Arthur

[Tony L]

I understand the arguments, however, when we see the most heinous crimes committed and it’s beyond any doubt whatsoever, I do feel there could be a case for it. Of course many will disagree and I totally understand why.

It is necessary to distance personal revulsion and a blood-lust for revenge. No legal system should ever be designed on emotion. You need to ask why you want them dead; is it a ‘you’ thing, or a ‘them’ thing? What is ultimately achieved?

PS This is a key reason right-wing politics always fails, always leads to authoritarianism. There is simply no logical reason a state should ever murder its citizens though it is all too often used as a political tool to placate the lizard-brain instincts of the very worst elements of a population and push a state ever further into extremism. I’m prepared to bet there is a simply massive IQ divide between those who believe in a death penalty, and those who don’t. It really isn’t an intelligent solution to anything.

 

[Mullardman]

Data protection is a common scapegoat, and it’s completely wrong. It’s what I do for a living, and there’s no way data protection has ever got in the way of sharing data for this sort of purpose. It gets the blame, though, because people don’t want to address the real issues, such as the sort of muppetry you encountered.

I was, some years ago, very well trained in the workings of the Data Protection legislation. To be fair, I've not been updated since, but I remember a few bits such as the requirement for data which is held to be accurate,current, and necessary etc. But most of all I recall the duty which the act places on practitioners to disclose or share information, where that information indicates that harm may be caused if the info is not shared. So, a simple example..I'm interviewing some youngster who tells me he intends to stab another..and I'm sufficiently convinced that this is more than an idle threat, I am duty bound, by The Act to share this information with relevant actors to prevent the stabbing.

On your specific point, I am quite sure that Data Protection has been used as a 'scapegoat', or an excuse, but I would not be as convinced as you are that Data Protection has 'never got in the way of sharing data'. I've already given you one true example of where that could have been the case. Obviously, Data Protection is not a sentient being, it is a system, backed up by legislation, but I do think that there are many examples of misunderstanding, or poor training, which have led to bad practice, or worse.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

On your specific point, I am quite sure that Data Protection has been used as a 'scapegoat', or an excuse, but I would not be as convinced as you are that Data Protection has 'never got in the way of sharing data'. I've already given you one true example of where that could have been the case. Obviously, Data Protection is not a sentient being, it is a system, backed up by legislation, but I do think that there are many examples of misunderstanding, or poor training, which have led to bad practice, or worse.

My point, though, was that it's not the legislation which prevents it, it is the misunderstanding of the legislation which puts it in people's minds that they can't share. These two are different. It's very akin to the idea that health and safety legislation prevents people getting on stepladders to change a light bulb. It doesn't, it simply requires that some straightforward safety measures are in place before it's done. But H&S gets the blame, because people would rather pass the blame on, than fix the issue.

 

[Mullardman]

I’m prepared to bet there is a simply massive IQ divide between those who believe in a death penalty, and those who don’t. It really isn’t an intelligent solution to anything.

I recall a news item around a 'Free Vote' in Parliament on the proposal to bring back Capital Punishment. The best the right could field was some Jurasic specimen who insisted it was the 'right thing to do'. When questioned about whether it had been right to hang Derek Bentley, and others who were subsequently found to be innocent, his reply was 'Well of course the odd mistake is inevitable..', which had me screaming at the TV that the cretin ought to volunteer to be the first mistake.

 

[Ponty]

It is necessary to distance personal revulsion and a blood-lust for revenge. No legal system should ever be designed on emotion. You need to ask why you want them dead; is it a ‘you’ thing, or a ‘them’ thing? What is ultimately achieved?

PS This is a key reason right-wing politics always fails, always leads to authoritarianism. There is simply no logical reason a state should ever murder its citizens though it is all too often used as a political tool to placate the lizard-brain instincts of the very worst elements of a population and push a state ever further into extremism. I’m prepared to bet there is a simply massive IQ divide between those who believe in a death penalty, and those who don’t. It really isn’t an intelligent solution to anything.

All politics seem to ultimately fail. This doesn’t help poor little Arthur of course, who was wrapped up in a world where those who were supposed to love and care for him shouldn’t be allowed to bring up a child full stop. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, but is also authoritarian by nature.

 

[flatpopely]

I understand the arguments, however, when we see the most heinous crimes committed and it’s beyond any doubt whatsoever, I do feel there could be a case for it. Of course many will disagree and I totally understand why.

In my opinion there is NO case for the death penalty however horrendous the crime.

 

[stevec67]

My point, though, was that it's not the legislation which prevents it, it is the misunderstanding of the legislation which puts it in people's minds that they can't share. These two are different. It's very akin to the idea that health and safety legislation prevents people getting on stepladders to change a light bulb. It doesn't, it simply requires that some straightforward safety measures are in place before it's done. But H&S gets the blame, because people would rather pass the blame on, than fix the issue.

Absolutely. I was going to draw the parallel between this and H&S law. We can't do a school trip because of health and safety. No, you can't do a school trip because nobody can be bothered to carry out a simple risk assessment and work up a set of reasonable common sense controls and implement them.

 

[stevec67]

I understand the arguments, however, when we see the most heinous crimes committed and it’s beyond any doubt whatsoever, I do feel there could be a case for it. Of course many will disagree and I totally understand why.

This is driven by your anger and a wish for revenge. That's a reasonable response, but it doesn't have a place in law enforcement. The USA has a legal system that is very much driven by retribution,and look where they are.

 

[kensalriser]

Every thread on this and similar subjects I've ever seen on any forum always seem to boil down to people who are appalled at the crime and discuss what can be done to prevent future such crimes, and people who are consumed with visions of violent retribution.

 

[stevec67]

Every thread on this and similar subjects I've ever seen on any forum always seem to boil down to people who are appalled at the crime and discuss what can be done to prevent future such crimes, and people who are consumed with visions of violent retribution.

Yeah, well one of them is a lot more fun than the other. I'm coming round to crucifixion, then lighting a fire at the bottom, and, erm, lessee now. Flaying. Yes. Flaying. The bastards won't do that again. How about all that plus...ooh. Crows. Or rats. Rats and crows.

 

[martin clark]

...Scaphism.
That'll learn 'em.


“An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.” -said a far wiser man than I.

 

[Rob998]

...Scaphism.
That'll learn 'em.


“An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.” -said a far wiser man than I.

As a species, we are quite inventive as to the methods of our judicial murder. Or just murder in general. The human species isn’t very nice, really.

 

[martin clark]

No it isn't : the main problem is, it remains the apex predator, and tediously-stupid/shortsighted about how it uses that position. Not Entirely Unlike the Parable of the whale:


“Ah … ! What’s happening?” it thought.
“Err, excuse me, who am I?”
“Hello?”
“Why am I here? What’s my purpose in life?” ...
“Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I’m quite dizzy with anticipation” …
“And wow! Hey! What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like … own … found … round … ground! That’s it! That’s a good name – ground!”
“I wonder if it will be friends with me?”
And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence.

 

[Rob998]

No it isn't : the main problem is, it remains the apex predator, and tediously-stupid/shortsighted about how it uses that position. Not Entirely Unlike the Parable of the whale:


“Ah … ! What’s happening?” it thought.
“Err, excuse me, who am I?”
“Hello?”
“Why am I here? What’s my purpose in life?” ...
“Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I’m quite dizzy with anticipation” …
“And wow! Hey! What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like … own … found … round … ground! That’s it! That’s a good name – ground!”
“I wonder if it will be friends with me?”
And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence.

I agree with much of that. Not sure how it relates to another Arthur unintentionally conjuring a whale into existence, unfortunately in low Earth orbit, and the ensuing mess…

But I’m happy to be educated.

 

[martin clark]

I meant only in lack of foresight - which we, humanity often seem to claim to understand, : but we really really generally don't act-on such claimed intelligences - too often still a feral self-serving kind of 'thing', really.

It's a very small/partial simile at best.

and I don't want it to derail the main theme.

 

[MVV]

It is necessary to distance personal revulsion and a blood-lust for revenge. No legal system should ever be designed on emotion. You need to ask why you want them dead; is it a ‘you’ thing, or a ‘them’ thing? What is ultimately achieved?

PS This is a key reason right-wing politics always fails, always leads to authoritarianism. There is simply no logical reason a state should ever murder its citizens though it is all too often used as a political tool to placate the lizard-brain instincts of the very worst elements of a population and push a state ever further into extremism. I’m prepared to bet there is a simply massive IQ divide between those who believe in a death penalty, and those who don’t. It really isn’t an intelligent solution to anything.

Oddly that is the point of law. To protect us from ourselves. If anyone were to harm my loved ones it is my instinct to track them down and harm them too. This isn't going to help much but without the rule of law I would do that. Your second point I agree with too it is an easy vote winner to say because it taps into our emotional response to such absolutely heinous horror.