2 edits
Originally posted by knightwestI'm not sure how you can say the British Army isn't armed, or that British soldiers are not killing people. What are they doing over in Iraq? Do the British in Basra ever suffer or cause casualties?
The same way the British Army does its job in Basra: win their Hearts and Minds.
British Army personnel don't patrol downtown Basra in full body armour, they patrol it in normal uniform and caps, not helmets.
I guess here, the uniform of a copper still gets the respect it deserves. The British Bobby (Police Officer) is mostly viewed as a friend in ...[text shortened]... though.
Fact is, British Police forces can police the country withouth having to carry guns.
American cops don't shoot on sight. Their not allowed to do that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a criminal pulling a gun on a cop and there is no other way for the cop to respond but with deadly force.
This is the question that you probably won't answer because you don't like the answer. You're probably a good person and good people don't like to think about things like this. I understand. I wouldn't want to be a cop either.
The reality though is that there are times when it is necessary to kill. The cop who defends himself in such a way is doing his job as he should. This happens in Britain, America and probably every other place in the world.
If you disagree with this then what you're saying is that the friendly, warm hearted Bobby should let the guy shoot him to death because the Bobby should respect his right to life. Does this not sound kinda silly to you?
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWell, okay, but it still seems convoluted, even presupposing that thrill-seekers were planners rather than reactors: "If we execute murderers and there is no deterrent effect, never mind, all we've lost are a bunch of murderers [presumably there are no miscarriages of justice in Wisconsin]. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders [sic], we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
Every case is tried on an individual basis. He was referring to the murderers who do it for the thrill of it.
It's a very big if, judging by the Victorian crime rates of capital-sentence states - but the way he factors out the innocent from the risk he is prepared to take does him no credit.
Originally posted by AmauroteYes, it's a horrible tragedy whenever an innocent man or woman gets convicted. I'm not sure what all the safe guards are to prevent this, but I do believe that a trained pofessional can detect a sociopath.
Well, okay, but it still seems convoluted, even presupposing that thrill-seekers were planners rather than reactors: "If we execute murderers and there is no deterrent effect, never mind, all we've lost are a bunch of murderers [presumably there are no miscarriages of justice in Wisconsin]. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have ...[text shortened]... but the way he factors out the innocent from the risk he is prepared to take does him no credit.
If you can think of better ways to determine innocence from guilt, please share your thoughts.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSure - the appeals process, judicial review and life imprisonment. If the criminal justice system errs and sentences the wrong person to mandatory or natural-term life imprisonment, the weight of evidence will allow the state to indemnify the injured party and redress the wrongs it has perpetrated against them.
If you can think of better ways to determine innocence from guilt, please share your thoughts.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSociopath = "a person with an anti-social personality disorder"
Yes, it's a horrible tragedy whenever an innocent man or woman gets convicted. I'm not sure what all the safe guards are to prevent this, but I do believe that a trained pofessional can detect a sociopath.
If you can think of better ways to determine innocence from guilt, please share your thoughts.
If you swear, fart or drop litter in public you will be punished by death.
source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sociopath
2 edits
Originally posted by invigorateIn clinical terms a sociopath is somebody who has no conscience. No remorse. No capacity for empathy. Obviously what you described is not what capital punishment is about 😛🙂
Sociopath = "a person with an anti-social personality disorder"
If you swear, fart or drop litter in public you will be punished by death.
source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sociopath
2 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteI respect this position. I just don't think it should apply to the worst offenders.
Sure - the appeals process, judicial review and life imprisonment. If the criminal justice system errs and sentences the wrong person to mandatory or natural-term life imprisonment, the weight of evidence will allow the state to indemnify the injured party and redress the wrongs it has perpetrated against them.
Some cases are irrefutable. DNA eveidence for example can establish guilt or innocence with certainty. The convicts that were found to be innocent were proven so through DNA testing.
By the way, if you're going to quote somebody, you should do so exactly, the way that they said it. Putting words in McAdams' mouth does you no credit.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Ghandi
Why don't we be the better people and end the cycle? Not to mention there have been people released after ten years in prison because there was finally evidence that proved their innocence. These people are given money and an apology, what'll happen if they kill someone then find out they were innocent? Somehow I don't think an "oops, sorry" will suffice.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou mean you disagree with the use of paraphrasal to demonstrate the flaws in someone's logic? I don't see the sense in that at all.
By the way, if you're going to quote somebody, you should do so exactly, the way that they said it. Putting words in McAdams' mouth does you no credit.
As for your former point, that is valid, but unless you're talking about serial killers, it's a fairly circular argument - are we going to have an objective criterion for indubitability? Who is going to determine whether or not it has been met?
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteAs you may recall from english 101, quotation marks are not used to paraphrase somebody; and yes, from the beginning I've made it clear that I'm referring only to the worst offenders.
You mean you disagree with the use of paraphrasal to demonstrate the flaws in someone's logic? I don't see the sense in that at all.
As for your former point, that is valid, but unless you're talking about serial killers, it's a fairly circular argument - are we going to have an objective criterion for indubitability? Who is going to determine whether or not it has been met?
In many cases, the only treatment the doctors can offer is a lobotomy. Since this procedure takes away everything it means to be human, it's not really a solution, or option.
So why are these guys getting released back into the general populace? The only one who can help these guys is God. This is my point. Send them back to God. Do it quickly, cheaply, and humanly, don't torture them, but get them the heck off this planet. Nobody has the right to prey on other people (no, invigorate, I'm not talking about snowball fights). Why burden the tax payers with however many millions of dollars it costs to see that these guys are taken care of when they're just going to repeat their crimes as soon as they believe that they can get away with it?
Yes, our legal system needs to be overhauled as well. For one, lawyers need to be less concerned with winning and loosing, and more concerned with finding the truth. Yes, there has been a very small percentage of people who have been found innocent through DNA testing. If the same DNA testing confirms that the convicted felon is guilty, that's pretty strong proof.
3 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou mean the same EE Cummins-esque English 101 that is too fashionable to capitalize itself? In any event, I would have thought it blindingly obvious that I was not using straight-forward paraphrasal but rather a mildly sarcastic recapitulation to demonstrate the error in the original quote, so your point, such as it is, misses by a church mile.
As you may recall from english 101, quotation marks are not used to paraphrase somebody; and yes, from the beginning I've made it clear that I'm referring only to the worst offenders.
If extreme examples are the burden of your argument, fine, but I note that you once again fail to provide any kind of objective criterion for determining the kind of indubitable guilt you're talking about...it's fine talking breezily about how only a number of people are found not guilty on appeal or in the course of time, but that simply begs the question of how many nominally guilty convicts are actually innocent outside of either of those processes.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo, women are also allowed to kill when they have abortions😲
As Shavixmir says, that's more to do with our own limitations in
dealing with these individuals. They need to kept away from society,
they don't need to be killed.
The question is, what examples does this set to us and our children?
Is it OK to kill or not? Is it only OK for the state to kill?
2 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteThe ones who are convicted on hard evidence (DNA, finger prints, etc,) are usually not found innocent later. Discrimination is mostly the reason why innocent people have gotten convicted. It's the hard evidence that sets them free.
You mean the same EE Cummins-esque English 101 that is too fashionable to capitalize itself? In any event, I would have thought it blindingly obvious that I was not using straight-forward paraphrasal but rather a mildly sarcastic recapitulation to demonstrate the error in the original quote, so your point, such as it is, misses by a church mile.
If extre ...[text shortened]... f how many nominally guilty convicts are actually innocent outside of either of those processes.
And yes, I'm afraid the rules regarding quotations are the same in Britin as they are in America. If you want to analyze a quote (as in convince people of your interpretation), you do it after you cite the quote. You don't change the words of the person whom you are quoting.
3 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressFirstly, you're confusing proof and the criterion for that proof, which is a major error. Secondly, talking about DNA evidence in this way is meaningless without context - it's all very well talking about DNA evidence as if it were a homogenous phenomenon, but it has many forms and applications, and not all of them are as error-free as you imply.
The ones who are convicted on hard evidence (DNA, finger prints, etc,) are not found innocent later. Discrimination is mostly the reason why innocent people have gotten convicted.
And yes, I'm afraid the rules regarding quotations are the same in Britin as they are in America. If you want to analyze a quote (as in convince people of your inte ...[text shortened]... do it after you cite the quote. You don't change the words of the person whom you are quoting.
Secondly, I have no idea where this "Britin" place is, but I think you'll find that your captious insistence on enforcing parochial academic usage as if it were grammatical law is as ill-founded in North American demotic as it is in the UK.