#31
deadsetgav wrote:
Viirkokka wrote:
Being an English person, why have I not even heard of this despite being quite tuned into the news?
That’s probably my biggest worry - its been done quietly behind closed door and the media (to my knowledge) has hardly touched on it…
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 11:26 in reply to an earlier post
#32
The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:
Looks like I know even less than everyone else. But from what I’ve heard recently the Conservatives are going to blatantly promise “a” national vote on the EU situation as part of their manifesto for fighting the next general election.
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 11:37
#33
mrs h wrote:
mr self destruct wrote:
The Lisbon Treaty has a clause which would allow the EU-wide reintroduction of the death penalty in the event of “war, riots, upheaval”…think about the implications of that!
Do try and stay on our planet, Sammy! :p
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 13:00 in reply to an earlier post
#34
mr self destruct wrote:
No joke, the clause is in there.
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 13:14
#35
mr self destruct wrote:
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 13:27
#36
Viirkokka wrote:
Capital Punishment sounds a good idea
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 14:58
#37
mr self destruct wrote:
:rolleyes: To me it sounds like an incredibly bad idea.
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 15:11
#38
mr self destruct wrote:
And I would hope it does to all other decent-thinking people as well
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 15:13
#39
KJC Dublin (Karl) wrote:
Thanks for the insight Mr. Self Destruct.
Makes me feel even better for rejecting this Turd Sandwich :-)
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 15:14
#40
mr self destruct wrote:
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 16:49
#41
deadsetgav wrote:
mr self destruct wrote:
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
like an anti-government riot - such as the poll tax riots?
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 18:34 in reply to an earlier post
#42
mr self destruct wrote:
For example…more likely anti-war protests/riots…a million people on the streets of London scared them
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 20:18
#43
mrs h wrote:
@Sam - I totally agree that the death penalty can never be justified, but you appear to be twisting what it says and that, to my mind, is weakening your argument. It says that member states could use the death penalty for war criminals. All the other stuff is nothing to do with the death penalty, it’s to do with how to defend yourself against accusations of murder if you are a member of the services or armed forces.
It’s wrong, and ! would certainly vote no - but you seem to be trying to make it sound as though it is allowing the death penalty for protesters and rioters, which it isn’t. It is offering up some pretty big loopholes, but if you want to condemn them effectively then you should keep hold of your credibility by ensuring that you don’t misquote them. If there is actually a reference somewhere to “reintroduction of the death penalty in the event of war, riots, upheaval” then I apologise - i haven’t read it, so I wouldn’t know.
:)
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 21:06
#44
mr self destruct wrote:
Where does it say that it refers to the death penalty being used only for war criminals? It says: ‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’
No, I agree it does not say the death penalty can be reintroduced for rioters, but it does effectively give the Police a licence to kill. It provides immunity from prosecution for murder which is an effective death sentence on anyone the Police decide to gun down.
You’re dead right there are big loopholes…
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 21:27
#45
mrs h wrote:
Well yes - but a licence to kill within the constraints of “the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary”.
I’m not disagreeing that it’s wrong, or that it couldn’t be abused to terrible effect. I just think you should avoid speculating if you genuinely want to argue the problems and pitfalls of the treaty. Otherwise you sound like a paranoid reactionary conspiracy theorist.
Of course if I were going to speculate myself I would suggest that the whole thing was written at the White House.
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 21:42
#46
mr self destruct wrote:
You’re probably right there
Posted on Mon, 16 June 2008 at 21:57
#47
Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:
No to the death penalty full stop.
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 09:10
#48
Viirkokka wrote:
In that case we should put our prisoners to work building more prisons and houses
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 17:48
#49
Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:
how about putting most of them into rehab or education programmes
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 20:07
#50
mrs h wrote:
But that would actually stand a chance of preventing them from reoffending! Not only would you be running the risk of annoying a whole generation of ignorant fascists, but you could end up putting prison officers jobs at risk! :eek:
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 20:15
#51
mrs h wrote:
That sounded like i was calling viirkokka an ignorant fascist, didn’t it? I didn’t mean it to. Young people do have a tendency to see things as very black and white, they can’t help it - it’s a crucial part of their development. Sorry Viirkokka, for calling you an ignorant fascist in the last post, and then going on to patronise you in this one!!
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 20:26
#52
Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:
haha, i was going to go there but I didn’t for some reason,strange. Must be going soft in my old age
Posted on Tue, 17 June 2008 at 20:53
#53
Viirkokka wrote:
But why re-educate them when they had a chance of education before? You can re-educate them over and over again and some are just gonna be bad apples and at the end of the day that’s an arse load of money you’re spending on them.
If anything:
Most serious offenders - Lifetime sentence (not the 12 years they get currently).
Medium offences - Rehabilitation and serve time.
Minor offences - Rehabilitation, serve time and released.
And if they’re a repeat offender, no more rehab. Why keep reeducating and rehabiliating someone when they’re just going to do it again. Not gonna let them piss on my chips like that.
Obviously theres a few gray areas there which would be cleaned up with some ‘splainin.
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 09:58
#54
Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:
hmmm right. Why educate them when they had a chance of education before? The vast majority have received little or no education. Many of them are damaged people, brought up by damaged people etc. Was at a game in Limerick few weeks ago (one of the most socially deprived areas in Europe) and i saw a 10 year old kicking the shit out of another 10 year old, he had him on the ground, was kicking him in the stomach and was hitting him across the head. I dragged him off, turns out they were ‘friends’ even though the young lad was spitting blood from his forehead. I dragged him to his mother where i assumed he would get a telling off and left. 2 mins later a 12 year old girl came over to me with a message from the mother to stay away from her son and not to touch him again. I went over to her only to get some Limerick style mumbeling back at me. This child will be a criminal, no doubt about it. But looking at the state of his mother I’d say she was brought up the same way her son is being brought up. This would be poverty and little or no education. Now i call these people scum but at the same time they never had a fucking chance.
Bad apples? Yes there are a few that are born bad and that no amount of help will ever change but most people are born good and suffer circumstances out side there control. You are yappin on about money being spent on them. It costs more to house them in prisons then it would to reeducate them or rehab etc. Does it make sense to send a drug addict into prison where drugs a rampant? No it does not.
Money needs to be spent helping children that live in deprived in areas so as they have a chance of escaping the poverty/crime trap. But hey fuck it why bother lets just build bigger prisons and not worry about it.
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 11:05
#55
Viirkokka wrote:
But if they were given educating before why would they accept it now?
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 11:48
#56
mr self destruct wrote:
Not being funny but you seem to need some education yourself if you approve of the death penalty and think the answer to crime is locking criminals away and throwing away the key!
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 11:59
#57
mrs h wrote:
Viirkokka - you really are so far off the mark I wouldn’t know where to start with you!!! Sam and Kill Hill are absolutely right, and I suspect that your posts are based on a gut reaction rather than any actual thought you have given the problem.
That said, this discussion is in the wrong thread so I’ll go and find the right one in there. Then you can read what people have to say about it.
If you don’t agree then Sam, Kill Hill and myself will lock you up indefinitely until without any support or re-education you spontaneously change your views…
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 12:06
#58
mrs h wrote:
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 12:09
#59
Viirkokka wrote:
@Mrs_H: I wasn’t saying anyone should be locked up until their views change, that would be undoubtebly wrong. I was saying offenders should be locked up, not every tom dick and harry who has a different opinion to the government or whoever is in power at whatever time. People are entitled to their opinions.
@Mr Self Destruct: Why should I need re-educating for approving of capital punishment? It’s not like “oh they robbed a shop, lets lynch ‘em”. It would be for the very worst crimes, and only if we didn’t have space in the prisons. Keeping someone in prison indefinitely would likely be a worse fate than being drugged and poisoned.
Sorry to keep this off-topic again.
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 12:42
#60
Viirkokka wrote:
Also; what if the criminal doesn’t want rehabilitation or reeducation? Just keep giving it to them every time they offend?
Posted on Wed, 18 June 2008 at 12:42
