Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
Humanity as a whole is more inclined to do nothing than something - so bad people always get ahead in some form or another because they're willing to act.
|
That is only because the majority of people are too afraid to stand up and say / do something about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
Lives have been ruined even after people have been found innocent because the few who think that person is guilty anyway are prepared to act on that assumption whereas those who don't think he is tend not to care.
|
Isn't that what these trials are for, to determine whether people are innocent or guilty? Worse case scenario, you don't have to kill anyone straight off. Give them 5-years jail time, in which they can (if still claim innocence) get a retrial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
It wouldn't be humanity as a whole deciding what was bad enough to kill someone over - it would be the loud-mouths.
|
Again, it is the 'loud-mouths' who voice their opinions. I've no doubt some of the quieter people would also expect to see a murderer put out of action. Granted this works both ways. Some states and / or countries support the death penalty, others don't. This isn't necessarily about what is right or wrong in these countries, it is pretty much the opinion of the people running said country, and how the public deem their decisions on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
I'm saying that you need a good reason to kill them, something in service of a higher goal. You need to decide what the law is for.
|
In my mind, a higher goal is not wasting resources and other peoples lives because a murderer is allowed to live a relatively comfy life behind bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
I don't know. How many have we?
|
I don't keep a head count. :rolleyes: But I have read stories in papers of people having been murdered by a former convict that had early bail due to whatever reason. That convict has just been given a murder-pass by being let loose again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
See you're already extending it. First we kill the murderers, then we kill people who've committed other crimes, then the drug dealers, then we kill people who sell a bit of weed, then we kill the people who smoke the weed, then we kill the next door neighbour because his dog pissed on your lawn.
|
For the record, I would only ever put down such a penalty for
serious crimes. Murder and Paedophilia would be right up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
(Post 5457698)
Democracy rarely generates good results. The jury system in this country is a joke. You have people up there who don't know the law, or evidence procedures; being grandstanded to by lawyers who are doing their level best not to tell them any of those things.
I would never want those morons to have the power of life and death. The legal system needs to be seriously reformed before I'd support the death sentence.
Frankly lawyers and judges make such a lot of money off of the legal system being messed up that I don't think it ever will be. - Ever will be fixed that is.
|
I can't argue with that. The Justice System in the UK is tragic. And yes, it does need a reformat, but that isn't something I see us getting any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
Well, there are recidivist drunk drivers walking around every day. Should we kill them too? "For the greater good"?
|
That's different, for the simple reason that these people haven't chosen to go out and kill someone. Granted it's been their entire fault (for drink driving) but the cause would be an accident. They should receive a hefty fine, along with a prison sentence and removal of their driving licence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
So you're willing to kill someone you have never met...because someone else has killed someone?
|
If they've purposely killed, then yes, I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
Average adults were always capable of killing one another. And no, they don't.
|
Being capable of doing something and actually doing something are entirely different things. As for the knowing of right and wrong, anyone with a straight mental state knows the difference. I don't see how you can believe they don't. That's just ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
And puts another in its place.
|
The 'other' would have existed anyway. This way, there is one less to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
No, you're fighting them because someone else told you to. Logically murderer stands on firmer ground because the soldier has no reason by himself to kill the other person; and the reasoning that they'd kill you is invalid.
|
A soilder has a reason (might not be valid, but it's been validated by his/her country). A stand-alone murderer doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
Why?
|
I could ask the same question in regards to having them kept around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
Again, I doubt the dead person cares for the difference.
|
I doubt the dead person does either, but the family of the dead person would care, as would the family of any future potential victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
That's like saying that many people with motor vehicles kill and injure others, therefore we should ban all motor vehicles.
|
I'm not seeing the connection between the two topics here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
Dead is still dead. What makes one person's life more worth saving than another? The guy hasn't even committed the crime yet.
|
Actually, he had. They'd murdered someone in the past. I'm talking about 'reformed' people here. Why give them a second opportunity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
(Post 5457712)
But someone being killed because the government said so is good?
|
I never said it was good.
