The Death Penalty for Chan

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm not sure how many more occasions you can miss the point on, or at least, grossly misconstrue what others are arguing.

Understand this: no one is saying they are innocent. No one.

They are saying they don't believe their crime deserves the death penalty.

Continuing to remind everyone of their lack of innocence of the crime fails to address others' arguments in the slightest.

Their crime DOES deserve the penalty. There has to be a distinction between a ringleader and a mule. If you have mules getting life, you can't have ringleaders getting the same. This wasn't a small amount of drugs either. If you want to organise a drug ring in that region then you don't deserve much. Again I feel for the families I do, but these two didn't help themselves. They could easily have NOT done it in the first place.

 

[Doss]

Well, I completely disagree with the death penalty full stop so therefore I disagree with your opinion, but you're entitled to it.

Yes, there needs to be a distinction between ringleaders and mules but that should be reflected in terms of longer spent behind bars. The death penalty is barbaric.

As I said last week, I also don't even see it as the most severe punishment. If I had to choose between spending the rest of my life behind bars and being put out of my misery, I know what I'd choose.

 

[Thrawn]

Of course, if you live there you must abide by their laws.

So you agree with them stoning homosexuals then?

 

[Doss]

Of course, if you live there you must abide by their laws.

Indeed. If a woman commits the hideous crime of having relations with another man out of wedlock while married, she by law can have her head lopped off.

It's the law though. Her fault I guess. No sympathy needed.

 

[skilts]

IN YOUR VIEW. That isn't Indonesia's view, and it isn't their law. You go to that region you obey THEIR laws. That means if you do drugs you may face the death penalty. You realise how many people that amount of heroin could have killed....

No, I don't realise that, nor do you. Your attempt to delineate legalistic preoccupations as being immune from moral and ethical considerations displays a complete lack of understanding of an encounter with life, and those with whom you pretend to share it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So you agree with them stoning homosexuals then?

They can always seek assylum in other countries that allow it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Indeed. If a woman commits the hideous crime of having relations with another man out of wedlock while married, she by law can her head lopped off.

It's the law though. Her fault I guess. No sympathy needed.

Well cheating in those countries IS pretty serious. Not that I have ever cheated on my partner anyway. You can always choose to NOT cheat.

 

[Doss]

Oh boy.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Well, I completely disagree with the death penalty full stop so therefore I disagree with your opinion, but you're entitled to it.

Yes, there needs to be a distinction between ringleaders and mules but that should be reflected in terms of longer spent behind bars. The death penalty is barbaric.

As I said last week, I also don't even see it as the most severe punishment. If I had to choose between spending the rest of my life behind bars and being put out of my misery, I know what I'd choose.

You won't get enough distinction. I would be happy in the future to change the death to "LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE' for ringleaders, but thats it. There has to be a clear distinction whether that be death, or whether that be LIFE meaning LIFE, whatever. At this stage it is a death sentence.

 

[skilts]

You won't get enough distinction. I would be happy in the future to change the death to "LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE' for ringleaders, but thats it. There has to be a clear distinction whether that be death, or whether that be LIFE meaning LIFE, whatever. At this stage it is a death sentence.

That you are so deluded that you reckon your opinion counts in such matters says all that needs to be about your sanity.

 

[Doss]

They can always seek assylum in other countries that allow it.

Actually, usually they can't. Perhaps do yourself a favour and read up on the rights (or lack of) of religious and ethnic minorities and the politically disenfranchised in a a country like Saudi Arabia.

 

[clogged]

Oh boy.

You're arguing with someone who whinged about losing a day of Shield cricket when Phil Hughes died - a mental pygmy.

 

[Doss]

Well cheating in those countries IS pretty serious. Not that I have ever cheated on my partner anyway. You can always choose to NOT cheat.

Again, there are so many things wrong with this and I actually find it pretty stunning that you can be presented with such a horrific scenario and respond in such a cold manner.

Firstly, and I actually should have mentioned this before, there have been many cases where women have been accused of adultery, and convicted of it and then decapitated, where there seems to have been significant doubt. The system there is inherently sexist and biased in favour of the accusing man.

Do those woman deserve to be decapitated because that's what the law in Saudi Arabia says should happen? Because they may or may not have cheated on their husband, but their chances of proving they didn't are minute as the system is so inherently skewed against them?

If you follow such an absurd line of reasoning to its maxim, you are going to be justifying some pretty extraordinary things after a while. Yes, even worse than a woman being executed in completely barbaric, dare I say it almost biblical fashion because she perhaps got a bit sexually adventurous.

Your argument is basically "they should be executed because that's what the law says". You are failing to address the ethical components of capital punishment in any way, shape or form.

 

[CountryRace]

To be fair what is the alternative? Invade them and convert them to proper Christians?

The live and let live motto has some legs

 

[ANGEL DARK]

How many more guys did some young woman need to satisfy to get the extra money it would have cost to get a hit after this shipment of smack didn't show up and the price went through the roof?

The secret to ending this isn't getting tougher on trafficking, it's getting super soft on addicts. Literally giving them the drugs at their GP, safe and clean and slowly working them off it without a bikie gang sitting on their back.

If it stops at the trafficking point theres less drugs available to addicts so if you put a hard stance on the traffickers they will soon smarten up not to get involved in trafficking knowing the consequences

 

[Doss]

To be fair what is the alternative? Invade them and convert them to proper Christians?

The live and let live motto has some legs

Sorry, I'm not trying to turn this into some argument about Saudi Arabia. I'm pointing out that the death penalty is applied for some pretty extraordinary things in some parts of the world and if you confine your view simply to "well, wherever you break the law, you pay the price- too bad", then you are going to be justifying some pretty brutal things.

Capital punishment and whether it should be applied is absolutely not just about whether laws were broken.

 

[Thrawn]

They can always seek assylum in other countries that allow it.

But but, homosexuals should know better. Thus, they deserve to be stoned to death.

 

[skilts]

But but, homosexuals should know better. Thus, they deserve to be stoned to death.

People who exercise a choice about who should keep them warm at night deserve to die.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Sorry, I'm not trying to turn this into some argument about Saudi Arabia. I'm pointing out that the death penalty is applied for some pretty extraordinary things in some parts of the world and if you confine your view simply to "well, wherever you break the law, you pay the price- too bad", then you are going to be justifying some pretty brutal things.

Capital punishment and whether it should be applied is absolutely not just about whether laws were broken.

Yes but there's a large difference between people who are stuck living under those brutal inhuman systems. they are victims. they had no choice in the matter, they were simply born into such a country.

So one who makes a decision to visit or move to such a country, Is under no such inducement.
the truth is when you visit a country that carries the death penalty for outrageous things or generally has some ****ed up laws, then there's ony a few reasons why you would go to such a country and commit the "crimes" they expunge.

outside of a few situations the bulk is either:
A) career crim that doesn't give a ****.
B) someone who thinks local laws don't apply to them.
C) someone deliberately braking these laws to make a point.
D)someone who never even bothered to look into the laws of that country.

the term when in rome applies. you travel to a country you are expected to conduct yourself as a guest, respect the ways and customs of those countries. if you do not like or agree with there laws, and it is an impediment to you personally to follow the laws of those countries while your their then its best you, DON'T TRAVEL.

whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. your a guest in their country, if we expect visitors to respect our laws and customs while here, the onus is to respect their laws and customs while visiting them.

this is a key reason i will never visit Pakistan or saudi arabia. i don't agree with their laws, why because i know some of the down right despicable laws and refuse to follow some of them. its my choice and my decision. I'd be a complete ****ing idiot if i went their and got caught chatting in a room to woman who wasnt a blood relative. or taking the piss out of their prophet.

to expect people to feel sorry for me for knowingly breaking the rules when i had a choice whether i go to such places is not just stupid, its ****ing annoying. in this situation I'm not a victim of an oppressive backwards society, I made a decision to just say "**** it" and got caught.

its dishonest to equate visitors who break the rules with actual citizens who never had a chance to be anywhere other then living under the thumb of people who enforce these inhumane laws.

 

[thurmanmunson]

Well, I completely disagree with the death penalty full stop so therefore I disagree with your opinion, but you're entitled to it.

Yes, there needs to be a distinction between ringleaders and mules but that should be reflected in terms of longer spent behind bars. The death penalty is barbaric.

As I said last week, I also don't even see it as the most severe punishment. If I had to choose between spending the rest of my life behind bars and being put out of my misery, I know what I'd choose.

Completely agree with this - I think the death penalty is too good for them, personally, as being stuck in Indonesia for the rest of my life (let alone in one of their prisons) is an unbearable thought. They should be thrown in the hole. They are there to be punished, not to be rehabilitated

 

[thurmanmunson]

Yes but there's a large difference between people who are stuck living under those brutal inhuman systems. they are victims. they had no choice in the matter, they were simply born into such a country.

So one who makes a decision to visit or move to such a country, Is under no such inducement.
the truth is when you visit a country that carries the death penalty for outrageous things or generally has some stuffed up laws, then there's ony a few reasons why you would go to such a country and commit the "crimes" they expunge.

Brilliantly put. Bravo, sir

 

[Doss]

Yes but there's a large difference between people who are stuck living under those brutal inhuman systems. they are victims. they had no choice in the matter, they were simply born into such a country.

So one who makes a decision to visit or move to such a country, Is under no such inducement.
the truth is when you visit a country that carries the death penalty for outrageous things or generally has some stuffed up laws, then there's ony a few reasons why you would go to such a country and commit the "crimes" they expunge.

outside of a few situations the bulk is either:
A) career crim that doesn't give a ****.
B) someone who thinks local laws don't apply to them.
C) someone deliberately braking these laws to make a point.
D)someone who never even bothered to look into the laws of that country.

the term when in rome applies. you travel to a country you are expected to conduct yourself as a guest, respect the ways and customs of those countries. if you do not like or agree with there laws, and it is an impediment to you personally to follow the laws of those countries while your their then its best you, DON'T TRAVEL.

whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. your a guest in their country, if we expect visitors to respect our laws and customs while here, the onus is to respect their laws and customs while visiting them.

this is a key reason i will never visit Pakistan or saudi arabia. i don't agree with their laws, why because i know some of the down right despicable laws and refuse to follow some of them. its my choice and my decision. I'd be a complete ******* idiot if i went their and got caught chatting in a room to woman who wasnt a blood relative. or taking the piss out of their prophet.

to expect people to feel sorry for me for knowingly breaking the rules when i had a choice whether i go to such places is not just stupid, its ******* annoying. in this situation I'm not a victim of an oppressive backwards society, I made a decision to just say "**** it" and got caught.

its dishonest to equate visitors who break the rules with actual citizens who never had a chance to be anywhere other then living under the thumb of people who enforce these inhumane laws.

It's not so much equating them as simply raising the fact that the death penalty is applied for some pretty amazing things around the place.

These two were monumentally stupid, and neither am I advocating that a visitor receive special treatment. As you say though, it still doesn't make their execution right. They had a choice, they were idiotic to make the choice they did, but was their crime so bad as to deserve losing their life?

Who is one human to make the choice that another doesn't have the right to continue living? A murderer, for mine.

Plus also, just on that maxim of when in Rome and so forth, that doesn't take into account the arbitrary and sometimes downright corrupt nature of laws in some places. I can't recall the exact details, but I remember one case of a Sri Lankan girl temporarily there working as a nanny who was executed for adultery in Saudi Arabia. Most independent observers considered there was a fair chance she hadn't even committed the crime, and had been framed.

Of course, musing about it on an internet forum doesn't make much difference ultimately, but to boil it down- I feel sympathy for everyone, visitor or local alike, who lose their life because of a arbitrary and often barbaric law. Yes, they're often idiotic to break such laws knowing what the consequences are, but it doesn't make killing them right.

 

[Taylor]

If it stops at the trafficking point theres less drugs available to addicts so if you put a hard stance on the traffickers they will soon smarten up not to get involved in trafficking knowing the consequences

How much harder do you want to get?

The "War on drugs" has failed to stop drugs because it still doesn't address the root issue.

The easier and cheaper it is to get drugs, the less crime there is.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

They're not selling ******* lollipops.

and they're not buying lollipops. You're point being?

 

[cartwright]

You're arguing with someone who whinged about losing a day of Shield cricket when Phil Hughes died - a mental pygmy.

oh... boy.

If it stops at the trafficking point theres less drugs available to addicts so if you put a hard stance on the traffickers they will soon smarten up not to get involved in trafficking knowing the consequences

You really think that works?