OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

Emotionally I would hate to be in that situation, Stan, but I would have to accept it. I know that's somewhat trite as answers go, but not sure I could say more. Self-interest has a habit of sticking its nose into decision-making. I'm not sure I can say much more than be honest.

 

And how much confidence does it give you that the CIA would employ him and give him access to this information to start with? I'm not impressed with either The Guardian or Snowden Col, but you can only be a traitor to something you were loyal to in the first place.

There has been a lot in the media the last couple of weeks about the damage done by Snowden, lots of current and ex security bigwigs on show. There is definitely a media campaign underway, and I really can't be sure what the positioning is really about.

To the Tower with them!

 

It's a deeply unfair question in the first place mate, which is why I posed it. Occasionally I have to do similar emotional blackmail type negotiating through work, I won't bore you with the details, can't say I enjoy it as it usually means I don't have a decent negotiating position to start with. And I don't think it's particularly effective. All I can say is that, personally, whatever my declared position on lots of things, I'm sure I would suspend nearly all personal integrity where my family are concerned, unless in the most unthinkable of circumstances e.g one actually was a serial killer as opposed to just being ****ing irritating.

 

Impossible to know just who will betray you Stan. History shows that there are and always have been traitors in ALL security organisations. Snowden would have signed an oath and he betrayed that oath, as well as his country. His actions and those of The Guardian newspaper have put lives at risk imo.

 

The thought occurred to me whilst having a particularly violent piss just now - the result of too much use of the Tassimo today, I don't doubt - that what we've got here is too extreme ends of the same spectrum.

On the one hand, we have those opposed to the death penalty admitting that, in an horrific scenario in which a loved one is brutally done away with, they might be persuaded to support the death penalty... and possibly be prepared to carry out sentence themselves (with their bare hands if necessary). All understandable.

On the other hand, we have those who support the death penalty admitting that, in an horrific scenario in which a loved one is the perpetrator of the brutal 'doing away with', they may well campaign for leniency. Equally understandable.

It becomes even more interesting if the subject in the first scenario is later proved to be innocent, and in the latter if later proved to be guilty.

In a perhaps perverse way, I also find myself drawing parallels between the second scenario - the one you rightly put to me - with an argument I put towards military intervention in Syria (you see, I'm again trying to tie it all in) which was that I couldn't bring myself to send somebody into somewhere like that, risking their own person, if I wasn't prepared to put myself there too. And I'm just too cowardly to contemplate it. It's a threshold thing, I guess, where my threshold (being the level of perceived threat to me and mine) is not reached by such action. It sounds harsh, and QPRNY took me to task over it earlier, but I can only speak honestly and from my gut on such matters... and this is how it lies within me.

The parallel here, therefore, is that I think it hypocritical of me to support a death penalty (in an imperfect criminal justice system; although I think further measures can be taken to improve it) if I would then want personal waivers for the people I care about. Likewise, I would feel it hypocritical of me to feel strongly about something but require somebody else to put themselves at risk to deal with it. I don't know if that sounds logical to others.

An aside: It is interesting how in days of yore (or maybe just the romantic fiction of the movies?) the King would lead the charge on the battlefield; his men following him for the inspirational, man of the people figure he is, whereas nowadays we have a young prince boasting about how killing insurgents is similar to playing some video game. These times they are a-changing.

 

Hey, we're doing dialectic!

On the war thing I guess the major difference for me is we are asking people who have volunteered and been trained to undertake this job (though it could be argued that some have very little economic choice). The risk for me is the people we have to trust to make a decision to engage or not in the first place, which gets us back to our elected representatives. If we had a conscript army I would be completely with you.

 

For me it's down to what we believe the primary purpose of our armed forces to be. I think it's defence, and remain unconvinced that an intervention in Syria is that.

Back on the death penalty, how about we sentence nasty murderers to life with no parole and hard labour, but give 'em a gun with one bullet when sentence is passed; let them take the easy way out if they so choose?

I'm going to look up 'dialectic' now... pretty sure it's something to do with insulin....

 

Think I'm coming round to your way of thinking on Syria, there is no apparent threat directly to us, unless it blows up into a huge Mid-East war. Still find it hard to do the 'none of our business' thing when you see the pictures.

Iraq should have fallen into the same category, the WMD excuse was completely scandalous. Not sad to see the back of Saddam though.

Afghanistan - as the state harbouring the leadership of Al Qaeda, which is definitely a threat of a very new kind, I think it was a legitimate target and had the added bonus of hurting the hideous Taliban. But no reason to hang around for a decade afterwards trying to 'manage' it.

Death penalty - most would not have the courage to use a gun on themselves, substitute for a nice cup of poisoned tea and its a deal.

Now, what are your views on 'not responsible for my own actions' and 'insanity' as defences? I've always struggled with the latter especially - Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West etc, by the very nature of their crimes must be insane, but no way would I want that defence available to them..........

 

Now you see...........as soon as you mentioned them, I immediately thought that they should have been hanged!!

I agree about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Can't make my mind up about Syria......although I'm leaning towards not getting involved.

 

When we talk about the death penalty for people like Fred and Rose West i am somewhat torn. I mean to say, both were physiclly and mentally abused by their parents and grandparents from a very young age and that must of course had some reasoning on their crimes. These people are in someway a victim themselves, but don't get me wrong, Im not a bleeding heart liberal who thinks they should be tucked up in bed every night with a pat on the head and a cup of tea.
Yes they should be punished for the vile crimes they have commited and hanging does seem a fitting punishment...but there is a bigger picture and i for one havn't got the answer.

 

A good question. I'm struggling to be coherent with my answer (this is my third attempt)...

There is the usual and unoriginal observation that somebody who takes another person's life in the way that a Sutcliffe or a West did cannot possibly be sane, because most of us consider ourselves 'normal', rational human beings, capable of empathy and unable to contemplate carrying out acts such as these men did. But I struggle with the way behavioural traits seem to be increasingly explained by syndromes, genetic predisposition and other conditions. I am unclear where the dividing line is between these and culpability, and get the impression that science is increasingly moving this line, such that more and more will become explainable by diagnosis.

Maybe one day we'll identify a 'serial killer gene' or something and that will be the end of culpability?

Perhaps we should set aside the sanity/insanity division between such people and simply ask ourselves what action is in the public good? That may well make us arrive at the same conclusion for both categories.


There is so much that I could write on this if only I could articulate is properly. Perhaps the answer is to do it in portions.

 

Good point, Staines. But there are people that were abused as children that didn't become perverted murderers, just as there are people in poverty that wouldn't dream of turning to crime. Because it has to be 'more than that', it is in my view reasonable to not give such excuses the weight that one might be tempted to give.

 

Just wanted to say how much I've enjoyed reading through this thread.
I am nowhere near as well informed or factually astute as you guys on most subjects you have covered over the last hundred and odd posts but nevertheless it has made for thought provoking and interesting reading over the past couple of days.

I guess the only thing I can throw an opinion on is the Death Penalty as it is exactly that, an opinion, as opposed to a debate over which facts are believed to be correct.

I believe in the death penalty for child killers, police killers and terrorists (whether their plan for multiple murder was succesfull or not) . I think the vast improvement in DNA and forensic science since the last man was incorrectly put to death can virtually guarantee that this could not happen again and i personally would have no qualms in pushing the button/tightening the noose, adminstering the injection for the ian huntley/dale cregan/ shoe bomber jail is just to good for them (and expensive for us)

 

Now you see.............I read that and I find myself agreeing.

Tough one innit? (As dear old Brix would have said)

 

Good post, Congleton. I share your opinion, but fear we'll never see a return of capital punishment simply because we are in the minority. The fear of executing the wrong person, allied to an understandable distaste amongst many to be part of something seen as barbaric is just too powerful.

 

Are we in the minority though?
With crimes seemingly becoming more heinous and the prison system becoming more and more of a non deterrent i would venture that maybe Joe Public would welcome a return to an "eye for an eye" justice?

 

I would also say that I imagine (as thats all i can do) that if you lived a life of abuse, be it physical or mental, then you would know the horrors of that and any right minded person would not wish to inflict that on another human being.
Therefore I would struggle to accept "well it happened to me" as reasonable defence to the kind of crimes that the Wests commited.

 

Not according to the Mail on Sunday Uber (at least in 2011) 53% in favour, 34% against. They even ranked the preferred method (lethal injection - but hanging, drawing and quartering in public was not a choice). It has been our elected representatives that have declined to reconsider the issue.

Cue next level debate 'representative' democracy vs 'delegate' democracy........not keen on mob rule myself, but the quality of our representatives is a powerful counter argument.....

 

Über and Congleton- Very good and well thought out points that have given me yet another angle of thought. I cannot disagree with what you say.

Great thread.

 

Surprise surprise!