Ian Hislop explains Capital Punishment to an Idiot.

[Gob]

[Crackpot]

So he was explaining it to himself?

[Gob]

Ian Hislop is anything but an idiot.

[Joe Guy]

It was an unfair match up.

The lady wasn't very good at arguing the case, not to mention that it seems everyone else in the room disagreed with her.

I notice that happening with a lot of conservative talk radio hosts. They seem to only allow people with opposing opinions on air that sound silly or aren't good speakers. Then they make fun of them.

It's an old trick.

[Gob]

Joe, the panel is selected from across the political spectrum, "Question Time"is probably the best political debate program in teh UK.

Question Time is a topical debate BBC television programme in the United Kingdom, based on Any Questions?. The show typically features politicians from at least the three major political parties as well as other public figures who answer pre-selected questions put to them by a carefully selected audience. The independent production company Mentorn has made the programme for the BBC since 1998. Question Time is presented by David Dimbleby.

[Joe Guy]

Only a person who possesses the meanest intelligence would believe that...

[Crackpot]

That the "best" political debate you have to offer? And you had the nerve to critcise our presidential debates?

At least ours are humorous

[Gob]

No that's a short clip from a TV political debate program.

But you are right on your elections being funny.

[Lord Jim]

I agree with every single thing CP has said in this thread. He's completely nailed.

[dales]

Only a person who possesses the meanest intelligence would believe that...

TooFunny

[MajGenl.Meade]

Mock the Week!

[Crackpot]

I'm not the one that climed that the clip "explained" something or showed someone to be an "idiot". Fail on both counts.

[dgs49]

One wonders whether the moderator is correct about large numbers of people being convicted of capital crimes, then proven innocent.

On this side of the pond, finding an INNOCENT person who has been executed has been like the search for the Holy Grail - often pursued, never found.

Capital punishment is not worth the trouble, but it has been a long time since it actually meant anything, except in Texas.

[Joe Guy]

As I recall, Barry Scheck, former 'Dream Team' member, beginning back in the 90's has been successful at using DNA to save prisoners from being executed.

It's probably difficult to figure out how many innocent people have been executed but there is a way to tell how it has been prevented.

[Lord Jim]

One wonders whether the moderator is correct about large numbers of people being convicted of capital crimes, then proven innocent.

Yeah, I noticed the way he just tosses that out there, (I don't think he was the moderator, BTW) and the woman who they brought in to play The Washington Generals to his Harlem Globetrotters was too unprepared to deal with it...

What I saw was an obnoxious, sneering, pompous ass who was bullying and running roughshod over a woman who was obviously unprepared for dealing with a blowhard of his magnitude...

And as if giving this cheese an opponent who wasn't up to dealing with his professional wrestling debate approach wasn't enough of an advantage, the audience was also clearly stacked to serve as cheering squad for him....

And speaking of the so called "moderator" where the hell was he while Mr. Bag-O-Wind kept interrupting and over-talking?

This wasn't any kind of "debate"; it was a full court press sand bagging...

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Idiot" was an unnecessary pejorative by whoever put up the Youtube snippet.

What Hislop said was that Private Eye (a magazine he edits) has over the years (prior to his editorship as well as during) argued against many capital crime verdicts for which persons found guilty have eventually been exonerated and released. That happens to be true. They've also failed in other cases to be arguing the "right" side.

He did not bully or run over his opponent. He did not "keep" interrupting and overtalking. The moderator actually interrupted her equally as often if not more. Hislop was not obnoxious, sneering or pompous - he made a very humorous riposte "They'd be dead". That's wit.

The opponent who was "not up to dealing" with Hislop and was "unprepared" is in fact Priti Patel, a Member of Parliament (at the time - 2011) and a rising star in the Conservative party. She certainly was not up to making a coherent argument in favour of her own position.

The revival of the capital punishment debate is a truly remarkable example of how society can so easily forget the lessons of history. Where better to rehash the age-old arguments of both sides than Questiontime, and who better to referee it than David Dimbleby.

Just to declare an interest, I am against the death penalty. But that does not mean I cannot respect a mature debate about its pros and cons. What struck me on Thursday night, however, was Priti Patel MP’s absolute disregard for the twin requirements of rationality and reason that you would hope of someone given the privilege of a platform on BBC1 and certainly expect of a Member of Parliament.

Harriet Harman MP was up first and compellingly argued against capital punishment for two reasons. Firstly, the moral argument: if the taking of a life is a criminal offence, the response should not follow suit. Secondly, the practical argument: you can never put right a miscarriage of justice if you take the life of someone subsequently deemed innocent. Vince Cable MP agreed, suggesting that, in a civilised society, capital punishment is not the right way to punish people.

In response, Priti Patel MP argued that we have a criminal justice system that completely fails in this country. She went on to suggest that capital punishment should be brought back as a deterrent to murderers and rapists. According to her, we have a revolving door with murderers, rapists and paedophiles who come in and out of prison.

Ian Hislop rebuked that the sheer number of miscarriages of justice that we have witnessed over the last few decades makes the case against capital punishment. He put forward the novel, but nonetheless interesting argument, that if you took the life of people who turned out to be innocent, it would create a dangerous new breed of terrorist martyrs.

Despite this, Patel crashed on with her deterrence argument. She downplayed the significance of killing innocent people, making inane references to the “burden of proof”. She appeared to be arguing that miscarriages of justice would not have to be an issue as long as defendants were convicted on the basis of sufficient burdens of proof. In other words, the jury would have to be sure that the defendant was guilty.

The obvious point to be made is that in all miscarriages of justice the jury, at the time of the trial, were sure that the evidence proved the defendant’s guilt. It is only subsequent discoveries that put the evidence, and the jury’s conclusions, in doubt. Take an example: at the time of Troy Davies’ trial, the prosecution passed the burden of proof – the jury was sure he was guilty. It was only subsequent events, not contemplated at the time, that put into question the reliability of the evidence upon which the prosecution’s case rested.

As for deterrence, at the very best there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty affects the murder rate, and that is being very generous. In actuality, most criminologists think that it has no effect. In a recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado, they found that 88% of America’s leading criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. Let’s face it; these experts who spend their working lives studying the penal system have a better idea than the average person. Surely, to even countenance such a drastic step as taking someone’s life there would have to be compelling evidence that there was a point to it.

The deterrence argument is part of a common misconception that increasing the sentence for a crime inevitably leads to a proportionately increased deterrence. For years, however, criminologists have been saying that it is not the level of punishment that acts as a deterrent, but the likelihood of being caught.

This was certainly a controversial first appearance for Priti Patel on Questiontime. It was surprising that she propelled herself into the firing line in taking the stance she did whilst utterly failing to back it up with anything resembling a cogent argument. If this is supposed to be a “rising star” of the current party with the most power, then we all have something to worry about.

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/09/quest ... ty-debate/

[Lord Jim]

He did not bully or run over his opponent. He did not "keep" interrupting and overtalking. The moderator actually interrupted her equally as often if not more. Hislop was not obnoxious, sneering or pompous

Wow Gen'l...

The video clip appearing on your screen must be completely different from the one on mine...

he made a very humorous riposte "They'd be dead". That's wit.

Well, coming from a man who thinks Leonard Cohen is music, I guess I can understand how you might think that qualifies as "wit"...

Jeepers Meade, you've really got the wrong end of the stick on this one....

But then what can one expect from a damned old goggle-eyed snapping turtle...