ResurrectionRooney wrote:What?
What do you mean what? If we have the technology to have all evidence at our disposal then there would be no need for an appeal, as there would be no new evidence to present.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Your main argument for killing criminals was that they aren't contributing and they are a burden. This is a terrible attitude. If we as a society put people in jail then we have a duty to look after them, irrespective of whether we like them or not, especially if they aren't actually guilty.
If we sentence them to jail then they are our responsibility. That doesn't mean we have to spoil them, they should work their sentences off, community service or something similar...not sit around watching tv wasting our money.
Really...some of these criminals lose their right to be looked after. I never said don't look after them..but if the criminal deserves it enough then we can just get rid of them and end it there.
I'm a believer that criminals who grow up here are a failure of our system..so it is the country's fault...but in the end we do not have the money or capability to be perfect. If people have not earned the right to be looked after, and will never again contribute...then fuck them.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Why do you have a hard line approach on criminals when the 'hard line approach' (ie. internet tough guy) doesn't actually work. If we were to start executing people willynillyly, not even allowing them a chance to appeal as in the US, where there have often been miscarriages of justice, I would be utterly ashamed to live here and would move to a different country.
What the hell does real life justice have to do with the internet? Are you Internet pussy guy?
I never said execute people willingly, I never said offer them NO chance to appeal.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Miscarriages of justice happen, sometimes they happen multiple times, and no-one plans on being involved in those kinds of situations. We're not always correct (although I don't know what that has to do with technology), that's why we shouldn't make irreversible decisions just to save a bit of money. More importantly, if someone has 'some kind of connection' that does not mean they deserve to be found guilty of, much less to die for, a crime they didn't commit.
It's not just a little bit of money. This is millions, probably billions of pounds which can be used in other sectors to help save lives. The health and military have had unbelievable spending cuts when other people are being giving out undeserving hand outs and being allowed to sit back to jail.
Sure, people caught up in crimes who did not do anything (or not that much) wrong and get found guilty is a big problem...but as I said we are obviously doing all that we can to practice justice as effectively as possible. Another thing....probably spending cuts in the police too.
Anyway...like I said...if you were caught up in it under my idea...you would still have to have committed serious crimes in the past, so it's fairly unlikely that some ex murderer or serial rapist etc will be sentenced, get out and be caught in the same thing..only for them to be innocent.
Also....my point is that anyone worthy of being killed, should otherwise be locked up in jail until they die anyway. As you said, that on it's own is still prone to miscarriages...but I'm not going to keep posting my other conditions if it goes straight through your head.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:
The system would be better if it were more lenient, look at the Scandinavian systems and Scandinavian reoffending rates. I'm sure you would be utterly disgusted by the idea, but treating criminals like people rather than dogs to be shot when we don't need them any more, that actually works better than an internet tough guy approach. What's more, it means that if you do have a miscarriage of justice, you're not sending someone to a horrible fate, sitting in a dark cell for 20 years because they got caught up in something they didn't intend to, and they won't come out utterly resentful of the country.
Yes....the Breivik guy can be released after 25 years or something....great justice! I wouldn't treat criminals like dogs, that's insulting to dogs who are completely innocent.
Sure, I'm all for people being treated fairly and being integrated back into society as better people....why do you think I'm talking only about re offenders...people who have been given countless chances throughout life to change their life but continue to be criminals. The miscarriage of justice is to waste our time and money on them, there are more deserving people and causes.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Irrelevant. Petty attempt to turn it into a personal argument.
Not really, you've been aggressive and made it personal with your comments about me.
[43%] 
Generally it is quite obvious that pensioners are becoming an increasing burden..but that is a different story (and no, that doesn't mean I want them to be killed as soon as they retire, before you start jumping to even more conclusions).
.
. Taking EVERYTHING I've said, there is no way that I would be falsely sentenced to death.
