Strangle him, Chop him up, put in acid!

[pashley]

Pakistani man sentenced to death for murdering 100 children
March 16, 2000
Web posted at: 5:12 PM HKT (0912 GMT)


LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- A court on Thursday sentenced a Pakistani man to death for murdering 100 children in this country's worst serial killing rampage, saying he would be strangled in front of the parents of his victims.

The judge ordered that 42-year-old Javed Iqbal be publicly executed in a park in this eastern city, suffering the same fate as his victims.

"You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed," said Judge Allah Baksh Ranja in handing down the sentence. "Your body will then be cut into a 100 pieces and put in acid the same way you killed the children."


So, what is your opinion of this punishment?

[Arnold Winkelried]

The topic is also being discussed in these two threads.
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006094.html
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001529.html

[pashley]

Thanks Arnold. It's a Capital Punishment issue, and thought Great Debates might be an appropriate forum also.

[SingleDad]

Will treating him this way bring back any of the children? Will it do anything but allow us to perform the same depraved act on him that he performed on the children? What is to be gained but yet another act of brutality?

We may thirst for vengance. But vengance serves no rational purpose than to allow us into the same world of horror which that person lives in. Do we want to reduce ourselves to his level?

[kaylasdad99]

As to thirsting for vengeance:

Although it is not an emotional response which I am proud of, I confess to indulging in it periodically, particularly when I hear of a case in which someone seems to be going out of his way to distance himself from all concepts of human decency. That is, I indulge in the thirst itself, not the vengeful acts.

It doesn't seem to me that snuffing out someone's life does much to quench a real thirst for vengeance. At least, not the way I experience the thirst. For true vengeance to be achieved, the transgressor must, in my opinion, suffer; suffer horribly; suffer so outrageously horribly that the very desire for death becomes the only coherent thought that his brain can hold. Ideally, this level of suffering should be maintained for an extended period of time. And there's no need for the suffering to be unremitting; the sure knowledge that it will return, and that there is not a single thing the person can do to prevent its return can be a powerful adjunct to whatever active suffering is inflicted upon him.

I think I've just described life without the possibility of release in solitary confinement within a cell in which the prisoner's only auditory and visual sensory input comes from a giant screen projection TV showing reruns of "The Little House on the Prairie," "Highway to Heaven," "Touched By An Angel," and "Knight Rider."

[kaylasdad99]

I was just wondering.

[elucidator]

Wow! 4 posts so far and not even one attempt to frame the debate as YET ANOTHER examination of its implications and relevance to the Libertarian philosophy!! I am heartened!

As to the case at hand: revenge is bankrupt, morally and legally. Violence unto death is justified ONLY when directly protecting the innocent and/or the helpless. Only recently have we released men from Death Row when it was proven that they could not possibly be guilty. How many have we buried? How many have we condemned to live out thier lives in darkness and fear? We'll never know. Is there really such a thing as "beyond the shadow of a doubt?" We Americans, it seems, have a weakness for appearing to be stern and resolute, when we are simply blind and cruel.

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay" And until he saith otherwise, keep your noose out of His business.

[EnigmaOne]

{{{So, what is your opinion of this punishment?}}}---pashley

Then we can be certain that he will never kill again--thus their society is being protected by their government.

:::shrug:::

If they want to take vengeance against the man through the manner of his death, more power to them.

{{{Violence unto death is justified ONLY when directly protecting the innocent and/or the helpless... ...Is there really such a thing as "beyond the shadow of a doubt?" }}}---elucidator

The responsibility of government to protect the innocent from the criminal is served by removing the criminal permanently from society--hate to tell you this, but the death of the criminal is the only sure means of doing so.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the proper criteria used in law. It's unfortunate that your misunderstanding of this is so widespread today. So many criminals walk free because of it.

On capital punishment in general:
Tragically, most folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the responsibilities of freedom, while demanding all of its benefits. This is one of those responsibilities--detestable business at best and something that no person should take joy in having to deal with, but something that must be done to maintain a civilized society.

Just like paying our bills... nobody likes doing it, but we do it because we have to.


------------------
--Kalél
TheHungerSite.com (http://www.thehungersite.com)
"If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic."
"Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz....but I'm feeling much better now!" -- John Astin, Night Court

[David B]

Not that I doubt the Pakistani judicial system, but how sure are we that they have the right man?

I mean, Lord knows we would never convict the wrong person of murder here in the U.S.

[aschrott]

What is their intent in killing this man? To punish, to rid society of a menace, to take restitution, to do what is just?

Here in the U.S. we have the 'Penal' code, which is part of the Criminal 'justice' system, in which criminals are frequently remanded to 'correctional' facilities. To me, that is the main problem with capitol punishment debate of any kind.
Is our goal to be just, to punish, or to rehabilitate? Our system seems confused on that issue.

If the goal is to punish, then killing is perhaps merciful. If the goal is justice, then killing seems a fair (or just) recompense. If the goal is rehabilitation, then it is encumbant on society to treat the offender with far more kindness than he offered his victims. I realize I'm away from the specifics of the Pakistani issue here...

[DSYoungEsq]

In fairness to the Pakistani judicial system, it should be noted that

A) the sentence is being appealed by his attorneys, and

B) the Justice Minister thinks that it is not allowed under Pakistani law.


Frankly, although we don't see anything quite this egregious, individual US judges do a lot of wacky things in sentencing, things which often get overturned by wiser, saner heads on appellate benches.

Let's wait out the result before condemning the society. :)

[Revtim]

Originally posted by SingleDad:

We may thirst for vengance. But vengance serves no rational purpose than to allow us into the same world of horror which that person lives in. Do we want to reduce ourselves to his level?

Unless the Pakistani murderer killed the kids as acts of vengeance, it is not quite the same "world of horror".

How can you compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a serial child-murderer? That's not the same world, it's not even the same universe.

[StrTrkr777]

My take on the matter.

If a society puts someone to death then they are dead, no matter the method used.

Do we sometimes get the wrong person? Sure. Do we sometimes let a guilty person go? Sure.

Why should someone die in the manner of their victims? Justice, restituion, revenge, some other reason?

Let's take the case of Susan Smith. She is the young lady that pushed her car with her two boys into a lake and let them drown slowly. Then she went home and told her husband that some black guy had car jacked her car and then they got on the news pleading for the return of her children. Then the police realize that something was not matching with some of her statements and she eventually confessed to killing the children and told the police where they could find the car and the boys.

She ended up just getting life in prison. Now, I think she should have gotten the death penalty. Getting life does keep her away from society but it does nothing to deter others. However, her children did not die quickly as a lethal injection or electrocution does. No, they drowned slowly and were probably very frightened. It had to be one of the most horrible ways to die.

She should have been handcuffed into her own car and they should have pushed the car into the same lake. She should then have had to watch as the water slowly rose around her, knowing that she would be dying soon and dying in the manner that she had killed her own children.

This would rid the world of her, but it would also give others something to think about. Maybe it would not stop someone from killing, but it might cause them to kill in a quick relatively painless manner.

Jeffery

[SingleDad]

How can you compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a serial child-murderer? That's not the same world, it's not even the same universe.

They are, of course, not precisely the same acts. But killing is killing. It's not only in the same universe, it's right down the block.

I'm not, and never will be, a murderer. I will never kill someone with premediation and intent under any circumstances (with a possible exception for assisted suicide) nor will I condone that action in my name. I hold respect for sentient life as a paramount value.

I cannot say with absolute accuracy that one person or another deserves death. Does a schitzophrenic deserve death? Someone so twisted by an abusive childhood that he cannot conceive that another person has reality?

I can and do, of course, say with reasonable confidence that a person presents a danger to me, and take rational measures to protect myself and others from that danger.

Jeffery: I'm not a Christian, so I won't say anything specific, but look deep into your heart and ask whether your beliefs in this matter are in accordance or contradiction to your religion. Can God speak to you through the words of an atheist?

[Otto]

Getting life does keep her away from society but it does nothing to deter others.



Yet Susan Smith was not deterred by all those who had been executed prior to her acts.

[the first supraliminal]

None of my business.



------------------
There's always another beer.

[Cactus Jack]

This guy killed a hundred children, folks. I don't think there's much possibility of mistaken identity. They're not condemning an innocent man. What, they made a mistake and he only killed 67? Come on. More likely that he's killed 150, or 200, and the hundred is just those they know about.
When a mosquito lands on your arm and draws blood, you slap it. That's the reaction. It doesn't eliminate, or make up for, getting an itchy bump on your arm, and it doesn't stop other mosquitoes from biting you, but it's what you gotta do.
"Capital punishment. It's just what you gotta do." Sounds like a bumper sticker...

[DaphyDuck]

Originally posted by Cactus Jack:
This guy killed a hundred children, folks... More likely that he's killed 150, or 200, and the hundred is just those they know about.

I agree, and with reference to the original question, no I don't think this is a fair punishment. Since I have disagreed, I'll elaborate with an equation...

100(murder of a child) = 100(execution of him)
[taking murder=execution (argue amongst youselves)]

This is clearly not possible (although with the wonders of modern medicine... I digress) so we must find an alternative to amplify his death to 100 times.

I have a son who I love dearly. I can only imagine that I would (or would not) get to understand the meaning of 'temporary insanity' if anything like this happened to him.

So, taking into consideration the feelings of the parents and the fact that seeing him throttled would quite frankly be a bit lame, they should dispense with the throttling bit, dispense with the dissection bit, and draw out of a hat the name of the parent who gets to press the button to drop him alive into a vat of acid (hydro-flouric, spelling?, should do the trick nicely).

My opinion of the punishment is that it is too LIGHT!

Bring back capital punishment in the UK!

[cleosia]

There was an old time punishment that has fallen out of favor called Death by 10,000 cuts. It is a slow and obviously painful death. Would this be sufficient, DaphyDuck?

------------------
Bitch by Birth

[bedboy3]

I say chop up the motherfucker..there is no punishment that would be good enuff for this motherfucker...and anyone who disagrees..should take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself "If this was my child butchered and they caught the sonuvabitch..what would I do" this cocksucker needs to die bigtime....

[Cactus Jack]

One thing regarding DaphyDuck's post:
While there's a very real, very vengeful part of me that agrees with the spirit of the formulation "100 murders = 100 executions", as well as the sentiment that the punishment is "too light," another part says "Just put the guy down like a rabid dog and move on to the next one."
We can get as creative as we want with potential means of execution -- flaying, boiling, turning them inside out -- but you reach a point of diminishing returns, wasted money and wasted energy.
When this topic comes up in conversation, and I say, "Yeah, just kill the bastards," invariably someone asks "But could you pull the switch yourself?" I always say "Hell yeah. And I could eat a Twinkie while I did it. No problem." And that's the truth.
But I'd have a hard time eating a Twinkie while I was busy raping someone with a bladed dildo. I just wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
Hanging? Sure. Injection? Hand me the hypo. Bullet to the brain? Gimme the gun. Heck, I'll even stab the guy in the heart, or hit him with a brick.
But -- and call me squemish -- I think there's a line there. I don't know that I could live with slowly strangling someone, by degrees, over hours, with their own intestine.
And if I can't say, "Yeah, I'm willing to do that myself," well, I think it'd be pretty hypocritical for me to say, "Well, I won't, but society can hire someone else to do the dirty work I won't."

[PunditLisa]

I think that if I lived in Pakistan I would think very long and hard before commiting a crime.

He should take heart, though, because no doubt in a few years we'll have a rock band named "Iqbal" in his honor. I'm just glad he won't be around to gloat about it.

[tracer]

Cactus Jack wrote:

This guy killed a hundred children, folks. I don't think there's much possibility of mistaken identity.

Wrong. SOMEBODY killed a hundred children. SOMEBODY used the same M.O. to kill 100 children. I haven't read the details of this case, but isn't it possible that this guy might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time near ONE of these murders, and the jury/judge/court, in its urgency to find and punish SOMEONE, extrapolated that he "must" have been behind the other 99 murders since "all the other murders were just like this one"?

[Monty]

Apparently more than a few folks here are under the impression that Pakistan is more or less the same as the United States when it comes to police and courts.

First of all: Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Even when they had civilian rule, the populace looked to the military there to see if they'd keep the civilians in office.

Second: The military is a far cry from the United States' trained, educated, and dedicated Armed Forces.

Third: What about the very real possibility (mind you, I said "possibility" and not "probability" here) that the dude confessed only because he was tortured into it?

Fourth: What about the accused's rights? Yeah, I know; a lot of folks don't want to hear that when they're "discussing" a heinous crime. But try to imagine if it was you who'd been forced to confess to a crime you didn't do. What would you really think about the situation then? Would you still think "10,000 cuts" is the way to go?

Fifth: The Pakistani constitution apparently outlaws the particular sentence ordered for the dude anyway. What's that you say? You don't give a whit about constitutions? How about ours, then? After all, if it's okay to mete out illegal punishments there, why not here?

Sixth: the illegal punishment ordered apparently was based on someone's interpretation of Sharia. For those who don't know, that's law based on religion. And one particular religion at that, Islam! Do you really want that?

[Hoo-Flung Dung]

Hell, he confessed to the killings didnt he??
I dunno about the acid bit, but at least let the other relatives have a bash at him!


------------------
Why is every body staring at me?? do I stink or something??

[Hoo-Flung Dung]

Monty

are you a lawyer or soldier or something, you seem to love the army

[Hoo-Flung Dung]

ahoy there every body is there no-one here Am i talking to myself or what?

[Monty]

HFD: I'm actually operating under the impression that you're either (a) Cyberian, or (b) just another garden variety troll, but I'll mention a couple of things anyway.

First: Next to the user name on these postings is an icon with a question mark on it. Click on it and you might discover some information.

Second: My posting above certainly doesn't show "love" for the armed forces of Pakistan. Nor, in my opinion, does it describe some kind of passion for my nation's armed forces. I see it as an accurate description of fact.

Third: A hint for you - if nobody's responded, then NOBODY'S RESPONDED TO YOU!

Fourth: "Talking to yourself" on these boards is usually done via sock puppets, for which activity one gets banned. I don't recommend it.

[Dr. Dyscophus]

As I understand it, yes he confessed, but no - they have no real forensic evidence to prove he murdered the children. Apparently they found pictures of the children and their clothing in his house, BUT what these photos showed is unclear. Also, I don't know how conclusively the clothing was linked to the children. In any case, it doesn't sound like there is proof that he is the murderer (other than his confession). The problem is that all of my information (and everyone else in this forum, I suspect) comes from the popular press...not exactly the most reliable source. The thing that bothers me is that there has been no mention of human remains. Contrary to popular belief (and cheap movies), acid will not readily destroy a human body, never mind 100. Like I said, I find it odd that there is no mention of the lack of forensic evidence, but it is difficult to know what to think without better information.

------------------
Statistically speaking...all animals are insects

[DSYoungEsq]

In the absence of a result from the appeal process, would you all kindly refrain from speculation about the situation, especially since we likely have little if any hard information available regarding the evidence at hand.

Let's see what Pakistan does in the end before we get all worked up about it.

[DaphyDuck]

Originally posted by Dr. Dyscophus:
As I understand it, yes he confessed, but no - they have no real forensic evidence to prove he murdered the children

Are you a forensic scientist? (my dad is!)
Any twat can wear a pair of gloves to kill someone (at random - with no link to themselves) and then burn their own clothes to leave no evidence.
Someone who kills 100+ children in this way is obviously mentally challenged (how p.c. (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000001.html) of me!). That sort of person has to exhibit some kind of abnormal behaviour (other than killing kids on sight). So I think that forensic evidence is probably not the way to go!

BTW. HF acid (as I mentioned previously) would probably be the best for the job (chemists in the house correct me if I'm wrong) because, as far as I know, as the acid breaks down the body, hydrogen is released and this sustains the reaction - as opposed to other acids which would become diluted/neutralised. This should mean that not a lot is required either!

------------------
Nessie Lives! (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001553.html)
------------------

[casdave]

Sadly like all nations we have cases which stand out as being particularly horrific.One such was the case of Myra Hindley and her lover Brady.
Going into what they did serves no real purpose here but suffice to say that had they been convicted less than a year earlier they would certainly have been hanged.
Both are still in prison but Brady recently went on hunger strike and is being force fed.
He wants to die but a court order allows the prison to continue force feeding him.
Good I say! Being forced to live a life he no longer want and having to see youself in the mirror facing up to what you are is justice too.
I just wish we could make the lives of others like him so damned miserable they all felt the same.Execution is too easy for them.

There I feel better now!

I just read this thread today, because frankly, the title disturbed me and I was afraid to open it.

That man should be put in a dungeon. He does not deserve death. By not killing him, there is a slight risk that he may escape prison, and harm others again...but still, he should not be killed, and certainly not be destroyed in such a way.

Jeffery: Your post shocked me. Do you really think that killing that woman is the best way to punish her? I have to agree with SingleDad.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[SoulFrost]

Cleosia...

My dad has pictures of The Death of A Thousand Cuts actually being performed...maybe it was Ten Thousand, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure where he was when he took the pictures, but it was probably around Bougainville (sp?).

I think I'm gonna put it (and all the other execution pics he came back with) on the web.


As for the topic at hand, if he's been found guilty without any reasonable doubt, then kill him. Kill him slowly and with great pain.

Anyone who would do something that monstrous to even one child deserves a few hours of methodical torture before he dies.

-David

[beakerxf]

I recall hearing about this a few months ago when the murders first came to light and I recall seeing pictures of the police excavating an area near the man's home and that they had found some skeletal remains. So there is the potential that they had forensic evidence to convict.

What I'm noticing is a lot of posts about what kind of punishment he deserves, what is right for him, etc. (Nothing wrong with that) What I'm wondering is what everyone feels is best for the families.

I have always had mixed feelings on capital punishment. On the one hand, in the U.S. there is a 1% chance that an innocent man will be put to death. Personally, I think that's too high, especially if it turned out that someday I'm that 1%. We all have only one life after all (depending on your particular faith, of course)

Then again, those other 99% stole life away from their victims. Why should they be allowed to keep theirs?

Then there is the question: Is it justice or is it revenge? I know that if a family member of mine was murdered that I'd be so angry and upset that I'd want to wring the guy's neck myself. However, I know that I'd feel empty afterward. I've never been a person who finds any satisfaction in vengance.

What do you all think you would feel in the same situation? If you were the parent of one of those children and you're standing there watching this man being strangled, would you feel better? Or would you feel empty?

[JDeMobray]

Let me go back to the 100=100 logic for just a moment. My personal view is that:

1,000,000,000 Murders Executed does not and cannot = 1 innocent person wrongly executed.

I cannot fathom a situation in which it would be considered an acceptable collateral loss for one unjustly accused man to die for a crime he did not commit.

Imprison him for life. Throw him in the deepest, darkest hole you can find and chuck away the key. It will cost you, but you know what? It's

"Just like paying our bills. . . nobody likes doing it, but we do it because we have to."

It's the price that I gladly pay to go to my grave with the knowledge that I never contributed to the death of a living person.

[DaphyDuck]

Originally posted by JDeMobray:
...unjustly accused man to die for a crime he did not commitSurely you mean - wouldn't it be a heinous thing to have killed a man who later turned out to be innocent? Well yes it would!

Like I said, and bearing in mind that I am not a criminal psychologist, surely the kind of person who would commit a crime of this manner would be very conspicuous when asked the right sort of questions?

Okay, we don't want to kill an innocent man - so... pump him full of 'truth serum' (have I been watching too many James Bond films?), stick him on a lie detector and shove a strobe light in his face and see if he did it.

Considering the fact that the whole World was watching the Lahore Police force, I'm sure they do not want to just kill the wrong guy for the sake of closing the case (I don't know, maybe they did!?) but I would expect that, at the risk of ridiculing themselves, they would make damn sure they had the right guy.

Imprison him for life. Throw him in the deepest, darkest hole you can find and chuck away the key. It will cost you...No, it won't, it will cost the taxpayers of Lahore. And, nice idea, but what happens when he gets into this prison and all the other inmates find out he abused a bunch of children? They kill him!

There was a story here in the UK about a paedophile who was put into a shared cell (ironically in one of the protected wings of whatever prison it was) with a heroin addict and when the HA found out he cut out the paedophile's eye and liver with a sharpened spoon, left the eye on top of the locker, the liver on a chair, the body on the floor and calmly called the guard.

------------------
"incognuity" should be a word!

[Smartass]

Funny, it didn't start out as a death penalty debate...

A question:
If they strangle him first, what's the point of that other stuff they do afterward?

Also, since you're on the death penalty thing, might as well as those questions as well. It's a subject, about which I'm personally conflicted, and here is why:

-If it's bad for a citizen to kill a person, by what logic is it okay for the government to kill a person?

-For the death penalty to work, somebody has to actually kill the convict. Not in self-defense, or in a fit of emotion. Pure pre-meditated murder. What of this person? And if we, as a society, are paying him to do this, what of us?

-If you kill my child, and then I kill your child as revenge, have I not just become equally as evil, whatever that means, as you are?

-On the other hand, if Joe Badguy has killed someone's child, how can it be right that society is expected to provide food and housing for him?

For me, it boils down to this:
If you kill someone else, unprovoked, then you have relinquished whatever rights you may have had to life and safety. In other words, you "deserve" to die on the spot. You cannot refuse to honor someone else's right and still have reasonable expectation of that right for yourself.

But saying that you deserve to die is not the same as saying that it's okay for me to kill you. Not only does that change you (in that you become dead), but also it changes me.


------------------
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by DaphyDuck:
Like I said, and bearing in mind that I am not a criminal psychologist, surely the kind of person who would commit a crime of this manner would be very conspicuous when asked the right sort of questions?

Okay, we don't want to kill an innocent man - so... pump him full of 'truth serum' (have I been watching too many James Bond films?), stick him on a lie detector and shove a strobe light in his face and see if he did it.

The guilt or innocence of this particular defendant is irrelevant with regards to my opposition of the death penalty. I'm opposed to captial punishment in every case because of the simple fact that no death penalty supporter has ever said that an innocent man has never, e-e-e-ever, been executed. I am in no way arguing that Mr. Hackemup might be innocent, because I don't know the facts in the case. My point was that getting rid of him is not worth the chance of killing an innocent man on some future occasion.

[QUOTE]but what happens when he gets into this prison and all the other inmates find out he abused a bunch of children? They kill him!QUOTE]

So we should save them the extra work? What exactly is your point here? Also, I wouldn't object to solitary confinement for people like this, because not only would it prevent the other prisoners from making their situations worse, it would also have further punitive value.

BTW, there's a story here in the US about a man who woke up one morning in a bathtub full of ice, missing valuable vital organs, but I don't believe everything that I read without coroboration. ;)

Well, he needs to be killed, but not the way it is described in the OP. That is just a waste of time and money.

What possible good can come out of keeping this man alive? A person capable of killing 100 children is not capable of rehabilitation.

The preservation of evil no doubt leads to the destruction of the innocent. This man is evil.

[Threll]

I say lock him up and let greif drive him mad.

[Sterra]

cut him up and serve him to the parents. :)

[jab1]

All you death-penalty proponents all seem to have one faulty belief: "It can't happen to me. I'll never be executed. It'll always be someone else, but never me."

I hope some pro-death penalty mook gets strapped into the electric chair for some crime he did NOT commit, begging for his life, screaming his innocence all the way. And then I hope the executioner leans down and whispers, "We know you are innocent. But if we don't execute you, we may have to let go all the others as well. If we don't kill you, people just might lose faith in the death penalty. And you wouldn't want that, would you?"

And then that switch is thrown and the guy dies for what he believes in. Why, he should feel honored.

Wouldn't you?

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by jab1:
All you death-penalty proponents all seem to have one faulty belief: "It can't happen to me. I'll never be executed. It'll always be someone else, but never me."

I hope some pro-death penalty mook gets strapped into the electric chair for some crime he did NOT commit, begging for his life, screaming his innocence all the way. And then I hope the executioner leans down and whispers, "We know you are innocent. But if we don't execute you, we may have to let go all the others as well. If we don't kill you, people just might lose faith in the death penalty. And you wouldn't want that, would you?"

And then that switch is thrown and the guy dies for what he believes in. Why, he should feel honored.

Wouldn't you?

Geez, there are some things that even I wouldn't wish for to make a point.

[Sweet_Lotus]

Originally posted by Smartass:
For me, it boils down to this:
If you kill someone else, unprovoked, then you have relinquished whatever rights you may have had to life and safety. In other words, you "deserve" to die on the spot. You cannot refuse to honor someone else's right and still have reasonable expectation of that right for yourself.

That is exactly how I feel about it. No one is forced to murder. It is a choice, and with options come consequences.
What would you say about someone who knew (without having had the experience) that putting their hand on a hot stove would burn them, and yet did it purposefully and with clarity of mind? Being burnt is the logical and inevitable consequence of the action.
If the logical consequence of 1st-degree murder was execution, I would have no problem with that.

[SoulFrost]

Ohhhh Jab...man, that plot could've been in a Chick Tract!

::shudder::

-David

Why is it that death penalty opponents base their argument against it as always being "they could be innocent"? Well, guess what? They could also be guilty.

Not only could they be guilty, but they are proven to be guilty in a court of law. Now, I am aware that innocent people are wrongly convicted of crimes and imprisoned for it. I am also aware that innocent people have been executed for being wrongly convicted.

But was is the alternative? Do away with imprisonment simply because a minute percent are innocent? Of course not.

The penal system is not perfect. It has its flaws. But it's all we've got.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by microshroom:
But was is the alternative? Do away with imprisonment simply because a minute percent are innocent? Of course not.

The penal system is not perfect. It has its flaws. But it's all we've got.
[/B]

I've never seen a death penalty opponent argue that we need to do away with prison sentences.

Imprisonment, for lack of a better word, is good. Imprisonment is right. Imprisonment works.

However, don't you dare try to draw a parallel between locking someone up and ending their life. Even for death penalty advocates there is a clear difference (i.e. one gets you life in prison, one gets you the chair/needle/gas.)

[Monty]

Well, I see my mentioning above that Pakistan's constitution outlaws the punishment originally ordered and that nome of the "revenge is the way to go" folks seems to give a hoot about the law.

Let's try this again:

a) A neighbour's daughter has been kidnapped.
b) The child's body has been found in your van and there's evidence of extreme abuse in addition to the murder.
c) You left the van's rear door unlocked.
d) It's your van and thus we all decide you're guilty as sin.
e) The law in your state does not provide for the death penalty.
f) What's the punishment to be?

p.s. I forgot to mention: You're actually innocent and the only evidence against you is you confessed.

[Occam]

I say surgically remove his arms and legs. That way, he can endure the rest of his life in torture and misery without the benefit of suicide.

------------------


"Clatu, Verrata....nector?...neck-tie?"

[Ophelia]

Originally posted by elucidator:
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay" And until he saith otherwise, keep your noose out of His business.


Alrighty, do I have your permission to jot this down in my "quotes" collection? Please oh please? :D


------------------
"I can never give a 'yes' of a 'no.' I don't believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable" *Betty Smith