Comments are overwhelmingly against her thesis, too...
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Indeed. Mad as a bag of badgers! But people with very similar views are now in charge of our criminal justice system.
Can I 'signpost' you (AAaaaarrggghhh) in the direction of the Beebs 'Listen Again' facility to catch the latest 'Law in Action' from yesterday (10th). Theodore Dalrymple was a guest...fantastic! The other two 'liberal' guests probably can't believe that he exists!
He argues against short sentences, but his alternative is LONGER ones. Superb!
Must be quite cathartic for all those Guardian readers being in praise of the death penalty for once, but of course, they are the ones who know where to draw the line.
I never sully my eyes with The Graun or The Indy unless a link takes me there, but I actually went hunting for this sort of crap - I just knew they wouldn't be able to resist putting the 'other' (I.e. frivolous, childish, vacuous, morally indefensible) side of the story. They never disappoint: predictable as dirt (but nowhere near as appetising)
It has always struck me as somewhat outrageous to claim that the process of execution of a murderer, brings the state down to the same moral stature as the murderer.
For sure, they have both ended the life of another human being. But the murderer has chosen to kill innocents, who presented no hazard to anyone. Whereas the state is charged with despatching a proven killer who can never be anything other than a danger to his jailers, fellow inmates, and society.
Not all human life is considered sacrosanct in the western world. We go to war, we kill in self-defence when under attack, and we abort the unborn. We do, in fact, prioritise the right to life of other people. So why should a man who has killed people just for enjoyment, be given preferential standing? It seems arbitrary.
I know I'm in the minority on this, and beyond fashionably late to the party to boot, but this was not a good thing. No 'typical liberal with more sympathy for the murderer' I - fuck John Allen Muhammed, and wasn't it a shame that he didn't violently resist arrest and get shot at the time. No, I don't particularly want murdering fuckbags kept alive, especially on the taxpayer's dollar. But above that I don't want the state to be able to kill people who are 100% in it's power because it doesn't fancy keeping alive for one reason or another. The bottom line is this: if they can kill him they can potentially kill any of the 300 million or so other Americans or anyone visiting or passing through the US. Am I alone in having a problem with a government run for 8 years by a word mangling fuckwit, in turn preceded for 8 years by a chancer with a loose fly, having the power of life and death? Yes, it's just for the worst murderers now but that's the big step, and having taken it they're all baby steps from now on. Ultimately why not make three strikes and out into three strikes and dead instead? So I don't say no killing for the sake of scum like John Allen Muhammed, but for everyone else that runs a small but real risk as long as the state has the legal power to kill a defenceless person.
And @ AntiCitizenOne and JuliaM, it doesn't matter much to the dead whether it was religiously inspired or if it was meant to instil terror, but I personally wouldn't want to give the bastard a label like religious terrorist. He'd probably have been proud of it. So instead of calling it an act of religious terrorism lets just call it what it is: an act of murder.
9 comments:
Indeed. Mad as a bag of badgers! But people with very similar views are now in charge of our criminal justice system.
Can I 'signpost' you (AAaaaarrggghhh) in the direction of the Beebs 'Listen Again' facility to catch the latest 'Law in Action' from yesterday (10th). Theodore Dalrymple was a guest...fantastic! The other two 'liberal' guests probably can't believe that he exists!
He argues against short sentences, but his alternative is LONGER ones. Superb!
Must be quite cathartic for all those Guardian readers being in praise of the death penalty for once, but of course, they are the ones who know where to draw the line.
So who DOESN'T think this was an act of religious terrorism??
I never sully my eyes with The Graun or The Indy unless a link takes me there, but I actually went hunting for this sort of crap - I just knew they wouldn't be able to resist putting the 'other' (I.e. frivolous, childish, vacuous, morally indefensible) side of the story.
They never disappoint: predictable as dirt (but nowhere near as appetising)
"..the Beebs 'Listen Again' facility to catch the latest 'Law in Action' from yesterday (10th). Theodore Dalrymple was a guest...fantastic! "
Yes, it was excellent!
"...but of course, they are the ones who know where to draw the line."
And, of course, are accused of being 'Daily Fail' readers or Tories by the usual crowd.
"So who DOESN'T think this was an act of religious terrorism??"
Only someone determined to stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes...
"They never disappoint: predictable as dirt "
Occasionally, there's a surprise. But not often.
It has always struck me as somewhat outrageous to claim that the process of execution of a murderer, brings the state down to the same moral stature as the murderer.
For sure, they have both ended the life of another human being. But the murderer has chosen to kill innocents, who presented no hazard to anyone. Whereas the state is charged with despatching a proven killer who can never be anything other than a danger to his jailers, fellow inmates, and society.
Not all human life is considered sacrosanct in the western world. We go to war, we kill in self-defence when under attack, and we abort the unborn. We do, in fact, prioritise the right to life of other people. So why should a man who has killed people just for enjoyment, be given preferential standing? It seems arbitrary.
I know I'm in the minority on this, and beyond fashionably late to the party to boot, but this was not a good thing. No 'typical liberal with more sympathy for the murderer' I - fuck John Allen Muhammed, and wasn't it a shame that he didn't violently resist arrest and get shot at the time. No, I don't particularly want murdering fuckbags kept alive, especially on the taxpayer's dollar. But above that I don't want the state to be able to kill people who are 100% in it's power because it doesn't fancy keeping alive for one reason or another. The bottom line is this: if they can kill him they can potentially kill any of the 300 million or so other Americans or anyone visiting or passing through the US. Am I alone in having a problem with a government run for 8 years by a word mangling fuckwit, in turn preceded for 8 years by a chancer with a loose fly, having the power of life and death? Yes, it's just for the worst murderers now but that's the big step, and having taken it they're all baby steps from now on. Ultimately why not make three strikes and out into three strikes and dead instead? So I don't say no killing for the sake of scum like John Allen Muhammed, but for everyone else that runs a small but real risk as long as the state has the legal power to kill a defenceless person.
And @ AntiCitizenOne and JuliaM, it doesn't matter much to the dead whether it was religiously inspired or if it was meant to instil terror, but I personally wouldn't want to give the bastard a label like religious terrorist. He'd probably have been proud of it. So instead of calling it an act of religious terrorism lets just call it what it is: an act of murder.
"...a government run for 8 years by a word mangling fuckwit, in turn preceded for 8 years by a chancer with a loose fly..."
Ah, but they remedied that by electing...
Oh.
"...I personally wouldn't want to give the bastard a label like religious terrorist. He'd probably have been proud of it. "
That's probably true, actually. A bit of an own-goal there by the US press.
Post a Comment