The EU debate - Part II

Any counter argument dies there, as ' he was a wrong'un anyway, so **** him' isn't quite how it should work in a civilised society.

 

Exactly what I thought

Dear me.

 

I know. I was simply looking at the argument about 'one death' in isolation.

It's quite conceivable that the actual numbers don't support what I put, as I only had a fleeting glimpse. But on the face of it, it seems to support a claim for the general public being far more at risk of being the victim of a released prisoner, than a victim of the justice system

 

I knew someone would try that one. I only raised it because the issue seems to be the threat of Joe Public being the victim of the state. It'd be foolish in deed to try to claim, it's fair enough as they were guilty of something, which is why I didn't.

 

Quite simply, if somebody is falsely imprisoned and later found to be innocent, that can, albeit sometimes belatedly, be rectified and the victim compensated.

What are you going to say to a man you've deliberately, and let's not mince words here, murdered at the state's behest?

The state is also supposed to act in a civilised manner, whatever behaviour criminals display.

That's why one is too many...

 

Then why even mention the supposed fact of wrongful executions having previous then?

The issue of whether offenders are fit to be released back into society isn't tied to the death penalty, they're 2 completely different subjects.

 

That's adressed in my earlier post. The incidence of that occuring is around 0.0027%. You are far, far more likely to be the victim of a released offender, than of being wrongly killed in a state execution.

Surely those greater numbers of innocent victims have equal importance?

 

I mention it to highlight that the threat to someone from a non-criminal background is even less.

 

That's nothing but a bullshit assumption though.

The supposed 'fact' that a percentage of wrongfully executed people have had previous, doesn't preclude or have any baring on the 'odds' of a total innocent person being found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

 

It's not a bullshit assumption at all. It's based on a very quick scan on Google. Feel free to look for figures that say otherwise, because I'm not claiming the numbers are right, but to claim one death is too many, depending how they died seems extremely flawed to me.

A prisoner is the responsibility of the state. If the state releases them, only for the to kill again, that's still an innocent death.

I'd argue, there's more chance of being the victim of a released prisoner, than there is of being wrongly executed by the state. It seems that one death is not always too many for some.

 

Unless you lock up anyone who commits any offence worthy of prison time forever, you can't eradicate re-offending.

 

I don't disagree. I'm simply looking at the argument that one life is too many. It just seems a flawed position to me.

 

But that seems two totally different arguments to me. On one hand is the argument of whether capital punishment is correct - of which some people on here feel it is wrong because a) it's morally indefensible, b) it is no deterrent and c) the fact that innocent people will get executed through failures of the system.

On the other you seem to be arguing about the release times of people found guilty of crimes - which is certainly a big issue in my opinion, and the likelihood of said ex-cons to recommit crimes. The capital punishment argument has nothing to do with the argument for the length on prison terms or the way prisoners are released for crimes - or indeed if they are released at all.

I mean you could easily abolish capital punishment totally but pass a law whereby all criminals have to spend their life behind bars - therefore you eliminate the possibility of both re-offending and being wrongfully executed. I'm not saying I'm in favour of it, just pointing out that the Capital Punishment isn't the only, the best or (most of the time) even the most sensible option to stop reoffending.

I mean away from the example I gave above (which imo is a very silly, extreme one). There are examples of people going to prison for lesser crimes (maybe like theft of a small amount or possession of a small amount of a class a drug say) and becoming so warped by their experiences inside that they come out seriously messed up and a serious danger to society and end up committing a serious crime, perhaps even murder.

The solution wouldn't be to execute those people to ensure the safety of the public or to stop them reoffending. It is clearly more sensible to look at the conditions within the prisons and at rehabilitation services. Also to not release people until they are no longer a threat - so a serial killer shouldn't be released for example.

 

How can 'the death of one innocent life is one too many' ever be a flawed position?

Unless I'm mistaken, that is what NSIS was saying?

Sometimes we can agree with each other, it's ok.

 

You'r choosing an innocent death by the state over more innocent deaths by released fellons. It's why to claim one death is too many in a capital punishment debate is a flawed position.

 

He's not though - he's not saying - let's not have the state kill all these people, most will be guilty but some will be innocent, so lets release all the guilty ones back into the population to reoffend.

He's just saying let's not have the barbaric Capital Punishment. Looking at how to reduce reoffending and when to release prisoners is a totally different argument. As these people who would be on death row would still be in prison.

 

Your assumption that the threat to anyone from a non criminal background of being wrongly executed for murder was somehow less, is a straw man argument.

As if you're wrongly accused and found guilty of murder due to what appears to be infallible evidence, but is in fact false, then whether you've got previous or not, it makes no odds.

You could in fact argue that those wrongly executed for crimes they didn't commit were more likely to have been framed or lazily accused due to their previous though - plus I'd wager that in the US for example, being black probably reduces the odds as well...

 

Yes, it is two different arguments, but I never offered it initially, I simply queried it as a position on capital punishment.

Prison reform is a massive subject, that expands to society, the economy, education etc. There is no one answer, and for some, there'll be no answer at all.

I can see occasions where the death penalty is wrong, and I can see occasions where not having it encourages others. Some serial killers for example, see it as their key to fame if they can muster media coverage and get written about in books. Being alive gives the opportunity to pop up now and again and add to the notoriety.

I've met a few murderers over the years, they tend not to be proud of their crime, and want to get on with life. Their record tends to hold them back, but they seem to get support around that. Some choose to help young offenders back on the right path, so killing them would have been a loss.

I guess I'm saying it's complicated, but I don't see an issue in having it as an option.

 

You try being the next of kin of the innocent one and saying that.

Maybe the state needs to get its house in order if it's leaving innocents vunerable. If released fellons are re offending, it might be an idea to remove the plush life they have in prison for a start.

Gyms, electronic entertainement, visitations etc...not to mention the drugs the dodgy screws allow in. That would be a good starting point. Weaken them emotionally, physically and mentally.

 

It's only a strawman if you continue to try to build it as one. I've already said that I never offered it in that context.