One of the main arguments people use on here against the Death Penalty is the risk of the innocent being executed. What about when it's cut and dried - such as when the offenders post a You Tube video of themslves committing their crime? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbery.html Fair treatment or not?

One of the main arguments people use on here against the Death Penalty is the risk of the innocent being executed. What about when it's cut and dried - such as when the offenders post a You Tube video of themslves committing their crime? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbery.html Fair treatment or not?

Killing people for killing people is not a good argument.

Barbaric.

I guess you think it's fine ?

Sharia law!

Good idea to follow Irans example, who killed the masked security guards?

So it would not be OK to do the same to these Jihadists in Algeria?

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.