BS: Too obese to execute

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 08:44 AM

Al, I am slightly sorry not to have directly & reasonably disagreed with your p-o-v. You'll obviously have realised that I do. But, be fair, my tacit admission was, implicitly, an implication that I know damn well I've thrown Muppet's bricks back in this thread which, by my own comments, puts me "beyond". And, whilst I'd love to claim Beo as an ancestor (who wouldn't!), I wouldn't and I certainly don't regard myself as a superhero.

I just refuse to let some anonymous internet **** pretend he's superior to me on the basis of utterly shite arguments. If only he'd provide an argument that was an argument, instead of the feeble rubbish we get! I reckon Muppet sits anonymously behind his pint in the pub, when his missus let's him out. It's only on the internet that he talks in terms that he knows would see him carrying his teeth home in a paper bag in real life.

R

P.S. Deliberately not referring to a dictionary, I would define inept as clumsy, whilst incapable as, well, not capable. They're very similar, but not the same. To me, at least!

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:41 AM

You have gone beyond reasonable bounds calling him inept and incapable. (Doesn't inept mean incapable anyway?)

behave yourself Mr Wulf. I knew your ancestor Beowulf and he was a superhero - unlike yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:24 AM

Muppet, you've gone into boring territory. I have limited capacity for trolling trolls, unlike some, so this will likely be my last direct response to you. And you are nothing but a sneering, cretinous troll. Even when we agree, I note that you can't bear to acknowledge that.

Then there's this from the Gay Marriage thread, "crude bricks". How thick you are, Muppet. Don't you recognise your own bricks? I'm only "lobbing" them back. Mea culpa, "he started it" is a very childish argument. But it's fun from time to time, for a short time. It palls quickly when, despite a veneer of intelligence, you realise just how limited your opponent is. You might have a PhD; sadly it obviously doesn't preclude abject stupidity being part of the mix.

I'll give just one perfect example. Juxtapose "If you fsil to understand, dont expect me to dumb it down for you. And no, I cant be arsed to coreect the small keyboard and big thumbs on my new phone." and "I need a thesaurus and send it you for Xmas. There is a difference between disagreeing (I like beer, my mate hates the taste of it) and having views that are unacceptable to society's general conscience, (intolerance, advocating the death penalty in the 21st century, breaking the law, using the possessive apostrophe when indicating plural...)"

So when I make a typographical error, it's a stick to beat to me with. But when you make a similar error, it's so minor a fault that everyone must dismiss it as beneath notice. Your stick is your opponent's speck of dust? I think that, more than anything, shows you up for what you are.

I don't debate that anyone who loves debate would agree that I sometimes go beyond reasonable bounds. I'm also pretty sure they'd class you as inept & incapable. Alleged PhD notwithstanding. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 08:38 AM

Not to mention he might, in a fit of homicidal mania, throw himself down on a see saw with a midget on the other end - catapulting his victim to a gory end.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 07:41 AM

""I cannot help but observe that, in his condition, he is hardly a danger to society.""

You think obesity prevents him from pulling a trigger?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 08:48 PM

Once again: you don't teach the sanctity of life by taking it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 08:44 PM

'necessary deletion' - death by drowning in Tip-Ex!

Call yourself a gnu - not even a spiney ant eater would think up something as dastardly!

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM

Musket. When society kills a person because that person has been deemed a necessary deletion, it is not murder. It is execution, for just cause OR not and the "not" is not germain to the "debate" of the definition. There can be no debate of that fact, even tho you may rant to the heavens. MGM has tried over and over, to no avail, to simply assert that state (society) sanctioned execution is not murder.

You say tomatoe and I say that's fuckin bullshit.

BTW... did they ever decide to ice that piece of shit or is he still takin up space and resources that could be put to better use?

Just had another home invasion by a criminal in my province. Lad in his 80s smacked with an axe. If the old lad cracked that fucker with an axe, it would not be murder, it would be self defense or revenge, technically speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM

Yaawwwwwnnnnnnn

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:12 AM

Ok, this website doesn't support pictorial documents so I will try and make it as easy and user friendly as I can;

1. That rather obnoxious person Raedwusomethingorother rattled on about the rights of full term tariff prisoners being allowed to use the courts to question their sentence. I put forward that as the courts put them there, the courts are the correct place to question and appeal.

2. Decent company is where nobody makes things awkward by saying how much they relish the thought of being allowed to murder people lawfully.

3. As capital punishment is illegal here, it follows that carrying it out would be murder. Just a play on words but technically accurate and is useful to reinforce a viewpoint.

4. If you don't understand where Al was coming from, it was a pity he wasted 3 mins of his life.

5. If you don't understand that, kindly stop mocking my academic background as grounds to question me when it is clear that I am flogging a dead horse when assuming you are capable of debate.

6. If you ever see me in a pub, please wear a badge saying who you are so I don't waste any of my time engaging you in conversation as you have shown that stringing big words together is a mental leap and a half away from expressing understanding.

7. Just think, if everybody was like you, there'd be no need for irony, satire or taking the piss, as it falls flat.

8. But on the plus side, there'd be someone to champion and defend every bigot, every advocate of state murder, every person who thinks those in prison for gun crime are "stitched up" Not that you may agree with them, but that you confuse right to opinion and free speech with the right to spew out their hate. If you will keep encouraging them, don't be upset when it gets you on peoples' shit list.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:46 AM

See my last post on the Gay Marriage thread for more comment on Musket's confused approach to topics.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:29 AM

Sorry, Mus; just can't see your logic. Where cap-pun obtains, how else do you think its adminstation is determined except thru the courts? As to whether it is a moral option in such circs is quite another question, not following from your premise as to the role of the courts at all. So your bits about "testing the judgment" and "decent company" are complete non seqs, mere confusions of the issue to which your conclusion is in no way related.

I honestly don't see how one of your intelligence can allow himself to get so woolly and confused, deflected by such irrationality & emotion in his thinking on any topic.

I wouldn't call Al's post "succinct" so much as irrelevant, kind as it is to me personally ~~ for which many thanks, Al; you too so far as that goes. When are you coming this way again?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:03 AM

I don't know if they have murdered the fat convict yet, but if they have, we can perhaps let this thread lie.

But for the record, let me answer the final point of the person posting above Al's rather succinct contribution...

I don't have a view on people with full term tariffs using the courts to question their predicament. Mainly because I don't have a view on whether it means the judicial system is wrong when it is used by those I don't have time for.

People don't get a full term tariff through some magical system, they get it through courts. Hence a court is the proper place to test it. If judgements could not be tested, that alone would strengthen my stance that capital punishment is not an option in decent society.

And advocating it isn't an option in decent company.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 03:01 AM

I like MGM. Very witty. very urbane. massively knowledgeable.

I reckon his problem is . Some old journalist at some point said to him - Mike , what you gotta do is get people writing in, saying they disagree with you. that proves to the editor, there are some twonks out there that are reading your copy.

I would suggest you all bear this explanation in mind, next time you read he's in favour of knocking on old ladies doors and running off, going in Chinese takeaways and asking hows the dog? rescinding ll of Mrs Thatcher's Jim'll Fix It Medals....

Beware! there is a certain impish humourist abroad in the land....

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:53 AM

Oh well: now we're back ~~

"MtheGM. ?? Not agreeing with state murder is a sign of my lack of intelligence?"

Didn't say that -- tho, once again, the emotively tendentious & inaccurate use of word 'murder' here does in fact redound to that view.

"Decrying people for views I feel not worthy of their intelligence is my lack of intelligence?"

Doing it in terms that demonstrate that you are not even interested in addressing their arguments, but start from a position of "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts" ~~ then yes, of course it is.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:41 PM

I thought I wouldn't bother. And then I thought, sod it, I will.

Nowt as queer as folk.

At least there's something we can agree on! :-) I fear, 'tis mostly donwhill from here though...

If you are as you say intelligent, rational and less biased than many other people, how can you ever ever feel that the taking of a life is justified? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and from where I am sitting, you ain't coming over as an oil painting.

Shall we agree, then, that Chris Ofili has been doing our portraits? ;-) The difference is, of course, that I have been trying to attack your arguments, not you. Whilst you've been making precious little effort not to smear, sneer, and ad hominem everyone at every opportunity.

Don't fall into the trap of feeling justified by the idiots above who seem to agree with you. Some just love an argument, some have no other reaction but to have an argument and sadly, some are what you might call a bit right wing.

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit what anyone else thinks about anything. Why should I? However I have arrived at my OPINIONS, I have done so on the basis of what I believe to be rationality. I am open to argument. If someone presents evidence, I will consider it. But wherever I have an opinion NOW, it is a result of the evidence I have had available to me up to now. If there's good enough evidence, I will change my opinion on whatever. You haven't offered me anything, so I haven't changed my mind.

And, as I am thoroughly apolitical, as I mistrust all politicians, I couldn't give a damn about right or left wing. As it happens, there is a very good political test on the net; you can find it on this site, http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2. It is based on an x,y axis; not just just x. You can be socialist or capitalist, but you can also be authoritarian or libertarian. It might surprise you to know that every time I have taken the test I come out slightly SW - a left wing libertarian. But not a close-minded one, as you seem to be.

if you feel you do not ask for my comparisons or comment, why the hell post anything in the first place? If you want to do some bigot baiting, look on the gay marriage thread, plenty of the buggers on that discussion.

I don't "feel", I didn't "ask"; YOU chose to make a comparison. It wasn't invited. As to why I post, well, it's a forum isn't it? Where open discussion is acceptable, even encouraged. I'm just glad you're not a MudElf, because freedom of speech would, seemingly, be rather curtailed...


But a bigot? I may insult you as a way of expressing my distaste of one particular view of yours, but insults do tend to exaggerate truths, and be blessed where I am being a bigot? I'm not even entrenched in any view there. Not wanting to murder people isn't a flexible stance, it should be hard wired. If by my stance I am judging others by my standards, then having distaste for murder is all of a sudden bigotry?

Yes, you are a bigot. Your expressed opinion amounts to "If you disagree with me, you are wrong". Instead of "Capital punishment is wrong" subsitute "All niggers / Jews / racial grouping of your choice are..." whatever (deliberately provocative vocabulary, by the way). I think you're entitled to your opinion. I don't sneer at you for holding it, I don't agree with you either. But you sneer at me and, it seems, you cannot accept that my opinion is valid & rational. That's bigotry - "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions". That's the OED definition of bigoted. I'd say that's you down to a T.

So. Do you really believe that a court should have power to take a life? Do you feel that those countries where their development has not reached that of the first world have a point? Is obesity a factor in deciding if someone should die or is their status as a human enough?

Yes, I do believe that a court should etc. I also think that many countries that do have a death penalty don't have a sufficiently rigorous system of justice to go with it. First world or third world is beside the point. As is obesity. You're sneering again, but I'm not. Obesity is irrelevant; is the guilt beyond any doubt? That's the only relevant point.

Even when you're asked a question civilly, you still can't remain polite. That says a lot about you. But I'll ask you another one. It is estimated to cost £40K to keep a prisoner in jail for a year in the UK. You tell us that you're a doctor, Ian Mather. What could you do, professionally, with an extra £40K a year? How many people could you help? How much difference could you make to people's lives with another £40K?

Finally, I note that what I predicted 20-odd years ago has come to pass. Prisoners with whole-life tariffs are going to the European Court claiming that that amounts to cruel & inhuman punishment. So we can't execute them, and we can't jail them for "life means life" either (I don't doubt that the appeal will eventually be won, if not for these prisoners, then for others in the future). What is your solution for them, Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:10 PM

MtheGM. ?? Not agreeing with state murder is a sign of my lack of intelligence? Decrying people for views I feel not worthy of their intelligence is my lack of intelligence?

Sorry, that's out of my league. I'll try and help though.    NURSE!

Our Saxon contributor;

I enjoy the reference to Twelve Angry Men. I recall getting a book many years ago as a tie in to The BBC's The Goodies,, called The Goodies book of (criminal) Records. There is a page with spoof induction instructions for juries. No.1. Forget you ever saw Twelve Angry Men.

I would agree that would be a realistic portrayal of how twelve people of the same character and outlook as those fictional parts would have made their judgement. I doubt twelve other people would do the same though. Any twelve. Nowt as queer as folk. Hence judges instructing a jury on salient facts presented. I have not served on a jury. I am used to presenting my case to a judge though, and also decide on summary judgements, although nothing exciting, just in my role as a regulator in a specific field. Got some post grad type pieces of paper in investigating, PACE and making judgements though if such thing impress you. They don't impress me all the same. I was dragged kicking and screaming onto the courses.

If you are as you say intelligent, rational and less biased than many other people, how can you ever ever feel that the taking of a life is justified? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and from where I am sitting, you ain't coming over as an oil painting.

Don't fall into the trap of feeling justified by the idiots above who seem to agree with you. Some just love an argument, some have no other reaction but to have an argument and sadly, some are what you might call a bit right wing.. Hence their views.

if you feel you do not ask for my comparisons or comment, why the hell post anything in the first place? If you want to do some bigot baiting, look on the gay marriage thread, plenty of the buggers on that discussion. Some even reckon the title is an oxymoron. I am lots of things, ask a few ex girlfriends or even an ex wife. They'll feed you a few choice descriptions of me. But a bigot? I may insult you as a way of expressing my distaste of one particular view of yours, but insults do tend to exaggerate truths, and be blessed where I am being a bigot? I'm not even entrenched in any view there. Not wanting to murder people isn't a flexible stance, it should be hard wired. If by my stance I am judging others by my standards, then having distaste for murder is all of a sudden bigotry?

Make sure you do not begin to sound like the dozy bugger defending you, whilst putting a rider that he doesn't agree with you...

So. Do you really believe that a court should have power to take a life? Do you feel that those countries where their development has not reached that of the first world have a point? Is obesity a factor in deciding if someone should die or is their status as a human enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:34 AM

Separately, because I'm trying to elicit a considered response, rather than knee-jerk sneering, have you ever served on a jury, Musket? I have already acknowledged I have not, but I do also believe I'm reasonably well versed in human nature. Many people are not very good at self-analysis, or recognising their own motives for making their decisions.

CET said a jury member should be able to say "I am convinced that you are guilty because the evidence allows no other rational conclusion". I am not convinced that jury members do think that way. Being on a jury does not make them special, or change their natures. It might make them more cautious in more serious cases where a mistaken verdict would have more serious consequences (regardless of what verdict they give, or whether CP is an option under their laws). But does it change they way they think? I doubt it very much.

Consider 12 Angry Men; I daresay you've seen it. It's a film, it's not real, and I doubt that one doubtful juror often persuades the other 11 round to their point of view. But I do think it offers a realistic perspective as to how people make their judgements. And in 12AM, even E.G.Marshall's character is rationally convinced of the accused's guilt, until Henry Fonda argues him out of it. No matter what a judge says; and as you might realise, I trust the judge to be consistent & rational far more than I do the jury; do we not all make judgements that are coloured by our upbringing & past experiences? I may think I'm more intelligent, more rational, and less biased than many other people, but I still know I'm damn well a product of my life so far! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:12 AM

Musket - I don't "ask" for any comparisons, or even comment, from you at all. Doesn't stop you offering them though, does it? Cite your "automatic" penalties if you want to. Bet it's trivial stuff like parking fines. Surprise! I don't think illegal parking warrants a death sentence! I was, implicitly, talking about serious offences in the reference to "automatic" i.e. Category A, B, and even C, crimes where a range of sentencing is always on offer (as far as I am aware), and I've certainly not alluded to anything that could be regarded as a civil case, so yet another dead (sic) herring you've introduced as a cheap & failed attempt to score something.

Other than that, what MGM said. You might be educated (See? I don't jump to conclusions that suit my attempt at an argument, unlike you. Though I do indulge in sarcasm, and do it better than you, too), but there's little that you've posted here that displays intelligence, and much that displays a complete lack of enlightenment. Keep digging. Maybe you'll hit oil eventually. If your spade breaks (oh, sorry, should I have called it a shovel? Am I now going to be accused of racism?), let me know. I'll happily chuck another one down to you. I'll even try to make sure it misses you. You're still mildly amusing at the moment. Mea culpa, troll / bigot baiting is an occasional guilty pleasure. Cos that's all you are. I just can't decide whether you're both, or just a bigot...

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:16 AM

you still have this view that a death penalty could be acceptable. I fail to see that view as the considered view of an enlightened, educated, intelligent person.
.,,.

This 'failure to see', Musket, is manifestly a failure in your intelligence, not in that of your interlocutors. If you cannot see this, then that fact merely reinforces the point.

~M~

Please note that, in saying this, I am far from lining myself up on the pro-CapPun side, on which I remain ambivalent; but merely on the side of at least an attempt at rationality rather than a surrender to intransigent head-in-sand prejudice of the sort that your assertion demonstrates.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:05 AM

Many crimes have automatic penalties. Granted, you can appeal them, but you can also appeal court decisions. (Most Road Traffic Act violations have automatic penalties and many regulated services have criminal law penalties as well as civil ones.)

Ok, I take into account your IQ is only 140, but even then, you still have this view that a death penalty could be acceptable. I fail to see that view as the considered view of an enlightened, educated, intelligent person.

Hence I am far happier pointing and laughing at you, prodding you to get a reaction and noting the similarities between yourself and certain contemptible politicians and commentators on the far right of the political spectrum. if you don't like the comparison, don't ask for it.

Criminal law is "beyond all reasonable doubt" whereas most civil actions are "on balance of probability." In either case, a reasonably clear cut argument must be made, and the distinction reflects the gravity of the consequences.

If you feel that juries would normally use their prejudice as humans, you may reflect on that stance if you get called for jury service. The clue is normally in the summing up before retiring. Not the clue as to what to deliver, but the clue in what needs to be answered in order to deliver a guilty verdict. Judges may be lampooned as out of touch elite, but they normally know their role and know it well.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 03:05 AM

CET: Sorry, but I think that probably IS how criminal law works! Sorry, I'm a pragmatist. I have no legal experience, no legal training, I've never sat on a jury. But if you think that, despite whatever the judge might say, some of the jurors don't go "Ooooh! Look at him! He looks guilty", etc... You get my drift. I might know sod all about legal theory, but I flatter myself I know a bit about human nature! ;-)

We're also splitting hairs & playing semantics rather. For me, "I think you're guilty" DOES mean beyond reasonable doubt. But I could also conceive of myself saying that, and still thinking that I was certain enough to convict someone, but not certain enough that they should die. I DO see a difference between "I am certain enough that you committed the crime to convict you" and "I am not certain enough to impose a death penalty". Compare the Breivik case, where there is absolutely no doubt about who was doing the killing, and a recent case in the UK where a family was convicted of murdering their daughter, Shafilea Ahmed. The evidence was strong enough to secure convictions of both parents, yet there remain several versions of events, and the possibility that the conviction of one or both parents could be incorrect.

I consider myself fairly intelligent (IQ tests usually register @140, for whatever that is worth!), extremely rational, and without any particular cultural biases. I am also too aware that my fellow jurors are likely to not be all, or even any, of those things. That's precisely why I make the point that only judges should be passing sentence. The possibility of a judge not allowing the death penalty once a jury has found the prisoner guilty doesn't bother me in the slightest. No crime has an automatic penalty at present and, as far as I am aware, in the UK the jury never recommends a sentence. If that happens elsewhere, as you'll gather, I'd simply remove it from the process. The jury's role is solely to weigh up the evidence & render verdict accordingly.

MGM & gnu - as already noted, I think "reasonable" is a bit of a woolly defintion, aye.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: gnu
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 07:00 PM

MGM.... "I have always thought the use of the word 'reasonable' something of an evasive and pusillanimous cop-out here. Anyone agree?"

Who would not?

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 03:12 AM

The debate isn't so much about him as about the person who greases the tube and inserts it.

Here, you do seem to have a fixation with pushing things up people's bums? (See "gay marriage" thread passim).

Raedwolf - the problem with your argument re morals may not be as clear cut as your support for killing people, although that alone is an indication of where our moral compasses point differently, no.

The problem with your argument is that morals are subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Hence judges and juries to compare your stance with the "norm".

And on that subject, I am satisfied I have a sink proof pontoon in your swamp and I am presently standing on it, high and muppetly dry.

Must go. I have booked a lorry to sit me on the back riding through town flicking Vs at the poor people.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:56 AM

Run a tube from his ass to his nose, and let him asphyxiate on his own flatulence!...He might even go out with a smile on his face....after all his fatness and fat ass would have done humanity a service!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:32 AM

I have always thought the use of the word 'reasonable' something of an evasive and pusillanimous cop-out here. Anyone agree?

Re Tim Evans: is it not at least an extreme likelihood that he acted in collusion with Christie, and so was not quite such a snow-white innocent as tradition {and Ewan!} would have us believe?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: CET
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:27 PM

I was aware of the Scottish not proven verdict, but didn't mention it because it doesn't exist outside of Scotland. The balance of probabilities standard is not relevant to this debate because it does not apply to criminal offences, serious or otherwise. I know that the British government has done a lot to whittle down the protections that the common law used to give an accused person (the warning that British police give to suspects, and that makes me want to scream every time I watch a BBC detective show, springs to mind) but I hope they haven't gone that far.

Raedwulf: that's not how criminal law works. "I think you're guilty" does not equal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that the trier of fact (judge or jury) has a doubt and must acquit the accused. Only if the jury member can say "I am convinced that you are guilty because the evidence allows no other rational conclusion" can she properly vote to convict. Courts have wrestled with defining reasonable doubt. In Canada juries are instructed that it is much closer to absolute certainty than it is to proof on a balance of probabilities. Courts in other countries have tried different approaches, but it is pretty well universally accepted that the criminal standard of proof is much more demanding than "thinking" that someone is guilty.

All the checks and balances you suggest to protect against wrongful executions are, or should be, involved at the stage of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case for the prosecution can't withstand that level of scrutiny the accused is supposed to go free. That's why I said that once the accused has been found guilty, you cannot expect the judge to go on and impose an even higher standard of proof. Occasionally, before capital punishment was abolished, governments would intervene to commute a death penalty, but only rarely and they certainly did not save Tim Evans from the gallows. The possibility of a judge not allowing the death penalty once a jury has found the prisoner guilty doesn't give me any sense of reassurance. Judge Bullingham is only slightly fictional.

As for whether I share Bobert's views, I do, but if I examine my conscience, I have to admit that in the very hard cases it is really my brain that makes me revolt against capital punishment more than my respect for the life of the killer.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:28 PM

So still not clarification, Eliza. That says one of two things. Either you thought I was having a go at GM, we got our wires crossed, and you're now too embarassed or too small-minded to accept the proffered olive branch. Or two, you're a screaming hypocrite, because you try to condemn me whilst failing to say a word about the behaviour that I reacted to. I don't care which. Either way, it's obviously a waste of time talking to you. It remains "a most interesting and stimulating discussion", at least between those that are capable of discussing.

Oh, then there's Muppet. Dear Muppet, I went through this same routine several years ago with Shambles and with Gibbering Martian. However many times you ignore what I've posted, or deliberatly distort it, however many time you repeat "your mates are...", it doesn't make any of it true. It just makes you look an utter idiot. Especially when you flatly contradict yourself. "My morals are questionable, as are everybody else's" - mine apparently aren't. You've been labelling them with absolute certainty for some time.

Finally, whilst I lack any belief that you'll actually pay any attention to this, I said I DISLIKE moral arguments, not that I'm uncomfortable with them. I dislike them because morals are an entirely self-referential & subjective point of view. I seek a rational debate; you seek to impose your views on me. I wouldn't call you call sanctimonious, I'd call you, have called you, a bigot because that is what you are. Just as much a bigot at Tebbitt et al; quite possibly more so.

That moral high ground you claim? It's a muddy tussock much like the other muddy tussocks that we're all standing on in this same swamp.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Musket
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:35 AM

And on a more serious note... People who support the idea of taking of a person's life don't get up my nose per se, I have too much faith in democracy for that to ever be a factor. You can keep your odious views and have every right to ask if anybody wants to join the crusade that you have embarked on with your mates Tebbit, Widdecombe and Littlejohn.

However, you also said you are uncomfortable with moral arguments. I suppose you have good reason judging by your views on murder.

Judging by other's morals is what courts do. if your own sense of morals were the deciding factor, nobody could ever be guilty as people with a personality disorder have such a condition because their morals are too far away from the norm. Supporting capital punishment is not in itself a personality disorder by any medical definition but should fit nicely ito the "keep it to yourself in polite company" end of the market.

My morals are questionable, as are everybody else's. I don't advocate taking of a life though, so in my view, and happy to be labelled sanctimonious for this, on that at least I have the moral high ground that is normally reserved for bloody cyclists on public roads...

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:58 AM

CET: The answer is "no". As I tried to explain in an earlier post, there are guilty findings and not guilty findings. There is nothing else. Using the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no other standard

Just a couple of points of fact here:

In Scotland there is a "Not Proven" verdict, which is basically "we think (s)he did it but the required level of proof hasn't been reached".

And there is also another standard of proof in common use in the UK, that of "on the balance of probabilities". OK, it's applied in less serious cases than murder, usually civil rather than criminal ones, but it exists, and the level of proof required is lower than for "reasonable doubt".

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:33 AM

I expect you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:30 AM

Ineffectual? I wouldn't say that. It seemingly got up Muppet's nose (the adults are talking, Muppet; be quiet & you might learn something. But I doubt it.). I also note, no attempt at clarifying who you thought I was having a go at and STILL a hypocritical failure to condemn Muppet's abusive behaviour. Either neither of us are in the wrong or both of us are. Which is it, or can't you bring yourself to say? I'd say your knickers were still twisted.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:18 AM

Raedwulf, Michael is not my 'pal'; I have never met the gentleman. As I am not a Mudcat referee, I do not count the use of the 'F' word and measure out criticism accordingly. I do however abhor abusive (and ultimately ineffectual) posts on what promised to be a most interesting and stimulating discussion. Finally, I do not discuss my knickers, twisted or otherwise, with anyone but my husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:14 AM

I cannot be an asshole. I am British so therefore an arsehole. At least my insults have the benefit of a snug fitting cap.

Now you have all cleared the air between yourselves, how about you now decide which of you polishes the straps, who weighs the prisoner and practices with sand bags and who, now we come to the exciting bit, gets to pull the lever!

For everybody else, a snippet in this morning's Independent says that a recent USA survey found not a single death row inmate was on the Atkins diet. There's a thesis in that for someone with a sense of gallows humour.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:59 AM

I'm slightly puzzled, CET, as to why you think "shadow" cannot be as well defined as "reasonable"? Let's face it, "reasonable" itself is a pretty woolly definition. I accept that there may be no will to do so, but that doesn't make it impossible. "Shadow" isn't certainty. "Reasonable", to me, says I think he's guilty, but it's possible for there to be evidence that I don't know about (and therefore can't assess) that might change my view of the case. "Shadow" goes well beyond that, but isn't necessarily absolute certainty. There are very few absolutes, probably none, in the human world.

On your checklist would be things such as weight of forensic evidence (fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA, etc), independent eye-witness testimony, motive established, obviously fabricated defence from the accused (i.e. glaring inconsistencies), no reason to question police behaviour, and so on. Finally, no questions about the quality of the legal defence. An argument I've often seen in respect of American death row cases is that poor prisoners get rubbish lawyers (as far as I recall OJ got off because his lawyers went ad hominem against the police; not because they actually bothered to disprove the case). If enough of those boxes get ticked...

There are very many cases where, despite it being on the statute book, CP should never be an option. Equally, and examples already given, there are cases where it should be. An option, you'll note; always an option, never a guaranteed outcome. Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, sentencing is solely a matter for the judge; no jury of amateurs should ever have a say in the matter.

I agree, you can't ever design a watertight system; I already said as much; but why expect one? People get killed every year because of mechanical failures in cars and other equipment. It's impossible to design a perfect machine, but we still design & sell machinery. There comes a point where the balance of probability says it's as safe as it can be made & safe enough that it's not unreasonable to make it available. I think the West could do that with CP now. Obviously you still don't, which is fair enough!

Out of curiosity, are you morally against CP, as Bobert, or are you just not satisfied that the risk of a wrong sentence is sufficently low? For my part, Bob, whilst I generally have a great deal of respect for your views even though I often find myself disagreeing with them, I have to say that I dislike moral arguments. Your morals are not my morals, and what gives you the right to define MY life by YOUR morals? We're potentially into "killing because I insulted your holy book" territory with that way of thinking. I accept that you will always say that killing is wrong, whatever the circumstances, but do you have a rational, rather than a moral, argument as to why?

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM

The issue of life is kinda strange... I mean, if "life" means "life" then that turns prisons into nursing homes... There's gotta be some sanity to "life"...

Still a big no to killing folks... If they get to a point where they don't want to live any more then, hey, call Dr. Kavorkian...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: CET
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

The problem with "beyond the shadow of a doubt" as a legal standard is that it can never be applied in a real situation. In this country, possibly in yours too, judges instruct juries that it is not possible to determine facts to an absolute certainty. They can only be expected to apply the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot expect a judge or jury to determine whether a convicted killer is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, and therefore to be killed, when they have just finished convicting him. If there was any room for doubt in their minds they wouldn't, or shouldn't, have convicted him in the first place.

You're right, no society can afford a justice system that is paralyzed by the fear of getting it wrong, but I can tell you that there are people in jail who did not commit any crimes. Police are human. They usually do their best, but sometimes they make mistakes, and occasionally they do worse. Sometimes they lie, fabricate evidence, and hide evidence from the defence. Most prosecutors are honourable, but sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they develop tunnel vision and will go to any length to secure a conviction. Most juries are true to their oaths, but sometimes they aren't. You will never develop a system that guarantees there will be no wrongful convictions, but at least if the prisoner is alive you can say you are sorry.

On reflection, I owe Gnu an apology. I stand by everything I said, but I should have been less sharp in how I phrased it. My intention was to debate vigorously, but I can see how it came across as an attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 05:54 PM

Hmmm... Not so sure which of us is a twit. I did actually quote Muppet in that post. Ah well, shall we call it a painful score draw, Eliza? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 05:51 PM

Everybody (except BiscuitlessBoy) may now have a quite snigger, whilst I enjoy a {facepalm} moment then! :o Crossed wires almost all round, it seems. Sorry to almost everyone for any confusion! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 05:34 PM

Looking back ~~ I think she thought you were addressing me, as mine was the immediately preceding post to your vituperative one to which she was objecting: whereas yours was actually addressed, as I read it, to Musket, whose post just preceded mine. You didn't use a name, you see; just a 'you'... Probably a bit of cross-posting or some such?

Oh, dear. Well, well; I am pacified, anyhow...

I think!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

Eliza referred to a Michael earlier (I'm a Mike too, btw). In context, I assumed she meant The Biscuitless Misfiring Musket, since I hadn't been laying into you for being a {insert term of opprobrium of choice..} ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 05:12 PM

Which Michael that, Raed? Hope don't mean me. So please clarify.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:39 PM

Argh. I did write you an answer yesterday, CET, but the board seems to have eaten it. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is exactly the level of proof I'd expect to be in place before a death sentence could be signed off. It isn't the level of proof that's required in the US. That's a fault in the system. It isn't necessarily an argument that CP is inherently wrong. If anyone wants to tell me that CP is handled badly in the US, I'll whole-heartedly agree!

Why I believe that you could create a viable environment for CP as a sentence these days is precisely because of all those wrongful convictions. As I've already acknowledged, 40 years ago "If I ruled the world", I'd have consigned a lot of people to an early death for crimes they did not commit. I don't know how many; 5%, 10%? Some of them were quite likely guilty of other crimes for which they were not convicted. But, on balance, yes, the justice system in the west has changed. There is far more oversight of process, and far less room for abuse now.

As you yourself acknowledge, is there any doubt over the guilt of Anders Breivik? No, none. What about Dale Cregan? So far, in advance of a trial I admit, there seems to be none. Peter Sutcliffe? Whether or not insanity is grounds for not executing is another argument (one on which I have no opinion before Someone leaps in with both feet), but his guilt is beyond any doubt, yes? And that's the point. "Reasonable doubt" is sufficient to secure a conviction; it isn't sufficient to sign a death penalty. I spoke earlier of "checks & safeguards". You can never guarantee a watertight system, but I think there's something wrong with a system that is frightened of ever being wrong. If that's the case, you might as well demolish all the jails, because there's plenty of wrongful convictions inside right now!

"...most felt that no-one had been deterred from offending by the penalties. Now most of this could be applied as questions about what to do with murderers, and why. Obviously execution removes the danger forever. But so would a life sentence." We agree on something then, Eliza. I've already made exactly the same point about the alleged deterrent effect of sentences.

Unfortunately, I can't agree about "life sentence". First as we all know, "life" rarely means that. Second, if it does actually mean that ("Whole life tariff" is the expression, isn't it?), then what's the point of it? Is the prisoner serving some kind of object lesson? We're back to deterrence, which I think we agree is a non-starter. In actual fact, such a prisoner is as likely to be lionised by other inmates as anything (think Charles Bronson, here). If we have just said that we are so certain that you're guilty that we're never going to let you out... what do we gain by making you nothing but a burden on society for anything up to 60+ years? Third, it's only a matter of time before some lawyer starts arguing that "whole life tariff", by denying any hope of release, constitutes "cruel & unusual", and then we won't even be able to lock someone up for life either!

As for you musket, damn. You almost sounded like a rational human being for a moment there. Then you said "pork" and showed yourself an asshole again. Incidentally, Eliza, you got your knickers in a twist over me using the F-word once. Count it. Once. When exactly are you going to condemn your pal Michael for his repeated & admitted attempts (feeble attempts, I grant you) to gratuitously insult posters whose arguments he dislikes? There's another word besides asshole for that sort of behaviour. Troll. Double standards on your part? Ironically, of course, to several of the posters in this thread, he gives the impression of being just the sort of narrow-minded bigot as the examples he tried to insult people with. Bet I can guess what Musket Tebbitt will say to that...

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM

Remember that the folks who claim that the man to too obese to execute are the condemned mans lawyers. I'll be surprised if the state agrees with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 12:54 PM

Back to the bloke too obese to execute ... (Bored with educating pork, back to the subject)

That statement alone, too obese to execute, is testament to the need for The USA states that advocate state killing to look at why. Is the crime any different? Is the moral argument any different?

Just makes execution in a land of intelligent people look all the more bizarre.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:04 AM

During my years as a Prison Visitor, I dealt with many serious offenders (not murderers) and often questioned the remit and purpose of the legal system in UK. It seems to consist of several issues; punishment, deterrent, rehabilitation, vengeance, safety of the Public etc. Many Prison Officers I chatted to said they felt the system itself wasn't sure what the purpose of prison actually was. Some felt the inmates should be locked up and the key thrown away. Some felt the lads had had a bad start and needed understanding. Some tried very hard to help and rehabilitate their charges. All agreed that the Public had a nice break while the robbers etc were behind bars, and most felt that no-one had been deterred from offending by the penalties. Now most of this could be applied as questions about what to do with murderers, and why. Obviously execution removes the danger forever. But so would a life sentence. Are murderers mentally ill in some way and need treatment? (as in Broadmoor) Is vengeance the main drive behind the death sentence, and is this justified? Can a murderer change and become safe to release? Has a man's background turned him into a killer through no fault of his own? I don't believe even the most ardent supporters of execution have the answers, as not enough research has ever been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 08:23 AM

100 tons?

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 08:14 AM

Comes down to the issue of "sanctity of lfe"... Kinda hard to sell the concept by killing someone...

And 100...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:46 AM

Sorry mate, it's a real one.

I admit to having no grasp of understanding why state murder isn't the same as any other when even UK law seems to agree with stance. A stance by the way which was described in a legal briefing when something similar was being explained, that of the legal aspects of assisted suicide.

I haven't made my mind up on anything. Just stating a few facts. If those facts don't fit, don't shoot the messenger.

The only bit regarding my mind is a healthy contempt for those whom would advocate state murder, capital punishment call it what you will. The result is a stiff cold body and grieving mothers all the same.

We lock our prisoners away from society. Seems a good choice to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Too obese to execute
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:16 AM

Sorry. If it helps, I shall stop quoting from law and find some other text that may ease the conscience of those offended by people who think their views abhorrent.

If you look at the legal definition of murder, or at least as applies to England and Wales, though I suspect Scotland and Northern Ireland are similar, there is and never has been any clause saying capital punishment was exempt. It just sets out that premeditated taking of a human life is murder. No mention of "unless the sentencing clauses allow" or even "taking the life of combatants in theatre of war ". It does say elsewhere that those who take (or took) a life shall not be culpable under certain circumstances.

Just quoting the law.

Would those who love a good execution prefer I find a false but comforting definition instead? After all, we can't have you thinking hard and long about your hitherto take on society and how to deal with matters.

Perhaps a long and boring debate on the difference between retribution and revenge may help. Doubt it but you never know.

I make no apology whatsoever for taking the moral high ground on this. I enjoy some of the bullshit debates on this forum but some topics demonstrate that mankind still has a long way to go. Mark Twain was right when he said that man is the only animal that can blush, or needs to.