THIS topic follows up a few issues which relate to the Child CARE topic I started next door.

The 45 yr old (former) child care worker who is at the centre of all this has caused global outrage. People on international forums are posting that this case is more than enough of a clue that the current laws just don’t work when it comes to international pedophiles who function under the radar by using this thing called THE DARK WEB (TDW). Many are now calling for the death penalty to address these particular types of abhorrent international crimes.

Now if you’re anything like me then you would probably know SFA about TDW (apart from hearing it mentioned here and there). Well I asked the question of my older children. They knew. And they enlightened me by sharing the following link.

Please understand that once you click on this link AND read the article in its entirety....you will probably come away feeling upset, angry, disgusted and quite sick. And that’s exactly how I’ve been feeling all day.

Having said that ...I believe we must face this abhorrent evil known as TDW if we are to understand what it is and how it functions because that’s the only way we will ever be able to support ourselves, each other and those whose children have been tragically affected.

This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12362993/Gold-Coast-childcare-worker-twisted-rules-sinister-dark-web-site-allegedly-led-accused-abusers-identity-exposed-hes-charged-1-623-charges.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Gold Coast childcare worker: How the twisted rules of a sinister dark web site allegedly led to accused abuser's identity being exposed - as he's charged with 1,623 charges.

DISTRESSING CONTENT WARNING

A sick global network linked to the alleged childcare paedophile charged on Tuesday demanded members molest new children every month - and rewarded them for it.

The Australian 'dark web' forum was by invitation only - and it actively encouraged its twisted child rapists to go out and abuse ever more kids to feed their evil urges.

The sinister site is considered so dangerous, Daily Mail Australia still cannot name it under a court-imposed suppression order which has been in place for almost a decade.

It has now been linked to the former Queensland daycare worker who was accused on Tuesday of sexually abusing almost 100 children over 15 years.

He was finally identified, police claim, after pictures he allegedly uploaded to the site included telltale clues which eventually led them to his door.

The network boasted at least 45,000 cruel sex fiends spread across the world who could access a huge stash of more than 53,000 depraved child abuse images.

But they all had to supply fresh material every month to remain members - and those who uploaded the most appalling content were upgraded to elite user status.

Those with the most feted 'producer' status were given access to a special locked area containing the site's very worst and most graphic content.

The condition drove members to commit ever more shocking crimes, including one father who filmed himself abusing his five-year-old daughter to upload to the site.

And the strict rule allegedly proved the downfall of the Gold Coast man, 45, who was charged this week.

He is alleged to have carried out more than 1,623 sickening offences at 10 childcare centres in Brisbane, one in NSW and one overseas between 2007 and 2022.

The dark web is a public secret and cops are employed to track crims on it.  For years.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 3:51pm:

This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes).

The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent.

Plus, it's barbaric.

There is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 3:57pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 3:51pm: This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes). The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. Plus, it's barbaric. There is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Ok Greg. Thank you for your opinion.

Now please ...let me continue posting the rest of the article 👇

But he was said to have been traced after the hoard of images he allegedly uploaded to the site led back to a Brisbane daycare centre.

A small snippet of a bedsheet - seen in one of the pictures on the site - was identified after years of detective work and sparked a police swoop on the home of the former daycare worker.

On Tuesday, he was charged with 136 counts of rape and 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10.

The vile website was also linked to Matthew David Graham whose video of an 18-month-old baby being abused was described as 'one of the worst things you could see'.

He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him.

Graham, 29, revelled in 'hurtcore' videos, which show sickening torture and sexual acts being carried out on children, even babies and toddlers.

In a series of private messages, he also coached one Russian member on how to rape and then murder a five-year-old, a court was told.

From his bedroom in his parents' home in Melbourne, Graham set up similar sick networks to complement the central Australian site.

Police found more than 1500 child abuse pictures and videos on his system when they raided the house.

Ok Greg. In your opinion : what ought to be done with Matthew David Graham?

DARK WEB EXPLAINED

The 'dark web' refers to usually criminal websites which hide their server information, including their IP addresses and identity, and are only accessible by a special browser.

By doing this, it proves to be very difficult to find out the owner, administrator or manager of a website. They cannot be found in search engines.

They use the Tor browser to access them which anonymises both the site and the user through complicated triple encryption and relays run by volunteers around the world.

The result is the location of both the website and the user and all identifying features are stripped out to prevent anyone tracing either.

Combined with the anonymity of cryptocurrency, the dark web has become a playground for child abusers, sex traffickers, drug smugglers and even arms dealers.



Dear God! I just don’t know what I’m supposed to think or do after reading all this. 😩

Meantime the linked article in the OP has a lot more which I’ve not copied across to this topic. I’ll leave that for all of you to read up on. I actually feel physically sick atm.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 3:57pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 3:51pm: This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes). The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. Plus, it's barbaric. There is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.  Ok Greg. Thank you for your opinion. Now please ...let me continue posting the rest of the article 👇 But he was said to have been traced after the hoard of images he allegedly uploaded to the site led back to a Brisbane daycare centre. A small snippet of a bedsheet - seen in one of the pictures on the site - was identified after years of detective work and sparked a police swoop on the home of the former daycare worker. On Tuesday, he was charged with 136 counts of rape and 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The vile website was also linked to Matthew David Graham whose video of an 18-month-old baby being abused was described as 'one of the worst things you could see'. He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him. Graham, 29, revelled in 'hurtcore' videos, which show sickening torture and sexual acts being carried out on children, even babies and toddlers. In a series of private messages, he also coached one Russian member on how to rape and then murder a five-year-old, a court was told. From his bedroom in his parents' home in Melbourne, Graham set up similar sick networks to complement the central Australian site. Police found more than 1500 child abuse pictures and videos on his system when they raided the house. Ok Greg. In your opinion : what ought to be done with Matthew David Graham?

Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Lock him up for the rest of his life with 24/7 suicide watch, and subject him to agonizing torture as frequently as possible without endangering his life.

Televise the torture sessions as a deterrent.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:15pm:

Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty.

There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty.

It's one of the most uncivilised acts there is.

The premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners is an act of extreme cowardice and barbarism.

"The dark web"?? Was that not like 1997 when we could access all kinds of websites of all objectionable matter?

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic.

Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ?

No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible.

It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral.

It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns.

If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for
the death penalty.

There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality.

There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice.

There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates.

The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed.

If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 6:03pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society.

By the standards you list, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings?

I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted.
It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt.

My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded).

Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated.

It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them.

The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 6:03pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society.

Excellent post.

Frank has nowhere to go.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 6:33pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, there is no place for Hindus crimes in a civilised society with civilised members of that society. Yet they happen.

"What about ..."

Ah.

Brilliant argument.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 6:03pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society.

By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings?

I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted.
It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt.

My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded).

Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated.

It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them.

The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:56pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. It's one of the most uncivilised acts there is. The premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners is an act of extreme cowardice and barbarism.

You should  know I'm not a proponent of the DP by what have posted previously but I have to take a shot at your "uncivilised" because you cannot have a state without a civilisation. I would have to proffer that a state sanctioned death penalty is absolutely civilised compared to the alternative, no state and clan feuds some recorded to last centuries.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:21pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings? I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted. It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt. My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded). Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated. It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them. The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code.

Hold it right there, Frank! How did you access Alien777? That's not public information. You could only access that as far as I can see with my password.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:54pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings? I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted. It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt. My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded). Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated. It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them. The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code. Hold it right there, Frank! How did you access Alien777? That's not public information. You could only access that as far as I can see with my password.

It's right there in your post, the name you first created here. You can change the displayed name but your original sign up name is preserved and whatever you change it to is an alias to that name.

quote author=Alien777. link=1691041870/17#17 date=1691056474

wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:21pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:21pm: [quote author=Alien777. link=1691041870/11#11 date=1691049782][quote author=Frank link=1691041870/8#8 date=1691045526][quote author=greggerypeccary link=1691041870/6#6 date=1691043340] Hold it right there, Frank! How did you access Alien777? That's not public information. You could only access that as far as I can see with my password.

Alien 777


Alien?? What's  the psychology behind that?

Setanta wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:56pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. It's one of the most uncivilised acts there is. The premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners is an act of extreme cowardice and barbarism. You should  know I'm not a proponent of the DP ...

What about the DA, or DV?

Setanta wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:08pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:54pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings? I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted. It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt. My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded). Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated. It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them. The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code. Hold it right there, Frank! How did you access Alien777? That's not public information. You could only access that as far as I can see with my password. It's right there in your post, the name you first created here. You can change the displayed name but your original sign up name is preserved and whatever you change it to is an alias to that name. quote author=Alien777. link=1691041870/17#17 date=1691056474

Hmmm, I didn't notice that before. Ok, thank you.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:15pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:08pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:54pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:21pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings? I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted. It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt. My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded). Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated. It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them. The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code. Hold it right there, Frank! How did you access Alien777? That's not public information. You could only access that as far as I can see with my password. It's right there in your post, the name you first created here. You can change the displayed name but your original sign up name is preserved and whatever you change it to is an alias to that name. quote author=Alien777. link=1691041870/17#17 date=1691056474 Hmmm, I didn't notice that before. Ok, thank you.

'Hmmm. I didn't '


That could be your sign off.
Fitting.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:14pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 7:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:56pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. It's one of the most uncivilised acts there is. The premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners is an act of extreme cowardice and barbarism. You should  know I'm not a proponent of the DP ... What about the DA, or DV?

Or the apparently great DT?

Possibly a proponent of all of the above?

Anyway, Alien 777

By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings?

I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted.
It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt.

My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded).

Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated.

It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them.

The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 7:21pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:15pm: Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners. Of course there is. There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty. There are problems in framing laws around it, setting up fail-safe mechanism to avoid meting it out to anyone not deserving it. But to say that the death penalty is always undeserved, always uncivilised is asserting something without any proper foundation or logic. Where's your "proper foundation or logic for your claim:"There is nothing 'uncivilised' about the death penalty" or that it is not always undeserved, Frank ? No law or set of laws are going to provide a "fail-safe mechanism". The risk of wrongful execution is too high a price to allow the death penalty. A wrongful execution is irreversible. It's a moral double standard and contradiction to condone the killing of a person by the state if you accept killing is immoral. It undermines the state's authority in enforcing moral standards if it engages in the very act it condemns. If you value and respect human life, then there is no place for the death penalty. There are strong concerns about racial and socioeconomic disparities in the application of the death penalty, which raises questions about its fairness and impartiality. There are alternatives to the death penalty. In the most heinous cases life imprisonment would suffice. There is a lack of evidence to support a link between the death penalty and lower crime rates. The death penalty can also have an adverse psychological impact on those involved in its implementation: prison staff and witnesses, not to mention the impact on the family and friends of the person executed. If morality, the value of human life, fairness and impartiality, and the mitigation of human suffering are characteristics of being civilised, then the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. By the standards you list, Alien 777, there is no place for hideous crimes in a civilised society by members of that society. Yet they happen. What to do with people who KNOWINGLY violate the limits of civilised, moral, humane behaviour and inflict unspeakable suffering and death on their fellow human beings? I do not think that MOST death penalty inmates are wrongfully convicted. It Is possible to set laws for the death penalty to be applied at NO DOUBT, rather that at the level of beyond reasonable doubt. My main moral support for the death penalty is based on morality and on treating everyone, criminals included, as fully responsible moral agents. (Not talking about the certified insane or feeble minded). Someone who is as much an autonomous moral being as you and me offending knowingly against KNOWN moral codes we are all subject to deserves the full moral weight of retribution, self-defence and self-cleaning of the body politic that he violated. It is morally shifty to treat them as fully equal until they commit a hideous crime and then make excuses about why, from that point, their violation of the moral code means that it doesnt apply to them but a different moral code applies to them. The death penalty, in a real sense, MAINTAINS the offender's status as fully responsible moral equal who must face the consequences of his knowing transgression of the moral code.

Being a moral agent Frank, it would follow that you'd be against the death penalty. Thou shalt not kill is a fundamental moral principle.

Here is what else I see as being wrong with your argument:

It does not address the issue of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The evidence is lacking here for the death penalty.

The application of the death penalty can be arbitrary and influenced by factors such as race, socio-economic status, and the quality of legal representation. This raises concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the system.

The death penalty is irreversible, and there have been cases where innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted and executed. This irreversible nature raises serious moral and ethical concerns.

It assumes that the criminal justice system can accurately determine guilt or innocence and fully assess an individual's moral responsibility. However, the system is not infallible, and errors can occur, leading to the execution of potentially innocent people.

It overlooks alternative punishments, such as life imprisonment without parole, that can ensure public safety without resorting to taking a life.

Advocating for retribution and revenge as a form of justice may perpetuate cycles of violence and not contribute to a more compassionate and empathetic society.


I don't accept your stance.

I see this has morphed into yet another thread on capital punishment. So... as long as there are checks and balances in place there is no reason why capital punishment should not be used. The nature of these checks and balances can be argued, as can the morality of capital punishment and its effectiveness in deterring offenders.   

However, as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  Of course there is no real way of measuring this, however what cannot be argued is that it certainly prevents recidivism.

As for is supposed effects on those involved with the executions and the public as a whole, far from being traumatised, executions were regarded as a spectacle, so much so that by the mid 19th century public  executions in Australia were abolished, followed soon after by the UK and the rest of the Empire, due to the behaviour of the crowds. 

   

It could work. A driver who recklessly causes a crash and injury goes to the cop house. They apply the equal injury: a broken leg: cops smash his leg. Loss of eye:cops rip out his eye. No pain-killers. Fair enough.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

I see this has morphed into yet another thread on capital punishment. So... as long as there are checks and balances in place there is no reason why capital punishment should not be used.

No reason, apart from the fact that it's an act of cowardice and barbarism supported by cowards and barbarians.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.

US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates.

Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent.

Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 4:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 3:57pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 3:51pm: This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes). The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. Plus, it's barbaric. There is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.  Ok Greg. Thank you for your opinion. Now please ...let me continue posting the rest of the article 👇 But he was said to have been traced after the hoard of images he allegedly uploaded to the site led back to a Brisbane daycare centre. A small snippet of a bedsheet - seen in one of the pictures on the site - was identified after years of detective work and sparked a police swoop on the home of the former daycare worker. On Tuesday, he was charged with 136 counts of rape and 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The vile website was also linked to Matthew David Graham whose video of an 18-month-old baby being abused was described as 'one of the worst things you could see'. He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him. Graham, 29, revelled in 'hurtcore' videos, which show sickening torture and sexual acts being carried out on children, even babies and toddlers. In a series of private messages, he also coached one Russian member on how to rape and then murder a five-year-old, a court was told. From his bedroom in his parents' home in Melbourne, Graham set up similar sick networks to complement the central Australian site. Police found more than 1500 child abuse pictures and videos on his system when they raided the house. Ok Greg. In your opinion : what ought to be done with Matthew David Graham? Disgusting crimes and, if found guilty of them, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those crimes are some of the worst imaginable, however, there is no place in any civilised society for the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners.

Oh that’s interesting Greg.

Well what happened in the case of Matthew David Graham is not that. You see both his parents stood BY their son because as far as they were concerned ... he was a good boy who needed support, professional psychological counselling and a psychiatric diagnosis to essentially help get him off the hook.

Oh and his parents also sourced a good lawyer for him to negotiate in an interesting plea bargain. If their good boy became an informer for the police his time in prison would be severely deducted.

Remember this 👉 He was said to be so cruel even other paedophiles were disgusted by him.

Now Greg...tell me what you think about our laws and how they relate to pedophiles like Matthew David Graham.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;)

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm:

However, as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  Of course there is no real way of measuring this, however what cannot be argued is that it certainly prevents recidivism.

Linus wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 8:41pm:

Being a moral agent Frank, it would follow that you'd be against the death penalty. Thou shalt not kill is a fundamental moral principle.

And criminals break this fundamental moral principle, THEREBY putting themselves outside the protection of the laws that guard this principle. They put themselves outside he law and morality by their own conscious actions.


Quote:

Here is what else I see as being wrong with your argument: It does not address the issue of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The evidence is lacking here for the death penalty. The application of the death penalty can be arbitrary and influenced by factors such as race, socio-economic status, and the quality of legal representation. This raises concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the system. The death penalty is irreversible, and there have been cases where innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted and executed. This irreversible nature raises serious moral and ethical concerns. It assumes that the criminal justice system can accurately determine guilt or innocence and fully assess an individual's moral responsibility. However, the system is not infallible, and errors can occur, leading to the execution of potentially innocent people. It overlooks alternative punishments, such as life imprisonment without parole, that can ensure public safety without resorting to taking a life. Advocating for retribution and revenge as a form of justice may perpetuate cycles of violence and not contribute to a more compassionate and empathetic society. I don't accept your stance.

Deterrence is not a moral issue but a utilitarian one.  But the death penalty is not about deterrence - it is not about future, not-yet cases -  but about actual capital crimes committed.


Retribution is a moral issue and it is fundamental. Just deserts are just that - just. You can't take life and then turn around and claim that nobody ELSE can take life. It is moral cowardice and BS. You took life - what moral code was THAT about??
And why should it not apply to you, if you could apply it to your victim?


Be equal to your crime, do not be a coward.

It prevents recidivism if he offended again which he may have if  it happened in the future. That would be prevented by not allowing him doing what he might do if he did it. If he did, it shows he would have and so he was not able to do what may have been done, which he was doing.

If he was.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 9:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;)

You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::)

They want to run prison inmates through a gas chamber. Crime rates will fall steeply.

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title).

Does anyone here agree/disagree??

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title). Does anyone here agree/disagree?? If so, why? If not, why not?

I disagree.

We will not reintroduce the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners in this country, and that's good.

It's barbaric, and offers no deterrent to other would-be criminals.

It's 2023, not 1823.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 8:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;) You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::)

Indeed.

I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't.

I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty).

The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:03pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 8:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;) You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::) Indeed. I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't. I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty). The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water.

The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception.
Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case.

But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment.  It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated  response. It matters, but not very much.

The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes.

The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state.

Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:03pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 8:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;) You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::) Indeed. I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't. I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty). The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water. The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception. Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case. But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment.  It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated  response. It matters, but not very much. The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes. The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state. Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just.

Oh, but it is - it makes you no better than them.

Worse, in fact.

But let's get back to the fallacious 'deterrent' argument: why do US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title). Does anyone here agree/disagree?? If so, why? If not, why not?

Ok I’ve now checked back and read your responses. Has anyone considered the possibility that our posts in this topic are going round in circles? They’ve covered pretty much everything but not much else has been achieved. This vicious cycle actually reflects the vicious cycle which defines the inability to resolve a lot of issues relating to the crimes I’ve detailed in my OP.

For this reason : I still maintain we have a strong case for legal change.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:58pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 11:48am: After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title). Does anyone here agree/disagree?? If so, why? If not, why not? Ok I’ve now checked back and read your responses. Has anyone considered the possibility that our posts in this topic are going round in circles? They’ve covered pretty much everything but not much else has been achieved. This vicious cycle actually reflects the vicious cycle which defines the inability to resolve a lot of issues relating to the crimes I’ve detailed in my OP. For this reason : I still maintain we have a strong case for legal change.

Which is? 

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 11:48am:

I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change . Does anyone here agree/disagree??

I agree that Lisa maintains that there is a strong case for legal change .

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 3:51pm:

This article is not an easy read. It may well make you decide that the death penalty is the only reasonable deterrent (given the number of predators involved AND how they are involved in perpetrating and perpetuating their horrific crimes).

No reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

"... data does not prove that death penalty is a deterrent to rape or any crime for that matter."

Will death penalty deter rape?

"The fact is death penalty is more an outcome of outrage, knee jerk reaction by the government and goal to pacify and quell protests. In all of this, the real malady causing the crime is lost."

'In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.'  This may stop those 48,000 from shooting.  It could stop the population from mass-suicide. It will reduce the numbers voting. This drains the swamp.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 1:58pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:03pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 8:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;) You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::) Indeed. I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't. I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty). The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water. The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception. Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case. But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment.  It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated  response. It matters, but not very much. The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes. The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state. Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just. Oh, but it is - it makes you no better than them. Worse, in fact. But let's get back to the fallacious 'deterrent' argument: why do US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it?

You have to SHOW, turd, not just state. What are you, some Bbwianesque idiot? Resisting and countering barbarism is not barbaric. Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Its just nutty to assert something like that.


It deters them from further offending, in or out of jail. Guaranteed.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:58pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:03pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 8:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 9:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 3rd, 2023 at 8:45pm: ...as long as one potential offender is deterred from committing a capital offence by the thought they will be executed if caught  then the system has proved its worth.  US states with the death penalty have much higher murder rates. Doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent. Do you have another argument I can shoot down in two seconds?   ;) You did not address my statement, merely quoted some overseas figures. Do you not understand?  ::) Indeed. I fully understand that those US states who participate in the premeditated state-sanctioned killing of restrained prisoners have much higher murder rates than those who don't. I also understand, when it comes to countries, that the US (which has the death penalty) has a murder rate much, much higher than that of Australia (which has no death penalty). The "deterrent" argument doesn't hold water. The threat of punishment of every kind has a deterrent effect. The threat of the severest penalty is no exception. Otherwise you would have to argue than no punishment has any deterrent effect- obviously not the case. But deterrent is only one, minor aspect of any punishment.  It is a utilitarian, shop-keeper kinda calculated  response. It matters, but not very much. The main argument for any punishment is a moral one. It is about just deserts for those who knowingly violare the peaceful coexistence of people. The capital punishment is a just desert for who commit capital crimes. The State has the authority to dispense punishments for every kind of transgression. It has the authority to make laws. If the death penalty is legally constituted in a democracy then there is no overreach by the state. Barbaric - the death penalty should apply to capital crimes which are themselves barbaric. Eliminating barbaric criminals is not itself barbaric. It is just. Oh, but it is - it makes you no better than them. Worse, in fact. But let's get back to the fallacious 'deterrent' argument: why do US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it? You have to SHOW, turd, not just state. What are you, some Bbwianesque idiot? Resisting and countering barbarism is not barbaric. Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Its just nutty to assert something like that. It deters them from further offending, in or out of jail. Guaranteed.

That's recidivism - nobody is arguing against that.

So let's get back to the fallacious 'deterrent' argument: why do US states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it?

Why isn't it deterring other would-be murderers?

I'm curious.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:42pm:

Self-defence

Logically, if the person has 1,623 charges, then he needs 1623 acts done to him.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:42pm:

Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker.

Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 3:40pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism.

Fine - firing squad then.  Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them.  Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 4:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 3:40pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism. Fine - firing squad then.  Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them.  Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity.

Spoken like a true coward, and barbarian.

Robodebt caused deaths with many involved. Maybe use cluster bombs?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 4:13pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 4:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 3:40pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism. Fine - firing squad then.  Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them.  Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity. Spoken like a true coward, and barbarian.

Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument.



Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently:

The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family.
Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him.
When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity.



A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice

chimera wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:08pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 11:48am: I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change . Does anyone here agree/disagree?? I agree that Lisa maintains that there is a strong case for legal change .

Ha! I should have seen that coming!

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 5:04pm:

When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him...

Yes, we are.

And it makes us no better than him/her.

Makes us worse, in fact.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 2:02pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 1:58pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 11:48am: After reading back ... I still maintain that there is a strong case for legal change (hence the topic title). Does anyone here agree/disagree?? If so, why? If not, why not? Ok I’ve now checked back and read your responses. Has anyone considered the possibility that our posts in this topic are going round in circles? They’ve covered pretty much everything but not much else has been achieved. This vicious cycle actually reflects the vicious cycle which defines the inability to resolve a lot of issues relating to the crimes I’ve detailed in my OP. For this reason : I still maintain we have a strong case for legal change. Which is?

Very good! I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me.

I’ve got a few ideas. I also think my ideas could improve with a bit of collaboration. Anyone interested in jumping in and seeing how we could collectively enact legal change?

If so let’s go.

But first a few ground rules.

1. This is an opportunity to share a few ideas.

2. The ideas we put forward MUST EXCLUDE capital punishment. Why? It will prevent Greggary from spamming the debate with his standard statement against the death penalty AND hopefully encourage Greggary to stop throwing hurdles in the discussion and come on board instead.

3. I’m hoping we will come up with a few options. I have faith in us as an online community lol.

4. It’s officially Friday night and that means we can watch the game and chat online.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 5:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 4:13pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 4:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 3:40pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism. Fine - firing squad then.  Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them.  Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity. Spoken like a true coward, and barbarian. Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument. Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently: The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family. Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him. When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity. A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice

I’ve read this. It’s very well written and articulates many points we’ve raised on OzPol (over the years ...not just in this topic).

I’ve got a few ideas. I also think my ideas could improve with a bit of collaboration. Anyone interested in jumping in and seeing how we could collectively enact legal change?

If so let’s go.

But first a few ground rules.

1. This is an opportunity to share a few ideas.

2. The ideas we put forward MUST EXCLUDE capital punishment. Why? It will prevent Greggary from spamming the debate with his standard statement against the death penalty AND hopefully encourage Greggary to stop throwing hurdles in the discussion and come on board instead.

3. I’m hoping we will come up with a few options. I have faith in us as an online community lol.

4. It’s officially Friday night and that means we can watch the game and chat online.

ΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣ

Ok I’ll kick off with a few ideas which I’ve been thinking about all day.

My OP’s (if you look at them a little more carefully) are centred on a shocking crime which is occurring covertly AND internationally.

Let’s unpack this a bit more.

1. The crime is organised/carried out online (globally accessible).

2. The crime is also carried out locally ie offline.

Question: Is there a global entity in place which deals with 1. ? If so what is its name and where is it domiciled?

https://www.interpol.int/en
INTERPOL General Secretariat
200, quai Charles de Gaulle
69006 Lyon
France

INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation
18 Napier Road
258510 Singapore.

If they are busy:
https://www.thehandbook.com/celebrity/the-duke-of-york/

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:12pm:

I’ve got a few ideas. I also think my ideas could improve with a bit of collaboration. Anyone interested in jumping in and seeing how we could collectively enact legal change? If so let’s go. But first a few ground rules. 1. This is an opportunity to share a few ideas. 2. The ideas we put forward MUST EXCLUDE capital punishment. Why? It will prevent Greggary from spamming the debate with his standard statement against the death penalty AND hopefully encourage Greggary to stop throwing hurdles in the discussion and come on board instead. 3. I’m hoping we will come up with a few options. I have faith in us as an online community lol. 4. It’s officially Friday night and that means we can watch the game and chat online. ΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣΣ Ok I’ll kick off with a few ideas which I’ve been thinking about all day. My OP’s (if you look at them a little more carefully) are centred on a shocking crime which is occurring covertly AND internationally. Let’s unpack this a bit more. 1. The crime is organised/carried out online (globally accessible). 2. The crime is also carried out locally ie offline. Question: Is there a global entity in place which deals with 1. ? If so what is its name and where is it domiciled?

chimera wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:14pm:

https://www.interpol.int/en INTERPOL General Secretariat 200, quai Charles de Gaulle 69006 Lyon France INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation 18 Napier Road 258510 Singapore. If they are busy: https://www.thehandbook.com/celebrity/the-duke-of-york/

Anyone know of any other entity?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 5:59pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 4:13pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 4:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 3:40pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker. Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism. Fine - firing squad then.  Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them.  Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity. Spoken like a true coward, and barbarian. Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument. Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently: The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family. Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him. When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity. A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice I’ve read this. It’s very well written and articulates many points we’ve raised on OzPol (over the years ...not just in this topic).

Hmmm,Scruton is a British philosopher and conservative. It's interesting that he finds justification in Islam. I suppose if you believe in "eye for an eye" type of justice, then he'd be appealing. But this justice is promotes vengeance and thus is morally flawed in my opinion. I think a humane and rehabilitative approach is on firmer moral grounds.

Scruton has also argued that the death penalty is a deterrent to potential criminals. It's unfortunate for his argument that studies have failed to establish a clear causal relationship between capital punishment and reduced crime rates.
Moreover, focusing solely on deterrence overlooks the importance of addressing the underlying socio-economic factors that contribute to crime.

Another aspect of Scrutons argumentation is that the death penalty offers closure and healing to the victims' families. Maybe not. The prolonged and often unpredictable legal processes surrounding capital punishment can cause additional pain and trauma to the families of both the victims and the convicted. In contrast, alternatives such as life imprisonment can offer closure while avoiding the irreversible nature of the death penalty.

Furthermore, the death penalty is inherently flawed due to the potential for wrongful convictions. Numerous cases throughout history have demonstrated the fallibility of the justice system, leading to the execution of innocent individuals. Once an innocent person is put to death, there is no way to rectify the grave error. This aspect of the death penalty raises profound ethical and moral concerns and undermines the argument for its justness.

From a human rights perspective, the death penalty is seen as a violation of the right to life and the principle of human dignity. The United Nations and many countries consider the death penalty to be a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It is worth considering that a society's commitment to justice and human rights can be better upheld by adopting more humane and rehabilitative approaches to criminal justice.

Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders is mor preferable than resorting to an irreversible and morally problematic punishment like the death penalty.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:12pm:

1. The crime is organised/carried out online (globally accessible). Question: Is there a global entity in place which deals with 1. ? If so what is its name and where is it domiciled?

A little ambiguous Lisa. Are you asking for the address of the crims?

chimera wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:32pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 6:12pm: 1. The crime is organised/carried out online (globally accessible). Question: Is there a global entity in place which deals with 1. ? If so what is its name and where is it domiciled? A little ambiguous Lisa. Are you asking for the address of the crims?

No you’ve provided the addresses of the entities which you’ve listed. Many thanks for that. The reason why I’ve asked for more entities is because the ones you’ve listed appear to be (I’m happy to be corrected) global styled police stations. That’s all. Am I right?

'An INTERPOL Incident Response Team can be briefed, equipped and deployed anywhere in the world within 12 to 24 hours.'

The other guys are the UFO alien Taser and Saucer Squad.
They can be contacted by radar, briefly, and live at Machu Picchu or Tibet.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:28pm:

wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:59pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 5:04pm: Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument. Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently: The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family. Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him. When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity. A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice I’ve read this. It’s very well written and articulates many points we’ve raised on OzPol (over the years ...not just in this topic). Hmmm,Scruton is a British philosopher and conservative.

So??


Quote:

It's interesting that he finds justification in Islam. I suppose if you believe in "eye for an eye" type of justice, then he'd be appealing. But this justice is promotes vengeance and thus is morally flawed in my opinion. I think a humane and rehabilitative approach is on firmer moral grounds.

Which is NOT what Scruton is arguing here at all. He is arguing about WHO has the right to forgive.


Quote:

Scruton has also argued that the death penalty is a deterrent to potential criminals. It's unfortunate for his argument that studies have failed to establish a clear causal relationship between capital punishment and reduced crime rates. Moreover, focusing solely on deterrence overlooks the importance of addressing the underlying socio-economic factors that contribute to crime.

Where did he argue THAT? Not in the quote I posted. If you introduce new material do tell us what it is, dont just assert it.



Quote:

Another aspect of Scrutons argumentation is that the death penalty offers closure and healing to the victims' families. Maybe not. The prolonged and often unpredictable legal processes surrounding capital punishment can cause additional pain and trauma to the families of both the victims and the convicted. In contrast, alternatives such as life imprisonment can offer closure while avoiding the irreversible nature of the death penalty.

Nonsense. Again, you are speaking for other people without any justification or evidence to back you up.


Quote:

Furthermore, the death penalty is inherently flawed due to the potential for wrongful convictions. Numerous cases throughout history have demonstrated the fallibility of the justice system, leading to the execution of innocent individuals. Once an innocent person is put to death, there is no way to rectify the grave error. This aspect of the death penalty raises profound ethical and moral concerns and undermines the argument for its justness.

This has been addressed, do not ignore it and pretend otherwise. There are criminals who are guilty beyond ANY doubt.


Quote:

From a human rights perspective, the death penalty is seen as a violation of the right to life and the principle of human dignity. The United Nations and many countries consider the death penalty to be a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It is worth considering that a society's commitment to justice and human rights can be better upheld by adopting more humane and rehabilitative approaches to criminal justice.

From a human rights perspective, premeditated murder is the violation of the right to life and human dignity.


Quote:

Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders is mor preferable

How?

chimera wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:39pm:

'An INTERPOL Incident Response Team can be briefed, equipped and deployed anywhere in the world within 12 to 24 hours.' The other guys are the UFO alien Taser and Saucer Squad. They can be contacted by radar, briefly, and live at Machu Picchu or Tibet.

Ha! Once Interpol nabs their crim ... what do they do with said crim?

Let’s say said crim has been a big player on The Dark Web (TDW) which crosses national boundaries.

They do very rude things, non Madame? You prefer I think not hearing for such indelicacies.

chimera wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 7:04pm:

They do very rude things, non Madame? You prefer I think not hearing for such indelicacies.

Ha! I meant how do they process said crims? Do they extradite them back to some common destination? Remember (we’re talking : global criminal activity yes?)

Indeed, I believe the Argentine beef abattoirs have processed crims. Hygiene standards are improving.

Gordon wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2023 at 4:43pm:

Lock him up for the rest of his life with 24/7 suicide watch, and subject him to agonizing torture as frequently as possible without endangering his life. Televise the torture sessions as a deterrent.

I wouldn’t waste any $$$ on suicide watch resources.

This news has broken me. The poor mother of a 3 yr old girl victim of this predator speaks out 👇

https://au.news.yahoo.com/mum-of-alleged-victim-shares-horror-memory-after-childcare-worker-charged-020151711.html

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 6:28pm:

Anyone know of any other entity?

What exactly is your theory or do you want us to build it for you?

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle.

Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:50pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle. Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

That's no way to talk about Frank.

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:50pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle. Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

Yes actually it is, Lies.

In fact ... as a woman I find your comments abhorrent, inappropriate, ill informed, distressing and disturbing.

You know what I’m beginning to think? I think you enjoy lying. That’s probably why you keep doing it Lies.

Let’s unpack your latest lie.

For starters :

In the Netherlands, the United Nations notes, “abortion is permitted virtually on request at any time between implantation and viability if performed by a physician in a (licensed) hospital or clinic”.

Also, your above comment seriously and disturbingly minimises abortion. A clump of cells ffs! As a woman I’m not going to judge those women who have lost babies by aborting them because I know quite a few of them. And each and every one of the women I know who has had an abortion has been left with dreadful life long mental health issues and inconsolable grief and loss issues which become heightened on the anniversary of the day they had an abortion. They grieve an unborn baby with no name and no grave. There’s no closure....and no support. In fact it was precisely the lack of support which saw these women choosing abortion as their only way out of a scary and lonely situation. Lack of support. LACK OF SUPPORT TO HAVE/RAISE THE BABY THEY EVENTUALLY ABORTED!

I’ve spoken with professional qualified counsellors (in an attempt to understand and support those women I know online and offline) and they themselves agree that lack of support is primarily behind many women choosing abortion as their way out of pregnancy. The actual abortion process has left women scarred for life. Both emotionally and physically. Some examples of these include women dying from post abortion processes. That’s right! Scraping a foetus but not totally removing it can and has later caused sepsis and death. Other women can’t fall pregnant again post abortion because of the damage done to them internally during the abortion process. Oh and I’m referring to abortions undertaken in hospitals. Here in Australia.

So Lies -  in future ... be careful when it comes to commenting about women and babies. Why? Because unfortunately (for you) I’ll be watching what you say. And I will have no hesitation in pwning your presumptuous lying arse if I catch you posting your usual foul smelling shyte which consistently emanates from your arse.

And in future kindly use whatever unconscious clump of a few brain cells you MAY have left.

Edit : My apologies. I forgot to wish everyone a good morning (not you Lies).

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle.

A foetus is only the potential for life.

But let's flip your argument back at you. Are you anti-abortion? If so, why?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 6:37am:

Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 10:18pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:50pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle. Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person? That's no way to talk about Frank.

;D

Well  ..... ?

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank.

So certain kettles containing fish are ok to die. The ones you think are ok of course. Once again Lies you think you’re a self appointed voice for others. You’re not. I’m tired of telling you that. Under all your ids.

A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE.
What's the case and the change?

FBI: "Good morning Sir. We've found 19 men in a child-abuse internet crime".
Oz: "Yeah? Where is it?"
FBI "In Oz".
Oz " Here? Wow. Thanks mate we'll have a squiz".

mothra wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 7:43am:

Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:50pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:44pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:12pm: Linus wrote on Aug 4th, 2023 at 9:05pm: Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative. I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments? I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism. That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty. With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations. Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles. Agree to disagree? You are an anti abortionist, I take it. Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here. Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life. Same kettle. A foetus is only the potential for life. But let's flip your argument back at you. Are you anti-abortion? If so, why?

I am not in favour of abortion on demand, no questions asked, any time up until birth.

Abortion at the embryonic and foetal stages is not the same.
Abortion at the embryonic stage, after discussion, advice and reflection is something I would support.
Abortion at the foetal  stage is more problematic. I would not allow it after half way into the pregnancy unless it is a medical emergency to save the mother's life.
I would not allow it on demand at any stage as a birth control measure. Certainly not as a sex selection method.

chimera wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 7:17am:

A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE. What's the case and the change?

Still waiting for those answers.

What a laugh: Larry “. . .as a woman”

Larry is an elderly bloke!


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D