Four terrorist scumbags get life

wordy · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:09

I think the death penalty should be carried out for crimes such as murder or terrorism where it has been proved beyond doubt that the criminal has carried out the crime. Such as CCTV footage of them killing, or in this case about to detonate explosives.

It's not about getting them back, or treating them the same way they did their victims, for me it's about removing them from our society in the most effective and permanent way possible, without them being any further burden to society.

@if ®afiq · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:12

Gilly said:
Do you mean infidels?

What a silly thing to say. IIRC there were Muslim victims in the 7/7 attacks. These people don't care who they kill.

M0t0r0la · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:13

It is not sympathy towards the murderers in wanting to abolish the death penalty, it is because executions are a renunciation of civilization, a renunciation of our concept of humanity. Executions degrade all of us imho.

To kill someone to show that killing is wrong does not make sense. The moment the state gets involved in killing it establishes that killing is right, and sets a precedent.

Skii · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:13

The scum of the earth get their just deserts. good news.

Moley · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:14

M0t0r0la said:
Along with the argument that some people "deserve to die" is the proposition that the state is capable of determining exactly who it should kill. The reality of the death penalty is that no criminal justice system is capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die.

Another less known issue with the death penalty is the burden placed on the Jurors knowing that they are responsible for a persons life. In capital cases jurors are often reluctant to convict knowing they are sending a man to his death, and as a result guilty people have got off in the past. Whereas if the jury had known they would go to prison instead - would have found the defendant guilty.

MTA99 · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:16

M0t0r0la said:
Unlike other punishments once the death penalty is carried out there is no way to alleviate the results. There can be no pardon, no compensation, nothing can be done to correct the error.

If for example a person were locked up for 40years and then it were realised that they were innocent how do you compensate them? During that time they will have missed out on so many personal and general experiences that are impossible to recreate or compensate for.

I smell a dissertation

Gilly · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:16

@if ®afiq said:
What a silly thing to say

Is it?

Is it really?

Are you saying these people believe they will get their virgins in the afterlife if they kill other people who in their eyes are innocents?

I mean, not much of it makes sense to me, but that takes the biscuit.

In fact, i don't believe you

M0t0r0la said:
It is not sympathy towards the murderers in wanting to abolish the death penalty, it is because executions are a renunciation of civilization, a renunciation of our concept of humanity. Executions degrade all of us imho.

To kill someone to show that killing is wrong does not make sense. The moment the state gets involved in killing it establishes that killing is right, and sets a precedent.

We understand your points, there just aren't many people around that agree with them.

I'm only against the death sentence because it cannot be overturned.

player · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:20

M0t0r0la said:
If when we locked them up we did this too them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6284184.stm
then I could understand, however I believe when we lock people up we educate and try to rehabilitate them so that we can hopefully oneday release them back into society if they are deemed no longer a threat!

They weren't deemed much of threat when they waltzed into Britain, nor when one of them was on his way to Pakistan with terrorist paraphernalia - nor when he returned. These people were given chances they could only have dreamed of in Africa, we owe them nothing and I hope they never see light of day again.

M0t0r0la · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:22

MTA99 said:
If for example a person were locked up for 40years and then it were realised that they were innocent how do you compensate them? During that time they will have missed out on so many personal and general experiences that are impossible to recreate or compensate for.

I smell a dissertation

True but chances are that if they were indeed innocent then it would have been realised way before the 40 years is up.
Obviously its still very difficult to compensate for stolen time but at least we would be in a position to try and compensate unlike if they had been executed.

Gilly · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:24

M0t0r0la said:
True but chances are that if they were indeed innocent then it would have been realised way before the 40 years is up.

How do you know?

@if ®afiq · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:26

Gilly said:
Is it?

Is it really?

Yes. Really. And please don't selectively quote me.

You replaced the word innocents with the word infidels and I pointed out it is not only "infidels" who got targetted in 7/7.

Gilly said:
Are you saying these people believe they will get their virgins in the afterlife if they kill other people who in their eyes are innocents?

I mean, not much of it makes sense to me, but that takes the biscuit.

In fact, i don't believe you

I'm not too sure where you got the rest of this from - what kind of biscuits have you been taking?

M0t0r0la · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:29

Gilly said:
How do you know?

I don't and can't be sure, but I am sure about the second part of my post

Gilly · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:30

@if ®afiq said:
Yes. Really. And please don't selectively quote me.

You replaced the word innocents with the word infidels and I pointed out it is not only "infidels" who got targetted in 7/7.

Selectively quoting you didn't change the context. I cut it down so you knew exactly which part I was referring to.

You haven't answered the main question you quoted there. Do these people honestly believe that killing innocents will see them achieve heaven and virgins?

If you're saying this is the case I'm saying I don't believe you - thats what the rest meant

M0t0r0la said:
I don't and can't be sure, but I am sure about the second part of my post

Me too. Thats the only argument I concede to regarding the death penalty.

Yas786 · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:31

@if ®afiq said:
What a silly thing to say. IIRC there were Muslim victims in the 7/7 attacks. These people don't care who they kill.

Indeed there were in fact my youngest bro and my cousin were both involved in the attacks ie they were injured, who are both muslims

.

So Gilly as ive said before and ill say it again, its not just you non muslims that are under attack...its also us muslims who live in the western world that are also under attack.

As for giving them the death penalty??, i dont think that will help in any way, shape or form.

Gilly · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:32

Spawn said:
So Gilly as ive said before and ill say it again, its not just you non muslims that are under attack...its also us muslims who live in the western world that are also under attack.

Where did I say it was?

Where did I mention the word non-muslims?

Where did I differentiate at all between you and I?

Sleepy · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:35

jdickerson said:
Is that 40 years *minimum* or can they get out in 20yrs on good behaviour?

(I'm genuinely asking)

It means that in 40 years they are eligible for parole. That means that they have to admit they are guilty and convince a board that they no longer represent a threat to society. It doesn't mean that they are released after 40 years.

Given that they are in their late 20's its likely that soem if not all, will die of old age before being eligible.

Yas786 · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:38

Gilly said:
Where did I say it was?

Where did I mention the word non-muslims?

Where did I differentiate at all between you and I?

No you didnt, i was just saying/pointing out and reiterating Atif's comment thats all

.

Gilly · 11 Jul 2007 at 14:41

Spawn said:
No you didnt, i was just saying/pointing out and reiterating Atif's comment thats all.

So you agree with him that these fools going round trying to kill themselves in the name of martyrdom are also trying to kill innocents rather than infidels? They believe that by killing innocents they will achieve whatever it is they're after?

Bear in mind we're talking about who the bombers view as innocents. Of course we view victims of bombers as innocents.

@if ®afiq · 11 Jul 2007 at 15:02

Gilly said:
You haven't answered the main question you quoted there. Do these people honestly believe that killing innocents will see them achieve heaven and virgins?

I don't know what they believed, certainly the heaven part but not too sure about the virgins. (The virgins thing is a lie and there is nothing in Islam that says this)

dirtydog · 11 Jul 2007 at 15:03

Sleepy said:
It means that in 40 years they are eligible for parole. That means that they have to admit they are guilty and convince a board that they no longer represent a threat to society. It doesn't mean that they are released after 40 years.

Given that they are in their late 20's its likely that soem if not all, will die of old age before being eligible.

That's a slightly low life expectancy there isn't it? I hope I live to more than my late 60s. While it is possible they will die at that age, I wouldn't have thought it was likely.