Printable View
Well then I can simply compare to something else? I picked the dilema off the top of my head to prove that refurendums aren't always that best thing... :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Sergio
Everyone wants you to invade a country, bomb them to smitherines, kill innocent people. What would you do. Hold a refurendum? :rolleyes:
It is exactly what you are saying, you are saying the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions yet you seem to think that the British people can't decide something so simple as the death penalty, yet have the ability to appoint a government which has to control/implements millions of pages of legislation.Quote:
It's not about being stupid. I don't know how to fix a toilet. I don't know how to build a house. I don't know how to fix cars. I don't know how to install electrical sockets. I don't know how to perform a heart operation. That's why I'm not a plumber, a builder, electrician or a surgeon. I don't know know everything to do with making decisions that effect me. That's why i'm not a politician. I appoint my own plumber, my own builder, to an extent my own doctor and my own politician to do the best job that I would like doing.
A referendum covers one issue, an election covers millions of issues.
So you now disagree with the European Union imposing thousands and thousands of pages worth of legislation on this country every year? - i'm glad you've finally come around now to that, which leaves the question that if you disagree with the thousands of pages of legislation the European Union imposes on Europe every year, what is the actual point/function of the European Union?Quote:
Like you've said about UKIP, you don't agree with everything they do, but you agree with their general outline. Likewise with the EU in my case.
Of course you can, but you can also say in that logic that not allowing the people of this country to decide their own issues such as allowing/not allowing mosques is oppression. The people should rule at the end of the day, its so simple. Its the reason we fought two world wars and a cold war for.Quote:
Banning something is by definition denying someone the freedom in partaking the said action. So yes, banning both mosques and cigarrettes from public places are oppression. However, you can say that people smoking cigarrettes in public places tramples on people's freedom to live a healthy life. A mosque on the other hand does not affect anyone else's freedoms.
Sorry but people know when politicians/newspapers are lieing, people are not stupid. What are you siggesting then - that the free media be banned when an election is held/referendum?. On Cameron, much like when Peter Mandelson was EU trade commisoner and had aQuote:
well evidently they were voted in. just as the electorate was influenced, whether it be violently or via propaganda, in many ways doesn't make the result any less valid at that point in time. The guardian does not speak fact in many areas, nor does many news outlets. But when you start presenting opinion as fact (as you see in FOX NEWS in the USA) and in the mail, guardian, etc you have direct manipulation of ones thoughts of things they are not in direct contact in. When you have Cameron going round to Murdochs house for dinner and the next day announce they will quash some of OFCOMs powers when elected and then the Sun changing their stance, can you not tell that there is some sort of alliance of the state and 'free' media. Glamorization or substantiation sells. The truth often doesn't.
meetingholiday with a Russian Steel tycoon on his boat which incidently led to EU taxes/controls on Russian steel coming down & being relaxed, of course the EU and Mandelson claimed the meeting was totally unrelated to the EU's moves. If that doesn't stink to high heaven of how corrupt the EU is then I don't know what does.
Then you have lost faith in democracy, simple as. I wonder sometimes we millions over the world gave their lives in vain to fight elitism and to establish democracy. The point still stands, you and the left only disagree with referendums because you know fully well what the outcome would be.Quote:
If elitism gains the best results then yes. However i'd call it specialisation. Just because someone THINKS something works in a certain way doesn't make it TRUE which is what referendum's largest downfall. Just because i believe my migranes come from stress doesn't mean they are, nor should i be able to prescribe my own drugs.
Totally undemocratic and is the kind of idea of which crackpots like Robert Mugabe use to run their country, 'I know best so my opinion is worth more than yours' - yes we're only debating the subject of referendums, but all dictators/crackpots throughout history have always followed that line. I despise the fact that this government and past governments have done things which are totally unrepresentative of the views of the population, and you should to. The job of an MP/politician is to represent the people in parliament, they do not. The way to solve this is via referendum where they would have no control over what becomes law and what doesn't, thus abolishing elitism.
The left has always argued that the ruling classes need to be removed to ensure the people vote, yet as history has shown and as you are showing now;- you replace one elite with another.
National security issues and economical issues would not be put to a referendum. It is so simple so lets not complicate it; issues such as the European Union, burkas and the death penalty would be the kind of issues we would see put to a referendum nationally, locally we could possibly see referendums coincide with local elections on council leisure spending such as whether the local community wants a park or a swimming pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
It would actually give the people of this country the right to rule, you and myself can disagree with some of the outcomes as we surely would, but thats democracy. I don't like the Labour Party or anything it stands for but I would never call for it to be banned/its voice taken away. It has a right to govern if its elected, just as a policy has a right to become law if the majority of the population democractically voted for it.
Well I think that it's really the details of a case that call for killing a killer or not. It's not black or white, this matter is kind of a gray matter thing.
For instance, a man who kills one woman gets the death sentence, while a woman who kills three men doesn't. It doesn't sound really just, but you don't know the reason behind the sentence if you don't know any details about it. It's not an exact science.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crimes. The countries have outlawed capital punishment to not have higher crimes rates. When a country aboloshes capital punishment they are not plunged into criminal chaos. Even if the death penalty did reduce crime rates, would it be acceptable? The death penalty targets the economicaly disadventaged. Those who can't afford good legal council, those without a voice in society. Even if the death penalty targeted rich a poor, is it acceptable? The death penalty is irreversable and results in the death of innocence. When someone is dead a retrospective parden is of little use to them or their families. Since 1990 in China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Araibia, Yeman and The USA there have been 51 executions of child offenders. Some as young as forteen years old. Even if no more innocence or children killed, is the death penalty acceptable? The death pentalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic Human Rights. Everyone has the right to live and nobody should be subject to toture. The death penalty obviously kills people, but also totures people because of the brutual nature of execution and physcologicaly for forcing people to wait to be killed. They wait sometimes for decades. While others are lead to their deaths. The horror of this waiting is unimaginable. Human rights apply to all Human Beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack of this fundemental rights anywhere, is an attack againts all of us. Criminals are still human beings however much we hate their actions. They may have killed and totured. Do we want to join them?
to take a life, the punishment should be the ultimate sacrifice.
it works in america, it could work in britain.
It doesn't work in America, I suggest you read my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayme
Just because you are poor or disadvantaged does not under any circumstances make you commit crime. Stop making excuses for the criminal scum and actually accept the notion that if you commit the crime then its not your background/who you are who did it, its your choice, the individual choice to take somebodies life.Quote:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crimes. The countries have outlawed capital punishment to not have higher crimes rates. When a country aboloshes capital punishment they are not plunged into criminal chaos. Even if the death penalty did reduce crime rates, would it be acceptable? The death penalty targets the economicaly disadventaged. Those who can't afford good legal council, those without a voice in society. Even if the death penalty targeted rich a poor, is it acceptable?
You would make a very good lawyer for the likes of Ian Huntley and co 'oh its not his fault because he was very hard pressed and under strain from his job as a caretaker' :rolleyes:
I very much doubt the US has executed child offenders and would ask for proof on that. Is the death penalty acceptable? - well why not let the people of this country which we call a democracy make that decision?Quote:
The death penalty is irreversable and results in the death of innocence. When someone is dead a retrospective parden is of little use to them or their families. Since 1990 in China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Araibia, Yeman and The USA there have been 51 executions of child offenders. Some as young as forteen years old. Even if no more innocence or children killed, is the death penalty acceptable?
It is also your human right to be free and not locked up in jail so the argument of human rights simply does not stand up at all. It is also not in your human rights to be allowed to kill other people and simply get away with it. Criminals are human beings yes, and its time they (like the rest of us do) start taking responsibility for their own actions. They killed in cold-blood, the state would not. The whole point of court is to see whether you are guilty or not and you are punished for that.Quote:
The death pentalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic Human Rights. Everyone has the right to live and nobody should be subject to toture. The death penalty obviously kills people, but also totures people because of the brutual nature of execution and physcologicaly for forcing people to wait to be killed. They wait sometimes for decades. While others are lead to their deaths. The horror of this waiting is unimaginable. Human rights apply to all Human Beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack of this fundemental rights anywhere, is an attack againts all of us. Criminals are still human beings however much we hate their actions. They may have killed and totured. Do we want to join them?
In conclusion we are not like them because we do not kill for no reason/malicious reasons.
Do you support having a referendum on the death penalty?
If they are 100% guilty like serial killers and serial paedos let them fry or swing. I am really fed up with people getting away with murder for lower charges due to being mentally ill etc and think they should be at the front of the queue as they wont get any better. As for the ppl like the bulger killers maybe not the death penalty as they were kids but they should never ever have been let out in the the community again. While we are at it we need to hang some people for treason and letting our country down and they are the ones who think they are doing what the people want.............................
It is not justifiable to execute criminals. It was abolished in this country for a reason and that reason was an innocent woman who was hanged for a crime she didn't commit. Humans are not infallible and even those who confess may not have actually committed the crime (protecting someone, mentally insane, compulsive liar, all sorts of possible reasons).
Secondly, as Murcen pointed out, the states where capital punishment is legal does not decrease the crime levels. It's not a deterrent. If you're planning a cold blooded murder, I really doubt any punishment is going to stop you.
Thirdly, death penalty means they are not actually punished. They should be locked up and punished.
As for a referendum, I'd agree with it. It gives the people the right to say what they want and eventually, it's likely it'll get abolished again. I just wonder how many innocent people we'd have to kill before we get there...
Thats why you execute the ones we are 100% sure are guilty and as far as im concenred the insane might as well go with them instead of keeping them alive costing us money but if we do they should NEVER get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
I think the US has a better justice system than ours as its 3 strikes and your in prison for LIFE. If you commit a murder you don't always get death but still life which means life unless there is some other circumstances involved to let them off a little lenient. The US support their citizens and if you catch somebody robbing your home your hailed as a hero if they leave in a body bag unlike this country where you get arrested just for giving them a slap.
I think most people who have had very serious crimes committed against themselves or their family would feel much better seeing the guilty party dead rather than 10 years of cushy pampering in our long stay holiday camps (even better if u could pull the lever or push the button yourself on the scum). I think we should give long serving prisoners a cyanide pill to keep with them so if it gets to much they can stop being a 50k a year burden on the law abiding folk. How does it cost 50k a year to keep a prisoner? It would be cheaper to put them in a top hotel in the center of london........... Some prisons in America they are in tents in the yard to help over crowding.
If we voted on the death penalty coming back it would win hands down. If the government was tough on crime and the causes of crime as that muppet Blair said then perhaps we would not be so angry at how society is failing and putting the rights of the criminals before that of the victims. Bring back the stocks and give us a good reason to go out on a sunday morning ;)
Anybody seen the old Kurt Russel film Escape From New York? Maybe we should do go the same way and build huge walls and throw in the prisoners for a fight of the fittest who are never released? Or even create our own alcatraz on the unsused scottish islands. Perhaps have an open prison on the gates of Dover so the prisoners sneak out the country in to europe to make up for the foreign criminals sneaking this way with no papers and no proof of identity who then end up with a british passport when we have no idea what they did in their own countries.