Its going to be fun with one of you and Brentford coming into the division. I like the way winning the playoffs is not even considered in this thread, have you been watching us? Were that bad that people were saying hughton would be an improvement.
Now there's desperation for you. We're not down yet, but of course we are a little provincial team who don't deserve such heady status.
So, it happens. That's never been a dispute. But the scenario that you've implied may mean that a convicted (though innocent) man could die at the hands of his fellow inmates whilst the guards effectively turn a blind eye and, as long as you personally are convinced of his guilt, that'd be alright with you. That you readily assume many inmates to have been fitted up by the rozzers should surely persuade you to provide near-as-dammit total security and safety for every inmate? Forgive me, but I cannot see how this state of affairs betters one where, after every effort is taken to establish his guilt, the subject is swiftly and humanely dispatched at the end of a rope, rather than forced to see out his days in a climate of fear of being attacked, maimed or possibly murdered at the hands of another inmate. Don't get me wrong; either scenario is not without it's attractions for me, and arguably 'yours' may prevent a greater deterrent than 'mine'. But I thought the chief arguments against the death penalty were (a) the fear of executing an innocent man, and (b) an aversion to the concept of vengeance; neither of which seem to be addressed in your 'Snake Plissken' scenario. You can't chuck it back at me and suggest that I'm making a mountain out of a 0.0001%-sized molehill. Who decides which are the deserving cases and which are the 99.9999% other occasions?
No Im not. I dont agree with suspensions in football but things like Bartons exploits last year were unusual so deserve special treatment. Another point is once youve killed under the death penalty, you might as well carry on killing to try and get away or cover up your deeds because there is nothing to lose. More innocent people dead.
The "Snake Plissken scenario" bit made me laugh. For me, it's a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, I want the prison system to be a deterrent but on the other hand, the last people on the planet I'd want to be meting out justice would be those that can't live inside the law. The hierarchical nature of inmates leaves this as an even more arbitrary punishment. I suppose it should be the length of sentence that varies but the deprivation of certain freedoms during that stint that remains consistent? As an almost relevant aside, I saw the film Starred Up recently and it was as gripping a piece of cinema as I've seen for a while.
I'm not following the suspensions in football tangent, I'm afraid. It's a fair point that once somebody has killed they perhaps develop a 'taste' for it, either to sate some sort of perverted bloodlust, or simply, as you say, to cover up tracks and get away with the first killing. Whether this would become more prevalent in a society that has the death penalty is a subject of some conjecture. I would imagine that any individual prepared to kill for the first time in such a society is already capable of killing multiple times regardless of penalty. I have already accepted that there is little deterrent there for sick ****s like this, which lends more weight to the argument to execute 'em in my opinion. The thing is, Flyer, that I'm no longer arguing the relative merits of the death penalty or not with you. I am now more interested in the fact that you, a staunch opponent to the re-introduction of capital punishment, finds acceptable a state of affairs in which an indisputably guilty individual becomes subject to whatever punishment his fellow inmates deem appropriate for the crimes he's committed. If one is prepared to accept that some individuals can be 'indisputably guilty' of certain abhorrent crimes, then I would also be interested to learn why you'd rank higher the kangaroo justice meted out by fellow inmates - which presumably would extend to wounding, mutilation and murder - over swift execution by The Crown.
Its simple, I think football in suspensions are wrong yet Id still suspend players for exception actions. That clearly doesnt mean I agree with suspensions for everyone. I dont want innocent people killed. The death penalty would kill innocent people, isnt a deterrent and would increase deaths as muslim extremist would love it and killers would kill more people. I dont care what happens to the actual killers, just the collateral of innocent people which is apparently ok for you although Im sure youd change your mind if a family member was wrongly killed by the state. In short, you want to kill people, some innocent just to save a few quid. Saving money is the only thing that can be argued for the death penalty. Theres no point in me replying if you cant see the rigby murder was a unique case unless you can tell me about any similar cold blooded, barbaric terrorist acts where the killers stayed at the scene to be caught.
I suspect that the death penalty would no more kill innocent people than a state of affairs within which: - the absence of capital punishment means that murder goes virtually unpunished today; - violent killers are released to kill again after serving a mere fraction of their original sentence; - police officers shoot first and ask questions afterwards; or - the state abrogates responsibility for justice to the inmates. Accuse me of pragmatism by all means, Flyer, as on balance I believe I'd risk one person hanged in error for two innocent people not murdered. I would also trade one person being murdered by fellow inmates for one person instead being executed by the state. But to suggest that I only want to kill people to save a few quid is frankly ridiculous (although saving the cost of incarcerating a murderer for the rest of his naturals is admittedly not without its appeal). Of course the Lee Rigby case was exceptional. But the media chose to focus almost solely on their extreme Muslim beliefs rather than their cannabis use and (probably related) mental issues. All were factors, in my opinion, played key roles in this appalling event. Are you saying that in the 'unique' case of the killers of Gunner Rigby you would be prepared to let their fellow inmates mete out justice? If so, why would you not therefore be prepared to let them hang instead? What about other 'unique' cases such as the murderer of Millie Dowler, or perhaps Dale Cregan?
I'm merely seeking clarification from the gentleman, Travis. I fully understood and respected his opposition to the death penalty, but his apparent willingness to let certain criminals (that meet certain specific criteria of his choosing) be wounded or murdered by their fellow inmates seems somewhat in contradiction. I find that fascinating.
Uber you've quoted my picture but I'm only getting "..." The bloody not606 Image Gremlin strikes again. Can you see it?
Would I have hanged a 16 year old? I don't think so. Should I now be trawling the internet for stories of murderers that were released to kill again or something?
So...........did you throw your little yellow clapper thingy onto the pitch after the last game? They quite suit you lot.
