So you're pro ethnic cleansing Kustard? I'm going to need more space for my sig!
What's the V stand for at the end of your sig, Stan?...
The EU debate - Part II
- Thread starter PINKIE
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
What's the V stand for at the end of your sig, Stan?...
This sounds like you agree with the death penalty yet you earlier like a post of mine against it...so I am a little confused by this.
In your opinion would it people voting for it be a good or bad thing?
Weak for thinking the death penalty and ethnic cleansing aren't right.......OK then...
I've hired some Romanian heavies just in case I get a visit.
Cheap as **** they were as well, I think the heavies market has had its margins reduced by cheap imported muscle.
Last edited:
You're confusing wetchair with Blueman.
Blueman is still lurking after his latest "I'm leaving" post. The attention seeking tart!
Blueman likes this (but he ****ing hates Stan, so does his brother)
You're confusing wetchair with Blueman.
Blueman is still lurking after his latest "I'm leaving" post. The attention seeking tart!
Blueman likes this (but he ****ing hates Stan, so does his brother)
Cheers...I'm easily confused so all help greatly appreciated
I guess it depends how you define a party with a spine. Personally I wouldn't consider re-introducing an incredibly backward policy that is utilised by hardly any modern, progressive countries as having a spine. It sounds more like pandering to Daily Mail voters rather than thinking about what would actually benefit the country.
Anybody that's done any research into the death penalty will know two things about it:
Could someone that backs it please explain why they do?
- There's no evidence that it's an effective deterrent.
- It costs more than incarceration.
Could someone that backs it please explain why they do?
Look it up. It costs more.
That's assuming that we're not just going to start shooting everyone that's accused of a capital crime.
If that's the case, then I'll be throwing an accusation your way as soon as that law passes. Still ok with it?
Too late, I have stitched you up as well, partners in crime, see you at the firing squad, dont be sacred, you will not feel a thing
I'm neither pro or against capital punishment as both are flawed but how can their be no evidence? My thinking is if you are executed rightly or wrongly it's a bloody marvellous deterrent. Ive never heard of a corpse re offending but on the other hand just having looked at an article from 2007 (Telegraph). "30 convicted killers released from jail over the past 10 years have gone on to kill again, according to Home Office figures"
Clearly the loss of an innocent life is abhorrently wrong, alleged killer or victim. I don't know what the answer is but whatever it is it has to involve people who have killed not being free to commit the same crime.
(1) What he means is that studies has shown that capital punishment has little effect on the levels of crime/murders in a country.
(2) You could also use your argument to say that I've never heard of a person locked up in prison for his whole life murdering a member of the public. But that's not really the argument is it?
Capital punishment is not a deterrent, it never has been! Even 250 years ago when they'd hang you for stealing a loaf of bread, or a handkerchief, it didn't stop theft.
It has done nothing to reduce murder rates in the US either.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
It's nothing more than retribution, pure and simple. Eye for an eye stuff...
It has done nothing to reduce murder rates in the US either.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
It's nothing more than retribution, pure and simple. Eye for an eye stuff...
As SP has pointed out, it doesn't appear to prevent people committing murders, on the whole.
It prevents reoffending, obviously, but so would killing all criminals and I don't think anyone's suggesting that.
Taking the US as an example, you can see that of the 11 states with the highest murder rate, 10 have the death penalty:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
6 of the 8 states at the bottom of the murder rate table don't have it.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, but numerous studies have shown that it doesn't lower the rate successfully.
I don't trust our legal system enough to be ok with the death penalty, either.
Incarcerating innocent people is bad. Killing them is worse.
Do you not agree that it's a fair statement? If you can 'debunk' the bad things that are said and claim they only apply to one particular event, why can't the same be said of the good things?Yes context is overated.
Why would a Christian nation putting people to death for homosexual acts be inconsistent with it's religion?
It's explicitly ordered in the bible.
I don't think the death penalty is a good idea simply because if one innocent person is executed then that's one victim too many. His/her family could understandably argue that the people who executed him/her are effectively guilty of murder and must also be executed.
I believe in longer and tougher prison sentences though. I think spending the rest of your life in a box is a much greater punishment than the release of death.
I believe in longer and tougher prison sentences though. I think spending the rest of your life in a box is a much greater punishment than the release of death.
He'll be very insulted by that suggestion. Wearing ****ing red?
- Status
Similar threads
