Saudi Criminal 'Sentenced To Be Paralysed'

reply to post by pacifier2012


Then you'll have simply switched TVs, with his being of a lesser quality.

Dying for taking another's life would still apply if it were someone's child, since children are fellow humans too, even if their parents are still caring for them.

reply to post by EllaMarina


I respect your argument, i really do. It takes a level of intelligence and enlightenment to come to a conclusion like yours. But I must respectfully remind you that the kind of people we are talking about haven't reached that level, nor will they in this lifetime. I realize that is not my call to make but it is the sad reality of the situation. These people are talking animals and should be thought of as such. Don't feel guilty, they thought even less of their victims. How do you teach animals? Through dominance and a punishment/reward system.

reply to post by DarknStormy


The punishment should fit the crime. In this case the stabbed should be paralyzed below the waist( like his victim, if I read correctly) he should then be a free man as he had paid his debt to society. Instead he is another burden on the system that will never learn and have a chance to better society.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Do I really have to elaborate? I'm trying to say more with less...sigh...ok here it goes. Violent felons still possess the instinct to not die, trust me I see them all the time in my profession. Crying, begging for mercy, making empty promises with mucous running down their face. I even had a pedophile tell me he was the victim, a seven year old boy seduced him. They do not want bad things to happen to themselves. If they knew their punishment would fit the crime, only the most psychopathic would still satisfy their violent urges. It's the same reason they don't touch the red hot eye on top of their stove. We aren't talking about people too stupid to wipe their backsides after defecation. We are talking about people who cannot feel empathy at all, yet don't want their wrath reciprocated onto themselves.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by buster2010

 

Do you want rapists to receive the same punishment too?

Yes,preferably with a white hot poker.

So, you've no qualms about official punishers getting creative in their administration of justice? That's nice.

On the contrary,I would have serious misgivings about the state being in control of such methods of justice,however,if the victim or their loved ones wished to get creative on the perpetrator,fine by me.

Pretty barbaric if you ask me. Someone tell Saudi Arabia its 2013.

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

The punishment should fit the crime. In this case the stabbed should be paralyzed below the waist( like his victim, if I read correctly) he should then be a free man as he had paid his debt to society. Instead he is another burden on the system that will never learn and have a chance to better society.

So your Son accidently shoots someone while he's out duck hunting leaving the person paralysed from the neck down. You would agree that the only thing to do is severe is spinal cord at his neck and become a quadraplegic himself to atone for the accident that he committed?

reply to post by DarknStormy


Lmao!! We are talking about violent criminals. These hypotheticals are rediculous. The mental gymnastics you are doing to find a loophole. Ok I'll play your game. But first I must ask why did my son ignore the first rule of gun safety: always know what is behind your target. Second I wonder why the victim wasn't wearing his hunter's orange? See how silly this is turning fast. If this really was an accident ( which sounds more like attempted murder to me) then it sounds like my son owes a life debt. Who else should pay for his negligence? The state?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


They should either execute him, get it over with quickly if they consider his debt cannot ever be repaid or put him in prison for life.

Stupid justice.

reply to post by DarknStormy


you're really comparing an intentional stabbing to an accidental shooting to prove a point?

really?

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

you're really comparing an intentional stabbing to an accidental shooting to prove a point?

really?

A maid in Saudi Arabia was minding a child which died under her care.. Though it was a likely accident she was sentenced to the death penalty. These cases do occur and in some instances they are nothing more then accidents. Unfortunetly, when you start implementing these types of punishments, the judge and jury are out of your hands.. The other thing is I would hate to push these punishments and then end up on the wrong side of a judge somewhere down the track whether I was innocent or guilty. But if you people want a form of Sharia law to punish criminals, knock yourselves out...

reply to post by DarknStormy


You go from one extreme to another... well some common sense should prevail.

In our culture a rapist goes free because "she was asking for it", a murderer gets home earlier because he "was a model prisoner", a child molester is allowed to go free because no evidence was found, yet every neighbour and their cat knows hes a child molester... well... there a guy that intentionally stabs another and gets him paralyzed, gets paralyzed.

Dont ask me to chose. Like the other member said... if you knew that the very same crime you are about to intentionally commit will be applied to you if you get caught, that would be one hell of a deterrent.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

You go from one extreme to another... well some common sense should prevail.

No, to most Westerners this would be going from one extreme to the next because it is a form of Sharia Law regardless of whether its a deterrent or not.

In our culture a rapist goes free because "she was asking for it", a murderer gets home earlier because he "was a model prisoner", a child molester is allowed to go free because no evidence was found, yet every neighbour and their cat knows hes a child molester... well... there a guy that intentionally stabs another and gets him paralyzed, gets paralyzed.

I agree with everything your saying.. We have had a problem here in Australia where Pedophiles have been released, moved into homes near schools and then their identities withheld to protect them. I think that is a threat to the children and their families. I do see what your saying but I see that this is a form of Shaira Law also and again, most people would usually condemn these acts.

Dont ask me to chose. Like the other member said... if you knew that the very same crime you are about to intentionally commit will be applied to you if you get caught, that would be one hell of a deterrent.

I'm not asking anyone to choose but by implementing these laws as a deterrent, you are doing nothing different to what a Muslim country would do and therefore you are implementing what could be called a form of Shaira Law.. It's just we will give it a pretty name that makes it sound better.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by buster2010

 

If he'd also bit his victim's nose off, would you be insisting that was done to him also? Where exactly would you draw the line for this "like for like" version of justice? Do you want rapists to receive the same punishment too?

Yes I am a strong believer in a eye for an eye. Except for rapist they should be castrated them let loose in the general population in prison.

Originally posted by generik

Originally posted by buster2010
He put a person in a wheelchair for life he should face the same penalty. And 180K is a small price to pay for what he did.

so by that logic, since it was supposed to be muslem terrorists that crashed 2 aircraft into the world trade center. then just punishment would then be to crash 2 aircraft into say mecca and medina? an eye for an eye and all?

unless of course there was to be a payoff of say a few billion bucks. doesn't sound so good does it?

personally this case does not sound like punishment but more like a BRIBE, "pay up or we will paralyze you". i'll give you that is one hell of an incentive to get the cash by any and all means available like say bank robberies.

First you have to actually find out who did 9/11. Until then you don't know where to crash the plane Mecca or Tel Aviv. And do I really need to point out the highjackers died in the crash. To blame the religion for what a few people did is moronic.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by hdchop
reply to post by Biigs

 

Creepy it is = That's the point!!!! Question: Would you commit a crime if you knew that you would have the same outcome of the indivudual you commited the crime against??? Answer = I think not...

Okay then. I'm a serial killer who has got away with killing 16 people and eating their vital organs, but you've finally caught up with me and I've very helpfully provided you with details that help establish my previous victims... are you now going to share my organs out among the victims' families? What if they don't want to eat my organs? Will they be offered up to volunteers?

Life - in a cage - with other 'serial killers' - minimal food...

When they get to only 1 left they can auto-cannibalise themselves to death...

A99

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


The same argument goes for the death penalty, but we have all seen that it doesn't work.

Only in a society that is mentally degraded is tit for tat justice. Quid pro quo literally means this for that, in the eyes of the law it usually applies to contracts (i.e. I'll give you this money, in exchange for that service). It isn't used in the context of retributive justice, so don't try to sway it as such to fool uninformed individuals on this forum.

It is true, one aspect of the law is to enforce community values. Therefore, if it is your community's value to paralyze people and butcher them, then this sort of punishment can be seen as reinforcing your community's values. It speaks onto your own character. If you support this kind of punitive punishment, then you yourself are a savage.

Originally posted by buster2010
He put a person in a wheelchair for life he should face the same penalty. And 180K is a small price to pay for what he did.

That's sick you should consider moving to Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Eye for an eye is Hammurabi's code. The God of Abraham endorsed similar ideals. We can leave religion out of this. You know what else the sharia thinks is good? Eating and breathing. Shall we stop doing that too to protest sharia? Go ahead, you first

So whats your suggestion to harsher criminal punishments? Chopping hands off for stealing, a lashing here and there, how can the punishments become harder than spending years in Jail?

Chopping hands off for stealing isn't an eye for an eye. Stealing someting valuable from the person that commited the crime would be an eye for an eye.

Lashing would be an eye for an eye if the offender lashed someone else.

Don't you know what 'an eye for an eye' means at all?? It doesn't seems like you do.

Peace out.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by hdchop
reply to post by Biigs

 

Creepy it is = That's the point!!!! Question: Would you commit a crime if you knew that you would have the same outcome of the indivudual you commited the crime against??? Answer = I think not...

Okay then. I'm a serial killer who has got away with killing 16 people and eating their vital organs, but you've finally caught up with me and I've very helpfully provided you with details that help establish my previous victims... are you now going to share my organs out among the victims' families? What if they don't want to eat my organs? Will they be offered up to volunteers?

Wow, plainly stupid argument here...

The organ eating isnt really what's the victims suffered from, they suffered from death. So death would be enough. But if he tortured his victims alive, then he must be tortured too before dying.

Not living at the expense of the society until he gets old and die naturally is a benefit for the majority so it's a good thing IMO.

Peace out.