Now I have a few problems with Iran... But this ain't one of them!

This guy killed 22 children (boys & girls) and raped some of them, aged between 7 yrs to 13 years old, in Iran.

He's was caught, lashed 100 times & hanged.

Whatever else might be at issue, Mr I, I think state execution and the public witnessing of it on the net or in person is totally abhorrent

Then we disagree. In the case of child abusers they should put their floggin and hanging on the National Lottery program too for everyones viewing pleasure.

Well, perhaps you should forgo a little 'pleasure' and concentrate instead on a real solution to the problem.

It is both Mrs G, both a solution and a pleasure. These people would think twice if that was the punishment.

Clearly not in this case

He sure as hell isn't going to be a repeat offender, that's for certain!

after kiling 22 he was despite the threat of punishment

I think this is a most commendable punishment, like someone has already said theres too many do gooders in this country.

i would only be fore it if there was absolutely no doubt
we have been wrong in the past

My philosophy would be to let any offender (ie paedophile, murderers etc) have a year to clear there name and then be off with yer

My philosophy would be to let any offender (ie paedophile, murderers etc) have a year to clear there name and then be off with yer

Fair point Mr G but in these days of DNA evidence proof can be absolute. Take for example a young girl with internal injuries and some dodgypot's DNA inside of her. pretty conclusive stuff wouldn't you agree?

Off with there heads.

that is my point if there is no doubt then they deserve all they get but the guy in Iran or where ever would have been aware of the punishment yet he was not deterred from the crime by it

but if someone like that is allowed to live.....then escapes or is released..............and they kill several more people.......surely it's better to end that one life than allow all those innocent lives to be lost. It's purely a question of numbers for me.
Kill the bad guys - fewer deaths and less heartache all round for all those families.
Besides, Grabec and Gremmlin, why are you both looking at it from the perspective of the killer's treatment? Imagine the psychological horror and terror those poor kids felt before they died, and the fact they KNEW they were going to die. Kill the fuc=kers, slowly, and in a manner befitting the crimes I say.

the paedos I meant, not the kids

no mr Parmo i am not defending them as i said if it is 100% then let the families have them and get their revenge
the same goes for people who kill their own kids somtimes through sheer neglect
i am still haunted after reading some years ago about a bairn calle Heidi who was allowed to starve to death by her mother and her boy friend that kid ate wall paper from her bed room wall to try and stay alive
are they any better than the paedos yet they do not get the same sentence and dont start me on social workers

Parmo, don't forget that Gremmlin grew up in an age where Ruth Ellis was hanged and the likes of the Birmingham Six and the Renault Five were found guilty. . Never was there a more unworthy death penalty than Ruth Ellis. He's agreeing that the bad bastard deserve it but has concerns about miscarriages of justice.

The should pull off his finger nails thenhis toe nails then cut his fingers off one by one, then his toes, then pull out his eyes then he cant touch or see anything! The scummer!!

The Evans guy from Rillington Place spring to mind as does Bentley the guy accused of shooting the copper.

Then there's that guy who stabbed the school teacher, he's due out soon, what sort of justice is that

But if there is 100% proof as in DNA then they should die

surely you are aware of the Craig \Bentley case John Bentley was hanged as he was older than Craig who pulled the trigger and emptied his gun into a copper then years too late it was proved he was not the killer

just making a point

Yeah watched the film based on the event but the Evans case was even more of an injustice, they hung him because he couldn't do his ten x table!!

I don't think there's a simple answer, or even that there's only one question here.
But I do think it's a question of ethics.... ie what is the right thing to do?
If I saw someone who was about to abuse children and I had a weapon, and using the weapon was the only way available to stop the abuse at that time, then I would kill the abuser. I think that would be the ethical thing to do.
But state executions...what is the ethical justification for that? It's not even a question of looking at things from the point of view of the abuser. It's more that state execution is itself an act of barbarism that achieves little more than revenge ie. it's not ethical.

in these cases, revenge is justifiable.

Well, yes, you could say that..but the state is supposed to be acting rationally. Revenge is probably what the French would call a crime passionelle, ie there would be exonerating circumstances if a relative of one of the children were to do it.

But the State is not supposed to be overseeing yet another act of aggression, and it doesn't have the excuse of being emotionally involved. The State would have to argue (if it wanted to be seen to be acting ethically) that committing a barbaric act (ie an execution) is the best thing to do under the circumstances. The threat of capital punishment hasn't generally reduced crime in states that use it

But I appreciate it's the old story...ethical arguments are valid only if people are bothered about ethics

Vengeance exists because it is in our nature. It will be passed onto future generations, and until we become some kind of lobotomised Utopian society we will continue to respond to our basic instincts.Revenge is a strong driving force in people whether we like it or not.

Yes, but if you argued that a characterisitic is right because it's in our nature, you'd probably be on dodgy ground. The paedophile could say his drives were just his nature and therefore that he shouldn't be punished.




PS I should probably stop arguing with you, after your terrible experience in Bournemouth........

because it's in his nature, it's also in the nature of others to be abhorred by it and to inflict same back unto him. Revenge is by means of reaction, not instigation.

we should all be skin heads then
what a way to boost your numbers
where is my braces

we should all be skin heads then
what a way to boost your numbers
where is my braces

I go along with Grabec on this subject, she has put it more eloquently than I would have.

If murder is wrong, how can the state justify murdering someone else?

Isn't it the responsibility of the state to make sure the general public can go about their business in safety? Getting rid of murderers and such like who will pose a danger to the public if released will surely be acting upon that responsibility. Why the hell should these people bed fed and watered for 30+ years at a cost to the taxpayers? That money could be better spent elsewhere.

It's certainly easier to leave someone else's DNA on the scene of a crime than it is their fingerprints (though you'd probably leave some of your own in the process). But that's not the reason I'm against a DNA database. It's more of an "I'm not a number I'm a human being" kinda thing.

Mr I, isn't getting lashed 100 times and hanged pretty much an everyday occurence in Iran? They probably dish out worse punishments than that for much less abhorrent things than mass child abuse and murder, things like saying "I want Mohammed's babies" or whatever.

From a practical and financial point of view, you are right. But I still stand by the idea than no one person has the right to kill another. Self defence being the one exception.

The State doesn't really have a law and order as a priority, though...there's just a paying of lip service. None of the so-called deterrents, like capital punishment or prison, works. Ages ago when I was a student there was already a lot of good, common-sensical research being done by criminologists into what works and what doesn't, in the law and justice field. All governments since have completely ignored that research. They would rather concentrate on increasing consumer power etc etc

Prison doesn't have to be people sitting around shooting drugs and not contributing anything..prisoners can work or study, and they should do. As for capital punishment, in a civilised society you can't just snuff people out like weeds, humiliating them in public in the process. That corrupts the perpetrators of the 'punishment'. As for the voyeurs of executions, words fail me

State executions are abhorent in any civilised society - end of. Taking someones life knowlingly, chillingly and viewed by others is, by all definitions of the word, barbaric. If someone raped, tortured and killed any of my family, I would probably attempt to take their life - but that is me as an individual. If I did, and was caught, I would expect the state to punsh me accordingly. But for the state to decide that they will be the perpetrators of such an act defies logic - they should be upholding civilised virtues, not breaking them. It cost money to house prisoners - fact. But taking away their liberty, their ability to freely decide where to go and what to do IS a punishment. I know the media bang on about TV in their cells etc etc, but the thing is we are a civilised society and their punishment is a denial of their freedom - a freedom that we all take utterly for granted.

As an unreconstructed member of the leftie, liberal tree-hugging brigade - I know that a lot of folk, and on this board, would just want to hang em high and feck the lot of them. But there are 2 sides to every story and I am so proud and glad that we dont follow certain US states and Irans example of a wanton disregard for life.

There are evil folk about. There are evil folk in the USA and gassing, eletrocuting or whatever other bizarre manner of spectator deaths they come up with still does not deter them. Equally, there are an awful lot, the vast vast majority, who arent evil and society shouldnt start murdering folk to pander to a tiny minirity of evil, twisted feckwits.

I'll get me coat ...

The last fully public hanging in the British Isles took place on 11th August 1875 in Jersey. Obviously there are no visual records of it.
The last fully public guillotining in France took place in 1939 and I've seen it a few times on the telly as a kind of matter-of-fact visual aside to some news item or discussion. No warnings, nothing. Utterly barbaric.

If this kind of thing leaves you indifferent (WARNING: PICTURE OF PEOPLE HANGED) aren't you a bit barbaric too?

Well, even if you are, the records show that the death penalty doesn't prevent murders so please, don't bring up the deterrent argument. If you want revenge, fair enough, nail your colours to the mast and tell it like it is, but don't try to justify it with supporting arguments that simply aren't true.

Personally, when it comes to peadophiles, I like revenge. Revenge is good, more revenge is better and lots of revenge is perfect.

I would take these bastards and inject their eyes with caustic soda, obviously attaching electrode to their testicles first, with a 10 second breaker switch. After cutting off what is left of their toes with a set of bolt croppers, I would roll them in a salt tub. Regular injections of wake up juice would be administered obviously so they could enjoy their pain all the more.

After a few hours, dip them slowly in a acid bath up to the knees. Then I would drill their elbows and knees packing the resulting holes with a salt/vinegar paste.

Eventually - say three weeks later, I would immerse them slowly in the acid bath until they were no more.

See. THAT'S a serious argument!

What he said.

The fact that Texas still maintains the death penalty, yet has one of the highest murder rates in America highlights the failure of the death penalty as a deterrent.

But does the softly softly lets make sure the criminal is okay as long as he says he is truly sorry attitude that seems to have prevailed in the last 10-15 years been any kind of deterrent? Society nowadays seems a damn sight less respectful and more crime ridden to me.

To be fair, I never said that we should adopt a "make sure the criminal is okay as long as he says he is truly sorry" atitude. I did say that taking away freedom and liberty is a punishment, but its more basic punishment. OK, they are warm, get fed, can watch TV - but they have no liberty to do what they want. But if its revenge and vengence that you want, no amount of liberty removal will satisfy you - just torture/hang/kill them. I just think that in a 21st Century modern democracy, we are all a bit more humane than that.

But there again, I could be totally wrong.

Nor me. I personally believe that rehabilitation can work for lesser crimes, if that's the softly softly approach you're speaking of. However, for the more serious and persistent offenders then their sentence should be served in full. Depriving someone of their freedom for the rest or even the majority of their lives is a more than adequate enough punishment. Dragging our country back to the dark ages by executing prisoners, especially publicly, is an idea that I just cannot condone.

I was talking generally as it all seems to be centred on the criminal and the victims seem to be forgotten. I do think if someone commits a crime up to a certain level and want to be helped then the state should help them rehabilitate as much as they need. I think far too many people are continuous offenders and just taking away their liberty doesn't seem to work, and then it seems as if they are given many many chances with slaps on the wrist before they even end up in prison. I think prison should be a lot harder than it seems to be for the habitual criminal (and I haven't been to a prison so only going on a pre-conception I have, rightly or wrongly) and for the very worst offenders then I don't necessarily think they should be kept in prison for 30+ years when a much cheaper alternative is available. Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue for the death penalty then think of a better argument than it's a 'cheaper alternative' than incarceration. Maybe I'm not catching your drift correctly but I'd go as far to suggest that's the type of argument the Khmer Rouge or the Nazis used to justify the killing off of criminals (though I don't mean it as a slight against you Garth, you're a fellow Poolie after all). Besides, do you really think they'd be executed overnight a la the 18th century? In the US it can take up to 20 years for the execution to take place. In a fair and civilised society the chance to appeal would have to be there. Your last quote - 'Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours' - the state should respect their human rights because the state is meant to rise above the mindset of criminals! To be dragged down to their level is morally wrong.