You’re probably right but no one can explain to me or justify how sentencing/reform/rehabilitation works in the case of someone who has taken a life.

My Uncle was admitted to hospital and began to recover but the several broken ribs and bruised sternum meant he couldn’t breathe properly and as a result died of pneumonia. He would not have contracted pneumonia had he not been assaulted.

Now please tell me what any of you think would be a just and appropriate sentence had he been caught and how you would propose to rehabilitate the man who killed my Uncle. An innocent man watching a tennis match in the comfort of his own home died because of this attack. I would like to be man enough to think I could see everyone’s point and realise and respect the fact that this man has the same human rights as the man he killed. I would like to be forgiving. But I am not big enough. I wouldn’t wish him to be kicked to within an inch of his life and then spend the next three weeks drowning in his own mucus, but by the same token, I don’t think he deserves the right to live either.

Does the killer deserve to live? IMHO, no. He represents the lowest form of human scum that walks the earth, and I would have no problem if he were to leave us permanently.

What I do have a problem with is giving the state powers to take people’s lives away.

And like it or not, innocent people can and have been convicted of murder and subsequently executed. The same incompetence on behalf of the Criminal Justice System would not be solved just because Capital Punishment would be introduced. What is your message to the innocent people killed by the Courts, or to their families? ‘Sorry, we got it wrong’ simply isn’t good enough.

Yes, you have said that you would only sanction the death penalty if there is irrefutable evidence, but the distinction between refutable or irrefutable is purely arbitrary.

Witness can lie, or be mistaken. DNA can go a long way to proving guilt, but is cannot be used as a cover-all evidential standard.

I’m sorry, but with so many little caveats and provisos, the endless variation between cases and the risk of killing innocent people, I firmly believe that as a system of law, Capital punishment cannot be applied consistently or fairly.

Quite before we tackle the hypocrisy of killing someone in return for killing, shouldn’t the law, above all things, be there to set an example? It may be idealist, but the state must, if at all possible, be beyond reproach, and state sanctioned killings can never be so. There are too many gray areas, too many one-off situations and too much subjectivity.

There are people who probably don’t deserve to live after the crimes they have committed, but if we still want to hold the moral high ground, still be able to have a consistent legal system that is applied without arguments made from emotion, unbiased and sets a standard to follow, then Capital punishment cannot provide this.

There is no perfect system, and even if all prisoners should be given a chance to clean up their act inside, that doesn’t mean that they should be released. Life should mean life. Forever. In some inhospitable hole of a prison without creature comforts. If they behave then they can get better conditions, but their sentence is as much to punish as to re-habilitate, and for some this means the rest of their natural lives in jail.

Just a quick question for anyone who is in support of the death penalty…and I think the only one here is OldShape

If, after an execution has been carried out it comes to light that an innocent person has been wrongly killed, would you stand by the system?

Given that this has already happened, are you saying that you are willing to let innocent people die so that others can be ‘rightfully’ (in the loosest sense of the word) executed?

What purpose does execution actually serve, and in what way is it superior to incarceration? From what I have seen presented here it would be financially the more expensive option, would have no system of recourse after sentence is carried out, and I remain unconvinced that it would carry significant deterrent value. After all, if it was an effective deterrent we would never see anyone convicted of murder in states where execution is on the statute books, and in any case the majority of murders are in spur of the moment violence rather than pre-meditated.

If anyone I cared for was murdered, then I admit, I would not feel morally in the wrong for dealing out the same to whomever perpetrated the act, in fact I would probably be in favour of it; but is this any way to construct a justice system?

Need I point out that the industrial concerns of the contract should be irrelevant to the USAF, all they need is the most suitable aircraft for their needs. Bringing in workshare concerns is a political exercise, and if that’s what the USA wants to do then fine, but then our discussion of the capabilities becomes pointless.

*Facepalm*

Having said that I always admired the American idea of storing old aircraft for reactivation at quite short notice in case of a major problem.

As have I, but there is only ever any point in doing so if you will have the pilots and maintainence expertise on hand at the same time. This is possible with the F-15s/16s/18s in storage at AMARC, but once all the techs for the F.3s retire and the pilots are no longer current there really isn’t much point having any about.

They might be alright as UCAVs, there was talk of converting the GRs into something like that.

A split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)

Apart from the KC-330 being even better :diablo:

So will there even be a competition this time or will the US just go for home-grown aircraft? This, I wouldn’t mind, but to declare a competition, and and then for all this fiasco to erupt is ridiculous.

I for one cannot see the point of having strategic bombers as part of a nuclear deterrent, submarines and ICBMs can be the Strategic deterrent without any hassle, or significant loss of capability.

In the tactical role bombers could be useful, but there is no reason why a fighter/bomber couldn’t be used.

The JASDF may field the F-35 in the future, but as was mentioned earlier it won’t be available to be delivered in time to replace the F-4EJs. Japan has requested information on the F-35, but I don’t think it has shown a real interest in it for the scheduled replacement in question. In that respect the Typhoon has received more attention after the Raptor.

If the F-X project moves ahead in 2010 or 2011, assuming the F-22 isn’t made available, and I had to put money on it, I’d go with the Typhoon winning.

Tyhpoon would probably suit Japan well, but I wouldn’t discount Super Hornet.

I would have thought that using stealth aircraft might be considered a bit aggressive for Japan, as they can be construed as first-strike weapons?