The EU debate - Part II

The argument you put forward was nonsensical and completely disjointed, using a completely irrelevant supposed stat as a somewhat perverse justification of the death penalty.

It's been explained to you ad nauseam why the argument was totally flawed, you've merely ignored what was said and are now following your usual tactic of trying to deflect away from it and accuse others of somehow derailing the discussion, whilst still blindly professing to be correct.

You're hilarious in your complete idiocy

 

She's a ****ing idiot. I have no idea how she's an MP, frankly.
I often disagree with people's political opinions, yet I'm able to appreciate their point of view and listen to their arguments.
She simply doesn't have any. States her case, gets torn down, then repeats herself. Utter moron.

 

If the guilty were executed on or shortly after conviction it wouldn't cost more.How much as
the yorkshire ripper cost the state?.... The doubt you speak of just isn't there at the crime level
i'm speaking of.

 

Nah, some of you tried to claim a different point to the one I made, and then argued that.

I've stuck pretty rigidly to my point where I can, but you and others do tend to ramble as a way of rephrasing things. Had I made the same silly statement, you and a couple of others would be telling me why it's wrong. It's comical to watch.

One life is one too many is a flawed, glib statement when used as an argument against capital punishment.

 

Yeah just wheel 'em straight out the back of the court Bluey and stick a bullet in their head, no ****ing about.

It'd never go wrong, nooooooo.

 

Apart from the lower cost (which is questionable judging by this thread) is there any benefit to capital punishment at all? Proven to not be a deterrent, morally bizarre in a modern society, irreversible if wrong. I don't understand how anyone can be in favour of something that has so many enormous flaws and possibly one benefit.

 

The killers of Lee Rigby should hang, clear video evidence of them committing murder.

The death sentence should only be used if evidence so clear cut. But thats my opinion.

 

Why not?....sensible if you can.

 

The ripper?

 

Yes, let's abandon the rule of law and due process and just kill everyone who commits any crime. It'd be cheaper.

How did you work out that there is no doubt at the level you're speaking of?
The UK has actually killed people that were innocent in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

More recent cases of people being locked up for murders that they didn't commit are also easy to find.
Michael Shirley served his sentence and still refused to admit that he'd done the crime, despite it meaning that he'd stay in jail.
They found out that he didn't do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom
Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater Four, Cardiff Three... how many cases do you need?

 

It's probably what they want. You're making them martyrs, at least in their eyes. Surely 50 years of being on the lowest rung of the prison ladder is a worse punishment. In any case, the death penalty isn't a deterrent, so achieves nothing.

 

What about him?

 

Bingo.

 

There's not any doubt today,what with DNA and other advances.

 

The evidence of Evans innocence came from the Lodovic Kennedy film, which contains some flaws and missing detail. There're others that put forward a case to show he was quite likely guilty as charged, and as bizarre as it sounds, there were two killers in the same house.

 

If all criminals were executed immediately after arrest, it would save the country £350million a week which could be invested in the NHS.

 

The cost of 50 years?

 

For every criminal executed, 100 hardworking British pensioners could be saved from hypothermia.

 

Miniscule in the grand scheme of things and arguably has the opposite effect and just encourages more similar crime.