DAFC.net
Home 22 January 2019 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 09:09

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46437471
45 years is certainly alot of years on prison and rehabilitation could well have occurred but are some crimes so abhorrent that society can't forgive them? That must be one of the most horrific and evil crimes ever committed in the UK.
I'd imagine when he was convicted nobody ever thought he'd be released.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: DRFC_no1  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 10:11

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 12:12

Precisely the point.We don't know the full details of his rehab.Will the public forgive him?No.will he have a life outside prison.No.Given the nature of his crimes i find it surprising he survived in prison this long.

Either way he destroyed the victims lives and himself.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: WORST  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 14:58

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 16:02

Should not be eligible for parole.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: WORST  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 16:59

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 17:56

He was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years, Stevie, and has served 45 years so, whatever the circumstances, he hasn't been released early.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: dave67  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 18:07

Ms Urry told The Sun after news he had been cleared for release: "What this animal did to my children was every bit as bad as what the Moors Murderers did.

"He put my babies on spikes for God's sake - he mutilated them and they died in agony."

She was reassured after his trial "his crime was so terrible he would never walk free again" and now felt "betrayed".
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: General Zod  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 19:44

He’ll not last long outside of jail. Vigilante justice will see to that.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: JTH123  
Date:   Tue 4 Dec 19:45

Quote:

WORST, Tue 4 Dec 14:58

YES! Especially in a case like this.


Yes from me too.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: WORST  
Date:   Wed 5 Dec 06:18

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: Berry  
Date:   Wed 5 Dec 08:12

Should be locked up for life, or reintroduce the bloody death penalty for the clear cut cases like this.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 5 Dec 12:11

Looks like some are in favour of punishment Old Testament style.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: OzPar  
Date:   Wed 5 Dec 18:14

<<Looks like some are in favour of punishment Old Testament style.>>


Only for Trump supporters, richie...

:)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 5 Dec 22:47

Snigger.Gid.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 13:20

It shouldn't be about punishment or so-called paying a debt to society (don't know how costing taxpayers £X thousands to be kept in jail is paying a debt to society or how a billion years in jail could ever pay the debt incurred for murdering somebody) - it should in this case be about children. Is he a threat ? What makes anyone think he's no longer a threat on the basis of his behaviour in the nick? In jail - out of jail two different things. Keep 'em in for life, Make certain no-one becomes another victim.



Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 13:42)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 13:24

If we still had Capital punishment,in clear cut cases like this there would be no debate.

The bar would IMO still have to be high.This case clears the bar.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 13:41

I agree Richie. I've had folk say to me if we execute a murderer - even a serial killer - we're as bad as them!
Others say you can never be sure they did it!

I don't believe all lives are precious. Some are just the opposite.



Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 13:45)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 13:58

"I don't believe all lives are precious".Sounds like a terrible evolutionary idea that has already been tried.

There are no good humans(except one;) just bad ones with varying degrees.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 15:43

Ref: richie5401
Thu 6 Dec 13:58

<<< There are no good humans(except one;) just bad ones with varying degrees >>>

It's a POV Rich! I wonder about that. I think probably there are people who never do anything deliberately bad in their lives, so I disagree. I think there are good people, but nobody's perfect, everybody makes some mistakes. As long as they're fairly harmless I don't think it makes a person bad.

Your one good person - Jesus? is not in your eyes just good he's perfect, but I don't think that's the standard for being good. You can be good without being perfect. (Sorry for being mealy-mouthed folks).



Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 15:47)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 15:50

Not really a POV OAUTP.It's based on reality.There are no humans who portray a pure selfless motive 24 hours a day,365.

That would be the standard of good.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 15:53

Give over now you're just being naughty. I'll have to start calling you Sooty.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 16:23

Not really.Much prefer Zippy.Funny as all get out.

We really can't have the definition of good to mean just a bit of bad/sometimes bad/mistakes.It's either good or not.

You are correct though about being perfect.(Mark 10:18)



Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 16:37)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: pars no1  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 16:48

A life sentence is a life sentence. There is a minimum sentence tariff that is applied. That is the minimum sentence they must serve before being allowed to get released on Parole. If the Parole board do not deem them safe to be released then they stay in prison until they are. This could be for the rest of their life. An order of life long restriction is a sentence with no chance of release.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 17:43

Ref: richie5401
Thu 6 Dec 16:23

<<< We really can't have the definition of good to mean just a bit of bad/sometimes bad/mistakes.It's either good or not.>>>

We're talking about the definition of good as it relates to people. (Obviously good needn't mean what you say when we're talking about e.g. a good game of football.)

A good person.

A bad person.

I think they exist, eg. my gran v Pol Pot.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 17:52

Perhaps Pol Pot was good to his gran;)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 17:57

Yeh. even he wasn't all bad, but I think it's fair to characterise him as having been a bad person.
And my gran - the sort we probably all know - who would always do her best for everybody - I think it's fair to say that's a good person.

Gee, from my gran to Pol Pot - we cover the ground on this forum!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: Berry  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 19:22

A life sentence in reality isn't as bad as it sounds for some criminals.

I'm all for capital punishment in these kind of cases where it's absolutely certain, it's a truly sick act and deliberate, and he still gets a bed, three meals a day and costs us money to keep him behind bars.

I know it's not as simple as that and my view is rather naive but reading those kind of articles, it's hard to accept. There's no medical/mental help in the world that can seriously help a guy who does this, and also struggle to see how we can have enogh confidence that we can let this guy loose knowing he won't do it again.

Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 19:23)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 20:26

That's it Berry, why take a chance with a known child-killer? Parole boards make mistakes. I don't see how they can claim to be 100% certain he won't re-offend therefore they shouldn't have the option to release him.

I've had someone say to me well you might as well put everybody in jail because you don't know who is going to be a child killer!

What's needed is a sense of priority.

Children first.

Child-killer, last - that means so far down the list of priorities that there's never a chance of parole.



Post Edited (Thu 06 Dec 20:27)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: JTH123  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 20:44

To hell with paying debt to society or whether he is or isn't a reformed character. The sheer suffering he caused that family means he deserves nothing but contempt.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 20:50

I agree JTH. What do they say - 'paid his debt to society - everyone deserves a second chance to become a useful member of society' and such nonsense. Where does it come from?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: donj  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 23:34

I detest the idea of the death penalty in case,as they have done in the past,somebody innocent dies.

I do,though,agree with it in certain cases like this and other certain killers.If there is no doubt at all,and some of the animals we have behind bars are certain,then I'm sorry but they do not belong to the human race.I hate to say it but the death penalty for them.

If my dog attacked somebody she would be gone with no chance of a room and meals.

Strange that you can be at the bottom of society,committing no crimes,but end up starving and sleeping on the streets and a definite killer gets a comfy bed,heating and three meals a day.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 6 Dec 23:39

Exactly OAUTP.Where else but .net would Pol Pot's gran get a mention!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Fri 7 Dec 02:46

Yeh good one Rich. I think that should be in a forum hall of fame.

And I'm with you donj - where it is absolutely certain who did it - and there are many such cases - for example that excuse for a human being that shot about seventy people a few years back, plus Hindley and Brady, Huntley etc. all should have forfeited their lives. To execute them, I don't see how that would have been much different to a policeman on duty killing a rampaging murderer - in both situations it'd be removing clear-cut lethal enemies of the people.



Post Edited (Fri 07 Dec 03:04)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Fri 7 Dec 15:08

I don.t see how we could have two categories of convicted murderer: those who are guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and those who definitely did it and are liable to execution. It would certainly keep the lawyers and appeal courts in business.

I remember the McGreavy case quite well as it was a particularly shocking crime. The 20 year minimum sentence reflects the more tolerant UK we lived in back in the 1970s and seems very lenient by today's sentencing guidelines. I would have thought 20 years for each child would be nearer the mark, but I think then the law treated the crime as one case of murder involving three children.

Where children are concerned there is always an emotional aspect, but would the crimes of Ian Huntley have attracted the same disgust had the tabloid newspapers not have had access to such a powerful photo of the two girls dressed in Man Utd tops, living in a quiet, English small town? I am not against the death penalty in theory- I think a person can give up their right to live- but in practice it would degenerate into a perverted form of unpopularity contest. I remember former executioner Harold Pierrepoint describing how he could not leave the prison after executing an attractive, blond mother called Ruth Ellis due to the angry crowds outside. Six months earlier he had walked out into an empty street after executing a Cypriot grandmother who had killed her daughter-in-law.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Fri 7 Dec 23:34

Ref: sammer
Fri 7 Dec 15:08

<<< I don't see how we could have two categories of convicted murderer: those who are guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and those who definitely did it and are liable to execution. >>>


Yes I can see possible knock-on effects, perhaps making convictions harder to get.

However it is very frustrating because there are 100% certainties are there not? The cases I listed, for example, Hindley, Brady, Huntly plus Sutcliffe, Neilson, Fred West etc.

As for the influence of media - you mean juries can be swayed by it? Probably, but in the cases I've mentioned it seems to me an irrelevance on the basis that they are 100% guilty.

I don't understand leniency in these extreme cases. The law should be able to, and does I think, differentiate between different categories of murder. The ones the OP refers to are worse than, say, a man who murders a burglar he catches in the act of burgling his house. I wouldn't say that man should never be released, or shouldn't receive leniency, but this is something very diffferent.

McGreavy shouldn't be released. Whether it's the law or the Parole Board that would be pushing for his release I don't know, but if there's any discretion involved, it should be used to keep him in. If he has a mandatory right to be released, the law needs changing.



Post Edited (Fri 07 Dec 23:38)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 00:01

Can you ever be 100% sure someone committed a murder?
Timothy Evans is a prime example.
It looked like it was definitely him until years later it turned out to be Christie the serial killer who had done it.
People have even been known to confess to crimes they didn't commit.
I read recently that Dr Crippen one of the most famous murderers ever may have been innocent. The remains of his wife found in the basement were tested for DNA and it turns out to be from a male. The copper in charge of the investigation is thought to have planted them there.

The police are under so much pressure to get a conviction on murder cases that the less honest ones suppress evidence that may show a suspect's innocence. And as in the case of Crippen plant evidence.

Until we can 100% trust every police officer then the death penalty should not be contemplated. (That's never)

For me it is not worth executing 1 innocent person for that sake of saving money.
I've always thought life should mean life though.

There was somewhere brought in the death penalty for rape and removed it a few years later as it had a negative effect on what was happening.
The number of rapes stayed consistent but the rape then murder figures shot up as the rapists killed their victims to get rid of the only witness.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 00:10

I started this thread. I like to think I believe in, if only because of my christian upbringing, of second chances and rehabilitation but this particular case is before my time. If in twenty years someone was to tell me that Huntley or Harding were to be released I'd be incredulous. Lest we forget this guy choked the life out of a four year old child. Slit the throat of a child even younger than that. Bashed the skull in of a baby.
I find it astonishing that in the 70s a minimum twenty year sentence was seen as satisfactory for this horror.
In Scotland we have this ridiculous crime of culpable homicide, which can see thugs murder someone and get out after less than ten years. Sorry but if you knife some poor bugger in the chest and leave them to bleed out in the street that's murder and society shouldn't need to see you for twenty five years minimum. Put my taxes up to pay for the cell and I'll pay it without a gripe.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 00:34

Ref: sadindiefreak
Sat 8 Dec 00:01

<<< Can you ever be 100% sure someone committed a murder?
Timothy Evans is a prime example. >>>

Good post Sadindie.
However, you gave an example of a miscarriage of justice but then generalised, implying that because of that there must be doubt about all other murder convictions. But there's no use generalising. As well as McGreavy, I gave a list of specific people I believe are 100% guilty of the murders of which they were convicted. So yes I believe you can be sure in certain cases.

To say 'can you ever be sure', implies you feel unsure that those I listed are 100% guilty. I'd be interested to know why.

I wonder if what you were thinking was really something a bit different. Maybe - Can we be sure that every murder conviction is correct? No we can't. So on that basis it would be wrong to execute all those convicted of murder. But that's different from wanting to execute some.

Because I know there are problems with the death penalty, although I'd support it in certain instances, I'd settle for life meaning life.

I feel pretty much as you do TOWK.



Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 01:55)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 01:13

The Timothy Evans prosecution, conviction and hanging were devastating but I believe they have no bearing on McGreavy and the others.



Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 12:33)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 10:08

I don't believe in the death penalty. To me it's just legalised murder. As for costs of keeping a prisoner in jail or killing them. It's more expensive to kill them than keep them.

I would have life mean life and that's it.

Costs of death penalty v jail.

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost$1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row

COSTS: New Study Reveals California Has Spent $4 Billion on the Death Penalty. A new study of California's death penalty found that taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978, or $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out since then.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 12:30

In what circumstances does someone get a life sentence? Only in extreme cases?

I suppose, for life to mean life you'd have to assume that in all cases the convicted person is guilty and the life sentence is necessary.

But I’d as soon confine the OP’s question to those for whom there is no doubt about their guilt. I think that’s what the OP meant - should life mean life for McGreavy and other extreme cases, such as those I’ve mentioned.

As for the death penalty, if your info is right Moviescot, it would seem to knock the cost argument on the head, unless we argue for a radically cheaper process for death penalty cases. (Yes there are obvious possibilities! – but I’m trying to take account of real world constraints, eg imperfect systems and processes, and the inability of us humans to solve society's problems.)

Movie? Why do you say the death penalty is legalised murder? It would interest me to know because in my mind they’re clearly different but I’ll have to think about why I think that. (What it is to have an enquiring mind! )



Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 13:31)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 13:45

The legalised murder argument doesn't hold water for me. Going along that line being imprisoned is legalised kidknapp and fines are legalised theft.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 13:45

One problem with having two categories of guilty is that the cases that are the most horrific may be the very ones where guilt is not what you called '100%.' Yet a more mundane murder (if there is such a thing) could see the '100%' guilty murderer walk to the execution shed past the prison door of someone who almost certainly committed a far more horrific crime.


The knock on effect on juries being willing to convict has already been acknowledged, but I was mindful of the tabloid excesses in whipping up support for execution or a reprieve. This sort of thing sells papers and was a feature in the post-war years; with modern media the decision whether to execute or not would become some crude form of circus. For me a person can give up their right to live- but not at the hands of a potentially flawed legal system and certainly not on the whim of what the mob feels at a particular time. So I think life sentences are better than execution, and in cases like McGreavy's they should mean exactly that.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 14:34

Quote:

onandupthepars, Sat 8 Dec 12:30

In what circumstances does someone get a life sentence? Only in extreme cases?

I suppose, for life to mean life you'd have to assume that in all cases the convicted person is guilty and the life sentence is necessary.

But I’d as soon confine the OP’s question to those for whom there is no doubt about their guilt. I think that’s what the OP meant - should life mean life for McGreavy and other extreme cases, such as those I’ve mentioned.

As for the death penalty, if your info is right Moviescot, it would seem to knock the cost argument on the head, unless we argue for a radically cheaper process for death penalty cases. (Yes there are obvious possibilities! – but I’m trying to take account of real world constraints, eg imperfect systems and processes, and the inability of us humans to solve society's problems.)

Movie? Why do you say the death penalty is legalised murder? It would interest me to know because in my mind they’re clearly different but I’ll have to think about why I think that. (What it is to have an enquiring mind! )


There really are no cheaper methods of killing people. The costs involved are mainly all the legal hurdles that have to be crossed before you kill someone.
Killing people is wrong regardless of who does it. As for imprisonment of criminals being kidnap etc that's true but do you have a better solution?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 14:47

I agree with you Sammer, pretty much.

I think you're saying that because the system is flawed we would surely end up believing someone to be 100% guilty when they're not.

I think I'm getting it. We all agree McGreavy is 100% guilty. But if we wanted to execute him, it would mean the system in place that leads to sentence of execution would inevitably at some future time have us executing an innocent person?

The system.
It's funny because we know McGreavy and others are 100% guilty but we just can't come up with a system that would mean we'd never make a mistake in future cases.

Yep. It's infuriating but I agree.

Therefore I reiterate: as there are significant problems with the death penalty - until we can devise an infallible system* we'd best stick with life means life.

*Maybe one day we’ll have the technology to perfect the lie detector test, or to perfectly reconstruct events. Or maybe “fingerprinting” will become more subtle than fingers or DNA, and we’ll read scent traces or even “thought residues” at the crime scene or detect memories from a head scan that prove guilt. Maybe even have a way of preventing serious crime in the first place. Ten million years AD …😂



Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 14:50)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 15:03

Ref: moviescot
Sat 8 Dec 14:34

<<< Killing people is wrong regardless of who does it >>>

In any situation?

Is your conviction based on the Bible commandments Movie?

Fair enough but what about

certain instances of self -defence

or that guy in Sweden who was on one side of the lake and shot and killed 69 people.

After he'd started would it have been wrong to have shot him to stop him from killing more?



Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 15:43)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 17:47

Quote:

onandupthepars, Sat 8 Dec 15:03

Ref: moviescot
Sat 8 Dec 14:34

<<< Killing people is wrong regardless of who does it >>>

In any situation?

Is your conviction based on the Bible commandments Movie?

Fair enough but what about

certain instances of self -defence

or that guy in Sweden who was inon one side of the lake and shot and killed 69 people.

After he'd started would it have been wrong to have shot him to stop him from killing more?


Bible - no. Just what I believe. All welcome to disagree.

In some instances it may be necessary. It does not make it right.

Post Edited (Sat 08 Dec 17:50)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sat 8 Dec 19:06

I wonder if we're splitting hairs now Movie? If I had shot that guy in Sweden, I can imagine myself saying, "I had to." (i.e. it was necessary). And somebody - possibly even a police officer or clergyman - replying, " You did the right thing." I think in this scenario "necessary" and "right" are the same thing?

In saying "in some instances it may be necessary" to kill a person but "it does not make it right", you seem to be implying it’s always wrong.
I’m not pushing, it’s just that I’d like to be able to understand your POV - I know others who share it and to me, a rule like that - of which there can be no exceptions – is, or is very like, a dogma – ‘a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.’

You say your reason isn’t because of the Bible commandments, so what could it be? Is it just one of those things you believe and you don’t really know why?
If it is, it’s OK to say that – I said it of myself in an earlier post - when you said you believe the death penalty is legalised murder (post today, 10.08) and I responded, “in my mind they’re clearly different things but I’ll have to think about why I think that.” (today 12.30)

I think it’s good to know why we believe what we believe, but not always easy to get to.



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 02:02)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 13:30

You only have to look at countries that endorse the death penalty for violent crimes to see it is a huge deterrent.(Saudi,Singapore etc)

The western world shunned that.It's hard to argue with the figures.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:08

Ref: richie5401
Sun 9 Dec 13:30

<<< You only have to look at countries that endorse the death penalty for violent crimes to see it is a huge deterrent.(Saudi,Singapore etc) The western world shunned that.It's hard to argue with the figures. >>>

Interesting Rich. My first thought was they're not bothered if they execute a few innocent people. My second thought was, if there are fewer murders then perhaps more are saved in that way than are wrongly executed. It's a bit of a dilemma.

I suppose what our country has opted for is that the establishment should be free from the accusation of wrongful execution? Also I think cases such as Timothy Evans and several others drove public opinion to oppose the death penalty in UK.



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 14:24)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:11

Is there evidence they have ever convicted the wrong folks?

The real problem with eliminating the death penalty is you ultimately get to a point where Jeffrey Dahmer is allowed to live.Not a great message to send.



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 14:19)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:30

<<< Is there evidence they have ever convicted the wrong folks? >>>

James Hanratty?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html


MY MISTAKE: In the appeal that came after - he wasn't cleared. See my next post.



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 14:46)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:36

Most of the cases you cite in your defense of abolition of the death penalty have room for reasonable doubt.I'm in agreement.

The death penalty should only be required in extreme cases.Reasonable doubt and near certainty are poles apart.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:44

The 1997 Independent article I hot-linked was a bit previous in assuming that Hanratty would be cleared. Evidently he was not:

"In 1998, a police inquiry concluded he was wrongfully convicted and the case was sent to the Court of Appeal,[1] which ruled in 2002 that a DNA test conclusively proved Hanratty's guilt beyond any doubt.[2] "



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty#DNA_evidence_and_appeal_in_2002



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 14:49)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 14:49

Well the case hinged on 1 independent eye witness.As i said a LOT of room for reasonable doubt.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 15:05

Ref: richie5401
Sun 9 Dec 14:36

<<<The death penalty should only be required in extreme cases.>>>


You used the term "near certainty". It has to be absolute certainty, or there would be mistakes made. And us humans are not - yet - capable of producing an infallible system.

To me it's a sh*** of a problem. Because like you Rich, I want Huntly and Sutcliffe and McGreavy and others executed. But it seems clear to me that if we have the death penalty, mistakes will be made, not with them but in future cases.

So as I said, I'd settle for life meaning life.



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 15:25)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 15:26

That is why it's reserved for cases way beyond reasonable doubt.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 15:33

I've yet to see any statistics that indicate capital punishment acts as a deterrent. The murder rate in most countries stays pretty much the same historically, whatever the punishment decreed. Developed countries with more equal incomes are generally more stable and have lower murder rates. Poorer countries or those where there is massive inequality and political instability, have higher murder rates. Capital punishment, or the absence of it, makes little difference to the figures.


An enthusiasm for capital punishment is to me a dangerous sign. No European country embraced legal executions more enthusiastically than Germany during the years of Nazi rule from 1933-1945. The Weimar Republic killed barely 100 whilst over a similar period the Nazis were well into the thousands, responding to the public mood to get tough on crime and stop featherbedding criminals. We know a great deal about the political victims of Nazi Germany and of course the ultimate programme of industrialised slaughter of civilians in combat and camps. But that lust for blood did not come out of a clear blue sky; it was already enshrined in the legal process before it was unleashed on the citizens of Europe.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 15:40

Cmon Sammer you can't use Nazi Germany as an example for anything in terms of right and wrong.They had no moral standard.

The benchmark is very high,and rightly so to take a life through execution.

Sutcliffe and other examples cited reached that benchmark.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 21:59

Why not? The Nazis legally entered power and oversaw an independent judiciary. One leading communist, Dmitrov, was actually cleared by a court of being involved in the Reichstag fire, much to Hitler's fury. The majority of those executed by the Nazis were violent criminals, the type of person many in the present UK want to see executed. By locking up and executing 'anti-social elements' the Nazis did, from what can be gathered, manage to lower the crime figures for a while. But, needless to say, brutality overseen by the state flourished and went unreported. Serial killers still popped up from time to time- the S Bah killer/rapist of half a dozen women turned out to be a railway worker and devout Nazi himself. That did not spare him from the guillotine in 1941.


My general point is that legal execution coarsens any society and can make it easier to guide the population along a violent route.


Regrading Sutcliffe, if by executing him you could convince me that one life would be saved as a result, then I might be interested. As executioner Pierrepoint reflected, after his retiral, all hanging did was satisfy a primal instinct for revenge. I'm not immune to that instinct myself, but appreciate the Christian concept that only God decides on matters of life and death: not us mere mortals.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 22:28

Ref: sammer
Sun 9 Dec 21:59

<<< [I] appreciate the Christian concept that only God decides on matters of life and death: not us mere mortals.>>>

Aha! The Christian concept! God decides!

Did you ever hear the tape recording of Lesley Downey made by Brady just before he killed her?

I’ll never have any interest in a God which decided to let ten year old Lesley Downey die.

A God which decides who lives and who dies? No no no – not in a million years.
A shocking disgraceful concept!



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 22:30)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 22:30

If your supposition is correct,the murder rate/violent crime should have decreased since 1965.

It didn't.It steadily increased from that point.From just over 400 py in 1965 to a peak of over 1000 in the year 2000.(England and Wales)

In the Sutcliffe case where there was very little doubt it would have set a standard.Folks would know where the line was.Eradicate the line and many will do what is right in their own eyes.

You are correct God does decide matters of life and death and also murder.(Gen9:6)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 22:45

What is it somebody said recently about playing chess with a pigeon? Or two?



Post Edited (Sun 09 Dec 22:46)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Sun 9 Dec 23:40

Quote:

richie5401, Sun 9 Dec 15:40

Cmon Sammer you can't use Nazi Germany as an example for anything in terms of right and wrong.They had no moral standard.


Wow. You used Saudi Arabia as an example of good practice.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 00:02

Please.No one is suggestion Saudi Arabia is without blemish.

Even their system requires two witnesses for a conviction.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 09:31

I've not heard the tape of Lesley Ann Downey but, like yourself I imagine, the transcript is harrowing enough. Unfortunately her mother was required to hear the tape in order to identify her daughter. It does not get much worse than that.

As an atheist, I made my reference to God partly in the hope that it might help persuade Richie to be less keen on killing. If Brady, or Sutcliffe or whoever is caught in the act and killing them can save a victim then I have no qualms about that. Execution after the event, following due legal process, is no more a guarantee of protecting future victims than life imprisonment. It is purely revenge and the only marker it puts down is to confirm our potential violence as a species.


The example Richie might have been better using was that of Japan who have a murder rate almost miniscule in comparison to most other countries. They do retain the death penalty, although again it can be argues the low crime rate generally might be due to other factors. Interesting that Canada, who abolished executions in the early 1960s has, a per head of population murder rate, about four times less than its neighbour the USA. Although as I wrote earlier, if you were to reverse the punishment for murder in the USA and Canada I strongly suspect their murder rates would remain the same.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 12:38

I used the exact figures from England and Wales from the abolition of Capital punishment in 1965.

Murder steadily increased from that point to a peak in 2000.

If you going to invoke God(let's assume we are talking about the God of the bible,which i think you are)then he has already given a several commands for the punishment for murder(Gen9:6) and later in the Mosaic law(Exodus 20:13)

If only the latter command was heeded this debate would be unnecessary.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 12:53

Sammer,you said you were an atheist,does that include you believe there was no creator?Just curious as there are several branches of atheism and wanted to be specific.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: sammer  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 17:02

Hi Richie,

I’d never thought about there being different types of atheism, but you’re probably correct. Put simply, I think that God did not create man, but that man created God, as Nietzsche amongst others proposed. I don’t share Nietzsche’s contempt for Christianity, for I believe that man created God for very good reasons. Long before the prophets and scribes began putting together the Old Testament homo sapiens had recognised his destructive nature and understood the importance of living alongside others rather than fighting with them. Civil law, marriage, provision for the infirm, burial of the dead, art, music are way much older than the rather recent Judeo/Christian religion which, in my childhood at least, seemed to suggest it had invented many of these things. The appalling slander on early humanity, and our Neanderthal cousins, as being brutal savages from some dark age is suggested by most readings of The Bible and has had disastrous consequences right up to the present day.

Even as a boy I disliked the monotheistic God who seemed a capricious bully, a kind of blustering, lash-happy headmaster, more intent on preserving his own position than doing much good in the world. As a teenager I realised that the concept of The Bible being the word of God was preposterous arrogance and as an adult I became interested in discovering how random some of the selections had been, along with contested translations from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew, in what claimed to be ‘The Book.’ As a moral guide, The Bible is a good enough starting point, albeit many of the stories and concepts have been ‘pinched’ from older religions. As a history of the Jewish people, the Old Testament is an exercise in self-justification and exceptionalism, which again has ramifications for the present day.

We’ve learned a lot in the last 4,000 years but are no doubt just as stupid. However our widened understanding of the cosmos, limited though it is, makes it easier to dispense with the concept of ‘creation’ or a ‘creator.’ Whether it’s a universe or a multi-verse it’s there, and like space, probably always has been and always will be. Homo sapiens is another story of course,
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 10 Dec 17:49

I think what you described is pretty much standard atheism.Apparently there are few different concepts of it even something bizarrely named"Religious atheism"

A good friend of mine subscribes to the same notion that "man created God" and thinks most of it is used for control.In some fashion he's not wrong there have been some hideous things done by religious leaders in an effort for power,wealth and influence.

The problem is we are still left with the fundamental questions of origin,meaning,morality and destination.

As you say space could always have been here,but time?matter?all requiring no first cause?Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 02:01

Ref: richie5401
Mon 10 Dec 17:49


<<< The problem is we are still left with the fundamental questions of origin,meaning,morality and destination. >>>

That's a POV! I don't have a problem with questions regarding these things. I find meaning easily in the context in which I live, being a husband, friend to some, humanitarian leanings, poetry.

Regarding morality - how do some people have such a complete disregard for others? I don't know - I wish your God had limited human free will, by including an automatic cut-out switch in all humans so they'd be incapable of inflicting serious harm. Absolute free will is one reason why I can't believe in your God and instead believe in evolution.

Animals are amoral. Take cats for example. They treat other animals abominably. Likewise, is McGreavy also not immoral but amoral? i.e. humans have evolved from animal ancestors and in some folk part of their brain is unevolved? That might explain the capacity for "evil" that some folk have. But they must still be able to learn right from wrong and perhaps that's where they make their choice. They know right from wrong but choose not to control their perverse desires? Or is it about wrong thinking they develop in childhood that they never correct or grow out of?

I'm reluctant to study psychology as I have a feeling it might be a can of worms.

Destination? Humanity's destination? I wish we'd get our priorities right and put all the greatest minds to solving problems of societies - people problems - instead of making space probes and "art". I think humanity will survive, perhaps indefinitely, we're good at adapting when forced to. Individually, you might go to heaven, Rich, oblivion for me!

That just leaves origin - who knows? Gravity apparently is a warping of space-time? I still can't think of time as anything at all - to me it's a measurement of duration. You and I both think of space as a vacuum and a pure vacuum as nothing. But Einstein and such people think space was created as the universe expanded into it? And is still being created as the universe continues to expand? If these things are reality then its origins are beyond me. Just thinking cause and effect isn't going to lead to the answer.



Post Edited (Tue 11 Dec 11:46)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 12:47

Some interesting thoughts there OAUTP."Gravity apparently is a warping of space-time"That gives no indication why we have gravity or why space-time would have to be produced simultaneously.Why isn't cause and effect the answer?It seems quite suitable for science.

Morality,good and evil/free will etc is an interesting debate.Why is there evil?Did it evolve?From where?Free will if you want to invoke God isn't the highest value for humans,obedience is.Not something that comes naturally to us in our fallen state.

Meaning?Why are we here?Again from a evolutionary viewpoint,it's a series of random accidents with no ultimate outcome,just a continuous plodding of nature.From a biblical point of view,each one of us stamped with the image of God,valuable,precious and loved.Evolution says man is none of those things.

Destination.As you say if evolution is true we go to the dustbin.If the bible is true we live eternally.Where?That's up to each individual.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 16:21

Ref: richie5401
Tue 11 Dec 12:47

I was trying to suggest that Physicists' ideas about reality are so weird that you and I will never fathom the origin of the universe. And if such weird things as gravity = warped timespace are true, who's to say what weirder things won’t come into play when they "discover" more? ( I put it in brackets because I think Physicists work by proposing theories based on maths? which are then tested by observations.)

I wonder if our idea of cause and effect is too crude. I run the tap and fill the glass with water, is cause and effect at our macro scale of things. But what if, at the scale of nothing-something, it's different? What if on the scale of origination, cause and effect are the same?

Energy was all that was needed to start the universe off? Because energy can transform into matter?
Where would the energy have come from ? Don’t know - but once it existed then evolution (- much more complex than Darwinian -) could have taken over and formed the universe and everything in it?

I haven’t been researching this, so if I’m way off beam, maybe somebody can put me straight.

I’m not saying my ideas are correct but they suggest to me that there can be an explanation without just saying the only answer must be God, and the Biblical one at that. That's one of just many reasons why I'm not a believer. I believe astounding things remain to be discovered and learned about our universe and existence.



Post Edited (Tue 11 Dec 16:23)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 16:32

Ref: : richie5401
Tue 11 Dec 12:47

<<<From a biblical point of view,each one of us stamped with the image of God,valuable,precious and loved.Evolution says man is none of those things.>>>

Briefly, we value each other and ourselves.

Valuable. precious and loved by each other and ourselves. And a tiny part of a bigger story. It's enough for me.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 16:41

Ref: richie5401
Tue 11 Dec 12:47

Morality - I think some animals have some. Look at animal societies eg Chimps. There is order, it's heirarchical. I think morality is a development of that. An outcome of living in groups and societies.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 18:04

Time.cause,effect,space and matter coming onto existence all at once seems to be the only conceivable way it could happen.

I don't think your way off course.Your reason is working and is telling you energy,matter,gravity planets animals,humans etc has to have come from a mind.

There are many many examples where we don't value humans.

Don't know if hierarchy leads to morals in the animal kingdom.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 11 Dec 20:39

Ref: richie5401
Date: Tue 11 Dec 18:04

<<<Don't know if hierarchy leads to morals in the animal kingdom.>>>


Heirarchy in animals seems to me a simple kind of social order. It becomes partly implicit, not always needing to be enforced. That's a kind of cooperation. Perhaps peaceful co-existence and sharing within groups led to the same BETWEEN groups On top of that, morality is maybe social co-operation and bonding between individuals who are not of the same family? Plus an extension of maternal and paternal caring instincts?


<<<each one of us stamped with the image of God,valuable,precious and loved>>>


It seems odd to say God values and loves everyone when life is a lottery and he doesn't spare anyone even the most terrible torture or suffering. I can't believe in a God which had, as an example, only to SAY, "Hindley and Brady nod off for a few moments; Lesley Downey go home safely" and that lovely girl would have lived.

The ideas that God doesn't intervene because humans must be free to work out their own destiny - and never mind, you'll get a big present (heaven) afterwards - doesn't explain God's inaction. If a God could have saved Lesley Downey just by speaking a few words but chose not to - that would have been immoral.

For me an explanation that fits is - if there is a God or creative source, he, she or it must be AMORAL. (Suggesting impersonal and not concerned with human affairs.)



Post Edited (Tue 11 Dec 22:40)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 12:21

That seems more like instinct you are describing rather than morals.

"Life is a lottery"..in what sense?Why is evil allowed to continue?What you seem to yearn for is immediate justice.Who doesn't.

God has intervened several times in human history(Flood,The cross)Not everyone will get "the big present" not everyone will accept it.

The concept of amoral doesn't explain why we have a moral code and a conscience.Could that have arisen from random chemicals bumping off each other?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 14:03

Ha – you make me laugh Rich. I can't believe even you believe everything you say (no offence.)

Life IS a lottery - you're born into a family you don't choose. You have to be lucky to have a winning ticket that means a satisfying life where you don't end up as a victim.

“Evil” continues I think at least partly because of conflicting personal and national interests. And because there was never a time when there was a world government which ensured peace, equality and freedom from harm from others. Civilization is young; from animal origins, it’s still developing. That’s how I see it.

It's not immediate justice I yearn for but a world where there is no injustice and no-one harms anyone else. (A bonkers desire of course but when I was very young it's the world I thought I was born into.)

When you say “random chemicals bumping off each other” you have removed all stages in between from the early universe to now. It’s like suggesting a car is made by throwing a pile of raw metal ores at some hydrocarbons. Lots of stages and development and accumulation had to happen before we got here with our morals.


If caring maternal and paternal behaviours are instinctive - which I guess they are - they're not that far from morality, which is pretty much similar feelings towards others who are not your own offspring. Those behaviours are not always limited in animals to their own kin – but where they are, perhaps it’s because of competiton for survival between different family groups? Remove such competition, e.g. in bigger social groups of primates/ early humans and you've got willing cooperation (also bonding, sharing resources etc?) Not far then to moral behaviour?


If God has intervened in our history, all I can say is not when it would have mattered. to me – to save people from terrible suffering. Could his “plan” not have accommodated a few more million people? Could he not have changed it so as to spare people from natural disasters and extreme suffering at the hands of other humans?

To choose “the big present” of heaven or everlasting life, you’ve got to believe in it or take a punt.

I can’t believe in it because I can’t believe in the Biblical God. And even if it’s for free I can’t take a punt on something I don’t even believe exists. Sure I’d like it to, but not if the price is extreme suffering of individuals that’s not based on anything but just being in the wrong place at the wrong time - e.g. James Bulger, or the man who was asleep and disappeared down a sink-hole never to be seen again.



Post Edited (Wed 12 Dec 14:06)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 14:29

Oh please.There is no perfect family one can be born into.There are many examples of folk turning there personal life around through affliction and refused to be called a victim.

Evil is an external concept?It's national?Nope.Folks make up countries and the evil is internal.

I suppose the best way to render justice is see that no one suffers from any injustice of mine/yours.

Where did the earliest chemical compound come from?A Big explosion that was orchestrated by no one?

It still doesn't answer the question why do humans have a moral compass.

Well it was 120 years of warning for the flood.2000 years and counting from the message of Christ.That seems quite a bit of time to decide.

Everyone suffers on this planet.No one is exempt.Our ultimate destination is still a free choice for all.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 16:09

Ref: richie5401
Wed 12 Dec 14:29

<<<There are many examples of folk turning their personal life around through affliction and refused to be called a victim.>>>

"Victim", eg James Bulger. Turning their lives around? We're talking different kinds of victims. I think I'd call myself a victim if somebody hit me over the head with a brick.

Yes "evil" is internal. I didn't mean otherwise.

<<< I suppose the best way to render justice is to see that no one suffers from any injustice of mine/yours. >>>

- or anyone else's. It would help!

I don't think you mean "chemical compound". Lots of things would have to happen before the first chemical compounds existed. I suggested that the first thing may have been energy. Where it could have come from is a Physicist's or Religious leader's/Holy book's guess.

"Big Explosion" - you mean the "big bang"? I think it's being talked about now as possibly a "big bounce" - from a collapsed universe? Where did that come from? As I said I don't think our crude idea of cause and effect will lead us to answer that. I sure as heck don't know. At the moment I think it's also still a guess by both Physicists and religious leaders/Holy books. But the religious view is fixed, whereas Physicists remain ever eager for new discoveries and understanding!

I think my ideas of how humanity got "moral compass" are at least in the ball park. We're human - we've become more intelectually sophisticated than any other species. Our reasoning capacity has had significant input into our development. Inventive, co-operative, curious, constructively imaginative etc. Curious and imaginative enough about others to empathise with them, probably even before we became fully evolved humans.

I know everyone suffers but where is God the loving? He knows what paedos are up to and walks by, so it seems. Could it be he does NOT know, does NOT walk by - he is NOT "he" but "it" - perhaps the creative source we call "nature" (meaning everything that exists and has ever existed?)

I know you will likely bat all of this out of court again but I've enjoyed exercising my grey cells with you Rich.

Got to go shopping now. Cheerio.



Post Edited (Wed 12 Dec 16:17)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 16:39

Exactly there are different kinds of victims.Some even imagined.When folks are murdered,raped,etc not sure why the extra noun is necessary.It's the act that is heinous.Victim seemed to have evolved into something completely different and only recently.

Right you would need energy,lots of it and time,space and matter to have any sort of habitable universe.I sure someone built your house,but can you really contend that the universe and it's contents which are infinitely more complex was built by no one?

Like you i would long for perfect justice in every situation,it's not going to happen in this world.injustices happen every day.The best any individual can do is see that no one suffers from any injustice from him/her.



Post Edited (Wed 12 Dec 17:04)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Should life mean life?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Wed 12 Dec 18:00

We're a long way from the OP, so I'm starting a new thread. See "What is the origin of matter?"
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


f=[], target=[], forgotpass=[] ,
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email: