Wednesday 17 December 2014

Evil Upon Evil

Pakistan has lifted the moratorium on the death penalty.

And so violence begets the violence, that begets the violence, that begets the violence...


  1. Really?

    Does replacing the death penalty with an armed police, suicidally-long jail sentences (or early release for murderers to murder again) not "beget violence"?

    Of course the death penalty should only exist in free countries like the United States and Britain with a presumption of innocence and trial by jury.

    1. Because America is such a peaceable place.

      And unencumbered by armed police or suicidally long prison sentences.

      Very few countries still have the death penalty, and look which ones they are. Get the message.

  2. Anerica absndoned the death penalty as a serious prospect for murderers in the 1960's. The few killers in a few states who are still sentenced to death are more likely to die of old age on Death Row than ever face execution.

    Louisiana officially has a death penalty. It has used it once in ten years. Call that a death penalty? Are you joking?

    If America brought it back (instead of devolving the responsibility to armed cops) it would indeed be a more peaceful place.

    1. What a hateful creature you are. Like the BNP Trumpton Twitter account. Except real.

  3. Your point is?

    Anyone who doesn't know America long since abolished the death penalty as a realistic prospect for killers (in the few states that still pretend to have it) doesn't know anything.

    Your ideal state is Brazil-where the death penalty was outlawed.

    It's police shoot dead six people a day without trial.

    Is that better?

    1. You are very, very silly. America disproves your whole case, so you have to write it out.

      As to being "outlawed", if you mean "specifically banned by the Constitution", then I'd have to look into that one.

      If there are countries like that, then I think that we can guess which ones they are. And are not.

  4. America proves my case since-the murder rate only exploded there once the death penalty was effectively abolished in the 1960's.

    Louisiana has executed just 28 people since 1976-about one for every 10000 murders.

    Imagine if we imprisoned murderers at the same rate (28 in 30 years) would we surprised it wasn't much of a deterrent?

    The death penalty is only a deterrent if there's a serious prospect of it happening to you. Most American courts now don't apply it in the few states that officially still have it.

    Some murderers have been on Death Row for three decades.

    The U.S. murder rate was collapsing between the 30's and 50's and then went ballistic precisely when the death penalty was effectively abolished.

    1. With "effectively abolished" meaning "not abolished".

      How violent a place, overall, is Western Europe? Compared to anywhere that still has the death penalty?

  5. America is proof positive of the case for the death penalty.

    Ever since it was abandoned in most states (and effectively abandoned as a realistic prospect in all of them) in the 1960's, armed crime there has skyrocketed.

    Look into it. That was when violent crime in the US took off.

    Only one state-Texas-maintains something bordering on a death penalty and it only executes one person per 500 murders.

    Imagine if we imprisoned murderers at the same rate (one for every 500 murders and only after a twenty year appeals process) would anyone be surprised it didn't work?

    I mean, are you serious?

  6. "Effectively abolished" means abolished in most states and used so rarely in the ones that kept it that most murderers have no realistic prospect of ever facing it.

    Check it out yourself, you're a big boy.

    Compare how many murders there have been in, say, Louisiana, with how many people they've actually executed since the 70's.

    It's well known in the U.S that murder rates took off when it was effectively abolished in the 60's-as all the figures show.