It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should family be responsible for an Execution?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:54 PM
This story struck me. Personally, I'm against the death penalty. I don't think anyone has the right to take another life under any circumstances. This story of a Somali boy who executed his father's killer got me thinking. Would we have a different view on the death penalty if it were us who had to do the killing.

A teenage Somali boy has stabbed to death his father's killer in a public execution ordered by an Islamic court.

Large crowds gathered at a Koranic school in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, to watch Mohamed Moallim, 16, stab Omar Hussein in the head and throat.

Hussein had been convicted of killing the boy's father, Sheikh Osman Moallim, after a row about Mohamed's education.

Would you have the guts to do what this boy has done? How do you think the kid feels now? To say the least, I'd bet this situation is embedded in his thoughts forever.

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:02 AM
Hmm, does no one have an opinion about the moral implications of stabbing someone repeatedly in the head and throat in retaliation for the murder of a family member?


posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:15 AM
Rasobasi -

Man, that is a hard question for me to answer because I am torn in different directions by its implications.

On one hand, I would like to see a family get their collective closure (if they wish) by executing a person that has taken a life of one of their family members.


I think that executing someone with a knife and "stabbing someone repeatedly in the head and throat" is way out of line for a humane execution.


On the other hand, I see where, if families were allowed to act in a greater role in executions, it could lead to MANY problems where families might want to skip the whole judicial process, take a person out and hang them or shoot them or whatever they choose to do to them. I feel that that is not how or why our judicial system was set up here in the U.S.

My experience with the people in Iraq when I was there would lead me to believe that this child would be happy with what he did and was allowed to do by a court of law. I admit, I didn't meet everyone in Iraq, nor did I meet anyone that had a similar experience to this boy. The people that I did meet were very strong in the backing of the law, so I think they would be comfortable with this.

Will the kid regret it when he gets older? I don't know. I know people here that say that they would like the same opportunity as this boy received.

What I am afraid of doing here in my writing is trying to inflict my culture system on the boy when his culture can be quite a bit different than mine.

Hopefully I explained myself clear enough.


posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:58 AM
I agree that people would most likely puff up their chests and say they would do the deed, but would they is the question. I think that if there is to be an execution, it should be a family member who does it. It's sort of on the same lines as an eye for an eye. I don't think that those who were wronged should have someone else take moral hit for them. What I mean is, unless the family has the fortitude to take a person's life themselves, they shouldn't push for the life to be taken at all. Again, I am anti death penalty, and I have faith that if the victims werre responsible for capital punishment, the percentage of people actually put to death would almost completely diminish.

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Again, I am anti death penalty, and I have faith that if the victims werre responsible for capital punishment, the percentage of people actually put to death would almost completely diminish.

My view has always been a little different on capital punishment being a deterrant.

I don't think that it is a good deterrant because there will always be those individuals that are socially or emotionally damaged and will commit heinous crimes against the population and never think twice about their actions or consequences.

I have always considered it the removal of a person from society that is emotionally diseased and serves as a permanent harm to everyone near them.

We had an incident in my local area at the beginning of this year where a man had spent 8 years in prison for murder and was released and three days later robbed a convenience store for money, shooting a clerk in the face and killing her in the process. He has never said he was sorry once. He has a long criminal history culminating in the last two events. If he gets the death penalty, I would support it because to me, it shows that his propensity for violence has steadily increased over the years.

I know that I am leaving out quite a few factors such as social environment, economics of the area that he lived in and community resources for counseling before he became a violent criminal, but I am trying to stay with the death penalty issue solely.

I also am not trying to "convert" you to my side of the issue. I think this is a good topic for discussion and thank you for bringing it up.


posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:20 PM
I'm not sure what I think about this. If a family member was murdered by some psycho, and I was offered the chance... Honestly, I don't know what I'd do. I know I am capable of killing in self-defense, but this is so coldly premeditated. If I had a child, I might feel differently, but I don't. So I suppose for the moment I would say no...but circumstances change, so might my opinion.

Personally, I favor the death penalty in some cases. It's a case by case basis, no particular type of criminal. It would depend upon the heinousness of the crime.

I seem to have come down squarely on the fence. Color me undecided.

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:08 PM
It's a tough situation. There are a few people who I love so much I might become jaded if they were killed brutally. It's like Anakin Skywalker when his mom died in the Tusken camp. Maybe he was justified in the massacre, but look at where it led him.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:27 PM
The victims family killing the killer.

Sounds good to me

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:44 PM
IF…IF…someone murdered an immediate family member of mine…was convicted…went through the multiple years of appeals…was denied a ‘stay’ from an applicable governor or federal judge…etc..etc...etc...

I would the want to be shown what I need to do “in order to pull the trigger” on his/her death…I would do it w/o contemplation, hesitation or remorse…yes...personally if asked/required.


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:39 PM
If the family of the victims had to do the killing, we'd have more deaths from the death penalty.
edit to add:
But, of course, we can't have the survivors do the kiling, because that is teh execution of the Blood Vendetta, which, hollywoodish as it sounds, WAS the basis of law in some socieites, like that of europe in the middle ages, or apparently, anarchic Somalia now. Rather, law now is based upon the idea of rights and the social contract, so the state MUST be the one doing the executing, as a representative of / actor for the society.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:47 PM
You are assuming that what they do affects them as it would affect an american. european or british citizen. These people are not brought up in the same world as we are. I doubt it affects them the same way as it would us. More then likely its something that will never be forgotten but not in the way we would think.


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Nygdan
If the family of the victims had to do the killing, we'd have more deaths from the death penalty.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Albeit…today, most immediate family members take part in the proceedings, report/appeal to the press, witness the ‘event’…etc….all with the same goal of ultimate demise without much concern about who/what commits the final act.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
These people are not brought up in the same world as we are. I doubt it affects them the same way as it would us.

As an example…. British laws (until around 60 years ago) were very strict concerning certain types of cases specifically involving murder. The laws in the US are very different. The British judges had to sentence to death convicted murderers unless they were under the age 18 or pregnant females.

The act of reprieve began to be used and exposed as a political tool: from 1900-1949, over half of British citizens sentenced to death (some 1200+ persons) in England and Wales courts had sentences commuted or respited (most often into penal servitude).

No doubt their view is different.


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:17 PM
No, no guts to do this. Insane though, don't mess with people in the Middle East. Unless you have a plane ticket out the next hour.

new topics

top topics


log in