the death penalty. right or wrong? (1 Viewer)

[São Paulo Punk]

Hanging's too good for the likes of Saddam. he should have had his drivers licence revoked and his name placed on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life!!!

 

[Goff]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. The death penalty is not in principle something that I would ethically agree with but at the same time I'm fucking appalled at some of the liberal hand-wringing that's going on over this.

Remember who you're talking about. If one fascist hangs another then that's one less fascist.

Handy if you don't like fascists. I suppose if one scumbag drug pusher kills another one, then that's okay too. Until the innocent plumber happens to get in the way so we might as well whack him as well.

Have you not contradicted yourself? You don't ethically agree with the dealth penalty but that one was alright?

Saddam Huissein was a cunt. But he didn't get a fair trial and he was murdered as a political act, probably in an attempt to get rid of him as a figurehead for the Iraqi Army (the real ones who are still fighting - I think the western media call them insurgents. It's exactly what the Irish Army have been training to do since the twenties). With tacit support from the good ole' US of A, who actually handed him over to be killed. On Eid.

Someone's really pushing for a "Holy War".

 

[Johnnyc]

I wouldn't ever shout it from the rooftops, but in certain cases I believe the death penalty is appropriate. If there's conclusive evidence that an individual has commited a list of terrible acts, then yes, put them to death.

For me the only issue is where do you draw the line. Should the guy who butchered an entire family in the UK this year (Newcastle I think) meet the same end as Saddam? It's an unpopular view, but for me if someone sees to the death of thousands of people in a calculated manner, then they themselves deserve to die. Of course that then prompts the question, do Bush and Blair deserve the same fate.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I wouldn't ever shout it from the rooftops, but in certain cases I believe the death penalty is appropriate. If there's conclusive evidence that an individual has commited a list of terrible acts, then yes, put them to death.

For me the only issue is where do you draw the line. Should the guy who butchered an entire family in the UK this year (Newcastle I think) meet the same end as Saddam? It's an unpopular view, but for me if someone sees to the death of thousands of people in a calculated manner, then they themselves deserve to die. Of course that then prompts the question, do Bush and Blair deserve the same fate.

I don't agree with the death penalty.

Re: your example.
Actual personal responsibility must come into play.
The guy in Newcastle killed the family with his own hands - Blair and Bush have not actually committed murder.

 

[Goff]

I wouldn't ever shout it from the rooftops, but in certain cases I believe the death penalty is appropriate. If there's conclusive evidence that an individual has commited a list of terrible acts, then yes, put them to death.

do Bush and Blair deserve the same fate.

But who decideds, Johnnyc? Who decides?

Bush and Blair deserve to be shot with balls of their own shite and put on trial for starting an illegal war. If found guilty, then they should be put in prison.

Ah, dreams.

 

[Goff]

I don't agree with the death penalty.

Re: your example.
Actual personal responsibility must come into play.
The guy in Newcastle killed the family with his own hands - Blair and Bush have not actually committed murder.

If it was found to be the case that the war they started was illegal under international law, then, they, as Commanders-in-Chief of their Armed Forces, would indeed be guilty of murder. (Or is Mrs Windsor the C-I-C of the british Armed forces...? Now that would be sweet).

But as that's never going to happen....

 

[Johnnyc]

I'm sure it would if we started a "petition" on the "internet".

 

[nlgbbbblth]

If it was found to be the case that the war they started was illegal under international law, then, they, as Commanders-in-Chief of their Armed Forces, would indeed be guilty of murder. (Or is Mrs Windsor the C-I-C of the british Armed forces...? Now that would be sweet).

But as that's never going to happen....

but what about the soldiers who actually carried out the shootings, bombings etc?

surely those guys shouldn't expect to get off scot-free?

it's not as if anyone forced them to join the army.

 

[Buzzo]

For me the only issue is where do you draw the line.

That's where the line is drawn for me. Does the majority (as opposed to nature or god or whatever force is more naturally in charge of life or death) decide who dies? It raises too many questions in terms of power for me.

Ethically, the death penalty isn't sound. If the punishment is to be just and fair, how does ending one life as the result of such devastation make any amends? It doesn't even come close. It may be the closest one can get but I don't see what it achieves. I can't see it as being a deterrent to political leaders around the world who might get notions of genocide.

Admitting that Hussein is being used as a lynchpin for the multitudinous forces that were involved in the entire conflict seems honest. Putting him to death seems patronising (to me). But then again I have no idea of subjective experiences of those who have suffered under his regime so I don't really know what it means to those that it's supposed to mean something to.

 

[Goff]

but what about the soldiers who actually carried out the shootings, bombings etc?

surely those guys shouldn't expect to get off scot-free?

it's not as if anyone forced them to join the army.

Well, no. Under all sorts of articles of war (and the fact that laws governing how war should be fought even exists is pretty indicative of just how civilised we really are....), the one who gives the order is the guilty party. That has to be the case. Even in circumstances where soldiers commit massacres, it is quite easy to get carried away in the heat of the battle. Think of the last time you were truly affected by a great song, or concert, or defended yourself when someone attacked you. There can be a sense of communion in these things.

There also seems to be a growing trend in the American and British camps and media in putting ground soldiers on trial rather than their officers. This is not a good development. An officer always has to take the responsibility of command. That's his job and his raison d'etre. Otherwise, in effect, they are saying they are not in control of their own troops. And that's a punishable offence.

Coming from a nation where the Army has always been a volunteer force, it's easy to say that no one forced them to join the army. In 1991, the Americans were on the verge of re-introducing the draft, as they had cut down their army in size by a huge amount in the preceeding few years. Poverty and lack of skills/training/education are also factors. They recruit kids who don't know any better. It's a wage and a sense of belonging. No-one sticks a gun to their heads and says join, but society can have a way of giving you no other option.

On the Iraqi side, they were always conscripted.

 

[oh shit]

Handy if you don't like fascists. I suppose if one scumbag drug pusher kills another one, then that's okay too. Until the innocent plumber happens to get in the way so we might as well whack him as well.

Have you not contradicted yourself? You don't ethically agree with the dealth penalty but that one was alright?

no, try re-reading what i wrote. i'm just embarrassed at some of the shit that's being spouted - for example, comparing a drug pusher to a genocidaire. maybe that makes perfect sense in your black and white view of the world.

but whatever. i'm going to take a wild guess and extrapolate from statements like

Under all sorts of articles of war (and the fact that laws governing how war should be fought even exists is pretty indicative of just how civilised we really are....), the one who gives the order is the guilty party. That has to be the case. Even in circumstances where soldiers commit massacres, it is quite easy to get carried away in the heat of the battle. Think of the last time you were truly affected by a great song, or concert, or defended yourself when someone attacked you. There can be a sense of communion in these things.

that you don't know all that much about what you're talking about (because you're very wrong about 'all sorts' of 'articles of war' here too) and just let it go...

 

[ITalkShite]

Well, no. Under all sorts of articles of war (and the fact that laws governing how war should be fought even exists is pretty indicative of just how civilised we really are....), the one who gives the order is the guilty party. That has to be the case. Even in circumstances where soldiers commit massacres, it is quite easy to get carried away in the heat of the battle. Think of the last time you were truly affected by a great song, or concert, or defended yourself when someone attacked you. There can be a sense of communion in these things.

There also seems to be a growing trend in the American and British camps and media in putting ground soldiers on trial rather than their officers. This is not a good development. An officer always has to take the responsibility of command. That's his job and his raison d'etre. Otherwise, in effect, they are saying they are not in control of their own troops. And that's a punishable offence.

Coming from a nation where the Army has always been a volunteer force, it's easy to say that no one forced them to join the army. In 1991, the Americans were on the verge of re-introducing the draft, as they had cut down their army in size by a huge amount in the preceeding few years. Poverty and lack of skills/training/education are also factors. They recruit kids who don't know any better. It's a wage and a sense of belonging. No-one sticks a gun to their heads and says join, but society can have a way of giving you no other option.

On the Iraqi side, they were always conscripted.

Do you ever stop talking complete fucking bollocks? Do you spout this shit in real life as well?

 

[Doctor Muscles]

Do you ever stop talking complete fucking bollocks? Do you spout this shit in real life as well?

Wow, wizard argument.

 

[Squiggle]

Personally I am completely opposed to the death penalty.

However, if it is going to be applied to national leaders who order men and women to kill or be killed I think maybe I'll make certain exceptions... Bush and Blair for example

It would certainly do a lot to prevent war if the guys making the decision knew that the order would mean certain death for them.

 

[ITalkShite]

Regardless of what you think of the death penatly (I think it's barbaric), the Saddam execution seems to have been done in the one way most likely to cause even more problems. Good link about it.

 

[magicbastarder]

had to laugh at margaret beckett lauding the execution of hussein; should we take approval of the death penalty as indicative of the route new labour are going to go down in crime prevention?

and i think the "sure soldiers can get carried away" argument in relation to war atrocities to be utter horseshit.

 

[mr pharmacist!!!!1]

press red on your remote now...
well a whopping 86% think its acceptable to take someone elses life if you're in a kill or be killed situation.
of course this holds no water as its just opinion but we're going to stay with this for the next hour.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Goff]

press red on your remote now...
well a whopping 86% think its acceptable to take someone elses life if you're in a kill or be killed situation.
of course this holds no water as its just opinion but we're going to stay with this for the next hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9_kpc7zjZM

Self-defence in a life or death situation? Yeah, I'd be okay with that.

It's a completely different situation to first-degree murder. The primary instinct is self-protection.

 

[nofriendo]

I think the punishment should fit the crime! Lets take the guy in the uk who killed 5 women in cold blood. Why should he get to live for 25 years in a comfortable prison, and know that he will be free one day! Maybe (and only maybe) the death penalty is too far but a prison should not be a good place to go. At the end of the day some of the facilities prisoners have access to is a joke. Why the fuck do they have tvs ! gyms etc Fuck it you broke the law here is a shit infested cell with nothing but a bog and an over friendly man called clarence

The problem here is some of the same people who fight against the death penalty would also fight for human rights! I do think that in some cases the death penalty is justified. But Saddams situation is not a simple arguement. Yes, he deserved to die for what he has done to 1000's of people in the past, but the way it was done was incredibly wrong, and cannot be justified! (not the hanging, but how he came to power, who supported during this time, and ultimately who he was handed over to etc)

 

[Buzzo]

I think the punishment should fit the crime! Lets take the guy in the uk who killed 5 women in cold blood. Why should he get to live for 25 years in a comfortable prison, and know that he will be free one day! Maybe (and only maybe) the death penalty is too far but a prison should not be a good place to go. At the end of the day some of the facilities prisoners have access to is a joke. Why the fuck do they have tvs ! gyms etc Fuck it you broke the law here is a shit infested cell with nothing but a bog and an over friendly man called clarence

I'll be back after my exam.