The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/news.asp?id=-1079590496[/URL]
The person writing the article isn't at all biased ... '... pity he didn't drown in it' ..
The person writing the article isn't at all biased ... '... pity he didn't drown in it' ..
Page:
Seifer wrote:
> However referring to your question, yes there can be mistakes
> and im not denying that because there is all the time but most
> of the time their right now.
Ok, so they're right most of the time. That means they're wrong some of the time. Cant be corrected though if they've been executed, can it?
> Im asking you to put yourself in a family who has experienced
> this injustice. Damilola Taylor or James Bulger innocent boys
> whos attackers will be released in 6 years and James Bulgers
> attackers maybe are realeased now with new identitys and new
> lifes, do you think they deserve another chance?
I'll put myself in the position of having had a good friend murdered. I couldn't be unbiased in that, which is why it's not right of me to judge the punishment.
The law should never be based on anger or personal feelings. Thats not what it's there for. Justice and vengeance aren't the same thing.
> Just to add something, how do you know when a person has
> changed?
How do you know i wont go out and kill someone tonight? You have to give people the benefit of the doubt within reason.
> However referring to your question, yes there can be mistakes
> and im not denying that because there is all the time but most
> of the time their right now.
Ok, so they're right most of the time. That means they're wrong some of the time. Cant be corrected though if they've been executed, can it?
> Im asking you to put yourself in a family who has experienced
> this injustice. Damilola Taylor or James Bulger innocent boys
> whos attackers will be released in 6 years and James Bulgers
> attackers maybe are realeased now with new identitys and new
> lifes, do you think they deserve another chance?
I'll put myself in the position of having had a good friend murdered. I couldn't be unbiased in that, which is why it's not right of me to judge the punishment.
The law should never be based on anger or personal feelings. Thats not what it's there for. Justice and vengeance aren't the same thing.
> Just to add something, how do you know when a person has
> changed?
How do you know i wont go out and kill someone tonight? You have to give people the benefit of the doubt within reason.
She was a special women though and what she went through would be hell. I would want my childs attackers to be put through that pain, if we didn't kill people we wouldn't be the nation we are to day simple as that. Murder/killing is something that has to be done.
Here's my two cents. Simple, don't shoot the man is delivering justice, help the people who aren't getting any.
EST Alfonse 2006
EST Alfonse 2006
Didn't one of their mothers say that she forgives them (in respect of forgiving their sins, but not entirely 'forgiving' them)? I think that most parents would have deep feelings against their attackers/killers, but not necessarily want them dead. This has been proven time and again.
Certainly any Christian/Muslim/Buddhist person should not agree with the death penalty, but even those athiests who see how hippocritical it is to kill someone for killing someone would disagree with the death penalty.
Certainly any Christian/Muslim/Buddhist person should not agree with the death penalty, but even those athiests who see how hippocritical it is to kill someone for killing someone would disagree with the death penalty.
Sorry didn't see your question earlier and yes i agree with some of your points as they do make sense.
And i think murdering an innocent person is wrong, its taking somebodys life away.
However referring to your question, yes there can be mistakes and im not denying that because there is all the time but most of the time their right now.
Lets Take Suddam Hussein for instance, (bit extreme but..) he kills his own people for fun, do you think he deserves a second chance? i certainly dont. And as for prison have you seen where hes living? Personally i dont think thats fair to the victims.
Im asking you to put yourself in a family who has experienced this injustice. Damilola Taylor or James Bulger innocent boys whos attackers will be released in 6 years and James Bulgers attackers maybe are realeased now with new identitys and new lifes, do you think they deserve another chance?
Just to add something, how do you know when a person has changed?
And i think murdering an innocent person is wrong, its taking somebodys life away.
However referring to your question, yes there can be mistakes and im not denying that because there is all the time but most of the time their right now.
Lets Take Suddam Hussein for instance, (bit extreme but..) he kills his own people for fun, do you think he deserves a second chance? i certainly dont. And as for prison have you seen where hes living? Personally i dont think thats fair to the victims.
Im asking you to put yourself in a family who has experienced this injustice. Damilola Taylor or James Bulger innocent boys whos attackers will be released in 6 years and James Bulgers attackers maybe are realeased now with new identitys and new lifes, do you think they deserve another chance?
Just to add something, how do you know when a person has changed?
No, it's no excuse at all, that was my point really. Most people you talk to will consider murder to be wrong, yet a lot of people are for the death penalty ... why?
When it is in the name of 'justice' (that being one viewpoint of justice), people are more open to the idea. It's a form of brainwashing really, as was the Nazi final solution, this ridiculous Jihad fantatics are waging against the west etc.
When it is in the name of 'justice' (that being one viewpoint of justice), people are more open to the idea. It's a form of brainwashing really, as was the Nazi final solution, this ridiculous Jihad fantatics are waging against the west etc.
Borat §agdiyev wrote:
> But then human nature is naturally violent I think ...
> there will always be murder/manslaughter and execution, because
> it's built into every one of us.
Just because it's human nature, doesn't mean we should accept it and that it cant be changed. The Amish community last week was a perfect example.
As for the rest of what you said, deferred responsibility. Is that really an acceptable excuse though? WWII wouldn't have happened had germans taken responsibility for their own actions, instead they passed it off as "We did what we were told".
> But then human nature is naturally violent I think ...
> there will always be murder/manslaughter and execution, because
> it's built into every one of us.
Just because it's human nature, doesn't mean we should accept it and that it cant be changed. The Amish community last week was a perfect example.
As for the rest of what you said, deferred responsibility. Is that really an acceptable excuse though? WWII wouldn't have happened had germans taken responsibility for their own actions, instead they passed it off as "We did what we were told".
Seifer wrote:
> If you end their life you end the problem.
That's a dangerous train of thought in a supposedly civilised world. But then human nature is naturally violent I think ... there will always be murder/manslaughter and execution, because it's built into every one of us. All we need is a reason that makes sense to us, a way of diminshing responsibility for our own actions.
In war it's 'Our government told us to do it', in Martyrdom it's 'Our religion told us to do it', in trials leading to execution it's 'Our nations view of justice that made us do it'.
It's been proven again and again that if you absolve someone of responsibility, if they are blameless in their own mind, they're capable of pretty much anything.
If you're the one that pulls the lever for an electric chair (I realise there's usually several levers), how do you deal with the guilt of it? You tell yourself it was in the name of justice for the nation, or justice for the victims of the crime. A jury found them guilty, so you feel justified in killing them ... it's the jurys fault if they got it wrong, not yours.
You wouldn't see it as you having murdered someone, though in effect that's what you did.
As for whether it's right to kill, an eye for an eye, I'm still undecided.
> If you end their life you end the problem.
That's a dangerous train of thought in a supposedly civilised world. But then human nature is naturally violent I think ... there will always be murder/manslaughter and execution, because it's built into every one of us. All we need is a reason that makes sense to us, a way of diminshing responsibility for our own actions.
In war it's 'Our government told us to do it', in Martyrdom it's 'Our religion told us to do it', in trials leading to execution it's 'Our nations view of justice that made us do it'.
It's been proven again and again that if you absolve someone of responsibility, if they are blameless in their own mind, they're capable of pretty much anything.
If you're the one that pulls the lever for an electric chair (I realise there's usually several levers), how do you deal with the guilt of it? You tell yourself it was in the name of justice for the nation, or justice for the victims of the crime. A jury found them guilty, so you feel justified in killing them ... it's the jurys fault if they got it wrong, not yours.
You wouldn't see it as you having murdered someone, though in effect that's what you did.
As for whether it's right to kill, an eye for an eye, I'm still undecided.
Seifer wrote:
> If you end their life you end the problem.
If i end your life, i end this conversation. Or i could just argue with you until you change your mind. ;)
Punishment or rehabilitation?
You're assuming people cant change. Therefore you'd also be executing people who can still be redeemed. You cant kill people for the crimes they might commit in the future.
You also havent answered my question.
Presuming that 1 out of every 100 convictions is wrong, do you think it's ok to execute the 1 innocent on the basis the others are guilty?
> If you end their life you end the problem.
If i end your life, i end this conversation. Or i could just argue with you until you change your mind. ;)
Punishment or rehabilitation?
You're assuming people cant change. Therefore you'd also be executing people who can still be redeemed. You cant kill people for the crimes they might commit in the future.
You also havent answered my question.
Presuming that 1 out of every 100 convictions is wrong, do you think it's ok to execute the 1 innocent on the basis the others are guilty?
Yes that i know what prison is like, i know what they do in a day and its basically doing nothing but socialising with the other inmates.
If you look at the amount of criminals that come out of prison and re-offend the rate is sky high. If there dead they can't commit that crime again.
If you end their life you end the problem.
If you look at the amount of criminals that come out of prison and re-offend the rate is sky high. If there dead they can't commit that crime again.
If you end their life you end the problem.
Page: