Saudi paralysis sentencing

Smithy · 5 Apr 2013 at 15:24

ilcp said:
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..

Is harming someone okay when it's labelled as 'justice'?

Nymins · 5 Apr 2013 at 15:29

PanMaster said:
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.

You're right. Imprisoning someone does ruin their life. So why should they be killed?

The Running Man · 5 Apr 2013 at 15:30

What if he stabbed him in the back after his friend had robbed his family or slept with his sister? We don't have all the facts I'm guessing it wasn't a random stabbing..

elmarko · 5 Apr 2013 at 15:39

PanMaster said:
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.

Yes, I agree on the latter part (escalation theory) but the first point remains valid as you can let go somebody if they are found to be innocent later in life & attempt to compensate them.

Execution is a little bit final.

doiks14 · 5 Apr 2013 at 16:24

Nymins said:
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.

Justice and revenge is really only distinguished by the punishment the justice system dictates. Justice is something that tries to re-balance the evil deed that has been committed in fair and reasonable manner i.e. tries to correct the wrong deed - and from I can see, death in this case would be fairly reasonable with or without having to feel any of the anger or vengeful thoughts the victim has. There is no way to fix what's been done, a person's life has been completely ruined, and I can't see anything that anyone can offer that can compensate for what the victim has lost.

Theophany · 5 Apr 2013 at 17:51

StriderX said:
Brucey carries them out?

That would be the ultimate punishment.

Transam · 5 Apr 2013 at 22:58

PanMaster said:
Being thrown off a cliff or shot by firing squad would be more practical than paralysis though.

Both of which happened during the Falklands War - Argentinian soldiers being lined up at the edge of a cliff, then shot in the back and falling to their deaths, if they were not already dead from the shot. FFS they were soldiers, just like "Our Boys", and joined to defend their country.

Energize · 6 Apr 2013 at 03:01

The barbarism of the middle east knows no limits.

semi-pro waster · 6 Apr 2013 at 08:53

Xordium said:
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!

I can see the argument but when you're at the point of picking between two evils such as that the lesser of them is still pretty objectionable. I certainly wouldn't envy anyone faced with that choice nor with having to justify it to themselves or anyone else.

PanMaster said:
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.

Why does the punishment have to be terrible? What benefit is there to having terrible punishments?

If it's just that you personally feel better when the state enacts retribution on your behalf as a member of society that's one thing because it's simply an opinion based viewpoint based on your own personal morality, if it's that you believe it to be an effective method of dealing with crime for some reason then can you provide some evidence to support this?

Xordium · 6 Apr 2013 at 08:59

semi-pro waster said:
I can see the argument but when you're at the point of picking between two evils such as that the lesser of them is still pretty objectionable. I certainly wouldn't envy anyone faced with that choice nor with having to justify it to themselves or anyone else?

Could you justify ensuring someone was fit for and after "intensive" interrogation ie torture for the purpose of extracting information that may or many not be present. It's the same thing at the end of the day - viewing death as the absolute wrong and therefore justifying anything that prevents it. Because all the lol Middle East comments ignore the example I have given there is prevalent across all countries with the exception of Europe and in my eyes is equally barbaric.

gary996 · 6 Apr 2013 at 09:23

Goberpiles316 said:
Maybe Saudi Arabia should urge the UK to actually give people punishments in this country instead of the light hearted approach we take to it currently.

agree

semi-pro waster · 6 Apr 2013 at 09:45

Xordium said:
Could you justify ensuring someone was fit for and after "intensive" interrogation ie torture for the purpose of extracting information that may or many not be present. It's the same thing at the end of the day - viewing death as the absolute wrong and therefore justifying anything that prevents it. Because all the lol Middle East comments ignore the example I have given there is prevalent across all countries with the exception of Europe and in my eyes is equally barbaric.

For what it's worth I think what is somewhat euphemistically called intensive interrogation is wrong because I believe torture to be wrong. It can be dressed up and done in ways that might not leave physical marks but that doesn't mean it is not seriously damaging to those who are subject to it.

That's before you come to the practical point that torture is often unreliable in terms of gaining useful information.

Xordium · 6 Apr 2013 at 09:50

semi-pro waster said:
For what it's worth I think what is somewhat euphemistically called intensive interrogation is wrong because I believe torture to be wrong. It can be dressed up and done in ways that might not leave physical marks but that doesn't mean it is not seriously damaging to those who are subject to it.

That's before you come to the practical point that torture is often unreliable in terms of gaining useful information.

I agree and I knew you would. My point is more people going lol Middle East and yet it is common Western practice or rather in our case - oh dear we can't do that ROE + Human Rights etc etc can one of your troops escort us Uncle Sam and take custody of everyone we take whilst we look the other way.

PistolPete · 6 Apr 2013 at 10:00

Hikari Kisugi said:
Burn 6 of your kids to death, well here, have 17 years but don't worry you'll be out in half...

Well no.

He got life which is a 30 year indeterminate sentence so he'll be eligible for parole in half that time, less time served (15 years - 307 days = 14y 58d).

Just because you are up for parole doesn't mean you will get released so he could serve anywhere from 15 years to the full 30 years, more if any time is added during the course of his sentance.

Far cry from the "he'll be out in 8.5 years".

icehot · 6 Apr 2013 at 12:11

Wait, so he did the 10 years..... and now he's going to get paralysed.....man that's harsh.... worse waiting for that to happen than the 10 years in prison surely...