Joanna Dennehy: serial killer

[EM2]

Who has children specifically for that reason? Even if that reason is given, in my experience it is always a secondary argument after merely wanting one, or having someone to look after you when you are old.

The species as a whole does it. So do cats, dogs, mice, sharks, giraffes and any other creature you care to mention. It's the whole point of procreation.

 

[radamfi]

The species as a whole does it. So do cats, dogs, mice, sharks, giraffes and any other creature you care to mention. It's the whole point of procreation.

All animals including humans have a desire to mate. In most cases, including humans for most of its history, reproduction is a side effect of mating. However, humans have evolved sufficiently so that they are now intelligent enough to have intercourse without reproduction. Reproduction is now a choice.

 

[Oswyntail]

All animals including humans have a desire to mate. In most cases, including humans for most of its history, reproduction is a side effect of mating. However, humans have evolved sufficiently so that they are now intelligent enough to have intercourse without reproduction. Reproduction is now a choice.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the human race stops reproducing until we have identified the genetic structures that cause people to murder and a consequent way of manipulating it? Well that would be a radical, short term solution, I suppose!:roll:

 

[radamfi]

Are you genuinely suggesting that the human race stops reproducing until we have identified the genetic structures that cause people to murder and a consequent way of manipulating it? Well that would be a radical, short term solution, I suppose!:roll:

The planet is being destroyed by humans anyway. If such a solution is not found, leading to the extinction of the human race, that is still a lot more ethical than forcing people to live in a world of suffering, pain and strife.

I don't expect my ideas to come to anything, of course. This discussion is, naturally, just a philosophical one. At least I know I am doing my bit by not having children.

 

[bnm]

That there is one part of a persons genetic make-up responsible for them committing murder, that it would be possible to breed out of them, or switch off, is bad science of the worst sort.

What about nurture, environment, and other outside influences? Want to control those as well?

Genetic manipulation is not an ethical solution to the world's ills. radamfi, you sound too much like an early 20th century eugenicist.

Your points may only be a of a philosophical nature. However, implementing them, even if possible, is, to my mind, not the the start of the road to utopia, where human suffering, pain and strife is eradicated, but a quick slippery slope into a dystopian nightmare.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The planet is being destroyed by humans anyway. If such a solution is not found, leading to the extinction of the human race, that is still a lot more ethical than forcing people to live in a world of suffering, pain and strife.

I don't expect my ideas to come to anything, of course. This discussion is, naturally, just a philosophical one. At least I know I am doing my bit by not having children.

Right, but your argument is that reproduction is a choice, and therefore it's alright to ban people from doing it because we don't know whether they'll produce murderers or not.

Apart from the fact that this completely ignores upbringing in all of this, it'd hardly be a choice if you had your way, would it?

 

[radamfi]

Right, but your argument is that reproduction is a choice, and therefore it's alright to ban people from doing it because we don't know whether they'll produce murderers or not.

Apart from the fact that this completely ignores upbringing in all of this, it'd hardly be a choice if you had your way, would it?

Regardless of upbringing, there is no guarantee that the child would not endure suffering and pain. With any luck, having children will be frowned upon in the future, as people realise the cruelty of forcing people into the world, so there would be no need to impose regulations as people would stop having children by choice.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The planet is being destroyed by humans anyway. If such a solution is not found, leading to the extinction of the human race, that is still a lot more ethical than forcing people to live in a world of suffering, pain and strife. I don't expect my ideas to come to anything, of course. This discussion is, naturally, just a philosophical one. At least I know I am doing my bit by not having children.

How did you view the "one child policy" that the Chinese state decreed at the time ?

 

[radamfi]

How did you view the "one child policy" that the Chinese state decreed at the time ?

Obviously reducing population growth is highly desirable, but it is better to encourage people to do the right thing rather than impose strict laws.

 

[GB]

The planet is being destroyed by humans anyway. If such a solution is not found, leading to the extinction of the human race, that is still a lot more ethical than forcing people to live in a world of suffering, pain and strife.

I don't expect my ideas to come to anything, of course. This discussion is, naturally, just a philosophical one. At least I know I am doing my bit by not having children.

How do you expect the human race to survive without people having children?

 

[radamfi]

How do you expect the human race to survive without people having children?

Is it really essential for the human race to survive? The Earth is likely to suffer less environmental damage without them.

 

[fowler9]

Is it really essential for the human race to survive? The Earth is likely to suffer less environmental damage without them.

An interesting and perhaps controversial opinion no doubt. I would love to have kids if only for the chance to give someone the inspiration to go and see the things I have and the means to preserve them. Sadly at my age I think I may never be a dad.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it really essential for the human race to survive? The Earth is likely to suffer less environmental damage without them.

Unless of course nature decides to intervene with the odd supervolcano or two..

 

[bnm]

Those in favour. Still think the death penalty is a good idea?

From the BBC:

US man walks free after 25 years on death row

A man who spent more than 25 years on death row in the US state of Louisiana has walked free from prison after his murder conviction for the 1983 killing of a jeweller was overturned.

Glenn Ford, 64, had been on death row since August 1988.

He had been found guilty of killing 56-year-old Isadore Rozeman, a jeweller for whom Mr Ford occasionally worked.

US media reports say that he is one of the longest-serving death row inmates in modern US history to be exonerated.

Mr Ford had always denied killing Mr Rozeman.

...continues

 

[GB]

Those in favour. Still think the death penalty is a good idea?

In the right circumstances, yes.

 

[455driver]

^^^ wot eee zed ^^^

With modern forensics etc would he have been found guilty of that crime today?

I doubt it because its probably those very same forensics that have proved his innocence now!

 

[fowler9]

In the right circumstances, yes.

What are the right circumstances when it turns out decades later they were wrong. You can't bring people back from the dead.

 

[GB]

Times where there is clear and undeniable proof of guilt..ie those that murdered Lee Rigby or the person at the heart of this thread.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Times where there is clear and undeniable proof of guilt..ie those that murdered Lee Rigby or the person at the heart of this thread.

You sound like they just sentence people to death for very little. They only do it if they think there's "clear and undeniable proof".

 

[EM2]

You sound like they just sentence people to death for very little. They only do it if they think there's "clear and undeniable proof".

People like Derek Bentley, for example? Or Joe Arridy? Or Barry George? Or Colin Stagg?
Bentley and Arridy were hanged and received posthumous pardons. George and Stagg would almost certainly received the death penalty if it had been available.

 

[TheKnightWho]

People like Derek Bentley, for example?

Nowadays, I mean. Don't get me wrong - I don't think we should bring it back. My point was that there will always be cases where someone is later found innocent, regardless of how solid the evidence seems.

 

[455driver]

Nowadays, I mean. Don't get me wrong - I don't think we should bring it back. My point was that there will always be cases where someone is later found innocent, regardless of how solid the evidence seems.

Are you saying that there is a possibility that this woman or those 2 that hacked Lee Rigby to death could be innocent?

Those are the people we are talking about!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Are you saying that there is a possibility that this woman or those 2 that hacked Lee Rigby to death could be innocent?

Those are the people we are talking about!

Right, but if we set the bar incredibly high then you're going to be letting off people who almost certainly murdered, but because no-one was literally there to see it they can't be sentenced to death, so have life imprisonment instead.

Seems a bit weird to me. Either they committed a crime or they didn't - you can't change the sentence because of the type of evidence used against them.

 

[fowler9]

Are you saying that there is a possibility that this woman or those 2 that hacked Lee Rigby to death could be innocent?

Those are the people we are talking about!

Yeah, unlikely they are innocent but personally I would be thinking of people who have had their lives ruined like Stefan Kiszko. God knows what happened to him in prison alone if he was meant to be a sex case. At least he wasn't executed.

 

[455driver]

Yeah, unlikely they are innocent but personally I would be thinking of people who have had their lives ruined like Stefan Kiszko. God knows what happened to him in prison alone if he was meant to be a sex case. At least he wasn't executed.

But with modern forensics would he have been convicted today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems a bit weird to me. Either they committed a crime or they didn't - you can't change the sentence because of the type of evidence used against them.

Oh yes you can, it is done every day.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh yes you can, it is done every day.

Such as?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let's get back to the subject of the Dennehy woman and ignore the first three victims who were all known to her. What about the two later victims of her attacks who were totally unknown to her. Put yourself in the shoes of someone quietly taken your dog for a walk and then confronted by Dennehy and attacked. Whilst you are under the attack, do you reason with her and say whatever she does to you, you will have the human understanding as part of living in a civilised society....or not as may be the case.

 

[fowler9]

But with modern forensics would he have been convicted today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Oh yes you can, it is done every day.

A good question we will hopefully never find out the answer to. It would be one hell of an oops.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Let's get back to the subject of the Dennehy woman and ignore the first three victims who were all known to her. What about the two later victims of her attacks who were totally unknown to her. Put yourself in the shoes of someone quietly taken your dog for a walk and then confronted by Dennehy and attacked. Whilst you are under the attack, do you reason with her and say whatever she does to you, you will have the human understanding as part of living in a civilised society....or not as may be the case.

But that's disingenuous, isn't it? The point of lawyers is to be detached - there's a reason we don't let victims sentence criminals, because there must be a consistent punishment for crimes.

Otherwise the most compassionate become the biggest targets, which is just barbaric.

 

[GB]

Seems a bit weird to me.

Seems to me you get best of both worlds.