Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[The Good Michael]

Your post diminishes everything you write in my eyes Good Michael (I had always respected you hitherto). I find it as ridiculous as you do religeon. The post was (IMHO at least) deliberately offensive, intolerant and crude.

Phil,

I challenge you to tell me or anyone one thing that a religion has done for the world that isn't outweighed heavily by the negative. If you find my post offensive, that is your fault. I find religion to be the most offensive irrational, and self-serving thing on earth. People have such faith because it promises them rewards and keeps them thinking about death. Believe if you want, but don't infect others, that's all I ask. Hitler, Stalin, and George Bush combined have committed less atrocities and they go on every day in some form or another. If man can't control religion, then religion should be controlled. I see no other way and this world is absolute $**** because of belief in a white-bearded fairy.

Mike

[Phil H]

As I understand the Christian faith, and think Islam too - they are creeds of good works, integrity, self-questioning, morality and yes, healing.

Many of the greatest minds in history have had faith and found inspiration and refreshment as a result.

If nationalists, politicians and so on have acted IN THE NAME of religeon, then that is hardly the latter's fault.

Religeon is often a system, faith is internal.

Finally, I do not find it inconsistent that men would strive to eradicate an immoral practice such as slavery, and that those of faith have promoted their beliefs as truth.

I do not seek to restrict aetheists or agnostics in the ability to practice or discuss their (misguided?) beliefs, and expect the same "respect" from them. If they now want to eradicate anything that opposes what they see as self-evident truth, then then can hardly criticise those of faith for having done the same in the past.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Bob - we are not talking about rioting mobs. We are talking about protest marches.

So you can give a list of all those 'protest marches' that hasn't degenerated into violence over say, the last thirty years can you?

Funnily enough the only ones I can think of are ones organised by non left wing groups, such as the one's I have been on.

[caz]

1 in 12 only just over 10% would not, of course, be a majority.

With respect, Phil, that's hardly the point if a unanimous verdict (ie 12 out of 12, not Mrs. Slocombe's version ) would be needed in each case. The ‘popular’ vote doesn’t come into it with a murder jury. The result of letting the people decide could be the failure to convict any murderer whenever the jury concerned had at least one 'liberal' member who would never contemplate sending anyone to their death.

In short, the only thing facing a big drop would be the conviction rate for murderers. At least under the present system juries will happily send them off to prison, even if it's only for about five minutes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

I would beg to differ with you there. I think you would get 12 out of 12 - unless convicts, in addition to getting the vote, are allowed to serve on juries. It's not a joke - I'm sure that's coming along.

Certainly you'd have got 12 out of 12 back in the days when the penalty was abolished. So much for our being a democracy.

But we are not 'back in the days' now, Robert. We don't send little boys up chimneys any more either, burn witches, or slap our wives around with the law's blessing.

We'd need 12 out of 12 willing executioners every time a murderer ended up in the dock, or he would not even get a slapped wrist and the judge's black cap would be covered in cobwebs.

I just don't see that as a better option than we have now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

As I understand the Christian faith, and think Islam too - they are creeds of good works, integrity, self-questioning, morality and yes, healing.

Many of the greatest minds in history have had faith and found inspiration and refreshment as a result.

If nationalists, politicians and so on have acted IN THE NAME of religeon, then that is hardly the latter's fault.

Religeon is often a system, faith is internal.

Finally, I do not find it inconsistent that men would strive to eradicate an immoral practice such as slavery, and that those of faith have promoted their beliefs as truth.

I do not seek to restrict aetheists or agnostics in the ability to practice or discuss their (misguided?) beliefs, and expect the same "respect" from them. If they now want to eradicate anything that opposes what they see as self-evident truth, then then can hardly criticise those of faith for having done the same in the past.

Phil

I agree totally Phil. A brilliant post.

[Limehouse]

So you can give a list of all those 'protest marches' that hasn't degenerated into violence over say, the last thirty years can you?

Funnily enough the only ones I can think of are ones organised by non left wing groups, such as the one's I have been on.

The march in London on 26 March was attended by half a million people. A small number (a few hundred at most) broke away from the main march and demonstrated in a more vigorous and perhaps potetially aggressive way. There was no extreme violence.

I can state categorically that I have never witnessed any violence on the CND marches I have attended nor on the May Day marches.

[Phil H]

caz

I'm not sure I agree.

MY point about your citing 1 in 12 was that if that was representative of popular feeling in the country, it would not prevent an Act being demanded/passed. I think you'll find that I specifically was NOT discussing jury verdicts but whether the penalty might be brought back.

Nevertheless, I would say this:

Imagine that capital punishment had been restored and a UK citizen were tried for the abduction and murder of Sarah Paine or Madeleine Mccann: would you be so certain that a jury would not let the perpetrator hang? I'm afraid I would not be.

What about the current case of Millie Dowler(?). Or going back a few years, Brady and Hindley and the Moors Murders case?

I sincerely hope it NEVER comes about - but I am concerned about the contemporary rise in media use of emotions in relation to trials and criminal cases. It is clear sometimes that when a case collapses the family etc are disappointed - they don't want justice, just vengeance!! Understandble maybe.

But wasn't the jury-system (circa the time of Edward I - 1300) set up precisely to get away from lynch law? Let a firestorm be created or emotion enter where reason should prevail and I hate to think of the consequences. Yet we see demands for families to speak during trials and make their case for stringent sentences being heard and potentially implemented!

When, many years ago, I dropped my last remaining support for capital punishment, it was because of the evident number of miscarriages of justice in my life-time, from Evans, through Hanratty, to the various Birmingham and Guildford bombers in the 70s - who almost certainly would have been hung given the prevailing mood then. There is no reprieve, no compensation for the man or woman who has been hung?

[caz]

Hi Phil,

I think we're on the same side here.

All I'm saying is that if the death penalty can no longer produce the 'desired' effect (ie dead murderers, who can never kill again and don't need feeding) and could well produce the opposite effect, it won't be brought back, as a result of 'popular' (or emotional) demand or anything else.

It only takes one eligible jury member in every twelve to disagree in principle with the state taking of life - any life - or simply to fear, as you do, more miscarriages of justice where innocent people get hanged (not 'hung'), and there won't even be a conviction, never mind a hanging.

That's all the politicians need to remind people who want it back and think a referendum should decide the matter, fondly imagining it will keep the hangman busy.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

...people get hanged (not 'hung')...

You are quite right, of course. Silly me - I knew that. My only excuse is writing in haste.

But hanged or hung in this context, makes little difference tothe person it is done to.

But to return to the basic dicussion, should the question of capital punishment (on which many people have fervent views - both ways be discussed? or is it right that "leaders" and "liberals" keep this topic away from debate and popular votes? if so, by what right, in a democracy?

If so, is it right that the issue of British memberhip of Europe should not be discussed, that politicians have "rigged" the rules so that they say when a referednum can/should be allowed?

Finally, for US posters especially - by what right did Lincoln deny the Confederate States the right to leave the Union? is there a principle that once a "state" (could be a nation) has joined a wider organisation it can never leave?

(I regard Lincoln's policy as one that saved the world in 1917/18 and 1941-45, as a smaller USA might not have had the strength/power to save the old World from itself, but was he a tyrant for doing what he did?)

Bu extrapolation - if, one day, Europe as a whole took a direction with which the UK did not agree - (let's say it became totalitarian, or eastern Europe began to shape the Union in ways the West did not like) would we have the right to leave? Or might we have to fight to gain that right?

I'll be very interested in the views of others'.

Phil

[caz]

Just as a handy reminder, Phil (for me, not for you!), it was this observation of yours that I took issue with:

'In the Uk I suspect the death penalty would be brought back were it ever debated and voted upon - but liberals will never allow that to happen.'

I thought that a little unfair as it doesn't need to be a question of what 'liberals will never allow', but the sheer pointlessness of debating and voting if the penalty to be brought back is one that few if any juries will ever 'allow' in practice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Caz

I think it's rather eccentric to compare capital punishment to witch-burning and sending boys up chimneys.

Are you now telling me that liberals are dishonest? You are saying that a liberal jury member will refuse to convict a defendant, even though the jury member is convinced of the defendant's guilt, simply because the jury member disapproves of capital punishment. Is that not against the oath of a jury member?

In any case, those whose consciences will not permit them to bring in a guilty verdict on a murder trial, could always apply for exemption before the trial starts - though that might create a sudden deluge of "liberals" all desperate to dodge jury service.

As for emotion, well of course we want the juries to reach a decision on the evidence. But emotion works both ways. I can just see what would happen if we ever did get a referendum on capital punishment : the dear old BBC would suddenly decide to show "Yield To The Night." Plus of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury would pop up with heart-rending appeals for "compassion" blah blah blah. This is emotionalism too.

[Robert]

Hi Phil

To be fair to the Liberals (with a capital 'l'), the last time I looked, their policy was to hold a referendum on EU membership. However, they preferred a referendum on AV as their price for joining the coalition.

Of course, in the unlikely event of the Liberals forming their own government, it's possible - just possible - that said EU referendum would never materialise. You might think that, Phil, you might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Derrick]

Oh Really

So you can give a list of all those 'protest marches' that hasn't degenerated into violence over say, the last thirty years can you?

Funnily enough the only ones I can think of are ones organised by non left wing groups, such as the one's I have been on.

I'll give you two contrasting demo's, in the sense that they were organised by the left and the right.

The first is the Anti-Iraq war demo in 2003 which was perhaps leftist as it was organised by the Stop The War Coalition and ended very peacefully.

The second is the Countryside Alliance demo which was a right wing mish mash of saddo's who somehow tried to convince us townies that they were the true custodians of the countryside. A countryside that was stolen from the common people during the Acts of Enclosure some 300 years ago. That demo ended in so-called upright country types hitting coppers. Very diginified I don't think.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

I think it's rather eccentric to compare capital punishment to witch-burning and sending boys up chimneys.

Are you now telling me that liberals are dishonest? You are saying that a liberal jury member will refuse to convict a defendant, even though the jury member is convinced of the defendant's guilt, simply because the jury member disapproves of capital punishment. Is that not against the oath of a jury member?

In any case, those whose consciences will not permit them to bring in a guilty verdict on a murder trial, could always apply for exemption before the trial starts - though that might create a sudden deluge of "liberals" all desperate to dodge jury service.

As for emotion, well of course we want the juries to reach a decision on the evidence. But emotion works both ways. I can just see what would happen if we ever did get a referendum on capital punishment : the dear old BBC would suddenly decide to show "Yield To The Night." Plus of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury would pop up with heart-rending appeals for "compassion" blah blah blah. This is emotionalism too.

Hi Robert

Just thank God that the rope had been abolished when the trials of the Guildford Four, The Maguire Seven, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four, Judith Ward, Stefan Kiskco and Barry George occurred, among many others.

Too many mistakes are made in the CJS to even think about bringing Capital punishment back. Most MP's understand this. Plus it is not a constitutional issue and does not warrant a referendum.

Derrick