• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Dearie me

T

The Fortune Teller

Journeyman
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
8,359
If anyone ever thinks they've suffered an injustice of any kind in this life, whatever the nature of it, just take a look at this bloke, who's just served nearly 40 years for something he didn't do. Then understand how lucky we are not to be him, also why on balance, it's good we don't have the death penalty!

www.bbc.co.uk

Peter Sullivan: Man jailed for 1986 murder has conviction quashed

Peter Sullivan, 68, says he is "not bitter" after one of the UK's biggest miscarriages of justice.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
My late father (who by no means got everything right) once said to me that statistically the death penalty has zero long-term global impact on murder rates (maybe a short-lived spike upwards when it's abolished, or an equally short-term spike downwards when it's introduced or re-introduced) and just one miscarriage of justice makes the water-tight case for not having it.

I'd add not having it is society's way of reminding itself that it's better - or ought to be better - than those it sits in judgement upon.

Anyone in favour of the death penalty worries me - it's got more to do with vengefulness (and reading The Daily Mail or The Daily Express) than justice.

Poor bloke - nothing can compensate for that, but I hope he's given pretty much anything he wants the rest of his life.
 
Going off at a tangent...

I'm struck by the paradox unfolding in Scotland just now whereby voting is taking place on 'assisted dying' while we don't have the death penalty for murderers, etc.

We don't execute people guilty of the most heinous crimes yet we're voting to decide whether to execute the ill and the elderly...
 
Aye. While we often rightly bemoan the calibre of our modern day politicians, in their defence, I would say they do have some very difficult decisions to make based on complex and intricate factors, the issue of assisted dying being one of them.

I have a strong liberal side, and by liberal, I mean the rights of individuals. For newer posters who don't know me that well, I was sectioned aged 17 into an adult psychiatric hospital in 2003 and that was a really challenging experience. I often had to question whether my best interests were being put to the fore.

I know others have different experiences in this sphere and I appreciate the NHS have a difficult job to do with mental health, but yes, I think my feeling towards an individual rights stem quite strong from my experiences many years ago as a teenager.

I also have other sides and beliefs which may, as Maurice has done, question the efficacy of assisted dying.

With regards to the original story about this chap, the more I think about it, the more power to him for what he's said about not being bitter etc.

He obviously undestands a serious crime happend, and has an appreciation of that, which is quite refreshing, given we hear so much bitterness in the criminal justice system, on different levels from people with different experiences. I hope he is compensated accordingly and can find some peace and happyness moving forward with his life.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Going off at a tangent...

I'm struck by the paradox unfolding in Scotland just now whereby voting is taking place on 'assisted dying' while we don't have the death penalty for murderers, etc.

We don't execute people guilty of the most heinous crimes yet we're voting to decide whether to execute the ill and the elderly...
Click to expand...
Is "going off at a tangent" polite parkour room speak for outright thread hijack? 😂

Not that it matters.

I think "execute the ill and elderly" is stretching it more than a bit - I thought it was about granting those who proactively seek to terminate a personal existence they feel no longer offers them any quality of life, and quite possibly leaves them in perpetual pain, the right to do so.
 
Last edited:
Ian_Davies said:
Is "going off at a tangent" polite parkour room speak for outright thread hijack? 😂

Not that it matters.

I think "execute the ill and elderly" is stretching it more than a bit - I thought it was about granting those who proactively seek to terminate a personal existence they feel no longer offers them any quality of life, and quite possibly leaves them in perpetual pain, the right to do so.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. No one is being executed against their wishes.
 
simmo said:
I agree with this. No one is being executed against their wishes.
Click to expand...

This is my take on account of our experience during the pandemic.

By the way, I'm not sure I would have this view if I lived in England.

In 2020 my then 90yo mother-in-law who was fairly strong physically and mentally for her age had to go into hospital for an issue that had nothing at all to do with Covid. She got home a few days later with a letter stuffed in along with her belongings effectively subjecting her to a 'Do Not Resuscitate' {DNR] order. The family was not consulted.

We know someone who worked in Holyrood at the time and we were told it was an executive order by a senior politician that all patient incomers over the age of 70 to hospital would have this DNR order imposed.

There were no conditions attached. If the person's medical issue saw them lapse into unconsciousness they were to be left to die.

Am I really to believe that if one politician - and the medical staff said nothing to make us presume they disagreed - can impose this on an entire nation, then other like-minded politicians will not take anything other than the most liberal interpretation of the Bill??

I have hear 'Fors' saying, "We wouldn't let our dog suffer, would we?"

Human beings are not dogs.

Look at how liberal the abortion laws have become and look back at how the original Bill was worded.

Look at how so-called assisted dying has expanded in those countries who already passed the law. This quote is taken directly from a BBC article: some allowing assisted death for those who are not terminally ill.

It's the thin edge of a very thick wedge.

But I agree this is probably best debated as a thread on its own.

Having said my piece (following a sleepless night caused by learning that the legislation passed its first stage up here), I will quietly back out of the discussion as I have no wish to offend anyone.
 
This happened to me and my friend was not impressed at all.
In 2020 my then 90yo mother-in-law who was fairly strong physically and mentally for her age had to go into hospital for an issue that had nothing at all to do with Covid. She got home a few days later with a letter stuffed in along with her belongings effectively subjecting her to a 'Do Not Resuscitate' {DNR] order. The family was not consulted.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top