Rog Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No, the person who executes a condemned man or woman is undertaking a duty that is sanctioned by law on an individual who has been found guilty by due process. I didn't mean the executioner alone, but ALL supporters of the flawed system which condones premeditated murder. Firstly it isn't murder, it is a system to take out the trash in a permanent and just way. It provides justice for those whom it denies the right to extract justice for themselves first hand. Secondly nothing is 100% perfect, but because of that failing to do what is right on that basis is not the proper course of action to adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 But one question to all those who are against capital punishment, are you all saying those convicted of genocide and other such crimes should not be executed, if so the you are saying the neuremburg trial should have only sentenced the guilty to a period of imprisonment and then allowed them to be released if the show remorse. Yes there should be a good protection system to eliminate the chance of innocent being executed, but in events where there are several witnesses to the crime or several pieces of evidence that show without doubt only this person commited the crime then they can can be executed without any doubt occuring as to the innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 But one question to all those who are against capital punishment, are you all saying those convicted of genocide and other such crimes should not be executed, if so the you are saying the neuremburg trial should have only sentenced the guilty to a period of imprisonment and then allowed them to be released if the show remorse. No. I don't think they should be executed. Who has the legitimacy to bring people to justice? The Judges and men of another nation state? Hardly a good set-up. Nuremberg was a farce, if you want to use that example. The issue of innocence doesn't sway my mind on whether people should live or not live. Nobody has good justification to hold someone elses life in the balance anymore than the person who murdered does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 But one question to all those who are against capital punishment, are you all saying those convicted of genocide and other such crimes should not be executed, if so the you are saying the neuremburg trial should have only sentenced the guilty to a period of imprisonment and then allowed them to be released if the show remorse. No. I don't think they should be executed. Who has the legitimacy to bring people to justice? The Judges and men of another nation state? Hardly a good set-up. Nuremberg was a farce, if you want to use that example. The issue of innocence doesn't sway my mind on whether people should live or not live. Nobody has good justification to hold someone elses life in the balance anymore than the person who murdered does. thats because you dont like any law and as far as your bothered you do what the hell u like because laws are bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do the hell as I like? I've never said that. People can't just do whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do the hell as I like? I've never said that. People can't just do whatever they want. Oh but they do and if they are not punished accordingly they will re offend as do sex offenders and murders after being given back their freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 But one question to all those who are against capital punishment, are you all saying those convicted of genocide and other such crimes should not be executed, if so the you are saying the neuremburg trial should have only sentenced the guilty to a period of imprisonment and then allowed them to be released if the show remorse. No. I don't think they should be executed. Who has the legitimacy to bring people to justice? The Judges and men of another nation state? Hardly a good set-up. Nuremberg was a farce, if you want to use that example. The issue of innocence doesn't sway my mind on whether people should live or not live. Nobody has good justification to hold someone elses life in the balance anymore than the person who murdered does. So if you say Nuremburg is a farce than I take it you are saying that the perpetrators of the atrocities in the death camps should not have had to stand trial. For fucks sake LDV get real our little idealisc wetboy some people are just so evil they need to be eliminated from society for the safety of society in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do the hell as I like? I've never said that. People can't just do whatever they want. well you said it was quite right to walk into a shop and not pay for the item you have, so id say thats saying do what the hell you like. and you find ppl do just do what the hell thay like, thats why the prisons are full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do the hell as I like? I've never said that. People can't just do whatever they want. Oh but they do and if they are not punished accordingly they will re offend as do sex offenders and murders after being given back their freedom. Roo, what I meant was that Gazza thinks that I believe people can do as they please because I disagree with the State's authority. But no, I don't agree with what you say about punishment. You'd have to seriously make someone's life hell to deter them from killing if they had a strong desire to murder people or rape. But then what? If you make their life hell, it would seem conducive to having them become better people. well you said it was quite right to walk into a shop and not pay for the item you have,so id say thats saying do what the hell you like. I mentioned a very specific thing. I wouldn't for example think it right if someone burgled you, murdered you, raped you, beat you up, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 So if you say Nuremburg is a farce than I take it you are saying that the perpetrators of the atrocities in the death camps should not have had to stand trial. For fucks sake LDV get real our little idealisc wetboy some people are just so evil they need to be eliminated from society for the safety of society in general.Maybe they should have stood trial. Not too sure on that one because the question becomes who would conduct the trial, what is their agenda in doing so, and what 'right' do they have in bringing such people to trial. If you weren't aware of who conducted the trial, you had Britain and America having the audacity to charge these men with waging aggressive war, but then what kind of trial is this when the Soviet Union was a prosecutor. That state was almost as bad as Nazi Germany and certainly its leaders could have received the same treatment if they were under trials and facing the same charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 well you said it was quite right to walk into a shop and not pay for the item you have,so id say thats saying do what the hell you like. I mentioned a very specific thing. I wouldn't for example think it right if someone burgled you, murdered you, raped you, beat you up, etc. why would them things be diffrent, why would somebody burgling me be any diffrent than somebody shoplifting, aint it the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chunkylover Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 So if you say Nuremburg is a farce than I take it you are saying that the perpetrators of the atrocities in the death camps should not have had to stand trial. For fucks sake LDV get real our little idealisc wetboy some people are just so evil they need to be eliminated from society for the safety of society in general.Maybe they should have stood trial. Not too sure on that one because the question becomes who would conduct the trial, what is their agenda in doing so, and what 'right' do they have in bringing such people to trial. If you weren't aware of who conducted the trial, you had Britain and America having the audacity to charge these men with waging aggressive war, but then what kind of trial is this when the Soviet Union was a prosecutor. That state was almost as bad as Nazi Germany and certainly its leaders could have received the same treatment if they were under trials and facing the same charges. So what, in your view, should have happened to them? Perhaps we should have let them all flee to South America to live out their days - a right, by the way, denied to the hundreds of thousands in the death camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Maybe they should have stood trial. Not too sure on that one because the question becomes who would conduct the trial, what is their agenda in doing so, and what 'right' do they have in bringing such people to trial. So crimes perpetrated against humanity and war crimes shouldn't be brought to justice? What about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ? A UN formed tribunal. What could be more representative? At least at Nurnberg, the accused were afforded some legal rights - which their millions of victims were denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 At least at Nurnberg, the accused were afforded some legal rights - which their millions of victims were denied.Yeah, you're quite right. But my criticism is about those who tried to bring them to justice and consequently some of the accussations that were fabricated to deal with them. So crimes perpetrated against humanity and war crimes shouldn't be brought to justice?Yes they should. But who can credibly bring such people to justice? The State apparatus of other nations? I don't think so. I mean, if you can bring Generals who committed ethnic cleansing or even genocide in Yugoslavia, where is the 'cut off' when British or American, Russian, Israeli generals and politicians are safe from similar accussations, for example? A UN formed tribunal. What could be more representative?Representative of what? Do you think it is humanity? If so, I think you are mistaken. So what, in your view, should have happened to them? Perhaps we should have let them all flee to South America to live out their days - a right, by the way, denied to the hundreds of thousands in the death camps.Yes, I definitely think they should have been allowed to go to South America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chunkylover Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 At least at Nurnberg, the accused were afforded some legal rights - which their millions of victims were denied.Yeah, you're quite right. But my criticism is about those who tried to bring them to justice and consequently some of the accussations that were fabricated to deal with them. So crimes perpetrated against humanity and war crimes shouldn't be brought to justice?Yes they should. But who can credibly bring such people to justice? The State apparatus of other nations? I don't think so. I mean, if you can bring Generals who committed ethnic cleansing or even genocide in Yugoslavia, where is the 'cut off' when British or American, Russian, Israeli generals and politicians are safe from similar accussations, for example? A UN formed tribunal. What could be more representative?Representative of what? Do you think it is humanity? If so, I think you are mistaken. So what, in your view, should have happened to them? Perhaps we should have let them all flee to South America to live out their days - a right, by the way, denied to the hundreds of thousands in the death camps.Yes, I definitely think they should have been allowed to go to South America. Why?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.