Capital punishment

[Azrael]

By the by, I have a good old seethe when the press refer to terrorists who kill hostages as "executioners", and their crime as an execution. They're nothing of the kind: they're murderers. I wonder if there's some deliberate purpose in muddying the waters, or if the sloppy language is just an indication of how far standards have plummeted. By an Olympic distance.

 

[EddyBlack]

If the alternative is 35-40 years in a violent warehouse, which two murderers who killed on parole were sentenced to the other day, yes. If the alternative is gaol until death it's an unqualified yes. If the justice system shouldn't be about punishment, I'll ask the Harold Shipman question again: since he wasn't much of a threat without deception and his doctor's license, should he have been cut loose?

Well they needn't be sentenced to a 'violent warehouse'.

What if they were put into the most comfortable conditions possible, albeit without liberty. The overwhelming number of cases would have release prospects, (15 yr average sentence).

Such a regime with a focus on rehabilitation must surely be more humane than a hanging sentence.

So I ask again, it sounds like you are arguing that hanging would be the more humane option. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Azrael]

So I ask again, it sounds like you are arguing that hanging would be the more humane option. Is that what you are saying?

In the circumstances you give, no, hanging isn't more humane. But a 15 year sentence in such conditions is pointless. The purpose of a defined sentence isn't public safety, although that's a bonus. Set terms in gaol are a means of punishment, and 15 years in a hotel is a risible punishment for murder, guaranteed not to deter anyone who might be deterred. Worse, it's still pretty unpleasant, but it's cruelty with no purpose. You say it will focus on "rehabilitation". That's a medical term. You rehabilitate a man with a broken leg; a convict can choose to reform, but that's different. Rehabilitation presupposes that criminals aren't wholly responsible for their actions.

Would you have freed Harold Shipman after he was convicted?

 

[EddyBlack]

In the circumstances you give, no, hanging isn't more humane. But a 15 year sentence in such conditions is pointless. The purpose of a defined sentence isn't public safety, although that's a bonus. Set terms in gaol are a means of punishment, and 15 years in a hotel is a risible punishment for murder, guaranteed not to deter anyone who might be deterred. Worse, it's still pretty unpleasant, but it's cruelty with no purpose. You say it will focus on "rehabilitation". That's a medical term. You rehabilitate a man with a broken leg; a convict can choose to reform, but that's different. Rehabilitation presupposes that criminals aren't wholly responsible for their actions.

Would you have freed Harold Shipman after he was convicted?

Sounds garbled Azrael.

'No Hanging isn't more humane'

Apart from that you seem a bit bonkers. Nae offence like pal.

 

[Azrael]

What's garbled? Hanging is more humane than attempts at proportionate alternatives like life behind bars or decades in gaol followed by release on "license" (which means the authorities can haul you back into prison on a whim). Obviously if you water the sentence for murder down enough, hanging ceases to be more humane, but by that point, the sentence isn't fit for purpose.

Shipman: locked-up or released?

And excuse me if I don't fret over a diagnosis made through a bulletin board.

 

[EddyBlack]

What's garbled? Hanging is more humane than attempts at proportionate alternatives like life behind bars or decades in gaol followed by release on "license" (which means the authorities can haul you back into prison on a whim). Obviously if you water the sentence for murder down enough, hanging ceases to be more humane, but by that point, the sentence isn't fit for purpose.

'In those circumstances, no hanging isn't more humane'

That is what you said, with the circumstances being:

Most comfortable conditions possible, prospect of release, and focus on rehabilitation.

You just agreed with me! You agreed that would be more humane than hanging!

And excuse me if I don't fret over a diagnosis made through a bulletin board.

 

[Azrael]

You just agreed with me! You agreed that would be more humane than hanging!

I did, but I'm not sure what it's meant to prove, since I never argued that hanging is more humane than any hypothetical alternative, merely the usual and actual ones.

I note you've not answered the Shipman question. If this makes you uneasy, I don't blame you: it tends to pull people who claim "I don't believe in punishment" up short.

 

[EddyBlack]

]I did, but I'm not sure what it's meant to prove, since I never argued that hanging is more humane than any hypothetical alternative, merely the usual and actual ones.

You did. You agreed with what I said.

 

[Azrael]

Yep, I know I did. What's it supposed to prove?

 

[EddyBlack]

Yep, I know I did. What's it supposed to prove?

That you agreed I was right and accepted you were wrong?

 

[Azrael]

Since I never claimed hanging was more humane that 15 years locked in a hotel, that's a negative. Unless the hotel is a Travel Inn. 50/50 in that case.

Neither did I claim that I'll never agree with EddyBlack, tempting as that might be.

 

[EddyBlack]

Since I never claimed hanging was more humane that 15 years locked in a hotel, that's a negative. Unless the hotel is a Travel Inn. 50/50 in that case.

Neither did I claim that I'll never agree with EddyBlack, tempting as that might be.

So yeah, I'm glad you agree with me!

 

[Azrael]

Amusing as this little game is (take opposing position, substitute own alternative, get agreement on new position, and claim a win: old tactic, you're making me nostalgic) must be off now. Night.

 

[EddyBlack]

Night.