Sutcliffe launches legal challenge against 'die in jail' ruling.

[Ally]

You just wonīt give it a rest, will you, Ally?

Have you noticed that every time you find yourself in a debate that you cannot just walk away from, you blame the other person for your lack of will power? I have posted three posts on this. How many have you posted? This is what comes of teaching people they aren't responsible for their own actions.

And a lot of wrapping it was, for some reason. I have no problem with posters asking away, but when they start out by throwing unpolite accusations about them, I tend to be less inclined to take them seriously. And if they react to this by crowning themselves winners of the debate, it does very little to increase my lust for a rational discussion. The fact that this seems to be how you often go about things, disguising it as a no-nonsense tough guy attitude, will not be helpful either.

Yawn.

No, it is not alright. But given the choice between letting them loose or subjecting them to the reality of prison-life for a man who represents the lowest form of life, as seen by the inmates, I would opt for the latter choice. That is not saying that I condone all the actions that are taken against men like Sutcliffe – it is just saying that the good guys out there should not be confronted with the Sutcliffe characters if it can be avoided. Letīs not fall in the trap of over-simplification if we can avoid it, Ally.

You have either missed the point, or are choosing to evade it. One of your pins for being against the death penalty is that it is state-sanctioned violence. Jail is state sanctioned violence. Therefore you DO condone state sanctioned violence and your argument against the death penalty as state-sanctioned violence is rendered moot. The good guys out there can absolutely be prevented from the likes of encountering Sutcliffe, with the implementation of a simple injection.

And you have not answered on previous threads my question as to why precisely his victims and society at large should be forced to provide him with food and sustenance for the next 90 years? Why should we pay for his continued existence? He will never contribute meaningfully to society again if he remains behind bars. So why exactly should we continue to pay for a life that was a total waste, and will never be productive?

”If intelligence were enough to override nature, violence would have been stamped out 4000 years ago.”

And if nature was enough to override intelligence, we would still have the death penalty here in Sweden. But we donīt. You do, though …
Cheap shot? Absolutely, but since you brought the subject up, thereīs one answer for you.

Actually it's not a cheap shot, it's a senseless and irrational shot. Your basis against the death penalty has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily about emotion and how you feel. Which is the opposite of reason and logic. there is no LOGICAL reason for keeping Sutcliffe and his ilk alive. What intelligent reason is there for his continued existence?

Those against the death penalty are more emotional and acting based more on feeling than those "revenge crazed blood thirst savages" out for death.

My views on the death penalty are based entirely on logic: there is a limited number of resources on the planet and no individual should be forced to pay for the food and shelter and clothing of a man like Sutcliffe for all of his life.

[claire]

[QUOTE/]”So it's all right to lock them up, treat them worse than dogs, throw them in cages where they will be beaten and raped by other animals, but a clean death, oh no, THAT's degrading? You think prisons are less socially sanctioned violence? The state is forcing them to be there, therefore the state is responsible for anything that happens to them. You think Joran Van der Sloot isn't going to be PRAYING for a clean death?”
[/QUOTE]

Mm. Cos that's not emotive hyperbole. I can almost hear the soapbox creaking.

(sorry, effed up the formatting)

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"Have you noticed that every time you find yourself in a debate that you cannot just walk away from, you blame the other person for your lack of will power? I have posted three posts on this. How many have you posted?"

Three to you - and a number of other posts that I wish you had read before going to war.

"You have either missed the point, or are choosing to evade it. One of your pins for being against the death penalty is that it is state-sanctioned violence. Jail is state sanctioned violence. Therefore you DO condone state sanctioned violence and your argument against the death penalty as state-sanctioned violence is rendered moot."

You do have a flair for simplicity, Iīll give you that! Unless you have noticed it yourself, Ally, there is a built-in difference inbetween these two types of punishments, and that is that those who are subjected to the violence involved in being imprisoned can hold some hope of things getting better, whereas that does not apply to the former category...
Like before, I urge you to read what I have said in my former posts; in this case I have very clearly pointed out that I do NOT approve of jail-related violence. But - as I likewise have pointed out before (and I thought that you did not want me to post too much ...?) - if the alternative to imprisonment is to let people like Sutcliffe walk free, then that is no alternative at all.

The paramount importance that must be pressed in all of this is NOT that we need to take revenge, it is NOT that death penalty is a useful thing and it is NOT that anybody who has lived a righteous life may have a go with a baseball bat at the heads of those who did not. The one parametre that carries true weight here is that we must safeguard the good people in society from the ones who aim to harm them - that is, the Sutcliffes. Now, if jailing such men in an environment that is violent is the only alternative, then letīs jail them in violent environments. If boiling them alive in oil is the only alternative to letting them loose, then letīs boil them in oil. If handing them over to a mob is the only alternative, then so be it, FOR IT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE THAT SOCIETY IS CLEARED OF THEM!
Now, as circumstances will have it, we are not forced to electrocute Sutcliffe in order to keep him away from society. Nor do we have to hand him over to any mob or boil him in oil to reach this - we can simply lock him away. And when we do so, we should try and avoid people having a go at him inside the prison walls, since we ought not provide the those who would love to kill him with an opportunity to kill. It would be completely unethical in every sense, towards the intended killers, towards Sutcliffe and towards ourselves.

"you have not answered on previous threads my question as to why precisely his victims and society at large should be forced to provide him with food and sustenance for the next 90 years? Why should we pay for his continued existence? He will never contribute meaningfully to society again if he remains behind bars. So why exactly should we continue to pay for a life that was a total waste, and will never be productive?"

Because we have a collective responsibility towards all people, no matter how bad they are. If Hitler had not shot himself the same would have applied to him, and if you think I am a friend of his life and ideas, then think again, Ally. And still I say the responsibility is ours, unless we want to go searching for the thin line where we may dispose of anybody who is "not productive". You mentioned earlier that animals kill other animals who do not function, and that such a thing is natures way of pointing out to us that we may do the same with Sutcliffe, since another stance would just be a uselessly emotional one.
But what about the paralyzed? What about the aids victims in the final stages of their disease. What about a rapist? A robber? A shoplifter? A shoplifter with cancer?
WHERE, ALLY, DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Who gets to judge? You? Me? Shall we vote for it, or shall we find a new Ceasar who can send people to death with the aid of his thumb?
We shall pay for Sutcliffes life because we are NOT animals, Ally, and because we recognize that we do not have the right to put other people to death. All other suggestions are primitive.

"Your basis against the death penalty has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily about emotion and how you feel. Which is the opposite of reason and logic. there is no LOGICAL reason for keeping Sutcliffe and his ilk alive. What intelligent reason is there for his continued existence?"

Aha. So all the investigations made, telling us that the death penalty will not stop people from perpetrating crimes that sort under it, are only emotional inlays in the debate? My dismay about the fact that the US has a long tradition of sending afroamericans to their deaths for crimes that white people will get away with with their lives spared, is just an irrational irritation about something unavoidable? The notion that the fact that Italian americans have gone from being the worst criminals in the USA during the 1920:s to being as law-abiding as any other group of foreign based Americans may have had something to do with social factors is just whining about things that donīt matter?
Actually, Ally, since I am the one speaking calmly for the right of every human being to live on in spite of what they have done, whereas you crave Sutcliffes head on a plate, a good deal of posters may be confused by your assertion that I am the emotional one in this debate. It may well seem that you are the one who feels like tearing Sutcliffe to pieces, whereas I am the one who is content with having him locked up.

"My views on the death penalty are based entirely on logic."

Thatīs the strange thing, Ally. You see, I am of the same mind in my case. And we cannot both be correct, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Ally:

But - as I likewise have pointed out before (and I thought that you did not want me to post too much ...?) - if the alternative to imprisonment is to let people like Sutcliffe walk free, then that is no alternative at all.

The alternative to prison is, rather than continuing to house them for 6 decades, during which time they will be subjected to all sorts of "inhumane state sanctioned abuse", they can be put to death cleanly, avoiding financial burden on innocent citizens and avoiding that inhumane treatment they will suffer in jail as well.

The paramount importance that must be pressed in all of this is NOT that we need to take revenge, it is NOT that death penalty is a useful thing and it is NOT that anybody who has lived a righteous life may have a go with a baseball bat at the heads of those who did not.

YOu are the one who keeps talking about revenge. I am not talking about revenge. Peter Sutcliffe has done nothing to me, therefore there is nothing for me to get revenge on. It is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of cause and effect with every action having an equal response. Scientific even.

Because we have a collective responsibility towards all people, no matter how bad they are.

No we don't. To use your argument...says who? Who decides that I have a responsibility to support, feed and house a cold-blooded killer. You do not have the right to decide that I must be FORCED to assume responsibility for someone like him. I don't accept your premise, there is absolutely no reason or logic behind it. It is fallacious. We do not have a collective responsibility towards people who would commit violence against us.

But what about the paralyzed? What about the aids victims in the final stages of their disease. What about a rapist? A robber? A shoplifter? A shoplifter with cancer?
WHERE, ALLY, DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Who gets to judge?

It is very simple where we draw the line. Did the paralyze person murder anyone ? Did the paralyzed person commit violence on someone else? The slippery slope argument is a fallacious one and is always trotted out by those who have no argument that is reasoned. Oh where do we draw the line? It's quite easy. And has been drawn. Murderers can be put to death. A life for a life. Quite simple.

We shall pay for Sutcliffes life because we are NOT animals, Ally, and because we recognize that we do not have the right to put other people to death. All other suggestions are primitive.

No. The suggestion is not primitive. It's logical. What precisely is "primitive" about it? How precisely is feeding and clothing a murderer more "advanced"? What logically makes it a better alternative?

The rest of your post is a long rant about the injustice of the death penalty and why it's so bad and it's biased and blah blah blah, but you completely failed to actually address the question:

What logical reason is there for keeping a murderer alive? What is the benefit to continue to sustain and feed a murderer?

[Natalie Severn]

I have to say I am very grateful to Ally for her robust posts on this matter. I have never considered myself to be pro hanging but I certainly would be delighted if Sutcliffe and Huntley were given an injection to get them out of here!Exactly like I felt over Hindley and Brady.Let them die.They were proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.It doesnt have to be by a primitive hanging ceremony or the electric chair.Just a needle.
And I dont know why anger is considered such a "primitive" emotion or wrong of itself.Who said so and why?
Was it wrong and an "over reaction"when the psychiatric nurses at Chester Hospital fainted and broke down on hearing a nine year old child being tortured? Was this reaction a tad "over the top,then? Wasnt it best that this item of news was suppressed,as it indeed was, because the "innocent" British public had a right to be protected from hearing what this young child endured?They are still protected in fact about the true ghastliness of these crimes---since nobody other than the nurses and those "in camera "in court has ever heard the tapes to this day----so even in death Lesley"s voice is silenced---to protect the public!Tape recordings of a nine year old child pleading for her life as her fingernails were torn out by Hindley? Lesley Ann Downey and the other children had rights too ---yes they had rights.And in death they have rights --for the murder,rape and torture that was carried out on them by Brady and Hindley.Those crimes need to be properly understood for what they were --- the public are entitled to be told the truth not half truths about those crimes . They should not have been hidden away as though they were something done in an abattoir---" best not talked about".And the criminals who did them did not deserve to live and be supported by us.

[caz]

Unfortunately for those who want the death penalty restored here in the UK, it would mean in practical terms that most, if not all murderers would be acquitted - unless juries consisted exclusively of death penalty supporters with complete faith in themselves and the system to convict the right man or woman.

I am not expressing a personal opinion here, just making an observation based on simple statistics. How many juries today would return a unanimous guilty verdict if it meant sending someone to certain death?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"The alternative to prison is ... they can be put to death cleanly"

Not to me, it isnīt. I find the very term revolting, to be honest.

"It is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of cause and effect with every action having an equal response."

An eye for an eye ...? Go back, Ally, in my posts, and you shall see what I say about that.

"Who decides that I have a responsibility to support, feed and house a cold-blooded killer. You do not have the right to decide that I must be FORCED to assume responsibility for someone like him."

...just as you have no right to decide for me that I must be forced to accept having him put to death. It works both ways, Ally, and if you feel hard pressed for the pennies you are asked for to avoid taking part in putting somebody to death, I will merrily pay your part too. It makes me sleep better.

"It is very simple where we draw the line. Did the paralyze person murder anyone ? Did the paralyzed person commit violence on someone else? The slippery slope argument is a fallacious one and is always trotted out by those who have no argument that is reasoned. Oh where do we draw the line? It's quite easy"

What you spoke of was people who did not "contribute to society", Ally, which is why you needed to be faced with the crippled and the sick. They have that self same flaw. As for putting murderers to death, I believe that was what happened to Timothy Evans, was it not? Ended up on the wrong side of that line that is sooo easy to draw, unfortunately.

...but that is just another of those mumbo-jumbo arguments that the squemish always bring up once the death penalty arguers are trying to bring some sense into the debate, is it not? A little loss is something we must learn to live with, right?
But donīt mistake that for any main argument of mine. I firmly believe that we do not have the right to take the life of proven serial killers either.

"What precisely is "primitive" about it?"

Killing people is primitive, Ally. Thatīs how most of us wiew things over here in this "emotional" country. When we see people outside an American jail carrying signs saying "Kill the son of a bitch", "Death to the sack of ****" and "Burn, baby, burn", we do not sit back in awe and exclaim: "How wonderfully logic these people are!" Typically, we say that it is strange that a country like the US, that has raised more Nobel Prize winners than any other country, and that has proven to produce many noteable authors, musicians, politicians etcetera, have not progressed from medieval times when it comes to matters of justice.

"you completely failed to actually address the question:
What logical reason is there for keeping a murderer alive? What is the benefit to continue to sustain and feed a murderer?"

On the contrary, Ally. I have addressed it a good deal of times by now, in a good number of posts. The logic in it lies in passing on to the coming generations that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. The benefit of allowing people the right to live on lies in the good nightsī sleep it will provide.
And if you are of the meaning that teaching people that violence - even deathly violence - is something we need to use to protect ourselves and to save substantial amounts of money, then be my guest! If you say that you would sleep a lot better after having choked Peter Sutcliffe to death, than you would after having been robbed of the tax money he needs to stay alive, then that is a stance I would not take away from you (since I really have no use for it myself).
It just goes to show that we are different in this respect, Ally. You call me a socialist yellowbelly for it, and I call you primitive, and the time may have come to let others decide for themselves who of us is right. Normally, I would have said that you would be in with a good chance, for the simple reason that I am more often than not a great fan of the frankness and honesty you often display on these boards.
...and I am just as certain that you are being honest this time over too, as I am sure that you are simply wrong. Dead wrong, if you see my point.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

...just as you have no right to decide for me that I must be forced to accept having him put to death. It works both ways, Ally, and if you feel hard pressed for the pennies you are asked for to avoid taking part in putting somebody to death, I will merrily pay your part too.

However you being forced to accept costs you nothing. And the state doesnt' give me the right to DECIDE if my money and taxes go to pay for killers. I am forced into it. If only people who chose to support killers were required to do so, then that would be one thing. Your false statement that you would pay my share too is a phony rhetorical throw out since you know full well it doesn't work that way and you will never have to make good on your promise. And it is not that I am hard pressed for my pennies, it is that I have a moral objection to succoring scumbags.

What you spoke of was people who did not "contribute to society", Ally, which is why you needed to be faced with the crippled and the sick.

No. I spoke specifically of murderers condemned to jail for life who would never again contribute to society and we would be forced to pay for their continued existence. I realize you'd like to separate the "murderers condemned to jail for life" because that gives you a slippery slope argument to go off on a tangent with but the fact is I specifically stated murders condemned to jail for life who would never contribute.

Killing people is primitive, Ally. Thatīs how most of us wiew things over here in this "emotional" country.

That's an opinion. I am looking for facts. What precisely is primitive about killing people? What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?

Typically, we say that it is strange that a country like the US, that has raised more Nobel Prize winners than any other country, and that has proven to produce many noteable authors, musicians, politicians etcetera, have not progressed from medieval times when it comes to matters of justice.

That's because we are society of people who believe in striving for the best and dont' sit back and allow our socialist collective to feed, house and brainwash us. Those achievers are people who have been forced to reach for something and not have it handed to them.

But again, you have yet to precisely say what is primitive about it, other than your opinion is that it is so. So I ask again, factually and logically speaking, what is primitive about it?

The logic in it lies in passing on to the coming generations that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence.

A lethal injection is not violent. But you are saying that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. I see. So if a woman is about to be raped, she should just lie back and take it, because to defend herself with violence against an attacker would be wrong? Violence is always wrong?

The benefit of allowing people the right to live on lies in the good nightsī sleep it will provide.

Empty rhetoric. Waht about the nights sleep the victims of their crimes lose, what about when they escape prison and the sleepless nights lost over who they might kill next? See, an easily turned argument because it is based on emotional rhetoric rather than any rational basis.

And if you are of the meaning that teaching people that violence - even deathly violence - is something we need to use to protect ourselves and to save substantial amounts of money, then be my guest!

Yes it's much better that we all lay back and allow ourselves to be raped and murdered rather than we ever engage in nasty violence by defending ourselves with lethal force. yes, let us all be victims because violence is NEVER justified, right?

[Ally]

Unfortunately for those who want the death penalty restored here in the UK, it would mean in practical terms that most, if not all murderers would be acquitted - unless juries consisted exclusively of death penalty supporters with complete faith in themselves and the system to convict the right man or woman.

I am not expressing a personal opinion here, just making an observation based on simple statistics. How many juries today would return a unanimous guilty verdict if it meant sending someone to certain death?

Love,

Caz
X

You know I have been pondering for a while that random juries should be done away with entirely and cases should be tried by a panel of professional jurors. For a variety of reasons. Mostly that most people are too damn dumb to actually weigh the facts of a case and are overly involved in their emotional opinion but also for practical purposes as well.

We have a case about to go to trial here of a woman who stands accused of killing her two year old child. It is a fairly famous case and they are bringing in a jury from OUT OF TOWN that will then be sequestered to prevent "contamination" and defend her right to a "fair trial". Well there are several problems I have with that, the first being, I was living in VA when this case occurred and I heard about it and it was being discussed over there, so how would shipping in a jury from one town over help her, the jury throughout the state and country has been equally contaminated by the news. But moreso, why should anyone have their constitutional right to liberty impinged for six weeks to provide this woman with a jury? Whoever they pick, they are going to be kept away from their friends, their family and lose income for six weeks to provide this woman with a "fair trial". Sorry, but anyone who would want to be on a jury like that is going into it with a biased and ulterior motive no matter what they say on their jury survey. I sincerely doubt that anyone who doesn't get themselves disqualified will be going in with an unbiased mind.

So how is she going to get a "fair trial"?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"Your false statement that you would pay my share too is a phony rhetorical throw out since you know full well it doesn't work that way and you will never have to make good on your promise."

I am not sure what gives you the right to judge my convictions, Ally. But it is obvious that subtlety is not your game. I mean exactly what I say - if I should be forced to take my share of the pro-death penalty arguers unwillingness to pay, then I would take it. Just because it sounds exotic to you, it does not mean that it gives you the right to call me a liar, Iīm afraid.

"I realize you'd like to separate the "murderers condemned to jail for life" because that gives you a slippery slope argument to go off on a tangent..."

I donītĻneed any "slippery slope arguments", Ally. Listen up: I-AM-OPPOSED-TO-TAKING-ANYBODYS-LIFE, I-RESENT-THE DEATH-PENALTY, I-DO-NOT-BELIEVE-THAT-VIOLENCE-WAS-PASSED-DOWN-TO-US-TO-SOLVE-PROBLEMS.
If you think that is "slippery-slope", it will have to stand for you, Iīm afraid.

"I am looking for facts. What precisely is primitive about killing people?"

Right, letīs go looking for facts, then! I would suggest that "primitive" relates to methods of olden days, unsophisticated and unimproved upon. Like, say, killing people to solve problems.
Your turn: How is it unprimitive to kill for justice? When does it become sophisticated? Since we are looking for facts?

"What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?"

Back in the early 1900:s, you were offered money to kill and bring in gypsies in Bavaria, Germany. At one occasion, a proud hunter brought in a dead gipsy woman and her child. He had managed to kill them both with one shot, and was rewarded doubly for his efforts. Howīs that for saving money by killing?
My humble suggestion is that his actions were somewhat more primitive than those of a man who hits a fish over the head. Iīm sure you disagree.

"A lethal injection is not violent."

Perhaps not. But itīs lethal, you see.

"you are saying that violence is not the best way of dealing with violence. I see. So if a woman is about to be raped, she should just lie back and take it, because to defend herself with violence against an attacker would be wrong? Violence is always wrong?"

Donīt force me to be ironic again, Ally..! Remember what I wrote about Sutcliffe - about if the choice was between setting him free or boiling him in oil? The same applies here - letīs take care of the good ones. Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key.

"Waht about the nights sleep the victims of their crimes lose, what about when they escape prison and the sleepless nights lost over who they might kill next?"

I could see that argument coming from a thousand miles away, Ally. Just let me say that if you need me to keep all parts equally happy in this issue, I will fail. Thing is, so will you. Letīs just say that I much prefer people sleeing well because somebody is alive, to people sleeping well because somebody has been put to death. Both ways you cannot have it, Iīm afraid.

"Yes it's much better that we all lay back and allow ourselves to be raped and murdered rather than we ever engage in nasty violence by defending ourselves with lethal force. yes, let us all be victims because violence is NEVER justified, right?"

Eighteen lines up, Ally! Thatīs where you find my answer. And can we please be a little less childish and a little more respectful about each others intelligence henceforth, if we are supposed to do this to death any further?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

donītĻneed any "slippery slope arguments", Ally. Listen up: I-AM-OPPOSED-TO-TAKING-ANYBODYS-LIFE, I-RESENT-THE DEATH-PENALTY, I-DO-NOT-BELIEVE-THAT-VIOLENCE-WAS-PASSED-DOWN-TO-US-TO-SOLVE-PROBLEMS.
If you think that is "slippery-slope", it will have to stand for you, Iīm afraid.

This is why you can't have a reasoned argument with a man. They get all hysterical and start shouting rather than debating. Take a midol.

Right, letīs go looking for facts, then! I would suggest that "primitive" relates to methods of olden days, unsophisticated and unimproved upon. Like, say, killing people to solve problems.

Marriage is a primitive unimproved upon and unsophisticated method of olden days, does that make it bad? Family, is a primitive, unsophisticated thing of olden days, does that make it bad? The notions of society, law, justice, ,...etc. all primitive concepts from long ago, that are from the olden days, are basic. Doesn't make them bad. Therefore your accusation that the death penalty is primitive, is not a good one. Many, many things that exist in society today are old. Doesn't make them bad.

Your turn: How is it unprimitive to kill for justice? When does it become sophisticated? Since we are looking for facts?

It became sophisticated when we no longer do it in the most brutal manner possible. We aren't killing people by tying them to four horses and pulling them apart. The method has been vastly improved upon and is in fact much more sophisticated means of disposing of those who are deserving of disposal.

"What makes killing people any more or less primitive than killing a cow or a fish?"

Back in the early 1900:s, you were offered money to kill and bring in gypsies in Bavaria, Germany. At one occasion, a proud hunter brought in a dead gipsy woman and her child. He had managed to kill them both with one shot, and was rewarded doubly for his efforts. Howīs that for saving money by killing?
My humble suggestion is that his actions were somewhat more primitive than those of a man who hits a fish over the head. Iīm sure you disagree.

A nice story. And the introduction of the image of the poor dead child was especially emotive. Perhaps you were seeking to deflect from the obvious that you didn't answer my question.

How is it is more primitive to kill Peter Sutcliffe than a fish or a cow?

"A lethal injection is not violent."

Perhaps not. But itīs lethal, you see.

Yes but you were making a statement about violence, you see. So use the words you mean.

Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key.

You said you wanted to teach the children that violence is not best met with violence but then you just agreed that there is justifiable violence. So you believe in justifiable violence but you want to draw the line at where it occurs. You ask me who makes the determination of who gets killed, but you seem to feel perfectly comfortable drawing that same line of when you think it's fine to kill someone. You do see yourself as being fit to pass the verdict on someone's life and when it can be taken, contrary to what you posted. So it's not so much about teaching the children that violence is wrong, it's that violence is only acceptable in the circumstances you deem it's acceptable?

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"This is why you can't have a reasoned argument with a man. They get all hysterical and start shouting rather than debating."

Hahaha! Thatīs the first really useful argument you have presented so far!

"Marriage is a primitive unimproved upon and unsophisticated method of olden days, does that make it bad?"

Whose marriage are we speaking of? Mine?

"Many, many things that exist in society today are old. Doesn't make them bad. "

You are correct there, Ally. But I do feel that when the wooden stick that was used to wipe your ass was replaced by toilet paper, it was an improvement.

"A nice story. And the introduction of the image of the poor dead child was especially emotive. Perhaps you were seeking to deflect from the obvious that you didn't answer my question."

You mean in the same fashion that you draw on the tears and anxiety of the relatives of murder victims to gain sympathy? Well, at least you did not suggest that it was a false story!
And to be honest, what I tried to do was to point to how primitive rules and norms may change over time. They have stopped shooting Gypsies in Bavarias forests now, as far as I know. I also provided the story as an answer to your question: "How is it is more primitive to kill Peter Sutcliffe than a fish or a cow?" - but you missed out on that.

"use the words you mean"

I do - a lethal injection IS lethal. I mean it.

"You said you wanted to teach the children that violence is not best met with violence but then you just agreed that there is justifiable violence."

Yes. Does that present you with some sort of an enigma? Iīll straighten it out for you: If you can solve a problem without resorting to violence, then do so. If you cannot, but are instead forced to use violence in self-defence, then do so.

"You ask me who makes the determination of who gets killed, but you seem to feel perfectly comfortable drawing that same line of when you think it's fine to kill someone. You do see yourself as being fit to pass the verdict on someone's life and when it can be taken, contrary to what you posted. So it's not so much about teaching the children that violence is wrong, it's that violence is only acceptable in the circumstances you deem it's acceptable?"

Here she goes again ...! And to think that I just asked you to show some respect for each others intelligence!
I have already provided the answer to this, Ally, as you well know. So if you donīt mind, Iīll just quote from my former post:
"Self-defence violence is justifiable. But putting people to death is not self-defence violence other than in a very distant meaning. And the defense it could provide can just as easily be provided by a lock and a key."
So, if you are attacked and if you are convinced that it is either your attackers life or yours, then the better outcome is that the attacker dies.
But you, Ally, have not been attacked by Peter Sutcliffe, have you? And consequentially, for you to put him to death would not be an act of self-defence. Nor would it be necessary to prevent him from killing again, since he is already jailed.

Iīm sure, Ally, that you can think up another way of twisting my arguments to make them sound like something I never meant, just as I am sure that you would not hesitate to put words in my mouth once more. I do not, however, think that it would be a clever thing to do. And whatever else you may be, unclever is not one of them things. So how about agreeing on disagreeing? Iīm prepared to let you get away with a narrow loss ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. The fact is, you have not provided a single logical, rational basis against the death penalty. It's all about how you feel. You believe it's wrong, and therefore nothing else will matter. It is always thus arguing with people of belief, whether it be religion or the death penalty or what-have-you. Logic never stands a chance against what people "feel" is true.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree."

...but you just could not let it rest like that, could you? So okay, Iīll offer my own end to the discussion:

"Logic never stands a chance against what people "feel" is true."

Wrong. Logic always must be the number one guide. But history is riddled with people who have imposed their "logic" on others, only to find out that it was not very useful. Logically, a bumble bee cannot fly since itīs construction will not allow for it, according to the Chalmers High School of Technics, Gothenburg. Luckily, nobody told the bumble bee about it.

Thanks for the exchange, Ally! See you out there some time!

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

But you, Ally, have not been attacked by Peter Sutcliffe, have you? And consequentially, for you to put him to death would not be an act of self-defence. Nor would it be necessary to prevent him from killing again, since he is already jailed

Women in Leeds came out in droves to demonstrate over Peter Sutcliffe's long reign of terror and the fact they lived in fear of their lives.They believed,correctly that they had a right to walk the streets at night,to get on and off buses without the fear of Sutcliffe jumping out from nowhere with a hammer in his hand bludgeoning them to death because they were women.

While this crafty villain is still alive ,there will always be the possibility that he will get round a warder,as Hindley did, and plot his escape.Its exactly what he is doing now.I think its also what Ian Huntley is up to,in my opinion.He wants Ģ100,000 now ,as compensation.I dont believe it.He wants Ģ100,000 to use it try to bribe his way out of jail so he can murder more children.

One thing I want to ask you Fisherman is this -perhaps you do not realise it to be fair to you , but you have actually upset another poster on here a great deal, who tried to describe the devastation a violation that took place in his young life had on him,and why he feels so sickened by Sutcliffe"s latest move.Why Fisherman, did you feel in a position to so judge his reaction and quite aggressively at that?
And tonight you continue to make all these "pronouncements" about how people who have been attacked should be treated or how they should feel---and from what personal experience of such attacks do you speak? Do you feel somehow that your opinion is superior to those who have suffered at the hands of rapists and murderes? Do you feel you know better than them?
I am sure you are a good person and are trying to be fair and just but actually you have been acting quite insensitively frankly.
Norma