Harry Roberts released

Why not?

Because it assumes deterrence, unless you’re talking specifically about the handful of convicted murderers who go on to muder again.

Could any of you advocating the death penalty have looked Stefan Kiszko in the eye and said that his death would have been acceptable?

Just as an aside pictures are hung, people are hanged but thankfully not in the UK. If you’re going to be screaming for medieval justice you may as well get the terminology correct.

It’s not logical at all.

Why not?

You seem to be struggling with the whole concept of logic. The one thing it doesn’t tend to be is inherently contradictory

Is it not counterproductive to dilute the protection given to police by the law as they go about their business on our behalf.

How does keeping Roberts in jail increase police protection?

Certainly would from him.

The police stick there neck on the line everyday to protect you and I from people who would con, rob, rape and use violence against us for fun or personal gain.
There may be a few rotten apples and the service may not be as great as I would like due to a lack of funding or personnel.
But the police I believe are a force to be respected and anyone with half a brain should know using violence against them is a serious offence.

But the police I believe are a force to be respected and anyone with half a brain should know using violence against them is a serious offence.

Who are you arguing against?

Certainly would from him.

Hes 70 odd years old. How much copper murderising do you think he’s going to be able to manage? Assuming he had the remotest intention of doing so. The parole board, who probably know more about it than most, obviously don’t think he’s a threat.

You can’t have much confidence in our police officers if you think they’re at threat from a pensioner

chip – Member
The police stick there neck on the line everyday to protect you and I from people who would con, rob, rape and use violence against you for fun or personal gain.
There may be a few rotten apples and the service may not be as great as I would like due lack of funding or personnel.
But the police I believe are a force to be respected and anyone with half a brain should know using violence against them is a serious offence.

I respect the police, I believe they are necessary.

Using violence against anyone is a serious offence. If you start at the police, you need to then extend it to other groups, teachers, doctors, politicians etc, you quickly start to create a 2 tier system where some sections are afforded greater protection than others.

That is wrong. All should be equal.

Because it assumes deterrence, unless you’re talking specifically about the handful of convicted murderers who go on to muder again.

Well, exactly. Which is pretty logical, whether you like it or not.

You seem to be struggling with the whole concept of logic. The one thing it doesn’t tend to be is inherently contradictory

What was “inherently contradictory” about my question? Killing can prevent killing – one person dies to save a hundred. Nothing particularly illogical about that.

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 always wrong.

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.