The EU debate - Part II

[paultheplug]

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?

Are you really trying to claim that only one in 370,370 murder convictions is likely to be wrong. I doubt there have been that many convictions in my lifetime and I know of at least 30 that have been quashed and there are probably many more that should have been, but as they were already dead the cases were not followed up.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

But offering the one death too many argument to support that is flawed.

How is saying that Capital Punishment is wrong because one innocent death by capital punishment is too many - is a wrong argument????

 

[DMD]

Are you really trying to claim that only one in 370,370 murder convictions is likely to be wrong. I doubt there have been that many convictions in my lifetime and I know of at least 30 that have been quashed and there are probably many more that should have been, but as they were already dead the cases were not followed up.

No.

 

[DMD]

How is saying that Capital Punishment is wrong because one innocent death by capital punishment is too many - is a wrong argument????

Because by not having it, there are more innocent deaths, without a trial or options for appeal.

You can argue for full term tariff using the 'one death too many' but not simply against capital punishment, as it ignores the other innocent victims.

Full term tariff open up a host of other complications, as deaths in cells, or the feeling of nothing to lose before capture are among a few of the consequences.

Saying that, studies in mental institutions show that those with no hope of release seem resigned to their fate, and less likely to misbehave or abscond than those with a long release date.

 

[paultheplug]

No.

What were you trying to point out then

 

[NSIS]

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?

You're trying to make it sound like we're being given a choice here.

Your logic is completely flawed. Yes, wrongful executions in the UK were relatively rare. But this isn't about percentages of **** ups or comparisons, it's about a totally innocent person being murdered by the state.

You could make comparisons for any category of crime and then try to apply the same twisted logic.

The inevitable upshot of your methods would be a state that either executes all criminals, or locks them up forever. Because, hey, if we let him go might do it again.

 

[DMD]

You're trying to make it sound like we're being given a choice here.

Your logic is completely flawed. Yes, wrongful executions in the UK were relatively rare. But this isn't about percentages of **** ups or comparisons, it's about a totally innocent person being murdered by the state.

You could make comparisons for any category of crime and then try to apply the same twisted logic.

The inevitable upshot of your methods would be a state that either executes all criminals, or locks them up forever. Because, hey, if we let him go might do it again.

There are plenty more options in between those two.

An innocent death is an innocent death. The 'one death's too many' argument ignores this.

 

[NSIS]

There are plenty more options in between those two.

An innocent death is an innocent death. The 'one death's too many' argument ignores this.

It does not.

We are talking about a killing deliberately carried out by the state against a totally innocent man.

In the state's case, one is too many..

 

[DMD]

It does not.

We are talking about a killing deliberately carried out by the state against a totally innocent man.

In the state's case, one is too many..

So when the state release someone and they kill again, that innocent, killed without trial or appeal, isn't one too many. I see.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

Because by not having it, there are more innocent deaths, without a trial or options for appeal.

You can argue for full term tariff using the 'one death too many' but not simply against capital punishment, as it ignores the other innocent victims.

Full term tariff open up a host of other complications, as deaths in cells, or the feeling of nothing to lose before capture are among a few of the consequences.

Saying that, studies in mental institutions show that those with no hope of release seem resigned to their fate, and less likely to misbehave or abscond than those with a long release date.

I don't understand how you can make that argument.

How do we have 'more innocent deaths' by not having Capital Punishment - especially when Capital Punishment is proven not to be a deterrent?

 

[NSIS]

So when the state release someone and they kill again, that innocent, killed without trial or appeal, isn't one too many. I see.

It's unfortunate and clearly a mistake has been made.

However, you seem unable to grasp the concept of the state being above that sort of thinking or behaviour.

You cannot make direct comparisons between the behaviour of a criminal and that of the state.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

So when the state release someone and they kill again, that innocent, killed without trial or appeal, isn't one too many. I see.

Why are you saying that if the state doesn't kill a person they have to automatically release that person no matter what?

 

[DMD]

It's unfortunate and clearly a mistake has been made.

However, you seem unable to grasp the concept of the state being above that sort of thinking or behaviour.

You cannot make direct comparisons between the behaviour of a criminal and that of the state.

I'm not trying to. It's consequences of actions that make it a flawed statement.

 

[NSIS]

I'm not trying to. It's consequences of actions that make it a flawed statement.

In a word, bollocks!...

 

[DMD]

Why are you saying that if the state doesn't kill a person they have to automatically release that person no matter what?

After the required time, and in most cases, yes.

 

[DMD]

In a word, bollocks!...

Agreed, that would some up that argument, yes.

 

[NSIS]

Agreed, that would some up that argument, yes.

It certainly sums up your incredibly flawed 'logic' !

 

[NSIS]

It certainly sums up your incredibly flawed 'logic' !

And, I wouldn't normally do this, but it's sum - not some...

 

[DMD]

I don't understand how you can make that argument.

How do we have 'more innocent deaths' by not having Capital Punishment - especially when Capital Punishment is proven not to be a deterrent?

It's two separate arguments. The claim that having capital punishment equals innocent deaths, is countered by the current position, that means people are released and some offend again.

A quick squint implied that there are a greater number of deaths by released prisoners, than there are wrongful state executions.

 

[Smirnoffpriest]

It's two separate arguments. The claim that having capital punishment equals innocent deaths, is countered by the current position, that means people are released and some offend again.

A quick squint implied that there are a greater number of deaths by released prisoners, than there are wrongful state executions.

That's the point exactly - two separate arguments, about two separate issues. Confusing the two is why so many people are here arguing with you.