Capital punishment

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 1:50 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 1:00 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 12:35 PM

 

 

To say that deterrents don't work is, in my opinion, foolish in the extreme. If Dale Cregan was looking at a life sentence but murdering the two policewomen would have given him the death penalty I don't believe he would have done what he did. It gained him nothing except a hard man reputation for when he was behind bars, which wouldn't have bothered him if he knew he would be executed.

 

 

Clearly, my last response to you was too difficult to answer, so you simply repeat the same nonsense. Apart from anything else, how on earth do you know what (if anything) was in Cregan's mind? Most murders are commited in the heat of the moment and by people who are known to the victim - how many of those murderers do you suppose were thinking at the time about whether or not they would be hanged?

 

I don't recollect you asking me a question in your last response to me, what was it?

 

The murder of the two policewomen wasn't in the heat of the moment! It was carefully planned and cooly executed. Of course we don't know for sure what was in Cregan's mind but what we do know is that he was aware that, whatever he did, no matter how many women he murdered, he would still serve the sentence that he knew he was already going to serve; a reasonably comfortable life in prison with the liberals who are responsible for him living encouraging him to sue if he has to slop out or can't get access to his favourite porn mags.

 

It is a reasonable assumption for anyone not totally blinded by his automatic liberalism, that he may well have thought twice about committing an act that gained him nothing but would have attracted his own execution.

 

Dale Cregan deserves to die for what he did. Our society is anything but civilised if we think that no crime, no loss of innocent life deserves the ultimate sanction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You continue to attribute a logical thought to Cregan that I doubt he had. What grounds do you have for thinking that the potential sentence was on his mind? That was the question and you haven't answered it. All you have done is say what you might have thought if you had been in that situation. But how you or I might act is not the issue.

 

Further, you imply he killed the police because he knew his punishment couldn't be any worse than it already was. Exactly the same would apply if we had hanging - remember he was wanted for murder as it was. So how would capital punishment have saved those police?

 

Btw, I am not an "automatic" liberal (whatever that might be); I apply logic to each and every situation and sometimes that leads to what you might call a liberal solution; sometimes it doesn't.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-03 3:03 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 1:50 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 1:00 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 12:35 PM

 

 

To say that deterrents don't work is, in my opinion, foolish in the extreme. If Dale Cregan was looking at a life sentence but murdering the two policewomen would have given him the death penalty I don't believe he would have done what he did. It gained him nothing except a hard man reputation for when he was behind bars, which wouldn't have bothered him if he knew he would be executed.

 

 

Clearly, my last response to you was too difficult to answer, so you simply repeat the same nonsense. Apart from anything else, how on earth do you know what (if anything) was in Cregan's mind? Most murders are commited in the heat of the moment and by people who are known to the victim - how many of those murderers do you suppose were thinking at the time about whether or not they would be hanged?

 

I don't recollect you asking me a question in your last response to me, what was it?

 

The murder of the two policewomen wasn't in the heat of the moment! It was carefully planned and cooly executed. Of course we don't know for sure what was in Cregan's mind but what we do know is that he was aware that, whatever he did, no matter how many women he murdered, he would still serve the sentence that he knew he was already going to serve; a reasonably comfortable life in prison with the liberals who are responsible for him living encouraging him to sue if he has to slop out or can't get access to his favourite porn mags.

 

It is a reasonable assumption for anyone not totally blinded by his automatic liberalism, that he may well have thought twice about committing an act that gained him nothing but would have attracted his own execution.

 

Dale Cregan deserves to die for what he did. Our society is anything but civilised if we think that no crime, no loss of innocent life deserves the ultimate sanction.

 

 

 

You continue to attribute a logical thought to Cregan that I doubt he had. What grounds do you have for thinking that the potential sentence was on his mind? That was the question and you haven't answered it. All you have done is say what you might have thought if you had been in that situation. But how you or I might act is not the issue.

 

Further, you imply he killed the police because he knew his punishment couldn't be any worse than it already was. Exactly the same would apply if we had hanging - remember he was wanted for murder as it was. So how would capital punishment have saved those police?

 

Btw, I am not an "automatic" liberal (whatever that might be); I apply logic to each and every situation and sometimes that leads to what you might call a liberal solution; sometimes it doesn't.

 

 

Sigh! The point I made was that the sentence wasn't on his mind! He knew that he was going to prison and he knew that if he murdered ten policewomen there would be no change in his sentence. But what I said earlier was this:

 

'If Dale Cregan was looking at a life sentence but murdering the two policewomen would have given him the death penalty I don't believe he would have done what he did. It gained him nothing except a hard man reputation for when he was behind bars, which wouldn't have bothered him if he knew he would be executed.'

 

So to explain it again as you're obviously having trouble understanding. Cregan was a cold and calculating killer. The ambush was set up deliberately and could never be considered a 'heat of the moment' crime.

 

At the time he knew he was going to prison but if we had, for instance, the death penalty for murdering police officers, I don't believe he would have done what he did. Why would he? He wasn't cornered, he would have had nothing to gain except his own ultimate execution.

 

Now of course I can't be 100% certain that, under these circumstances, he wouldn't still have killed them but neither can you be certain that he would have. My view is that the death penalty does deter but like all deterrents not everyone will be deterred What puzzles me is that anyone can believe that deterrents don't work. They work for me and for most people I know!

 

And as for not being an automatic liberal, oh come on! The logic that you apply to everything is that of a left-of-centre Guardian reading wet liberal. At least I'm honest in admitting that the logic that I apply is that of a right of centre Tory!

 

It is my firm opinion that the deaths of those women are the result of the views of people such as you who have the blood of hundreds of other innocent victims on their hands.

 

How much more does the homicide rate have to go up (compared to its pre abolition rate) before you and those like you accept that the liberal experiment has been a disaster?

 

You accused me of not answering a question. Why don't you answer this one in a post I made earlier this afternoon?

 

'What does a man have to do before liberals feel that perhaps he too deserves to lose his life? How many children must someone kill for nothing more than his own perverted pleasures? How many Jews or homosexuals or disabled people or gypsies does an evil dictator have to starve and murder before it is decided that his actions deserve the loss of his own life?

 

Is there nothing that some people consider so heinous that the ultimate penalty is necessary? '

 

I suspect that I know your answer though. A man can do whatever he likes. He can inflict the most appalling pain and suffering on children, he can murder and torture thousands of people but you will always appease your liberal conscience by refusing to give him what most of us know he deserves.

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Don't forget many states in the USA have capital punishment, result equals murders. How can any of us get in to the mindset of someone like the scumbag that abducted April Jones, just ten miles from us, a 5 year old that was no doubt subjected to unimaginable acts before he killed and no doubt dismembered her tiny body before burning her, the point is these people are not rational people, did he really ponder his despicable acts thinking "oh well if I get caught I will not hang for it". I very much doubt any of these sickos consider their actions on the probable outcome if they get caught. Mmmmm, I've now come full circle, yes capital punishment should come back, but only if beyond irrefutable proof of guilt.

 

 

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-03 3:51 PM

Mmmmm, I've now come full circle, yes capital punishment should come back, but only if beyond irrefutable proof of guilt.

 

 

Gets my vote ;-).................

[Guest pelmetman]

Interesting how the divisions on capital punsihment are falling ;-)....................those mainly in favour of keeping them alive worked for the public sector.................and the hang em and flog em camp are in the private sector :D.......

 

I guess its easy to have highfalutin principles, when you don't have to finance them >:-)......

[nowtelse2do]

John 47 - 2013-07-03 1:00 PM

 

Apart from anything else, how on earth do you know what (if anything) was in Cregan's mind?

 

In the case of Cregan's mind it was premeditated.

 

Dave

 

 

Premedicated.........going more like Hilda Baker everyday :D

[nowtelse2do]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-03 12:56 PM

 

Perhaps someone can point to a country that have cracked this whole criminality problem, that would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

Does the Vatican qualify :-D

 

Dave

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 3:38 PM

 

Sigh! The point I made was that the sentence wasn't on his mind! He knew that he was going to prison and he knew that if he murdered ten policewomen there would be no change in his sentence. But what I said earlier was this:

 

'If Dale Cregan was looking at a life sentence but murdering the two policewomen would have given him the death penalty I don't believe he would have done what he did. It gained him nothing except a hard man reputation for when he was behind bars, which wouldn't have bothered him if he knew he would be executed.'

 

So to explain it again as you're obviously having trouble understanding. Cregan was a cold and calculating killer. The ambush was set up deliberately and could never be considered a 'heat of the moment' crime.

 

At the time he knew he was going to prison but if we had, for instance, the death penalty for murdering police officers, I don't believe he would have done what he did. Why would he? He wasn't cornered, he would have had nothing to gain except his own ultimate execution.

 

Now of course I can't be 100% certain that, under these circumstances, he wouldn't still have killed them but neither can you be certain that he would have. My view is that the death penalty does deter but like all deterrents not everyone will be deterred What puzzles me is that anyone can believe that deterrents don't work. They work for me and for most people I know!

 

And as for not being an automatic liberal, oh come on! The logic that you apply to everything is that of a left-of-centre Guardian reading wet liberal. At least I'm honest in admitting that the logic that I apply is that of a right of centre Tory!

 

It is my firm opinion that the deaths of those women are the result of the views of people such as you who have the blood of hundreds of other innocent victims on their hands.

 

How much more does the homicide rate have to go up (compared to its pre abolition rate) before you and those like you accept that the liberal experiment has been a disaster?

 

You accused me of not answering a question. Why don't you answer this one in a post I made earlier this afternoon?

 

'What does a man have to do before liberals feel that perhaps he too deserves to lose his life? How many children must someone kill for nothing more than his own perverted pleasures? How many Jews or homosexuals or disabled people or gypsies does an evil dictator have to starve and murder before it is decided that his actions deserve the loss of his own life?

 

Is there nothing that some people consider so heinous that the ultimate penalty is necessary? '

 

I suspect that I know your answer though. A man can do whatever he likes. He can inflict the most appalling pain and suffering on children, he can murder and torture thousands of people but you will always appease your liberal conscience by refusing to give him what most of us know he deserves.

 

 

Oh dear, oh dear. You seem to have decided that one type of murder is more deserving of death than another - tell that to the victims! And I ask you again, do you really think that Cregan was thinking logically? As for your "liberal logic" versus "tory logic", well I've never heard such nonsense in my life. Logic derives from looking at situations objectively and having an open mind. To distort such a process with pre-conceived views makes it not logic at all but blind prejudice. Your ridiculous labels do, however, give me an insight to the degree of objectivity with which you have approached my question (ie none!).

 

As for your question about what does a person have to do to deserve death, well that requires a whole book but I will briefly say that there are, of course, circumstances in which I could see that killing someone would be justified. The most obvious might be if he was about to shoot others and the only way to stop him was to shoot him. However, there are very few, if any, circumstances in which I could justify death in cold blood (which, of course, is what capital punishment is). It is hard to decide the answer to that question without having a specific case in mind, so the only honest answer must be that it depends on the circumstances. If you want to use Cregan as an example then I don't see that anything is to be gained by sinking to his level. It is highly unlikely he will ever see the light of day and a civilised society shows that it is civilised by not resorting to knee-jerk vengeance.

 

 

[John 47]

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-03 4:58 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-03 12:56 PM

 

Perhaps someone can point to a country that have cracked this whole criminality problem, that would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

Does the Vatican qualify :-D

 

Dave

 

I read a few days ago that the Vatican has the highest crime rate in the world!

 

[John 47]

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-03 4:55 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 1:00 PM

 

Apart from anything else, how on earth do you know what (if anything) was in Cregan's mind?

 

In the case of Cregan's mind it was premeditated.

 

Dave

 

 

Premedicated.........going more like Hilda Baker everyday :D

 

True but the point at issue here is whether or not the thought of the punishment was in his mind - something that none of us can know.

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

I implied no such thing , I asked a question . Don't try scoring points from nothing .

Of course the cost is relevant , these days more than ever . If we spend thousands on educating a rapist not to rape again but he does , is that money well spent ? Would a further victim of a rapist appreciate the money used to cage the beast , have highly payed social workers , shrinks and the likes try to educate him that his crimes are horrendous would she really think when her life's in ruins that all that effort and money spent on the vile beast was worthwhile ? I doubt it .

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:27 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-03 4:55 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 1:00 PM

 

Apart from anything else, how on earth do you know what (if anything) was in Cregan's mind?

 

In the case of Cregan's mind it was premeditated.

 

Dave

 

 

Premedicated.........going more like Hilda Baker everyday :D

 

True but the point at issue here is whether or not the thought of the punishment was in his mind - something that none of us can know.

 

God, I just give in! The point of issue is that there was no reason for the punishment to be on his mind. He'd already killed two people and whether he then killed two more women officers or ten officers he was going to prison for the rest of his life.

 

Once more I'll try to explain it.

 

If killing a police officer meant that instead of serving life he'd be hanged then the thought of the punishment would definitely have been on his mind!

 

This wasn't some crime of passion. This was a professional and sophisticated criminal who went to great lengths to set up this ambush. He knew that he'd suffer no more punishment than if he didn't kill them. It was a revenge act on the police and to enhance his reputation in prison.

 

No one will ever convince me that faced with life or the rope he would have chosen the rope. But when people have no further deterrent there's no reason for them stopping their murderous activities.

 

And I am not suggesting that police officers should be treated differently. I simply gave that as an example. I would hang anyone who wilfully murders any person, whatever their job.

 

These two police officers are dead because there was no deterrent to stop him. In the days of capital punishment robbers rarely used guns because they were aware of the consequences. Now they kill with impunity knowing that the worst that can happen is life in prison with the loonie liberal brigade campaigning to make their lives as comfortable as possible.

 

 

 

 

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 6:16 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

I implied no such thing , I asked a question . Don't try scoring points from nothing .

Of course the cost is relevant , these days more than ever . If we spend thousands on educating a rapist not to rape again but he does , is that money well spent ? Would a further victim of a rapist appreciate the money used to cage the beast , have highly payed social workers , shrinks and the likes try to educate him that his crimes are horrendous would she really think when her life's in ruins that all that effort and money spent on the vile beast was worthwhile ? I doubt it .

 

You would clearly argue that black is white! I quote you: " how can the victim's needs be less than the criminals ever?" If you weren't implying that this is what I said, then who were you talking to? I repeat, it is outcomes that are important, not costs - so comparing costs is irrelevant. You indeed unwittingly agree with this in your example - spending vast sums of money on failure is not a good idea!

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 10:49 PM

 

 

If killing a police officer meant that instead of serving life he'd be hanged then the thought of the punishment would definitely have been on his mind!

 

 

You still haven't got the idea of this logic thing, have you?

 

.................but you do seem to have an amazing insight into the criminal mind because you can say for sure what would have been on the mind of someone who most people would say cannot have been thinking rationally when he planned his murders.

 

Why do I keep thinking about holes and digging? (lol)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Astonishing the capacity of some to try to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority on almost every subject under the sun.

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:44 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 10:49 PM

 

 

If killing a police officer meant that instead of serving life he'd be hanged then the thought of the punishment would definitely have been on his mind!

 

 

You still haven't got the idea of this logic thing, have you?

 

.................but you do seem to have an amazing insight into the criminal mind because you can say for sure what would have been on the mind of someone who most people would say cannot have been thinking rationally when he planned his murders.

 

Why do I keep thinking about holes and digging? (lol)

 

And you are the man who knows that the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. How do you know what was in their minds when they killed?

 

Once more I'll try to explain it as it's not just logic that escapes you, it's basic common sense!

 

Dale Cregan wasn't found to be insane. He was a cold and calculating criminal who planned his killings meticulously.

 

When he decided to kill the police officers, which he'd planned to do even before he knew they would be women, he couldn't have cared less about the penalty for his actions.

 

Now then try to concentrate here - this is because he knew that even if he killed them he would suffer no greater penalty than the one he was already in line for. In other words, there was no deterrent whatsoever.

 

Now I've explained all this once but here we go again - if the sentence for killing police officers was death, there is every chance that he would not have stepped over that threshold and the two women would still be alive today. Is it sinking in yet?

 

Now of course we can't be certain, we can only make educated guesses but in his case he wasn't cornered, it didn't happen in the commission of another crime and was a planned act of revenge, which he knew he could exact because it would cost him nothing!

 

I think that everyone else knows exactly what I'm explaining here! For some reason you can't grasp it!

 

However, it's fair to say that you lost all credibility when you claimed to approach every debate with a totally open mind. No you don't, you approach every debate with so much left-wing liberal baggage that you're bent double with it. But that's another thing that you can't work out. God, I'm glad you never taught my child if you are typical of the profession!

[Guest Had Enough]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

 

Astonishing the capacity of some to try to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority on almost every subject under the sun.

 

A bit like you in dogs and motorhomes and the choice of Channel crossing?

 

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 9:40 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:44 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 10:49 PM

 

 

If killing a police officer meant that instead of serving life he'd be hanged then the thought of the punishment would definitely have been on his mind!

 

 

You still haven't got the idea of this logic thing, have you?

 

.................but you do seem to have an amazing insight into the criminal mind because you can say for sure what would have been on the mind of someone who most people would say cannot have been thinking rationally when he planned his murders.

 

Why do I keep thinking about holes and digging? (lol)

 

And you are the man who knows that the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. How do you know what was in their minds when they killed?

 

Once more I'll try to explain it as it's not just logic that escapes you, it's basic common sense!

 

Dale Cregan wasn't found to be insane. He was a cold and calculating criminal who planned his killings meticulously.

 

When he decided to kill the police officers, which he'd planned to do even before he knew they would be women, he couldn't have cared less about the penalty for his actions.

 

Now then try to concentrate here - this is because he knew that even if he killed them he would suffer no greater penalty than the one he was already in line for. In other words, there was no deterrent whatsoever.

 

Now I've explained all this once but here we go again - if the sentence for killing police officers was death, there is every chance that he would not have stepped over that threshold and the two women would still be alive today. Is it sinking in yet?

 

Now of course we can't be certain, we can only make educated guesses but in his case he wasn't cornered, it didn't happen in the commission of another crime and was a planned act of revenge, which he knew he could exact because it would cost him nothing!

 

I think that everyone else knows exactly what I'm explaining here! For some reason you can't grasp it!

 

However, it's fair to say that you lost all credibility when you claimed to approach every debate with a totally open mind. No you don't, you approach every debate with so much left-wing liberal baggage that you're bent double with it. But that's another thing that you can't work out. God, I'm glad you never taught my child if you are typical of the profession!

 

Bizarre!

 

First, if you look at the figures for murders in countries with the death penalty and countries without, there is absolutely no evidence that the penalty acts as a deterrent. I'm talking facts here; what is your evidence?

 

Second, you state that Cregan was insane yet you also seem to know that the threat of death would have deterred him. That hole is getting bigger!

 

Third, if the sentence for killing police officers was death then how precisely would that law work? If someone killed a police officer while he was in bed and didn't know he was a police officer, how would you apply that law? Further, why should a traffic cop receive different protection under the law from a traffic warden? And what happens when an officer retires? The more you look into things like this that at first sight many might agree with then the more you realise that they are unworkable - as well as the argument that it is iniquitous that one life is valued more than another. Some would ask why we should we have the death penalty for killing someone who knows their job involves danger but not for someone who has every right to expect his job would not bring him into such danger? There are complicated moral arguments here but logic shows that whatever your moral view it would be almost impossible to draft such a law. No liberal baggage, just common sense.

 

I can see why you wouldn't have liked me teaching your children, though. The duty of a teacher is to encourage students to look at any situation from all angles, objectively and logically. That would have run counter to your "right wing logic only" indoctrination, wouldn't it? :-D

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-04 9:52 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 9:40 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:44 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-03 10:49 PM

 

 

If killing a police officer meant that instead of serving life he'd be hanged then the thought of the punishment would definitely have been on his mind!

 

 

You still haven't got the idea of this logic thing, have you?

 

.................but you do seem to have an amazing insight into the criminal mind because you can say for sure what would have been on the mind of someone who most people would say cannot have been thinking rationally when he planned his murders.

 

Why do I keep thinking about holes and digging? (lol)

 

And you are the man who knows that the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. How do you know what was in their minds when they killed?

 

Once more I'll try to explain it as it's not just logic that escapes you, it's basic common sense!

 

Dale Cregan wasn't found to be insane. He was a cold and calculating criminal who planned his killings meticulously.

 

When he decided to kill the police officers, which he'd planned to do even before he knew they would be women, he couldn't have cared less about the penalty for his actions.

 

Now then try to concentrate here - this is because he knew that even if he killed them he would suffer no greater penalty than the one he was already in line for. In other words, there was no deterrent whatsoever.

 

Now I've explained all this once but here we go again - if the sentence for killing police officers was death, there is every chance that he would not have stepped over that threshold and the two women would still be alive today. Is it sinking in yet?

 

Now of course we can't be certain, we can only make educated guesses but in his case he wasn't cornered, it didn't happen in the commission of another crime and was a planned act of revenge, which he knew he could exact because it would cost him nothing!

 

I think that everyone else knows exactly what I'm explaining here! For some reason you can't grasp it!

 

However, it's fair to say that you lost all credibility when you claimed to approach every debate with a totally open mind. No you don't, you approach every debate with so much left-wing liberal baggage that you're bent double with it. But that's another thing that you can't work out. God, I'm glad you never taught my child if you are typical of the profession!

 

Bizarre!

 

First, if you look at the figures for murders in countries with the death penalty and countries without, there is absolutely no evidence that the penalty acts as a deterrent. I'm talking facts here; what is your evidence?

 

Second, you state that Cregan was insane yet you also seem to know that the threat of death would have deterred him. That hole is getting bigger!

 

Third, if the sentence for killing police officers was death then how precisely would that law work? If someone killed a police officer while he was in bed and didn't know he was a police officer, how would you apply that law? Further, why should a traffic cop receive different protection under the law from a traffic warden? And what happens when an officer retires? The more you look into things like this that at first sight many might agree with then the more you realise that they are unworkable - as well as the argument that it is iniquitous that one life is valued more than another. Some would ask why we should we have the death penalty for killing someone who knows their job involves danger but not for someone who has every right to expect his job would not bring him into such danger? There are complicated moral arguments here but logic shows that whatever your moral view it would be almost impossible to draft such a law. No liberal baggage, just common sense.

 

I can see why you wouldn't have liked me teaching your children, though. The duty of a teacher is to encourage students to look at any situation from all angles, objectively and logically. That would have run counter to your "right wing logic only" indoctrination, wouldn't it? :-D

 

God, you're just strange and as well as being strange you can't even read properly. Where did I say that Cregan was insane? I said the opposite. Go back and read my post slowly and try to understand.

 

And once more, I used the example of the death penalty for killing police officers as an example of a deterrent that may have stopped him. I have never once advocated such a law and have stated to you that I'd hang all murderers.

 

You really do seem totally incapable of understanding the simplest of arguments, so once again I'll ask you:

 

If Cregan had committed crimes that warranted just life imprisonment do you think that if he knew that killing the police women would ensure his execution that he wouldn't have considered his actions?

 

Now any sane person will understand that in this case he would probably have not even put the plot in place in the first case. It gained him nothing whatsoever and most of us understand that he may well have refrained from these murders. He knew the net was closing and that he would most likely be caught.

 

Your obvious diversions to avoid this obvious question fool no one. Constantly banging on about the effects of a law protecting police officers when I've suggested no such law but merely used it as an example, twisting clearly written words to suggest that I've called Cregan insane, reek of a desperation to avoid the real issue.

 

And as for deterrents, comparing the USA with Sweden for instance is pointless. There is ample evidence that the death penalty in some US states has reduced the homicide rate.

 

But what amazes me about the anti brigade is their blindness to acknowledge that many people will be deterred if they thought they would be executed. Not everyone will be for reasons we acknowledge but every scrap of evidence in all our lives proves that deterrents work, for most people!

 

Liberals are so anti the death penalty that they wilfully ignore this obvious truth about human nature.

 

You and your ilk are indirectly responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. There are hundreds out there who would be alive now if we had the ultimate deterrent. Argue about its morality all you like but don't ignore this one obvious truth - deterrents work!

 

There is one obvious statistic here in the UK. Since abolition the U.K.'s homicide rate has gone up dramatically. criminals routinely carry guns and will shoot innocent bystanders and police officers without compunction. Why do you think this has happened?

 

Finally, do you know how many murderers have been released and gone on to kill again? That's one statistic you really should look up. If the killers in question had been hanged that another large number of innocent people who would still be alive. But what do you care? As long as you can assuage your 'right-thinking liberal conscience' it matters not a jot how many innocents die.

 

And then you'll fight like hell to make their lives in prison as comfortable as possible. God save us all!

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 9:41 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

 

Astonishing the capacity of some to try to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority on almost every subject under the sun.

 

A bit like you in dogs and motorhomes and the choice of Channel crossing?

 

The fact that I'm genuinely puzzled by Dog owners who actively encourage animals to share their personal bedding has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, just basic hygiene I would have thought, perhaps the odd trace of dog faeces, and saliva is perfectly OK though eh.

[Symbol Owner]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 12:01 PM

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

I'm genuinely puzzled by Dog owners who actively encourage animals to share their personal bedding has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, just basic hygiene I would have thought, perhaps the odd trace of dog faeces, and saliva is perfectly OK though eh.

 

Not to mention the fleas, hair(s), stink, diseases, parasitic worms, danger of being bitten/infected with (possibly) fatal conditions, i.e., parvovirus, rabies, capnocytophaga canimorsus, etc., etc., I could go on............................................. most dogs need capital punishment >:-) >:-( most certainly ALL dogs that have attacked/bitten a human or another dog.

 

Colin.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Capital punishment for dogs,whatever next, why don't you know, it's never the dogs fault, it's the owner, in which case it begs the question.....................................

 

:D