Stray Cat Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 An eye for an eye is in the old testament' date=' in the new testament this was said to be wrong.[/quote']I am not religious. Therefore I don't care what some guy with nothing to do many years ago wrote in his fictional garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 So lets bring in the Death Penalty for those that kill Police Officers. What about the innocent man that the police killed on the London underground? Does that mean they should get the death penalty too for incompetence?This is wrong and you know it.To be fair, it was not the officer that shot him that was at fault. It was the pish shoot to kill policy that Ian Blair or whoever enforced. That poor guy was doing what he was told as would anyone else if they were doing their job correctly. I think it's a joke that they are even talking about having one rule for killing police and different rules if you're a civilian.If you are willing to take someones life then you should be willing to give yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 This thread has just made me think..I was on the official Type O Negative website earlier on and I saw on the front page a graphic of a Jesus-esque figure hanging upside-down and the letters NI4NI and I was wondering for ages what it stood for. (an eye for an eye) *slaps head* how did I not get it sooner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floor Tom Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 I am not religious. Therefore I don't care what some guy with nothing to do many years ago wrote in his fictional garbage.Me neither, I was just making the point because Craig Quik said an eye for an eye, which is also from the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 It was a way of life for ancient tribes. The only thing that sucked was that it wasn't nessecarily the killer s life that was taken in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 It was a way of life for ancient tribes. The only thing that sucked was that it wasn't nessecarily the killer s life that was taken in return.well, we are not an ancient tribe living in some jungle. Like someone pasted before, ghandi said that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and I think anyone can appreciate the logic behind that statement. Execution is something that should be left behind in the 20th century, while we wait for less civilised nations such as the USA to catch up with modern notions of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 While we're on the subject of America:http://thehoustonchronicle.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.htmlOk, so what you are saying is we let them do "life" then let them out to reoffend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot o Paint Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 But will every person who commits a murder do it again of they are released? Doesn't seem likely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth_groover Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 I know this is slightly off topic, but what do you guys think Saddam Husseins punishment should be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Whatever punishment he would've dished out if he was still president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Whatever punishment he would've dished out if he was still president.good idea, let's turn him into a martyr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 good idea' date=' let's turn him into a martyr[/quote']In which context?mar·tyr Pronunciation (märtr)n.1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.3.a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.2. To inflict great pain on; torment.[Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek martur, from Greek martus, martur-, witness.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I think it would be more a case of revenge for the people of Iraq who suffered due to his dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 In which context?mar·tyr Pronunciation (märtr)n.1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief' date=' cause, or principle.3.a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.2. To inflict great pain on; torment.[Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek martur, from Greek martus, martur-, witness.']In the non-dictionary definitional context of providing a figurehead for insurgents to recruit.You seem to be under the impression that there are no supporters of Saddam in Iraq, that is incorrect, and there are plenty who would probably take up weapons against the coalition forces and Western states if Saddam was put to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 In the non-dictionary definitional context of providing a figurehead for insurgents to recruit.You seem to be under the impression that there are no supporters of Saddam in Iraq' date=' that is incorrect, and there are plenty who would probably take up weapons against the coalition forces and Western states if Saddam was put to death.[/quote']I didn't say he had no supporters. If that was the case then there would have been no resistance when the war began. But I'm sure the families of the millions of victims would glady watch.I thought he ws being tried in Iraq by Iraqis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I know this is slightly off topic' date=' but what do you guys think Saddam Husseins punishment should be?[/quote']I'd gladly give him his old job back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I didn't say he had no supporters. If that was the case then there would have been no resistance when the war began. But I'm sure the families of the millions of victims would glady watch.I thought he ws being tried in Iraq by Iraqis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulscoconutass Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 If there were to be a referendum tomorrow about it I can bet you that the 'people' would overwhelmingly vote to bring back the death penalty. However, when someone was wrongly accused / killed it would be the same people that would try to abolish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 If there were to be a referendum tomorrow about it I can bet you that the 'people' would overwhelmingly vote to bring back the death penalty. However' date=' when someone was wrongly accused / killed it would be the same people that would try to abolish it.[/quote']That is why I believe that it would have to be rock solid. There's no way you could setence someone to death on a jury decision of 7-5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 That is why I believe that it would have to be rock solid. There's no way you could setence someone to death on a jury decision of 7-5.Are you suggesting that a unanimous jury decision is "rock solid"?There are plenty of examples throughout legal history which would suggest otherwise.Even a supposed confession is by no means a guarantee of guilt.At the end of the day, why take the risk for the sake of an act which is little more than vengeance.Does killing the perpetrator bring back the life of the person they killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 No what I mean, without sounding repetitive, is that it should only be an option in cases where DNA or CCTV or something else proves there is absolutely no doubt that the person is guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I think it would be good if we actually started a poll on whether or not it should be brought back, on the forum. It would be interesting to see how many people would take part without having to justify their answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 No what I mean' date=' without sounding repetitive, is that it should only be an option in cases where DNA or CCTV or something else proves there is absolutely no doubt that the person is guilty.[/quote']CCTV and DNA can help persuade a jury that a person killed another person, but murder is a premeditated crime, and you need more than CCTV footage or DNA evidence to prove the intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinosaur Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I'm pretty sure If I knew that I would either be killed or maimed for commiting a crime, I would stay right clear of doing that! although 100% proof without a doubt would be needed so people aren't going around with body bits missing.I'm sure if they did something like this we would all be 'armless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted November 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 I'm pretty sure If I knew that I would either be killed or maimed for commiting a crime' date=' I would stay right clear of doing that! although 100% proof without a doubt would be needed so people aren't going around with body bits missing.I'm sure if they did something like this we would all be 'armless [/quote']Dunno about that but I'm always legless and it doesn't stop me being an arsehole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.