A "record sentence" would ipso facto include having to listen to ABBA.

(March 16, 2019 at 9:52 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 9:27 pm)fredd bear Wrote: NO. 
.
New Zealand abolished the death penalty for all crimes, including treason, in 1989.

That's a shame.

Because the appropriate response to uncivilised brutality is to be complicit in that MO.

Seems that Jerry Falwell Jr. would call this slaughter "a spiritual moment" and judging by reactions so would many evangelicals

He keeps a gun in his back pocket?  Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll sit wrong and blow his bollocks off.

Boru

(March 17, 2019 at 10:46 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 17, 2019 at 9:48 am)EgoDeath Wrote: What do you mean?

You should be. Just because one can point out drastic cases like spree killers and serial killers, still does not change the cost to tax payers long term.

The cost of appeals is far higher in death penalty cases than merely giving them life in prison with no parole. 

And the other problem with it, as with even other crime, is that someone who doesn't have deep pockets to defend themselves, are far more likely to be hurt by the justice system, than a wealthy person accused of the same if innocent. Once you end their life, you can't bring it back if it is later found out they are innocent. Many people have been let off death row too because evidence proved they didn't do it. 

The death penalty is not a deterrent, and really is nothing more than state sponsored revenge.

You do not protect the accused because you like what they are charged with, you protect the accused for the greater long term attitude that we should not become a mob rule society. 

In a perfect world you'd be right that someone should forfeit their life for mass murder or serial killers. But in the real world innocent people get accused, and those without money to defend themselves are far more likely to be over charged, and or plead out even if innocent, or get wrongfully convicted. 

And since I am a tax payer too, please don't speak for me. The death penalty just on cost alone, is enough for me. Killers can still be put in super max prisons and contained without the extra cost.

I totally support the death penalty since:
1-It ceases and stops reasons for revenge (the victim's family/people will have no justifiable reason to keep on killing to "avenge the fallen".
2-It is very just to treat an eye for an eye.
3-Society -with its rich and poor- will think twice -if not thrice- before the commit of murder
4-Instead of assuming scenarios, let's upgrade our crime detection methods and find new ways to identify the real killer.

Many crimes will cease to happen if the state imposed the rightful punishments for certain crimes. You can't just stack up inmates in prison or else you'll have a very powerful -and hidden- evil underground society.

On the long run, executing killers -after proper, extensive investigation- is better for your payed taxes.
Also; killing must be for killers only: no killing for treason -like some secular societies do- or killing for homosexuality -like some Muslim societies do-.

At work.

What a wonderful, perfect, black and white world you wish to live in AtlassS33.

Just a point BUT why do you make the statement of "Stacking prisoners up forever" ?

My country used to havd a system called 'Convict labour'.

Prisoners of the system didn't just sit in jail.

They were used as a labour force.

Still.... being productive with people is better, I think, than being barbaric with people.

Just a minor point, apart from the howlers  contained in what's his names  Quranic notion of justice, and fatuous claims  about deterrents, 'blood money' seems to have slipped his mind.--This has a Q'uranic base, so it can be said to operate in countries which use Sharia Law.


"In Islamic law, victims of crime are recognized as having rights.  The victim has a say in how the criminal is to be punished.  In general, Islamic law calls for murderers to face the death penalty. However, the victim's heirs may choose to excuse the murderer from the death penalty in exchange for monetary damages. The murderer will still be sentenced by a judge, possibly to a lengthy prison term, but the death penalty will be taken off the table.

This principle is known as Diyyah, which is unfortunately known in English as "blood money." It is more appropriately referred to as "victim's compensation."  While most commonly associated with death penalty cases, Diyyah payments can also be made for lesser crimes, and for acts of negligence (ex. falling asleep at the wheel of a car and causing an accident). The concept is similar to the practice in many Western courts, where the state prosecutor files a criminal case against the defendant, but the victim or family members may also sue in civil court for damages. However, in Islamic law, if the victim or victim's representatives accept monetary payment, it is considered an act of forgiveness which in turn lessens the criminal penalty.

https://www.thoughtco.com/blood-money-in-islam-2004418

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



Iraq national football players. Click image to expand.
Iraq national football players

An Iraqi soccer goalie was accidentally shot to death by a policeman on Monday during a post-game celebration, the second player shot in Iraq that day. The goalie’s family has requested that the policeman pay “blood money” for the death of their son. How do blood-money payments work?

Not that differently from Western damage settlements. In the Muslim world, the tradition of blood-money payments, or diyya, comes from the Quran, in which it is set out as a more humane alternative to the practice of eye-for-an-eye retaliation: “A believer should not kill another believer, unless it happens unintentionally; whoever does so unintentionally must pay diyya to the family.” Under Islamic tradition, the family of a murder victim can also choose to accept a blood-money payment in lieu of the death sentence, jail time, or lashing that might otherwise be meted out. In practice, diyya works like an out-of-court settlement in a Western tort case, and its payment is often more prosaic than the term blood money implies. Foreigners who plan to drive a car in Islamic countries are often encouraged to purchase coverage for potential blood-money claims as part of their regular auto insurance.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009...-work.html


ADDENDUM: Just thought of this. I hope YONADAV will correct me if I've misunderstood.:I once had a discussion with a Rabbi at an online Yeshiva, specifically about 'an eye for an eye' an the apparent contradiction of  "Justice is mine saith theLord, I will repay"
The rabbi explained that there is no contradiction because Mosaic law is based on compensation, not revenge.  Further, that revenge is un Jewish. I mention this because  a great deal of the Q'uran, including Sharia law has been lifted from the Torah. (Atlas mentioned "an eye for an eye" .)

(March 17, 2019 at 1:32 pm)Amarok Wrote: The reason they deserve death

This racist piece of shit took the lives of 49 people and you're asking why he deserves to die?

Oh wow. Another testament to the fact that some conversations are not worth having here.

(March 17, 2019 at 6:56 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(March 17, 2019 at 1:32 pm)Amarok Wrote: The reason they deserve death

This racist piece of shit took the lives of 49 people and you're asking why he deserves to die?

Oh wow. Another testament to the fact that some conversations are not worth having here.

 
@EgoDeath;

Your response is an ad hominem attack, not an argument. Only relevant if you want to retain your currently high level of credibility (at least with me) 

 I'm not in favour of the the death penalty except in extreme cases and where a 100% guarantee of a safe conviction can be given..I really do try to avoid a dogmatic position in philosophical  positions. 

 SO: From what I can see, there is no doubt this arsehole's guilt.

As far as individuals go,I can't think of a more extreme case.****

I'm forced to conclude that I would be satisfied if he were permanently removed from human society ,and the sooner the better.


**never in Australia or New Zealand before.  Even Australia's most notorious mass murderer, Martin Bryant, only killed 35 people. That guy is a mental defective, so I can't really complain about him just being locked up for life.

Quote:1-It ceases and stops reasons for revenge (the victim's family/people will have no justifiable reason to keep on killing to "avenge the fallen".

But capital punishment itself is an act of revenge.  It must be, as it serves no other purpose.

 

Quote:2-It is very just to treat an eye for an eye.

Then why don't we punish thieves by stealing from them, or arsonists by setting their homes on fire?

 

Quote:3-Society -with its rich and poor- will think twice -if not thrice- before the commit of murder

Really?  They haven't done that so far.  If you have evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent, do please trot it out.

 

Quote:4-Instead of assuming scenarios, let's upgrade our crime detection methods and find new ways to identify the real killer.

Well, I'm all for catching the guilty, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Boru