Cregan only has one so it may even it up.

I honestly didn't think there was an argument in the world that could persuade me to support the death penalty, but you seem to have found one

I'm still waiting for Dally to explain why murdering Mr Plod is more worthy of state sponsored murder than - for example - the killing of a scientist?

1. No.
2. See 1 above.
3. Drinking alcohol is not illegal, taking drugs is. A mentally ill person is deemed not to murder.

Are you an imbecile? Police officers could be murdered whilst off duty by someone not aware they were a police officer.

What about plain clothes police officers? If you murdered one of those you could argue you didn't know they were a police officer or on duty. I presume you would want the perpetrator executed whereas if he topped the self same officer five minutes after he clocked off (unaware they were a police officer due to the plain clothes) its just life?

or a retired copper, or if a copper killed a copper?

what about if a traffic cop got killed by a member of MI6?

the thought that someone choosing a profession makes them a more worthwhile person abhors me.

what if a Vicar shot a copper for having an affair with his wife, who was QC?

it's bat lunacy, again.

Spot on.

maybe we should let the Yorkshire Ripper out, he "only" murdered prostitutes afterall?

Not strictly true.

But thats probably why West Yorks Police didn't persue him too hard in the 1970s, until he started the 80s off with "decent" girls.

For someone to be found guilty of murder, it has to be shown that they acted 'with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm'. I'd say that constituted being premeditated.



See 1 above.



What difference does it make if the drug is illegal. Your reason for executing the addicts was 'persistent criminality', so why not execute 'persistently criminal' alcoholics, too? That's before we even examine the reasons a person might be addicted to Class A drugs. Heroin, to take one example, is addictive from the first use. There are any number of reasons a person might take that first hit, and after that, they're a slave to the drug. Are you really suggesting we should execute people for making one dumb choice that results in their addiction to heroin?



But you never mentioned murder in your third point. You said 'persistent criminality as a result of Class A drug use'. If a person with mental illness behaves in a criminal manner, we (should) try to offer treatment for their illness and help to integrate back into society, not stick them in an electric chair. Surely the same consideration should be offered to drug addicts?

Jerry Chicken makes a good answer on this.

While I get what you're saying about a profession, don't you do basically the samething on here day after day like your attitude to benefit claimants, basically saying you are a more worthwhile person by not having kids than a person who has kids and claims benefits for them or benefit claimants who are not as worthwhile as you because they claim from the state and you don't???????

As someone who is NOT advocating differential murder sentences, it is still fair to point out that there is an obvious difference between some deaths, which is that most people are not killed as a consequence of deliberately putting themselves in harm's way to protect you and me. Most of us would, I think, choose not to enter a money shop where a robbery is taking place, as did PC Sharon Beshenivsky; who would guarantee that they would not flee for safety, instead of rescuing injured comrades ignoring personal risk of death, like Private Beharry? Who would have the bottle to wade in to protect a pupil from a notorious gang with weapons, which they were using, as did headmaster Philip Lawrence? Who can guarantee that they would not jump the hell off a burning aeroplane, rather than stay on it to get as many passengers off as you could, as did Sharon Ford and Jacqui Urbanski when they lost their own lives in the Manchester Airport incident in 1985?

Someone who is prepared to risk their own life to help others has always been considered special, and in my book, is.

Well said FA.

Of course they're special, but they're no more special than, say, the scientist who maybe wouldn't run into a burning building, but who has found a breakthrough treatment for cancer. To me, both are equally special in different ways. The idea that one death is more tragic than another, or that some murders are worthy of a more serious punishment based solely on who was murdered, seems inherently flawed to me. I appreciate that wasn't your argument, but, just saying.

You could add to that argument, the person who can't run into the burning building, because they're in a wheelchair or are 82.

Do age or disability mean that people become less special?

Yes, but that is not pre-meditated murder now is it? Contrast with the requirement to intend to kill (not "just" a bit of GBH) in the offence of attempted murder.

Well, yes. If you act deliberately to cause someone serious injury [iknowing[/i that your actions might kill them, it is premeditated murder. The act itself is premeditated and you undertake that act knowing that death is a possible outcome.

Are you seriously saying that if I deliberately drive my car at someone intending to kill them I should hang, but if I deliberately drive my car at someone just intending to cripple them but killing them in the process, I shouldn't? That's weird, even for you.

Bring back hanging for tautology

It should depend who the person you drove said car at was IMO

That's a quite brilliant piece of twisted logic, but it spectacularly misses the point. Prior to running into the burning building to save your ass, the rescuer might have been an axe-murderer, or a serial paedophile. the act does not redefine their entire past and future myriad of actions and choices as 'special'. To you, subjectively, and indeed objectively, they would surely be 'special', as they had no need to risk their life to save yours.

In this discussion, the NY firemen who ran up the burning Twin Towers were to a man=#FFFFFF* 'special' for doing that, clearly they knew there was a huge risk they would never make it out. Did any of them beat their wives or cheat their tax? I don't know. Is it relevant to the point? No. But it is a major point to be weighed in the balance if you were considering how special they were, overall, as a human being. =#FFFFFF* or woman

Stephen Hawking is no less special than he ever was for not having run up the Twin Towers, but even if he's sure he would have done it if he could, that belief doesn't make him objectively more special. Whereas what he has achieved in his life, and against massive odds, does.

Are you perhaps confusing the right to life with this issue? Every human has the same equal right to their life. That is the whole point of arguments against the death penalty. Myra Hindley was not a special human being, but an evil barstard who deserved to die in jail. Nelson Mandela is a special human being. As a human being he is infinitely more special than Hindley. That is so, even though they had the same equal right to life. It's their choice of what they do with it that differentiates between them.

Perhaps I was confusing it with the subject of this thread.

Instead of setting the bar for 'what and who deserves the death penalty' what are people's thoughts on judges being given the power to sentence it?

In my opinion the people who want the death sentence are making that decision on the back of a knee jerk reaction due to frustration at the cushy prisons and sentences handed out probably due to over crowded jails.

Maybe if we built a few more jails (floating prisons even) and dished out harsher sentences then maybe this question/demand on the death penalty might go away.

[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.htmlOr ...[/url