Soldier murdered in terrorist incident in Woolwich

Originally Posted by denphone

It would cost considerably less then keeping them in prison though.

That hasn't proved to be the case in America:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

AN EYE for an eye, or at any rate a death for a death, is the type of justice that most states still embrace. Only 14 of the 50 states have banned capital punishment. But that may change with the recession. As state governments confront huge budget deficits, eight more states have proposed an unusual measure to cut costs: eliminate the death penalty.

A recent study by the Urban Institute, a think-tank, estimates that the death penalty cost Maryland's taxpayers $186m between 1978 and 1999. According to the report, a case resulting in a death sentence cost $3m, almost $2m more than when the death penalty was not sought.

Originally Posted by denphone

The death penalty would sort these type of people out for good but instead we will keep these evil people in jail at the taxpayers expense.

It wouldn't sort them out at all .This type of person cares not one jot about the type of punishment he would get .Killing him would simply make him a martyr for other nutbags to follow ,at least with him still alive he can be exposed for the criminal he is and treated like a criminal and not some sort of glorified man on a mission to be revered by other nutbags

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

That hasn't proved to be the case in America:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

That will be all the appeals and keeping them alive on death row. Administering the actual death penalty will be relatively cheap.

Originally Posted by nomadking

That will be all the appeals and keeping them alive on death row. Administering the actual death penalty will be relatively cheap.

Yeah but if you're going to execute someone the appeals process is something you probably want to keep.

[spreadsheet]

disgusting stuff

I err on the side of the death penalty in debate


hate to be a bit on the cliched side but


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yeah but if you're going to execute someone the appeals process is something you probably want to keep.

They should have one appeal and that should be it.

every time we get an atrocity on this scale we always get calls for the death penalty to be re introduced ,it will never happen and nor should it .Whilst we have police who are prepared to fabricate evidence because they get a bit miffed over some up himself politician how can we ever consider executing people

Originally Posted by denphone

They should have one appeal and that should be it.

Judges can decide more appeals if the evidence is there. You can't just you've had your appeal if new information has come to light. Also 7% of people on death row have since been acquitted of their crimes, you want to reduce the chances of this happening. We've had cases of people on life terms who've latter been found not guilty. The risk of killing innocent people isn't worth it and the cost isn't worth it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

disgusting stuff

I err on the side of the death penalty in debate


hate to be a bit on the cliched side but


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

I don't think it was meant in the literal sense. More a warning of general violence.

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

disgusting stuff

I err on the side of the death penalty in debate


hate to be a bit on the cliched side but


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

To quote the actual bit, to see how his comparison fairs, eh?

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Didn't quite work out in the States the way he thought, did it? Whilst there is still entrenched racism in some of the states (especially in the Deep South), he missed out forecasting a Black President, a Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who also became the US Secretary of State), a Black Supreme Court Justice, etc etc.

One horrible attack by two morons does not make "rivers of blood", because if it did, what about all the other people killed in knife attacks in this country?

[spreadsheet]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't think it was meant in the literal sense. More a warning of general violence.

It was made in the absolute literal sense! _ I don't know why people always try and dumb it down when it stares you in the face so literally

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

he missed out forecasting a Black President, a Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who also became the US Secretary of State), etc etc.

yeah - but if you look carefully they are not actually that black - more like mild mulatto - there's no way a louis armstrong coloured president would be in office


its a token appointment


I am not making racist statements I am just stating facts

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Judges can decide more appeals if the evidence is there. You can't just you've had your appeal if new information has come to light. Also 7% of people on death row have since been acquitted of their crimes, you want to reduce the chances of this happening. We've had cases of people on life terms who've latter been found not guilty. The risk of killing innocent people isn't worth it and the cost isn't worth it.

But how many of those acquittals are where they've actually established somebody else did it, rather than retrospectively saying there wasn't enough proof or their lawyer didn't do a good enough job and other excuses like that.

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

It was made in the absolute literal sense! _ I don't know why people always try and dumb it down when it stares you in the face so literally

Actually, you mean figuratively.....

If it is literally, where are these actual rivers of blood, please?

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

It was made in the absolute literal sense! _ I don't know why people always try and dumb it down when it stares you in the face so literally

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:26 ----------



yeah - but if you look carefully they are not actually that black - more like mild mulatto - there's no way a louis armstrong coloured president would be in office


its a token appointment


I am not making racist statements I am just stating facts

Let me guess - some of your best friends etc. etc......

btw, love the idea of the President and US Secretary of State/Joint Chief of Staff being a 'token appointment'.......

[spreadsheet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, you mean figuratively.....

If it is literally, where are these actual rivers of blood, please?

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Let me guess - some of your best friends etc. etc......

no - please elaborate

Well, figuratively is when you use a figure of speech to exaggerate something, and literally is when it is the exact meaning. In this case, rivers of blood would be hyperbole.

Wiki

hth