OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

You talkin' to me?

 

Is that the line up against Derby ?
All on loan by Harold ?
We'll murder them

 

Thank you, Stroller. If I have the time I will go back and research this more thoroughly, but I'm pretty sure that, although common purpose may still apply, the law was changed to prevent the sentencing to death of an entire criminal gang (because of a murder carried out by only one armed member) around this time. It may well be that the prison sentences applied to the other members of the gang still took into account that a murder was committed in the course of their activities, but facing the noose was no longer an option. If anybody else can confirm this, I'd be grateful.

I believe that there was an increase (per capita) in the UK murder rate after this law was changed, but will check this too when I can. There has been much recent publicity that the number of murders has fallen in recent years, although there has been some statistical blips that distorted the prior years figures, such as the horrific Shipman murders in 2002 and the 7/7 bombings in 2005.

I cannot really comment on the US crime rate as the US society is quite differently structured than ours. Sorry if this appears a cop out - I'll try to get some thoughts out, if pressed.

"I consider that that the deliberate ending of a life, whatever the justification or means, is inhumane." I am not wholly sure I'm clear where you stand on military intervention in (say) Syria, but I'd make an observation here that may not apply in your case. It is interesting to me that some people that oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty may also be advocates of intervention in Syria. Their motives for intervention are honest and understandable, i.e. to prevent misery and the further loss of life of innocent men, women and children caught up in the conflict, as well as to bring to account members of the Assad regime, but by sending in a military force - and one that is presumably prepared to attack, shoot and kill - we are effectively saying that in this particular case we are justified in deliberately ending human life. Whilst it would no doubt be the intention to try individuals for 'war crimes', I'm sure that you will accept that many on the 'wrong side' will not have that opportunity as they will have died as a consequence of the military intervention.

Now, please don't get me wrong. None of the above is by any means me setting out what I consider to be a valid reason not to intervene in Syria (I tried to do that earlier and got into trouble with some, so don't want to get into that again), but do you see the inconsistency? How can an individual be opposed to any form of capital punishment in the UK, but effectively support capital punishment in the prosecution of war? It just doesn't make sense to me.

There is yet another angle, and that is the arming of police in the UK and what seems to be the increase of a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to tackling perceived dangerous persons. How many cases have we seen in recent years where the police have shot dead somebody they believe to be armed and dangerous, only to find they were brandishing a chair leg, toy gun or nothing at all? Isn't that a form of capital punishment, only in these cases the penalty is meted out before any arrest, prosecution or trial? Aren't innocent individuals effectively being executed by the state in these instances?

Other than local protests and possibly local rioting - I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the national rioting of a couple of years ago was opportunistic rather than the consequence of growing outrage at the Duggan case - where is the organised campaign to either disarm the police or stop them killing suspects under any circumstances? There isn't one because fundamentally we want them to keep us safe, plus we can sort of distant ourselves from the culpability of the killing (that was a copper, right, and he'll face an inquiry?) whereas a criminal justice system that has the option of the death penalty is something we can perhaps feel more personally responsible for.

Just my thoughts, for what they're worth. (Please excuse the typos)

 

So, Travis, the cat's out the bag. Shame! I was enjoying that!

 

We need to send a terminator back to 1993 to stop David Bieber from procreating. That was his true crime!

 

Swordsie Boy? isn't a Travis Bickle....I was thinking more Bridget Jones

 

Great thread IMO ... its all good we have opinions about stuff that we in effect can do **** all about

 

Cripes, we could have a great conversation on that subject, Dave!

For starters, I recommend that everybody refuses to vote for the Big Three political parties at the next General Election, but instead puts their X down for the local interest 'independent' (save the local school, hospital or whatever). If there's no local independent, then cast your vote for one of the smaller parties (Greens, UKIP, whoever except the mad extremists... you might put either of these parties into that category, but that is your choice, but you get the picture).

Either way, we have to turf out the semi-exclusive, lazy, self-interested career politicians that we have today. Tactical voting between the Big Three doesn't cut it, as doesn't not voting.

Perhaps then, after a short period of chaos, we might start to get politicians that actually represent the people they're elected to serve.

 

Good one Dave. Truth is I don't often think about this stuff except when we're chatting on here or when I'm shouting at the TV during (unreliable) news programmes. The only ways I can think of to do anything about it is to join in by working my way up a political party into Government, or throwing a few rocks and hoping. Actually I think I do more good by enjoying myself, earning and spending as much as I can and not moaning about tax, and having a pop whenever idiocy is staring me in the face.

I reckon we get the politicians we deserve. So the Italians have been very naughty indeed for 20 years. I've voted for the big two at various times in my life, but have also not bothered (through anger or when very young, misguided principle) once spoiled my ballot paper, and been abroad during some elections. Reprehensible I know.

Many years ago I think I learned a little about what most people want - a quiet life. I was a civil servant in Hong Kong, in the early/mid 80's. We were trying to establish a bit of democratic involvement (which we had carelessly forgotten to do over the previous 130 years), so we had some direct elections (One of my mates had been asked to come up with some slogans to publicise the elections - his first attempt "Don't be a cnut - Vote!' was sadly rejected). I was a polling officer at a polling station in an affluent, middle class area for the day. Only action I saw was a couple of candidates screaming at each other, turnout was less than 20%, overall turnout less than 25%. We hadn't bargained for the fact that most inhabitants, or their parents, had arrived in Hong Kong precisely to get away from politics. They wanted to get on with making money and eating well, and were happy to do that in the stable, safe environment that the benign oligarchy of British Colonial government offered.

Now that they perceive the threat to their ability to do this from the PRC, Hong Kong people seem much more interested in the democratic process, and good for them, basic needs met they are getting the value of intellectual freedom. I never fail to be moved by the huge percentage of the population who turn out for the candle lit vigil on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square every year.

I've wandered again, really should do some work.....

 

Uber, the somewhat pompous-sounding statement of mine that you quote was made in relation to the capital punishment debate, and, on reflection, should have read "I consider that that the deliberate ending of a life as a method of punishment, whatever the justification or means, is inhumane." The point being that, however heinous the crime, or whatever care is taken to avoid unnecessary suffering, the act of taking a life when it can be avoided is, in my view, inhumane.

When it comes to military action, I am less sure of my ground. I was against military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I also currently oppose intervention in Syria, but would not rule out action in all cases. Sometimes it can be the right thing to do - fighting the Nazis being an obvious example - and of course this will involve the deliberate taking of life. The difference is that this should be a necessary means to an end. If soldiers kill POWs it is rightly considered a crime because it is not necessary. This, to me, is comparable to the state killing civilians found guilty of murder.

 

I understand Nines, hope today does not prove too busy for you.

One to ponder - Timothy Evans, executed in 1950 for the murder of his wife and child. He confessed, on multiple occasions. Trouble was, a couple of years later, it was found that Christie, who had a flat in the same house and was a serial killer, actually did it. From what I have read on this, I would have convicted Evans without a shadow of a doubt, the police ****ed the investigation up big time (not finding the bodies for ages, missing the fact that a human thighbone was holding up part of the fencing in a tiny yard garden etc etc), Evans obviously a bizarre 'anything to please' personality type. I'm not suggesting that any on your list are innocent (far from it), but just illustrating that a law to execute them would inevitably lead to mistakes. The question then is - is executing people who are obviously evil beyond belief worth the risk of executing some, or even one, innocent person?

 

Great comments all round as we are caught in this time at this age it seems on here ... I rant and meditate in equal amounts at the moment but ... My exit route is planned to France ... Mortgage permitted only been 2 months waiting ... ****ing French

 

Personally, and this is just my opinion mind, I would be prepared to take the risk of a system that gets it wrong in a small minority of cases on the basis that it gets it right the vast majority of times, would act as a deterrent to some would-be murderers, and removes a small future burden on the prison services and taxpayers. Like I just said, just my personal opinion and I know there's many that take a different view - don't hang me for it!

I have to say that I'm really enjoying this debate with the likes of Stan, Stroller et al. I think the engagement here, of several diametrically opposed points of view, has been conducted in an open, honest, thoughtful and respectful way. It is a model for how debates on other threads should be conducted (but, again, that is just my opinion)...

...it has also (for me) shown some errors in my own thinking, plus identified common ground where we share opinion.

 

Wholeheartedly agree on the conduct of this discussion, its been a very entertaining and enlightening read. I'll even thank Flyer for giving me something to bounce off.

And in that spirit I am now going to employ, shamelessly, a debating technique. I respect your view Uber, but lets say that one of your loved ones, is one of the small minority of cases where the system gets it wrong? Or even if really guilty they face execution rather than imprisonment. Does that change anything? I would hate you to sacrifice one of your children for the sake of deterrence of some murders and a small burden on taxpayers......

 

That's a very good question. I think you and I are on similar ground when it comes to the death penalty.
I will often declare that it should be brought back, in a knee-jerk reaction to some hideous crime. But then, in the cold light of day, I hesitate for the reasons you point out. With the police seemingly less and less trust-worthy, how many miscarriages of justice would we be prepared to accept?

 

Back to the spying issue.................

Spy bosses have reportedly lost track of terrorists plotting attacks because of CIA fugitive Edward Snowden's leaks, as revealed by The Guardian newspaper.
The terrorists have apparently stopped using electronic communication after he exposed details of UK surveillance.
MI5, MI6 and GCHQ bosses plan to reveal the intelligence collapse publicly to show just how damaging the leaks published by The Guardian have been.

One top surveillance source said: "some very dangerous people have gone quiet. Snowden is to blame. The last time visibility was lost on this scale was just before 9/11".

So, what do you think? Was the Guardian wrong to print these details and was Snowden a traitor.

I answer YES to both!

 

Precisely Col, the more I reason about it the more anti I get, but when presented with a vile real life example - those people who shot a Pakistani school girl in the head just because she wanted to go to school, almost any child abuse, etc etc - my instinct is - these people are a waste of oxygen.

 

Exactly. As you said earlier however, if it was. God (if he exists!) forbid, one of my family who was the victim, I would want to be put in a room with the scum bag responsible. He/she wouldn't be in need of any kind of sentence after that! I, though, would be charged with murder!