Justice?

Printable View

03-10-2011, 02:19 PM
scottish

Justice?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23463016/

Quote:

IT was a horrific killing that shocked even the most hardened prison officers.

Vile paedophile Mitchell Harrison was butchered by two fellow cons who cut out his stomach in one of Britain’s toughest jails.

The 23-year-old child rapist was allegedly held down and tortured by Michael Parr and Nathan Mann who are said to have covered his mouth and ignored his screams for mercy.

He was disembowelled with a makeshift blade believed to have been embedded in plastic.

A jail source last night said the brutal attack was like “something out of a medieval torture chamber”.

The insider added: “It was barbaric. Mitchell’s body was discovered shortly after breakfast.

“He was in a terrible state. His killers had somehow managed to overpower him, keep him down and keep him quiet before disembowelling him.”

Parr, 32, and 23-year-old Mann allegedly targeted Harrison in Durham’s Frankland Jail because of his sickening history of child sex offences.

Nathan Mann accused over killing

Durham Police confirmed three cons had been arrested after another inmate was found dead in a cell.

The third man was later ruled out of the investigation.

Police said of the attack: “The man who died can now be named as Mitchell Dean Harrison, whose last address was in Cumbria. He was pronounced dead at the scene. A homicide investigation is under way. Three men, who were also prisoners, were arrested at the scene.

“The cell where the man was found has been cordoned off pending a full forensic examination.”

Two men aged 32 and 23 have been charged with murder and are due before Peterlee magistrates today.

Harrison, of Kendal, Cumbria, was jailed last year after raping a 13-year-old schoolgirl twice.

The unsuspecting youngster had accompanied him back to his flat where he said he was going to get money for cigarettes and drink.

But once he had lured her inside he ordered the terrified girl to strip and raped her twice.

She managed to escape when another man arrived and was found naked in the street with her clothes in her arms.

RISK

The pervert was given an indeterminate sentence by a judge at Carlisle crown court as it was the third time he had been involved in sex attacks on young girls.

At the age of 13 Harrison got a formal warning for indecently assaulting a seven-year-old in an incident which would now be classed as rape.

And two years later he was back in court for threatening to rape a 15-year-old classmate whose breasts he grabbed during a lesson.

Prosecutor Rob Dudley told the court that Harrison, who is originally from Wolverhampton, had sexual activity with a 15-year-old just a few days before the rape of the 13-year-old.

Judge Peter Hughes QC said Harrison had to be locked up for public protection because it was clear that he posed a substantial risk to young girls.

A postmortem examination found Harrison died from multiple injuries.

Got what he deserved imho
03-10-2011, 02:25 PM
buttons

ha ******* ha! i've always heard about how child rapist/murderers are at the 'bottom of the chain' in prisons.
03-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Stephen

nah. Even though he was a sick ******* kiddy fiddling rapist someotherwordshere i dont think he deserved to be tortured to death like that. Maybe beaten every few weeks to remind him of what a sicko he is then sure
03-10-2011, 02:33 PM
scottish

The way I see it, anyone guilty of rape should simply be killed

Torture to death like this might not be the right way to go about it, but ultimately, the kids he raped didn't deserve it either.
Rather than getting the easy way out he got brutally killed, but same time the kids are going to be traumatized for the rest of their lives..

So way I see it he deserved everything he got.
03-10-2011, 03:01 PM
beth

don't believe anybody has a right to kill anybody else, regardless of what they've done.
what kind of sick **** tortures someone like that anyway? surely they're ****** too?
03-10-2011, 03:10 PM
Catzsy

That is sickening. Don't condone what he did at all but they acted like animals and it is not as if they were not guilty of crimes themselves.
03-10-2011, 03:20 PM
MKR&*42

No-one deserves death at all? I don't care if they've gone and murdered 50 people... killing the murderer just makes you as bad as him/her.

Prisons are kinda a non-useful option, considering you're crowding 100's of criminals in 1 place..stuff like this is bound to happen. I don't get why the majority of people aren't just put under house arrest. I mean people got arrested in the riots and placed in prison, simply for making a stand for what they believed in. But yes, I do undestant they shouldn't have taken it too extreme.

Justice system is completely messed up. Least we don't have the death penalty.
03-10-2011, 03:29 PM
scottish

Lol?

So you think someone who kills 50 innocent people should simply be left in their house on arrest?

So hard not to insult people sometime.
03-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottish

The way I see it, anyone guilty of rape should simply be killed

Torture to death like this might not be the right way to go about it, but ultimately, the kids he raped didn't deserve it either.
Rather than getting the easy way out he got brutally killed, but same time the kids are going to be traumatized for the rest of their lives..

So way I see it he deserved everything he got.

Yeah I'd definitely rather he died than him living knowing how much of a sicko he is.. Being in prison most of these guys probably get beaten and threatened enough for them to want to die anyway so really they probably done him a favour, except for the whole slow painful disembowelment thing
03-10-2011, 03:51 PM
Neversoft

That isn't justice, it's just sick. And anyone condoning acts of violence like that, quite frankly, has something wrong with them.
03-10-2011, 03:56 PM
-:Undertaker:-

This isn't nice and i'm unsure whether I believe what he did, as sick as it is, merits the death penalty anyway. However, faced with this man back out on the streets (as is what always happens) and him being dead..... I pick his death. I say this as someone who wants a strong justice system with the death penalty, to prevent dangerous mob-rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wazzervaldez

No-one deserves death at all? I don't care if they've gone and murdered 50 people... killing the murderer just makes you as bad as him/her.

Prisons are kinda a non-useful option, considering you're crowding 100's of criminals in 1 place..stuff like this is bound to happen. I don't get why the majority of people aren't just put under house arrest. I mean people got arrested in the riots and placed in prison, simply for making a stand for what they believed in. But yes, I do undestant they shouldn't have taken it too extreme.

Justice system is completely messed up. Least we don't have the death penalty.

The reason we have an appalling justice system is because we don't have the death penalty. The lack of justice leads to mob rule like this sickening act we have seen, and as we've also seen - there's a great deal of support for this grusome method of execution and why? because our justice system does not punish, so we've now turned to criminals themselves to do the punishing.

The amazing thing is, I never ever hear the anti-death penalty crowd (in and out of government) condone the deaths of the likes of Osama Bin Laden.
03-10-2011, 04:12 PM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

This isn't nice and i'm unsure whether I believe what he did, as sick as it is, merits the death penalty anyway. However, faced with this man back out on the streets (as is what always happens) and him being dead..... I pick his death. I say this as someone who wants a strong justice system with the death penalty, to prevent dangerous mob-rule.

The reason we have an appalling justice system is because we don't have the death penalty. The lack of justice leads to mob rule like this sickening act we have seen, and as we've also seen - there's a great deal of support for this grusome method of execution and why? because our justice system does not punish, so we've now turned to criminals themselves to do the punishing.

The amazing thing is, I never ever hear the anti-death penalty crowd (in and out of government) condone the deaths of the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

I don't believe that it is right in any circumstance. Much as I felt Saddam Hussein was an evil match the manner of his death sickened me too.
03-10-2011, 04:15 PM
Ajthedragon

It's a shame he didn't get to spend his life thinking about what a sicko he was, to suffer while the whole world went by...

Anyone who says he deserved death obviously aren't that much better than the people who killed him.

Capital punishment in itself is more civilised than being beaten to death in a prison.
03-10-2011, 04:17 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

I don't believe that it is right in any circumstance. Much as I felt Saddam Hussein was an evil match the manner of his death sickened me too.

The manner of his execution or his actual execution? the same applies to Bin Laden of whom the British government celebrated his death (which was without trial, without jury, with being charged, done in a grusome way) which is the same British government which won't re-introduce the death penalty with trial by jury, the right of appeal and so forth.

Death, when done properly, is the ultimate punishment - thats why criminals use it on one another and thats why we should use it on them.
03-10-2011, 04:38 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publicised

don't believe anybody has a right to kill anybody else, regardless of what they've done.
what kind of sick **** tortures someone like that anyway? surely they're ****** too?

Well yeah prisoners who are on the same wing as rapists tend to be ****** too.

---------- Post added 03-10-2011 at 05:40 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The manner of his execution or his actual execution? the same applies to Bin Laden of whom the British government celebrated his death (which was without trial, without jury, with being charged, done in a grusome way) which is the same British government which won't re-introduce the death penalty with trial by jury, the right of appeal and so forth.

Death, when done properly, is the ultimate punishment - thats why criminals use it on one another and thats why we should use it on them.

What if you find out a few years later you killed someone innocent?

Also since the death penalty was reinstated in New York in 1995, the average cost if charging and giving someone the death penalty is like $23,000,000.
03-10-2011, 04:42 PM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The manner of his execution or his actual execution? the same applies to Bin Laden of whom the British government celebrated his death (which was without trial, without jury, with being charged, done in a grusome way) which is the same British government which won't re-introduce the death penalty with trial by jury, the right of appeal and so forth.

Death, when done properly, is the ultimate punishment - thats why criminals use it on one another and thats why we should use it on them.

Well I just don't believe in execution - full stop whatever any political parties say. I am not a sheep.
03-10-2011, 04:45 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

What if you find out a few years later you killed someone innocent?

What if you find out you've allowed somebody to die in prison who was innocent? what if you find out you sent somebody who was innocent to prison and other inmates ended up killing that prisoner based on the wrong charges you put him away under? what if you find out you've killed an enemy soldier who didn't believe in the war he was fighting against you? we all make mistakes, no human system is infallible - thats why, with the death penalty and justice in general we have trial by jury and the right to appeal which are our most prized values even as there are attempts by the government and the European Union to destroy these liberties.

There are risks to everything, however we assess these risks just as you do everyday when you walk across the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also since the death penalty was reinstated in New York in 1995, the average cost if charging and giving someone the death penalty is like $23,000,000.

The costs can be brought down if we knock away at red tape throughout government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well I just don't believe in execution - full stop whatever any political parties say. I am not a sheep.

But then I come back to the point, you believe in abortion and no doubt euthanasia without consent? ..so at the end of the day, you do believe in execution as many alike you also do. I believe in the guilty being executed (provided it merits the crime) and the innocent always being protected - I think that is a sound set of morals for any free society.
03-10-2011, 04:51 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

What if you find out you've allowed somebody to die in prison who was innocent? what if you find out you sent somebody who was innocent to prison and other inmates ended up killing that prisoner based on the wrong charges you put him away under? what if you find out you've killed an enemy soldier who didn't believe in the war he was fighting against you? we all make mistakes, no human system is infallible - thats why, with the death penalty and justice in general we have trial by jury and the right to appeal.

There are risks to everything, however we assess these risks just as you do everyday when you walk across the road.

The costs can be brought down if we knock away at red tape throughout government.

But then I come back to the point, you believe in abortion and no doubt euthanasia without consent?

1) The difference is with point one, that the chances of you finding out someone was innocent after they die in prison (of natural causes?) is so small - since they could have been in prison for 30 years already.
2) The chances of an inmate being killed by other prisoners is minuscule. Or this thread wouldn't have even been news.
3) The enemy soldier was still fighting against you, and would have killed you if you didn't kill them - this isn't really the same thing
4) Yeah there are risks to everything, but that is one reason why the death penalty is not brought back.

How can we honestly say we live in a civilised society, and then go and kill people? Civilised societies do not tolerate torture - so the death penalty would totally destroy our so called 'civilised society'.
03-10-2011, 05:03 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

1) The difference is with point one, that the chances of you finding out someone was innocent after they die in prison (of natural causes?) is so small - since they could have been in prison for 30 years already.

Ah right, so thats ok then? surely if thats the case, the chances of finding that somebody had been executed under false evidence would also be as equally the same thus making your point void?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

2) The chances of an inmate being killed by other prisoners is minuscule. Or this thread wouldn't have even been news.

The chances of innocent people being sent to death is also minuscule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

3) The enemy soldier was still fighting against you, and would have killed you if you didn't kill them - this isn't really the same thing

But if death as a punishment/a means of punishment is wrong, shouldn't the soldier be given the same compassion? see, the difference between death in war and the death penalty is stark; with the death penalty you have trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right of appeal and a humane method of execution.

So anybody who really didn't believe in execution wouldn't support war under any circumstances nor would they support abortion or euthanasia, which I have a deep suspicion you yourself do support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

4) Yeah there are risks to everything, but that is one reason why the death penalty is not brought back.

Then why not abolish prisons under this excuse as a result of 1)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

How can we honestly say we live in a civilised society, and then go and kill people? Civilised societies do not tolerate torture - so the death penalty would totally destroy our so called 'civilised society'.

Er no it wouldn't actually, we were far more civilised when we had the death penalty than we are now. Britain in general - did we have ***** falling over in the streets at 2am? no. Did we have thousands of babies every year terminated on the basis of 'they are not wanted'? no. Did we have more civil liberties back when the death penalty was about? yes. Did pensioners and the public at large live in fear of organised and loutish crime day in, day out? no. Did the Police command respect? yes. Did people have faith in the justice system? yes, they did. I could go on but we'd be here some time.

So the 'its not civilised' argument really doesn't stack up if you really have a think about it - especially when the death penalty would have with it; trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right of appeal. What has made us civilised as a country are these values.

So the debate really is, is the death penalty worthy as the ultimate punishment?
03-10-2011, 05:18 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Ah right, so thats ok then? surely if thats the case, the chances of finding that somebody had been executed under false evidence would also be as equally the same thus making your point void?

Incorrect. The difference is if someone hasn't been found to be innocent after 30 years in jail, then something has gone horribly wrong. The chances of finding someone is innocent after a short amount of time (eg. giving them the death penalty) is much higher.

The chances of innocent people being sent to death is also minuscule.

But higher.

But if death as a punishment/a means of punishment is wrong, shouldn't the soldier be given the same compassion? see, the difference between death in war and the death penalty is stark; with the death penalty you have trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right of appeal and a humane method of execution.

So anybody who really didn't believe in execution wouldn't support war under any circumstances nor would they support abortion or euthanasia, which I have a deep suspicion you yourself do support.

No. As a soldier you are being paid to kill the enemy - that is your job, you know the risk is that your enemy will beat you to it.

Also, that is not really true. I support abortion is the sense that I would far rather a fetus that is barely there be killed before they are born, if their mother clearly doesn't want them. It is better to kill it when it doesn't really have feelings, than to let it be born and have parents who do not want it - making the life of the child unpleasant. Also, with euthanasia, people are not being sentenced to death. People have the right do die in countries where euthanasia is legal - if someone wants to die due to a terminal illness and wants to go with respect - then so be it. But no one chooses to die via the death penalty - so again it is a different argument really.

Er no it wouldn't actually, we were far more civilised when we had the death penalty than we are now. Britain in general - did we have ***** falling over in the streets at 2am? no. Did we have thousands of babies every year terminated on the basis of 'they are not wanted'? no. Did we have more civil liberties back when the death penalty was about? yes. Did pensioners and the public at large live in fear of organised and loutish crime day in, day out? no. Did the Police command respect? yes. Did people have faith in the justice system? yes, they did. I could go on but we'd be here some time.

You can tell you rape tabloids. A lot of journalese used in tabloids. Also, your argument over the babies - that is because abortion didn't really exist? If someone has accidently fallen pregnant (hey, they might have even been raped), is it not better for the fetus to be killed before it has really developed feelings than have it born in to a family where it isn't wanted? Just like in the animal world where young animals are born but are rejected by their mothers - is it not better for the fetus to be killed when it isn't fully developed etc?

So the 'its not civilised' argument really doesn't stack up if you really have a think about it - especially when the death penalty would have with it; trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right of appeal. What has made us civilised as a country are these values.

Alright time for another argument, although I personally believe it isn't totally civilised. How on earth can we teach that killing is wrong by killing - I mean surely that is totally contradictory? Also it is fact that in states with the death penalty in the US there is a higher murder rate than in states without the death penalty. So this would beg the question; does the death penalty really deter people?

So the debate really is, is the death penalty worthy as the ultimate punishment?

In bold.
03-10-2011, 05:23 PM
Stephen

Why has no one learned yet that you do not reply back to undertaker in current affairs threads. It's pointless and you'll get no where

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts!
03-10-2011, 05:31 PM
GommeInc

One vile man killed by two vile men... It's not justice, it's a dirty circle of murder. The two who killed him are worse than the man they killed :/
03-10-2011, 05:35 PM
-:Undertaker:-

I'll pick up on the abortion issue as thats the main theme going here, anything you wish to pick me up on then do so. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also, your argument over the babies - that is because abortion didn't really exist? If someone has accidently fallen pregnant (hey, they might have even been raped), is it not better for the fetus to be killed before it has really developed feelings than have it born in to a family where it isn't wanted? Just like in the animal world where young animals are born but are rejected by their mothers - is it not better for the fetus to be killed when it isn't fully developed etc?

We are not animals nor do I think we should act like them - which is interesting, because only a moment ago you were telling me how the death penalty (with trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to appeal and a humane method of killing) would make us uncivilised yet you go on to suggest that we should kill the innocent on the basis of convenience and that 'animals do it'.

Apart from rape, you do not 'fall pregnant' accidently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen!

Why has no one learned yet that you do not reply back to undertaker in current affairs threads. It's pointless and you'll get no where

Can we stop with the smart arse comments?
03-10-2011, 05:39 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'll pick up on the abortion issue as thats the main theme going here, anything you wish to pick me up on then do so. :)

We are not animals nor do I think we should act like them - which is interesting, because only a moment ago you were telling me how the death penalty (with trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to appeal and a humane method of killing) would make us uncivilised yet you go on to suggest that we should kill the innocent on the basis of convenience and that 'animals do it'.

Apart from rape, you do not 'fall pregnant' accidently.

Can we stop with the smart arse comments?

We are animals, but not all animals go around killing each other..

Of course you can, it is so old fashioned to think people only have sex for children nowadays.

You seem to have dodged most of my post though.
03-10-2011, 05:42 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Of course you can, it is so old fashioned to think people only have sex for children nowadays.

When you have sex, you take the risk that you will end up with a child and/or a disease - the blame sits solely on oneself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

We are animals, but not all animals go around killing each other..

Of course you can, it is so old fashioned to think people only have sex for children nowadays.

You seem to have dodged most of my post though.

Well if I reply to the whole thing I get smart comments thrown at me like Stephen, any points you really want me to pick up on then please do raise them/copy them and i'll reply to them in full. But as I said before, whats your issue against the death penalty? the 'execution is wrong' has been blown away by your support for abortion and the 'wrongly convicted' argument has been blown away by the fact that the risk is so very very very small.

So whats left? other than 'is the death penalty the ultimate punishment in a civilised justice system' - I think it is, thats why I support its use.
03-10-2011, 05:49 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

When you have sex, you take the risk that you will end up with a child and/or a disease - the blame sits solely on oneself.

Well if I reply to the whole thing I get smart comments thrown at me like Stephen, any points you really want me to pick up on then please do raise them/copy them and i'll reply to them in full.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=721322&p=7287708#post7287708

There we go.
03-10-2011, 05:55 PM
Catzsy

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'll pick up on the abortion issue as thats the main theme going here, anything you wish to pick me up on then do so. :)

We are not animals nor do I think we should act like them - which is interesting, because only a moment ago you were telling me how the death penalty (with trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to appeal and a humane method of killing) would make us uncivilised yet you go on to suggest that we should kill the innocent on the basis of convenience and that 'animals do it'.

Apart from rape, you do not 'fall pregnant' accidently.

Can we stop with the smart arse comments?

Of course a woman can fall pregnant accidentally, Dan. Lots of things effect birth control methods including antibiotics, incorrectly fitting caps, condoms that burst etc etc. This I believe. is the choice of woman - it is her body and she has to live with whatever decision she makes for the rest of her life. I know this is huge controversy about this but before 10 weeks it is just a bunch of cells and then becomes a fetus. At 13 weeks or 3 months: The fetus is about 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Over 90% of all abortions are performed before this stage. Also are you also against the morning after pill?
03-10-2011, 08:02 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Incorrect. The difference is if someone hasn't been found to be innocent after 30 years in jail, then something has gone horribly wrong. The chances of finding someone is innocent after a short amount of time (eg. giving them the death penalty) is much higher.

That is my point and the point you make, things do go horribly wrong (no human system is fail safe after all). But is this a reason for abolishing prisons, that somebody may die in prison having been innocent? no, it isn't. It is not an argument against the death penalty either.

The chances of somebody being sent to death wrongly are minuscule, rather the chances of somebody being sent to prison wrongly are greatly higher as less care will be taken with lesser-cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

No. As a soldier you are being paid to kill the enemy - that is your job, you know the risk is that your enemy will beat you to it.

You have just proven to me again that you actually believe in execution. Either execution is wrong or its not, but at least with the death penalty incorporated into the justice system you have all the checks and balances which i've listed over and over again within it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also, that is not really true. I support abortion is the sense that I would far rather a fetus that is barely there be killed before they are born, if their mother clearly doesn't want them. It is better to kill it when it doesn't really have feelings, than to let it be born and have parents who do not want it - making the life of the child unpleasant.

The excuse to kill is based on quality of life? would you be prepared to say that to those in wheelchairs or who are disabled greatly? it is not down to us or anybody but that person themselves to decide whether their life is 'worth' living. Let's face it, abortions are done for the convenience of the selfish people who decided to take that risk knowing that if a mistake was made, they could simply terminate it.

What a sickening attitude towards fellow human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also, with euthanasia, people are not being sentenced to death. People have the right do die in countries where euthanasia is legal - if someone wants to die due to a terminal illness and wants to go with respect - then so be it. But no one chooses to die via the death penalty - so again it is a different argument really.

I have all support with optional euthanasia, its the ones done without permission I am strongly against. But as with the contrast, i'm afraid the death penalty isn't a choice because those who are guilty of the most grusome crimes aren't to be given a choice on their punishment, as thats the whole notion of punishment itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

You can tell you rape tabloids. A lot of journalese used in tabloids.

Well its true isn't it. That is our 'civilised' society that you speak of, whereas the society I actually speak of (it only died around 40 years ago) had the death penalty and was far more civilised than Britain is today.

I think you agree with this as we've all seen it first hand in some form or other, hence the non-response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also, your argument over the babies - that is because abortion didn't really exist? If someone has accidently fallen pregnant (hey, they might have even been raped), is it not better for the fetus to be killed before it has really developed feelings than have it born in to a family where it isn't wanted? Just like in the animal world where young animals are born but are rejected by their mothers - is it not better for the fetus to be killed when it isn't fully developed etc?

No it is definetly not better for an unborn to be killed as a matter of convenience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Alright time for another argument, although I personally believe it isn't totally civilised. How on earth can we teach that killing is wrong by killing - I mean surely that is totally contradictory?

Because they are two totally different things. The death penalty is not killing for killings sake. The death penalty is punishment for gross wrongdoing and we are taught (or so we should be) that if you do wrong things which inflict pain/death upon other individuals then you will be punished.

Most of us understand the notion of the naughty man, and that the naughty man deserves his just reward for wrongdoing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also it is fact that in states with the death penalty in the US there is a higher murder rate than in states without the death penalty. So this would beg the question; does the death penalty really deter people?

The United States does not really have the death penalty, its done in such small numbers of which most die on death row that they might aswell not have it at all. It is mere window dressing in their justice system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Of course a woman can fall pregnant accidentally, Dan. Lots of things effect birth control methods including antibiotics, incorrectly fitting caps, condoms that burst etc etc.

If these burst and so forth, this is still the fault of the woman and man having sex, the same for homosexuals who contract disease due to this. If you have sex you take this risk, the more people you have sex with the more of a risk you are taking. We treat smokers who seemingly contract cancer as a result of their smoking as 'its their own fault' - the same applies to those who become pregnant, contract STDS, contract HIV and so forth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

]This I believe. is the choice of woman - it is her body and she has to live with whatever decision she makes for the rest of her life.

A woman should not have the choice to kill her own child as means of her own convenience. I am the biggest defender on this forum in defence of civil liberties, but nobody has the right to take away a life without a trial before the courts, of which the taking of an innocent life of an unborn would be rejected. Because it cannot defend itself does not mean we can dispose of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

I know this is huge controversy about this but before 10 weeks it is just a bunch of cells and then becomes a fetus. At 13 weeks or 3 months: The fetus is about 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Over 90% of all abortions are performed before this stage. Also are you also against the morning after pill?

A fetus is simply another word for an unborn - science has not been able to come up with a definition of when a baby begins, its my belief that it starts more or less instantly. I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, its before fertilization and I think its the best method for those who fall pregnant as a result of their own recklessness, but never ever should we kill for convenience.
03-10-2011, 08:10 PM
dbgtz

I couldn't honestly give a crap about the rapist and his death, I just find it funny how other prisoners take the moral high ground when they probably done things just as terrible, just not the same.
03-10-2011, 08:51 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That is my point and the point you make, things do go horribly wrong (no human system is fail safe after all). But is this a reason for abolishing prisons, that somebody may die in prison having been innocent? no, it isn't. It is not an argument against the death penalty either.

The chances of somebody being sent to death wrongly are minuscule, rather the chances of somebody being sent to prison wrongly are greatly higher as less care will be taken with lesser-cases.

You have just proven to me again that you actually believe in execution. Either execution is wrong or its not, but at least with the death penalty incorporated into the justice system you have all the checks and balances which i've listed over and over again within it.

The excuse to kill is based on quality of life? would you be prepared to say that to those in wheelchairs or who are disabled greatly? it is not down to us or anybody but that person themselves to decide whether their life is 'worth' living. Let's face it, abortions are done for the convenience of the selfish people who decided to take that risk knowing that if a mistake was made, they could simply terminate it.

What a sickening attitude towards fellow human beings.

I have all support with optional euthanasia, its the ones done without permission I am strongly against. But as with the contrast, i'm afraid the death penalty isn't a choice because those who are guilty of the most grusome crimes aren't to be given a choice on their punishment, as thats the whole notion of punishment itself.

Well its true isn't it. That is our 'civilised' society that you speak of, whereas the society I actually speak of (it only died around 40 years ago) had the death penalty and was far more civilised than Britain is today.

I think you agree with this as we've all seen it first hand in some form or other, hence the non-response.

No it is definetly not better for an unborn to be killed as a matter of convenience.

Because they are two totally different things. The death penalty is not killing for killings sake. The death penalty is punishment for gross wrongdoing and we are taught (or so we should be) that if you do wrong things which inflict pain/death upon other individuals then you will be punished.

Most of us understand the notion of the naughty man, and that the naughty man deserves his just reward for wrongdoing.

The United States does not really have the death penalty, its done in such small numbers of which most die on death row that they might aswell not have it at all. It is mere window dressing in their justice system.

If these burst and so forth, this is still the fault of the woman and man having sex, the same for homosexuals who contract disease due to this. If you have sex you take this risk, the more people you have sex with the more of a risk you are taking. We treat smokers who seemingly contract cancer as a result of their smoking as 'its their own fault' - the same applies to those who become pregnant, contract STDS, contract HIV and so forth.

A woman should not have the choice to kill her own child as means of her own convenience. I am the biggest defender on this forum in defence of civil liberties, but nobody has the right to take away a life without a trial before the courts, of which the taking of an innocent life of an unborn would be rejected. Because it cannot defend itself does not mean we can dispose of it.

A fetus is simply another word for an unborn - science has not been able to come up with a definition of when a baby begins, its my belief that it starts more or less instantly. I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, its before fertilization and I think its the best method for those who fall pregnant as a result of their own recklessness, but never ever should we kill for convenience.

You know what, Dan? You are a stupid, pathetic.. no, only kidding. You are an intelligent guy! You got my over VM - I am simply playing devils advocate. Basically, as a law student we obviously sometimes have debates. The debate we had last week was for or against capital punishments - however we didn't get the choice on what we had to argue for. So, as you can probably figure, I had to argue against capital punishment. Just good to practice really :P

But back to your post, since I don't agree with everything you put.

I totally think abortion should be the mothers choice, as I am never sure about a fetus being human or not, having said that I do think it should be hugely restricted. For example, if someone has been raped I totally think it should be their decision if they want an abortion or not - simply because as a human, I know I wouldn't be able to live if my kid turned out to look like the rapist - I would personally struggle to look after a child who looks like someone who had ruined me as a person.

One of my friends was born due to a split condom, and I know for a fact is mother does not particularly want him (telling him aged ten; "you were a mistake" and stuff like that.

But as I hinted in my VM, I am for the death penalty - although there are many strong arguments as to why it shouldn't be brought back - I personally believe some scum would be better off wiped off the planet. But there we go!
04-10-2011, 07:01 AM
Catzsy

Quote:

A woman should not have the choice to kill her own child as means of her own convenience. I am the biggest defender on this forum in defence of civil liberties, but nobody has the right to take away a life without a trial before the courts, of which the taking of an innocent life of an unborn would be rejected. Because it cannot defend itself does not mean we can dispose of it.

It is not a child, it is an embryo or a fetus, Dan and woman have every right to do what they like with their bodies. It is their choice. You views on sex seem very niave to me. Also the morning after pill can be taken up to five days after intercourse so there is no way of knowing whether conception has happened or not.
04-10-2011, 12:28 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

I totally think abortion should be the mothers choice, as I am never sure about a fetus being human or not, having said that I do think it should be hugely restricted. For example, if someone has been raped I totally think it should be their decision if they want an abortion or not - simply because as a human, I know I wouldn't be able to live if my kid turned out to look like the rapist - I would personally struggle to look after a child who looks like someone who had ruined me as a person.

The child should be put up for adoption if this is the case, as terrible as rape is the last option was the morning-after-pill which was not taken. The child should be sentenced to death for the actions of others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marketing

One of my friends was born due to a split condom, and I know for a fact is mother does not particularly want him (telling him aged ten; "you were a mistake" and stuff like that.

So does your friend not feel his life has been worth living? but I think on that point you've raised you have also just raised another part of the issue - the fact that we are now so lax about sex and that we do it everywhere, all of the time results in families like the one you've just described. Those who are not ready for motherhood are thrust into it because of their own mistake and why? because there's no sense of what is right and what is wrong anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

It is not a child, it is an embryo or a fetus, Dan and woman have every right to do what they like with their bodies. It is their choice.

We've already discussed this point, a fetus is simply latin for the unborn - it is a human being. If you take a DNA swab of it, it will show as a homo sapiens just like us and it is fertilised. To simply dismiss it as 'not human' is what most regimes do when they wish to dispose of people... we're all aware of that. As for the choice element, again i'm the biggest defender here of civil liberties - but the buck stops when you harm another individual or decide to end its life. A mother has the option to do whatever she wishes with her body, but not that of a child just as you cannot harm a child when it is born.

When you dismiss something as 'not human' when it clearly is human, its dehumanising it in order to kill it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catzsy

You views on sex seem very niave to me. Also the morning after pill can be taken up to five days after intercourse so there is no way of knowing whether conception has happened or not.

Its naive to think people should take responsibility for their actions? my views on sex are actually quite sensible, infact if they were taken up as they previously were (rather than useless sex education of which has resulted only more abortions, more pregnancies and more disease) we'd have less of what I just listed. We are truly a sick nation; we talk about sex all the time, we go out looking for it, it forms the basis of almost everything in our society - have we 'progressed' or gone backwards? the answer is quite clear.

As for the morning after pill, then that should be the limit. Those who fall pregnant in the first place, apart from rape, should have to carry the burden of their actions - not simply kill for their own selfish convenience.
06-10-2011, 03:51 PM
peteyt

The problem to me is some of the prison guards can be as bad. They decide they don't like what prisoners have done so they bat a blind eye when he gets what's coming to them, in their opinion, by other cell mates - and it works to their advantage, because they never have to lift a finger.

While the person killed was very vile, and sounds like he's from my area, at least went to the court of my city, he was doing his time and like all other prisoners, each should be protected. I gather space is the problem however.
06-10-2011, 03:54 PM
Ardemax

This is not a saw movie and the two men should be ashamed.

Yes he is a sick man who fiddled with kids, like people have said, a few "beat-ups" is alright every so often....

... this however, is not.