Sir Kavekk wrote:
Of course it is. If you can't show a system with the death penalty that does not murder the innocent and kills people cheaply, this suggests that such a system is difficult or impossible to effect. As it is, you cannot show me a death penalty system which does only the former.
Not only is this nonsense but once again, it's not what I'm talking about. If you are not able to respond to what I actually say, there is not much point in you posting.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
It might be. The witnesses might have group murdered the victim and used you as a scapegoat. In a gang rape, it might be nine witnesses against one.
More nonsense and still not respnding to the point I actually made.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
To err is human. Show me an example of a system that takes life which has never taken life wrongly. I hold that such a system is nigh impossible.
I'm not talking about systems. I believe I may have mentioned this before once or twice.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
It's a pretty poor way to find out what it's like to live there. Perception and reality frequently diverge - people think Britain is far rainier than it really is, for example. That's not the main problem, though - a rigorous analysis of the ways people view their country can be useful, but a collection of anecdotes does not amount to this. They are not statistically sound.
Speaking to people who have lived somewhere all their life is a poor way to find out what it's like there? Getting on a plane and seeing with your own eyes is a poor way to find out what it's like there? Some of this stuff you're spouting is ridiculous. It doesn't matter what way you use to find out what a place is like. Do your research and you'll find there are places in the world as I described.
And you still haven't replied to the point actually made.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Of course it's what we're talking about. You can't discuss issues in a vacuum. "We should institute the death penalty" is a crude, vague statement, like "we should get really rich" or "we should go to Mars" - worthless unless backed up by a plan of action.
You're either a troll (not a very good one) or an internet message board stereotype (more likely).
You can't tell people what point they're making or what they're talking about. I made a point and you either respond to it or don't. So far you've shown yourself incapable of doing so.
The point is a very simple one. If I see that someone has been convicted of a crime, his guilt established or even confessed to and the crime is so heinous it deserves the death penalty, then I have no problem with that.
Aripyanfar managed to give his opinion on that situation in 1 single post. So far you've had about 5 posts and failed miserably in all of them to respond to the point. Feel free to try for 6 or even 10.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Furthermore, I doubt your claim as to the number of cases where there is no doubt as to who is guilty.
Coming from the guy who doubts what people say about the place they have lived in all their life, that doesn't really mean much.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
I cast aspersions on your intellect and ability to reason.
Coming from the guy who can't respond to a point someone makes and who shows all the hallmarks of being the poster child for the 'Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics' image, that also doesn't really mean much.
You've shown no reasoning or intelligence, just blind ignorance and an inability to actually reply to what was said.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Life has, in many past systems, meant life. Sending people to Australia certainly removed them from British society. Thus, we can reason that this is not a problem inherent to the punishment but a flaw specifically in anglophone prison systems that comes up mainly because we overcrowd prisons with petty offenders.
More nonsense and again, still doesn't address the point that was actually made.
