Death Penalty: Your Views

So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

No point even debating with you.

Just correct your double principle please. 'Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life' ... a killer has taken that authority, used it and killed. Yet, the victim and family have no rights. Funny old world.

Do you have some kind of aversion to evidence and critical thinking? As the above poster has explained, this has been demonstrated in literature. I'm guessing you're so sure that the threat of death is an overall deterrent because of something silly like "common sense" - something that is well known to be a wrong a hell of a lot of the time. Anyway, there is in fact evidence that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterrent because it brutalises the population and thus drives up the rates of violent crime.

If you really think the death penalty acts a deterrent then there really is no point debating with you.... unless maybe you can provide some evidence?




No "double principle" here. The state should not have authority over anyone's right to life, and nor should a killer. No-one is saying that the killer should have had authority over their victim's life - I think we're all agreed that they've done wrong - the question is what should be done about it. And your solution is simply to violent somebody else's right to life? What hypocrisy.

You just don't get it do you?

You just don't get it do you?

So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

No point even debating with you.

Just correct your double principle please. 'Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life' ... a killer has taken that authority, used it and killed. Yet, the victim and family have no rights. Funny old world.

A wonderful form of punishment.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Who said it's wrong?

I think there's a problem if you can't see that killing someone is wrong


Posted from TSR Mobile

Allegations of crimes[edit]
A report released on 20 March 2003, one day after the American led invasion of Iraq, by ABC news detailed several allegations against Uday:

As head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, Uday oversaw the imprisonment and torture of Iraqi athletes who were deemed not to have performed to expectations. According to widespread reports, torturers beat and caned the soles of the football players' feet—inflicting intense pain without leaving visible marks on the rest of their bodies. Uday reportedly kept scorecards with written instructions on how many times each player should be beaten after a poor showing. He would insult athletes who performed below his expectations by calling them dogs and monkeys to their faces.[14] One defector reported that jailed football players were forced to kick a concrete ball after failing to reach the 1994 FIFA World Cup finals.[15] The Iraqi national football team were seen with their heads shaved after failing to achieve a good result in a tournament in the 1980s. It was widely circulated that Uday ordered the shaving as part of the punishment. Another defector claimed that athletes were dragged through a gravel pit and subsequently immersed in a sewage tank to induce infection in the victims' wounds.[8] After Iraq lost, 4–1, to Japan in the quarter finals of the 2000 AFC Asian Cup in Lebanon, goalkeeper Hashim Hassan, defender Abdul Jaber and forward Qahtan Chatir were labelled as guilty of loss and eventually flogged for three days by Uday's security.[15]
Other allegations include:

Kidnapping young Iraqi women from the streets in order to rape them. Uday was known to intrude on parties and otherwise "discover" women whom he would later rape. Time published an article in 2003 detailing his sexual brutality.[1][16]
When U.S. troops captured his mansion in Baghdad, they found a personal zoo stocked with lions and cheetahs; an underground parking garage for his collection of luxury cars; paintings glorifying him and his mother with Saddam (which was known to have infuriated his father); Cuban cigars inscribed with his name; and millions of dollars worth of fine wines, liquor and heroin. An HIV testing kit was also found among his personal effects.[14] He amassed millions of U.S. dollars by running façade corporations illegally trading with Iran (although, at that time, UN restrictions did not allow foreign trading. Only later, Iraq was allowed to import certain commodities such as food and medical supplies legally under the UN Oil For Food programme).
Usage of an iron maiden on persons running afoul of him.[17]
Beating an army officer unconscious when the man refused to allow Uday to dance with his wife; the man later died of his injuries. Uday also shot and killed an army officer who did not salute him.[8]
Stealing approximately 1,200 luxury vehicles, including a Rolls-Royce Corniche valued at over $200,000.[citation needed] A Lamborghini LM002, given to him as a gift by former Leader of Libya Muammar Gaddafi, was later blown up by U.S. forces to demonstrate the effects of a car bomb.[18]
Plotting, in 2000, to assassinate Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, presumably to impress his father after Qusay was named heir apparent.[19]

From Wikipedia, on Saddam Hussein's son Uday:



In the words of Sam Harris, "unless you are a complete pacifist, you have to admit that this is what guns are for." I think it's potentially quite naive to say or imply that killing is always wrong. I think it can serve a moral purpose... I just don't think it can be moral as a state-endorsed method of punishment.

So say there's a man who has raped several women and tortured them before sadistically killing them. Does he not deserve to die? What do you think is a suitable punishment?


I must say I agree with this.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Who said it's wrong?

Give the choice to the victim's family/dependants. They should decide the fate of the murderer after meeting with him/her and their family.

1) Blood for blood/execution
2) Jail sentence
3) Blood money/compensation
4) Pardon

That way the lawmakers hands are clean

Personally I would go for 3 or 4.

Execution is the worst type of premeditated murder.

Opinions on the death penalty?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why not extend that to all crime then? If someone steals my identity then why not let me decide their sentence?

Blood for blood, how far are you going to go with that though? Rape for rape


Posted from TSR Mobile