Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Good post PZ547. What about the list for the DP?: murderers rapists thieves pedophiles terrorists Are there any more offences that we should add to the list?

Thanks FD for starting part 2 of the thread.

I've got a little list  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLV24qTnlg

What happened to the initial Thread?

:-?

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

What happened to the initial Thread? :-?

It was locked because the pages wouldn't flip properly.

Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence.

Longloser is worse than a politician at answering questions.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence.

as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Good post PZ547. What about the list for the DP?: murderers rapists thieves pedophiles terrorists Are there any more offences that we should add to the list?

homosexuality
wasting time
jay walking
speeding
swearing
nose picking

how's that sound?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 8:11pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Good post PZ547. What about the list for the DP?: murderers rapists thieves pedophiles terrorists Are there any more offences that we should add to the list? homosexuality wasting time jay walking speeding swearing nose picking how's that sound?

No Longy - all those extra offences are too minor except maybe poofter-sexuality.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person.

inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short.

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:20am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short.

Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness.

This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too.

Yes BigOl,
Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty.

What about Adrian Ernest Bayley, the man guilty of the rape and murder of Jill Meagher?

If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive.

Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too.

firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused.

Was Adrian Ernest Bayley wrongly accused?

Maybe Longy would like him to get another good behavior bond?

If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive.

Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused.

I never stated that I "simply want to kill people", so that would be another lie.

I countered your bullsh1t excuse for 'wrongly accused', so that is yet another lie.

Without the ability to lie at every turn you have nothing to say at all.


I can see why you do it, your position is weak and your argument flawed.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:48am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused. Was Adrian Ernest Bayley wrongly accused? Maybe Longy would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

If Longy was a judge most criminals would get good behavior bonds.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.

this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused.

You lie and make up statistics normalising and  defending pedophiles.

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:48am: firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused. You lie and make up statistics normalising and  defending pedophiles.

Longy does do that.
It must really hurt him that the churches he loves so much are full of pedophiles.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty.

It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty.

Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes.

It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment.

Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country.

What about Adrian Ernest Bayley?

Would like him to get another good behavior bond?

If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive.

Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes.

It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:48am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused. Was Adrian Ernest Bayley wrongly accused? Maybe Longy would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

plus look at all of the money tax payers would have saved ;)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond?

No.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment.

How else could you have saved those 22 women?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:50am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:48am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused. Was Adrian Ernest Bayley wrongly accused? Maybe Longy would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? plus look at all of the money tax payers would have saved ;)

The Death Penalty is more expensive than Life Without Parole.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women?

Life Without Parole.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole.

No one would ever get that for rape under our system.
A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence.
The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one
shows that your ideas don't work.

A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole. No one would ever get that for rape under our system. A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence. The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one shows that your ideas don't work. A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick.

Change the system.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole.

how about NO Life without parole ??

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole. No one would ever get that for rape under our system. A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence. The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one shows that your ideas don't work. A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick. Change the system.

yep change the system and introduce the death penalty for those that can't be rehabilitated !!

They are faulty goods and should be discarded  !!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole. No one would ever get that for rape under our system. A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence. The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one shows that your ideas don't work. A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick. Change the system.

I agree - the mandatory death penalty on the 2nd conviction for rape

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:42am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole. No one would ever get that for rape under our system. A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence. The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one shows that your ideas don't work. A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick. Change the system. I agree - the mandatory death penalty on the 2nd conviction for rape

Can't agree with you there bobby.

I'm against premeditated state-sanctioned killing, and I'm also against mandatory sentencing.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Too nice a day to be discussing this anyway.

I'm off to enjoy the sunshine (and food, and wine) in the wonderful Swan Valley.

Have a good day bobby.

Greggery,
Can't agree with you there bobby.

Quote:

I'm against premeditated state-sanctioned killing, and I'm also against mandatory sentencing. We'll have to agree to disagree. Too nice a day to be discussing this anyway. I'm off to enjoy the sunshine (and food, and wine) in the wonderful Swan Valley. Have a good day bobby.

It is a nice day.
We'll discuss it another time.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. Yes BigOl, Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley, the man guilty of the rape and murder of Jill Meagher? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society?

so shoudl we have hanged Lindy Chamberlain???

oh thats right.... she was innocent.  would you have even cared?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:48am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:23am: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. as several people have already said, it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  You have shown your integrity by refusing to accept the Singapore law Society's article on Singapore law.  You quite clearly only ever accept evidence - even ridiculous blog claims - if they agree with your own opinion.  It would be like casting our pearls before swine.  You are a stupid person. inability to supply any factual information noted. i.e. you are a lair. Henceforth you shall be known as Long Liar, or Liar for short. Longy has a somewhat hollow but seemingly rational argument to not execute anyone, until you present an actual valid counter argument then his unravels pretty rapidly and he slinks off into the darkness. This has occurred on many, many occasions and always with the same outcome. Mind you it did last longer with his new 'reach around' partner greg constantly agreeing with everything he said. But greg is as weak as p1ss too. firstly greg and I agree on this one topic and disagree on everything else.  and there is absolutely nothing even REMOTELY rational and logical about your position. you simply want to kill people and thik the DP gives your bloodlust some validity.  you dont even care for the wrongly accused. I never stated that I "simply want to kill people", so that would be another lie. I countered your bullsh1t excuse for 'wrongly accused', so that is yet another lie. Without the ability to lie at every turn you have nothing to say at all. I can see why you do it, your position is weak and your argument flawed.

what other reason could there possibly be fore your bloodlust? you DO want to kill. thats why you support the death penatly but have little interest in he crimes or the innocence of some that are convicted.

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 10:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway.

ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it.

so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time.

What about Adrian Ernest Bayley?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:45am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:42am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:37am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:34am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:33am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 11:30am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 9:27am: Longy thinks that no one deserves such a penalty. It's not a case of anyone "deserving" such a penalty. Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. Thankfully we do live in such a society and it's reassuring to know that barbaric practices such as capital punishment will never be reintroduced in this country. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? Would like him to get another good behavior bond? If he was hanged after the first rape then 22 other women would have been saved from being raped & Jill would still be alive. Surely his early hanging would have done a great service for our society? Introducing particular cases and names to the debate is irrelevant.  It's about the death penalty, not the crimes. It's a case of us wanting to live in a civilised society that does not use premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a punishment. How else could you have saved those 22 women? Life Without Parole. No one would ever get that for rape under our system. A good behavior bond would be the normal sentence. The fact that he could rape 22 women & then kill the last one shows that your ideas don't work. A $5  piece of rope would have done the trick. Change the system. I agree - the mandatory death penalty on the 2nd conviction for rape Can't agree with you there bobby. I'm against premeditated state-sanctioned killing, and I'm also against mandatory sentencing. We'll have to agree to disagree. Too nice a day to be discussing this anyway. I'm off to enjoy the sunshine (and food, and wine) in the wonderful Swan Valley. Have a good day bobby.

mandatory sentencing is daft and one of the reasons for that ios the vast range of offences under the title 'rape'.  Rape at its lowest level is sticking your FINGER in someones mouth with their consent.  you might want to redefine your word 'rape' better than that or better still allow a judge to asses the level of the crime.  Funnily enough, that is exactly what we have now where some sum gets 55 years for rape while another gets a bond.  ever wondered why??? perhaps because the offences bore virtually nothing in common?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley?

\

what about him?  as you have been told plenty of times, this is a discussion about the DP not one particular offence. if you cant move beyond thinking-by-example to thinking-by-principle then you will not add anything to this debate.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? \ what about him?  as you have been told plenty of times, this is a discussion about the DP not one particular offence. if you cant move beyond thinking-by-example to thinking-by-principle then you will not add anything to this debate.

Longy,
you'd be the type of judge that criminals would love.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

what other reason could there possibly be fore your bloodlust? you DO want to kill. thats why you support the death penatly but have little interest in he crimes or the innocence of some that are convicted.

My blood-lust?  ;D  ;D  ;D Are you fvcken serious?


You have the debating skills of a teenage girl at a One Direction concert, how about you calm the bugger down and debate like an adult male for a change


I have already answer this false accusation, while you were on the board, so if you want to feign innocent ignorance as to what I wrote I'm more than happy to find it an re-post it here.

But for bugger sake grow a set will ya, you're embarrassing the entire male population with your over the top emotional argument.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:35pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? \ what about him?  as you have been told plenty of times, this is a discussion about the DP not one particular offence. if you cant move beyond thinking-by-example to thinking-by-principle then you will not add anything to this debate. Longy, you'd be the type of judge that criminals would love.

not at all. I would probably be slightly harder than average.  You seem to think because a person opposes the DP on principle that makes them soft on crime.  Not at all.  I am in favour of options that actually work and it has been shown categorically that the DP does not work and in fact slightly increases violent crime.  This is one of the reasons judges and other law offices generally dont support the DP because they KNOW it doesnt work,

Longy,
you're another one like your mate BigOl who needs some time in
the army to be sorted out with some reality from a drill Sergeant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc62jD-G0o

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:25pm: what other reason could there possibly be fore your bloodlust? you DO want to kill. thats why you support the death penatly but have little interest in he crimes or the innocence of some that are convicted. My blood-lust?  ;D  ;D  ;D Are you fvcken serious? You have the debating skills of a teenage girl at a One Direction concert, how about you calm the bugger down and debate like an adult male for a change I have already answer this false accusation, while you were on the board, so if you want to feign innocent ignorance as to what I wrote I'm more than happy to find it an re-post it here. But for bugger sake grow a set will ya, you're embarrassing the entire male population with your over the top emotional argument.

I have made the accusation that virtually ALL supporters of the DP are merely lusting after blood and death, wanting someone to die because of their own feelings of inadequacy or powerlessness. I do not make that comment lightly or without significant proof.

I have repeatedly asked supporters of the DP to make a coherent case for their argument and they have repeatedly failed to do so. It is not a coherent argument to say if someone was executed they would never offend again. That is to argue for applying a penalty BEFORE an offence is committed and one would hope no one supports that.   You cant say the DP works in reducing crime because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

But the major point I make in calling DP supporters 'bloodlusters' is their almost unanimous disinterest in the wrongly convicted and executed. Most can barely rate any interest in the problems of the innocent being executed.  Most seem more than willing to accept this as long as 'everyone tries real hard'.  You have said the same.

Now if you are anyone else wishes to make an intelligent case for the DP based on facts and principles then go ahead.  In the meantime I will stick with my belief that supporters of such are simply out for blood.  I have seen no evidence to the contrary here.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? \ what about him?  as you have been told plenty of times, this is a discussion about the DP not one particular offence. if you cant move beyond thinking-by-example to thinking-by-principle then you will not add anything to this debate.

you just don't want to see your churchy pedo mates get executed which is what they deserve after ruining so many lives ;)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Longy, you're another one like your mate BigOl who needs some time in the army to be sorted out with some reality from a drill Sergeant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc62jD-G0o

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:35pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:51pm: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24pm: Still waiting for Longfraud to show his evidence. it is pointless to show evidence of any kind on any topic to you.  this is a well worn excuse used by many of the neo cons whenever they make up facts. Pathetic ... either put up evidence or shut up .... don't try to pretend you are being practical by not putting up evidence, only you idiots would ever believe it anyway. ian is not the average bozo.  When shown 74 studies that conclude that the DP is not a deterrent he said they were wrong.  When shown an articl from the Singapre Law Society about Singaprean law he simply rejected it. so why would anyone bother showing him evidence since he will unilaterally reject anything he likes. Even you dont do that most of the time. What about Adrian Ernest Bayley? \ what about him?  as you have been told plenty of times, this is a discussion about the DP not one particular offence. if you cant move beyond thinking-by-example to thinking-by-principle then you will not add anything to this debate. you just don't want to see your churchy pedo mates get executed which is what they deserve after ruining so many lives ;)

case in point about the blood-lusting and idiotic pro-DP argument

Hi Longy,
he'll be looked after in prison with your taxpayers money:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adrian-ernest-bayley-needs-protection-from-other-inmates/story-e6frg6nf-1226666914906



Quote:

Adrian Ernest Bayley 'needs protection' from other inmates  From:  AAP  June 20, 2013 2:29PM     AUTHORITIES will find a prison where convicted killer Adrian Ernest Bayley can best be protected from other inmates, the head of Corrections Victoria says.    Bayley was yesterday sentenced to life behind bars, with a non-parole period of 35 years, for the rape and murder of Jill Meagher in Brunswick last year. Corrections Victoria Commissioner Jan Shuard said Bayley was still going through a thorough assessment, which would look at his need to be sheltered from other inmates. "That assessment will look at the gravity and nature of their offender," she told reporters in Melbourne today. "The prison community like the broader community will be distressed at the horrific nature of this offence and we have to take that into account to ensure we provide a safe environment for all our prisoners." Victorian Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle said the combination of rape and murder was particularly heinous, made worse by Bayley's attempt to conceal the body and the fact he was on parole and bail at the time. "You dragged her off the street late at night while she was going peaceably about her own business within a stone's throw of her home," Justice Nettle told Bayley. "The rape was savage and degrading. "In terms of moral culpability your killing of the deceased ranks among the worst kinds conceivable." Bayley, 41, will be aged around 76 when his first opportunity for parole arises but the length of his sentence is scant consolation for the Ms Meagher's grieving family. Her husband Tom says Victoria's parole board failed him and Jill's family by letting Bayley back out on the streets before he had served his maximum time for previous violent offences. "The number one priority of the parole board should be to protect the innocent and that's what they didn't do in this case and that's why Jill isn't here," Mr Meagher told ABC TV. "It makes my blood boil and sends a disturbing message. This man is unrepentantly evil."

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

not at all. I would probably be slightly harder than average.  You seem to think because a person opposes the DP on principle that makes them soft on crime.  Not at all.  I am in favour of options that actually work and it has been shown categorically that the DP does not work and in fact slightly increases violent crime.  This is one of the reasons judges and other law offices generally dont support the DP because they KNOW it doesnt work,

I see you bullsh1t meter needs recalibrating.

But if you ONLY select the data the suits your biased outlook that would tend to happen now wouldn't it?

But I love the lazy that ONLY reference the US and ignore the rest of the planet when trying to argue their case; shows how weak their case is even before you rip it apart  ;D



So how do you explain this using your absolute belief in this particular lie?

Hope you don't mind wiki, you're not worth much effort in countering your feeble arguments





Capital punishment is legal in Japan. The only crimes for which capital punishment is statutory are murder and treason. Between 1946 and 1993, Japanese courts sentenced 766 people to death (including a small number from China, South Korea and Indonesia), 608 of whom were executed. The death penalty is ordinarily imposed in cases of multiple murders involving aggravating factors.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan


and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan#Crimes




TOKYO —

The number of confirmed criminal offenses officially recorded in Japan in 2012 was half that of 2002, the National Police Agency said Thursday.

According to the NPA, the number of offenses recorded in 2002 was the highest on record at around 2.85 million, Fuji TV reported. In 2012, the NPA said 1,382,154 confirmed criminal cases were recorded, a 6.7% decrease from 2011.

The agency said that there was a general downward trend in the official logging of offenses and that the number of confirmed murders and attempted murders—1,030—was the lowest on record since World War II.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/crime-stats-down-across-japan-in-2012-says-npa

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

I have made the accusation that virtually ALL supporters of the DP are merely lusting after blood and death, wanting someone to die because of their own feelings of inadequacy or powerlessness. I do not make that comment lightly or without significant proof. I have repeatedly asked supporters of the DP to make a coherent case for their argument and they have repeatedly failed to do so. It is not a coherent argument to say if someone was executed they would never offend again. That is to argue for applying a penalty BEFORE an offence is committed and one would hope no one supports that.   You cant say the DP works in reducing crime because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. But the major point I make in calling DP supporters 'bloodlusters' is their almost unanimous disinterest in the wrongly convicted and executed. Most can barely rate any interest in the problems of the innocent being executed.  Most seem more than willing to accept this as long as 'everyone tries real hard'.  You have said the same. Now if you are anyone else wishes to make an intelligent case for the DP based on facts and principles then go ahead.  In the meantime I will stick with my belief that supporters of such are simply out for blood.  I have seen no evidence to the contrary here.

Wrong

Wrong

A smacking lie


If you want to discuss the virtue and value of innocent child rapists and mass murderers and serial killers; you may want to start another thread, see how that work out.


You can tell us how child rapists with hundreds of victims is still potentially innocent and so must be except and how the evidence at multiple murders all indicating a single person is just too iffy to consider acceptable You know it happens all the time where the DNA of an innocent person shows up at multiple crime scene and they were just standing there watching.


Seriously get a grip


Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:45pm: not at all. I would probably be slightly harder than average.  You seem to think because a person opposes the DP on principle that makes them soft on crime.  Not at all.  I am in favour of options that actually work and it has been shown categorically that the DP does not work and in fact slightly increases violent crime.  This is one of the reasons judges and other law offices generally dont support the DP because they KNOW it doesnt work, I see you bullsh1t meter needs recalibrating. But if you ONLY select the data the suits your biased outlook that would tend to happen now wouldn't it? But I love the lazy that ONLY reference the US and ignore the rest of the planet when trying to argue their case; shows how weak their case is even before you rip it apart  ;D So how do you explain this using your absolute belief in this particular lie? Hope you don't mind wiki, you're not worth much effort in countering your feeble arguments Capital punishment is legal in Japan. The only crimes for which capital punishment is statutory are murder and treason. Between 1946 and 1993, Japanese courts sentenced 766 people to death (including a small number from China, South Korea and Indonesia), 608 of whom were executed. The death penalty is ordinarily imposed in cases of multiple murders involving aggravating factors.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan#Crimes TOKYO — The number of confirmed criminal offenses officially recorded in Japan in 2012 was half that of 2002, the National Police Agency said Thursday. According to the NPA, the number of offenses recorded in 2002 was the highest on record at around 2.85 million, Fuji TV reported. In 2012, the NPA said 1,382,154 confirmed criminal cases were recorded, a 6.7% decrease from 2011. The agency said that there was a general downward trend in the official logging of offenses and that the number of confirmed murders and attempted murders—1,030—was the lowest on record since World War II. http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/crime-stats-down-across-japan-in-2012-says-npa

so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example
- Japan.  This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply  then how do you explain that?  Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists.

correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP?

Big_dick,

Quote:

Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me

I can debate either of you with ease -
neither of you are very bright.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:51pm: I have made the accusation that virtually ALL supporters of the DP are merely lusting after blood and death, wanting someone to die because of their own feelings of inadequacy or powerlessness. I do not make that comment lightly or without significant proof. I have repeatedly asked supporters of the DP to make a coherent case for their argument and they have repeatedly failed to do so. It is not a coherent argument to say if someone was executed they would never offend again. That is to argue for applying a penalty BEFORE an offence is committed and one would hope no one supports that.   You cant say the DP works in reducing crime because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. But the major point I make in calling DP supporters 'bloodlusters' is their almost unanimous disinterest in the wrongly convicted and executed. Most can barely rate any interest in the problems of the innocent being executed.  Most seem more than willing to accept this as long as 'everyone tries real hard'.  You have said the same. Now if you are anyone else wishes to make an intelligent case for the DP based on facts and principles then go ahead.  In the meantime I will stick with my belief that supporters of such are simply out for blood.  I have seen no evidence to the contrary here. Wrong Wrong A smacking lie If you want to discuss the virtue and value of innocent child rapists and mass murderers and serial killers; you may want to start another thread, see how that work out. You can tell us how child rapists with hundreds of victims is still potentially innocent and so must be except and how the evidence at multiple murders all indicating a single person is just too iffy to consider acceptable You know it happens all the time where the DNA of an innocent person shows up at multiple crime scene and they were just standing there watching. Seriously get a grip Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me

and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

Big_dick, Quote: Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me I can debate either of you with ease - neither of you are very bright.

get the hint booby.  people think you are a dunderhead who in this case is utterly incapable of even entering the debate.  At least BigOl is trying to make a case.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 12:51pm: I have made the accusation that virtually ALL supporters of the DP are merely lusting after blood and death, wanting someone to die because of their own feelings of inadequacy or powerlessness. I do not make that comment lightly or without significant proof. I have repeatedly asked supporters of the DP to make a coherent case for their argument and they have repeatedly failed to do so. It is not a coherent argument to say if someone was executed they would never offend again. That is to argue for applying a penalty BEFORE an offence is committed and one would hope no one supports that.   You cant say the DP works in reducing crime because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. But the major point I make in calling DP supporters 'bloodlusters' is their almost unanimous disinterest in the wrongly convicted and executed. Most can barely rate any interest in the problems of the innocent being executed.  Most seem more than willing to accept this as long as 'everyone tries real hard'.  You have said the same. Now if you are anyone else wishes to make an intelligent case for the DP based on facts and principles then go ahead.  In the meantime I will stick with my belief that supporters of such are simply out for blood.  I have seen no evidence to the contrary here. Wrong Wrong A smacking lie If you want to discuss the virtue and value of innocent child rapists and mass murderers and serial killers; you may want to start another thread, see how that work out. You can tell us how child rapists with hundreds of victims is still potentially innocent and so must be except and how the evidence at multiple murders all indicating a single person is just too iffy to consider acceptable You know it happens all the time where the DNA of an innocent person shows up at multiple crime scene and they were just standing there watching. Seriously get a grip Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me

IM trying to get you to face the question of WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS for murder and rape - including child rape.  Please dont disappoint me and bleive that such things do not happen or can be prevented.

Longy,

Quote:

and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.  :)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:20pm: Big_dick, Quote: Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me I can debate either of you with ease - neither of you are very bright. get the hint booby.  people think you are a dunderhead who in this case is utterly incapable of even entering the debate.  At least BigOl is trying to make a case.

People?

what people?
Just you & BigOl & few other neocons & Libbos on here
who use that as abuse when they have lost the argument.

You're pathetic Longy.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :)

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:22pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:20pm: Big_dick, Quote: Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me I can debate either of you with ease - neither of you are very bright. get the hint booby.  people think you are a dunderhead who in this case is utterly incapable of even entering the debate.  At least BigOl is trying to make a case. People? what people? Just you & BigOl & few other neocons & Libbos on here who use that as abuse when they have lost the argument. You're pathetic Longy.

nah, I think most people on here think you are an intellectual lightweight.  Look at this thread for example. while others are talking about concepts and principles and law you just endless wank on about on criminal or talk about the rope.  you don't even get close to the debate the rest of us are having.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect.

What about : Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant?


no doubt whatsoever

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:22pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:20pm: Big_dick, Quote: Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me I can debate either of you with ease - neither of you are very bright. get the hint booby.  people think you are a dunderhead who in this case is utterly incapable of even entering the debate.  At least BigOl is trying to make a case. People? what people? Just you & BigOl & few other neocons & Libbos on here who use that as abuse when they have lost the argument. You're pathetic Longy. nah, I think most people on here think you are an intellectual lightweight.  Look at this thread for example. while others are talking about concepts and principles and law you just endless wank on about on criminal or talk about the rope.  you don't even get close to the debate the rest of us are having.

Longy,
You just want to wank on about some higher principle when
murderers are looking at you in the face.

Murderers don't have principles - they are worse than animals.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect. What about : Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant? no doubt whatsoever

There are those that make a case for Martin Bryan being innocent.  And if Bayley had a twin that you know nothing about then he could be innocent too.  the point is that your naive believe in absolute proof is silly.  there is ALWAYS room for error and errors are made as a result.  You can always let someone out of a jail cell if they are innocent but digging them up out of a grave doesnt have the same effect,

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:31pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:22pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:20pm: Big_dick, Quote: Also try to not mix my argument up with bobbys, it will make destroying yours a bit more challenging for me I can debate either of you with ease - neither of you are very bright. get the hint booby.  people think you are a dunderhead who in this case is utterly incapable of even entering the debate.  At least BigOl is trying to make a case. People? what people? Just you & BigOl & few other neocons & Libbos on here who use that as abuse when they have lost the argument. You're pathetic Longy. nah, I think most people on here think you are an intellectual lightweight.  Look at this thread for example. while others are talking about concepts and principles and law you just endless wank on about on criminal or talk about the rope.  you don't even get close to the debate the rest of us are having. Longy, You just want to wank on about some higher principle when murderers are looking at you in the face. Murderers don't have principles - they are worse than animals.

lie Lindy Chamberlain?  I am sure you too thought she was guilty and would have hanged her.

how'd that work out for you?

what about the 200 wrongly convicted people in the USA.  hows that work for you?

Come on Longy,
there was so much doubt over Lindy Chamberlain -
that there were protests in the streets.

The DP would not have applied to her.

Another piss weak example from you.

If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Come on Longy, there was so much doubt over Lindy Chamberlain - that there were protests in the streets. The DP would not have applied to her. Another piss weak example from you.

she was found guilty of murder.  you said murder should have the mandatory DP right? and there were no protests in the streets.  most people thought her guilty.  not that that is even relevent. she had a trial, due process and found guilty.  So tell me again why she should not have been hanged?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:45pm: Come on Longy, there was so much doubt over Lindy Chamberlain - that there were protests in the streets. The DP would not have applied to her. Another piss weak example from you. she was found guilty of murder.  you said murder should have the mandatory DP right? and there were no protests in the streets.  most people thought her guilty.  not that that is even relevent. she had a trial, due process and found guilty.  So tell me again why she should not have been hanged?

My next door neighbor was in one of the protests.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms.

but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens.

that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:47pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:45pm: Come on Longy, there was so much doubt over Lindy Chamberlain - that there were protests in the streets. The DP would not have applied to her. Another piss weak example from you. she was found guilty of murder.  you said murder should have the mandatory DP right? and there were no protests in the streets.  most people thought her guilty.  not that that is even relevent. she had a trial, due process and found guilty.  So tell me again why she should not have been hanged? My next door neighbor was in one of the protests.

and you weren't meaning you thought she was guilty and should be hanged.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Can you read?

I said

No doubt whatsoever

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever

as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts.

you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

IM trying to get you to face the question of WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS for murder and rape - including child rape.  Please dont disappoint me and bleive that such things do not happen or can be prevented.

I haven't even started my argument on who should get tapped, so Im (thank god) not the same as booby.


Like the Japanese it's not all murderers or rapists or peados.

Multiple murderers, where the evidence is crime upon crime, upon crime, same goes for rapists When it comes to child rapists, sadly they tend to be so prolific that multiple crime is par for the course.


So it isn't the one off, as you say too easy to 'get it wrong' but with a crime spree the evidence tends to be pretty conclusive, signature behaviour, DNA, etc

With all the 'innocent' criminals who have been wrongly convicted I very much doubt they were wrongly convicted for multiple murders / rapist or child rape. It is inconceivable, unless a cop deliberately planted evidence and that should in itself be a DP crime


As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example - Japan.  This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply  then how do you explain that?  Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists. correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP?

That is my point exactly. so unless these 74 studies prove conclusively that the DP causes an increase in violent crime, I'm calling bullsh1t.

You would have to stop the DP in those same areas and observe a statistically relevant decrease in crime for it to be causal. If it if it remained the same or increased then the findings of those studies are total crap.


It could be just a violent sh1thole and it has the DP, at best these studies are faulty at worst they are fraudulent.


At least with japan you can see that the place has the DP, doesn't mind using it and it is a very safe place, unlike Australia.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts. you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

But with:  Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant
there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail -
3 meals a day & color TV at our expense.
Has justice been served?

bump - page didn't flip

bump again - page still didn't flip.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:24pm: IM trying to get you to face the question of WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS for murder and rape - including child rape.  Please dont disappoint me and bleive that such things do not happen or can be prevented. I haven't even started my argument on who should get tapped, so Im (thank god) not the same as booby. Like the Japanese it's not all murderers or rapists or peados. Multiple murderers, where the evidence is crime upon crime, upon crime, same goes for rapists When it comes to child rapists, sadly they tend to be so prolific that multiple crime is par for the course. So it isn't the one off, as you say too easy to 'get it wrong' but with a crime spree the evidence tends to be pretty conclusive, signature behaviour, DNA, etc With all the 'innocent' criminals who have been wrongly convicted I very much doubt they were wrongly convicted for multiple murders / rapist or child rape. It is inconceivable, unless a cop deliberately planted evidence and that should in itself be a DP crime As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

you are the first to construct a credible scenario. congrats.  while i disagree with you sotrongly by making the DP only applicable to proven multiple cases of serial offending you at least have put some effort into minimizing the risk of wrongful conviction. It doesnt eliminate it of course, but it does go some way to making it more difficult. One problem I see in a practical sense is that once you reintroduce the DP for such offenses it is relatively easy to make it apply to non-multiple offenses.  I see it as one of those 'thin endge of the wedge' type things.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA?  You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of  .... what?  .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts. you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases? But with:  Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail - 3 meals a day & color TV at our expense. Has justice been served?

Justice? Yes.

But then, the DP has nothing to do with justice, it's ALL about vengeance.

Kat wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts. you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases? But with:  Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail - 3 meals a day & color TV at our expense. Has justice been served? Justice? Yes. But then, the DP has nothing to do with justice, it's ALL about vengeance.

No, it's not.

If it was ALL about vengeance, Jill Meagher would still be alive. Her murderer would still be behind bars - if indeed he was still breathing.

The DP might still carry some risk for the innocent - but so does the release, early or otherwise, of recidivists.

Shall we compare the numbers of innocents lost on either side?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

[ As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

No it doesnt, I have pointed this out before to Longliar. Since the 90's violent crime has been decreasing in the US, this directly corresponds with the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:18pm: so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example - Japan.  This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply  then how do you explain that?  Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists. correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP? That is my point exactly. so unless these 74 studies prove conclusively that the DP causes an increase in violent crime, I'm calling bullsh1t. You would have to stop the DP in those same areas and observe a statistically relevant decrease in crime for it to be causal. If it if it remained the same or increased then the findings of those studies are total crap. It could be just a violent sh1thole and it has the DP, at best these studies are faulty at worst they are fraudulent. At least with japan you can see that the place has the DP, doesn't mind using it and it is a very safe place, unlike Australia.

74 studies and you want to just presume they are wrong and that their methodologies are flawed?

Japan has ALWAYS had the death penalty post war (and I think pre-war as well) the reduction of crime is a relatively recent thing in the last 10-15 years.  So the DP has had zero effect on reducing crime since it actually increasing for 50 of those post-war years. whatever has reduced crime in the last 10015 years is worth researching but it is certainly not the DP since they executed over 600 people well before the crime rate drop.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts. you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases? But with:  Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail - 3 meals a day & color TV at our expense. Has justice been served?

of course there is some doubt.  You can find a lot people making claims that Bryant is innocent.  I dont buy it for a second but they make claims that while highly unlikely are not impossible.  And if it is not impossible then doubt - however small - still exists.

Justice is something you clearly dont understand.  Justice is not execution and nor is execution justice.  But I sense this debate may actually be above yoru capacity to understand

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect. You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is? Now let's play a little. Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim? Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA?  You bet your life it is! Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of  .... what?  .... mercy? Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference? No pain - no gain.

you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others.  so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little.  and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary.  The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 2:02pm: [ As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad. No it doesnt, I have pointed this out before to Longliar. Since the 90's violent crime has been decreasing in the US, this directly corresponds with the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states.

total BS. for starters you provide no statistics other than nationmaster which is a known source of bogus stats.  and the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976.  so what happened in the 20 years after it started and the 90s when you say violent crime reduced (without evidence of course)?  no answer, I bet.

and of course the 74 studies that use REAL stats and REAL statistical and research methodologies that come to the opposite conclusion to you are are wrong.  because....?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 6:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect. You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is? Now let's play a little. Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim? Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA?  You bet your life it is! Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of  .... what?  .... mercy? Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference? No pain - no gain. you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others.  so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little.  and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary.  The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean.

Let's try again - slowly.

If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive.

As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves.

But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk?

And what of the victims of the recidivists?

One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill.

Is that any easier?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:43pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 6:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect. You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is? Now let's play a little. Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim? Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA?  You bet your life it is! Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of  .... what?  .... mercy? Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference? No pain - no gain. you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others.  so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little.  and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary.  The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you. Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean. Let's try again - slowly. If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive. As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves. But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk? And what of the victims of the recidivists? One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill. Is that any easier?

how do you with any degree of morality happily condemn the innocent (wrongly convicted) in defence of the innocent (victims).  When you talk risk analysis you ahve no idea what pandoras box you are opening.  it would be therefore considered ethical by you standards to execute all sociopaths PRIOR to offending on the assumption that they will offend.  Or of that is too tough how about executing a sociopath once they are found guilty of any crime... shoplifting perhaps?

the essence of what you are saying is not to execute people for what they have done but for what they MIGHT do.  It would not be hard to identify criminal intentions in a personality profile.  Should we execute them to avoid innocent victims?

but the biggest flaw in your plan is that the vast majority of murders are not dont by the long-term serial offender.  Most are heat-of-the-moment murders by joe average.  and that , dear listener, is why the DP is not a deterrent.  becaus ein the heat of the moment,  nobody is thinking of that.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:43pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 6:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:26pm: Longy, Quote: and here is my point.  you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP.  The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP. Answer these questions if you will. Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished? Longy, Such a weak argument - the standard of proof would have to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt" There would have to be no doubt whatsoever. That fixes your problem - now lets get that rope ready.  :) too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'?  witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption. there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'.  Even DNA is not perfect. You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is? Now let's play a little. Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim? Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA?  You bet your life it is! Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of  .... what?  .... mercy? Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference? No pain - no gain. you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others.  so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little.  and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary.  The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you. Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean. Let's try again - slowly. If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive. As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves. But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk? And what of the victims of the recidivists? One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill. Is that any easier?

once again, you replace thinking with examples.  Nobody is saying anything other than that the system failed Jill Meagher. That does not however mean the DP is going to change anything.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:08pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 2:02pm: [ As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad. No it doesnt, I have pointed this out before to Longliar. Since the 90's violent crime has been decreasing in the US, this directly corresponds with the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states. total BS. for starters you provide no statistics other than nationmaster which is a known source of bogus stats.  and the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976.  so what happened in the 20 years after it started and the 90s when you say violent crime reduced (without evidence of course)?  no answer, I bet. and of course the 74 studies that use REAL stats and REAL statistical and research methodologies that come to the opposite conclusion to you are are wrong.  because....?

The death panlty was reintroduced state by state nitwit, Most recently as the 90s in some states. The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. And I have previously posted links, i dont see where I need to post them over and over again because you got in a huff the first time, Priincess.

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable.

OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one.

;D

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

Greggery, Can't agree with you there bobby. Quote: I'm against premeditated state-sanctioned killing, and I'm also against mandatory sentencing. We'll have to agree to disagree. Too nice a day to be discussing this anyway. I'm off to enjoy the sunshine (and food, and wine) in the wonderful Swan Valley. Have a good day bobby. It is a nice day. We'll discuss it another time.

It was a wonderful day bobby.

Sunny and about 18 degrees.  The Swan Valley was divine.

Thank goodness we don't have the death penalty for overindulgence.

Considering the amount of German beer, local wine, and Schweinshaxe I had today, I'd surely end up with a noose around my neck.

Back to the discussion bobby ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:25pm: The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one. ;D

Of  course you did, you wouldnt debate the actual statistics involved. That would require intellectual effort. Afer all you have had a hard day  in  the Swan valley with your special friends while drinking the latest trendy foreign sounding alcoholic beverage. Sounds so divine grego.

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

Afer all you have had a hard day  in  the Swan valley with your special friends while drinking the latest trendy foreign sounding alcoholic beverage. Sounds so divine grego.

It was hard ian.

Deciding which beer to have was not as easy as you may think.

http://www.duckstein.com.au/index.php/our_beer

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 2:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:18pm: so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example - Japan.  This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply  then how do you explain that?  Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists. correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP? That is my point exactly. so unless these 74 studies prove conclusively that the DP causes an increase in violent crime, I'm calling bullsh1t. You would have to stop the DP in those same areas and observe a statistically relevant decrease in crime for it to be causal. If it if it remained the same or increased then the findings of those studies are total crap. It could be just a violent sh1thole and it has the DP, at best these studies are faulty at worst they are fraudulent. At least with japan you can see that the place has the DP, doesn't mind using it and it is a very safe place, unlike Australia. 74 studies and you want to just presume they are wrong and that their methodologies are flawed? Japan has ALWAYS had the death penalty post war (and I think pre-war as well) the reduction of crime is a relatively recent thing in the last 10-15 years.  So the DP has had zero effect on reducing crime since it actually increasing for 50 of those post-war years. whatever has reduced crime in the last 10015 years is worth researching but it is certainly not the DP since they executed over 600 people well before the crime rate drop.

Dude you are running of straws to grasp.  ;D


You have no idea and nor do those supposed 74 studies whether the DP has a positive of negative effect on anything but the person being executed, that we do know this did have a positive effect.


Those studies are at best an 'educated' guess based on suspect data interpretation at worst a fraudulent attempt to verify bias based on personal belief. I'm thinking a few from column one and a whole sh1t load from column two.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

Dude you are running of straws to grasp.  ;D You have no idea and nor do those supposed 74 studies whether the DP has a positive of negative effect on anything but the person being executed, that we do know this did have a positive effect. Those studies are at best an 'educated' guess based on suspect data interpretation at worst a fraudulent attempt to verify bias based on personal belief. I'm thinking a few from column one and a whole sh1t load from column two.

i would suggest that your analysis of the data is much more accurate than Longliars. At the least we can infer that the DP does not cause violent crime to rise as some are suggesting.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:50am: Dude you are running of straws to grasp.  ;D You have no idea and nor do those supposed 74 studies whether the DP has a positive of negative effect on anything but the person being executed, that we do know this did have a positive effect. Those studies are at best an 'educated' guess based on suspect data interpretation at worst a fraudulent attempt to verify bias based on personal belief. I'm thinking a few from column one and a whole sh1t load from column two. i would suggest that your analysis of the data is much more accurate than Longliars. At the least we can infer that the DP does not cause violent crime to rise as some are suggesting.

In the case of Adrian Ernest Bayley crime would
have been reduced by 22 rapes & one murder.

A good result.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsMQABEiRMc

WA has over 2800 child sex offenders in the community who are considered at risk of reoffending. The odds are if you live in WA there is at least one living in your  local area. This is the justice system gone crazy because we have gone down the road of leniency and not understanding that these people can not be rehabilitated, not one of them. If we wanted to lock them all up we would have to build at least 4 more maximum security prisons. And thats just in WA. Now imagine how many of these predators are wandering around the rest of Australia due to the efforts of people like Longweekend. And they will all reoffend, every single one of the. Many will never be caught. If prison teaches them anything it teaches them to be more careful the next time.


.com.au/news/western-australia/thousands-of-sex-offenders-in-wa-and-800-classed-as-high-risk/story-fnhocxo3-1226675300190
Thousands of sex offenders in WA and 800 classed as 'high risk'

THERE are 800 child sex offenders in WA who police fear are at a high risk of reoffending.

The sex-offender management squad is monitoring 2849 reportable offenders who pose a risk to children.

Of those, 170 are considered dangerous enough to be labelled a "very high" risk of hurting children again and must report to police at least once a month.

Another 630 are considered a "high" risk and have to check in once every three months.

Another 1694 offenders are considered a "medium" or "low" risk and only report to police once or twice a year.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 6:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:46pm: If Bayley had a twin -   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry? the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms. but as usual, you miss the point.  what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence?  happens all he time.  what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong?  What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence?  It happens. that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent. Can you read? I said No doubt whatsoever as decided by whom?  ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake.  not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts. you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth.  How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do.  If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases? But with:  Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail - 3 meals a day & color TV at our expense. Has justice been served? Justice? Yes. But then, the DP has nothing to do with justice, it's ALL about vengeance. No, it's not. If it was ALL about vengeance, Jill Meagher would still be alive. Her murderer would still be behind bars - if indeed he was still breathing. The DP might still carry some risk for the innocent - but so does the release, early or otherwise, of recidivists. Shall we compare the numbers of innocents lost on either side?

it would be a fools errand and one you would lose even it it were possibly to estimate numbers on events that have not happened.  You might change your turn if it were you facing the gallows for a murder you were innocent of but convicted on the basis of flawed or corrupt evidence. You would eventually get your conviction overturned as they often are - but you'd be dead.  SORRY!

Theres 2800 in WA who we know are guilty beyond any doubt we can start with those.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:25pm: The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one. ;D

It was a goodie...  Nationmaster and Wikipedia as impeccable sources.  It doesnt get more ludicrous than that.  But the Singapore Law Society's articles on Singaporean law are worthless according to ian-the-fool.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:34pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 2:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 1:18pm: so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example - Japan.  This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply  then how do you explain that?  Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists. correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP? That is my point exactly. so unless these 74 studies prove conclusively that the DP causes an increase in violent crime, I'm calling bullsh1t. You would have to stop the DP in those same areas and observe a statistically relevant decrease in crime for it to be causal. If it if it remained the same or increased then the findings of those studies are total crap. It could be just a violent sh1thole and it has the DP, at best these studies are faulty at worst they are fraudulent. At least with japan you can see that the place has the DP, doesn't mind using it and it is a very safe place, unlike Australia. 74 studies and you want to just presume they are wrong and that their methodologies are flawed? Japan has ALWAYS had the death penalty post war (and I think pre-war as well) the reduction of crime is a relatively recent thing in the last 10-15 years.  So the DP has had zero effect on reducing crime since it actually increasing for 50 of those post-war years. whatever has reduced crime in the last 10015 years is worth researching but it is certainly not the DP since they executed over 600 people well before the crime rate drop. Dude you are running of straws to grasp.  ;D You have no idea and nor do those supposed 74 studies whether the DP has a positive of negative effect on anything but the person being executed, that we do know this did have a positive effect. Those studies are at best an 'educated' guess based on suspect data interpretation at worst a fraudulent attempt to verify bias based on personal belief. I'm thinking a few from column one and a whole sh1t load from column two.

and thus ends your brief relationship with credibility.  74 studies and you reject all of them because... you disagree with them.  And yet you support the totally repudiated notion of the DP reducing crime because Japan has had a drop in crime in the last 10 years after 50 years of increasing crime.. Trouble is, the DP was present for the entire 60 years.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 10:50am: Dude you are running of straws to grasp.  ;D You have no idea and nor do those supposed 74 studies whether the DP has a positive of negative effect on anything but the person being executed, that we do know this did have a positive effect. Those studies are at best an 'educated' guess based on suspect data interpretation at worst a fraudulent attempt to verify bias based on personal belief. I'm thinking a few from column one and a whole sh1t load from column two. i would suggest that your analysis of the data is much more accurate than Longliars. At the least we can infer that the DP does not cause violent crime to rise as some are suggesting.

they arent INFERRING at all. They are demonstrating strong statistical evidence based on facts and methodolgies you would never cope with trying to understand.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

WA has over 2800 child sex offenders in the community who are considered at risk of reoffending. The odds are if you live in WA there is at least one living in your  local area. This is the justice system gone crazy because we have gone down the road of leniency and not understanding that these people can not be rehabilitated, not one of them. If we wanted to lock them all up we would have to build at least 4 more maximum security prisons. And thats just in WA. Now imagine how many of these predators are wandering around the rest of Australia due to the efforts of people like Longweekend. And they will all reoffend, every single one of the. Many will never be caught. If prison teaches them anything it teaches them to be more careful the next time. .com.au/news/western-australia/thousands-of-sex-offenders-in-wa-and-800-classed-as-high-risk/story-fnhocxo3-1226675300190 Thousands of sex offenders in WA and 800 classed as 'high risk' THERE are 800 child sex offenders in WA who police fear are at a high risk of reoffending. The sex-offender management squad is monitoring 2849 reportable offenders who pose a risk to children. Of those, 170 are considered dangerous enough to be labelled a "very high" risk of hurting children again and must report to police at least once a month. Another 630 are considered a "high" risk and have to check in once every three months. Another 1694 offenders are considered a "medium" or "low" risk and only report to police once or twice a year.

actual studies have shown the recidivism rate of sex offenders to be no higher than any other class of crime.

and what you dont realise is that the majority of these sex offenders are no more than downloaders of illegal material. Senior police are on record as saying that including them in the sex offender register is counter-productive because it means they have to waste valuable resources on people very unlikely to offend against children instead of concentrating on the real predators.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Theres 2800 in WA who we know are guilty beyond any doubt we can start with those.

start what exactly?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

and thus ends your brief relationship with credibility.  74 studies and you reject all of them because... you disagree with them.  And yet you support the totally repudiated notion of the DP reducing crime because Japan has had a drop in crime in the last 10 years after 50 years of increasing crime.. Trouble is, the DP was present for the entire 60 years.

1. I disagree with them, because the only evidence that they are valid is your word that they are and it's not like you would lie to support your own biased argment.

2. I did not say that, in fact I only posted the japanese data to prove that you were full of sh1t with your notion of absolutes. You find data that leads you to believe that only you have the absolute truth and within a short time I find data the disagrees with your absolutes. Not so cut and dried now is it?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:25pm: The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one. ;D It was a goodie...  Nationmaster and Wikipedia as impeccable sources.  It doesnt get more ludicrous than that.  But the Singapore Law Society's articles on Singaporean law are worthless according to ian-the-fool.

And he just keeps getting better.

e.g. the post right above yours:

"Theres 2800 in WA who we know are guilty beyond any doubt we can start with those."

He's the gift that keeps giving. 

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:23pm: and thus ends your brief relationship with credibility.  74 studies and you reject all of them because... you disagree with them.  And yet you support the totally repudiated notion of the DP reducing crime because Japan has had a drop in crime in the last 10 years after 50 years of increasing crime.. Trouble is, the DP was present for the entire 60 years. 1. I disagree with them, because the only evidence that they are valid is your word that they are and it's not like you would lie to support your own biased argment. 2. I did not say that, in fact I only posted the japanese data to prove that you were full of sh1t with your notion of absolutes. You find data that leads you to believe that only you have the absolute truth and within a short time I find data the disagrees with your absolutes. Not so cut and dried now is it?

how exactly does your data disprove mine?  Japan had an INCREASING crime rate for 50 years and then a decreasing rate.  All during this time there was the death penalty.  Hardly evidence to support your notion!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:25pm: The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one. ;D It was a goodie...  Nationmaster and Wikipedia as impeccable sources.  It doesnt get more ludicrous than that.  But the Singapore Law Society's articles on Singaporean law are worthless according to ian-the-fool. And he just keeps getting better. e.g. the post right above yours: "Theres 2800 in WA who we know are guilty beyond any doubt we can start with those." He's the gift that keeps giving.

but guilty of what???  as anyone with a modicum of sense and experience would tell you, ever offence type has an enormous range within it.  Assault can be anything from touching someone to beating them senseless with a  bat.

The death penalty is still drawing a crowd at Brazil's soccer tournaments.

Red Card!.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

The death penalty is still drawing a crowd at Brazil's soccer tournaments. Red Card!.

possibly the least relevant post on this thread. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

but guilty of what???  as anyone with a modicum of sense and experience would tell you, ever offence type has an enormous range within it.  Assault can be anything from touching someone to beating them senseless with a  bat.

If you bothered to read the article Mastermind, you would see they are all guilty of child sexual abuse. Theres no range within that particular  crime that would qualify any intelligent person to support lesser penalties. But lets hear your argument, Im sure you have something prepared.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 12:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:27pm: ian wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 8:25pm: The evidecne is on Wikipedia, its not debatable. OK.  I literally laughed out load at that one. ;D It was a goodie...  Nationmaster and Wikipedia as impeccable sources.  It doesnt get more ludicrous than that.  But the Singapore Law Society's articles on Singaporean law are worthless according to ian-the-fool. And he just keeps getting better. e.g. the post right above yours: "Theres 2800 in WA who we know are guilty beyond any doubt we can start with those." He's the gift that keeps giving.

You going to argue against their guilt? They have all been convicted of child sexual abuse, many of multiple offences, they are all being monitored by the law because of their convictions and we have a respected psychologist in the field stating they are all dangerous and likely to reoffend. What exactly arent you gertting here? Personally i think you are stuck on Longliars pro pedophile arguments. Thats the problem when you continue to attasck the poster instead of the argument, you just dont realise how deeper you are sinking into defending these people. Yiour original tack was anti DP, now you are pro pedophile.

Interesting observation about thsi thread and the previous one; Not one anti DP poster has actually condemned in any way the murders, rapists or pedophiles mentioned. All guilty of the most horrendous crimes possible but not one iota of condemnation form the anti DP brigade. I think thats quite telling.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

You going to argue against their guilt?

No: I don't know if they are guilty or not.

I know they've been convicted.

However, to say they "are guilty beyond any doubt" is remarkably naive.

No surprise though.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Interesting observation about thsi thread and the previous one; Not one anti DP poster has actually condemned in any way the murders, rapists or pedophiles mentioned. All guilty of the most horrendous crimes possible but not one iota of condemnation form the anti DP brigade. I think thats quite telling.

Well, that's completely wrong.

However, seeing as you missed it:

I completely condemn "the murders, rapists or pedophiles mentioned".

I condemn all criminals.  They get no sympathy from me.

I also condemn using premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a form of punishment.

Condemning capital punishment doesn't equate to condoning criminal behaviour.

Of course, your tiny mind would have great difficulty grasping that simple concept.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

ian wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 2:46pm: You going to argue against their guilt? No: I don't know if they are guilty or not. I know they've been convicted. However, to say they "are guilty beyond any doubt" is remarkably naive. No surprise though.

No, its not mate, anyone who works in the justice system knows how incredibly difficult it is to get a conviction for child abuse. So difficult that the majority go free or many never even get charged. The reason is that most of these crimes go unreported for decades, The evidence has to be incontrovertible to secure a conviction.  You are the naive one. I dont mean that in a negative way as an insult, the majority of the public dont  understand it either.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

ian wrote on Jul 7th, 2013 at 2:49pm: Interesting observation about thsi thread and the previous one; Not one anti DP poster has actually condemned in any way the murders, rapists or pedophiles mentioned. All guilty of the most horrendous crimes possible but not one iota of condemnation form the anti DP brigade. I think thats quite telling. Well, that's completely wrong. However, seeing as you missed it: I completely condemn "the murders, rapists or pedophiles mentioned". I condemn all criminals.  They get no sympathy from me. I also condemn using premeditated state-sanctioned killing as a form of punishment. Condemning capital punishment doesn't equate to condoning criminal behaviour. Of course, your tiny mind would have great difficulty grasping that simple concept.

And yet here you are arging the innocence of convicted criminals. Yes, Greggary, convicted means they are guilty. Its a legal concept you obviously have difficulty understanding.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

And yet here you are arging the innocence of convicted criminals. Yes, Greggary, convicted means they are guilty. Its a legal concept you obviously have difficulty understanding.

Once again ian, I am not arguing that they are innocent.

I am saying that we can not say for sure that all of them "are guilty beyond any doubt".

Yes, convicted means they were found guilty, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually committed the crime.

Are you suggesting that there has never been a case of an innocent person being convicted and found guilty of a crime?

Come on ian, put some more thought into it please.

I'm not defending any criminals: I'm just saying that we can never be 100% certain that every convicted criminal actually did the crime they were found guilty of.

The world isn't perfect ian.

The law, states they are guilty beyond any doubt, whats your quailifications to argue the opposite? Are you a QC at least?

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

The law, states they are guilty beyond any doubt ...

Yes ian, I realise that and I totally accept it.  I'm not about to challenge any court ruling.

However, do you believe that an innocent person has ever been found guilty of a crime?

The answer, of course, is "yes".  We all know the system fails sometimes.  Regrettable, but true.

And that's why we can't say that all convicted criminals "are guilty beyond any doubt".

.

Whew, thats a relief then. Its all right everyone, we dont need a justice system to tell us whether criminals are guilty or not, because Greggary knows. All you police officers, lawyers, QC's, magistrates judges. You are now redundant and can rest easy because Greggary knows. Forget about sending anyone to prison or any penalties at all because Grggary knows they arent all guilty.
What a twat.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Whew, thats a relief then. Its all right everyone, we dont need a justice system to tell us whether criminals are guilty or not, because Greggary knows. All you police officers, lawyers, QC's, magistrates judges. You are now redundant and can rest easy because Greggary knows. Forget about sending anyone to prison or any penalties at all because Grggary knows they arent all guilty. What a twat.

You're making a fool of yourself (again) ian.

I clearly stated: "I'm not about to challenge any court ruling."

Have a cup of tea, maybe a little nap, and see if you're better after that.

I'm off to enjoy the sunshine again.

Any suggestions for a beer, ian?

If you arent challenging the court rulling then they are guilty and you have no argument, your logic is bizarre. I dont drink during daylight hours, its the sign of a weak character IMO.

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

If you arent challenging the court rulling then they are guilty ...

Guilty according to the law, absolutely.  You know I'm not arguing against that ian.  I completely agree with you.

My argument is that sometimes, innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

We both know that ian.


ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

I dont drink during daylight hours, its the sign of a weak character IMO.

OK ian, thanks for that opinion.

I'm still going to have a beer anyway.  Please don't think any less of me.

Enjoy the rest of your day.