Reply With QuoteI'm pretty sure most of them appeal that mateOriginally Posted by William Treseder
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
That’s taking into consideration the costs of all the appeals.
Once someone is sentenced to death, it would be cheaper than life inside if they executed them straight away.
I'm pretty sure most of them appeal that mate
Thanks for the misquote but I didn't mention the word 'old' at all. It seems that you have joined a tiny band of posters on here (three in number now) that are unable to have a rational debate or able to avoid misrepresenting other people's views. Oh, and unable to avoid making childish and ridiculous comments that befit a five-year-old.
Another one to put on 'ignore'.
Three ID's rather than three people possibly.
I used to be anti-capital punishment as I wouldn't want to be killed by the state by mistake as many others have previously. However, with 'smoking gun' murderers who are compos mentis then hang, shoot, electrocute or dropkick them over a cliff's edge all day long.
The flaw is in translating those figures into your statement that 20 people at a Cardiff game would on average be a victim of homicide (defined as murder, manslaughter and infanticide) and implying that no-one would turn up given the risk. For that to be true:
a) the stadium population would be made up exclusively of new born and
b) they would have to be there every day for between 0 and 80 years for the risk to materialise.
That's probably why most sane people feel it reasonably safe to buy a season ticket.
The biggest fallacy of the argument is the suggestion that there is somewhere else you could go where the risk was significantly lower.
Luckily for you I am an expert. You’ve taken the murder rates for one year in Cape Town and extrapolated that over 80 years then applied it to Cardiff as if it’s a rate. Not only do you have too small a sample time but you can simply extrapolate it like that. And you’ve ignored the facets that make certain people more likely to be murdered than others. Basically you’re chatting shite.
Also no one has ever been murdered at a Cardiff game so you couldn’t just assign a frequency from a calculated rate
If you had a 1E-03 chance of being murdered at a football match no one would go.
Oh dear, despite all your self-proclaimed expertise I am feeling slightly underwhelmed by your lesson.
Let's assume you meant "can't simply extrapolate" but, unfortunately, you can’t assume anything with some of the posters on here. Small sample time? Ignored facets? Do you really think anyone is going to create and present some sort of academic paper on murder rates just to make a point on football messageboard? You are clutching at straws. My aim was to show how looking at the lifetime chance of being murdered rather than the yearly average gives you a different impression of the murder rate. I am sure you will be the first to congratulate me on achieving that objective. If the murder rate in Cardiff is 1.7 per 100,000 then that seems much safer than saying you have a 1 in 735 chance of being murdered before you are 80 even though, given many obvious assumptions, they mean the same thing.
You're chatting absolute shite mate and none of it is even an arguement for the death penalty.
Someone close to me loves Trump and is exactly the same in any discussion, it will go from talking about one thing to 16 intertwined conspiracies and one sentence will blow your mind with how much it doesn’t make sense.
They’re so far down the rabbit hole they can’t construct a sentence that makes sense.
Fair play. Not everyone would admit to having W-B as a relative!
It's not worth discussing anything you'll never change their mind. Even if you catch them out they'll say "clinton would have done it but worse"
It is tiresome going round in circles.
I don’t even bother showing them things anymore as I know it will end up in an argument because they either talk absolute waffle or talk louder/interrupt me when I put a point across.
And obviously they’ve seen the proof and everything they don’t regard as proof is made up
Really crazy how warped they get. It’s them or us, do or die, they’re all ****ing crazy.
Thought we were talking about the extreme cases like Brady, Huntley, Sutcliffe etc?I'm pretty sure most of them appeal that mate
They would have no grounds for an appeal.
How would you know which murderer would have no ground for appeal? One guilty verdict then dead is it ?
Once again you’ve jumped into the thread with both feet.
I’m against the death penalty in all cases, which I’ve already mentioned twice in this thread.
I’m now discussing if folk who want the DP, do so, not for the revenge factor, but because of the cost to the tax payer.
It was then pointed out that the cost of appeals for death row prisoners can cost a lot more than keeping them in prison for life.
I then mentioned extreme cases where their would be no grounds for and appeal, I.e. Peter Sutcliffe. Guilty of 13 cold blooded murders. So that wouldn’t come into your “ One guilty verdict , then dead” would it?
To be perfectly honest I've got no idea what we're talking about anymore
Posting Permissions