better of dead as there are some complete wrong ‘uns in this world I would not shed a tear for.
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.
I am going to take your shit and have your wife in to the bargain, what are you going to do about it.

Yep – the ‘logic’ of killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people is completely incontrovertible. You just can’t argue with it.

I retract fully my previous statement about death penalty supporters all being idiots. I’d just never looked at it like that before. Its all clear to me now. Thanks for that. Who feels like he idiot now eh?

You’re misstating the argument with “killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people” – what a supporter of the death penalty is willing to accept is that if you get it right 99% of the time (or whatever) that’s enough. The other 1% is just collateral damage, unfortunate but worth the sacrifice.

Just for the record: I’m against the death penalty. But I can still see the logic behind it.

Binners, good edit. funny.
Mogrim has the swing shovel out and has selcted reverse. Well done fella we accept your capitulation.

Killing some people is wrong, others not so.

Could you give me a list?

Some people are better of dead as there are some complete wrong ‘uns in this world I would not share a tear for.

Me neither. That doesn’t mean we should execute them

Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.

Please explain how a longer sentence results in greater protection.

I am going to take your shit and have your wife in to the bargain, what are you going to do about it.

Beat the crap out of you.

You’re welcome to both. Not quite sure why you’d want my shit though?

Is he on his own living in a hostel or has he been welcomed back by the tasty geezers and sipping champagne in Marbella?
I would like his freedom to be as unpleasant as possible.
Must be a total head **** to see the world as it is today.

Had to Google to see who he was 😳

Morally meaningless because you state a moral position that killing people is wrong, yet discard that postion in order to kill those who are wrong, so you can’t defend the position that killing is wrong. It’s really very simple.

killing innocent people is wrong, definitely.

Mogrim has the swing shovel out and has selcted reverse. Well done fella we accept your capitulation.

Hardly, what you posted still sounds stupid.

chip – Member
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.

Why is not giving the police draconian levels of protection, the same as not having a police service?

Mogrim said earlier

Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing – assuming you’re willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die

Mogrim said later

killing innocent people is wrong, definitely.

Congratulations you have managed to convince yourself that the death penalty is wrong. Welcome back to the human race.

Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.

How about when Police kill, does a double whammy law apply, and you can kill them twice?

I don’t get how this geezer is unfit to live, yet the Krays and the Train Robbers are made out to be folk heores. Is it just the double standard, or better marketing?

Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing – assuming you’re willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die.

It’s not logical at all.

Congratulations you have managed to convince yourself that the death penalty is wrong. Welcome back to the human race.

Gee, thanks 🙄 But then like I said, I don’t support the death penalty. I’m not willing to accept the death of innocent people. But that’s a moral position, and some people won’t necessarily share it.

It’s not logical at all.

Why not?

Gee, thanks But then like I said, I don’t support the death penalty. I’m not willing to accept the death of innocent people. But that’s a moral position, and some people won’t necessarily share it.

Level 2 diggers license is in the post.

Level 2 diggers license is in the post.

You haven’t actually read what I posted, have you? When have I contradicted myself or changed my mind???

Is it not counterproductive to dilute the protection given to police by the law as they go about their business on our behalf. Surely it will result in them having to resort to force increasingly, as it becomes socially and legally acceptable to have a go?