Paedophile rapist to be beheaded and crucified

[Unrighteous]

What percentage of the US wanted slavery abolished before it was tackled? Just because it's a majority view doesn't make it right.

 

And lets not forget that it also serves as no sort of disincentive to crime, as the US clearly shows.

 

The best disincentive for crime is social embarrassment, believe it or not.

[Stu Monty]

Which is a cheaper option? Someone who is innocent but sentence and kept his entire life in prison? Or someone who is shot with a .223 calibre rifle and the family being charged for a bullet?

 

I'd rather money be spent on health care.

 

You can moan about innocent people till the end comes, but they will still be sentenced and held, and most won't get pardoned by some new evidence.

 

So, yes, I guess I am okay with innocent people being murdered, even if its myself.

 

Fair enough. I think that's fucked up though. The amount of power you are willing to give the state to save money is alarming. You're also just dealing with symptoms of a broken society there too, not trying to deal with the problem and actually rectify the amount of serious crime committed (which would also lower the cost of keeping order).

 

I've no reason to doubt that last comment either Lance. As our position in society is an important factor in our fortunes.

[Elmyn Noos]

Where in that article does it say 'clear psychological disorder', I presume you have knowledge of this particilar case to justify the inverted commas in "confession" and if you were to coduct a poll - Saudi, Arabic countries, Middle-East countries or global - what percentage do you think would prefer the world with him in it and what percentage without?

 

Aside from the article saying that there were reports that he suffered from a psychological disorder, it says he raped and murdered young boys. In a country that beheads people twice a week. I'm no shrink, but that sounds a touch mental to me.

 

I put inverted commas around the word "confession" because the saudis have a track record when it comes to "confessions".

 

Finally, I wouldn't conduct a poll, because I don't need confirmation that most people are pitchfork wielding mindless knee-jerk reactionary fuckwits.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Which is a cheaper option? [...] So, yes, I guess I am okay with innocent people being murdered, even if its myself.

 

 

That's some fucked up shit, un.

[ottawa_lfc]

I'm always amazed how people who support this sort of shit manage to completely block out the fact that miscarriages of justice are common and that innocent people would die.

 

As I've said before, it's especially alarming on the boards of this particular sporting club.

 

Spot on.

[Unrighteous]

Fair enough. I think that's fucked up though. The amount of power you are willing to give the state to save money is alarming. You're also just dealing with symptoms of a broken society there too, not trying to deal with the problem and actually rectify the amount of serious crime committed (which would also lower the cost of keeping order).

 

I agree the emboldened part is the something that should be more programs in place for high risk youths to try to keep them out of trouble and things like this... but there isn't enough to go around to ensure that things like this are available to try to stop criminal activity and teach people that 'crime isn't cool'.

[Unrighteous]

Negged.

 

That's some fucked up shit, un.

 

I love how angry you get when you're negged. It's like winning the lottery, negging you.

 

Look forward to your next one.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I love how angry you get when you're negged.

 

I'm so angry that I might go and shoot a kid in the face. I'll make sure they've got cancer. That should save some money.

 

LoGic SukxS. I love how you mistake sarcasm for anger, though.

[aws]

But that mean's you're okay with innocent people being murdered for things they haven't done.

 

How is that any way to run a society?

 

I'd be quite happy to go along with your argument if convicted murderers were kept in prison until they were proven innocent or until they were old and infirm. But if a state releases them after 10 years or so then I would bet that for every innocent "murderer" that would have been executed there's another ten new innocents being murdered by the released killers.

 

What about their rights?

[ottawa_lfc]

Which is a cheaper option? Someone who is innocent but sentenced and kept his entire life in prison? Or someone who is shot with a .223 calibre rifle and the family being charged for a bullet?

 

I'd rather money be spent on health care.

 

You can moan about innocent people till the end comes, but they will still be sentenced and held, and most won't get pardoned by some new evidence.

So, yes, I guess I am okay with innocent people being murdered, even if its myself.

 

edit I R GUD SPEILER

 

Thank God the editor of The S*n wasn't actually in charge of the legal system of the UK in 89 - we'd have had the death penalty, plus innocent fans locked up for manslaughter. Fuck, I'd have been in prison! Twenty years on, the officials still cover up and lie. It can happen. It has happened. It does happen all the frigging time. We've had two cases in Canada recently where DNA evidence has exonerated people that have been locked up for first degree murder.

 

Killing one person to make amends for killing another is some weird judaic/old testament shit.

[Unrighteous]

I'm so angry that I might go and shoot a kid in the face. I'll make sure they've got cancer. That should save some money.

 

LoGic SukxS. I love how you mistake sarcasm for anger, though.

 

I didn't realise that getting cancer was a choice that you made. Violently raping, murdering, etc. is a choice. People choose to do these things.

 

They've not just woken up and gone, "Oh shit... this murder just developed without my knowledge!"

 

Logic indeed.

[Unrighteous]

Thank God the editor of The S*n wasn't actually in charge of the legal system of the UK in 89 - we'd have had the death penalty, plus innocent fans locked up for manslaughter. Fuck, I'd have been in prison! Twenty years on, the officials still cover up and lie. It can happen. It has happened. It does happen all the frigging time. We've had two cases in Canada recently where DNA evidence has exonerated people that have been locked up for first degree murder.

 

Killing one person to make amends for killing another is some weird judaic/old testament shit.

 

No, actually it isn't. DNA evidence is a newish technology. Those two cases that you've brought up were old cases, and DNA evidence would have got them an innocence in this day in age. (I believe the cases were from the 80s, no?)

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I didn't realise that getting cancer was a choice that you made. Violently raping, murdering, etc. is a choice. People choose to do these things.

 

They've not just woken up and gone, "Oh shit... this murder just developed without my knowledge!"

 

Logic indeed.

 

Sarcasm. I'm not seriously suggesting that the two are comparable. However, I do have a massive problem with you 'cheaper' and 'ok with the murder of innocent people' argument. Luckily, I don't have to think much about it because most of the civilised western world don't do it.

[ottawa_lfc]

I'd be quite happy to go along with your argument if convicted murderers were kept in prison until they were proven innocent or until they were old and infirm. But if a state releases them after 10 years or so then I would bet that for every innocent "murderer" that would have been executed there's another ten new innocents being murdered by the released killers.

 

What about their rights?

 

The problem as I see it is that we have given up on the idea of rehabilitation. I agree that life should mean life - it is sickening to see murderers released after 10 years. But it is a societal problem that goes much deeper than that. Look at the Rhys Jones murder. Who is to blame? The feral little arseholes that killed him, or the society that means kids of that age have no hope, no future, and no chance? (I know this is simplistic, but you get my point.)

[ottawa_lfc]

No, actually it isn't. DNA evidence is a newish technology. Those two cases that you've brought up were old cases, and DNA evidence would have got them an innocence in this day in age. (I believe the cases were from the 80s, no?)

 

That's right. My point is that under a system that kills murderers etc - they would both be dead - innocent or not.

[Unrighteous]

Sarcasm. I'm not seriously suggesting that the two are comparable. However, I do have a massive problem with you 'cheaper' and 'ok with the murder of innocent people' argument. Luckily, I don't have to think much about it because most of the civilised western world don't do it.

 

Do you think that's because they are MORE civilised than the ones that do it? Or because their societies don't approve?

 

Get real. There isn't a country on the planet (besides maybe tibet due to religious beliefs) that would be 100% against the Death Penalty.

 

You also seem to forget that Prisons in the Western World are overpopulated and that inmates cost more than the average person's annual wage.

[Unrighteous]

That's right. My point is that under a system that kills murderers etc - they would both be dead - innocent or not.

 

I'm Canadian, by the way, and I would retort that because their trials were before DNA evidence became STANDARD it allowed for this release. If those trials happened today, then they would be found innocent due to DNA evidence.

 

I'm happy that they aren't dead, because they didn't commit their crimes. However, I'm alright with the fact that they could have been sentenced to die back in the 80s. You know why? Because the state would have used all the evidence at their disposal to sentence them.

 

We all know mistakes will happen with criminals --- Guilty being found innocent, and innocent being found guilty. The onus is just to attempt to keep these a very small number.

[Guest Dog Chaser]

The problem as I see it is that we have given up on the idea of rehabilitation. I agree that life should mean life - it is sickening to see murderers released after 10 years. But it is a societal problem that goes much deeper than that. Look at the Rhys Jones murder. Who is to blame? The feral little arseholes that killed him, or the society that means kids of that age have no hope, no future, and no chance? (I know this is simplistic, but you get my point.)

 

I agree with rehabilitation, but only for people that steal or commit petty crimes. I don't see how you can rehabilitate someone who is a murderer, rapist or peadophile.

[Unrighteous]

I agree with rehabilitation, but only for people that steal or commit petty crimes. I don't see how you can rehabilitate someone who is a murderer, rapist or peadophile.

 

I think that you can, but it will take an awful lot of time and it depends on the circumstance. A murderer in the heat of the moment? Yeah, that person probably regrets what they've done.

 

A violent rapist, cold premeditated murderer or paedophile? I don't think they are really going to be rehabilitated. You've got to be disturbed and have a real lust for power to do something like that.

[kingkenny78]

When you look at what this bloke's done, he appears to be a right evil bastard. As a parent myself, the thought of the horrific way these kids were treated, basically used and left to die makes me say that he gets what he deserves. If a dog bites you it gets put down, and that's the fate of a dumb animal. This cunt's clearly an animal too, but a calculating one.

 

If that's their culture and how they deal with things, who are we to butt in and try to enforce our values on them? He's gone through their judicial system and he's been given his sentence. If he did it, good riddance. The question as always is this: How would you feel if it was your kids?

 

Always makes me laugh on here how this type of issue leads to newspaper snobbery.

[Fowlers God]

A) Would any of you have a "rehabilitated" paedo look after your children?

B) Would you not want the money spent on Rehabilitating this sex offender to be spent on your childs education?

C) After someone has been found guilty by a jury of piers (everybody has a right to a fair trial) and had a 1 or 2 appeals turned down or again found guilty then surely that person who has killed someone or sexually assaulted someone gives up their right to have rights?

[Stu Monty]

I'd be quite happy to go along with your argument if convicted murderers were kept in prison until they were proven innocent or until they were old and infirm. But if a state releases them after 10 years or so then I would bet that for every innocent "murderer" that would have been executed there's another ten new innocents being murdered by the released killers.

 

What about their rights?

 

I agree with your point. A murderer should be kept in prison for a lot longer, possibly life.

 

If you look at society like a dozen people on an island you can explore some concepts on a very basic scale. If one of that dozen kills someone then you have a choice of killing them or, if it is possible, trying for as long as possible to once again make them a useful part of the group - giving you eleven people to help out instead of ten.

 

I also see that by killing them you might send a message that it is unnaceptable and also massage the bloodlust for revenge that we can have as humans (but which is unhlepful to progressing as a group). Beings can sustain themselves successfully in any number of ways; I'd just like to think that we've reached a point where we can try and avoid the brutality that comes along with natural selection.

[melons]

I love the way the moralistic on both for and against go nuts on this topic.

 

I think the main issue on this case is where the trial took place how anyone could have faith in the Saudi judicial system is worrying.

 

That said, i don't believe sexual offenders of such a nature can be rehabilitated. I also believe no punishment can ever be enough to compensate (for want of a better term) the damage done to the victim. The damage sexual abuse causes on a family doesn't stop at the victim, it goes on and ripples through the family for generations.

 

So what do we do with them? I have no issue with them being alive, i do have a problem with the way are allowed to live. Why should they have better care then the victims? Why should the judicial system be there to protect them when it so epically failed the abusers victims. Why have human rights activists ensure they are not ill treated whilst they are being punished? Surely being punished should mean just that, having rights taken away.

[mattyq]

Execution is state sponsored murder. I think murder is bad...

You have to question the state of mind of a man who knew he'd be decapitated and crucified if found guilty to then confess.

Does it not smell of miscarriage of justice; torture or plain lunacy?

[rb14]

I love all this clear-cut murder=life shit, let alone murder=death sentence bollocks.

 

Brain and cell.

 

Two weeks ago I was in the extremely privileged position of visiting at home in Portugal, one of Mr rb14's greatest triumphs. Yes, you guessed right, he was originally convicted of murder. Mr rb14 took up the case because he is in a position to do so. The original evidence against our client was enough for a jury to convict. Mr rb14's efforts proved that the evidence was totally flawed and the Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the verdict. Most recently the prosecution offered no evidence and our client was cleared and freed from prison.

 

Having dinner with him, his mother and family was a truly humbling experience. Ask his mother if she believes in the death sentence.