Put sandwich boards on em with "I eat meat" written on and push em through the doors of the next Charlton Life (Vegan Division) meeting. Be a fate worse than a fate worse than death....
While we're at it, let's bring it back for murderers and rapists too!
Oh oops we accidentally killed an innocent person. Never mind at least we felt better about our lives at the time.
'Lets release them after 10 years, oops they've killed again' might be a response to that.
'There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.
And then we look at the graph below Quite the dilemma.
An interesting graph but only if taken at face value. While the "red" countries might still have the death penalty on the statute book, you also have to look at when it was last enforced: Jamaica 1988; El Salvador 1973; Guatemala 2000; Trinidad & Tobago 1999; Lesotho 1995 and St Kitts 2008 (but that was the first for 11 years).
In other words the graph is of no help whatsoever.
If you say so. But in reality, one of my points was to debunk the statement above the graph '''There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.'' Hence the words, quite the dilemma.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
Put sandwich boards on em with "I eat meat" written on and push em through the doors of the next Charlton Life (Vegan Division) meeting. Be a fate worse than a fate worse than death....
We could ‘stone’ them to death with very large, very stale falafel. Bastards haven’t witnessed terror yet!
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
While we're at it, let's bring it back for murderers and rapists too!
Oh oops we accidentally killed an innocent person. Never mind at least we felt better about our lives at the time.
'Lets release them after 10 years, oops they've killed again' might be a response to that.
'There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.
And then we look at the graph below Quite the dilemma.
An interesting graph but only if taken at face value. While the "red" countries might still have the death penalty on the statute book, you also have to look at when it was last enforced: Jamaica 1988; El Salvador 1973; Guatemala 2000; Trinidad & Tobago 1999; Lesotho 1995 and St Kitts 2008 (but that was the first for 11 years).
In other words the graph is of no help whatsoever.
If you say so. But in reality, one of my points was to debunk the statement above the graph '''There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.'' Hence the words, quite the dilemma.
Well, indeed. But presumably there is no deterrent effect at all if potential murderers know that whatever the statute book says, in reality there is no death penalty. So showing a graph which is presumably trying to indicate that the death penalty has no deterrent effect in countries with the highest murder rates, is meaningless if there is in reality no actual use of the deterrent?
It's probably also worth noting that 8 of those ten countries are either drug producers and/or on the drug routes to the US and Europe.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
Not necessarily ...... Many of the radical Islamist's yearn to be a martyr. According to their warped theology , a great award beckons. Im not sure rotting in prison for 50 years quite meets their aspirations !
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
Not necessarily ...... Many of the radical Islamist's yearn to be a martyr. According to their warped theology , a great award beckons. Im not sure rotting in prison for 50 years quite meets their aspirations !
If these yearned to be martyrs I don't think they'd be pissing and shitting about getting a fair trial in the UK. I think they would've surely gone out in a blaze of glory a long time ago.
Re. martyrdom - it must surely only apply if everyone believes the same bs as them, but we all know there aren't any virgins etc. don't we? It's a bit like someone saying to the judge at sentencing, "Please lock me up for as long as possible, as I love it inside with all the free food and drink, and I hate being a free man", then the judge saying "Oh, we'd better not lock him up as that's what he wants, so lets free him"
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
+1 for bring them back, give them a fair trial, put them in a hard as nails prison and happen to let slip their identity to a couple of prison headcases
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
Except, unfortunately, history shows that that is easier said than done, especially where those you are killing are seen to be dying in the name of a "cause".
If I was Godly as well as pessimistic, I might warn of the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" kind of thing.
There would be someone, somewhere, who would seek to use the deaths for their own ends.
Put sandwich boards on em with "I eat meat" written on and push em through the doors of the next Charlton Life (Vegan Division) meeting. Be a fate worse than a fate worse than death....
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
Compared to having your head chopped off it's extremely cushy.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
Except, unfortunately, history shows that that is easier said than done, especially where those you are killing are seen to be dying in the name of a "cause".
If I was Godly as well as pessimistic, I might warn of the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" kind of thing.
There would be someone, somewhere, who would seek to use the deaths for their own ends.
Someone, somewhere would also use their incarceration for their own ends.
Morning all, as I’m still fuming from last nights result, I’d like to add that I’m happy for us to lower ourselves to these two c*nts levels and see them butchered, good day.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
Compared to having your head chopped off it's extremely cushy.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
Except, unfortunately, history shows that that is easier said than done, especially where those you are killing are seen to be dying in the name of a "cause".
If I was Godly as well as pessimistic, I might warn of the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" kind of thing.
There would be someone, somewhere, who would seek to use the deaths for their own ends.
Someone, somewhere would also use their incarceration for their own ends.
As Thatcher was alleged to have said before our heroes from the SAS stormed the Iranian embassy, "Leave no loose-ends"
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
Compared to having your head chopped off it's extremely cushy.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
Except, unfortunately, history shows that that is easier said than done, especially where those you are killing are seen to be dying in the name of a "cause".
If I was Godly as well as pessimistic, I might warn of the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" kind of thing.
There would be someone, somewhere, who would seek to use the deaths for their own ends.
Someone, somewhere would also use their incarceration for their own ends.
As Thatcher was alleged to have said before our heroes from the SAS stormed the Iranian embassy, "Leave no loose-ends"
I think the Daily Mail made that quote up. Thatcher always denied it.
They should just kill them if only for the looks on their faces when they realise the promised virgins are all their little martyr mates who turned to terror because they couldn’t get a bunk up
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Obviously, there aren't many people who would relish being banged up for the rest you their lives, but if you were prone to cutting peoples heads of, life inside would probably appeal, rather than getting the death penalty
But, here's the thing, in what way is killing a person who has committed themselves to a foul and extreme world view, that elevates "martyrdom" for its cause above all else, a punishment?
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Who gives a fuck what they ‘think’. They can think they’re going to paradise, or heaven, a garden of virgins or come back as a hot air balloon for all I care. We all know that’s a load of bullshit anyway.
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
Comments
But in reality, one of my points was to debunk the statement above the graph
'''There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.''
Hence the words, quite the dilemma.
This is a fact. A lifetime sentence in prison is not cushy.
We could ‘stone’ them to death with very large, very stale falafel. Bastards haven’t witnessed terror yet!
I certainly couldn’t handle a life sentence.
It's probably also worth noting that 8 of those ten countries are either drug producers and/or on the drug routes to the US and Europe.
BTW, according to this https://worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html those figures/positions aren't quite right with Belize making the Top Ten. (We come in at a humble 162.)
If anything, the death penalty is actually likely to appeal far more to them than a long life locked away from the World.
Re. martyrdom - it must surely only apply if everyone believes the same bs as them, but we all know there aren't any virgins etc. don't we? It's a bit like someone saying to the judge at sentencing, "Please lock me up for as long as possible, as I love it inside with all the free food and drink, and I hate being a free man", then the judge saying "Oh, we'd better not lock him up as that's what he wants, so lets free him"
Stick them in the ground and forget about them. Job done.
If I was Godly as well as pessimistic, I might warn of the biblical "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" kind of thing.
There would be someone, somewhere, who would seek to use the deaths for their own ends.
That is a fact. Someone, somewhere would also use their incarceration for their own ends.
I heard it on various documentaries, from the mouths of the soldiers involved mate and she's gonna've denied it as it would've outraged the "outraged"
But whether its accurate or not (notice I said alleged), I think it would be the easier way to deal with such situations.