Prison Justice served ? ? ? return of the death sentence ? ? ?

[J R Hartley]

Splotty??? Got me worried��

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

[David Vincent]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

[Croesy Blue]

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

[David Vincent]

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

[delmbox]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

Splott Dai was nutty but he wasn't this nutty was he? Ask David Vincent if he's ever been shot in the arse

[Heisenberg]

Splott Dai was nutty but he wasn't this nutty was he? Ask David Vincent if he's ever been shot in the arse

Say "Zionism" 3 times while looking in the mirror and see if David Vincent appears behind you.

[Croesy Blue]

But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason.

Surely that argument blows any argument for the death penalty away. Why would you ever want an innocent person killed even if the chance is miniscule?

It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

The chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you think our criminal justice system is that accurate you must be even more off your nut than you've come across in this thread.

[David Vincent]

Surely that argument blows any argument for the death penalty away. Why would you ever want an innocent person killed even if the chance is miniscule?

The chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you think our criminal justice system is that accurate you must be even more off your nut than you've come across in this thread.

Whatever system you have innocent people will be killed. If your sole argument against the death penalty is innocent people being killed then you should be for the death penalty. The deterrent effect will save many innocents from death and also you will not have murderers being let out or escaping and killing again.

I didn't mean there is a one a billion chance of a miscarriage of justice under the present system. I meant that even if we have an almost failproof system - e.g. everyone watched all the time with CCTV - we will still have glitches that will lead to people being punished unfairly. At the moment our system is so hopeless that all it takes is for some unstable person to shout "witch" or "paedo" and to point the finger and you are in big trouble.

The idea that Savile is guilty of nothing more than being a groper like many entertainment people from the 1960s and 1970s is not insane. There are sites like the following where this is claimed. Don't forget that until a few years ago millions of readers of The Sun leered at topless pictures of 16 years olds. Sexual harassment was standard fare in many offices and factories.

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/

Carl Beech, helped by Tom Watson MP, said that Savile tortured him. Beech said the same about the heads of MI5, MI6, the head of the army and his assistant, a former Prime Minister and other politicians. Beech was given £20k without having to prove anything. Most of the money Savile left for charities went to lawyers and the rest went to anyone who said he or she was a victim.

[lardy]

Whatever system you have innocent people will be killed. If your sole argument against the death penalty is innocent people being killed then you should be for the death penalty. The deterrent effect will save many innocents from death and also you will not have murderers being let out or escaping and killing again.

I didn't mean there is a one a billion chance of a miscarriage of justice under the present system. I meant that even if we have an almost failproof system - e.g. everyone watched all the time with CCTV - we will still have glitches that will lead to people being punished unfairly. At the moment our system is so hopeless that all it takes is for some unstable person to shout "witch" or "paedo" and to point the finger and you are in big trouble.

The idea that Savile is guilty of nothing more than being a groper like many entertainment people from the 1960s and 1970s is not insane. There are sites like the following where this is claimed. Don't forget that until a few years ago millions of readers of The Sun leered at topless pictures of 16 years olds. Sexual harassment was standard fare in many offices and factories.

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/

Carl Beech, helped by Tom Watson MP, said that Savile tortured him. Beech said the same about the heads of MI5, MI6, the head of the army and his assistant, a former Prime Minister and other politicians. Beech was given £20k without having to prove anything. Most of the money Savile left for charities went to lawyers and the rest went to anyone who said he or she was a victim.

Do you want to buy some magic beans?

http://buysomemagicbeans.blogspot.com/

This site says they are really good.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Whatever system you have innocent people will be killed. If your sole argument against the death penalty is innocent people being killed then you should be for the death penalty. The deterrent effect will save many innocents from death and also you will not have murderers being let out or escaping and killing again.

I didn't mean there is a one a billion chance of a miscarriage of justice under the present system. I meant that even if we have an almost failproof system - e.g. everyone watched all the time with CCTV - we will still have glitches that will lead to people being punished unfairly. At the moment our system is so hopeless that all it takes is for some unstable person to shout "witch" or "paedo" and to point the finger and you are in big trouble.

The idea that Savile is guilty of nothing more than being a groper like many entertainment people from the 1960s and 1970s is not insane. There are sites like the following where this is claimed. Don't forget that until a few years ago millions of readers of The Sun leered at topless pictures of 16 years olds. Sexual harassment was standard fare in many offices and factories.

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/

Carl Beech, helped by Tom Watson MP, said that Savile tortured him. Beech said the same about the heads of MI5, MI6, the head of the army and his assistant, a former Prime Minister and other politicians. Beech was given £20k without having to prove anything. Most of the money Savile left for charities went to lawyers and the rest went to anyone who said he or she was a victim.

I feel that I have entered an alternative universe. Nurse! Nurse!

[David Vincent]

I feel that I have entered an alternative universe. Nurse! Nurse!

I can understand why you are shouting for a nurse. From what I remember you are the poster who has been attending the same German language class for 30 years or so. You seem to be trapped in a Groundhog Day nightmare universe.

Innocent people would be saved by a death penalty because I would guess that less innocent people would be executed than innocent people murdered by killers who had been released plus innocent people saved by the death penalty deterrent. That in my mind is not the main argument for the death penalty. I was just countered someone's argument that the death penalty kills innocent people.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I can understand why you are shouting for a nurse. From what I remember you are the poster who has been attending the same German language class for 30 years or so. You seem to be trapped in a Groundhog Day nightmare universe.

Innocent people would be saved by a death penalty because I would guess that less innocent people would be executed than innocent people murdered by killers who had been released plus innocent people saved by the death penalty deterrent. That in my mind is not the main argument for the death penalty. I was just countered someone's argument that the death penalty kills innocent people.

Well if you are any sort of linguist you will know it's a case of 'use it or lose it' and my German lecturer is a fantastic Oxford-educated polyglot so this humble soul has no problem with learning from him every week (in addition to accessing other sources) and improving my level year-on-year. If you see that as a negative and relevant in this thread in any way whatsoever bully for you.

Personally, I think it makes you come over as being rather silly.

[William Treseder]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

You wrong!!!! Never!! 😁

[J R Hartley]

You wrong!!!! Never!! ��

Do one. Pansy man.

[lardy]

Hold on....Anna Racoon says Savile is innocent. Anna Racoon! This is a gamechanger. Once Anna Racoon gets involved, you know it's a roller coaster. I'm ready to change my mind on anything when I get stuck into the one and only Anna Racoon's blog.

[Croesy Blue]

Hold on....Anna Racoon says Savile is innocent. Anna Racoon! This is a gamechanger. Once Anna Racoon gets involved, you know it's a roller coaster. I'm ready to change my mind on anything when I get stuck into the one and only Anna Racoon's blog.

And I always thought Cyril Sneer was the bad guy

[cyril evans awaydays]

And I always thought Cyril Sneer was the bad guy

Steady, people have feelings you know!

[rudy gestede]

The states in the US with the death penalty have a higher crime rate the the states without it so if your one point is that it’s a deterrent you’ve already lost.

[David Vincent]

The states in the US with the death penalty have a higher crime rate the the states without it so if your one point is that it’s a deterrent you’ve already lost.

I believe murderers deserve to die. If executing murderers reduces murder then that is a plus but it is not my reason for believing in capital punishment for murder.

Your claim about different crime rates in states with and without the death penalty might be true. I don't know. But after a quick look a map showing which states have the death penalty I can see that the non-death penalty states are mainly in the north and they are on average more prosperous than the death penalty states. There is usually more crime and murder in poorer places. There are far more variables involved in this difference in crime rates other than the presence or absence of capital punishment. But who knows how much more crime you would have in these poor places if they didn't have capital punishment.

Every sane person knows the death penalty is a deterrent. Think about someone you really hate and want to kill. You are an eighteen year old and in one universe you can kill this person and serve about 15 years in the relative discomfort of a prison. When you come out at 33 you are still a young man. In the second universe you kill and then you are executed. Your life is over before it has really started. Far more people would be tempted to kill in the first universe.

[dembethewarrior]

Do one. Pansy man.

[William Treseder]

You 2 get a room x

[dembethewarrior]

You 2 get a room x

It’s funny. I laughed.

[rudy gestede]

It is proven to not be a deterrent. Do you think someone who’s thinking about murdering someone is in the state of mind where they think “better not do this I might get in trouble?”

[David Vincent]

It is proven to not be a deterrent. Do you think someone who’s thinking about murdering someone is in the state of mind where they think “better not do this I might get in trouble?”

Yes. Many killers are completely rational. They work out the costs and benefits of killing before they do it. The ones who are insane or extremely stupid are not executed.

[lardy]

Yes. Many killers are completely rational. They work out the costs and benefits of killing before they do it. The ones who are insane or extremely stupid are not executed.

You think all criminals are born bad.