no shit. but he was comparing our two systems as an eye for an eye. well, we would NEVER do this and he then mentioned the death penalty as an equivalent to this. but thank you for clearing up they didnt use the death penalty.Bertster7 wrote:
They didn't get the death penalty here.usmarine wrote:
so what. you cant compare the two at all. someone would not get death penalty for throwing acid on someone.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let me clarify... a large portion of our population would support its use far more often, but our actual officials are reluctant to use it.
"When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's Peace, . . . so as the party wounded, or hurt, et cetera, die of the wound or hurt, et cetera, within a year and a day after the same." - The definition under English law that I was made to mesmerize, ouch.Stingray24 wrote:
Thou shalt not murder, actually. The Hebrew word for kill is not used.Uzique wrote:
Errr...Stingray24 wrote:
What commandment would that be? And for which legal principle?
Thou shalt not kill.
The death sentence.
Point being, there isn't much difference in principle when you talk about capital punishment, it's a malicious act of revenge/vindication after all. But I guess that grey area is a debate for another day. All I was saying is that you cannot make sweeping statements about Islam and their grossly unjust law system when you have just as many religious/moral grey areas within your own.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-29 08:50:43)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I don't get how people can think that two wrongs make a right. How the hell do you set wrong things right by doing more wrong things?
Cruel or unusual? .. Hey here's a thought. If they hang Men for liking the cock alternatively how would you apply an eye for an eye?usmarine wrote:
no shit. but he was comparing our two systems as an eye for an eye. well, we would NEVER do this and he then mentioned the death penalty as an equivalent to this. but thank you for clearing up they didnt use the death penalty.Bertster7 wrote:
They didn't get the death penalty here.usmarine wrote:
so what. you cant compare the two at all. someone would not get death penalty for throwing acid on someone.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think you're still missing what I'm saying here. Most people in this country agree with the mentality of "eye for an eye." That is what we have in common with Iran. A lot other First World countries aren't as fond of that principle.usmarine wrote:
no shit. but he was comparing our two systems as an eye for an eye. well, we would NEVER do this and he then mentioned the death penalty as an equivalent to this. but thank you for clearing up they didnt use the death penalty.Bertster7 wrote:
They didn't get the death penalty here.usmarine wrote:
so what. you cant compare the two at all. someone would not get death penalty for throwing acid on someone.
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye. You can sue someone for a lot more than what they did to you.Kmarion wrote:
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye.Kmarion wrote:
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
Yes you can. It's generally not a good deterrent anyways. I just read about a case where a wife sued her husband for giving her HIV. Apparently they had an "open relationship". They agreed to sleep around on each other.. It's actually kinda funny.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye. You can sue someone for a lot more than what they did to you.Kmarion wrote:
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ype=health
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye.Kmarion wrote:
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
I've always thought that open relationships are another way of saying... "I'm not in love, but I'm gonna fuck you 'till someone better comes along..."Kmarion wrote:
Yes you can. It's generally not a good deterrent anyways. I just read about a case where a wife sued her husband for giving her HIV. Apparently they had an "open relationship". They agreed to sleep around on each other.. It's actually kinda funny.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye. You can sue someone for a lot more than what they did to you.Kmarion wrote:
If most people believed in an eye for an eye there would be no such thing as punitive damages.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ype=health
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess, in that respect, you could say we believe in head for an eye.
I think if it came down to it, most people would take a blinding over death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.
Punishment should fit the crime. Quite clear really.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.
So you're suggesting that criminals should set the standards for what is morally acceptable?Max Fightmaster wrote:
Punishment should fit the crime. Quite clear really.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.
That's not the point. Skip the blinding and remove the problem.Turquoise wrote:
I think if it came down to it, most people would take a blinding over death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.
Like hell it should.Max Fightmaster wrote:
Punishment should fit the crime. Quite clear really.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.
We should just engage in preventative executions and kill anyone who looks funny.
That guy's face must really be something if he can accidentally blind women who rejected him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
We should just engage in preventative executions and kill anyone who looks funny.
No. If I evade tax I shouldn't be publicly beheaded, right? If I commit genocide I shouldn't have two weeks community service, right? The idea of eye for an eye revenge is quite barbaric and is outdated by centuries. This is a step more brutal. I myself am an atheist but I must admit that Jesus was right in condemning the practice. And Gandhi. And Thales. And Pittacus. And Epictetus. And Buddhists. And Taoists.mikkel wrote:
So you're suggesting that criminals should set the standards for what is morally acceptable?Max Fightmaster wrote:
Punishment should fit the crime. Quite clear really.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.
I understand where you're coming from, but how much do you trust your government? That is the essential question here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That's not the point. Skip the blinding and remove the problem.Turquoise wrote:
I think if it came down to it, most people would take a blinding over death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.
In the case mentioned in this thread, there doesn't seem to be much of a doubt about the defendant's guilt. Most cases aren't as cut and dry.
I don't believe a normal rape would qualify you for the death squad, violent rape coupled with assault, attempted murder, etc probably would. But I never really ran into trouble with the law when I lived there.Turquoise wrote:
Someone might get the death penalty for rape in a state like Texas. Again, I'm not really making a judgment as to whether or not I agree with something like this, but there are similarities.usmarine wrote:
so what. you cant compare the two at all. someone would not get death penalty for throwing acid on someone.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let me clarify... a large portion of our population would support its use far more often, but our actual officials are reluctant to use it.
Normal rape... lol
If the goal is a successful society there can be quite a bit of leeway.Turquoise wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but how much do you trust your government? That is the essential question here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That's not the point. Skip the blinding and remove the problem.Turquoise wrote:
I think if it came down to it, most people would take a blinding over death.
In the case mentioned in this thread, there doesn't seem to be much of a doubt about the defendant's guilt. Most cases aren't as cut and dry.
The good of the individual is achieved through the good of the whole.
lol, this is true, everyone has been set to auto-disagree with lowing.usmarine wrote:
inb4 lowing vs euro multi quote spamalammadingdong fest.
i agree with the punishment 100%
personally, I think they should kill the fucker, but since that is so unhumane, blinding him with acid will do just fine.
You're being completely subjective on this issue. What constitutes cruelty varies greatly from person to person and from culture to culture. You said he should be shot to death... some people would consider that pretty cruel. It's quite funny hearing someone who agrees with the death penalty preaching about cruelty to be quite honest.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see how. Cruel is what was suggested by someone else after my post, blinding them before killing them. There is no need for torture.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't head for an eye "cruel and unusual" in and of itself? Well, I guess it's not unusual given its common usage.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Which is a very, very good idea and should be our philosophy on criminal cases as well, in conjunction with no cruel and unusual punishment.
Two points... firstly, how do you square this concept with Jesus's policy of turning the other cheek? He didn't say when someone strikes you on one cheek you kill them using lethal injection. Secondly... that commandment is considered of the fairly important ones, is it not? Aren't you taking a big risk by second guessing an ancient interpretation of a Hebrew word just in order to give yourself some wiggle room? In Ireland they teach "Thou Shalt Not Kill", there is no mention of murder.Stingray24 wrote:
Thou shalt not murder, actually. The Hebrew word for kill is not used.