It means it forms part of the reasons for it. No im saying vengeance is one of the reasons for having the death penalty as punishment. Not any of the strawmen you have built about a judges personal vendetta. But ‘revenge’ on the perpetrator being a big part of the reason that a state would have the death penalty as a sentence.

And revenge is a reason why a states law would facilitate the death penalty.

As I said many countries have many crazy laws, they aren’t relevant to me.

Only when there is a clear and immediate threat to safety.
Here there is a clear and immediate threat to safety, here it is justified as a necessary evil, where other non-lethal attempts to protect the safety of others have been exhausted.

If either the police marksman or his commanding officer, couldn’t justify the killing on that basis then they would be guilty of, and charged with, and go through the legal process for murder.

Individuals are obliged to follow the legal process. The state decides the legal process. The individual executing on order of the state (including the sentencing judge) are not guilty of murder. A state which obliges a judge to sentence death is..
If they are protecting the safety of innocent parties no. If they pull the trigger for any other reason. Yes.

I doubt you would argue today was wednesday.


It seems you have spent quite a lot of time here writing something just to agree with the principle of what I put, just disagreeing with the description I gave, which seems pretty pointless to me.

But yes, a fine for a burglar or mugger is an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator. The death penalty isn’t. Because the victim is already dead, they no longer exist so there is no-one for the perpetrator to have parity with. It acheives nothing, it gives no lessons, it rehabilitates nothing. It needlessly ends a life.

There is another fundemental and clear reason why your attempts to draw parity between those two penalties are just overly verbose nonsense. A fine, Community Service, imprisonment are all not only punishments for breaking the law, but attempts to rehabilitate the offender. The death penalty isnt, its just killing someone.

100% of inmates sentenced to the death penalty and had the sentence carried out didn't offend again.

I am certain that in none of the jurisdictions under discussion is "revenge" a reason for a death penalty being imposed.

I am certain that in none of them is "revenge" ever mentioned in the law, or in the process.

NO modern jurisdiction has, or claims to have "revenge" as any part of the judicial process. Punishment - yes. Deterrence - yes. Revenge - certainly not.

It is YOUR straw man that, even though you have NOTHING to contradict these facts, nevertheless "revenge is one of the reasons for having the death penalty". Whose reasons? Where did they give these reasons? This is such a vague and general claim that it isn't even sensibly capable of discussion. Which is why I haven't discussed it. If you gave an example of an instance of this, maybe there would be something to discuss, but you don't.


You say "is". What evidence do you have? Where has this ever been shown? Which jurisdiction, which statute? Give us ONE example of where this has ever happened in any such jurisdiction as we are discussing.


So, if you murdered someone in a state that had the death penalty, that would be the case for your defence? Good luck with that.


No, it really isn't. "Parity"?? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're tying yourself in knots. The [iother[/i kind of jursdiction, where mediaeval concepts such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" hold sway, certainly and directly call for parity between perpetrator and victim. In the most direct way. Following a murder, making the perpetrator as dead as his victim indisputably restores parity between victim and perpetrator. Doesn't it? If not, then can you explain to me why a death sentence could not be an attempt to restore some kind of parity between victim and perpetrator?


You've obviously been thinking very deeply about this, to realise that a death sentence is not an attempt to rehabilitate the offender. Well done on achieving that insight, but who said it was?

Rehabilitation is a laudable aim, but there have always been some offences viewed as so heinous, that the perpetrator will never be rehabilitated. In our jurisdiction, under present law, they would get a whole of life tariff.

A fine is also manifestly NOT an "attempt to rehabilitate", but is a "PUNISHMENT". It may also be thought to be a deterrent. But how on earth do you say forcing me to pay money on pain of imprisonment is rehabilitative?


Well, no, I wouldn't, because it just is. It is a fact, deduced from the fact of what time it is, and the fact of my location in the world. It brooks no argument, but I'll concede that it might not be Wednesday on your planet.

100% of criminals who weren’t caught, didn’t go through any type of legal process and weren’t sentenced to death, who died of natural causes didn’t offend again either.

Er, I suspect that prior to their demise, it's very likely many of them did. Bein' criminals, an' all . . .

The only fact you are expressing is that you aren’t aware of it. Im not going to argue with you about what you are and aren’t aware of. It would take far too long for us to list the things you don’t know.
Why not try the US. Evidence below.

Whereas if you were a homosexual in Uganda im sure you would think their laws perfectly fair and reasonable.

Interesting you should mention mediaeval concepts such as an eye for an eye. [iMay 19-21 poll*, Gallup asked Americans why they favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. More than half of those who favor the death penalty cite something about revenge (i.e., "an eye for an eye", 37%), the convicted deserving to be executed (13%), justice (4%), or fair punishment (3%) as their reason for supporting the death penalty. Eleven percent of supporters cite saving taxpayers money because executed prisoners would not have to be incarcerated. Although deterrance is often mentioned as a major benefit to society of executing those convicted of murder, only 11% of death penalty supporters volunteer that as a reason for supporting it. Seven percent of those who favor the death penalty do so because they believe it keeps the criminal from repeating the crime. [/i

Are you arguing that something you would describe as a mediaeval concept is also reasonable? I would have thought we had moved forward a bit more than that.

Nobody said it was an attempt to rehabilitate. I can only assume you have deliberately misunderstood why it was brought up .

Prisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them

I would also suspect that prior to being executed it is very likely that many criminals sentenced to death would have also committed crime.

And it's almost certainly the case that nothing like 100% of those executed were guilty of the crime for which they were executed.

Translation: You can’t produce anything, not one thing.


Because it is not evidence of what I asked you for. The fact that in any given country, out of millions of inhabitants, a significant amount of support can be found for prety much any proposition (even the frequent occurrence of alien anal probes), does not equate to any one of those views forming part of the judicial process. If a US state executes a criminal, many residents may personally feel that some measure of revenge has been exacted, but that doesn't mean that the concept of revenge was involved in the decision whether or not he should die, which would be based on laws enacted, processes followed and decisions made with a total absence of the concept of revenge. Get it?


Homosexual? Uganda?? As we were neither discussing Uganda, nor homosexuality, nor what laws I think "fair and reasonable", I nominate that for your second-weirdest remark to press.


No, I "mentioned" it as it is the ultimate manifestation of "parity" between offender and victim, which YOU seem to favour as an aim. [iI'm[/i the one who [idisputed your[/i remark about "parity" between perpetrator and victim as some sort of aim. Remember?


Any given concept is either reasonable or not, depending what it is. Its age is not relevant. That the earth isn't flat is a pretty ancient concept, but I think it is reasonable. Aliens bent on performing anal probes is a very recent concept, but I don't think it's a reasonable one.

Again, the "parity" concept was introduced by you, not me.


Beside your point entirely, but anyway if you've looked it up, then you'll know that they can only do so on compassionate grounds of great age or infirmity. Not because they have become fully rehabilitated.

Plus, you've got it the wrong way round, since it [iused to be[/i the Home Secretary who decided how long you'd serve, but now that decision is made by the Trial Judge. The Home Secretary's role and power in the process has been greatly reduced, not increased, as you seem to believe.

Moving on, following the recent ECHR ruling, Jeremy Bamber was quoted as saying:

That's perhaps as twisted logic as anything you've come up with.

Except I have.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer or how many times I can say it to you. Im not saying that the judiciary is acting out of vengeance, im not saying that an individual judge is conducting a personal vendetta, im not saying any of the strawmen you keep inventing. I have said, numerous times, that a state, which facilitates a death sentence, is doing so, in a large part, out of a wish for revenge. Do you understand?

Why is Uganda and their death penalty irrelevant when you have repeatedly tried to expand the argument to not just the law in this country but elsewhere? You have repeatedly asked for examples, why isn’t Uganda an example?


So you did mention it? Im not sure what you are disputing here, whether you mentioned it which you admit you did, or whether i thought it interesting and relevant to the debate.
Mediaeval can be used as a pejorative term to describe something as primitive. I assumed this was the context in which you were using it, im not sure why you would be using it in the context of a period of time between the 5th and 15th century. Was this not the case?

Im not sure why you are now making things up. I have in no way made any comment on whether the power of the home secretary has increased or decreased. Nor did I state that the home secretary gave the minimum sentencing. I made the factually correct statement [iPrisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them.[/i Which you couldn’t argue against so you seem to have made up something you could argue against.

Have you? Well then many times you have stated bollox since a state is not a sentient entity, and so cannot have a "wish", whether revenge or anything else.


To a discussion of the death penalty in a modern judicial system such as the UK and the US? You don't know?




Your simple statement was that "Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary". That is simply wrong, for the majority of such prisoners. They cannot in fact do so, unless there are exceptional compassionate grounds such as terminal illness.

To summarise the actual position, you should have said:
" the general rule is that those given a whole life order can not apply for parole or release. Most if not all will die in jail. If, exceptionally, there are compelling compassionate grounds such as terminal illness or great age, then the Home Secretary can order that individual's release".

My objection was that the truth of their situation is almost the opposite of what anyone would conclude by reading your bald claim.

When you are needing to pick and and choose which parts of not only a post but a sentence to respond to because you cant respond to the actual argument, and when you have not only had to resort to making things up but cant even apologise for doing so, and when you need to dismiss entire nations as lesser in one of the most shocking displays of wedtern arrogance this side of the bnp, its probably time to reasses your standpoint

There's little left that interests me enough to bother with. But the irony of you making that complaint, yet not yourself managing to respond to a single point, is noted.

"Dismissing entire nations" is just another invention of yours, and "Lesser" is your word, but Uganda is on any rational view not a centre of jurisprudence equal to this country.

And on that note, as mercifully it seems you've run out of nonsense, my work here is done.

No please carry on, he's not called you mad yet.

Why wouldi respond to things you have made up? I dont think its interesting for me or anyone else to watch you argue with yourself but even if they did you can carry on without me.

Yes like that!

I see that a court in Egypt has sentenced 21 football thugs to death for their part in the massacre of 74 people, these Islamic nations don't half like to dish it out.

Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that we were still executing people for murder. Although what concerns me more than the actual sentences is the reaction of the families of those who were killed. It seemed more like a baying mob than grieving families and whilst I understand the desire for revenge on the part of family members (I know I would), the reactions still seemed very extreme.

What would you consider a reasonable response?

Not shouting, screaming etc like a mob in a courtroom.

They should write them a jolly stiff letter.

Maybe they should just shake the hands of those doing the dead - isn't that what a really advanced society would do - turn the other cheek!!

Necrophilia?!!

Please quote anything I have posted that remotely resembles anything you've just posted.

So do you think the reaction of those inside (and outside) the courtroom was reasonable?