When is capital punishment ever justifiable?

[PrincessBandit]

Thinking about the men who have just been executed for drug offences, I wondered why anyone would put themselves in that position knowing the consequences. Regardless of whether you agre with a country's right to impose capital punishment surely you would not flout their laws when you could end up on the wrong side of them?
It got me thinking about whether there is any crime that is bad enough to warrant someone's life being taken. Oh sure, human nature is such that when you personalise the effects of heinous crimes (e.g. "what if it happened to my son/sister/uncle/daughter") our grief would demand justice or revenge, depending on how noble you wanted to be.
But is there really a line which can be drawn in the sand to say at what point a crime crosses over into the ultimate punishment bracket?
My heart goes out to the families who now have to grieve not only for what their sons have done but also now they've lost their lives as a consequence.

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?

[Ocean1]

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?

The third one.

After the first two they've already demonstrated they're not willing or capable of living with the rest of us.

[unstuck]

The good old usa have just admitted that the fbi have been getting their evidence wrong for years, and people have been executed on that evidence.

And I guess it depends on your interpretation of punishment, when you have people, myself included, who do not hold the belief that death is a BAD thing.:Punk:

[Akzle]

teh 'justice' system is punitive.
Capital 'punishment'? Hardeharhar.

But certain people should be executed.

[jonbuoy]

Serial/Sadistic killers.

[TheDemonLord]

The first thing to add to this is that time and time again the Death Penalty has shown to not be a detterant.

For me however - I support the Death Penalty - there is a certain class of criminal who poses such a risk to civilisation should they ever be freed, that the only option is execution:

Serial killers
Serial Rapists
Serial pedophiles
Serial Drink Drivers


(okay the last one is a bit harsh, but when you hear of people on their 4th or 5th DUI, it is clear they aren't getting the hint and are therefore too stupid to live on this planet)

[Akzle]

Serial/Sadistic killers.

shirley then 'the state' (by extention a democratic majority of people) BECOME serial killers...

Wheres the line for sadism? Your theory seems pretty sadistic to me.

[unstuck]

To me, with the belief I hold, the only ones who are punished in an execution are the people left behind, like family, and other loved ones.
Why punish them for something they didn't do.:crazy:

[Katman]

As a sideline to the topic (because I can't be arsed starting a new thread), I'm highly amused at Julie Bishop's claim that "there will be consequences".

Almost half a million West Papuans have been murdered by Indonesian occupying forces and there's not been a peep out of the Australian or New Zealand Governments.

Spineless fucks.

[Akzle]

The first thing to add to this is that time and time again the Death Penalty has shown to not be a detterant.

For me however - I support the Death Penalty - there is a certain class of criminal who poses such a risk to civilisation should they ever be freed, that the only option is execution:

Serial killers
Serial Rapists
Serial pedophiles
Serial Drink Drivers


(okay the last one is a bit harsh, but when you hear of people on their 4th or 5th DUI, it is clear they aren't getting the hint and are therefore too stupid to live on this planet)

what if i serially drink drive, never get caught, and never drive into anything?

[Crasherfromwayback]

As a sideline to the topic (because I can't be arsed starting a new thread), I'm highly amused at Julie Bishop's claim that "there will be consequences".

Almost half a million West Papuans have be murdered by Indonesian occupying forces and there's not been a peep out of the Australian or New Zealand Governments.

Spineless fucks.

https://www.facebook.com/226838707489282/photos/a.227163607456792.1073741828.226838707489282/418068111699673/?type=1&pnref=story

[p.dath]

The third one.

After the first two they've already demonstrated they're not willing or capable of living with the rest of us.

I'm a fan of the three strikes policy as well for general criminal Justice.


With regard to the death penalty, if the crime was murder and there is no doubt and it was pre-meditated then execute the person.

[MisterD]

Never. Deliberately killing another human being is murder, whether you're a person or a country, and whether your justification is "I don't like them and I think I can get away with it", "they're bad, and the rules I invented say that's ok" or "God told me to".

[TheDemonLord]

Never. Deliberately killing another human being is murder, whether you're a person or a country, and whether your justification is "I don't like them and I think I can get away with it", "they're bad, and the rules I invented say that's ok" or "God told me to".

You see, I never rationalise the Death Penalty using any of those arguements - for me it is always a case that there are certain people who pose such a risk to society that the possibility of them coming into contact with society again poses a risk so high that execution is preferred

[oldrider]

Human kind accepts war as if it is normal - our country has been celebrating 100 years of history and it's foundation of the nation just this weekend!

We (NZ) have just deployed troops to train people for war in Iraq - how capital is that? - double standards anybody? :confused:

[MisterD]

the possibility of them coming into contact with society again poses a risk so high that execution is preferred

A "Life, that really means life", sentence does that no? I certainly don't agree with this Life = 20 years, out in 15 with good behaviour, bollocks.

[p.dath]

Never. Deliberately killing another human being is murder, whether you're a person or a country, and whether your justification is "I don't like them and I think I can get away with it", "they're bad, and the rules I invented say that's ok" or "God told me to".

So you are okay spending $1.5 million to keep someone away from the public so the public doesn't have to see them for 15 years?

[MisterD]

So you are okay spending $1.5 million to keep someone away from the public so the public doesn't have to see them for 15 years?

It'll come out of all the money saved when I legalise Cannabis.

[willytheekid]

As a sideline to the topic (because I can't be arsed starting a new thread), I'm highly amused at Julie Bishop's claim that "there will be consequences".

Almost half a million West Papuans have be murdered by Indonesian occupying forces and there's not been a peep out of the Australian or New Zealand Governments.

Spineless fucks.

Not true!...we signed a trade deal with them :D

...and china:yes:...and mexico:mellow:...and columbia:blink:

haaaang on a sec...:confused: (And what do they all have in common?...with our govt!...yup, blatant, selfserving corruption!:yes:)
..did we fuckin miss any other corrupt, communist countrys...like north Korea!:oi-grr: (Or are National working on that "trade deal" as well!)


...I was secretly hoping the Aussies would just storm the place and TAKE there citizens back...very very forcibly!:shifty:(Jus cos FUCK INDONESSIA!)

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/52992827.jpg

[Gadget1]

To me, with the belief I hold, the only ones who are punished in an execution are the people left behind, like family, and other loved ones.
Why punish them for something they didn't do.:crazy:


True, but the family of someone who is murdered are "punished" as well.

[Gadget1]

https://www.facebook.com/226838707489282/photos/a.227163607456792.1073741828.226838707489282/418068111699673/?type=1&pnref=story


It's sick alright.

[Gadget1]

So you are okay spending $1.5 million to keep someone away from the public so the public doesn't have to see them for 15 years?


I'm certainly not okay with expenditure like that. I don't believe in prisons as such.

[R650R]

Everything, right down to disorderly behaviour except of course speeding ;p And administered immediately by the victim as this eliminates any repeat offending. Just like in the wild west days....

Ever wonder why Japan has such a peaceful polite society??? Its because if you pissed off the local samurai they were 100% allowed to chop your head off and there was no such thing as murder in a case like that. Hence all the bowing and please and thank you stuff....

[EJK]

As a sideline to the topic (because I can't be arsed starting a new thread), I'm highly amused at Julie Bishop's claim that "there will be consequences".

Almost half a million West Papuans have be murdered by Indonesian occupying forces and there's not been a peep out of the Australian or New Zealand Governments.

Spineless fucks.


https://www.facebook.com/226838707489282/photos/a.227163607456792.1073741828.226838707489282/418068111699673/?type=1&pnref=story

You already beat me to it.


<img width="600" src="http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=311219&stc=1&d=1430261521" />

[friday]

-pedophiles should be shot , castrated at the very least
-killers shot unless its revenge , which can some times be justified
-rapers = shot
-drug dealers = shot (that includes a certain law firm that has profited from it since 1970s ,palmer)
-corrupt officials = shot
-born fraudsters = shot
-TREASON = public hanging , this law was dropped in the 1980s by labour before they privatised nz assets = legalised larceny
-human trafficers = shot
-chinese drug dealers = automatic loss of NZ "citizenship" and returned to china to face chinese law


Crime generates billions of dollars , either black market or for the legal system and prison industry . either way the money is legal currency that can be spent in NZ or exchanged for foreign .

if everyones kids become drug addicts , its all money in the bank for some one

[TheDemonLord]

I'm certainly not okay with expenditure like that. I don't believe in prisons as such.

What is the Alternative? Australia?

[Gadget1]

What is the Alternative? Australia?

Heh, that didn't go so well. They became a nation...

The complete solution hasn't been brought in yet but it's getting there from what I've been reading and told: Working on juveniles with criminal tendencies, restorative justice etc.

All done before prision is involved.

[Erelyes]

Like Ocean said, three strikes.

Once a joke, twice a bore, thrice you get thrown out the door.

[unstuck]

True, but the family of someone who is murdered are "punished" as well.

So two wrongs make a right?

[awa355]

I bet the ones still on death row are crapping themselves. :sweatdrop

[Akzle]

its all money in the bank for some one

jews!


Crime pays. Just not the average schmuck.
Now, wonder what would happen to crime if jews and their jewgold were removed from the equation....

[Gadget1]

So two wrongs make a right?



Not at all, but the "victims" extend to both sides of the event.

[Akzle]

I bet the ones still on death row are crapping themselves. :sweatdrop

their energies would be better expended making peace with whatever god they have

[Akzle]

I'm certainly not okay with expenditure like that. I don't believe in prisons as such.

ah yes. 'humane justice' is to EXPEN$IVE. :laugh:

read once that it costs more to complete the legal bs to have someone killed in the states than life(=life) imprisonment.
Ahh, what a profitable scheme...

[Paul in NZ]

Sometimes you just have to harden up and do whats needed. There ARE acts that require capital punishment.

[willytheekid]

Wanna shoot cunts?


Then Start here!! => http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68130988/blessie-gotingco-hit-with-car-accidentally--accused

he "accidentally" hit her with a car :yes:
then "Accidentally" raped her
"Accidentally" stabbed her
and then Acci fucking dentally slit her throat!:angry2:


in fact fuck it!, save the bullets and let the punishment fit the crime I say


Act like an animal...you should be put down like an animal!

[EJK]

Three men arrested on 25kgs cannabis bust and they are just preparing bail application.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/68099142/three-arrested-after-yacht-raided-in-marlborough-sounds

[p.dath]

What is the Alternative? Australia?

Too expensive to send that far way.

Waiheke.

[Akzle]

Wanna shoot cunts?


Then Start here!! => http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68130988/blessie-gotingco-hit-with-car-accidentally--accused

he "accidentally" hit her with a car :yes:
then "Accidentally" raped her
"Accidentally" stabbed her
and then Acci fucking dentally slit her throat!:angry2:


in fact fuck it!, save the bullets and let the punishment fit the crime I say


Act like an animal...you should be put down like an animal!

thats that retaliatory shit i was on about.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[Akzle]

Too expensive to send that far way.

Waiheke.

im guna build a wall around auckland. Vote ax.

[Akzle]

Three men arrested on 25kgs cannabis bust and they are just preparing bail application.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/68099142/three-arrested-after-yacht-raided-in-marlborough-sounds
:whocares:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/10/2595421/infuriating-facts-subprime-ceos-years-financial-crisis/

[oldrider]

jews!


Crime pays. Just not the average schmuck.
Now, wonder what would happen to crime if jews and their jewgold were removed from the equation....

Fail - Hitler tried that out - unfortunately on all the wrong and innocent people - had his blitzkrieg made it as far as the US federal reserve - who knows?

[Akzle]

Fail - Hitler tried that out - unfortunately on all the wrong and innocent people - had his blitzkrieg made it as far as the US federal reserve - who knows?
youre getting hung up on that J word...

And no. Because hitler financed his little sortee with jewgold.
I submit that rejecting jewgold will have a fuken positive effect on peoples. Except jews.

[madbikeboy]

I'm not surprised at all the liberal hand wringing over the death penalty.

It's an ethical dilemma, we shouldn't execute people because it's a person's life, blah blah blah.

Using Star Trek thinking, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If someone presents a greater risk to the community, and he/she has killed before, and the crime is horrible enough - then, fuck yes we should execute them. This retard who mowed down the housewife on the shore - perfect example. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. For me, it's not a cost argument, in the US the cost of putting someone to death (by the time all the appeals have been run through) is significantly more than the correctional housing. In my view, it's not even about the deterrent factor. It's totally about exterminating that risky person before they do any more harm.

Moral dilemma - if you could have killed Hilter prior to WW2; would you have killed him to prevent the war? I would have, in a heart beat, as most people would. It's just the scale that most people struggle with, at what point does the preventative killing lack justification - 3 victims, 300, 3,000,000? My belief is that preventing the murder from killing a second person is the tipping point.

[Paul in NZ]

I'm not surprised at all the liberal hand wringing over the death penalty.

It's an ethical dilemma, we shouldn't execute people because it's a person's life, blah blah blah.

Using Star Trek thinking, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If someone presents a greater risk to the community, and he/she has killed before, and the crime is horrible enough - then, fuck yes we should execute them. This retard who mowed down the housewife on the shore - perfect example. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. For me, it's not a cost argument, in the US the cost of putting someone to death (by the time all the appeals have been run through) is significantly more than the correctional housing. In my view, it's not even about the deterrent factor. It's totally about exterminating that risky person before they do any more harm.

Moral dilemma - if you could have killed Hilter prior to WW2; would you have killed him to prevent the war? I would have, in a heart beat, as most people would. It's just the scale that most people struggle with, at what point does the preventative killing lack justification - 3 victims, 300, 3,000,000? My belief is that preventing the murder from killing a second person is the tipping point.

Agree - plus there is the base level revenge satisfaction thing... I'm very sorry but I didn't evolve much...

[Voltaire]

Moral dilemma - if you could have killed Hilter prior to WW2; would you have killed him to prevent the war? I would have, in a heart beat, as most people would. It's just the scale that most people struggle with, at what point does the preventative killing lack justification - 3 victims, 300, 3,000,000? My belief is that preventing the murder from killing a second person is the tipping point.

If I went back back in time and killed Hitler, as soon as I killed him I would be like in Star Trek when they use the transporter and fade out coz my parents would never have met.....
or when I came back to this time the world would be completely different....probably run by Azxle

[awa355]

The sickest bastard on trial at the moment is the goon in Wellington that ripped teeth out of the women he controlled. Using pliers and a screwdriver??

What the hell was that going to achieve?? :facepalm:

[swarfie]

....probably run by Azxle

Yeah that'd suck

[Crasherfromwayback]

https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/837473922954735/?pnref=story

[Crasherfromwayback]

What the hell was that going to achieve?? :facepalm:

A gummy mummy.

[pritch]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Are there people so bad they should be killed by the state? Absolutely.

Take that current trial in Auckland, "He who must not be named." The Judge warned the jury that they are only to consider this case, they are not to do any research on the accused. That's probably because if he was named they could all search Google and find that he has done something similar previously. While I would not lose a minute's sleep if he was executed, I don't think the Police or the Courts could be trusted to get it right anywhere near 100% of the time.

Somebody meantioned the FBI. It turns out that the "science" they used to match hair is total bollocks. They now have to go back and check all the hundreds of trials where the hair evidence may have influenced a guilty verdict. The FBI, however, have trained people from other police forces in their pseudo science and nobody now knows who they all were, where they came from, or who else has been found guilty because of this nonsense.

It also turns out Dexter was wrong, the FBI blood spatter evidence is very dubious too. "Bite mark analysis" is also now being questioned.

Expert witness testimony in this country is also suspect. The Crown is paying for their evidence and the expert likes the money, so they tend to give the answer the prosecution wants, that way they get more work.

Basically without a perfect justice system we can't we can't afford to have a sentence that can't be corrected.

[Banditbandit]

The third one.

After the first two they've already demonstrated they're not willing or capable of living with the rest of us.

So - three traffic tickets and you lose your licence permanently? Haven't you demonstrated that you are unwilling to obey the road rules?

[Banditbandit]

When is it right for the state to do something that it would be wrong for an individual to do?

If it is wrong for an individual to kill, why is it right for the state to kill?

[Taxythingy]

Expert witness testimony in this country is also suspect. The Crown is paying for their evidence and the expert likes the money, so they tend to give the answer the prosecution wants, that way they get more work.

The Crown doesn't like calling expert witnesses that might give the 'wrong' answer.

Also, I doubt the prosecution is putting much effort into finding innocence once the case passes their basic 'will I get laughed at by my colleagues' test.

[oldrider]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Are there people so bad they should be killed by the state? Absolutely.

Take that current trial in Auckland, "He who must not be named." The Judge warned the jury that they are only to consider this case, they are not to do any research on the accused. That's probably because if he was named they could all search Google and find that he has done something similar previously. While I would not lose a minute's sleep if he was executed, I don't think the Police or the Courts could be trusted to get it right anywhere near 100% of the time.

Somebody meantioned the FBI. It turns out that the "science" they used to match hair is total bollocks. They now have to go back and check all the hundreds of trials where the hair evidence may have influenced a guilty verdict. The FBI, however, have trained people from other police forces in their pseudo science and nobody now knows who they all were, where they came from, or who else has been found guilty because of this nonsense.

It also turns out Dexter was wrong, the FBI blood spatter evidence is very dubious too. "Bite mark analysis" is also now being questioned.

Expert witness testimony in this country is also suspect. The Crown is paying for their evidence and the expert likes the money, so they tend to give the answer the prosecution wants, that way they get more work.

Basically without a perfect justice system we can't we can't afford to have a sentence that can't be corrected.

True!

Making them stay alive but (really) locked away forever with only the barest facilities for basic daily life needs would solve the mistakes and or doubt problem. :innocent:

It would also take care of the conscience of state killing! :innocent:

But then the fucking do gooders would still want to pander to them and have them rehabilitated back into society! - FFS! :brick:

It seems the majority of these criminals like the current guy in Auckland (who can not be named) are out on bail or home detention etc! :brick:

As for the fucking tooth fairy criminal who like toothless women ------------- god fucking save us - whatever next! :brick:

[Taxythingy]

Back on topic, capital punishment is justifiable when and where it is already part of the law.

The dicks that failed to smuggle drugs into Indonesia knew what the punishment options were and still thought it a good idea. Sucks for their families, but I have no sympathy for them. The only proviso I'll put on that is that they had reasonable access to a fair trial. As in proven that they did smuggle the drugs. If so, :motu:. That's the law of the country they went to. Clemency to appease foreign governments, etc., is just debasing the whole point of having the deterrent.

Buuut, I don't like execution as a punishment, much as some fuckwits deserve it. To me, the cost of getting it wrong far outweighs any other costs. Lock the scum up for life. Give them shitty jobs to do. Make them wish they weren't in prison. Make sure the soap has exfoliating sand in it.

Capital punishment?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg

[Gadget1]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Are there people so bad they should be killed by the state? Absolutely.

Take that current trial in Auckland, "He who must not be named." The Judge warned the jury that they are only to consider this case, they are not to do any research on the accused. That's probably because if he was named they could all search Google and find that he has done something similar previously. While I would not lose a minute's sleep if he was executed, I don't think the Police or the Courts could be trusted to get it right anywhere near 100% of the time.

Somebody meantioned the FBI. It turns out that the "science" they used to match hair is total bollocks. They now have to go back and check all the hundreds of trials where the hair evidence may have influenced a guilty verdict. The FBI, however, have trained people from other police forces in their pseudo science and nobody now knows who they all were, where they came from, or who else has been found guilty because of this nonsense.

It also turns out Dexter was wrong, the FBI blood spatter evidence is very dubious too. "Bite mark analysis" is also now being questioned.

Expert witness testimony in this country is also suspect. The Crown is paying for their evidence and the expert likes the money, so they tend to give the answer the prosecution wants, that way they get more work.

Basically without a perfect justice system we can't we can't afford to have a sentence that can't be corrected.



More and more countries are moving away from the death penalty Pritch and for some of the reasons you've outlined plus what MisterD and Banditbandit posted about.

However, I read an article recently that stated an infallible capital punishment system wasn't possible. I can dig up if you want.

[Taxythingy]

As for the fucking tooth fairy criminal who like toothless women

1. Toothbrush.
2. DOC longdrops.
3. Shiny, please.
4. :nya:

[Akzle]

I'm not surprised at all the liberal hand wringing over the death penalty.

It's an ethical dilemma, we shouldn't execute people because it's a person's life, blah blah blah.

Using Star Trek thinking, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If someone presents a greater risk to the community, and he/she has killed before, and the crime is horrible enough - then, fuck yes we should execute them. This retard who mowed down the housewife on the shore - perfect example. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. For me, it's not a cost argument, in the US the cost of putting someone to death (by the time all the appeals have been run through) is significantly more than the correctional housing. In my view, it's not even about the deterrent factor. It's totally about exterminating that risky person before they do any more harm.

Moral dilemma - if you could have killed Hilter prior to WW2; would you have killed him to prevent the war? I would have, in a heart beat, as most people would. It's just the scale that most people struggle with, at what point does the preventative killing lack justification - 3 victims, 300, 3,000,000? My belief is that preventing the murder from killing a second person is the tipping point.

so it's just for murder that you're advocating the state sanctioned murder/death penalty?

and as a matter of "the greater good":
would you take a knife to a schoolbus full of kids, say 30, to save another schoolbus full of kids, say 31, that i promise i will kill if you don't?
is that one childs life worth it to you? surely, just crunching the numbers, you'd be acting in the greater good (and don't try stabbing me, that shit's not an option)

and just to go back and extrapolate on point 1. today it's murder that illegal and punishable by death, hell throw in some drug dealing, prostitution, whatever the fuck, things you agree with that are "socially unacceptable"..

and tomorrow they add in speeding. punishable by death... ok, the greater good? still happy?
maybe then they add motorcycle riding, just because that's rebellious and against the greater good of the state/people... still ok, to murder people?

fucken come next tuesday, they're added being a gypsy, jew, polish, brown haired, twins....

[Akzle]

or when I came back to this time the world would be completely different....probably run by Azxle

you'd farken love it brau

[scumdog]

or when I came back to this time the world would be completely different....probably run by Azxle

Oy-vey, Heaven forbid that should happen!

[Virago]

When is it right for the state to do something that it would be wrong for an individual to do?

If it is wrong for an individual to kill, why is it right for the state to kill?

Does the punishment fit the crime?

Using your logic, is it right for the state to imprison someone for imprisoning someone in their basement? To fine someone for stealing money?

[Ocean1]

So - three traffic tickets and you lose your licence permanently? Haven't you demonstrated that you are unwilling to obey the road rules?

Sense of proportion required, a traffic ticket costs me about the time I saved speeding in the first place.

Actual crime, however needs to be managed by a warning for a first offense, temporary removal from society for a second and permanent removal for a third.

Lock 'em up by all means, but don't ask me to pay for it.

[friday]

^^^ they dont ask , you just pay !!




schools = liability
privatised prisons = investment

[Akzle]

Sense of proportion required, a traffic ticket costs me about the time I saved speeding in the first place.

Actual crime, however needs to be managed by a warning for a first offense, temporary removal from society for a second and permanent removal for a third.

Lock 'em up by all means, but don't ask me to pay for it.

whose proportion?

"the cost to you".. fuck you. what about the cost to society?
fucking narcissist.

by speeding you endanger everyone you travel past (so the theory goes).

your danger to society is great. far greater than the "cost to you" if/when you get caught.


fuck you're a dick.

[mashman]

When it's legitimised.

[Ocean1]

whose proportion?

"the cost to you".. fuck you. what about the cost to society?
fucking narcissist.

by speeding you endanger everyone you travel past (so the theory goes).

your danger to society is great. far greater than the "cost to you" if/when you get caught.


fuck you're a dick.

No son, a dick is someone who reckons rules he doesn't believe apply to himself can be applied to someone else.

Me, I take responsibility for the effect of my actions on others. So far the score shows the only losers are those that reckon everyone else owes them a living. Dick.

[FJRider]

... Lock 'em up by all means, but don't ask me to pay for it.

Simple economics ... it's cheaper to inject them with lead ... than jail them.

The Death penalty for various offences in that region is well known and well publicised ... the clever/skilled one's never get caught.



Now where have I heard THAT before ... :scratch:

[Akzle]

No son, a dick is someone who reckons rules he doesn't believe apply to himself can be applied to someone else.

Me, I take responsibility for the effect of my actions on others. So far the score shows the only losers are those that reckon everyone else owes them a living. Dick.

:laugh:
who believes that meow?

[mossy1200]

War is a form of capital punishment.
Killing the local problems makes more economic sense than killing problems further a field.
Not a comment about wrong or right. Just a comment that why is one ok and the other not for guberments.

If you want to risk it all in a country that will kill you haven't you earned the right to be punished?

[Erelyes]

When is it right for the state to do something that it would be wrong for an individual to do?

Whoever said it was wrong for an individual to kill? Apart from Moses.

Say a hunter comes home to find some fuckwit baling his wife & kids up against a wall with a gun pointed at 'em... are you gonna tell this man that shooting that fuckwit was wrong?


the world would be completely different....probably run by Azxle

We're talking capital punishment here, not cruel and unusual.


But then the fucking do gooders would still want to pander to them and have them rehabilitated back into society! - FFS! :brick:

Some 'people' (to use the term loosely) are beyond help.


More and more countries are moving away from the death penalty Pritch and for some of the reasons you've outlined plus what MisterD and Banditbandit posted about.

The main thing against capital punishment (fact wise, not emotion wise), in the US at least, is that it costs more to execute someone than to just jail 'em for life.


However, I read an article recently that stated an infallible capital punishment system wasn't possible. I can dig up if you want.

Not surprising. There is no perfect justice system full fuckin' stop. So what? Are you arguing that it's OK to wrongly imprison the odd person for life without chance of parole, but not to execute them?

[husaberg]

Thinking about the men who have just been executed for drug offences, I wondered why anyone would put themselves in that position knowing the consequences. Regardless of whether you agre with a country's right to impose capital punishment surely you would not flout their laws when you could end up on the wrong side of them??
The answer is GREED


It got me thinking about whether there is any crime that is bad enough to warrant someone's life being taken. Oh sure, human nature is such that when you personalise the effects of heinous crimes (e.g. "what if it happened to my son/sister/uncle/daughter") our grief would demand justice or revenge, depending on how noble you wanted to be.
But is there really a line which can be drawn in the sand to say at what point a crime crosses over into the ultimate punishment bracket?
My heart goes out to the families who now have to grieve not only for what their sons have done but also now they've lost their lives as a consequence.

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?


The third one.

After the first two they've already demonstrated they're not willing or capable of living with the rest of us.


The first thing to add to this is that time and time again the Death Penalty has shown to not be a detterant.

For me however - I support the Death Penalty - there is a certain class of criminal who poses such a risk to civilisation should they ever be freed, that the only option is execution:

Serial killers
Serial Rapists
Serial pedophiles
Serial Drink Drivers


(okay the last one is a bit harsh, but when you hear of people on their 4th or 5th DUI, it is clear they aren't getting the hint and are therefore too stupid to live on this planet)

I'd add in white collar criminals they are just as destructive but get buggar all, Yet they steal and ruin peoples lives.
Also add all Psychopaths that have committed their second criminal offence.
If someone objects to any of them being executed they can raise the money to pay for the convicts accommodation on death row for the rest of their life's. Seems fair to me.
Get rid of the bad apples before they go to seed.

[Grashopper]

True, but the family of someone who is murdered are "punished" as well.

Hypothetically, we are talking about serial killers, rapists, pedophiles here. Just wondering how nice of a person they would be towards their family.


Too expensive to send that far way.

Waiheke.

Too nice. How about White Island?

[Flip]

"Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone."

[mossy1200]

"Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone."

Stoning people is a bit barbaric.

[Flip]

So is shooting themin the chest.

[mossy1200]

So is shooting themin the chest.

I wonder what effect it has on the amount of drugs being trafficked with the death penalty in place? Everyone knows the potential punishment but it doesn't prevent all people trying obviously.

[husaberg]

I wonder what effect it has on the amount of drugs being trafficked with the death penalty in place? Everyone knows the potential punishment but it doesn't prevent all people trying obviously.

Yes but I wonder how does it stack up against those that don't have the same hard-line approach?

[oldrider]

"Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone."

True enough - but it would more likely be - let he who can successfully raise a mortgage to procure a stone - be the first to cast one! - :blip:

[Gadget1]

Hypothetically, we are talking about serial killers, rapists, pedophiles here. Just wondering how nice of a person they would be towards their family.




The post you're commenting on here is about the family of someone who is murdered ie: The victim, not the murderer.

[Virago]

So is shooting themin the chest.

Just had an interesting discussion on this at a family gathering this evening. Many decried the firing squad method as barbaric.

But why so? It would be a relatively instant death. Is it just the sheer messiness of the process that offends our delicate western sensibilities?

The nice "clean" American methods of electric chair or lethal injection conjure images of a nice non-messy process to comfort us. But both these methods have occasionally gone wrong over the years.

[PrincessBandit]

Just had an interesting discussion on this at a family gathering this evening. Many decried the firing squad method as barbaric.

But why so? It would be a relatively instant death. Is it just the sheer messiness of the process that offends our delicate western sensibilities?

The nice "clean" American methods of electric chair or lethal injection conjure images of a nice non-messy process to comfort us. But both these methods have occasionally gone wrong over the years.

I looked up death by firing squad online the other night, assuming it was instant death (assuming the marksmen are accurate). Turns out that the heart is ruined but it can still take up to two minutes to die although the blood loss renders you unconscious apparently.

Things can still go wrong and if the execution itself fails then it's a bullet behind the ear.
I suppose a couple of minutes goes quickly enough compared to other execution methods but it is not without potential problems.

[Katman]

I heard on the news tonight that it was the Australian police that tipped of the Indonesians that these guys were smuggling the drugs out of Indonesia.

Makes me wonder why they didn't just arrest them once they landed in back Australia.

In a sense, it was the Australian police that signed their death warrants.

[mossy1200]

I looked up death by firing squad online the other night, assuming it was instant death (assuming the marksmen are accurate). Turns out that the heart is ruined but it can still take up to two minutes to die although the blood loss renders you unconscious apparently.

Things can still go wrong and if the execution itself fails then it's a bullet behind the ear.
I suppose a couple of minutes goes quickly enough compared to other execution methods but it is not without potential problems.

Everyone dies at some point and a lot of nicer people die terribly.
Worse than the 2 minutes would be the knowing its coming a long time out from when it does.

[Virago]

I looked up death by firing squad online the other night, assuming it was instant death (assuming the marksmen are accurate). Turns out that the heart is ruined but it can still take up to two minutes to die although the blood loss renders you unconscious apparently.

Things can still go wrong and if the execution itself fails then it's a bullet behind the ear.
I suppose a couple of minutes goes quickly enough compared to other execution methods but it is not without potential problems.

Attempting to eliminate (or limit) suffering is the key issue.

I reckon the French had it sussed back in the day. Decapitation by guillotine - accurate and instant.

Edit - just being doing some reading up on such beheading - perhaps not so instant...

[oldrider]

Attempting to eliminate (or limit) suffering is the key issue.

The dead don't suffer very long - compared to the living loved ones - they are the real victims - same for the victims of those afflicted by the drugs they peddled!

[husaberg]

Attempting to eliminate (or limit) suffering is the key issue.

I reckon the French had it sussed back in the day. Decapitation by guillotine - accurate and instant.

The Germans perfected the French model and included a little basket to catch the head.
<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v9GJPoMs30E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[madbikeboy]

so it's just for murder that you're advocating the state sanctioned murder/death penalty?

and as a matter of "the greater good":
would you take a knife to a schoolbus full of kids, say 30, to save another schoolbus full of kids, say 31, that i promise i will kill if you don't?
is that one childs life worth it to you? surely, just crunching the numbers, you'd be acting in the greater good (and don't try stabbing me, that shit's not an option)

and just to go back and extrapolate on point 1. today it's murder that illegal and punishable by death, hell throw in some drug dealing, prostitution, whatever the fuck, things you agree with that are "socially unacceptable"..

and tomorrow they add in speeding. punishable by death... ok, the greater good? still happy?
maybe then they add motorcycle riding, just because that's rebellious and against the greater good of the state/people... still ok, to murder people?

fucken come next tuesday, they're added being a gypsy, jew, polish, brown haired, twins....


Wow, did you strain anything while performing that massive leap of flawed thinking? If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applied to drunk drivers, anyone who thinks that country music is a good idea, and the bitch I took to my high school prom. You'd be up against the wall in about the third tranche simply because you're making plants work overtime to produce oxygen, and one day those plants might be running near full throttle and I'd hate to think intelligent good people may be robbed of the air they deserve while you're still sucking oxygen.

Now, if you want to keep twisting arguments to prove what a moron you are, suggest you join Cassina in her personal hell.

[madbikeboy]

I looked up death by firing squad online the other night, assuming it was instant death (assuming the marksmen are accurate). Turns out that the heart is ruined but it can still take up to two minutes to die although the blood loss renders you unconscious apparently.

Things can still go wrong and if the execution itself fails then it's a bullet behind the ear.
I suppose a couple of minutes goes quickly enough compared to other execution methods but it is not without potential problems.

These guys were shipping heroine. Have you ever seen someone you care about shoot up heroine through their eyeballs? I have. Take a wander through some back streets in most cities in the world, and see the young women who fuck and suck for small change to support the next hit. The amount of misery that the poor drug dealers bring is massive, they destroy families, lives - and we're supposed to give a damn about the consequence for them?

Poor drug dealers, suffering for two minutes.

PB, sorry to rant, this isn't directed at you.

[Madness]

heroine. I have.

You'd think you could spell the shit correctly, huh?

[Brett]

This cunt who (allegedly) killed Blessie sounds like a good conteder for a dose of lead poisoning. Oh...and these sick animals that keep beating children to death or subjecting them to depraved abuse and/or torture. Line all of them up together to see who many can be taken from one good caliber round to save on ammunition costs.

[madbikeboy]

You'd think you could spell the shit correctly, huh?

Mac's and auto-correct.

[SPman]

Put a few fucking Wall St financiers and bankers up against the wall - they've caused as much misery as small time drug dealers. US senators and congressmen - no loss to the world either - might be a bit more peaceful......

Armaments manufacturers - needed like a hole in the head...:facepalm:

[mada]

Capital punishment after a trial certainly seems more civilised than "potential risk" indiscriminate killing by these beasts...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/456058301-1024x656.jpg

[Akzle]

Wow, did you strain anything while performing that massive leap of flawed thinking? If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applied to drunk drivers, anyone who thinks that country music is a good idea, and the bitch I took to my high school prom. You'd be up against the wall in about the third tranche simply because you're making plants work overtime to produce oxygen, and one day those plants might be running near full throttle and I'd hate to think intelligent good people may be robbed of the air they deserve while you're still sucking oxygen.

Now, if you want to keep twisting arguments to prove what a moron you are, suggest you join Cassina in her personal hell.

so 4. For no better reason than you said so. :niceone:

[Akzle]

These guys were shipping heroine. Have you ever seen someone you care about shoot up heroine through their eyeballs? I have. Take a wander through some back streets in most cities in the world, and see the young women who fuck and suck for small change to support the next hit. The amount of misery that the poor drug dealers bring is massive, they destroy families, lives - and we're supposed to give a damn about the consequence for them?

Poor drug dealers, suffering for two minutes.

PB, sorry to rant, this isn't directed at you.

youre right. Big pharma are the only ones who should be allowed to import it.
:facepalm:
i fuken love heroin.

[WNJ]

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?[/QUOTE]

Triple RSA killer comes to mind as a top candidate,

[unstuck]

Yep, seems like the general consensus is that death is a bad thing. You poor misguided fools, must suck to be you lot.:devil2:

[awa355]

Line dancing, :eek5::eek5: At least knee capping if not shooting. :oi-grr:

Door knocking to flog off religion. ?

Telemarketers?

[wottdogg]

But as you say, they knew the consequence and they tried anyway. So they cant really complain. Laws the law after all. If you dont like the consequence dont do the crime. they have bought all this upon themselves and they are thr only ones to blame for it. The fact their families are now torn apart is their own fault.

[PrincessBandit]

These guys were shipping heroine. Have you ever seen someone you care about shoot up heroine through their eyeballs? I have. Take a wander through some back streets in most cities in the world, and see the young women who fuck and suck for small change to support the next hit. The amount of misery that the poor drug dealers bring is massive, they destroy families, lives - and we're supposed to give a damn about the consequence for them?

Poor drug dealers, suffering for two minutes.

PB, sorry to rant, this isn't directed at you.

No probs MBB - I totally get what you're saying. It does come down to greed, although I also suspect there are mules who are coerced or threatened into doing the dirty work of those higher up the chain (who are seldom the ones caught and brought to justice). I feel a bit sorry for the Wanganui guy currently facing a grim future; again, it's those who set these people up playing on their insecurity/misguided love/trusting personalities who I want to see taken out of the equation...



Worse than the 2 minutes would be the knowing its coming a long time out from when it does.

Kind of like waiting on death row when there have just been a few executions for the same crimes you are accused of?


Line dancing, :eek5::eek5: At least knee capping if not shooting. :oi-grr:



Now that's a bit harsh! (I hear fiddles and harmonicas playing in the background :eek: )

[PrincessBandit]

These guys were shipping Pure Heroine.

Oh Lorde isn't that bad!



(See what I did there? Deliberate omission of commas etc. to see how many interpretations of that sentence there could be)

[Grubber]

I heard on the news tonight that it was the Australian police that tipped of the Indonesians that these guys were smuggling the drugs out of Indonesia.

Makes me wonder why they didn't just arrest them once they landed in back Australia.

In a sense, it was the Australian police that signed their death warrants.

So it's thier fault is it???
Really?? Think it was themselves that were doing the drug run, not the Aussie cops.


Yep, seems like the general consensus is that death is a bad thing. You poor misguided fools, must suck to be you lot.:devil2:

Agreed. Last thing you will ever do is die. The ones that are left may have some emotional issues with it but generally when ya dead ya dead.:eek5:

[p.dath]

I just thought of a good scientific test we can do to answer this question once and for all, about whether executions curb crime or not.

Lets setup two groups of 100 criminals, execute everyone in the first group, and then measure the re-offending rate between the two groups.

[awa355]

I just thought of a good scientific test we can do to answer this question once and for all, about whether executions curb crime or not..

I dont think executions are about curbing crime, more about justice for a crime committed.

[Katman]

So it's thier fault is it???
Really?? Think it was themselves that were doing the drug run, not the Aussie cops.


I just happen to see a small degree of humorous irony in the fact that the Australian government did all in their power to prevent the executions, and strongly condemned them after the event, when it was the actions of Aussie authorities who helped place these people on death row.

But that's Aussies for you - unable to think things through logically.

Are you Australian by any chance?

[Paul in NZ]

I just happen to see a small degree of humorous irony in the fact the the Australian government did all in their power to prevent the executions, and strongly condemned them after the event, when it was the actions of Aussie authorities who helped place these people on death row.

But that's Aussies for you - unable to think things through logically.

I agree - I cant see how they are taking the high moral ground here....

The reporting on this is well OTT.... How about a few interviews with some addicts to balance the whole thing out. Messing about with drugs in places where there are known consequences for getting caught is dumb... Dumb eventually gets you dead so I think the Indonesians are just helping things along...

Cheers

[Banditbandit]

Does the punishment fit the crime?

Using your logic, is it right for the state to imprison someone for imprisoning someone in their basement? To fine someone for stealing money?

All good questions ... what is your answer? I only posed one myself ..


Sense of proportion required, a traffic ticket costs me about the time I saved speeding in the first place.

Actual crime, however needs to be managed by a warning for a first offense, temporary removal from society for a second and permanent removal for a third.

Lock 'em up by all means, but don't ask me to pay for it.

Hang on .. so you are saying that some rules of our society as only minor and can be broken as long as you are prepared to pay a fine - but other rules cannot be broken .. and sch transgression deserves the death penalty?

Who decides which rules are minor and which rules are major??

[Banditbandit]

Whoever said it was wrong for an individual to kill? Apart from Moses.

Our laws do ...


Say a hunter comes home to find some fuckwit baling his wife & kids up against a wall with a gun pointed at 'em... are you gonna tell this man that shooting that fuckwit was wrong?

Our laws say it is wrong - taking the law into your own hands ...




Wow, did you strain anything while performing that massive leap of flawed thinking? If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applied to drunk drivers, anyone who thinks that country music is a good idea, and the bitch I took to my high school prom. You'd be up against the wall in about the third tranche simply because you're making plants work overtime to produce oxygen, and one day those plants might be running near full throttle and I'd hate to think intelligent good people may be robbed of the air they deserve while you're still sucking oxygen.

Now, if you want to keep twisting arguments to prove what a moron you are, suggest you join Cassina in her personal hell.

Boy are you pissed at the world??? Have you every thought of getting professional help?

[Banditbandit]

Oh Lorde isn't that bad!





"you must spread ..."

[Paul in NZ]

I'd say this turd was a prime candidate...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/68154785/kiwi-daniel-kelsall-jailed-for-30-years-for-murder

Detached and just killed at random for the thrill of it... OK - he gets 30 years but how could anyone every trust him? It was hardly a crime of passion was it..

[Gadget1]

The main thing against capital punishment (fact wise, not emotion wise), in the US at least, is that it costs more to execute someone than to just jail 'em for life.



Not surprising. There is no perfect justice system full fuckin' stop. So what? Are you arguing that it's OK to wrongly imprison the odd person for life without chance of parole, but not to execute them?


I'm certainly not disagreeing about costs of capital punishment but was simply providing some of the other reasons as I stated. If you want to get into facts then there's four more other than emotions that are part of the mix.

The focus of Pritch's and my posts were about capital punishment not the justice system as a whole. If you look back on my posts, I don't believe in prison.

[Crasherfromwayback]

This cunt who (allegedly) killed Blessie sounds like a good conteder for a dose of lead poisoning. Oh...and these sick animals that keep beating children to death or subjecting them to depraved abuse and/or torture. Line all of them up together to see who many can be taken from one good caliber round to save on ammunition costs.

Prob quite a few with this.

311246

[Erelyes]

Our laws do ...

Not necessarily.

'Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence' (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM329302)

[pritch]

Random thoughts on execution methods:

As I recall Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book "The Gulag Archipeligo" described the execution method popular in Moscow during the Stalinist era. They would tell the prisoner who was about to be executed that he was going to have his photo taken. He could then be taken to the scene of the execution with minimum fuss. He would then be sat down in front of a camera following which he would receive a bullet in the back of the head.

If anbody tells you they are going to take your photo then leads you to a tiled room with a drain in the floor, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Some states in the USA have favoured the lethal injection which on the face of it sounds clean. The actual injection consists of a cocktail of drugs. The manufacturer in Europe of one of the critical componments found out how it was being used and has banned export of their product to the USA. The various states have now exhausted all of their supplies so they have contracted various pharmacies to try to recreate the drug - with less than stellar success. One guy took hours to die. Another had made his speech containing what were intended to be his last words but then added what were to be his actual final words,
"I feel my whole body burning".

Utah have previously favoured the firing squad, other states the gas chamber or the electric chair. In their enthusiasm to continue killing people they are having to do some serious head scratching to solve their chemical supply problems.

It has been reported that the Indonesian judges requested payment to ensure a lighter sentence. The payment - a bribe - was not forthcoming so...
Having lived in Asia for a couple of years and having some modest experience of their systems, that story has the ring of truth for me.

After the Indonesian firing squad has done its thing there is reportedly a wait of ten minutes before a check is conducted to see if a further bullet is required. This does raise questions about why it took some twenty minutes for the victims to be declared dead. Death from a bullet through the heart can be virtually instantaneous but that does not necessarily appear to be guaranteed in Indonesia.

[Banditbandit]

Death from a bullet through the heart can be virtually instantaneous but that does not necessarily appear to be guaranteed in Indonesia.


There's now be heaps of jokes about the Indonesian difficulty in finding hearts ..

[mashman]

Legislate all drugs and stop it being a crime, in fact stop the mules, the need for border control to loo for drugs etc... coz the fuckers that5's gonna take drugs is gonna gettem from somewhere, so why criminalise people for supplying for demand? Oh yeah, blind scared old whitey doesn't think doing drugs is good m'kay.

I don't think these guys should have faced jail, let alone been killed.

[oldrider]

Legislate all drugs and stop it being a crime, in fact stop the mules, the need for border control to loo for drugs etc... coz the fuckers that5's gonna take drugs is gonna gettem from somewhere, so why criminalise people for supplying for demand? Oh yeah, blind scared old whitey doesn't think doing drugs is good m'kay.

I don't think these guys should have faced jail, let alone been killed.

True! - This shit hasn't worked yet and it doesn't look as if it will in the future - taking the value out of it might? - maybe? :confused:

[mashman]

True! - This shit hasn't worked yet and it doesn't look as if it will in the future - taking the value out of it might? - maybe? :confused:

I don't see why not. Oh, and more tax $ ;). Taking the value out of a great many things would instantly shrink the "criminal" pool :shifty:

[unstuck]

Whatever you resist, persist's. Carl Jung I think, wise man.:rolleyes:

[Akzle]

Hang on .. so you are saying that some rules of our society as only minor and can be broken as long as you are prepared to pay a fine - but other rules cannot be broken .. and sch transgression deserves the death penalty?

Who decides which rules are minor and which rules are major??

well, according to ocean whoever can afford it.


which. hilariously. is pretty much the way it is now.

this IS the way we've always whipped dead horses.

[Ocean1]

Hang on .. so you are saying that some rules of our society as only minor and can be broken as long as you are prepared to pay a fine - but other rules cannot be broken .. and sch transgression deserves the death penalty?

Who decides which rules are minor and which rules are major??

No.

However, most of us couldn't give a fuck about rules, it just so happens that most of the rules define how most of us behave anyway.
So it shouldn't come as a huge shock that the few rules we have that most of us disagree with are the same ones most of us break.

[Akzle]

No.

However, most of us couldn't give a fuck about rules, it just so happens that most of the rules define how most of us behave anyway.
So it shouldn't come as a huge shock that the few rules we have that most of us disagree with are the same ones most of us break.

most of 'us'?

like, a democratic majority?
:laugh: you are just-too-muchery.

[madbikeboy]

Oh Lorde isn't that bad!



(See what I did there? Deliberate omission of commas etc. to see how many interpretations of that sentence there could be)

I've got to spread it around before I give you some more… Sigh, this IS just like dating.

[madbikeboy]

I'd say this turd was a prime candidate...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/68154785/kiwi-daniel-kelsall-jailed-for-30-years-for-murder

Detached and just killed at random for the thrill of it... OK - he gets 30 years but how could anyone every trust him? It was hardly a crime of passion was it..

The Oaks is one of the local spots in North Sydney, during summer its got a great outside bar area that's covered in trees and hot women.

[madbikeboy]

Our laws do ...



Our laws say it is wrong - taking the law into your own hands ...





Boy are you pissed at the world??? Have you every thought of getting professional help?

I've had every thought of getting professional help, I not sure I every would though.

[Katman]

The Oaks is one of the local spots in North Sydney, during summer its got a great outside bar area that's covered in trees and hot women.

I used to love their cook-your-own steaks.

[Big Dog]

Random thoughts on execution methods:

As I recall Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book "The Gulag Archipeligo" described the execution method popular in Moscow during the Stalinist era. They would tell the prisoner who was about to be executed that he was going to have his photo taken. He could then be taken to the scene of the execution with minimum fuss. He would then be sat down in front of a camera following which he would receive a bullet in the back of the head.

If anbody tells you they are going to take your photo then leads you to a tiled room with a drain in the floor, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Some states in the USA have favoured the lethal injection which on the face of it sounds clean. The actual injection consists of a cocktail of drugs. The manufacturer in Europe of one of the critical componments found out how it was being used and has banned export of their product to the USA. The various states have now exhausted all of their supplies so they have contracted various pharmacies to try to recreate the drug - with less than stellar success. One guy took hours to die. Another had made his speech containing what were intended to be his last words but then added what were to be his actual final words,
"I feel my whole body burning".

Utah have previously favoured the firing squad, other states the gas chamber or the electric chair. In their enthusiasm to continue killing people they are having to do some serious head scratching to solve their chemical supply problems.

It has been reported that the Indonesian judges requested payment to ensure a lighter sentence. The payment - a bribe - was not forthcoming so...
Having lived in Asia for a couple of years and having some modest experience of their systems, that story has the ring of truth for me.

After the Indonesian firing squad has done its thing there is reportedly a wait of ten minutes before a check is conducted to see if a further bullet is required. This does raises questions about why it took some twenty minutes for the victims to be declared dead. Death from a bullet through the heart can be virtually instantaneous but that does not necessarily appear to be guaranteed in Indonesia.

So they failed to bribe the cops, the judge and the executioner? Slow learners.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[TheDemonLord]

Legislate all drugs and stop it being a crime, in fact stop the mules, the need for border control to loo for drugs etc... coz the fuckers that5's gonna take drugs is gonna gettem from somewhere, so why criminalise people for supplying for demand? Oh yeah, blind scared old whitey doesn't think doing drugs is good m'kay.

I don't think these guys should have faced jail, let alone been killed.

I agree and disagree - some drugs have relatively benign effects - even the most ardent Caffiene addicts (read the IT industry) are able to function on a day-to-day basis whilst fully dosed up with their drug of choice.

Other drugs have very dangerous effects - have you seen Meth Addict mugshots? not to mention the addiction power varies between drugs. Have you seen a Meth Addict been able to function properly in normal society?

Some drugs are unfortunately too dangerous for public consumption or at least need to be discouraged to the point where people are disuaded from trying them

[mashman]

I agree and disagree - some drugs have relatively benign effects - even the most ardent Caffiene addicts (read the IT industry) are able to function on a day-to-day basis whilst fully dosed up with their drug of choice.

Other drugs have very dangerous effects - have you seen Meth Addict mugshots? not to mention the addiction power varies between drugs. Have you seen a Meth Addict been able to function properly in normal society?

Some drugs are unfortunately too dangerous for public consumption or at least need to be discouraged to the point where people are disuaded from trying them

Dissuaded? They've had enough of that throughout the entire of existence... turns out forcing people not to do something isn't working. If addicts are going to get fucked up, then it matters not what the "rules" are. A smart society would realise this and act accordingly... not sit with its finger up its arse putting on stick plaster after sticky plaster and claiming victory.

Yes drugs are dangerous, so let's leave it up to the individual to choose... and if by some miracle people stop making Meth/P etc... then great. I'd like to see that tried please, but without the societal condemnation that comes from, erm, people with vested interests in the status quo.

[Big Dog]

How about this for an alternative. Only users are allowed to manufacture or peddle and only if they are willing to take 4 x the max "safe" dose once a year to prove their product is in fact safe for a consumer?

Don't have a license as per above and get caught? You have one hour to consume all the product you were carrying or it's off to the guillotine for you.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Grubber]

I just happen to see a small degree of humorous irony in the fact that the Australian government did all in their power to prevent the executions, and strongly condemned them after the event, when it was the actions of Aussie authorities who helped place these people on death row.

But that's Aussies for you - unable to think things through logically.

Are you Australian by any chance?

Australian???? Doubt it!
I just see this as you do the crime you do the time.
Quite happy they have been stopped from bringing this crap into my back yard.
what ever the Aussies do is something i don't care about really as justice is being served in many ways.
Aussie cops may have tipped them off but i have no doubt there is still a desired result for them either way.
Not over sure i agree entirely with the death penalty part but the Indonesians do. Their call for this one i'm afraid.

[TheDemonLord]

Dissuaded? They've had enough of that throughout the entire of existence... turns out forcing people not to do something isn't working. If addicts are going to get fucked up, then it matters not what the "rules" are. A smart society would realise this and act accordingly... not sit with its finger up its arse putting on stick plaster after sticky plaster and claiming victory.

Yes drugs are dangerous, so let's leave it up to the individual to choose... and if by some miracle people stop making Meth/P etc... then great. I'd like to see that tried please, but without the societal condemnation that comes from, erm, people with vested interests in the status quo.

If when an addict gets fucked up, they were in their own little padded cell, then sure - but people who have been up for days, suffering from drug-induced paranoia and have massive amounts of adrenalin surging in their system are Timebombs waiting to happen and unfortunately it is invariably the innocent bystander who pays the price, not the addict.

Some drugs the arguement can be made that the effects are relatively minor, or are socially acceptable with a few rules, others less so - I agree that ultimately if people want to get high, they will find a way to get high - maybe if we took the money we spent on Drug enforcement and spent it on Mental Health so that people didn't need to self-medicate with dangerous drugs....

[mashman]

If when an addict gets fucked up, they were in their own little padded cell, then sure - but people who have been up for days, suffering from drug-induced paranoia and have massive amounts of adrenalin surging in their system are Timebombs waiting to happen and unfortunately it is invariably the innocent bystander who pays the price, not the addict.

Some drugs the arguement can be made that the effects are relatively minor, or are socially acceptable with a few rules, others less so - I agree that ultimately if people want to get high, they will find a way to get high - maybe if we took the money we spent on Drug enforcement and spent it on Mental Health so that people didn't need to self-medicate with dangerous drugs....

Sure, that's a reality today, irrespective of man's law. Fail!, because as you point out it still happens and those who want drugs still find access to them... even inside of prison. I say exactly the same thing about money addicts, except they do far more damage than any addled drug user does to society... but that's ok, it's socially acceptable <_<. The hypocrisy is outstanding.

Your argument would be relatively sound if alcohol was also a banned substance. It's effects are far worse than drugs, especially socially. Does the self-medication work? or are you wanting to remove that option from an individual also? It's not just a question of money, the attitude of society "drugs is bad mkay" really needs to change from one of ignorance... but alas, the propaganda machine spreading fear and lies is fueled at the highest level of "authority" i.e. the govt, and as such the fuckknuckles accepting that "authority" and their "opinion" are actually the biggest part of the problem, coz they ain't able to think past what they've been "educated".

Think on this. For every drug addict that commits a crime, there are thousands out there who don't. How can you then go on and blame drugs?

[TheDemonLord]

Sure, that's a reality today, irrespective of man's law. Fail!, because as you point out it still happens and those who want drugs still find access to them... even inside of prison. I say exactly the same thing about money addicts, except they do far more damage than any addled drug user does to society... but that's ok, it's socially acceptable <_<. The hypocrisy is outstanding.

Your argument would be relatively sound if alcohol was also a banned substance. It's effects are far worse than drugs, especially socially. Does the self-medication work? or are you wanting to remove that option from an individual also? It's not just a question of money, the attitude of society "drugs is bad mkay" really needs to change from one of ignorance... but alas, the propaganda machine spreading fear and lies is fueled at the highest level of "authority" i.e. the govt, and as such the fuckknuckles accepting that "authority" and their "opinion" are actually the biggest part of the problem, coz they ain't able to think past what they've been "educated".

Think on this. For every drug addict that commits a crime, there are thousands out there who don't. How can you then go on and blame drugs?

Agree there is Hypocrisy, the thing with Alcohol is, it is like driving a car: thousands of people use it everyday responsibly and without incident and every so often someone does something stupid and kills themselves or others - should we ban cars?

I agree again that there is hypocrisy, and also put forward that many drug laws were first implemented on a basis of Racism as opposed to rational debate - and with all the concessions I am happy to make there is still a good causal link between drug abuse and criminal activity, irrespective of whether the drug is legal or not.

As for Self Medication - it depends on your definition of work - does the user get high and forget whatever it is that is causing their suffering - yes. But is this fixing the problem? no.

Drugs are bad M'Kay is unfortunately the same dumbed down mantra as speed kills - anyone with half a braincell can work out that these statements aren't 100% correct, but it requires just that: half a braincell which would exclude about half the population so the only option is to have these draconian policies and campaigns so that even the most half-witted simpleton can understand.

[imdying]

As for Self Medication - it depends on your definition of work - does the user get high and forget whatever it is that is causing their suffering - yes. But is this fixing the problem? no.Sometimes that doesn't matter. I have a mate with a condition that causes him great constant pain, one that can never be fixed. Smoking some dope makes it more tolerable for him, but without the side affects from strong painkillers. More power to him I say :doobey:

[Akzle]

I agree and disagree - some drugs have relatively benign effects - even the most ardent Caffiene addicts (read the IT industry) are able to function on a day-to-day basis whilst fully dosed up with their drug of choice.

Other drugs have very dangerous effects - have you seen Meth Addict mugshots? not to mention the addiction power varies between drugs. Have you seen a Meth Addict been able to function properly in normal society?

Some drugs are unfortunately too dangerous for public consumption or at least need to be discouraged to the point where people are disuaded from trying them

utter horseshit. Ive recently given up my (rather minimal) caffeine habit.
Worse than crack, for me. A week worth of not eating, sleeping or shitting right.
Ban coffee!

[pritch]

This is a longish read but describes the lethal injection problem in the USA in some detail:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/30/lockettoneyearlater/

The comments about a paralysing agent are interesting. The daughter of a family I know had a problem with this. She was conscious throughout a caesarean but was paralyzed and couldn't move, couldn't speak, couldn't even blink. But she felt everything.

When the op was over she told the staff of her experience and got the "silly woman, you were dreaming" speech.
"Get me a pen" said she, and she wrote down what she could remember of the conversations in the operating theatre.
Condescention turned to consternation. Apparently a number of women had complained but they had all been dismissed out of hand.
Her written account was undeniable. I'm not sure what the final outcome was but I don't think that anaesthetist works in NZ any more.

[Akzle]

How about this for an alternative. Only users are allowed to manufacture or peddle and only if they are willing to take 4 x the max "safe" dose once a year to prove their product is in fact safe for a consumer?

Don't have a license as per above and get caught? You have one hour to consume all the product you were carrying or it's off to the guillotine for you.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

what a fuken jew.


What's the 'safe' dose of alcohol, btw?

[TheDemonLord]

Sometimes that doesn't matter. I have a mate with a condition that causes him great constant pain, one that can never be fixed. Smoking some dope makes it more tolerable for him, but without the side affects from strong painkillers. More power to him I say :doobey:

Cannabis for me is definitely in the list of drugs that need a review - I would love to be able to legally:

Go to my local Marijuana store
Purchase a good quality product from a reputable grower, paying a reasonable amount of Tax for the privledge
Ride home (sober)
and sit on my deck, in the evening sun enjoying a big fat joint.

[TheDemonLord]

The comments about a paralysing agent are interesting. The daughter of a family I know had a problem with this. She was conscious throughout a caesarean but was paralyzed and couldn't move, couldn't speak, couldn't even blink. But she felt everything.

That sounds like an Awesome Death Metal song :headbang::headbang::headbang:

[mashman]

Agree there is Hypocrisy, the thing with Alcohol is, it is like driving a car: thousands of people use it everyday responsibly and without incident and every so often someone does something stupid and kills themselves or others - should we ban cars?

I agree again that there is hypocrisy, and also put forward that many drug laws were first implemented on a basis of Racism as opposed to rational debate - and with all the concessions I am happy to make there is still a good causal link between drug abuse and criminal activity, irrespective of whether the drug is legal or not.

As for Self Medication - it depends on your definition of work - does the user get high and forget whatever it is that is causing their suffering - yes. But is this fixing the problem? no.

Drugs are bad M'Kay is unfortunately the same dumbed down mantra as speed kills - anyone with half a braincell can work out that these statements aren't 100% correct, but it requires just that: half a braincell which would exclude about half the population so the only option is to have these draconian policies and campaigns so that even the most half-witted simpleton can understand.

It's like a lot of things. Fuck up and everyone wants to make things safer because someone was able to fuck up :facepalm:. In the process, we criminalise way too many people and shrug our shoulders as if that's the only way it can be.

There is a link, I agree wholly... after all, you gotz to pay fer yer habit. Legalising drugs won't do that on its own, it will make a small dent, but the criminals "stealing" to feed their habit will do so irrespective of legality. One of the many reasons I favour an R.B.E. is that it removes the financial element and therefore the need for a drug addict to steal from someone else when the drugs are free. No internment and no "victims". But hey, peeps is too fucked in the head to realise that as the most likely outcome... something I refer to as fact ;).

If you meant that it's the users' definition of working that's important, then I agree. Too many folk believe that they have a higher (pun intended) claim to what the addict puts in their body, than the addict. They even make laws to make their disapproval cost the addict. I think such a bit fuckin cheeky actually... but when said addict is ready to quit, it ain't like we make it easy, especially if they have a criminal record. Meh. No R.B.E., good luck with dealing that that little issue too. Especially as the definition of "criminal" is changing all the time.

Ach people understand all too well. They break the law for a great many reasons, and all do it irrespective of education. We've come a long way from thou shalt not steal. Now we have definitions that legitimise theft... everyone knows from a moral standpoint that a theft has taken place, but under man's law, if you find a definition that legitimises that theft you're home and hosed. The vast majority of us know when we are committing a morally questionable act, and I don't see anything immoral when it comes to many things drug related. It ain't about education, it's about what can be gotten away with and draconian policy protects its own interests.

I'm actually for the death penalty. 3 strikes for "minor" (non-financially related i.e. moral) crimes with varying sentences before you're out... and for "major" crimes we go 1 "looooooong" jail term and anything after that, death. I'd also like a "new" contraption to be used. A simple board with holes drilled through, line the person up against the board and tie 5 wires around their torso. One around the neck, one through each armpit and one across the top of each thigh. Attach the ends of the wires to a drag car... and pull.

[scumdog]

Think on this. For every drug addict that commits a crime, there are thousands out there who don't. How can you then go on and blame drugs?

Sorta the same logic with gun ownership control...<_<

[mashman]

Sorta the same logic with gun ownership control...<_<

Very true in many ways... although it's nice to know that a gun hasn't gone astray ;).

[husaberg]

Very true in many ways... although it's nice to know that a gun hasn't gone astray ;).

Or your toddler has got into your stash...........

The OP was what would justify a death sentence I don't think anyone has yet suggested dope possession.

I note that of the Bali 9 only two were sentenced to death, as they were the ring leaders.
I also note it was for 8.3 kg (18 lb) of heroin from Indonesia to Australia. Not for a few doobies.

[mashman]

Or your toddler has got into your stash...........

Kidz gotta disco too ya know. Keeping it out of reach would be good, but shit happens sometimes and some adults do get careless. Then again, kid could be selling it at school.


The OP was what would justify a death sentence I don't think anyone has suggested dope possession.

I note that of the Bali 9 only two were sentenced to death, as they were the ring leaders.
I also note it was for 8.3 kg (18 lb) of heroin from Indonesia to Australia. Not for a few doobies.

I thought I covered that with the 3,2,1 thing?

To suit mans law. For no other reason. (for every kg that doesn't get through, how many do?) Mans laws = silly vagina.

[Big Dog]

what a fuken jew.


What's the 'safe' dose of alcohol, btw?
Granted that can be quite variable by weight and gender.
I never actually came out in defence of alcohol either.
The best answer is - Somewhere further along than stupefying, to the point that unless you are actually trying to be a fool / show off you can't drink fast enough to be fatal. Binge drinking is not normal and should be regarded in the same way as any other stuidity.

lets say you purchased a metric cup each of spirts, weed and meth.
Which one would you feel righ about giving to your lover and requiring him or her to finish it in 4 hours?

So, there we have it. Not by any means a scientific answer but I do believe we are all still waiting for SmokeU and your self to come clean on what a safe dose of meth is?


P.S. I am the wrong guy for that target too. I probably drink less per annum than it would be safe for me to drink in a single session.
As a teen / early twenties this was not true. But then I grew up.

[Akzle]

Granted that can be quite variable by weight and gender.
I never actually came out in defence of alcohol either.
The best answer is - Somewhere further along than stupefying, to the point that unless you are actually trying to be a fool / show off you can't drink fast enough to be fatal. Binge drinking is not normal and should be regarded in the same way as any other stuidity.

lets say you purchased a metric cup each of spirts, weed and meth.
Which one would you feel righ about giving to your lover and requiring him or her to finish it in 4 hours?

So, there we have it. Not by any means a scientific answer but I do believe we are all still waiting for SmokeU and your self to come clean on what a safe dose of meth is?


P.S. I am the wrong guy for that target too. I probably drink less per annum than it would be safe for me to drink in a single session.
As a teen / early twenties this was not true. But then I grew up.

weed.



So now what?

[Akzle]

a 'safe' dose of meth is subjective. As a 'safe' dose of tramadol. (hi(gh) ed!), or a safe dose of heroin/morphine, or coffee, or sugar (srsly, how many suffer sugar sickness/diabetes nowtimes?) or flourine, or ppm of diesel particulates, or voc, or, or, or.

Who gets to decide the 'safe' exposure limits?

[Katman]

Or your toddler has got into your stash...........


They should be safe as long as they can't roll a doobie.

They could eat it - but it wouldn't do them shit.

[Madness]

Who gets to decide the 'safe' exposure limits?

Ed.

http://www.nugshots.com/category/photo-gallery/

[Big Dog]

a 'safe' dose of meth is subjective. As a 'safe' dose of tramadol. (hi(gh) ed!), or a safe dose of heroin/morphine, or coffee, or sugar (srsly, how many suffer sugar sickness/diabetes nowtimes?) or flourine, or ppm of diesel particulates, or voc, or, or, or.

Who gets to decide the 'safe' exposure limits?

Kind of my point. Make the slingers responsible for experimenting until they know what a safe dose is. If they aren't prepared to take what they are selling they shouldn't sell it.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Katman]

Kind of my point. Make the slingers responsible for experimenting until they know what a safe dose is. If they aren't prepared to take what they are selling they shouldn't sell it.


Dude, you should share a joint some time.

[husaberg]

They should be safe as long as they can't roll a doobie.

They could eat it - but it wouldn't do them shit.

It was a post in reply to another referring to drugs vs guns what was the most dangerous to leave lying around someones stash need not just be dope.

[Big Dog]

Dude, you should share a joint some time.

Not my bag.
Why spend a lifetime collecting memories and sharpening the mind just to corrupt your memory banks?




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Katman]

It was a post in reply to another referring to drugs vs guns what was the most dangerous to leave lying around someones stash need not just be dope.

Are you suggesting the stash is more dangerous than the gun?

[husaberg]

Are you suggesting the stash is more dangerous than the gun?

Not always but each has its own risks. Plenty of peoples drug stashes both legal and illegal can kill kids. I would suggest more people lock up they rifles than lock up their stash though.
I can remember reading tiger balm can be lethal if ingested by a toddler. I would not have guessed that.

[Big Dog]

Apparently paracetamol is a regular kiddy killer.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Katman]

I would suggest more people lock up they rifles than lock up their stash though.


Well like I said, leave Cannabis out of it (see what I did there) if you're looking for a danger to a toddler who can't roll a splif.

[TheDemonLord]

It's like a lot of things. Fuck up and everyone wants to make things safer because someone was able to fuck up :facepalm:. In the process, we criminalise way too many people and shrug our shoulders as if that's the only way it can be.

There is a link, I agree wholly... after all, you gotz to pay fer yer habit. Legalising drugs won't do that on its own, it will make a small dent, but the criminals "stealing" to feed their habit will do so irrespective of legality. One of the many reasons I favour an R.B.E. is that it removes the financial element and therefore the need for a drug addict to steal from someone else when the drugs are free. No internment and no "victims". But hey, peeps is too fucked in the head to realise that as the most likely outcome... something I refer to as fact ;).

If you meant that it's the users' definition of working that's important, then I agree. Too many folk believe that they have a higher (pun intended) claim to what the addict puts in their body, than the addict. They even make laws to make their disapproval cost the addict. I think such a bit fuckin cheeky actually... but when said addict is ready to quit, it ain't like we make it easy, especially if they have a criminal record. Meh. No R.B.E., good luck with dealing that that little issue too. Especially as the definition of "criminal" is changing all the time.

Ach people understand all too well. They break the law for a great many reasons, and all do it irrespective of education. We've come a long way from thou shalt not steal. Now we have definitions that legitimise theft... everyone knows from a moral standpoint that a theft has taken place, but under man's law, if you find a definition that legitimises that theft you're home and hosed. The vast majority of us know when we are committing a morally questionable act, and I don't see anything immoral when it comes to many things drug related. It ain't about education, it's about what can be gotten away with and draconian policy protects its own interests.

I'm actually for the death penalty. 3 strikes for "minor" (non-financially related i.e. moral) crimes with varying sentences before you're out... and for "major" crimes we go 1 "looooooong" jail term and anything after that, death. I'd also like a "new" contraption to be used. A simple board with holes drilled through, line the person up against the board and tie 5 wires around their torso. One around the neck, one through each armpit and one across the top of each thigh. Attach the ends of the wires to a drag car... and pull.

Aaaaaand back to an RBE again - lets just skip the foreplay, the main event and money shot:

I don't think it will work for numerous reasons, you think it will.

[unstuck]

Change the wording from "Death Penalty" to "Returning to a place of wondrous bliss and joy". Kinda makes you wonder what all the fuss is about really.:shifty:

[friday]

funny how people who arent connected to the drug runners get uppity about death penalty especially in OZ (not talking about you lot your rabid)

an indian and an asian got shot , surprisingly not by Ozzies

what about abbos getting topped off by cops in WA every other day ? people are too busy to comment on that .

theres been actors and comedians and all sorts uploading themselves on the net , maybe its just prime time for self promotion or to keep the face in the media

Ive learnt about firing squads what I never knew before on this thread , my view on it is it should be 1 big one to the head not a squad

[mashman]

Aaaaaand back to an RBE again - lets just skip the foreplay, the main event and money shot:

I don't think it will work for numerous reasons, you think it will.

Really? :facepalm:

Yes we have done the dance... and I did address your points before adding what you call the money shot stuff for the consideration of anyone who wonders what the effect on crime would be, along with the other positive societal outcomes that we currently strive for but somehow never seem to be able to achieve (because lack of money!). It's valid and it is your choice.

But I think we were at a point where we agreed, pretty much, on the death stuff... and I would like to see that board/dragster idea considered ;).

[mashman]

Change the wording from "Death Penalty" to "Returning to a place of wondrous bliss and joy". Kinda makes you wonder what all the fuss is about really.:shifty:

Why would you come here in the first place? :laugh:

[Big Dog]

funny how people who arent connected to the drug runners get uppity about death penalty especially in OZ (not talking about you lot your rabid)

an indian and an asian got shot , surprisingly not by Ozzies

what about abbos getting topped off by cops in WA every other day ? people are too busy to comment on that .

theres been actors and comedians and all sorts uploading themselves on the net , maybe its just prime time for self promotion or to keep the face in the media

Ive learnt about firing squads what I never knew before on this thread , my view on it is it should be 1 big one to the head not a squad
So to extend that further why not use the "thumper" they use at the freezing works. That is supposedly humane and can be used thousands of times without reloading while still allowing for an open casket. Just turns the brain to soup.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[FJRider]

Plenty of peoples drug stashes both legal and illegal can kill kids.

Plenty of kid's die in their own driveway .... run (backed) over by a "Family Member" ... no drugs or booze involved.

[husaberg]

Plenty of kid's die in their own driveway .... run (backed) over by a "Family Member" ... no drugs or booze involved.

Granted plenty also die of natural causes to but the parents are put on trial with the death penalty for either, remember what this thread is about FJ?
Smuggling 9 kg of Heroin was not an accidental nor an oversight it was not even negligent.

[FJRider]

remember what this thread is about FJ?

Nah ... remind me ... :innocent:


Smuggling 9 kg of Heroin was not an accidental nor an oversight it was not even negligent.

But they didn't mean to get caught ... so it must have been "Accidental" ... :shifty:



The "I won't get caught .... I'm to clever" symdrome wins (loses .. ???) again ... :laugh:

[Ocean1]

So to extend that further why not use the "thumper" they use at the freezing works. Just turns the brain to soup.

Could improve the IQ of quite a few around here...

[husaberg]

Nah ... remind me ... :innocent:



But they didn't mean to get caught ... so it must have been "Accidental" ... :shifty:



The "I won't get caught .... I'm to clever" symdrome wins (loses .. ???) again ... :laugh:
I think they were more I won't get caught.........
Maybe they should have tried the stupidity defence anyway then.

[FJRider]

... Maybe they should have tried the stupidity defence anyway then.

They were too stupid to try that one ... :rolleyes:

[husaberg]

They were too stupid to try that one ... :rolleyes:

Shame ignorance is not a defence aye.......... If you don't believe me try that one with the IRD sometime.

I did a bit of research and it turns out the more often and faster a capital punishment is carried out after sentencing the better of a deterrent it actually is.
I also found the best you punishments that work as deterrents are the humble guillotine and hanging.
Neither if these need much medical training or expensive maintenance. Granted the noose has to be set right and the rope to the correct length but these are well established.

The lethal injection problems seem to stem from it needing medical training to find the vein the methodology is pretty simple.
A barbiturate to relax them and knock them out, Then a paralysing drug so the body doesn't show any pain, and lastly drug to stop the heart.
Any problems are actually from the delivery being wrong ie missed or collapsed veins as the potassium chloride that stops the heart is what causes the burning pain.
The protocols are actually pretty similar to what a vet uses only actually more humane.

[FJRider]

Shame ignorance is not a defence aye.......... If you don't believe me try that one with the IRD sometime.

All government departments work (or not) ... or try to work ... on the same principal of method ...


I did a bit of research and it turns out the more often and faster a capital punishment is carried out after sentencing the better of a deterrent it actually is.


The application of a .22 hollow point applied to the side of the head ... (via pistol) is both effective and cheap. (little training required)

[husaberg]

All government departments work (or not) ... or try to work ... on the same principal of method ...



The application of a .22 hollow point applied to the side of the head ... (via pistol) is both effective and cheap. (little training required)

Yes but it is not always totally effective even the Chinese are going away from it.
The side is also not the best place either.
After it is done in cattle they are still meant to be done with an icky stick pilth to sever the spinal cord to the brain or slitting the throat or piecing the heart
I am picking you have never used a captive bolt gun then either. They are a lot less messy than a gun but the animal needs to be restrained prior to application. plus the same follow up procedures.
I have witness some pretty poor point blank shooting including nose shots with rifles.

[FJRider]

Yes but it is not always totally effective even the Chinese are going away from it.
The side is also not the best place either.
After it is done in cattle they are still meant to be done with an icky stick pilth to sever the spinal cord to the brain or slitting the throat or piecing the heart
I am picking you have never used a captive bolt gun then either. They are a lot less messy than a gun but the animal needs to be restrained prior to application. plus the same follow up procedures.
I have witness some pretty poor point blank shooting including nose shots with rifles.

Even the Chinese are becoming more PC ... sign of the times maybe.

Side or front ... the recipient is unlikely to complain.

Cattle ... drug dealers ... meat to the slaughter ...

You would be correct. I have used the Browning 9mm ... with some degree of success ...

And I did say LITTLE training ... as opposed to NO training.

[husaberg]

Even the Chinese are becoming more PC ... sign of the times maybe.

Side or front ... the recipient is unlikely to complain.

Cattle ... drug dealers ... meat to the slaughter ...

You would be correct. I have used the Browning 9mm ... with some degree of success ...

And I did say LITTLE training ... as opposed to NO training.

Thing is though these people had gun licences.
I won't mention details but ..........suffice to say not even high calibre, high velocity and short distances guarantee success when the adrenalin is flowing.
ESP when the idiot refuses to understand why he should not be using a scope a less than two meters.:brick:

[FJRider]

Thing is though these people had gun licences.


I've never possessed one ... My Green pants and shirt (not to mention the Green hat) said I could. Even (NZ) Government sponsered too ...

[husaberg]

I've never possessed one ... My Green pants and shirt (not to mention the Green hat) said I could. Even (NZ) Government sponsered too ...

Figured that with the 9mm browning, quip.
As an aside horse jump quite a few feet directly up in the air when they are dispatched to the head.
There is no actual practical training required even now to get a gun licence, compares oddly to drivers licence.

[FJRider]

There is no actual practical training required even now to get a gun licence, compares oddly to drivers licence.

Strangely enough though .... most firearms offences are committed by non licensed firearms owners.

[unstuck]

Why would you come here in the first place? :laugh:

Cos it's awesome once you know the way it works. :2thumbsup

[husaberg]

Strangely enough though .... most firearms offences are committed by non licensed firearms owners.

Strangly most crimes are committed by criminals, yet most shooting still involve firearms anyway.;)

[FJRider]

Strangly most crimes are committed by criminals, yet most shooting still involve firearms anyway.;)

Innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law ... apparently ...

[husaberg]

Innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law ... apparently ...

Not in quite a few countries quite the reverse.
Assumed guilty to proven innocent.
China Japan and I think Singapore.
Two of these use the death Penalty

I note that 310 people sentenced to life imprisonment in Italy in the 80s or 90's lobbied to be able to be executed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6707865.stm

[98tls]

Not in quite a few countries quite the reverse.
Assumed guilty to proven innocent.
China Japan and I think Singapore.
Two of these use the death Penalty

I note that 310 people sentenced to life imprisonment in Italy in the 80s or 90's lobbied to be able to be executed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6707865.stm

No doubt plenty that live in Auckland have done the same...:shifty:

[husaberg]

No doubt plenty that live in Auckland have done the same...:shifty:

They won't get out of there mortgages that easy the kids will still have to keep paying them.

[Big Dog]

Ive learnt about firing squads what I never knew before on this thread , my view on it is it should be 1 big one to the head not a squad

IIRC the reason a firing squad is used instead of a single executioner is to allow the shooters the option of telling themselves they didn't kill them.
It also meant in the early days that a single objector could elect to miss.
When I was reading up about this a few years ago during then U.S. civil war it was not uncommon for a squad of six to fail to their target from 10 paces. Usually when the crew did not agree with the charge or the lack of trials.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

They won't get out of there mortgages that easy the kids will still have to keep paying them.

I am curious how life insurance lands on this one.
Assuming you had the policy for a significant period before you committed the crime?
What if you took the policy after the crime but before you were collared?
Is it any different to how they only pay out on suicide if a specified period has lapsed? Most policies that is 13 months.

What of travel insurance?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[husaberg]

I am curious how life insurance lands on this one.
Assuming you had the policy for a significant period before you committed the crime?
What if you took the policy after the crime but before you were collared?
Is it any different to how they only pay out on suicide if a specified period has lapsed? Most policies that is 13 months.
What of travel insurance?
Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

No idea how it works with suicide I doubt the insurance would pay lets be realistic any excuse to get out of paying.

[Big Dog]

No idea how it works with suicide I doubt the insurance would pay lets be realistic any excuse to get out of paying.

Unless things changed since I sold life insurance in the mid nineties companies all set minimum non payout periods and then are required by law to payout after that period. Guardian Assurance was 12 months from the receipt of the first payment.

My current policy pays 1.5 times on suicide but not for the first 13 months.
The policy my bank offered me on my mortgage was 13 months but no additional payout.

The thinking when I did the mandatory courses to be a member of the life insurance group similar to LMVDI but for life insurance ( I forget the name. ) was that no one of a suicidal frame of mind would wait that long, so anyone who did likely suffered from events occurring after the policy started.
Based on market research specifically allowing suicide saw more premiums coming in than payments going out.
If you look up the annual report of any company you are interested in they publish stats in the documents that they supply on request will be what death categories have they paid out on and what categories have they declined.

I haven't looked at these again since but we ha a collection to look at in the course. Every year the big four ( state, sun, guardian, tower) had about 10 suicides between them. None declined.

At that time pretty much the only reasons for non payout were criminal mischief and negligence on the part of the policy holder.
I thought it funny that if I cut my own head off with a chainsaw as a suicide it would be paid out. If it was an accident it would payout 2x with everyone except state who would pay 1.5. If however the same result was achieved because I disabled a safety device my family would see either a reduced payout or nothing.

It would be kind of interesting to see if twenty years later that is still true.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[husaberg]

Unless things changed since I sold life insurance in the mid nineties companies all set minimum non payout periods and then are required by law to payout after that period. Guardian Assurance was 12 months from the receipt of the first payment.

My current policy pays 1.5 times on suicide but not for the first 13 months.
The policy my bank offered me on my mortgage was 13 months but no additional payout.

The thinking when I did the mandatory courses to be a member of the life insurance group similar to LMVDI but for life insurance ( I forget the name. ) was that no one of a suicidal frame of mind would wait that long, so anyone who did likely suffered from events occurring after the policy started.
Based on market research specifically allowing suicide saw more premiums coming in than payments going out.
If you look up the annual report of any company you are interested in they publish stats in the documents that they supply on request will be what death categories have they paid out on and what categories have they declined.

I haven't looked at these again since but we ha a collection to look at in the course. Every year the big four ( state, sun, guardian, tower) had about 10 suicides between them. None declined.

At that time pretty much the only reasons for non payout were criminal mischief and negligence on the part of the policy holder.
I thought it funny that if I cut my own head off with a chainsaw as a suicide it would be paid out. If it was an accident it would payout 2x with everyone except state who would pay 1.5. If however the same result was achieved because I disabled a safety device my family would see either a reduced payout or nothing.

It would be kind of interesting to see if twenty years later that is still true.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

I'm not willing to test the theory.
surprised so few claims though. Ten is buggar all.

[Big Dog]

I'm not willing to test the theory.
surprised so few claims though. Ten is buggar all.

Really common for people in that place to stop policies like that. A lot of people who go down that road have financial problems.
When I was there guardian had a policy of paying out on suicide for up to 1 year after cancellation if the policy was active for longer than 5 years.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

If you have a loved one who is normally good with bills and they suddenly stop paying bills and cancel insurances, post box etc. it may be time to reach out to them.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Paul in NZ]

I think this wanker pretty well justifies capital punishment...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68735418/blessie-gotingco-murder-trial-full-of-bizarre-twists

[Voltaire]

I think this wanker pretty well justifies capital punishment...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68735418/blessie-gotingco-murder-trial-full-of-bizarre-twists

Whats with the name suppression?

Was he out on semi home detention with an ankle bracelet?

[98tls]

I think this wanker pretty well justifies capital punishment...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68735418/blessie-gotingco-murder-trial-full-of-bizarre-twists

Indeed,shame all the do-gooder pc fucks are not capable of realizing that theres some born with no hope and simply dragging the cunt outta the courthouse and ending it for all with a simple blow to the head with a mallet would be a suitable ending,the option of a member of the victims family doing the honours would be a nice touch,jesus we could even put the media to some good use with live coverage possibly at 7 so as to avoid Hoskings endless fucking about with his collar.Sadly these days its not an option but imagine the job satisfaction one could get if it was.

[swarfie]

Whats with the name suppression?

Was he out on semi home detention with an ankle bracelet?
Bracelet should have been around that arseholes neck...frigging dropkick:brick:....don't get me started Volty.
As for the name suppression, what sort of a system allows us to see the prick on TV but not be allowed to know his name? My guess is there's more charges to be laid against him. Lets hope the judge isn't a soft cock.

Indeed,shame all the do-gooder pc fucks are not capable of realizing that theres some born with no hope and simply dragging the cunt outta the courthouse and ending it for all with a simple blow to the head with a mallet would be a suitable ending,the option of a member of the victims family doing the honours would be a nice touch,jesus we could even put the media to some good use with live coverage possibly at 7 so as to avoid Hoskings endless fucking about with his collar.

+1 and then +1 again. Did you see the :tugger:throw his tanty in the courtroom? (or at least hear him) and storm off to the cells.....hope the fucker rots there. He only deserves a mallet blow.:bash::bash::bash:

Heart felt sympathy to the victims family.:weep:

[98tls]

Bracelet should have been around that arseholes neck...frigging dropkick:brick:....don't get me started Volty.
As for the name suppression, what sort of a system allows us to see the prick on TV but not be allowed to know his name? My guess is there's more charges to be laid against him. Lets hope the judge isn't a soft cock.


+1 and then +1 again. Did you see the :tugger:throw his tanty in the courtroom? (or at least hear him) and storm off to the cells.....hope the fucker rots there. He only deserves a mallet blow.:bash::bash::bash:

Heart felt sympathy to the victims family.:weep:

Didnt see it but can imagine.Must have been a pleasing sight to the coppers involved.

[Cracker]

This fella has done a lot of damage and I admire how the Chinese handle these cases with an inexpensive court and quick death.

[Laava]

He is just misunderstood. Apart from the stabbing, everything else was accidental.

[gammaguy]

laudafinem.com/2015/05/22/blessie-gotingco-another-dangerous-monitored-parolee-left-unsupervised-to-rape-and-murder/

[RDJ]

I think the killer of that poor lady Blessie has earned a death sentence. There is no point in putting him in prison for 30+ years, because he'll be out in less than 10. He has no remorse, no regrets, no apologies, and no excuses. The only thing worse than killing him by state execution is setting him free to kill again. Many years ago I heard something which made me think - "if you support the death penalty, would you be prepared to press the button to execute that penalty?" Yes. For this person / killer, I would press the button personally.


Thinking about the men who have just been executed for drug offences, I wondered why anyone would put themselves in that position knowing the consequences. Regardless of whether you agre with a country's right to impose capital punishment surely you would not flout their laws when you could end up on the wrong side of them?
It got me thinking about whether there is any crime that is bad enough to warrant someone's life being taken. Oh sure, human nature is such that when you personalise the effects of heinous crimes (e.g. "what if it happened to my son/sister/uncle/daughter") our grief would demand justice or revenge, depending on how noble you wanted to be.
But is there really a line which can be drawn in the sand to say at what point a crime crosses over into the ultimate punishment bracket?
My heart goes out to the families who now have to grieve not only for what their sons have done but also now they've lost their lives as a consequence.

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?

[RDJ]

IIRC the reason a firing squad is used instead of a single executioner is to allow the shooters the option of telling themselves they didn't kill them.
It also meant in the early days that a single objector could elect to miss.

From my understanding this is entirely correct. In places like Singapore for example with the occasional Buddhist conscientious objector, people could aim to miss, but the criminal would still be dead. If as part of the firing squad you didn't want to be potentially responsible for the death, you could point your rifle to the side and no one would ever know. I also heard (but cannot swear this is true) that not everybody in the assigned squad had a live round... one person had a blank.

[gammaguy]

From my understanding this is entirely correct. In places like Singapore for example with the occasional Buddhist conscientious objector, people could aim to miss, but the criminal would still be dead. If as part of the firing squad you didn't want to be potentially responsible for the death, you could point your rifle to the side and no one would ever know. I also heard (but cannot swear this is true) that not everybody in the assigned squad had a live round... one person had a blank.

Singapore does not use the firing squad

They use the long drop hanging method

[Laava]

Singapore does not use the firing squad

They use the long drop hanging method

I wouldn't hang him in the long drop. I'd let him go!

[RDJ]

I believe you are correct - the current method is hanging. When I was first there, there was still the firing squad option. Whatever gets it done...

[gammaguy]

I believe you are correct - the current method is hanging. When I was first there, there was still the firing squad option. Whatever gets it done...

The long drop works well......quick and painless....a nice snap is heard to confirm dispatch,much better than the old british method of strangulation by hanging

Singapore is a very efficient country,I am proud to ljve there,knowing that scumbags such as the waste of space that so callously murdered an innocent mpther and wife would not get away with such actions.

New Zealand has a hell of a long way to go in its criminal justice system,but from where it is now the only way is up.

[husaberg]

The long drop works well......quick and painless....a nice snap is heard to confirm dispatch,much better than the old british method of strangulation by hanging

Singapore is a very efficient country,I am proud to ljve there,knowing that scumbags such as the waste of space that so callously murdered an innocent mpther and wife would not get away with such actions.

New Zealand has a hell of a long way to go in its criminal justice system,but from where it is now the only way is up.

I think the Brits perfected the neck snap drop, I would say that where Singapore would have got it from.
The original drop method sometimes resulted in to many decapitations so a different formula with a smaller calculated force to break the neck was calculated by an Irish doctor this was called I think the calculated drop.
They were both methods calculated to break the neck but the original one it would seem figured in too much force.
I googled and Singapore use the revised tables as produced by the Brits in 1913.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Table_of_Drops

The execution technique of hanging, introduced by the Angle, Saxon, and Jute Germanic tribes during their invasions of the Roman Empire and Britain in the 5th century, has remained largely unchanged over time. The earliest form of a gallows was a tree on which prisoners were hanged. Despite the introduction of several modifications such as a trap door, the main mechanism of death remained asphyxiation. This created the opportunity for attempted revival after the execution, and indeed several well-known cases of survival following judicial hanging have been reported. It was not until the introduction of the standard drop by Dr. Samuel Haughton in 1866, and the so-called long drop by William Marwood in 1872 that hanging became a standard, humane means to achieve instantaneous death. Hangmen, however, fearing knot slippage, started substituting the subaural knot for the traditional submental knot. Subaural knots were not as effective, and cases of decapitation were recorded. Standardization of the long drop was further propagated by John Berry, an executioner who used mathematical calculations to estimate the correct drop length for each individual to be hanged. A British committee on capital sentences, led by Lord Aberdare, studied the execution method, and advocated for the submental knot. However, it was not until Frederic Wood-Jones published his seminal work in 1913 that cervical fractures were identified as the main mechanism of death following hanging in which the long drop and a submental knot were used. Schneider introduced the term "hangman's fracture" in 1965, and reported on the biomechanics and other similarities of the cervical fractures seen following judicial hangings and those caused by motor vehicle accidents
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21184637
It seems Iran uses strangulation hanging though.

[mossy1200]

They use the long drop hanging method

Hung by the feet with head submerged in a long drop. Interesting but a little inhumane. You wouldn't want be sentenced on curry night.

[eldog]

If you have a loved one who is normally good with bills and they suddenly stop paying bills and cancel insurances, post box etc. it may be time to reach out to them.

look around a crowded room you can sometimes spot them, but those closest to them cant see it.

I saw one last weekend, tried to take his life that night. (he survived but for how long?)

Not much you can do sometimes but watch the train wreck unfold. I have seen several.

[scumdog]

laudafinem.com/2015/05/22/blessie-gotingco-another-dangerous-monitored-parolee-left-unsupervised-to-rape-and-murder/


Read it (at speed I admit).

The writer bags the cops, blaming them for idiot-boys actions - I'm not sure why as I did not see any comment outlining WHY it was the fault of NZ Police.

[Paul in NZ]

Read it (at speed I admit).

The writer bags the cops, blaming them for idiot-boys actions - I'm not sure why as I did not see any comment outlining WHY it was the fault of NZ Police.

Its not so much the Police they bag as also the Justice system. Because there is a social contract that we have. We give the system powers and they protect us from the baddies and come up with ways to manage the baddies in return for us not asking you to kill arseholes.... In this case (and others) it didn't work and we want a refund and since you can bring her back to life.... Um - well fuck it... Lets just review the whole thing...

[husaberg]

Its not so much the Police they bag as also the Justice system. Because there is a social contract that we have. We give the system powers and they protect us from the baddies and come up with ways to manage the baddies in return for us not asking you to kill arseholes.... In this case (and others) it didn't work and we want a refund and since you can bring her back to life.... Um - well fuck it... Lets just review the whole thing...

Far as I know it is the Corrections Department that assumes responsibility of people on Parole? rather then Police?
It looks like with the supervision order set to the maxium it looks like there was grave concerns he would re offend Again nothing to do with the Police.
It has to be considered while he was locked away for such a short time in the first place again nothing to do with the Police

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Jm0klpcvi8J:https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/95/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/5611ae75-4860-44b6-bccc-5aebdb3ea78f/5611ae75-4860-44b6-bccc-5aebdb3ea78f.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz
note This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

on 19 February 2014 at 4.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
It is noteworthy that Keane J declined a request by the Crown to sentence Mr Robertson to preventive detention, noting that the Court’s ability to impose an extended supervision order upon his release was a relevant factor in determining whether a non-finite sentence was appropriate

Ms Tolond is a qualified registered psychologist
She detailed Mr Robertson’s pattern of offending and concluded that he displays a tendency to use violence, both instrumentally, and reactively. Having considered Mr Robertson’s criminal history, I agree with that comment. Ms Tolond considered that Mr Robertson’s move to sexual offending increased the risk he poses to the community. Again, I agree with this comment.

She recorded that Mr Robertson does not accept that he sexually offended against the victim, and that he has not accepted any responsibility for his actions. He has manifested no empathy for the victims, and he became agitated when he was questioned in regard to these matters. She noted that Mr Robertson’s lack of remorse, penchant for externalising responsibility, and ongoing sense of entitlement, appear to be part of an enduring personality pattern, whereby he blames and holds others accountable for his behaviour.

verall, Ms Tolond signalled there is a high risk that Mr Robertson will engage in relevant sexual offending on his release. She considered that his sexual reoffending is likely to place female children who are unknown to him, including those in public places, at risk of abduction, indecent assault, or further sexual offences.

On 6 January 2014, Mr Robertson was convicted for breaching his parole conditions by failing to comply with the house rules imposed by the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society which was providing him with accommodation.

is also charged that on 16 January 2014, Mr Robertson, despite a previous warning, was in a public park. The Parole Board required as a condition of his release that he should not enter a public park or reserve or other place where children were likely to congregate, unless he was under direct supervision at the time. Mr Robertson has denied this breach.

There is a real and ongoing risk that cannot sensibly be ignored, having regard to the nature and gravity of the likely offending. In my judgment, an extended supervision order should be made.

Mr Robertson was released from custody on 11 December 2013, notwithstanding that the statutory release date was 14 December 2013. The statutory conditions of release, and the conditions imposed by the Parole Board, run from the statutory release date, as opposed to his actual release date. Hence, the conditions imposed run through until 14 June 2014.

[oldrider]

When is capital punishment ever justifiable?

When it is somebody else!

When it is someone that you don't know personally - someone who you don't ever have to meet face to face and look in the eye and say - I voted yes! - :bye:

Very few people who vote yes have got the balls to carry their opinions to the the final conclusion! - :mellow: - IMO anyway! :blip:

Many people probably think their meat and poultry simply comes as is from the supermarket - :confused: - (Killing can be a very messy business - both mentally and physically for some!)

[RDJ]

I am not logically convinced that the death penalty for somebody who has egregiously murdered somebody else, should be painless for that guilty somebody.

Yes it shouldn't be unnecessarily painful; but given that the end result is to remove a murderous piece of fleshware from the environment to prevent him or her from killing again... why is it necessarily a moral problem if that person's exit from the planet is painful (especially considering how often these pieces of trash cause immense suffering to their victims).

Discuss...

[Laava]

I am not logically convinced that the death penalty for somebody who has egregiously murdered somebody else, should be painless for that guilty somebody.

Yes it shouldn't be unnecessarily painful; but given that the end result is to remove a murderous piece of fleshware from the environment to prevent him or her from killing again... why is it necessarily a moral problem if that person's exit from the planet is painful (especially considering how often these pieces of trash cause immense suffering to their victims).

Discuss...

The mental torment of being sentenced to die would be enough I would have thought. Wouldn't inducing a deliberately painful death on someone make you a sadist?

[RDJ]

The mental torment of being sentenced to die would be enough I would have thought. Wouldn't inducing a deliberately painful death on someone make you a sadist?

I politely disagree. These people sentenced other people to die without any appreciable mental torment, indeed, often they have demonstrated mental enjoyment. I don't want their death to be deliberately / avoidably painful - that would be state-sanctioned sadism indeed - but I will not lose any sleep about their death being unavoidably painful. Actions (such as those that murderers employ) need to have consequences, otherwise they are self-reinforcing. Or do you think that Blessie's killer, given only 10 years of enforced lodging at our expense, is forever cured of the desire to rape and kill?

[Banditbandit]

If we say that killing people is wrong, then why would we insist on killing people as a punishment? Killing people is wrong ..

[Laava]

I have no problem with guys like ( can we say his name yet?) getting a bullet, longdrop, etc but was just making the point that I don't believe that it should be made a physically painful death.

[Paul in NZ]

If we say that killing people is wrong, then why would we insist on killing people as a punishment? Killing people is wrong ..

Try not to think of it as a punishment. Think of it as a solution.

[Banditbandit]

Try not to think of it as a punishment. Think of it as a solution.

If killing people is wrong, the killing people is not a solution.

[husaberg]

If killing people is wrong, the killing people is not a solution.

If killing people is wrong, preventing them from killing other people by taking their life is a solution.
Locking them away indefinitely, is mere avoidance/hiding from the real issue.

[TheDemonLord]

I am not logically convinced that the death penalty for somebody who has egregiously murdered somebody else, should be painless for that guilty somebody.

Yes it shouldn't be unnecessarily painful; but given that the end result is to remove a murderous piece of fleshware from the environment to prevent him or her from killing again... why is it necessarily a moral problem if that person's exit from the planet is painful (especially considering how often these pieces of trash cause immense suffering to their victims).

Discuss...


If you are torturing someone to death (which was fairly common place world wide until about 100-200 years ago) then IMO it is state sponsored revenge (punishing them for their crimes). I myself don't believe the state should acting in such a manner.

Although that said, when you read of what some people do to others, particularly to children, it does sometimes provide a very convincing argument to relax this viewpoint....

I believe the Death Penalty should be used to remove people from society permenantly who pose such a risk of re-offending (serial killers, Pedophiles, serial rapists) and such a disregard for their fellow humans that the danger requires them to be executed.

In this case, the Killing is merely incidental and as such should be quick, efficient and without malice.

[Banditbandit]

If killing people is wrong, preventing them from killing other people by taking their life is a solution.



What?? On the basis that two wrongs make a right ???

Yeah right ....

Killing people, whether it is murder or state-sanctioned execution, is still wrong ..

[husaberg]

What?? On the basis that two wrongs make a right ???

Yeah right ....

Killing people, whether it is murder or state-sanctioned execution, is still wrong ..

So an individual who breaks societies rules has implied rights, that actually outweigh the rights of all other innocent members of society.
Seems a bit slanted to much towards the rights of the guilty to enjoy life against those that are innocent right to live out there own life.
Odd that some claim they have the right to enjoy the protection of society when they are unable to obey the simple rules of one.

[Banditbandit]

So an individual who breaks societies rules has implied rights, that actually outweigh the rights of all other innocent members of society.
Seems a bit slanted to much towards the rights of the guilty to enjoy life against those that are innocent right to live out there own life.
Odd that some claim they have the right to enjoy the protection of society when they are unable to obey the simple rules of one.

Yes - but if society decrees that it is wrong to kill people then surely it is wrong to kill people ... it's about consistency of the "rules" ...

You seem to want to argue that it is wrong to kill people - but under some circumstances it is right to kill people ...

It has nothing to do with so-called "rights' nor is it slanted to protect the guilty ... It's about a moral rule ..

(Oh yeah .. and I don't expect protection from society - I expect to live by my rules ... and if I am in conflict with society then so be it ... and yes, that might even lead to jail time .. hasn't yet ... )

[TheDemonLord]

You seem to want to argue that it is wrong to kill people - but under some circumstances it is right to kill people ...

Once could expand on this to have a more inclusive definition of when it is right or wring to kill someone - something along the lines of:

It is wrong to kill someone, unless they pose an immediate and quantifiable threat to the lives of innocent persons.

This would also allow for things such as Wars to be fought without violating the the rule.

[husaberg]

Yes - but if society decrees that it is wrong to kill people then surely it is wrong to kill people ... it's about consistency of the "rules" ...

You seem to want to argue that it is wrong to kill people - but under some circumstances it is right to kill people ...

It has nothing to do with so-called "rights' nor is it slanted to protect the guilty ... It's about a moral rule ..

(Oh yeah .. and I don't expect protection from society - I expect to live by my rules ... and if I am in conflict with society then so be it ... and yes, that might even lead to jail time .. hasn't yet ... )

I do not argue anything. I was pointing out the flaw in your premise.
The individual societies sets out rules and punishments that they consider appropriate.
You seem to be confusing justice vs what you deem to be just.
It has everything to do with rights whether the right of an individual you choses to live outside those rules rights outweigh the rights of a whole society.
The rules of society implies consequences for those that choose not to, these are written as laws, individual societies decide what rules they will have. What punishments will be metered out.
Your last statement implies your thinking is that everyone should just accommodate your own thoughts on what is acceptable.
A societies rules are just that, A rules of the society are those that they choose,that clearly points out what is acceptable and what is not also what the ramifications are for those that choose to go against them.
If individuals don't wish to be part of society or obey its rules it is very unlikely that they would accommodate your own line of reasoning on what the rules should be.
As most societies do not hold hostage those wanting to leave, because they don't want to be part of them. It is a choice individuals make, Just as whether to obey those societies rules or not.

The NZ prison population is only eq to 0.25% of the population. Which is quite telling.
Of those only 9% are there for Homicide related offences.
Which is 0.22% of the population.

If you peruse this breakdown from US figures you will see how these individual states decide what level is deemed to be a capital crime.
it is not simply enough just to murder someone.
It generally requires additional factors as well before someone is sentenced to death.
312189
Texas who is at seems has the highest proportion of those sentenced to death use this factors here to decide where an offence deemed to be fitting of a death penalty. (Capital homicide)
As you see it is not enough to just Murder someone.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.




Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:

(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman;

(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);

(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;

(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:

(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or
(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;

(6) the person:

(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this section or Section 19.02, murders another; or
(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;

(7) the person murders more than one person:

(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;

(8) the person murders an individual under 10 years of age; or

(9) the person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court.

(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.
(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

[Swoop]

Whats with the name suppression?

Was he out on semi home detention with an ankle bracelet?
He certainly wasn't being monitored because he was on home D.

[RDJ]

Executing convicted murderers where the evidence is incontrovertible (we are NOT talking about convictions such as the Thomas/Crewe murders), is not killing people by state sanctioned violence. It's eradication of vermin/pest control.

Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.

If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.

[Banditbandit]

I do not argue anything. I was pointing out the flaw in your premise.
The individual societies sets out rules and punishments that they consider appropriate.
You seem to be confusing justice vs what you deem to be just.

I am not arguing justice or what I deem to be just - I am arguing from ethics/morals.


It has everything to do with rights whether the right of an individual you choses to live outside those rules rights outweigh the rights of a whole society.
The rules of society implies consequences for those that choose not to, these are written as laws, individual societies decide what rules they will have. What punishments will be metered out.

Yes - I accept all that. I certainly accept the social construction of the rules ...

But it is generally accepted that the "rules" reflect the morality of that society. If the rules are not based on morality and ethics, then they have no basis other than social preference and are arbitrary



Your last statement implies your thinking is that everyone should just accommodate your own thoughts on what is acceptable.

No - quite the opposite. I accept that society has rules and if I get caught breaking them then I accept that I will be punished by society ... how much I am prepared to accept the consequences of illegal actions depends on whether I carry them out or not ...

I accept society has rules - I just refuse to follow them because they are rules. I follow them, or not, depending on how they agree or conflict with my own ethics and morality.

(And I would also point out that none of what I have written reflects my personal position on the death penalty for serious crimes )



A societies rules are just that, A rules of the society are those that they choose,that clearly points out what is acceptable and what is not also what the ramifications are for those that choose to go against them.

Agreed ... the rules are usually based on a shared ethics/morality.


If individuals don't wish to be part of society or obey its rules it is very unlikely that they would accommodate your own line of reasoning on what the rules should be.
As most societies do not hold hostage those wanting to leave, because they don't want to be part of them. It is a choice individuals make, Just as whether to obey those societies rules or not.

Exactly. Sort of .. I think I agree but your meaning is a little obscured ...


The NZ prison population is only eq to 0.25% of the population. Which is quite telling.
Of those only 9% are there for Homicide related offences.
Which is 0.22% of the population.

Can you make your point a little clearer?


As you see it is not enough to just Murder someone.

Of course ...

But my point remains, if based on an ethic that states it is wrong to kill people ("murder" being a subset of "killing") then society is acting inconsistently by putting to death people it convicts of killing people.


Executing convicted murderers where the evidence is incontrovertible (we are NOT talking about convictions such as the Thomas/Crewe murders), is not killing people by state sanctioned violence. It's eradication of vermin/pest control.

Amusing - but still acting inconsistently ...


Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.

"Murder" is a subset of "killing people" ... Yes - I get that - murder is wrong because it is wrong to kill people .. Executing the murderer is still acting inconsistently ...


If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.

I'm sorry - but our society does NOT believe the appropriate punishment is that you die.

[Zedder]

Executing convicted murderers where the evidence is incontrovertible (we are NOT talking about convictions such as the Thomas/Crewe murders), is not killing people by state sanctioned violence. It's eradication of vermin/pest control.

Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.

If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.

Yep, in a nutshell.

[husaberg]

I am not arguing justice or what I deem to be just - I am arguing from ethics/morals.

Yes but remember morals refer to what you believe is right where more often ethics are what society deems to be the correct course of action considering the circumstances


Yes - I accept all that. I certainly accept the social construction of the rules ...
But it is generally accepted that the "rules" reflect the morality of that society. If the rules are not based on morality and ethics, then they have no basis other than social preference and are arbitrary
As above more a reflection of the ethics.

I accept society has rules - I just refuse to follow them because they are rules. I follow them, or not, depending on how they agree or conflict with my own ethics and morality.
This is your choice

Can you make your point a little clearer?
The point I was making is what tiny part of the population that does not accept societies rules regarding conduct that this applies to.

But my point remains, if based on an ethic that states it is wrong to kill people ("murder" being a subset of "killing") then society is acting inconsistently by putting to death people it convicts of killing people.

I'm sorry - but our society does NOT believe the appropriate punishment is that you die.
No it is based on your interpretation of morality, this is what you feel, I should point out a lot of societies share your view but and this is the big but, they are very rarely given the opportunity to actually vote on it.
I wonder If individuals were asked such as in the Blessie Gotingco case what the fair outcome is I wonder what the majority would say given the circumstances of this case.

Amusing - but still acting inconsistently ...
How so.......

"Murder" is a subset of "killing people" ... Yes - I get that - murder is wrong because it is wrong to kill people .. Executing the murderer is still acting inconsistently ...
No in my opinion the circumstances are entirely different. Sentencing someone to death due to account of heinous crimes they committed, So to protect a community is fundamentally different than killing someone because you wish too.
Using your definition that means euthanasia is also murder.
Also any meat animal that feeds you is also murdered.....

[oldrider]

Executing convicted murderers where the evidence is incontrovertible (we are NOT talking about convictions such as the Thomas/Crewe murders), is not killing people by state sanctioned violence. It's eradication of vermin/pest control.

Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.

If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.

True!

and

He who currently shall be seen but not named is an ideal candidate for capital punishment IMHO! - :yes:

[Banditbandit]

Yes but remember morals refer to what you believe is right where more often ethics are what society deems to be the correct course of action considering the circumstances


As above more a reflection of the ethics.


Hmmmm ... I'm not arguing from my own ethics ... but rather that society decrees it is wrong to kill ...




The point I was making is what tiny part of the population that does not accept societies rules regarding conduct that this applies to.

A small percentage - but morals/ethics are not democratic ... two of the major ethical systems are religious .. so a god or gods hands out the rules ... three of them depend on ontology - and are derived from creation stories ...

Ethics are, supposedly, a higher value than democracy can provide.



No it is based on your interpretation of morality, this is what you feel, I should point out a lot of societies share your view but and this is the big but, they are very rarely given the opportunity to actually vote on it.

As I have said - I have not stated my own views - I'm just arguing from a moral/ethical standpoint. How can you know that a lot of societies share my view??



I wonder If individuals were asked such as in the Blessie Gotingco case what the fair outcome is I wonder what the majority would say given the circumstances of this case.

I think you might be surprised .. but then again, so might I.



No in my opinion the circumstances are entirely different. Sentencing someone to death due to account of heinous crimes they committed, So to protect a community is fundamentally different than killing someone because you wish too.

Yes ... does that make it a more ethical action ???



Using your definition that means euthanasia is also murder.

Yes. The current rules of our society make it murder .. or at least assisted suicide - both illegal ...



Also any meat animal that feeds you is also murdered.....

No - that's too big a leap ...

[husaberg]

Hmmmm ... I'm not arguing from my own ethics ... but rather that society decrees it is wrong to kill ...





A small percentage - but morals/ethics are not democratic ... two of the major ethical systems are religious .. so a god or gods hands out the rules ... three of them depend on ontology - and are derived from creation stories ...

Ethics are, supposedly, a higher value than democracy can provide.




As I have said - I have not stated my own views - I'm just arguing from a moral/ethical standpoint. How can you know that a lot of societies share my view??




I think you might be surprised .. but then again, so might I.




Yes ... does that make it a more ethical action ???



Yes. The current rules of our society make it murder .. or at least assisted suicide - both illegal ...



No - that's too big a leap ...

There is murder and there're is sentencing someone to death there is also manslaughter.


Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

[Big Dog]

If I was convicted of murder:
& I was innocent I would feel aggrieved with either outcome.
& I was guilty I would think less of society for not doing the necessary if I was not to be removed from the gene pool.
& I was guilty but felt justified in my action I would thank society for its mercy if I got to live long enough to go outside again. But if there was no possibility of parole, real term of your natural life stuff, I'd rather the noose.

Pretty easy for me to say that, I don't currently face that dilemma but I believe any term of longer that 25 years is less humane than a needle in the arm.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Banditbandit]

There is murder and there're is sentencing someone to death there is also manslaughter.


Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

Where do your definitions come from? I certainly do not share them ...

Oh yeah .. and three times I have given you the opening to ask "What do you think? What is your opinion?" But you have missed them all ...

[husaberg]

Where do your definitions come from? I certainly do not share them ...

Oh yeah .. and three times I have given you the opening to ask "What do you think? What is your opinion?" But you have missed them all ...

Have you never considered that these two words although they often share a similar meaning, actually refer to two slightly different things.
Mull it over a bit.........

As for the question it depends on an individuals morals, but the consensus in the counties that use it (or not) as a sentence determines the course of action they choose to be ethical.
(I am obliviously referring to the ones that are not ruled by dictatorships though)

[RDJ]

... but the people who assume the moral high ground, by stating that killing under all circumstances is wrong, generally don't have to pay the cost. Recidivist murderers spared the death penalty generally do not target those who campaign against the death penalty...

This is a very thoughtful analysis

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/239.crs-av.capital-punishment.pdf

As one of the authors suggests: if the series of nonideological studies done in the last decade are right, then having a death penalty spares between 10 and 24 innocent victims of murder. How can we abandon indisputably innocent men, women, and children to homicide?

[Paul in NZ]

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/239.crs-av.capital-punishment.pdf[/url]

As one of the authors suggests: if the series of nonideological studies done in the last decade are right, then having a death penalty spares between 10 and 24 innocent victims of murder. How can we abandon indisputably innocent men, women, and children to homicide?

Thank you - a worth wile piece ...

[oldrider]

How can we abandon indisputably innocent men, women, and children to homicide?

USA does this all the time by the "employment of constant global war" as a means of controlling world economics and populations!

Why should they be so concerned for a few (by comparison) who find themselves on "civilisations" death row? :shifty:

[James Deuce]

Where do your definitions come from? I certainly do not share them ...

Oh yeah .. and three times I have given you the opening to ask "What do you think? What is your opinion?" But you have missed them all ...

Having an opinion just opens up the "right" for the person demanding it to be an offensive bastard. It's a fundamentally unethical question because it is loaded with bias.

Morals and ethics are two very different things as Husaberg has pointed out. Ethics in modern society have become very fluid and tend to mirror social changes such as the acceptance that enforcing a gender binary is a bad thing. Gender binary is set by morals. Ethics modify those morals over time by imposing legal and social repercussions for those who refuse to adapt. Like the Westboro Baptist Church whose rigid moral code has generated revulsion and isolation because of a social ethical framework that demands respect for those who are murdered by their own state in the unethical pursuit of global economic dominance, usually justified by an outmoded moral code framed by some sandal-wearing sand farmers 4000 years ago.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/death-row-stories_n_7043620.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[RDJ]

USA does this all the time by the "employment of constant global war" as a means of controlling world economics and populations! Why should they be so concerned for a few (by comparison) who find themselves on "civilisations" death row? :shifty:

I understand there are many who believe the Conspiracy Theories of History. From my point to of view - I believe bureaucrats and governments are too inefficient and stupid to conspire effectively, ever. What they are effective at is blocking the normal safeguards of logic, humanity, and ignoring the fact that the Standard is not the Ideal. The Standard is the best of the Available Alternatives. Hence - WWII and the Gulf Wars. But if you think the US is behind ISIS and the Illuminati are behind the US - then as someone famous once said "you cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into."

[scumdog]

Thinking about the men who have just been executed for drug offences, I wondered why anyone would put themselves in that position knowing the consequences. Regardless of whether you agre with a country's right to impose capital punishment surely you would not flout their laws when you could end up on the wrong side of them?
It got me thinking about whether there is any crime that is bad enough to warrant someone's life being taken. Oh sure, human nature is such that when you personalise the effects of heinous crimes (e.g. "what if it happened to my son/sister/uncle/daughter") our grief would demand justice or revenge, depending on how noble you wanted to be.
But is there really a line which can be drawn in the sand to say at what point a crime crosses over into the ultimate punishment bracket?
My heart goes out to the families who now have to grieve not only for what their sons have done but also now they've lost their lives as a consequence.

What crimes do you feel are bad enough to deserve execution?

When is it justifiable?

When it involved kiddie-rooters and smoking gun murderers I reckon.

[98tls]

When is it justifiable?

When it involved kiddie-rooters and smoking gun murderers I reckon.

That fuck up down in Dunners that stabbed his girlfriend a gazzillon times while her mum was downstairs,not sure whats worse what he did or the fact that he still breathes,both disgusting but nobody seems to give a fuck.:confused:

[husaberg]

That fuck up down in Dunners that stabbed his girlfriend a gazzillon times while her mum was downstairs,not sure whats worse what he did or the fact that he still breathes,both disgusting but nobody seems to give a fuck.:confused:

Putting aside the murder the worst part of that situation for me was the smug defence of provocation he used.
Sad thing is I remember his name but not the victims.

Clayton Weatherston's lack of remorse for the shocking murder of his ex-girlfriend was reflected in the judge's comments at his sentencing today.

Clayton Weatherston has been jailed for 18 years minimum non-parole in prison for Sophie Elliott's murder on January 9 last year.
Note
The sentence equates to one month for each of the 216 wounds he inflicted on the Dunedin woman.

[scumdog]

Putting aside the murder the worst part of that situation for me was the smug defence of provocation he used.
Sad thing is I remember his name but not the victims.


Sophie Elliot.

The fuckwit that killed had a poncy hanky-up-the-sleeve name of Clayton Wetherston (or similar), the fuckwit loser never stood a chance with a name like that.

[Paul in NZ]

When is it justifiable?

When it involved kiddie-rooters and smoking gun murderers I reckon.

Perfect match then....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68545305/blessie-gotingcos-killer-tony-robertson-unmasked

[Banditbandit]

That fuck up down in Dunners that stabbed his girlfriend a gazzillon times while her mum was downstairs,not sure whats worse what he did or the fact that he still breathes,both disgusting but nobody seems to give a fuck.:confused:

I'd be interested to see what what happening to him in prison ... the other crims will not take kindly to his arrogant attitude ..