GarryP

Well, key obvious point. A good part of what makes suicide bombers is the arabic coverage of deaths of innocent muslims by (usually) US bombs. So don't blow sh*t out of wedding parties. The failure to understand that you can't kill an idea with primary military force is the prime reason we'll be seeing it into the future.

Again, you are trying to build a strawman - going from 'understand' to 'absolve'. The point I made was that to assume these individuals 'irredeemable evil' was to misunderstand what was happening and why. Personally I don't think governments should be in the business of murdering people.

You would execute the individual, and ignore the cult. I'd do (roughly) the reverse.

JoeBloggs80

Well maybe gravity, but whats gravity ever done to deserve being executed?

Shard

Don't disagree with your first paragraph.

I don't think it is a strawman. You are absolving them of personal responsibility are you not?

What is wrong with government's "murdering" people such as these? Are you objecting on religious grounds? Or perhaps a fear of the slippery slope? What's so wrong with it? You would agree I hope that it at very least saves money?

Shard

Ok, so we agree that some things are beyond doubt.

Presumably you are suggesting that no human behaviour is beyond doubt. So if someone, for example, smashed you over the head with a iron bar (in front of hundreds of people and caught on CCTV and evidenced by blood everywhere) you would have some doubt would you? Is that your position?

GarryP

Nope, you are responsible for your concious actions. Actually I tend to go further and say ALL people are always responsible for their concious actions. There can be mitigation, but it doesn't change where the buck lies. The difference is I'd put the imams in the next cell (with some soundproofing).

Nope not religious. Basically governments shouldn't be in the business of death because it's a bit too easy, they can't be trusted, and if lawyers are involved fact and objectivity go out the window. Empirically there are quite a number of situations where people would have been executed where they were eventually recognised as innocent. No, governments shouldn't go there.

Mind, personally I think each individual should be in control of their life, and their death, and that in many situations they should be able to kill themselves - where its shown to be a sane decision. Long prison sentences are one where I'd think they should be able to die.

JoeBloggs80

Certain scientific quantifiable facts yes.

As for everything else, it entirely depends.

As for your scenario, doubt about what? I probably wouldnt have any doubt. I'd be furious, if not dead. Others may have doubt, just like GarryP in this thread.

Shard

So are you saying the killers were not conscious of their actions? Bit confused. Assuming they are conscious of their actions, and therefore responsible, you see a custodial sentence as adequate?

I agree that governments should avoid capital punishment, and that there have been enormous miscarriages of justice in the past. However, that doesn't mean it is impossible to execute is extreme circumstances. If you drop the jargon ("business of death" etc) and differentiate between murder cases based on a build up of evidence, and murder cases which are fact (such as this one, such as a school massacre) you can create a very narrow category in which no miscarriage of justice is possible. None. Zero.

That's what makes this case compelling, the fact there is not one shred of doubt about the identity and motive of the killers. Very different from cases where evidence is logically stacked against a defendant to the point where he is "proven' guilty. You're conflating inherently weak and false convictions from the past with beyond doubt convictions that we can now achieve (technology helps) and in doing that coming to a false conclusion on the limits of government power.

Shard

Doubt that you had been hit over the head.

Anyway, my point is that some things are 100% beyond doubt. Unless you want to enter some kind of metaphysical debate about whether "doubt" exists as a concept.

I think in the West people use the concept of "doubt" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" too widely and loosely. In the Amanda Knox case, for example, no matter how exhaustive and compelling the evidence against her, there is always going to be some tiny doubt that she was not involved. I find that a very different type of murder case than that of the killers of Lee Rigby.

GarryP

Of course they were conscious of their actions. And since I think the government shouldn't be in the business of death, I think locking them up is the only right course of action. Again with the strawman. Where I came in was that I think ten years down the line these two will understand how they've been played and how they were wrong. Still wouldn't let them out.

Ahh, them there zero possibilities ....

Tell me, would you execute the religious zealots that created the mindset that got them to do this? If not, why not?

Yes, but the problem is that ALL verdicts of guilty in criminal trials are supposed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

PS DNA is a nice new technology that's supposed to prove guilt - only it's not nearly as trustworthy as lawyers love to imply.

Keeping governments out of death is the only sensible, moral, place to go.

Shard

Sorry, I don't know how to multiquote (although I do know where the button is).

I wouldn't execute the zealots, although I would lock them up for a long time. They are the truly delusional ones, but they are not supernatural, they are not which doctors. They are suggesting bizarre things to their foot soldiers and it if the foot soldier is so blatantly caught murdering, I think they should pay with their life.

You're not really considering what I am saying if you suggest "beyond reasonable doubt" as I am saying "beyond all doubt" which is a much higher test. It is fact. I think too many delude themselves that fact cannot be known. In rare cases, it can.

Essentially your position is that life is sacred (god knows why if you're not religious) and that regardless of cost or outcome we should allocate societal resources at maintaining/rehabilitating that life, rather than say support cancer patients.

GarryP

See, you aren't putting responsibility where it truly lies. You also aren't going for the root of the problem, preferring to concentrate on outcomes (where by definition it's too late). That's part of the need to understand what's going on as key to solving it.

Its not that life is sacred (again a strawman that doesn't match what I say about individuals being in charge of their life and death). And also these two paragraphs have a pretty obvious dissonance between them. You can't say 'rare cases' and then say 'regardless of cost or outcome we should allocate societal resources at maintaining/rehabilitating that life'. If they are rare cases then the cost is minimal (well worth keeping governments out of the death business) - and if they aren't then your standard slips to 'reasonable doubt' again, with the empirical evidence of failure.

Oh, and if you take a backward, barbarous, society that does execute people, then you find that it's cheaper to keep them in jail for life than it is to execute them...

Shard

If I am putting the zealots in prison for a long time (as you too would do) how is that not putting responsibility where it truly lies?

I think the cost of keeping someone in prison is about 50K per annum, and appeals and prosecutions add to that. Multiply by two (for just this case). That money could be spent on a handful of more deserving individuals needing drugs can it not?

The point about sacred life is that it is the logical implication of your argument. If there is no slippery slope in zero-doubt cases (as I contend and you have not shown otherwise) and there is a cost in keeping/maintain evil criminals, then there is no reason (bar religion or morality) not to execute.

GarryP

Because you want to kill the two black guys. Personally I'd say the zealots that wound them up to do this are more culpable, and so should get the worse sentence.

Sure, but its more expensive to kill someone, and since it should be rare (according to your judgement) then its a price well worth paying to keep governments out of the death game.

It's not the logical implication - its your strawman - as I've pointed out.

Nope, there is a slippery slope, as I intimated, since we are already supposed to only convict when 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Of course it slips - like a pig coated in oil on 70 deg slope with jet engine pushing them along.

And as pointed out, executing them is more expensive - so if you are being all accountant about it, you should want life in prison.

And as I also pointed out, you don't want governments involved in death - which is a damn good non-religious/non-moralistic reason to not execute.

Swerv-o

Susan Boyle is a virgin (allegedly).


S

knockoff nige

She had a nasty landing when she fell out of heaven then.