Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crime and Punishment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crime and Punishment?

    Very simple questions.

    Please answer if you can in the context of your own nation and your own personal view.

    Should those 'convicted of a terrorist act' in which your nations citizens either died or were injured, receive the death penalty without the right of appeal?

    Should those 'convicted of planning or conspiring in a terrorist attack' that is not covered by the above, receive a full life term with no time off and include hard labour?


    I should add that in my own view, this is simply about retribution on behalf of the victims and their family and friends.

    Members should feel free to express more deeply why they answer as they do.


    My own answers are YES to both questions.

    Why is simple....

    If you consider the motivations and morality of those who plan, commit or assist these crimes, then deterance isnt an issue because they clearly do not consider morality an issue. They also clearly do not value human life so why should THEIRS be of equal value to their victims?

    Simple retribution is the answer because in terms of the innocent VICTIMS, its what terrorists morally deserve.

    Gary

  • #2
    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
    Very simple questions.

    Should those 'convicted of a terrorist act' in which your nations citizens either died or were injured, receive the death penalty without the right of appeal?
    I am not sure about the appeal part. It would depend on what the legal standard of evidence was for me to disregard appeal. One thing is certain, appeal shouldn't take ten years. There should be a faster way of doing it.

    I have no problem with the concept of punishment for crime. When the crime is severe enough consideration of rehabilitation is not relevant. You do something wrong you are punished. Execution I believe to be a suitable punishment for certain crimes that involve death. Certainly this will include terrorism.

    I would even be willing to consider the idea of the Death penalty for certain crimes against children that didn't result in the physical death of the child.

    Should those 'convicted of planning or conspiring in a terrorist attack' that is not covered by the above, receive a full life term with no time off and include hard labour?
    Easy yes. Although if convicted of assisting a murder then I have no problem with the death penalty because they are just as guilty as those who commit the act.

    Comment


    • #3
      Should those 'convicted of a terrorist act' in which your nations citizens either died or were injured, receive the death penalty without the right of appeal?

      NO




      Should those 'convicted of planning or conspiring in a terrorist attack' that is not covered by the above, receive a full life term with no time off and include hard labour?

      YES


      best
      CV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
        Should those 'convicted of a terrorist act' in which your nations citizens either died or were injured, receive the death penalty without the right of appeal?
        No. But, unlawful enemy combatants who are convicted and sentenced to death should have a very narrowly restricted scope of appeals process.

        Originally posted by allsirgarnet
        Should those 'convicted of planning or conspiring in a terrorist attack' that is not covered by the above, receive a full life term with no time off and include hard labour?
        No. But certain al-Qaeda terrorists can never be allowed to regain their freedom.


        Originally posted by allsirgarnet
        I should add that in my own view, this is simply about retribution on behalf of the victims and their family and friends.
        Retribution should not be the goal.

        Originally posted by allsirgarnet
        Members should feel free to express more deeply why they answer as they do.


        My own answers are YES to both questions.

        Why is simple....

        If you consider the motivations and morality of those who plan, commit or assist these crimes, then deterance isnt an issue because they clearly do not consider morality an issue. They also clearly do not value human life so why should THEIRS be of equal value to their victims?
        I agree that these people are often beyond any hope of rehabilitation. But that doesn't change the value of human life. We may need to kill them or keep them locked up forever; but that doesn't alter the value of their lives.

        Originally posted by allsirgarnet
        Simple retribution is the answer because in terms of the innocent VICTIMS, its what terrorists morally deserve.

        Gary
        We owe it to the victims to finish the fight against Islamofascism.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          but that doesn't alter the value of their lives.


          the value of life ole pard is subjective and i say they forfeit theirs not only as individuals but as part of the collective representation of it as a whole.


          We owe it to the victims to finish the fight against Islamofascism.

          Amen.

          Comment


          • #6
            Centrix Vigilix saying to, "but that doesn't alter the value of their lives."

            "the value of life ole pard is subjective and i say they forfeit theirs not only as individuals but as part of the collective representation of it as a whole."

            I agree. And I'd be a whole lot more comfortable if a lot of these people were simply and cleanly shot in the head and buried rather than all the rigmarole and moral questions of capture and imprisonment and torture and secret prisons and who knows what all. Saddam should have just been shot, IMO.

            If this is a war, ACT like it's a war and just shoot them, for heaven's sake. Too many people seem to want it both ways, a war and a criminal investigation both.


            Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
            Should those 'convicted of a terrorist act' in which your nations citizens either died or were injured, receive the death penalty without the right of appeal?

            Should those 'convicted of planning or conspiring in a terrorist attack' that is not covered by the above, receive a full life term with no time off and include hard labour?
            I am not sure here whether you are including people who plotted such attacks but never managed to do them. I think that changes the situation somewhat, as here in the U.S. we have none-too-bright Muslims sometimes who make some plans and then the FBI gets onto them pretty quick --- those idiots in Miami, for instance, and the pizza delivery boys who wanted to shoot up Fort Dix.

            I don't know if these types need special treatment; the law is probably adequate to deal with mental defectives of this sort now.

            I realize that in Britain even the failed plotters are of a higher order, more dangerous than some of our home-grown pop-offs ------- you had those doctors who were planning to blow up people and the group that was going to blow up ten American passenger planes over the Atlantic, a grim thought indeed. I can only speak to our situation; yours is worse even than ours.

            Comment


            • #7
              well yes, and yes (but always with appeal).

              but of course I am biased, I am for the death penalty for all crimes that involve violence (i.e. armed robbery, rape (real rape, not date rape), pedofilia, and all theft that involves an amount above, say, 1000 USD.

              --

              I am of course for collective mass murder for some agressive acts as well, but I know I am way off the mainstream here.
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #8
                did I mention that I'd like to see "Field Judges" who can, on seeing with their own eyes a crime beeing committed, carry a sentence there and then, including death penalty. like in a Judge Dreed world....
                "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                Comment


                • #9
                  Actually, the death sentence should be carried out in both instances. Without planners there are no doers.

                  If this law is enacted prior to these people being accused then it is not retribution, it is the law and everyone should know what the punishment is before they commit the crime. It would only be retribution if a vigilante group made the consequences after the terrorist actions had been carried out.
                  Last edited by Trailboss49; 15 Nov 07, 17:30.
                  "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I support trial, appeal and if convicted execution of terrorists, all withing a short period of time.

                    I further believe that others involved would be open to conviction as traitors or spies, also possibly to execution, with long prison sentences being the other option.
                    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                    George Mason
                    Co-author of the Second Amendment
                    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X