On Iranian TV Right now...

Fraggr said:
You clearly didn't read what I wrote...

Re-read it and then reply...
Click to expand...

I did read it.

Obviously I don't think Iran is some evil country and should be nuked off the face of the planet (that right goes to Saudi Arabia) but do you not realise the blatent hypocrisy of what you're suggesting.

Why do we as a society has the right or moral upstanding to simply kill people, no matter what their crimes?

What the hell do you do in life that makes you worthy of that right?

Nothing, thats what. Prison sentences (long ones) and rehabilitation are the way forward (maybe bring back army service for certain convicts).

You can't honestly think that as a society (taking into account people like blood sucking city bankers and lawyers that spend their days getting rich people out of jail) that people like that have the right to vote on the death penalty?

Why do you think capital punishment existed in the first place? Ever heard of a rich person put on death row for their crimes? No, that honor goes to poor people, so some example can be made of them.
 
Chimerical said:
Actually, in fact it could increase crime rates because if it was sanctioned you'd have riots on your hands.

People simply wouldn't tolerate the police or government being given the ability to kill you, whatever your crime.
Click to expand...

That just isnt true. Its easy to say "Oh, I'm going to riot". But to actually go through with it and feel the hard edge of the Riot Policeman's batton on your shins, is a totally different matter.

People will voice their unhappiness about this, but I'm pretty sure they will do things like a peaceful march (ie. no violent riots).
 
Chimerical said:
Why do we as a society has the right or moral upstanding to simply kill people, no matter what their crimes?

Why do we as a society have the right to put someone in jail for the rest of their life?

What the hell do you do in life that makes you worthy of that right?

Whatever it is that gives us the right to put someone away for the rest of their life.

You can't honestly think that as a society (taking into account people like blood sucking city bankers and lawyers that spend their days getting rich people out of jail) that people like that have the right to vote on the death penalty?

I'm not only talking about the death penalty. I'm also talking about whipping or some form of corporal punishment. If the majority of the country voted for the death penalty and corporal punishment, what is the problem really? It keeps the most people happy.

Why do you think capital punishment existed in the first place? Ever heard of a rich person put on death row for their crimes? No, that honor goes to poor people, so some example can be made of them.

While they are able to hire an amazing lawyer, they are also less likely to kill someone. All the murders heard about today are poor people in council estates. One poor person killing another because of gang warfare.
Click to expand...
 
Chimerical said:
No. But it would decrease them either.

Actually, in fact it could increase crime rates because if it was sanctioned you'd have riots on your hands.

People simply wouldn't tolerate the police or government being given the ability to kill you, whatever your crime.
Click to expand...

I think that's a much deeper debate than it looks - given that rioting on that scale would inevitably lead to the possibity of more deaths. Whilst I believe that countries who have abolished capital punishment have provided some form of progression in terms of human rights, there's a small part of me that feels criminals know what lies ahead for them if they are caught commiting certain crimes. This knowledge; in turn, may actually lead to situations where criminals believe they have no way out once a chain of events has begun.

Thing is, it wasn't that long ago that executions were still being practiced in the UK (1964), so there are plenty of people still in this country who have lived under laws that entitled capital punishment.

You're right that we (assuming we're all from the UK) wouldn't tolerate capital punishment, but it's not like we've perfected the rule of post-capital punishment law just yet. If on one hand someone fails to pay their council tax can be imprisoned, only for someone else to avoid prison for a more serious offence because we have no room in our prisons, then we're not even close to finding a good balance.
 
Liefrich said:
O dear.........public whippings, are we not digressing here to pre enlightenment ethics on punishment. How about the percentage of people who are convicted who are innocent and then they recieve the punishement? What if it is you?

The death penalty does not decrease crime rights neither would publically whipping people like they did in the 15th century, crime still existed.

Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, prison does not always solve the problem and I believe they often harbour and increase criminal activity. However, I do not know the formula to create a crime free society, but punishing people by violence has never worked and it never will.

All i'm going to say is thankgod none of you are in power.
Click to expand...

In early medieval England, it was common for a city (which would be at most a small town by today's standards) to have a couple of hanging days in a week because they couldn't fit all the hangings on one day. Crime was far, far worse than it is now. It was a brutal time, just like a worrying number of people are calling for now.

Mind you, even back then they didn't go in for prolonged public torture for minor offences in England. Not officially, anyway, though I've no doubt psychos with authority tortured people to get confessions. As they would today, given the chance.

It's worth bearing in mind that we are talking about things such as torturing people to death for adultery, or even just for sex outside marriage. A society that uses torture to enforce obedience through fear is not going to be a tolerant place.
 
Poweredge said:
You're right that we (assuming we're all from the UK) wouldn't tolerate capital punishment, but it's not like we've perfected the rule of post-capital punishment law just yet. If on one hand someone fails to pay their council tax can be imprisoned, only for someone else to avoid prison for a more serious offence because we have no room in our prisons, then we're not even close to finding a good balance.
Click to expand...

I'm from the UK. I would tolerate capital punishment. So would half my year 10 English class (last time I can recall that there was a debate on capital punishment).
 
Angilion said:
It's worth bearing in mind that we are talking about things such as torturing people to death for adultery, or even just for sex outside marriage. A society that uses torture to enforce obedience through fear is not going to be a tolerant place.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm talking about changing our current sentencing for crimes such as assault, robbery, rape, murder, etc. I said earlier that I wouldn't want it for being gay or whatever.
 
DampCat said:
Dont break the law, dont get whipped. makes sense to me ;)
Click to expand...

With that attitude, we'd still have slavery. After all, that was legal.

The strongest law enforcement in Europe in recent times was in Nazi Germany. I don't think that's a coincidence. Don't break the law, don't get shot or taken away to a "work" camp.
 
Fraggr said:
I'm from the UK. I would tolerate capital punishment. So would half my year 10 English class (last time I can recall that there was a debate on capital punishment).
Click to expand...

Yeah...year 10 English class. Bunch of angry young people.

Woohoo. Not much bias there. Plus, I'd love for them to meet someone on death row. See what it's Really like.
 
sunama said:
Does anybody know what this guy is judged to have done? It could be quite serious.

Personally, rather than having ASBOs, I would much rather have a public beating. Its quick, simple and the "bad boys" out there will seriously think about their actions whenever they look back at the scars left on their backs.
Click to expand...

You'd then have to get harsher and harsher to stave off revolution. How far do you want to go?
 
Poweredge said:
You're right that we (assuming we're all from the UK) wouldn't tolerate capital punishment, but it's not like we've perfected the rule of post-capital punishment law just yet. If on one hand someone fails to pay their council tax can be imprisoned, only for someone else to avoid prison for a more serious offence because we have no room in our prisons, then we're not even close to finding a good balance.
Click to expand...

See, thats what I agree with.

Crimes should be taken more into context and more commonsense should be used.

i.e. a single mother trying to pay her council tax shouldn't be send to jail for months on end for stealing money. Policies should be put into place to help her and thus preventing a repeat situation.
 
Chimerical said:
Lol what?

They're just like how this country was in Victorian Times. Pity they don't have equality like we do in Britain. Plus, I don't really see how hanging someone because they are gay, as part of your legal system comes across in any way shape or form as 'good' or 'progressive'.

Bet Elton John would love it over there.
Click to expand...

Victorian times were more civilised. You'd have to go back to medieval times, with the Inquisitions and the witch-hunt psycho hysteria (two different things - the Inquisitions were about heresy, not witchcraft).
 
Fraggr said:
I'm from the UK. I would tolerate capital punishment. So would half my year 10 English class (last time I can recall that there was a debate on capital punishment).
Click to expand...

There's definately a lot of debate - but then we had the Guilford 4, Birmingham 6 and McGuire 7. If we go by those 3 cases alone, then we'd have 17 innocent dead people on our hands. It's a heavy price to pay.

Then again, there's Sutcliffe, Nilsen, Brady/Hindley... people who would be highly deserving of such punishment.

Problem is, if the number of people who are executed are quite low, then I actually believe that the really dangerous people (such as Nilsen, etc) would gain some form of martyrdom. In these cases, truely life-long imprisonment actually serves a better purpose - letting them rot behind closed doors, beyond public view.

Take Nilsen for instance. Fewer people actually know anything about where he is now, or even if he is alive. Whereas his execution would provide him with an ending that many would not forget so easily.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
I don't think the UK will allow whippings lol. Just because they've allowed Sharia law to sort out some civil disagreements doesn't mean they're going to allow people to become whipped.
Click to expand...

Shush, reason and facts aren't allowed in a muslim bashing/law bashing thread.

As you say the "Sharia" law they're allowing in the UK is purely for civil matters, and can't do anything that isn't allowed by UK law (so no corporal punishment).
 
Werewolf said:
Shush, reason and facts aren't allowed in a muslim bashing/law bashing thread.

As you say the "Sharia" law they're allowing in the UK is purely for civil matters, and can't do anything that isn't allowed by UK law (so no corporal punishment).
Click to expand...

UK law can be changed. There isn't a "law above all laws" sort of thing forbidding it. Also, the law you refer to has already been used for assault and therefore already isn't "purely for civil matters".
 
Werewolf said:
Shush, reason and facts aren't allowed in a Muslim bashing/law bashing thread.

As you say the "Sharia" law they're allowing in the UK is purely for civil matters, and can't do anything that isn't allowed by UK law (so no corporal punishment).
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I must point out that the last hanging was only made in 1955. And the last execution in the last 30 or so years. And only effectively banned in 1998 all before sharia law was even here.

I think it was the government trying to better itself that removed it all tbh, they changed laws for the worse which resulted in a heavily flawed system (much like it is now) and eventually had to remove it all together. Now the prison system is failing abysmally and we will at some point have to remove that (I'm assuming they will try push capital punishment under the sharia law brand) That or I have been playing too much crackdown.
 
Angilion said:
UK law can be changed. There isn't a "law above all laws" sort of thing forbidding it. Also, the law you refer to has already been used for assault and therefore already isn't "purely for civil matters".
Click to expand...

Also, without wishing to start getting all anti-Muslim (I'm fully aware that Iranian policies/law aren't representative of the majority of Muslims), UK Sharia law supposedly favours men. There were four incidences of domestic violence and the husbands were simply given anger management (blatent let-off) classes as opposed to any punishment or social services stepping in. This was all reported in some newspaper (not the Daily Mail...I hope).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom