Saudis Behead, Crucify Convicted Child Molester, Murderer

Originally posted by clcreek
read www.childmolestationprevention.org... html. You really believe that 39 million adults and 3 million children is minor.

How can you take a random website which opens with

What are the first three facts you can tell others? Fact one: Today, 95 percent of child molestation can be prevented.

as gospel? Who made up that "fact" exactly and where is their supporting evidence?

Anyway, I did read that through and do you know what their solution was? No, it was not putting child molesters to death but rather focusing on the cause and treating it. That means identifying (diagnosing) those who have a sex drive directed towards children and then using "medicines, and sex-specific therapies". That's about the polar opposite of your propositions, isn't it?

Treat paedophilia as an illness (which it probably is) and the symptoms (molested, damaged children) will go away. Have you ever thought that if people weren't afraid of admitting to a sexual attraction to children due to fear of reprisals that they would come forward and seek help rather than let it get to the point whereby they can no longer control their urges and act them out upon those most fragile members of society that you hold so dear?

I think that line of thinking is the most logical solution, otherwise we will just end up treating the symptoms for all eternity.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Goathief]

Originally posted by Goathief
Treat paedophilia as an illness (which it probably is) and the symptoms (molested, damaged children) will go away.

this is where it falls apart- there will always be deviants and paedophiles, ALWAYS, there will never be a situation or time on this earth when a small number of adults CHOOSE to indulge their deviant urges

Have you ever thought that if people weren't afraid of admitting to a sexual attraction to children due to fear of reprisals that they would come forward and seek help rather than let it get to the point whereby they can no longer control their urges and act them out upon those most fragile members of society that you hold so dear?

They choose not to control their urges- thus they should be executed, especially if a child murder is involved

Originally posted by blueorder
They choose not to control their urges- thus they should be executed, especially if a child murder is involved

And you know this for a fact, how?

The experts in that field (which you are not) suggest that the diagnosis/treatment method is the best way to deal with this horrible problem we have, why do you doubt them? Again, you are another example of someone who is willing to possibly sacrifice the life of one innocent so you can act out your revenge fantasy.

Originally posted by blueorder
not deliberately, I'm talkin accidentally, collateral damage to use a horrible war term

There is no time i would hurt some collaterally if i was directly defending myself. It's not possible, i don't have automatic weapons i only have my fists. So basically your point was absolutely baseless.

Originally posted by blueorder
100% of people executed by police have been executed without trial- this trumps any personal issues over the death penalty.

No it doesn't. If someone points a gun at you and you fire in return that is self defense, that is not the same as the death penalty. If you cannot see that you are either being deliberately provocative or just so caugh tup in things yo ucannot see a difference. Either way you are completely illogical in this point.

A death penalty is carried out in cold blood, for vengeance or punishment depending on your view. A police officer defending themselves is not carried out with the motive being punishment or vengeance, only defense.

You need to base your position more carefully.

Originally posted by blueorder

define many, specifically how many have been proven innocent?

Ok np at all.

www.msu.edu...

Imagine a country that has executed 768 people since 1976. A country, also, whose entire legal and justice systems have been under review for at least the last three of those years because of problems resulting in the imprisonment, if not death, of innocent people. And still, over those last three years, 253 people have been executed, nearly one third of the total. Now consider this fact: 100 people on death row in this country have been found to be innocent, twenty-two in the last three years. What if I was to tell you that this country existed - and that it isn't China, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan? That in fact it is the great, mighty, "we're better than the rest" USA.

Originally posted by blueorder
you can state that if you wish- does not make it a legitimate point of view- I could just as well blame any murders that convicted murderers who have been released (or, if your get out clause is life meaning life, escaped, or murders INSIDE prison) directly on your hands- you have the death on your hands

So innocent people being killed isn't a legitimate point of view? Ok seriously, are you from the UK or China?Oh and how can i be blaimed for murders commited by murderers? I did not ask them to be released whereas you are directly asking for death sentences. The two are not comparable by any logic and once again your comparisons are massively flawed.

Originally posted by blueorder
I'm saying if self defense is a legitimate excuse for execution, then so is someone who has been convicted in a court of law for murdering a child.

Again no. You are talking vengeance vs self defense. The argument is baseless and emotional, not logical.

Originally posted by blueorder

www.independent.co.uk...

Thanks for that will read it later, i skimmed it but want a better look.

Originally posted by clcreek
I am very willing to support that type of punishment for that crime. As for whether or not I need the facts? Facts for what, the discussion is whether or not the punishment fits the crime, I have heard no one here except for you try to discuss the mans innocence. If you have any evidence that the man was innocent then you should have brought it forward, not to us but the Saudi authorities and preferably before his beheading...

I don't have any evidence he's innocent nor do i have evidence he is guilty so i can't judge wether or not this was correct. Do you???

Oh that's right, you do not need any of those facts. A man got killed and that's all that counts.......

WOW, you think the problems we have with sex offenders is minor. So its no big deal to you that a few kids lives gets destroyed every year. I find your consideration of the protection of the most innocent part of our society as a minor issue to be offensive.

WOW, again you amaze me with the way you read posts. I said the problems "WE" (as in dutch citizens, with our soft handeling of crime) have are minor. I know americans have hugh problems with crime and prisons filled to the brim. But according to these numbers we aren't doing to bad...

Crime - What Are The Netherlands Doing Right?

So why is it then that with your point of view about punishment your country is going to h*ll in a handbasket while were thinking about putting our prisons up for rent to neighboring countries because we haven't got enough criminals to fill them???

Everything has a price and people that do not realize it are kidding themselves. But you are saying that a criminals life is of more value then the victims. And I would say that the life of someone who has proven that they are unable to live in socity has no value.

You really believe everything has a price??? You really do?? You are even futher gone than i had realised......
But i would like to buy you and make you see my point of view......what's your price???
I am saying that every life is of more value than money (especially the dollar cause that has no more value than toiletpaper in the near future) no matter what kind of life that may be.........

Peace

Originally posted by Goathief
And you know this for a fact, how?

How do I know they chose not to control their urges- why the evidence is clear, they physically murdered a child showing how they made the choice to indulge their deviant evil urges

The experts in that field (which you are not) suggest that the diagnosis/treatment method is the best way to deal with this horrible problem we have, why do you doubt them?

which experts (of which you are not) let us look at them individually- do they have mind reading devices, do they?

Presumably these child murderers are not misfunctioning oafs who need assistance tying their shoe laces- they can function, they can make decisions, they can drive a car, they can pay a bill, they can watch tv................and yes. oh yes, they can kill a child

Again, you are another example of someone who is willing to possibly sacrifice the life of one innocent so you can act out your revenge fantasy.

You are a shining light of someone with his own psychological issues about justice which prevents society at large from dealing with these child murderers

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Seems to be they got the beheading and the crucification the wrong way round.

I'd have left the twisted bastard to the vultures.

But otherwise, a job well done.

I like this sentiment a lot

I mean what does it matter to a dead body where you hang it?

Well it does make good advertising, but we have no idea if there really is a hell so his suffering would of ended when his head fell off... Almost a shame.

Originally posted by Now_Then
I like this sentiment a lot

I mean what does it matter to a dead body where you hang it?

Well it does make good advertising, but we have no idea if there really is a hell so his suffering would of ended when his head fell off... Almost a shame.

Blood thirsty mongrels acting on nothing but barbaric emotion. I will state this again.

"The law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle

Law and punishment are meant to be impartial. Very few people in this thread understand that and the fact that you don't says a great deal about your character. You need to put aside personal feelings, you need to think what is best, logically and without bias. You need to take into consideration laws and constitutions and you need to take into account how a society is judged.

Life in prison? Fine, agree completely. Death? When we risk innocent lives? When we are nothing more than barbarians? No thanks. I like to think we're more evolved than this.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Law and punishment are meant to be impartial.

Why?

Because by that measure you would take a crime against a business on the same scale as a crime against a human - remember that most of the time the person with the money buys the best outcome. An eye for an eye is just fine so long as you can prove beyond any doubt.

Originally posted by blueorder
How do I know they chose not to control their urges- why the evidence is clear, they physically murdered a child showing how they made the choice to indulge their deviant evil urges

I do not think you know or understand the meaning of the word compulsion.

com·pul·sion (kəm-pŭl'shən)
n.

1.
1. The act of compelling.
2. The state of being compelled.
3. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the
motivation.
4. An act or acts performed in response to such an impulse.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Goathief
Again, you are another example of someone who is willing to possibly sacrifice the life of one innocent so you can act out your revenge fantasy.

You are a shining light of someone with his own psychological issues about justice which prevents society at large from dealing with these child murderers

Actually I would be more inclined to level that critique at your dear self. Why? Firstly because you have no qualms about murdering an innocent by the state in the name of "justice" yet cry foul when it is done by a citizen in the name of self satisfaction. If you cared for innocents, child or otherwise, then both would be equally wrong.

Secondly because you fail to understand that if you eliminate the cause you no longer have to deal with the effect. Again, I refer you to the experts who believe this is the best course of action - you seem to know better, please tell us why you do.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
There is no time i would hurt some collaterally if i was directly defending myself. It's not possible, i don't have automatic weapons i only have my fists. So basically your point was absolutely baseless.

I think you need to rewind through our tete a tete- you said

"I just won't support killing anyone, unless it is direct self defense. "- the discussion was about self defence which results in deaths, unless you have a terribly hard punch you are the one who has shifted the goal posts somewhat

No it doesn't. If someone points a gun at you and you fire in return that is self defense, that is not the same as the death penalty.

in sheer techinical terms no, it is not the death penalty- but it is the killing of another human being (and, in the case of returning fire you could also kill a completely random person) WITHOUT any trial, whereas at least the person receiving justice via the death penalty has had a trial

If you cannot see that you are either being deliberately provocative or just so caugh tup in things yo ucannot see a difference. Either way you are completely illogical in this point.

I really refute your illogical comment

A death penalty is carried out in cold blood, for vengeance or punishment depending on your view. A police officer defending themselves is not carried out with the motive being punishment or vengeance, only defense.
You need to base your position more carefully.

so, an innocent person can be "legitimately" killed , depending on the motive- if the motive is alleged self defence, execution is acceptable- if the motive is punishment for killing a child, after being convicted in a court of law, then it is not acceptable?

Ok np at all.

www.msu.edu...

before I go further, I notice that that site is most vehemently ANTI death penalty, so forgive me while I investigate further- this is not to say that the facts are automatically wrong, but I think you will agree that such a biased site warrants further investigation

Imagine a country that has executed 768 people since 1976. A country, also, whose entire legal and justice systems have been under review for at least the last three of those years because of problems resulting in the imprisonment, if not death, of innocent people. And still, over those last three years, 253 people have been executed, nearly one third of the total. Now consider this fact: 100 people on death row in this country have been found to be innocent, twenty-two in the last three years. What if I was to tell you that this country existed - and that it isn't China, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan? That in fact it is the great, mighty, "we're better than the rest" USA.

that does not show me how many people that were executed were subsquently shown to be innocent- that states 100 people on death rown have been found to be innocent (again tbh I would like specific facts regarding this as a separate issue)- I clicked on that linka dn it comes up "page not found"

So innocent people being killed isn't a legitimate point of view?

I'm saying that in the world of man nothing will be foolproof/100%- you believe that automatically deters us from persuing the death penalty, I don't.

When you are getting figures- go find out how many murderers have gone on to murder again behind bars, also find out how many murderers, upon release have murdered again- on the balance of the possible "innocent" deaths, I'll run with the death penalty- either way is no perfect

Ok seriously, are you from the UK or China?Oh and how can i be blaimed for murders commited by murderers?

no more than i can DIRECTLY be blamed for executing an innocent man for supporting the death penalty- clearly, in such rare cases, the fault would lie with the legal work, the judge, the jury whatever

I did not ask them to be released whereas you are directly asking for death sentences. The two are not comparable by any logic and once again your comparisons are massively flawed.

Originally posted by blueorder


Nonsense- you are ANTI death penalty so you either support life in prison or prison for a set term- that stance will result in the murders of inmates and other prisoners in the future from said murderers and, for those released, murders outside of prison

Again no. You are talking vengeance vs self defense. The argument is baseless and emotional, not logical.

No, I view it as an integral cog of justice- there is plenty of logic behind it on many levels, from preventing murders described above, to ensure society shows how it deals with such villains etc



[edit on 1-6-2009 by blueorder]

For sure! I hate the fact we give free food/shelter/access to education to our most god awful citizens and then above that, force others into not discriminating them for what they've done after they are freed. Good people are paying for homicidal child molesters to have a decent non-homeless life

I do not think you know or understand the meaning of the word compulsion.


com·pul·sion (kəm-pŭl'shən)
n.

1.
1. The act of compelling.
2. The state of being compelled.
3. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the
motivation.
4. An act or acts performed in response to such an impulse.

so, these people were like robots, they were just walking about, in, perhaps, a zombie state? They were not in control of anything, sort of auto pilot? At no stage they could not have made the decision NOT to murder and rape a child?

Yeah, you can believe that if you will, and all the links in the world will never prove that this is actually true, unless you have some sort of mind reading device

Actually I would be more inclined to level that critique at your dear self. Why? Firstly because you have no qualms about murdering an innocent by the state in the name of "justice" yet cry foul when it is done by a citizen in the name of self satisfaction. If you cared for innocents, child or otherwise, then both would be equally wrong.

au contraire, I would hope no innocent would die, I am being honest in saying that in the land of man mistakes may happen, hopefully this would be very very seldom, if at all. This life is about balance and choice, you will not find a perfect choice or perfect answer to anything- on the balance of the pros and cons, I choose to execute those that snuff the life out of a young child- there may be imperfections, but then there are imperfections in having these people sustained as well.

Secondly because you fail to understand that if you eliminate the cause you no longer have to deal with the effect. Again, I refer you to the experts who believe this is the best course of action - you seem to know better, please tell us why you do.

None of these experts will ever tell you that they can stop children being murdered- and we are dealing with those deviants who have crossed the line and killed- these experts are not the Lords of justice thankfully.

You can live your life by people who make a living out of studying how to treat perverts, let the rest of us deal with those perverts who murder




[edit on 1-6-2009 by blueorder]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by blueorder]

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Law and punishment are meant to be impartial.

Why?

Because by that measure you would take a crime against a business on the same scale as a crime against a human - remember that most of the time the person with the money buys the best outcome. An eye for an eye is just fine so long as you can prove beyond any doubt.

No reply?

Did your soap box suffer a failure?

Originally posted by Now_Then
Why?

Because by that measure you would take a crime against a business on the same scale as a crime against a human - remember that most of the time the person with the money buys the best outcome. An eye for an eye is just fine so long as you can prove beyond any doubt.

Hang on sorry you lost me, mind explaining this one please.

Originally posted by Now_Then


No reply?

Did your soap box suffer a failure?

No i'm just extremely busy but i'll be back. Lol i like how you not getting an instant reply meant you thought you could play on that. Get some patience and stop being so manipulative with your arguments. Soap box indeed.

Originally posted by blueorder
I think you need to rewind through our tete a tete- you said

"I just won't support killing anyone, unless it is direct self defense. "- the discussion was about self defence which results in deaths, unless you have a terribly hard punch you are the one who has shifted the goal posts somewhat

And here you show you know nothing about self defense. Firstly i have a shiocking punch and yes i could kill someone with a wel lplaced one. But hey if you knew anything about martial arts you'd realise that for example if someone attacked me with a knife i have many ways of attacking and one of them, if i was deeply endangered might be a smack to the throat. That would kill someone. I'm not proud of it but you were on about collateral damage and i'm talking about direct self defense.

If you are not qualified to talk about it then don't basically.

Originally posted by blueorder

in sheer techinical terms no, it is not the death penalty- but it is the killing of another human being (and, in the case of returning fire you could also kill a completely random person) WITHOUT any trial, whereas at least the person receiving justice via the death penalty has had a trial

Sorry but you are stretching the terms.

Death penalty: execution: putting a condemned person to death

Notice the word condemned there. It is included for a very good reason. Self defense is not a death penalty, it is self defense. You are basically arguing, rather stupidly that the policeman should let himself get shot simply to let the person have a trial. What world do you live in? Obviously not reality or a fair one.

execution: putting a condemned person to death
I really refute your illogical comment

Refute means to provide evidence against, please do so.

Originally posted by blueorder
so, an innocent person can be "legitimately" killed , depending on the motive- if the motive is alleged self defence, execution is acceptable- if the motive is punishment for killing a child, after being convicted in a court of law, then it is not acceptable?

Self defense isn't an execution! Execution means a defensless person being killed. I'm tired of you not seeing that point, as defined by the dictionary.

Execution: putting a condemned person to death

Originally posted by blueorder
before I go further, I notice that that site is most vehemently ANTI death penalty, so forgive me while I investigate further- this is not to say that the facts are automatically wrong, but I think you will agree that such a biased site warrants further investigation

The facts are correct i checked them on multiple sites but provided that one because i liked the quote. Feel free to investigate.

Originally posted by blueorder
that does not show me how many people that were executed were subsquently shown to be innocent- that states 100 people on death rown have been found to be innocent (again tbh I would like specific facts regarding this as a separate issue)- I clicked on that linka dn it comes up "page not found"

sorry if i linked it incorrectly, search google and it'll come up. However i again state, innocent people have been killed and if yo uthink it's worth that then we have nothing more to discuss. We can never agree as i think any innocent person dying is abhorrent. I don't like any of this pitiful vengeance you talk of when it comes to killing people.

Originally posted by blueorder
I'm saying that in the world of man nothing will be foolproof/100%- you believe that automatically deters us from persuing the death penalty, I don't.

The difference is my belief can be corrected with compensation to try to make it up to the person, yours has no way of making it better.

Originally posted by blueorder
When you are getting figures- go find out how many murderers have gone on to murder again behind bars, also find out how many murderers, upon release have murdered again- on the balance of the possible "innocent" deaths, I'll run with the death penalty- either way is no perfect

Well this is easily solved, keep murderers separate. As for the ones who reoffend, they're very rare actually, look that up. Personally i think that depends on the murderer. I actually support real life sentences for agressive murderers, not simply heat of the moment ones.

Originally posted by blueorder

no more than i can DIRECTLY be blamed for executing an innocent man for supporting the death penalty- clearly, in such rare cases, the fault would lie with the legal work, the judge, the jury whatever

But you can, because you are supporting the death of possibly innocent people. Compare the situation.

I support that murderers are locked up for life. Escaping murderers are beyond rare, virtually unheard of that escaped murderers go killing people. Whereas many have been executed falsly thinking they were guilty.

If you support peopel being killed you support murder directly, cold blooded stuff.

Originally posted by blueorder
Nonsense- you are ANTI death penalty so you either support life in prison or prison for a set term- that stance will result in the murders of inmates and other prisoners in the future from said murderers and, for those released, murders outside of prison

Again keep them seperate, is this that hard to understand? Solitary confinement, ever heard of it?

Originally posted by blueorder
No, I view it as an integral cog of justice- there is plenty of logic behind it on many levels, from preventing murders described above, to ensure society shows how it deals with such villains etc

There is no logic, none, zip, ziltch.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
And here you show you know nothing about self defense. Firstly i have a shiocking punch and yes i could kill someone with a wel lplaced one. But hey if you knew anything about martial arts you'd realise that for example if someone attacked me with a knife i have many ways of attacking and one of them, if i was deeply endangered might be a smack to the throat. That would kill someone. I'm not proud of it but you were on about collateral damage and i'm talking about direct self defense.

If you are not qualified to talk about it then don't basically.

Don't lecture me Bruce Lee, you don't know me or what I am capable of- we can all be big men on the internet....

Sorry but you are stretching the terms.

Death penalty: execution: putting a condemned person to death

Notice the word condemned there. It is included for a very good reason. Self defense is not a death penalty, it is self defense. You are basically arguing, rather stupidly that the policeman should let himself get shot simply to let the person have a trial. What world do you live in? Obviously not reality or a fair one.

execution: putting a condemned person to death

I am aware of the descriptions of each- you are justifying the execution of someone when the motive is self defence (and when the person has not been convicted) while acting Billy offended when convicted murderers get put to death- you lose your moral grandstanding somewhat.

Refute means to provide evidence against, please do so.

refer to my responses to you- it more than suffices

Self defense isn't an execution! Execution means a defensless person being killed. I'm tired of you not seeing that point, as defined by the dictionary.

Execution: putting a condemned person to death

spare me your dictionary warfare, it is tiresome

How about this from the dictionary

Execution- The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.


In your mind the self defence argument is a lawful penalty, so you can dance your little moral semantics all you want- bottom line is your argument is built on sand

The facts are correct i checked them on multiple sites but provided that one because i liked the quote. Feel free to investigate.

yes, could you provide these links, as the link shows "page not found on that page

sorry if i linked it incorrectly, search google and it'll come up. However i again state, innocent people have been killed and if yo uthink it's worth that then we have nothing more to discuss.
"

the overall link is fine, it is the specific link relating to the number on death row exonerated that isnt working- also, specifically, how many people executed in the US have been proven to be innocent after execution, there have been no figures provided for this?

We can never agree as i think any innocent person dying is abhorrent. I don't like any of this pitiful vengeance you talk of when it comes to killing people.

I don't like the idea of innocents dying- innocents die on both sides of the argument, you oppose the death penalty, so murderers will kill inside prison and upon release- I choose to favour the death penalty

The difference is my belief can be corrected with compensation to try to make it up to the person, yours has no way of making it better.

Your way also results in more murders - your way is not perfect and I find it more "imperfect" than mine

Well this is easily solved, keep murderers separate.

separate from who, other prisoners, other murders, staff who?

As for the ones who reoffend, they're very rare actually, look that up.

are they more or less rare than the number of prisoners executed who have been subsequently found to be innocent?

Personally i think that depends on the murderer. I actually support real life sentences for agressive murderers, not simply heat of the moment ones.

heat of the moment would generally be manslaughter

But you can, because you are supporting the death of possibly innocent people. Compare the situation.

I support that murderers are locked up for life. Escaping murderers are beyond rare, virtually unheard of that escaped murderers go killing people. Whereas many have been executed falsly thinking they were guilty.

We still have not had any facts as to find out how common it is for executed prisoners to be found not guilty post mortem!

Murderers kill regularly within prison (and for those who get released, upon release)

If you support peopel being killed you support murder directly, cold blooded stuff.

I support convicted murderers being killed- that is not supporting murder- unless of course you are responsible for the murders convicted murderers go on to commit

Again keep them seperate, is this that hard to understand? Solitary confinement, ever heard of it?

They will interact with someone at some point- do you think solitary confinement is possible, in terms of prison capacity and cost?

There is no logic, none, zip, ziltch.

There is logic, you just refuse to accept it, in your world you are "right"- you hold the morals- but that is a perversion of standard morality- especially when one considers you think people can be executed (or killed if you prefer, I can used the term "killed" for those receiving justice via the death penalty if you like)if it is self defense. People can be killed who have never murdered another person in their life- at least I support justice for those who kill kids!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by blueorder]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by blueorder]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Soap box indeed.

Yhea sorry about that, it was a tad flippant. Thinking about other things.

Anyways my point was that you HAVE to have emotion and compassion in legal proceedings otherwise you could just get a computer do dole out the justice, and then the special thing that makes us understand that we are eating a chicken for instance actually was alive... Not just a mobile chicken meat producing unit - I know that's a bit random but you know the imagery works.

So basically the guy was beheaded, executed - that does happen all the time, whatever peoples thoughts on that are no one can deny it does happen... The issue here is (or seems to be) that the dead body was nailed to wood in a place where public could view it, no?

How is that worse than what the criminal did? I'm not saying chopping hands off for trying to eat someone elses bread is the way to go... But it is a fairly persuasive way of telling the masses "don't kill an 11 year old boy and his farther"

any anyway the last thing the crim knew was the minute his head was chopped off lol, he really was not aware of the crusification.

edit to add the reply to bit

[edit on 1/6/2009 by Now_Then]

Originally posted by clcreek


While I don't think Saudia Arabia is a good example of how a country should be run; At least they knows how to treat child molesters and murderers.

It would be great if the US had the guts to do this today!!! Instead we just lock people up in little tiny cells and treat them like animals. At least they are being tortured....



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yeah I agree, the US could take a bit of their methods on how to deal with molesters and murderers instead of locking them up and giving them three meals a day, cable television, free gym use and all the amenities normal people have to pay for!

Originally posted by blueorder


Don't lecture me Bruce Lee, you don't know me or what I am capable of- we can all be big men on the internet....

Not lecturing my little friend. You bought up about my fists i simply responded with detail. If you don't like it then don't discuss, pretty simple. Just because i completely invalidated your point is no need to go getting personal.

Originally posted by blueorder

I am aware of the descriptions of each- you are justifying the execution of someone when the motive is self defence (and when the person has not been convicted) while acting Billy offended when convicted murderers get put to death- you lose your moral grandstanding somewhat.

Again you miss the definition of executed. So please if you want to discuss it lets stick to the dictionary.

Originally posted by blueorder

refer to my responses to you- it more than suffices

Not it doesn't but i'm sure in your mind it does.

Originally posted by blueorder

spare me your dictionary warfare, it is tiresome

How about this from the dictionary

Execution- The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.

Yes a lawful penalty which would suggest there has been a trial. A police officer in defense of their life is therefore not execution as you put it. Nest you will be saying a solider defending himself is also execution.

Originally posted by blueorder
In your mind the self defence argument is a lawful penalty, so you can dance your little moral semantics all you want- bottom line is your argument is built on sand

No my argument is built on the dictionary definition. But hey you keep building those strawmen.

Originally posted by blueorder

yes, could you provide these links, as the link shows "page not found on that page

Gladly.

www.amnestyusa.org...

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

He said he had decided to approve the legislation because DNA evidence had shown that innocent people had been sentenced to death in the past.

A few articles outlining how innocent people have been either killed or put on death row and only cleared after many years of coming close to death.

Originally posted by blueorder

the overall link is fine, it is the specific link relating to the number on death row exonerated that isnt working- also, specifically, how many people executed in the US have been proven to be innocent after execution, there have been no figures provided for this?

I've struggled to find a complete USA list, the figures are kept quite no doubt for a very good reason. However this should provide some interesting info.

www.justicedenied.org...

Originally posted by blueorder

I don't like the idea of innocents dying- innocents die on both sides of the argument, you oppose the death penalty, so murderers will kill inside prison and upon release- I choose to favour the death penalty

Again the difference is my way the people who are innocent can eventually, hopefully be released. Your argument that innocents die my way is stupid if we keep murderers in solitary confinement.

Originally posted by blueorder
Your way also results in more murders - your way is not perfect and I find it more "imperfect" than mine

That is becaue you haven't addressed the arguments with any kind of logic, yo uare bloodthirsty.

Originally posted by blueorder

separate from who, other prisoners, other murders, staff who?

Solitary confinement means everyone. Prisoners cannot hurt others if this is done correctly.

Originally posted by blueorder
are they more or less rare than the number of prisoners executed who have been subsequently found to be innocent?

Rarer if we take the previously mentioned figures. Whilst not all were executed many were exonerated and we have to consider how many were not exonerated. Think about how rare it is for perdatory murderers to be released, hwo rare it is for them to escape. Basically it's almost non existant.

Originally posted by blueorder


heat of the moment would generally be manslaughter

Not always, in fact not often. Cold blooded murders are rare yet we have tons of murderers in prison, explain these figures please. Unless of course we class heat of the moment crimes as murder, which we do a lot.

Originally posted by blueorder
We still have not had any facts as to find out how common it is for executed prisoners to be found not guilty post mortem!

Murderers kill regularly within prison (and for those who get released, upon release)

Again don't release predatory murderers and keep them in solitary, very easily fixed don't you think? Oh i suppose you'll say no because you have no logical way of debating this and can only keep ignoring arguments or laughing them off to make yourself seem better.

Originally posted by blueorder
I support convicted murderers being killed- that is not supporting murder- unless of course you are responsible for the murders convicted murderers go on to commit

Hang on, you want them killed and that isn't murder? The dictionary disagrees again!

Murder:kill intentionally and with premeditation

Or hey how about this from our law books

"Under English law, the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 is a statute abolishing the death penalty for murder in the United Kingdom. The Act replaces the penalty of death with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment."

Man the dictionary and our legal books are seriously contradicting what you are saying huh. We have an entire law calling the death penalty murder! I'm sure however you'll close over this one.

Originally posted by blueorder
They will interact with someone at some point- do you think solitary confinement is possible, in terms of prison capacity and cost?

Yes because we already do it. The worst are kept locked away from others. Murders in prison are often commited by standard criminals who are in prison gangs.

Originally posted by blueorder


There is logic, you just refuse to accept it, in your world you are "right"- you hold the morals- but that is a perversion of standard morality- especially when one considers you think people can be executed (or killed if you prefer, I can used the term "killed" for those receiving justice via the death penalty if you like)if it is self defense. People can be killed who have never murdered another person in their life- at least I support justice for those who kill kids!

I support justice for those who kill kids and your pathetic attempt to play on the heart strings of readers is sad, dishonest and basically another ploy to get yourself out of the pit you have dug for yourself.