plantbrain said:
Did the countless thousands have a choice when Sadam was commiting genocide, had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?
death penalty
- Thread starter Cheech
- Start date
Did the countless thousands have a choice when Sadam was commiting genocide, had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?
plantbrain said:
castration, but only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to who the rapist is, ie--DNA
Dahlmer--he didn't make it long in the general population, his "peers" took care of him (he should have been castrated, just my opinion)
Child abusers should have to suffer from the same abuse that they perpetrate on their victims.
murders in cases of absolute "caught red handed" cases--public hangings
as for the "innocents" that have been "accidently" executed, I am sorry for them but unfortuately no country has a perfect justice system, that is why I say it should only be done in cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilty party, who decides well in today's world it is amazing what forensic evidence can turn up--take the guy who a couple of years ago murdered his wife and put her body in a wood chipper to dispose of the body, they had him cold he should have gotten the "wood chipper" instead he will probably rot in jail forever living off the public $buck$.
What a great debate! And more importantly, kudos to the cool-headedness that's been kept even while heatedly debating!
I think that deep down I'm opposed to the death penalty, namely because I can't see myself being the one to pull the switch. It's not a great basis for argument, but, as a general guideline, it's how I live my life: I'm hard pressed to support something indirectly that I would be hard pressed to bring myself to impose directly.
There are lots of really good arguments against, but there are times when I agree with GEL about things like those caught red-handed, 6 feet of rope is as cheap is it comes.
But I think that we're looking at the soldiering aspect in the wrong way. There is a lot of good that has been done through the military, but even in cases where the cause is wrong, the guilt doesn't lie with the soldiers but with the government. Not all Nazi soldiers were anti-semites, most were just proud of their country and fighting for a cause, just one example. Now this has to be taken within reason because I've heard the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defence for some truly horrible action, which isn't really fair either. In any case, I don't think that it's fair to lump in soldiers in a debate on the death penalty.
I try to live my life by the golden rule, do unto others and all that. It would be really nice if the whole world could adopt this, but it ain't gonna happen. If it worked, well, so would communism, but it doesn't because there are always going to be people who are going to try to make their living at the expense of others, and that's just counting those who are doing it consciously.
I think that for them, the best deterrent would be to make prison life a truly miserable experience. It should be the very last place one would want to be, but I know for a fact that it is not. There are plenty of folks back home who would just as soon be in prison as in their grimy little apartment. But not only that, they should be working to repay society for their wrongs, and then some for our trouble. IMO, if you're not fit to be a part of society, then you should be put to work to help it out, not be a drain on it.
As for the mentally/chemically imbalanced, there is a narrow tightrope indeed. There are some that are perfectly safe, so long as they're taking their meds. Unfortunately, society refuses to be 'cruel' enough to make these a condition of their freedom. I remember when I was living in Montreal about 10 years ago one such person pushed an innocent bistander in front of a subway train. He couldn't be imprisoned because he "didn't know what he was doing", but at the same time, the hadicapped rights folks argued that it was unfair to force him to take meds that made him feel bad.
I think that deep down I'm opposed to the death penalty, namely because I can't see myself being the one to pull the switch. It's not a great basis for argument, but, as a general guideline, it's how I live my life: I'm hard pressed to support something indirectly that I would be hard pressed to bring myself to impose directly.
There are lots of really good arguments against, but there are times when I agree with GEL about things like those caught red-handed, 6 feet of rope is as cheap is it comes.
But I think that we're looking at the soldiering aspect in the wrong way. There is a lot of good that has been done through the military, but even in cases where the cause is wrong, the guilt doesn't lie with the soldiers but with the government. Not all Nazi soldiers were anti-semites, most were just proud of their country and fighting for a cause, just one example. Now this has to be taken within reason because I've heard the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defence for some truly horrible action, which isn't really fair either. In any case, I don't think that it's fair to lump in soldiers in a debate on the death penalty.
I try to live my life by the golden rule, do unto others and all that. It would be really nice if the whole world could adopt this, but it ain't gonna happen. If it worked, well, so would communism, but it doesn't because there are always going to be people who are going to try to make their living at the expense of others, and that's just counting those who are doing it consciously.
I think that for them, the best deterrent would be to make prison life a truly miserable experience. It should be the very last place one would want to be, but I know for a fact that it is not. There are plenty of folks back home who would just as soon be in prison as in their grimy little apartment. But not only that, they should be working to repay society for their wrongs, and then some for our trouble. IMO, if you're not fit to be a part of society, then you should be put to work to help it out, not be a drain on it.
As for the mentally/chemically imbalanced, there is a narrow tightrope indeed. There are some that are perfectly safe, so long as they're taking their meds. Unfortunately, society refuses to be 'cruel' enough to make these a condition of their freedom. I remember when I was living in Montreal about 10 years ago one such person pushed an innocent bistander in front of a subway train. He couldn't be imprisoned because he "didn't know what he was doing", but at the same time, the hadicapped rights folks argued that it was unfair to force him to take meds that made him feel bad.
greeneyedlady said:
And yet our very own legal system hardly ever utilizes today's technology, for cost purposes. If they used half the forensic media available today, we might not be having this discussion at all.
Last edited:
Tyler718 said:
Until someone stepped in? Err you mean like the USA when we supplied Iraq with weapons during Reagan and help gas the Kurds?
One of my friends is a Kurd that left back in the 1980's. The USA has looked the other way for the last 30 years. Not until it became $$ and politically interesting did the USA step in with proven false pretext and assumptions.
Saddam was the USA's closest pal then.
Rumsfield was Saddam's pal then. USA or Saddam? What difference does it make?
What choice does the average Iraqi have but to fight against Saddam and the USA? Which oppressor does it matter?
Those people are not terrorist/insurgents/masterminds, they are doing what I'd do if China came here and wanted to impose communism on the USA.
There are many ways to fight against injustice, not just killing people.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Sadaam changed, and turned into something horrible. So the U.S. changed, and took him out of dictatorship. How the U.S. gassed the Kurds I will never understand. If a Dictator misuses weapons then whos action and fault is that?plantbrain said:
It has been proven over and over that Sadaam was hiding 'illegal' weaponry (U.N. banned). Was working on a nuclear site for weapons - video of the trucks fleeing U.N. workers with cameras.
As far as China goes, I hope we are keeping a watchful eye on 'it'....
Last edited:
This is getting off topic, but it's still a good debate.
The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that it was entered into for the wrong pretenses. Yes, there was a brutal dictator, but the country was nonetheless in a state of relative peace before the invasion. There weren't any human rights atrocities actively being comitted, at least none that were being reported. History has shown that there was indeed no evidence of weapon of mass destruction, and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.
Had the argument for invading Iraq on the grounds of human rights been made when Sadam was in the act of gasing Curds, or perhaps even more recently, then there would likely have been more support, or at least, less controversy. But this argument was not made and it is not appropriate to use it after the fact. The reasoning for invasion was the presence of wmd's and the immanent threat, human rights and the doposition of a brutal dictator were not argued (or at least reported on) until well after it was obvious that the closest they would come was a truck with detectable levels of, wait for it, ammonia. I think that it was a mobile fishless cycling unit, which would probably get Tom riled up enough anyway
. jk, this topic needs a little humour.
Yes, some good may come of this, and I hope that Iraq is stabilized, but democracy is not established in a year, perhaps not even in a decade.
For myself, I won't buy the human rights argument. If that were the issue, you could pick almost any country in Africa where tribal divisions and religeous lines seem to be an ever lasting source of ethnic cleansings, rapes, murders, tortures and all that other fun stuff that people do when they forget that we're all humans together on this rock hurtling through space.
The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that it was entered into for the wrong pretenses. Yes, there was a brutal dictator, but the country was nonetheless in a state of relative peace before the invasion. There weren't any human rights atrocities actively being comitted, at least none that were being reported. History has shown that there was indeed no evidence of weapon of mass destruction, and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.
Had the argument for invading Iraq on the grounds of human rights been made when Sadam was in the act of gasing Curds, or perhaps even more recently, then there would likely have been more support, or at least, less controversy. But this argument was not made and it is not appropriate to use it after the fact. The reasoning for invasion was the presence of wmd's and the immanent threat, human rights and the doposition of a brutal dictator were not argued (or at least reported on) until well after it was obvious that the closest they would come was a truck with detectable levels of, wait for it, ammonia. I think that it was a mobile fishless cycling unit, which would probably get Tom riled up enough anyway
. jk, this topic needs a little humour.Yes, some good may come of this, and I hope that Iraq is stabilized, but democracy is not established in a year, perhaps not even in a decade.
For myself, I won't buy the human rights argument. If that were the issue, you could pick almost any country in Africa where tribal divisions and religeous lines seem to be an ever lasting source of ethnic cleansings, rapes, murders, tortures and all that other fun stuff that people do when they forget that we're all humans together on this rock hurtling through space.
125gJoe said:
oh well.....I thought I could avoid this debate, as I generally do avoid most debates, but looks like I got sucked into another one....darn you all.
As far as your comment is concerned joe, I cannot completely agree with you. Like happychem said, we were a bit late in our actions against Sadaam. I’m not saying he wasn’t a horrible man, I’m just saying it was a bit..."off topic."
As far as being surprised about misusing weapons (I still laugh at the concept of "misusing".....like there’s a right way or something), well...common man, that’s like being surprised at a bully for beating a kid up after you give him a shiny new set of brass knuckles to play with. Directly, yes, it was Sadaams fault and his action, indirectly, it was our fault....and in my eyes that’s just as bad.
I might get a few Bush supporters riled up with this comment.... but you guys won the election so I don’t care. I don’t think that Iraq was about removing Sadaam, hell, I don’t even think that Iraq was about Weapons of mass destruction. I think it was about Bush's falling approval rating. The war in Afghanistan wasn't showing results....I mean, how could it? It was a war on terrorism, which is a lot harder to fight considering there aren’t any defined enemies....your next target could be that dude standing over there, or it could be that old lady walking up to you (if you remember Vietnam, the VC used civilians as walking bombs). When we moved to Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction" and "a threat to peace loving countries everywhere", we immediately were able to see results. We continually bashed our way in and "won" the war (I say "won" because we're still fighting). We were "fighting the good fight" and kicking some serious butt. If you look back, Bush's increased approval rating and the movement in Iraq link up pretty well.
But like plantbrian said:
"What choice does the average Iraqi have but to fight against Saddam and the USA? Which oppressor does it matter?
Those people are not terrorist/insurgents/masterminds, they are doing what I'd do if China came here and wanted to impose communism on the USA.
There are many ways to fight against injustice, not just killing people.
Two wrongs still don't make a right."
I could not have said it better myself.
On a different note, I’m a lot more worried about Asia as a threat. Look at it.....We have North Korea with the second largest standing army (not to mention that little thing about the ability to launch nukes at us...), China has the worlds largest standing army, the second largest nuclear arsenal (or Russia....not sure). Then we have India and Pakistan, both of which are threatening each other with nukes. It’s just not a good time over there. So, another possible reason why we're in Iraq and not North Korea is because Iraq doesn’t have China to back it up, which would make things a lot harder.....
Speaking of Asia... I’m still mad at the US for allowing Japan to join the war against Iraq. If we all remember our WWII history, we'll remember that we set up Japan's constitution so that they cannot be an aggressor. That means no wars unless they are threatened.....ooooohh, Iraq.....big threat to Japan....yeh, right. If we're gonna set up other countries laws, we should at least make an effort not to override them every time it’s convenient to us
Id also have to agree with happychem on his statement about human rights in Iraq. I’m sorry to say this, I really am, but the average American does not care about the rights of the Iraqi people. If that were the case, then just like happy chem said we would also be in Africa, South America, Central America, and Asia. I realize that there is a very big list of places to start (quite frankly, I’m more worried about our own education and all the poverty/homelessness), but Iraq was just a bit "random."
I’m not saying there aren’t people out there who care, I’m just pointing out the general sentiment. I realize that there are thousands of people and many many orginizations to help other countries, its just that the average American doesnt really care about the religous wars in Africa, or the near political revolution in Mexico.
Last edited:
