Death penalty ?

[ahinton]

Yeah, you're right. On reflection we need to rehabilitate child and mass murderers and finesse them back into society. Why should they forfeit their life merely because they have taken other people's lives? It serves no purpose. I don't think imprisoning them makes any sense either. In fact, wouldn't it be better if we put them on a driving refresher course?

Not unless they have also committed driving offences; that would be a waste of public money. The basic point is that, if killing people is wrong, both legally and morally - and I think that if there's one thing here on which we all agree it's that it is so - then what useful purpose can be served by compounding the problem and at the same time undermining that legal and moral sanction by reintroducing lawful killing by the state or its agents? Apart from any other consideration, it's surely less of a punishment than the one handed down to Sutcliffe and others. You ask if Sutcliffe "deserves" to be killed by the state or its agents? In response, I would ask if he "deserves" anything, actually.

[ahinton]

Exam question: "Why is executing proven child murderers inconsistent with civilised society?"

Gonna duck the question MrGG?

I'd rather question the duck.

That one's so easy that it wouldn't even qualify for inclusion in an E-Bacc if there were still to be such things; the answer (even if it's not the one you'd be seeking) is that all wilful execution is inconsistent with civilised society.

That said, what this has to do with same-sex marriage is quite beyond me, unless you believe that it should be punishable by execution by the state or its agents.

[ahinton]

Ts, we all agree with those very plausible broad-brush platitudes, but what do we do with child and mass murderers, for example?

Do we say they should live their lives to a ripe old age through some rehabilitative prison sentence? If so, why?

Custodial sentences do not have by law to be rehabilitative without exception and whether they become so is down to the behaviour of the prisoner concerned; clearly, serial child killers are unlikely to be sentenced to three months in a low security prison with the possibility of parole, so there will in all such cases be many years in which the sentence is carried out and there may ultimately be no possibility of rehabilitation at all, but that, as I've said, is down to the long-term behaviour of the prisoner. To state that killing people is wrong in a civilised society is not the "broad-brush platitude" as which you describe it; it is a plain truth and is accordingly unamenable to exceptions in the form of state-sponsored executions that risk conveying not only the impression that "violence begets violence" but also that of "one rule for the state, another for its citizens".

[Beef Oven]

Death penalty ?

Custodial sentences do not have by law to be rehabilitative without exception and whether they become so is down to the behaviour of the prisoner concerned; clearly, serial child killers are unlikely to be sentenced to three months in a low security prison with the possibility of parole, so there will in all such cases be many years in which the sentence is carried out and there may ultimately be no possibility of rehabilitation at all, but that, as I've said, is down to the long-term behaviour of the prisoner. To state that killing people is wrong in a civilised society is not the "broad-brush platitude" as which you describe it; it is a plain truth and is accordingly unamenable to exceptions in the form of state-sponsored executions that risk conveying not only the impression that "violence begets violence" but also that of "one rule for the state, another for its citizens".

It remains a broad-brush platitude whilst there is no content. You've only provided twaddle.

Your statement that "it is a plain truth" is silly.

[Beef Oven]

That one's so easy.............. the answer (even if it's not the one you'd be seeking) is that all wilful execution is inconsistent with civilised society.

You are the master of tautology.

[Beef Oven]

Not unless they have also committed driving offences; that would be a waste of public money. The basic point is that, if killing people is wrong, both legally and morally - and I think that if there's one thing here on which we all agree it's that it is so - then what useful purpose can be served by compounding the problem and at the same time undermining that legal and moral sanction by reintroducing lawful killing by the state or its agents? Apart from any other consideration, it's surely less of a punishment than the one handed down to Sutcliffe and others. You ask if Sutcliffe "deserves" to be killed by the state or its agents? In response, I would ask if he "deserves" anything, actually.

How do you manage to use so many words and still end up saying sod-all?

[ahinton]

It remains a broad-brush platitude whilst there is no content. You've only provided twaddle.

Your statement that "it is a plain truth" is silly.

There is all the content that anyone needs. Thou shalt not kill. End of. The provision of "twaddle" is all yours.

[ahinton]

You are the master of tautology.

I would not claim to be the master of anything, but with some people one has to repeat points in order to try to drum them in, however simple both the points and those people may be.

[ahinton]

How do you manage to use so many words and still end up saying sod-all?

That's an even easier question that the one that you posed earlier. The answer is that I don't - and please note that this answer comprises just two words (as I couldn't figure how best to say it with just one).

That said, whatever happened to the thread topic?...

[Beef Oven]

That's an even easier question that the one that you posed earlier. The answer is that I don't - and please note that this answer comprises just two words (as I couldn't figure how best to say it with just one).

That said, whatever happened to the thread topic?...

I think that in relation to the thread topic, all I can say that one of the problems with marriage is same sex

[ahinton]

I think that in relation to the thread topic, all I can say that one of the problems with marriage is same sex

...thus demonstrating by your own hand how very little you have to contribute to it (the thread, that is, in case you were wondering).

Incidentally, someone recently asked that, if marriage must always be between a man and a woman, might their only hope of coming together be in divorcing?

[Beef Oven]

...thus demonstrating by your own hand how very little you have to contribute to it (the thread, that is, in case you were wondering).

Incidentally, someone recently asked that, if marriage must always be between a man and a woman, might their only hope of coming together be in divorcing?

You are such a knob. You really are.

[ahinton]

You are such a knob. You really are.

I have no idea what you might mean by that, if indeed anything (and care considerably less), but at least knobs can open doors, which is more than you seem able or willing to do (and there seems little obvious point in having an oven if you can't open its door)...

Yawn...

[Beef Oven]

I have no idea what you might mean by that, if indeed anything (and care considerably less), but at least knobs can open doors, which is more than you seem able or willing to do (and there seems little obvious point in having an oven if you can't open its door)...

Yawn...

knob

[ahinton]

knob

I see that a backward bonk is now all that you now appear to be able to manage; it's mercifully a short distance from a one word post to a shorter one and some of us might perhaps be able to look forward to witnessing evidence of that welcome fact.

In the meantime - back to the thread topic, anyone?...