What margin of error is acceptable to you in applying the death penalty?

Xenophobic drivel. To quote my countryman Tom Paine, the man who practically invented the United States of America: "the world is my country, to do good is my religion". I actually come from the land that invented American liberty, which is England, home of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the English revoltionists like John Lilburne whose demands and manifestos gave birth to the US Constitution. Liberty is a concept that was made in Europe, that resulted in Charles and Louis losing their heads, and is very much alive and well in our European democracies today.

The slander and lie that only Americans understand "freedom" is part of the new American fascism which threatens global freedom today. This is a long way from the generous and universal America, the "cause of all mankind" that Paine talked about, that fought alongside us against tyranny in the twentieth century. It is an ugly, grubby mean-spirited America that calls its inferiority complex "exceptionalism". Such a childish and idiotic abuse of foreigners is the weakest of reasoning and is only a surrender, and an admission that you the person resorting such such xenophobia has truly lost the argument. It is usually accompanied by a collosal ignorance of American history by such American "exceptionalists". Such exceptionalism tends to only apply to an exceptional ignorance of the concept of liberty, its roots, history, struggle and relevance to the world today.

It's good that there are still two Americas. But the nasty, hateful bullying America gets stronger every day.

 

Actually I probably agree with you that a lack of gun control contributes more to the US homicide rate than the presence of the death penalty. I was just pointing out though that countries that have abolished thye death penalty have lower homicide rates so if it is supposed to act as a deterrent, that is hard to see, especially as those countries also have lower homicide rates than when they had the death penalty (although increased press coverage often makes that seem not to be so).

In the UK you cannot even buy a handgun with a licence. I have no idea how to buy a gun - as far as I am aware I could buy a hunting gun if I had a police permit. It is very difficult to buy a gun. Hardly anyone has one. the only time I have ever even handled a gun has been at friends houses in the US where the weapons were not even stored securely. The contrast couldn't be greater, although I think in the US there is more opportunity to hunt, and so guns are more appropriate than in the UK.

Back in 1776 it would have been right to arm the citizenry of England and every country. The right to bear arms is part of the story of American and therefore global liberty. But that is gone now. No armed citizenry today could really defend itself from the standing armies that exist in the USA and other democracies. We need other safeguards and have developed civil institutions and the rule of law much more since 1776. English liberty does not depend on the right of a freeborn Englishman to bear arms, and neither does American liberty. It's right wing, macho, testosterone charged bollocks. Civilized countries have gun control or they have barbarism. In this sense the USA is a barbaric country. But I do sympathize to this extent with Americans - it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. People want a gun to feel secure (even if all the evidnece shows that it makes them less secure). How Americans get themselves out of the mess they are in with massive gun crime is a tough question to answer. It's probably not the topic of this thread.

 

European democracy? Before the USA? That’s an oxymoron, and there never was such a thing.



Thomas Paine was a propagandist set on the separation of the European monarchy, to establish a free nation based on freedom appreciated by the land owner as well as the common man. Following the English model would have never created the USA. European arrogance at it’s finest.



If they are proven beyond doubt to have committed a heinous crime of 'murder', needs to be removed from existence. If it is a circumstantial case, then life should be the sentence, leaving room for a dismissal if other evidence proves innocents. JMHO, seen nothing to change that opinion.

 

You are dead wrong. The persons that want our second amendment taken away the most are the criminals. Numbers do not lie.

"Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/g...pite-increase-in-gun-ownership/#ixzz22UiTQcNA

 

Isn't it odd that Conservatives believe that government cannot do anything well except execute criminals? And when it comes to executions, the government is suddenly infallible!

 

Is that what Conservatives believe?

 

That's the perspective I get! Feed the poor? Nope! Government is too inefficient. House the homeless? Too much bureaucracy and a poor allocation of funds! Ask Conservatives what government does well. Other than execute criminals and bomb brown people for their resources, the answers will be few.

 

I once supported the death penalty then moved on to use it sparingly but now I say no , just lock them up forever !

 

Is there any way a moderator can edit my poll to include the option of 1%?

 

I can read thank you, sorry if you're coming with trash talk bring a slicker you might get some trash on ya..

 

Don't forget the rest of that statement.

Killing a guilty person within our justice system YES.

 

So innocent people gets killed and their families and friends ask for stricter gun control somebody brings up the Constitution.
They ask for justice somebody brings up the bible.

Meanwhile more innocent people die while their killers make plead deals with lawyers.and either go to jail or are released in 1 to 5???

 

Here again, this thread is not about killing the guilty.

It is about mistakenly killing the innocent and whether or not it is acceptable.

 

These things that you mention are not "Conservative" principles at all. Can you be more specific as to who said them and when?

 

this site is so slow.... (double post)

 

You worry about an innocent person being killed by a mistake.
I worry about a guilty person getting off or going fee by mistake.

Meanwhile innocent people get killed while their killers got a second chance.
I remind you ,sir the victims get no second chance

 

You worry more about the guilty than the innocent. Got it.

 

To make such a dismissal so cursorily really shows a lack of interest and knowledge of the history of democracy. Democracy comes from Ancient Greece which was in Europe. Jefferson, Jackson, Washington et al, would have acknowledged that.

Democracy to you was invented in 1776? You imply (which is what a lot of right wing Americans believe, oblivious to truth and history concerning the matter), that the Founding Fathers delivered democracy and you have had the same thing ever since. This of course is bollocks.

What sort of democracy was that that excluded women, black people and demanded a property qualification to allow a man to vote? By today's standards it was no democracy at all. By the standards of the day it was a modest improvement on English democracy. At the time Britain was very much electing representatives in England who were hostile to the government and the King and which limited and curtailed the powers of the Executive (for centuries before 1776 every English King had to ask Parliament to approve the raising of taxes on the people), some of whom spoke out for their comrades in the colonies and their Revolution. The King couldn't touch them.

American democracy was modeled on the bicameral British system with the separation of powers which is central to the British system of government. It of course improved the British system by removing the influence of the aristocracy and monarchy but the power of such groups had been waning for centuries and was in decline. The ideas to improve such a system came from Europe, from the Scottish, English and French Enlightenments and from the English Whig tradition. This, is history. Americans should learn it.

Do you make this a some sort of argument? Some sort of clincher? Is this supposed to refute something I said? Or did you just find this on the web so you could regurgitate it?

Thomas Paine was an Englishman. His ideas follow the traditions of English liberty and are in the tradition of the long English struggle with the monarchy that goes back to 1066 in England. "Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it", said Paine, deeply aware of the historical legacy which he progressed. He was the man who united the thirteen colonies behind the call for independence, colonies that a couple of years before had no particular desire for separation from the Mother Country. He stands in the long line of English radicals which, with help from French revolutionaries, gave the modern world democracy again.

So which model was followed then?

England had an Executive, a Legislature and a Judiciary. America has an Executive, a Legislature and a Judicary? This is know as the "separation of powers" in the USA. Do you think you invented it?

England has a bicaeral system of parliament. The USA has a bicameral system of parliament. The same model, better executed in the USA but the same nonetheless.

England had two political parties: Whigs and Tories. America has....? I think for a time America even had a political party called the Whigs?

England had representatives that were elected, but certainly not by the whole people. In 1776, America had a democracy where black people, women and people without land could not vote? By the way, in England black people were always allowed to vote if they could meet other qualifications.

England has a system called "English common law". America has a legal system based on English common law. THE SCOTUS has cited precedent from English judges.

England rebeled against its king and executed him in 1649 becoming a republic. The USA rebeled in 1776 becoming a republic.

Americans need to read their history. The USA took the best aspects of the English system of government and improved on them. Without the tradition of English liberty that had been growing in England for five centuries, there would have been no USA.

No European nation talks about itself as "exceptional". Each sees itsefl as part of a family of nations. Not the USA. It is very clear where the arrogance lies today.

It is indeed arrogant for the USA to see itself as a bastion of liberty when it did not fully enfranchise black people untuil the 1960s. In 1772 English courts moved against slavery which was finally abolished in 1807. It was said that "the air of England is too pure for any slave to breathe" as the Royal Navy conducted regular military and naval campaigns against American slavers.

This is a "because I say so" argument. It is therefore worthless.

 

You are all over the place here.

I think I was agreeingt with you about gun control. But you don't seem to want me to agree?

As to the Bible, I only say it should be important to those who profess to believe in it. It is not an argument that should be used with non believers, only "Christians" who demonstrate hypocrisy when they support the death penalty.

You're final point can only be interpreted as saying that the DP is a deterrent. There has never been any evidence of this. In fact all the evidence points tot he fact that those countries where violence is not used as a method of State power, have less violent crime.

 

You attack the USA for being arrogant yet your post exudes arrogance, several degrees higher than every US citizen I can think of other than possibly Donald Trump. All this babbling says nothing about the topic at hand. Everything I said was true, most of what you say is true, neither cancels out the other.


The USA was the first democratic/republic, that allowed all free men to participate in government, not just the rich/elite demigod.


Yes it took a while for blacks and women to be included but attitudes had to be changed. It was 1873 before England fully grasped the concept of completely outlawing the practice of slavery, it only took them 30 years to finally get it right, almost 10 years after the USA accepted the emancipations proclamation, with a three year period of convincing the rest of the country it was the right thing to do.


And yes any school kid should know Greece created the first democracy where rich/elites ruled over the peasants and their slaves rather than just one rich/elite monarchist ruling even the other demigods, but what do you know England was still ruled by a king or queen until when was that again?


Claiming England had separate branches of government which made it a democracy while under monarchy rule is like saying a communist dictatorship is a democracy because the subjects are allowed to vote for the one and only true leader from time to time.


My opinion isn't a "because I say so" argument. It is as it was offered an opinion. You have a right to your opinion as well, no matter how wrong it is.

 

The innocent can make no deals for freedom the guilty can.
The guilty should be punished with the upmost of the law .
Let the punishment fit the crime.

 

First of all as for the bible I have faith in God not men, not churches but God.
Second unless you are going to be cherry picking the Bible had an insedent called Sodom and Gomora ever here of it , ever here of Cain and Able and Cain's punishment, or the great flood , Noah's ark.
Perhaps another phrase the Wrath of God.
God gave humans FREE WILL, killing innocent people is not a good way letting the guilty goet by with it is worce.

Second of all are we outsourcing laws now ?
What is this , are we to base are government, our judicial system on what happens in another country?

As for the good gun control has done in America one word Wisconsin,another word Denver, need I go on?

 

"Let the punishment fit the crime" --> Even if the person is not guilty. Got it.

 

Gun control laws are not going to save you in a situation like Wisconsin or Aurora. Especially when you have multiple shooters, like there was in Wisconsin and Aurora. The only thing that might save you is a 38 tucked under your arm.

Don't disarm honest law a bidding citizens like me who aren't afraid to defend the innocent and the cowardly.

 

An innocent person sentenced to die is a victim too.

If we all had the chance to be armed, there would be a whole lot less victims. Don't be a victim. Sir.