punishment for stabbing someone - 10 years
punishment for also paralyzing that person - paralysis
fair to me.
Saudi paralysis sentencing
- Thread starter thepharcyde
- Start date
punishment for stabbing someone - 10 years
punishment for also paralyzing that person - paralysis
fair to me.
Just to be clear, I'm more on about killing swiftly rather than beating or stoning a person to death.
I'm all up for rehabilitation or prison sentence for crimes that do not completely ruin another person's life physically or mentally.
The sentencing has nothing to do with Islam. Saudi implement a law that they describe as an "interpretation" but is rejected by the majority of Muslims.
Would you be happy living in a country that gave paralysis as a sentence?
Yeah, I think the quickest you get in Saudi Arabia is a beheading, but it isn't a prerequisite that it comes before the stoning or flogging.
e: I've read crucifixion is also up as a Brucey bonus, but I cannot be sure that this is state endorsed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
Because we not all barbaric animals like you are.
Anyway, this is pretty sick but what do you expect from a country like that.
Last edited:
Brucey carries them out?
when you act like a macho man and use knife you should be aware of the consequences... AND
when you act like a macho man, use knife to stab your "supposed" friend in a STRICT islamic country, you should think TWICE of the consequences..
Serves him right..
There would also be the case that it would be less evil to perform the procedure safely that let an untrained person perform the procedure unsafely. It would be a hard one to argue mind!
Indeed, the economic decisions for both of the main political parties are mostly made to buy a few votes (via token benefit raises or token tax cuts) mostly party donations (from either unions or business) or vested interest parties (friends/family/business associations) - but in reality neither do much to impact on our long term economic policy (new labour continued the Conservatives neo-liberal policy & Conservatives have continued New Labours twist).
Basically, the Tory's will slash a few benefits (to win over the traditional voter base) then Labour will end a few privileges (to win over the traditional voter base) & it's business as usual for another term for the things which actually matter.
The only real difference you will get is on social policy, things like fox hunting, prison terms, gay rights/animal rights, stem cell research & the reason being these issues those in power are willing to bend on (because it doesn't impact the economic side at all) - it's also because businesses & unions don't have a vested interest in these social issues & thankfully the Church has very little in the way of power.
Cameron is pretty intelligent in this sense, as he's angering some of the traditional voter base (by being pretty liberal on some social issues compared to some of the older party members) but he knows that he doesn't want to openly drive away the younger socially liberal/economically conservative voters (as the 60+ voter base won't be around forever).
Obviously once it hits the voting in the commons you can see that most vote against socially liberal policies (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/) but as long as they maintain a veneer of social liberalism they can keep the young economic conservative/socially liberal vote.
But to to go back on topic.
I'm a staunch supporter of a reasoned objective morality - as moral relativism is actually pretty useless. For moralityto have value for everybody we need to find a common method of "rating" behaviour, to do this we need to judge it on a basic criteria (to quote Sam Harris 'The well-being (+pleasure-suffering) of sentient beings - to measure human flourishing').
As for the death penalty,
Anybody against 'nanny state UK', authoritarianism (Stalinist communist or Fascist) should in reality be against the death penalty - what greater power to give the state than giving it the right to kill citizens.
American republicans amuse me greatly when they harp on about small government & that the government is too powerful then argue the government should have the right to kill execute citizens.
Last edited:
So would you say that if you were paralysed due to being stabbed by a person, you would not want the person dead?
If you've witnessed and felt some compassion towards people that have their entire life ruined due to another persons actions, I'm sure you would see my point more clearly.
I don't particularly agree with this punishment but I really wish everyone would stop posting crap quotes as if they hold some special wisdom. An eye for an eye and the world is blind is not true. If I don't hurt you and you don't hurt me, we won't have a problem. Neither of us will be "blind".
How are we more civilised because we prioritise the rehabilitation of hard criminals over the protection of those that abide by the law.
How are we more civilised because we prioritise the rehabilitation of hard criminals over the protection of those that abide by the law.
This is the exact reason why the jury system is in place. To prevent these revenge acts.
No can say how they'd feel if it happened to them, but that's not the point. We put it in the hands of our peers to judge for us.
I'm not saying the current system is perfect, far from it. But it's the best we have for the time being.
They aren't...exactly mutually exclusive aims.
A civilised society knows that.
No they are not but I don't believe that certain crimes merit a second chance. When you see distraught parents outside a court room saying how they hope that the accused is never released so he doesn't have another chance to re-offend I agree. Why does someone who has taken a life and ruined many others deserve to be given their life back at any point. That isn't justice in any way shape or form to me.
I would rather see 100 murderers never see the light of day than have a single one commit another murder even if the other 99 are fine once released.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,387
- Location
- Aberdeen
There is a downside to what you propose. Would you happily see 100 convicted killers executed , with one at a later date having their conviction quashed when new evidence came to light? Miscarriages of justice do occur, off which there have been some very notable cases.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,785
The crime was terrible so the punishment should also be terrible.
Saudi may be barbaric but the UK is just as wrong letting evil criminals get light sentences when they'd be executed in many other countries.
Being thrown off a cliff or shot by firing squad would be more practical than paralysis though.
Saudi may be barbaric but the UK is just as wrong letting evil criminals get light sentences when they'd be executed in many other countries.
Being thrown off a cliff or shot by firing squad would be more practical than paralysis though.
I would see them never released at the very least. You can talk to estebanray about the death penalty and my views on that
So, what happens if they get it wrong?.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,785
You could say that about anything and being falsely imprisoned for years would ruin someones life anyway.
The main argument on here against the death penalty was abductors/rapists being more likely to kill their victims to avoid being caught.