If you're stupid enough to post a video of yourself committing armed robbery you're going to end up dead sooner or later anyway.

Look at the comments. The Daily Mail demographic approves of Iranian justice.

love it

The Daily Mail themselves seem to approve too, emphasising the hi-tech nature of the execution ceremony and how the criminals were "dead in seconds", its almost like they were promoting the gig.

Really ?

Its hi-tech to hoist someone up on a mobile crane ?

They die in seconds when you effectively strangle them to death ?

Is that why the "drop" method of hanging was in wide use when such things were more acceptable, because "the drop" made the death much slower and more painful, or was it the strangulation method of dispatching criminals that was deemed to be inhumane, I can't quite remember now, maybe The Daily Mail could do some research and let us know.

The death penalty is obviously not a deterrent in such a case.
If you want to remove the offenders from society, imprisonment serves that purpose.
Which leaves punishment (aka revenge), which is emotion out of control.

The death penalty is a part of the cheapening of life, part of the downward spiral to acceptance of murder and violence as acceptable everyday occurrence (e.g. USA).
State-sponsored revenge murder makes us as bad, in some cases possibly worse, than the offenders.

It's an argument, but it's not the main one. The main one is that it is inherently hypocritical for the state to denounce killing by the individual when the state kills individuals.

This old chestnut crops up every time. But the comparison is entirely bogus.

The state does not denounce killing individuals, the state denounces killing individuals in circumstances which are against the law. It is not, necessarily, against the law to [ikill[/i someone. It is against the law to [imurder[/i someone.

There are circumstances where it is not an offence to kill someone, for example self-defence, or armed police. That's ignoring the armed forces, who legally kill people all the time. Whatever the death penalty is, it's absurd to equate it with murder. It is legalised killing, but it is not unique, and in no way hypocritical. The true question is whether execution should join the ranks of legal homicide, or not.

So as a society we incur considerable cost to store these individuals for many years - how much has it cost to house and try and sort Abhu Hamsa etc, we also run the risk of them being viewed as martyrs which in the end could lead to further bloodshed.

If a soldier had killed them you would consider that to be OK but execution is off your moral compass!! Did you think the Americans were correct in killing Osama?

Lol


You don't have the choices on a battlefield that you have in a courtroom. I have no problem with the state, through the armed forces, killing people who pose a threat and are armed and so cannot be arrested such as Taliban fighters. The state has little to no choice in that regard. The state does have a choice when it already has someone in custody.


Due to the unique circumstances of that case then yes I do, I think it was the only realistic option. I'd have preferred him to have been found and arrested by the Pakistanis and then extradited, in which case he could have stood trial, but as that wasn't possible I think the Americans were correct.

I see they used the old "Newgate Jig" on those two criminals.


From memory. One of the things about Iran is that is has a huge Heroin problem. Only recently overtaken by Russia in stats. I wonder if drugs were to blame?

Leave the death penalty in the past where it belongs.

Even by your patently poor standards of comprehension, that statement is plumbing new depths.

Please explain how you can create a martyr by NOT killing them

Looking at the Daily Mail article: I see they have carefully selected from the many photos to ensure maximum distress: the writing certainly approvs of the executions.
But then it is the Mail!

approves

The state plans and kills people outside of battlefield action - you consider that appropriate yet executing someone which is also state planned is not OK?

You do not have to die to be a martyr - obviously your inability to comprehend has once again shown itself

An example of a martyr in our lifetime Nelson Mandela!!

Isn't it kinda ironic that those on the right who whinge about the creeping face of Islam and Sharia law are the ones who want to bring back state killing.

If we were being so very specific then the argument would be, is inherently hypocritical for the state to denounce killing by the individual when there isn’t a clear and present danger to life or of serious injury when the state kills individuals when there isn’t a clear and present danger to life or of serious injury.

Pure sophistry. You've just tortuously re-worded it to entirely omit the fundamental point.

It would be almost as ludicrous to apply the same logic to fines - is it inherently hypocritical for the state to extract a fine from a thief, who himself took a similar amount of money from a shop?

I'd contend that killing someone is far more likely to give them martyr status than not doing so.
I'd also be prepared to consider that there might be a fair bit of propaganda mileage in not killing them.

Irrelevant. It's to do with whether someone is a danger/threat to life and what choice the state has. An enemy soldier/combatant on the battlefield is obviously a threat to life and can be legitimately killed (assuming they aren't surrendering). Someone who is in custody is not a threat and so there is no need to kill him, the state has a choice. In the case of someone like Bin Laden, due to the unique circumstances, I would say the state (the US in this case) had little to no other choice. If Bin Laden had been arrested by the Pakistanis and extradited to the US then I would be against the US killing him, as they could then prosecute him through the courts. As he wasn't legally arrested/detained (according to US law) the legal route wasn't an option. In this unique case I think killing a man like Bin Laden was the correct thing to do.

No, it is the fundamental point. The only justification for either the individual and the state is in response to a clear and immediate threat, not as a punishment or revenge.

No, clearly not. But nobody would argue that it was. Similarly nobody would argue you had an inalienable right to steal, rape or murder. Most right thinking people would argue you had an inalienable right to life. The act of taking away that right to life is only mitigated when it is in response to a clear and immediate threat.

It is inherently hypocritical for the state to, in a premeditated act of revenge or punishment, kill a person for killing a person in a premeditated act of revenge, punishment or passion.

It is not hypocritical to ask a thief to pay financial restitution for their crime.

No, it's a convoluted and barely intelligible assertion. Not a "point".


Says who? Oh, you mean in your opinion. But obviously those legislatures that have passed the death penalty DO justify it as both punshment, which in THEIR opinion fits the crime, and to serve as a deterrent. (Incidentally, I don't know of ANY modern justice system where "revenge" is ever a consideration. If you do, please let me know).


So then you admit [i some[/i "right thinking people" (whatever they are) would NOT argue you had an inalienable right to life. Therefore, if you consider them to also be "right thinking", you must be agreeing that their view is reasonable, if minority.


Oh come on man, you're just regurgitating the same weak point in slightly different words. Leaving aside your errant insertion of the concept of "revenge", what you mean is that's your opinion, you are not entitled to claim it as an indisputable truth.


Well, I don't think they actually "ask", and suspect making payment optional wouldn't be very successful. But that nit-pick aside, I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

It is perfectly intelligible. If you are struggling with your comprehension skills, there are adult learning classes available.

I assumed that it was obvious that I was expressing my opinion and also the situation under our laws. There are countries with many crazy laws, and the potential for many more, they aren’t relevant to me however.. I cant be responsible for what you are and aren’t aware of. If you don’t see that vengeance forms part of any reason for a death penalty, I cant help your naivete.

No. I think that even if I agreed 100% with everything else they said, if someone said they didn’t believe in an inalienable right to life, they would be ‘otherwise’ right thinking. But on this effort they are clearly wrong. However, even if someone were to ‘win’ the argument over whether or not we have an inalienable right to life, it still doesn’t address that the state or the individual doesn’t have the right to take away life.
No, it may be my opinion that it isn’t justified, it is clear fact that it is hypocritical. You may not mind that hypocrisy, you may be happy with that hypocritical position. It doesn’t alter that it is hypocritical.
Im not agreeing with you, even a little bit. A thief paying back what he stole puts the victim back to where they were. Killing the perpetrator doesn’t bring back the victim, we just have another person dead.

What on earth does "forms part of any reason" mean? Whatever, it has nothing to do with what I am discussing. It doesn't form part of the judicial process and that is all I am talking about. You can't show me an example, and that's because there isn't one. Do you somehow have this notion that in the sort of places I am referring to, where the death penalty exists, the laws which govern when the death penalty can be given are in fact a sham, because "really" it is secretly about "vengeance"? This is emotive and conspiracist rubbish. A judge imposing the death sentence has to do so judicially, and even if he feels personally "vengeful" (or indeed personally opposes the death penalty).

The defendant will die if the factors laid down in the relevant law are made out, and not otherwise. Unless "Vengeance" is a legally permissible factor written in some relevant law, your neo-conspiracist "vengeance" theory is an irrelevance.


Legally, in the jurisdictions under discussion, it indisputably does have that right. Otherwise nobody would be executed.

Also, you skate over the point that in several situations, the state or the individual DOES, indisputably, have the right to take away life. That fact destroys both this argument, and your "inalienable" argument. The "right to life" is not a 100% guaranteed indisputable thing, it has exceptions, and so what we are in fact discussing (or should be) is the extent to which a death penalty is or is not added to the list of exceptions. To pretend that exceptions don't already exist doesn't help your case.

But as you are either too dim to accept the point, or being deliberately obtuse, let's take a concrete example.

The state has discovered a plot by Mr. X to detonate a bomb at Wembley during the Cup Final; a police marksman finds Mr. X, poised with his finger above the detonator button. The marksman has Mr. X's head in his sights, and his finger on the trigger. He and asks the relevant representative of the state, his commanding officer, whether or not he should take the shot. In your view, does the state have the right to take away Mr. X's life, or should the state let him press the button, killing large numbers and maiming more, and then arrest him once he's done it and prosecute?


You're becoming totally submerged by emotive claptrap. You're trying to convince me that a judicially imposed death penalty after due process of law is the same as the murder/s which the defendant carried out. You are confusing the [ioutcome[/i (bothe defendant and victim/s end up dead) with the [iprocess[/i (the defendant, knowing if he murdered, may be subject to the death penalty, nevertheless with no justification and intentionally murdered some victim; the court, under due process of law, does not murder anyone, it carries out the law which that jurisdiction requires it to do. It does end his life, but it isn't a murder, as even you must surely see.

Would the marksman, or the commander, be hypocrites if the shot is fired?


Well, I'll confess I did know this. When you are on one of your crusades, you wouldn't agree with me even if I said today was Wednesday.


Risible nonsense.
a) fines do not go to the victim, they go into the judicial pot
b) if an order for financial compensation to the victim is made, that is separate and apart from the penalty imposed
c) it does not "put the victim back to where they were". If you want an example of naivete, read your claim again. Being mugged, robbed or burgled is a very distressing experience and can have significant psychological effects, even down to sometimes leaving some people changed forever. I reckon your claim that if caught, giving the victim their money back "puts the victim back where they were" is about as asinine and ill-considered a remark as even you have ever made.


But it indisputably does restore the sort of parity between victim and perpetrator for which you seem to be arguing?