Lee Rigby Killer

Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
He was, others aren't. So do we have a separate death penalty only for those literally caught red-handed? Is there a sliding scale? What if they killed someone in self-defence but it looked like murder? Etc, etc..
Click to expand...
I would expect it to apply for special cases, not just any murder. I just suggest we have it as an option. My original post said voted on, this is a specialist subject for people that are involved in the prison service and above.
 
"Is that everyone who is banged up or just those who have overstepped your line in the sand?"

Hakkers - Just the vile savages who are undoubtedly guilty, no doubt better people than me would make sure they didn't starve
 
AFCDorset said:
OK. It is, to me, fundamentally wrong for the state to execute it's citizens. Simple as that.

It is wrong on a philosophical and ethical level and corrupting of both the state and it's citizens.

It is also wrong on a practical level, miscarriages of justice say, or 'mission creep' by the state among other things.


If you accept that, then you need a criminal justice system that can deal with violent criminals of this type. We have no such thing.

We need root and branch reform, a police force actually set up to deter criminal behaviour and catch real criminals, changes to the law and the court system to make conviction of violent offenders more likely and a sentencing system and prison service that can handle the worst offenders and put them away for life.

More to it than that of course, that is just the barest outline.
Click to expand...

completely agree with that post ACD. I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty. the recent execution of that woman in america confirmed that too me.

and yet....and yet, when i think of the case of Rigby's killers i find that i wouldn't care less if they were executed...despite their crime being at least on a par with that womens...in fact hers was possibly worse.

fiddly subject hey?
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
I'm actually finding myself more or less in complete agreement with one of your posts AFCD. First time for everything.
Click to expand...
Don't fret Club Book. Keep thinking clearly and logically and you will find yourself in agreement more often.

sixthswan said:
You're not bothered then if he dies from Covid, but you think wishing him dead from it is so much different?

Same result. Neither of us would be bothered.
Click to expand...
Yes I do.

I do not care if he dies but I do care it our judicial system aids his dieing by denying him the same treatment as anyone else.
 
Filbo65 said:
100%, yes. I am.
I would trust a cross-party group of qualified experts to set the parameters. But the likes of Dennis Neilson, terrorists targeting mass casualties, multiple-offending paedos, repeat murderers, these two, and many others should qualify.
I don't understand why you bring Africans into it? Please explain.
Click to expand...
At least you have the guts to make it clear where you stand though passing the decision on to a group of 'qualified experts' seem to be bottling the decision somewhat.

I have personally thought along those lines on occasion but in the end I decided that it was ethically wrong for the state to do this. This is the overwhelming reason I am against the death penalty, practical reasons like false convictions and deciding who gets to die and who doesn't are serious but a bit less important to me.

Lee Rigby's killers were ethnic Nigerians, radicalised by Sunni Islam. Just wondered if these were also factors to be taken into consideration.
 
AFCDorset said:
This is the overwhelming reason I am against the death penalty, practical
Click to expand...
I'm basically in agreement with this. We don't kill people as a punishment because we are a supposedly advanced society. We lower ourselves to the standards of the murderers if we decide it's OK to take someone's life as a punishment, or revenge reading some of the replies.
 
sixthswan said:
I'm against the state executing citizens too.

I'm also for police and criminal justice reform. Would like to see a real toughness on crime.

Just been thinking about something else though. Would anyone be supportive of voluntary euthanasia for the worst and most despicable crimes. Say perhaps Ian Brady. He clearly was guilty. No dispute about it. He feels guilty about being murderous scum and recording on tape; the death of an innocent child.

He wants the state to end his life and gives permission for that to happen. Says he will reveal the whereabouts of the missing bodies and then after that, would like to have his own life ended.

Would that be so terrible?
Click to expand...
I have never really considered suicide to be a crime per se.

However, rather like the idea of letting someone die by not treating an illness, allowing prisoners to commit suicide would be a breach of the state's 'duty of care'. So no, can't go with that even if there are 'benefits'.
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
They weren't but plenty have been. Do we implement a separate death penalty now?
Click to expand...
Running Fox said:
I would expect it to apply for special cases, not just any murder. I just suggest we have it as an option. My original post said voted on, this is a specialist subject for people that are involved in the prison service and above.
Click to expand...
What? said:
"Is that everyone who is banged up or just those who have overstepped your line in the sand?"

Hakkers - Just the vile savages who are undoubtedly guilty, no doubt better people than me would make sure they didn't starve
Click to expand...
None of this makes sense, even if you feel that a state enforced death penalty is ethically and morally ok, how do you decide who dies and who does not?

You can't, not rationally and consistently and the last people I would want making those decisions would be politicians, which it would come down to in the end.
 
Adumass said:
completely agree with that post ACD. I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty. the recent execution of that woman in america confirmed that too me.

and yet....and yet, when i think of the case of Rigby's killers i find that i wouldn't care less if they were executed...despite their crime being at least on a par with that womens...in fact hers was possibly worse.

fiddly subject hey?
Click to expand...
It is really only 'fiddly' if you can not keep your own feelings separate from your sense of what is morally correct.

Do not let your anger and feelings stop you from doing what is right.
 
sixthswan said:
It doesn't matter where the killer(s) comes from. Only the crime matters...
Click to expand...
But it does, in 21st century Britain it most definitely does.

Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
I'm basically in agreement with this. We don't kill people as a punishment because we are a supposedly advanced society. We lower ourselves to the standards of the murderers if we decide it's OK to take someone's life as a punishment, or revenge reading some of the replies.
Click to expand...
See, you do actually get it.

We demean ourselves and our society by taking a life. In this situation the person is no longer a threat to others, as long as we make sure that this remains the case, that is enough.
 
We did discuss this case a while back.

Dorset. You said "Let Errol deal with them". Still not sure what that meant?

Would we have been up in arms, if the "hackers" had been shot on sight by the Police?
 
sixthswan said:
We did discuss this case a while back.

Dorset. You said "Let Errol deal with them". Still not sure what that meant?

Would we have been up in arms, if the "hackers" had been shot on sight by the Police?
Click to expand...
It was a joke, a flippant reference to a line in a film.

Shot dead in the commission of a violent crime, no problem.
 
Running Fox said:
So its ok to shoot someone at the scene ? but not to kill them afterwards? how does that change your moral stance?
Click to expand...
Need to read the post a little more carefully Running Fox, though perhaps I could have been clearer.

'In the commission of a violent crime' is fundamentally different from 'at the scene'. Different moral imperative for the shooter.

My 'stance' remains consistent.
 
AFCDorset said:
Need to read the post a little more carefully Running Fox, though perhaps I could have been clearer.

'In the commission of a violent crime' is fundamentally different from 'at the scene'. Different moral imperative for the shooter.

My 'stance' remains consistent.
Click to expand...
Sorry I think we are just using different terms but my point is the same . You are still killing someone ! I thought your point was that we should never sink to the same level as the Murderer?
 
Running Fox said:
Sorry I think we are just using different terms but my point is the same . You are still killing someone ! I thought your point was that we should never sink to the same level as the Murderer?
Click to expand...
OK, Running Fox.

My meaning is that 'in the commission' means that the crime is ongoing, stopping the crime is the moral imperative.

At the scene is more ambiguous, the crime might be over and the perpetrator ready to give up, so no need for lethal force which in this case would be virtually an execution. That to me is the difference.
 
I'm sure some will regard my utterings in the same way, but I think there's some pretty cunty posting in this thread.
The bottom line for me is how it can be right for some fucker to decide to commit a heinous murder, whilst knowing ALL THE TIME that the worst he / she will get as a punishment is 24/7 centrally-heated dry, theoretically-safe board and lodging?
 
AFCDorset said:
At least you have the guts to make it clear where you stand though passing the decision on to a group of 'qualified experts' seem to be bottling the decision somewhat.

I have personally thought along those lines on occasion but in the end I decided that it was ethically wrong for the state to do this. This is the overwhelming reason I am against the death penalty, practical reasons like false convictions and deciding who gets to die and who doesn't are serious but a bit less important to me.

Lee Rigby's killers were ethnic Nigerians, radicalised by Sunni Islam. Just wondered if these were also factors to be taken into consideration.
Click to expand...
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know best in terms of the detail. Unlike many. Or most... ;)

As far I'm concerned, Lee Rigsby's killers were couple of murderous cunts. I look no further than that fact.
 
Filbo65 said:
I'm sure some will regard my utterings in the same way, but I think there's some pretty cunty posting in this thread.
The bottom line for me is how it can be right for some fucker to decide to commit a heinous murder, whilst knowing ALL THE TIME that the worst he / she will get as a punishment is 24/7 centrally-heated dry, theoretically-safe board and lodging?
Click to expand...
Filbo65 said:
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know best in terms of the detail. Unlike many. Or most... ;)

As far I'm concerned, Lee Rigsby's killers were couple of murderous cunts. I look no further than that fact.
Click to expand...
The punishment is the incarceration, but no one should ever be released if they have been found guilty of such crimes.

As for what the killers are, I doubt if our views vary in the any meaningful way.

However, that is no starting position to develop a workable justice system.
 
Filbo65 said:
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know best in terms of the detail. Unlike many. Or most... ;)

As far I'm concerned, Lee Rigsby's killers were couple of murderous cunts. I look no further than that fact.
Click to expand...
They were and were caught, found guilty and sentenced. That should mean they spend the rest of their lives in prison. Killing them in the name of justice is revenge, not a punishment.
 
I've said.
You and matey disagree.
I'm not like some on here, who insist on going on and on and on and on and on and on whilst refusing to accept that others might not agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top