I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> On 18 Nov., 16:51, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Glad you mention the because aspect.
> > I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> > in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> > pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> > On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> I think I thought I saw the potential of practicing my universal
> grammar here. But that was before the eye turned blue.
> On 18 Nov., 16:57, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Why DID you join "Mind's Eye", gabby?
> > On 18 Nov., 16:51, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Glad you mention the because aspect.
> > > I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> > > in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> > > pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> > > On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > > > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > > > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > > > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> On 18 Nov., 17:42, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think I thought I saw the potential of practicing my universal
> > grammar here. But that was before the eye turned blue.
> > On 18 Nov., 16:57, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Why DID you join "Mind's Eye", gabby?
> > > On 18 Nov., 16:51, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Glad you mention the because aspect.
> > > > I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> > > > in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> > > > pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> > > > On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > > > > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > > > > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > > > > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > > > I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> > > > > in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> > > > > pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> > > > > On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > > > > > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > > > > > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > > > > > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -
There is much, even in the most so-called "developed" societies, which
is shameful, hypocritical and corrupt - treatment of the poor, the
aged, the handicapped, the underprivileged, minorities, foreigners,
etc. There is much violence, injustice, mutually inflicted pain and
cruelty.
Nevertheless, a society which is prepared to judicially take the life
of individuals as a response to crimes - generally crimes which
themselves have involved the taking of life - besmirches itself. Lock
them away for good, by all means, if the judgement is that society, or
any individuals within it, need protection. But through judicially
sanctioned killing, a society lowers itself to the level of the
criminals. It is not a significant deterrent, and it can even be
questioned what sort of punitive effect it has (but this would mean
looking at the whole idea and meaning of punishment, which I don't
want to go into here and now). Most civilised countries in the world
have shown in the last fifty years that they can get on very well
without capital punishment - even in situations of great social
distress and upheaval (I am thinking of situations like Northern
Ireland, the Baader-Meinhof/Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany, or Italy's
problems with Red Brigades or the Mafia). The USA is, in this respect,
a tragic, shameful exception. It reminds me of the situation regarding
slavery in the middle of the 19th. Century and I hope that it will
prove for the US to be just as indigestible a lump.
The USA has a very checkered past when it comes to the death penalty.
Some eras supported it, others didn’t. World conditions affected it
both ways at different times.
> There is much, even in the most so-called "developed" societies, which
> is shameful, hypocritical and corrupt - treatment of the poor, the
> aged, the handicapped, the underprivileged, minorities, foreigners,
> etc. There is much violence, injustice, mutually inflicted pain and
> cruelty.
> Nevertheless, a society which is prepared to judicially take the life
> of individuals as a response to crimes - generally crimes which
> themselves have involved the taking of life - besmirches itself. Lock
> them away for good, by all means, if the judgement is that society, or
> any individuals within it, need protection. But through judicially
> sanctioned killing, a society lowers itself to the level of the
> criminals. It is not a significant deterrent, and it can even be
> questioned what sort of punitive effect it has (but this would mean
> looking at the whole idea and meaning of punishment, which I don't
> want to go into here and now). Most civilised countries in the world
> have shown in the last fifty years that they can get on very well
> without capital punishment - even in situations of great social
> distress and upheaval (I am thinking of situations like Northern
> Ireland, the Baader-Meinhof/Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany, or Italy's
> problems with Red Brigades or the Mafia). The USA is, in this respect,
> a tragic, shameful exception. It reminds me of the situation regarding
> slavery in the middle of the 19th. Century and I hope that it will
> prove for the US to be just as indigestible a lump.
> Francis
> On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Hide quoted text -
Lee, your Sun reading buddies are in town tonight when Germany plays
England. I must say that I'm not sad that my son won a ticket for the
table-tennis German open today for good training behaviour.
On 18 Nov., 22:43, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I didn't join "Minds Eye" to discuss morality here in the UK nor here
> > > > > > in the States. Guess I should have listened to the grammar of the
> > > > > > pronunciation in the first place. :-(
> > > > > > On 18 Nov., 16:13, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Because we haven't touched morality for a while, and because it's on
> > > > > > > my mind(yet again), and finally just because.
> > > > > > > In light of the terrible 'Baby P' episode, should we bring back the
> > > > > > > dealth penalty for muder, sex crimes, peadohilia etc.. here in the UK?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -
The problem with the death penalty is that many a recipient had been
falsely accused and wrongfully put to death. Others more fortunate,
if you call it that, were exonerated before the end thanks to DNA or
Retrial expertise. I find it appalling that someone should spend time
in prison due to a faulty judicial system and a over zealous
prosecuting attorney.
For many we can be sure that it is too late to prove their innocence.
If just one innocent person is put to death by a state sanctioned
death penalty law, then it is simply state sanctioned murder.
I sometimes wonder if the souls of the guilty people put to death only
expedites their return to the earth plane only to commit more heinous
crimes and if it would just be better to confine them as long as
possible.
Lastly, the death penalty has of yet shown itself to be a deterrent to
the crimes leading up to death row. Fact is I find it amazing that any
penalty on the law books does not stop people from committing crimes.
People are just criminal in nature, save the very few that aren't.
