for once i agree with extreme measures... - Page 3

Fawkes · 23-01-2004, 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

<snip>its about inflicting pain on these sick people, instead of a quick easy way out.</snip>

But why inflict pain?

Question: Will it bring back the dead, will it rehabilitate them, will it deter others?
Answer: No, no, no.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

But why inflict pain?

as i said to inflict and prolong the suffering before the end

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

Question: Will it bring back the dead, will it rehabilitate them,

nope

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

will it deter others?

maybe, maybe not who knows, it might stop some from offending or reoffending

23-01-2004, 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

you get the pain and then the quick ending, as opposed to the quick ending.

So, as others have said, why not hang, draw and quarter them?

Plenty of pain, lots of public spectacle and obviously(!) a deterrant.

Or is that *too* uncivilised?

**Paul** · 23-01-2004, 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

its allowed to happen over there so why not ?

just because something is barbaric to you, does not mean its wrong, i know the old saying 'two wrongs dont make a right' but the infliction of pain and suffering to those people is a better approach, then a quick death prolonging of the agony is better as i doubt jail conditions over there are quite comfortable

thanks for the red rep BTW

that will NOT silence me

If it's barbaric to me, then it's wrong to me.

I give very few red reps out but I disagreed with you strongly enough in this case. It is not designed to "silence you" any more than the ones I get silence me - I'm sorry if you see it that way - but it's simply to show my strong disagreement with you.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 02:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

So, as others have said, why not hang, draw and quarter them?

hang, i agree with obviously, draw and quarter...... i disagree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Plenty of pain, lots of public spectacle and obviously(!) a deterrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Or is that *too* uncivilised?

i agree with hanging which is the death penalty really, a bit of punishment on the side, such as whipping is fine.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pem

If it's barbaric to me, then it's wrong to me.

so what affective approach would you insue ?

keep them in jail ?

at the taxpayers expense ?

you could try rehab, but how would this work ?

Marge · 23-01-2004, 03:02

Kronas, can I clarify here whether it's just the child killers/abusers that you want to see whipped/tortured and then executed or the criminal fraternity in general??

btw have you got a nation yet as would like to see your justice system !!!!

**Paul** · 23-01-2004, 03:04

No I would not keep them in jail - perhaps you mis-read me ? - I did say "I don't disagree with the death penalty" - what I do take exception too is a public flogging first.

If the threat of death does not deter them then a flooging certainly isn't going to.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debsy42

Kronas, can I clarify here whether it's just the child killers/abusers that you want to see whipped/tortured and then executed or the criminal fraternity in general??

yep i stated before, this is strictly for killers abusers of children.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debsy42

btw have you got a nation yet as would like to see your justice system !!!!

i wish!!!!!

kronas · 23-01-2004, 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by pem

what I do take exception too is a public flogging first.

but why ? your quite happy to see then die (maybe not in the literal sense)
a bit more pain.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by pem

If the threat of death does not deter them then a flooging certainly isn't going to.

there is nothing to say it does deter some, or it doesent, it just inflicts an increased amount of pain and suffering for them

**Paul** · 23-01-2004, 03:12

Well it is pointless arguing with you all night - it's past 3am and I have a bed to go to - and quite obviously you are not going to change your view, nor I mine - So I shall bow out now and retire to sleep.

Fawkes · 23-01-2004, 03:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

so what affective approach would you insue ?

keep them in jail ?

at the taxpayers expense ?

you could try rehab, but how would this work ?

As soon as the death penalty was mentioned, I was waiting for someone to say expense.

With all the legal appeals before its carried out (and that normally means a good ten years on death row) it ends up costing just as much as keeping them in prison for life. And I any case, are you really arguing for the death penalty on the grounds of cost? That the state should sanction murder (and what message does this send out anyway?) just to save a few quid?

23-01-2004, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

hang, i agree with obviously, draw and quarter...... i disagree

i agree with hanging which is the death penalty really, a bit of punishment on the side, such as whipping is fine.

Ah, so taking away someone's life is not *sufficient* punishment, and a bit extra "on the side" such as whipping is acceptable, but they shouldn't go as far as drawing and quartering?

So we have, from you, two limits whipping being ok, drawing and quartering being not ok. But if the whipping fails as a deterrant, how much further would you suggest they go? Branding? Pulling out fingernails? Torture on the rack? Where do you draw the line between a bit of extra punishment "on the side" being "fine" and it being "unacceptable"?

Bifta · 23-01-2004, 16:28

I know I'm doing myself no favours by posting this, but the title of this thread is for once i agree with extreme measures...

And then you post things like

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

the death penalty is quick and easy a little pain beforehand would not do any harm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

no once forces you to post, just because im a hardliner in punishment

Perhaps you could get the threat title modified to actually reflect your views.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, so taking away someone's life is not *sufficient* punishment, and a bit extra "on the side" such as whipping is acceptable, but they shouldn't go as far as drawing and quartering?

yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

So we have, from you, two limits whipping being ok, drawing and quartering being not ok. But if the whipping fails as a deterrant, how much further would you suggest they go? Branding? Pulling out fingernails? Torture on the rack? Where do you draw the line between a bit of extra punishment "on the side" being "fine" and it being "unacceptable"?

i have my limits, i believe in a fair but strict system, if its diffarent you your train of 'conventional' thoughts then obviously you wont accept this will you?

so we will keep them locked up rehab them, deny them net access, computer access........

how do you keep them from going near children after all we let them out pretty quicly almost instantly ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

With all the legal appeals before its carried out (and that normally means a good ten years on death row) it ends up costing just as much as keeping them in prison for life. And I any case, are you really arguing for the death penalty on the grounds of cost? That the state should sanction murder (and what message does this send out anyway?) just to save a few quid?

i dont know how the legal system works over there, but in the US they dont take 10 years in some cases a fast track system to do it within a few years will save the system money long term