By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
“Now that we’ve left we can bring back the death penalty†“When did abolish it†“1960s†“And when join the EU†“1970s†“Who would you kill first†“Rose West†“I think she’s dead†... “Nevertheless my point stands, byeâ€pic.twitter.com/Z4IRu7Ko1y
It's almost a parody it's so dumb. Maybe a comedian trying out new material....
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 11:47 - Feb 7 by m14_blue
Appreciate this isn't really the point, but I don't think Rose West is dead, is she?
She's not, Fred is.
Ignoring the morality of the death penalty for the moment, I'm not sure what purpose bringing back the death penalty would serve for tackling terrorism today. The people doing this rarely give a fook whether they die, so it would serve no purpose other than vengeance.
And going further, the 70s and 80s were statistically way more dangerous in terms of terrorism than now.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 11:52 - Feb 7 by DanTheMan
She's not, Fred is.
Ignoring the morality of the death penalty for the moment, I'm not sure what purpose bringing back the death penalty would serve for tackling terrorism today. The people doing this rarely give a fook whether they die, so it would serve no purpose other than vengeance.
And going further, the 70s and 80s were statistically way more dangerous in terms of terrorism than now.
[Post edited 7 Feb 2020 11:55]
And if you did bring back the death penalty, presumably we would have a US-style procedure involving expensive appeals and this is potentially more expensive than keeping a dangerous killer in jail for life.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 11:52 - Feb 7 by DanTheMan
She's not, Fred is.
Ignoring the morality of the death penalty for the moment, I'm not sure what purpose bringing back the death penalty would serve for tackling terrorism today. The people doing this rarely give a fook whether they die, so it would serve no purpose other than vengeance.
And going further, the 70s and 80s were statistically way more dangerous in terms of terrorism than now.
[Post edited 7 Feb 2020 11:55]
Certain people: Islamic extremists and their medieval practices are barbaric.
Also certain people: Bring back hanging.
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:01 - Feb 7 by Radlett_blue
And if you did bring back the death penalty, presumably we would have a US-style procedure involving expensive appeals and this is potentially more expensive than keeping a dangerous killer in jail for life.
I've never understood this baying for the death penalty.
You can then imagine half of those would want it live on TV.
I can't see the full tweet - who was the conversation between?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:04 - Feb 7 by jeera
I've never understood this baying for the death penalty.
You can then imagine half of those would want it live on TV.
We've really not evolved much at all have we.
The chief reason the death penalty was prevalent in earlier centuries was the fact we didn't have large scale facilities for imprisoning convicted serious criminals. Altho it was abolished several times during the Middle Ages, replaced with things like mutilation (removal of ears, noses) or branding.
Once transportation to the colonies became an option, that was mostly used instead. Many death sentences handed down were subsequently commuted to transportation rather than being executed. Fewer than 1,500 people were hanged in London in the entire 18th century, an average of only around one a month. It was not a really common occurrence.
Miscarriages of justice were common even long ago. A medieval murder trial in Norwich collapsed when the supposedly slain man was discovered to be alive - and actually in the same prison as his alleged killer.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:03 - Feb 7 by footers
Certain people: Islamic extremists and their medieval practices are barbaric.
Also certain people: Bring back hanging.
Altho the English method of measured-drop hanging was arguably more humane than things like the electric chair, gas chamber or even lethal injection. Certainly quicker. The fastest on record was just 20 seconds from entering the condemned man's cell to him being unconscious on the end of the rope.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:25 - Feb 7 by Guthrum
Altho the English method of measured-drop hanging was arguably more humane than things like the electric chair, gas chamber or even lethal injection. Certainly quicker. The fastest on record was just 20 seconds from entering the condemned man's cell to him being unconscious on the end of the rope.
Forgot the publication now, but remember there being a crossword around the time of Saddam Hussein's execution with a clue related to the event. The answer was 'the suspense is killing me'. Nice gallows humour, that :)
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:22 - Feb 7 by Guthrum
The chief reason the death penalty was prevalent in earlier centuries was the fact we didn't have large scale facilities for imprisoning convicted serious criminals. Altho it was abolished several times during the Middle Ages, replaced with things like mutilation (removal of ears, noses) or branding.
Once transportation to the colonies became an option, that was mostly used instead. Many death sentences handed down were subsequently commuted to transportation rather than being executed. Fewer than 1,500 people were hanged in London in the entire 18th century, an average of only around one a month. It was not a really common occurrence.
Miscarriages of justice were common even long ago. A medieval murder trial in Norwich collapsed when the supposedly slain man was discovered to be alive - and actually in the same prison as his alleged killer.
I never suggested it was a common occurrence Guths.
But I'm sure, like me, you must have encountered plenty of folk over the years who speak of its return a bit too fondly.
I'm not sure if these things are affected by regional, educational or just generational factors or a mix of them, but I have heard the same lines many times.
It's difficult to defend incarceration over capital punishment too when those in favour usually go straight for the child-killers rhetoric. It's the cheapest shot available.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:03 - Feb 7 by footers
Certain people: Islamic extremists and their medieval practices are barbaric.
Also certain people: Bring back hanging.
Not comfortable with the death penalty. It would cost too much as well. Appeal after appeal after appeal.
Chakrabarty would wet her pants!
Anyhow, I do like the idea of inventive ways to make people suffer long term.
Here is a starter to ten:
Tied to a chair forced to watch the worst ITFC performances Celine Dion loud and on repeat Tickling Temptation of your favourite cheese.....
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:30 - Feb 7 by jeera
I never suggested it was a common occurrence Guths.
But I'm sure, like me, you must have encountered plenty of folk over the years who speak of its return a bit too fondly.
I'm not sure if these things are affected by regional, educational or just generational factors or a mix of them, but I have heard the same lines many times.
It's difficult to defend incarceration over capital punishment too when those in favour usually go straight for the child-killers rhetoric. It's the cheapest shot available.
[Post edited 7 Feb 2020 12:31]
I wasn't saying you were, more offering supporting context for why the death penalty was resorted to historically, given the lack of alternatives which we have now. The latter rather removing the justification for reintroducing it.
Even the argument about deterrence is flawed. Brady and Hindley were not put off their crimes because of the death penalty (it was suspended only just before their arrest, thus they escaped the gallows). A significant number of 20th century executions were for crimes of passion, the poisoning of a spouse to run off with a lover - in an era where divorce was nearly impossible.
I saw that and thought it was incredibly condescending. The guy knew when the death penalty was abolished and knew it was before we joined the EU/CM. That wasn't the point he was making. He was trying to suggest that nowdays, in his opinion, we need the death penalty but we're prevented from implementing it by EU laws.
That was what should have been questioned/challenged, not setting him up to look like an idiot for something he didn't mean. No wonder remainers get a reputation for being smug.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:51 - Feb 7 by Swansea_Blue
I saw that and thought it was incredibly condescending. The guy knew when the death penalty was abolished and knew it was before we joined the EU/CM. That wasn't the point he was making. He was trying to suggest that nowdays, in his opinion, we need the death penalty but we're prevented from implementing it by EU laws.
That was what should have been questioned/challenged, not setting him up to look like an idiot for something he didn't mean. No wonder remainers get a reputation for being smug.
It's pure clickbait stuff imo.
When asked when the death penalty was abolished he said under Tony Blair initially. He wasn't set up to look like an idiot, he made himself one.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 13:03 - Feb 7 by BrixtonBlue
When asked when the death penalty was abolished he said under Tony Blair initially. He wasn't set up to look like an idiot, he made himself one.
Actually the death penalty was only finally fully abolished in 1998 as there were still a few crimes that you could technically be sentenced to death for, though obviously no one would have been. I know Piracy of the sea or air was one, as was arson in a royal dockyard and I *think* treason as well, so he's not technically wrong there.
[Post edited 7 Feb 2020 13:22]
1
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 13:34 - Feb 7 with 2090 views
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 13:20 - Feb 7 by Decoy_Octopus
Actually the death penalty was only finally fully abolished in 1998 as there were still a few crimes that you could technically be sentenced to death for, though obviously no one would have been. I know Piracy of the sea or air was one, as was arson in a royal dockyard and I *think* treason as well, so he's not technically wrong there.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 13:20 - Feb 7 by Decoy_Octopus
Actually the death penalty was only finally fully abolished in 1998 as there were still a few crimes that you could technically be sentenced to death for, though obviously no one would have been. I know Piracy of the sea or air was one, as was arson in a royal dockyard and I *think* treason as well, so he's not technically wrong there.
[Post edited 7 Feb 2020 13:22]
Yes and you can still legally kill a Scotsman with a spoon between 2 and 3 in the morning if he's standing under a street lamp.
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 12:01 - Feb 7 by Radlett_blue
And if you did bring back the death penalty, presumably we would have a US-style procedure involving expensive appeals and this is potentially more expensive than keeping a dangerous killer in jail for life.
One of the major concerns is that capital punishment would reduce the amount of convictions, whereby a jury would not be so ready to convict... fearful of the consequences of a wrongful conviction.
Where now numerous cases are accepted by the accused as being manslaughter, they would then push for a charge of murder.
That is a very brief summary of a very interest debate, with that side of the case being put by Tory MP Jerry Hayes. He also added that those demanding the death penalty for rape would see the murder rate rise there. On the basis that it might well be 'better' to kill the victim if there was little to lose.
What the above clip further demonstrates is the sheer stupidity of brexiteers. Time after time we hear similar ill informed drivel being spewed out. So I expect we will soon hear a demand for the EU's ban on conker fighting (another blatant lie) to be lifted.
1
This is quite brilliant. This is what we're dealing with in this country on 13:42 - Feb 7 with 2030 views