NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm

Yeah you'll think its awesome until you're the one whos hanging up there being throttled to death by a nylon rope because the judicial system fucked up.


(not saying that guy was innocent, but its less fun when it happens to someone who didn't do it, especially if that person ends up being you.)

Yeah you'll think its awesome until you're the one whos hanging up there being throttled to death by a nylon rope because the judicial system fucked up.


(not saying that guy was innocent, but its less fun when it happens to someone who didn't do it, especially if that person ends up being you.)

You do have a point. Of course, I'd only advocate this punishment (or any punishment) if we were 100% positive the scum was guilty.

meh, you'd still be met with massive protests if you tried that in any westernised nation, what with free speech and all.

meh, you'd still be met with massive protests if you tried that in any westernised nation, what with free speech and all.

I don't see how killing children is free speech.

I don't see how killing children is free speech.

I meant bitching about inhumane punishment. I'm saying that there would be more of that amoungst the crowd that turned out in some other countries.

I meant bitching about inhumane punishment. I'm saying that there would be more of that amoungst the crowd that turned out in some other countries.

Yeah, true.

Fact is... it didn't prevent him from doing what he did. Even though there's the death penalty, he still did it. The whole deterrent effect of death penalty is... pointless. Sure you can execute that guy (which Iran has done), but what did it change? The dead are still dead.

I think the absurd point is, you only die once anyway. So it's not really a penalty. I'll die one day, definitely, so I should be scared of the death penalty? That's not really logic. The only thing it'd probably drive me to do, if I was a killer, I'd not kill 1 person, I'd kill as many as possible. They can only execute me once, and not, let's say, 20 times. If I'd get locked up into a cell for, let's say, 30 years, I'd go insane after a while.

Personally, from the view of a citizen of the 21st century, I'd say death penalty is pretty much absurd, since it doesn't prevent anything (otherwise Texas, for example, would have 0 murder cases). It's just eye for eye, nothing else. And it's pretty uncivilized.

But on the other hand, if somebody would, let's say kill the niece of my gf, I'd want his head, I'd possibly even cut him down myself if I had the chance. At least I would want to see him hang. If somebody would do that I don't think he'd still have the right to carry on living.

Nice. You'd think they'd have been able to catch those (Censored) before they got up to nineteen kids, though.

meh, you'd still be met with massive protests if you tried that in any westernised nation, what with free speech and all.

Ya, we'd all be a lot better off if Western democracies all based themselves on Islamic theocracies. That's why Dubya went to Iraq right? To bring our style of government to them, so that we'd have room for some of their's here.

I have talked to many people when it comes to the subject of capital punishment. The solution that I found to be the best is the use of a stump grinder (Chipper/Shredder). When a person is found guilty of a serious crime just consign him/her to the jaws of a stump grinder...
Then you take the people in prison who have lesser charges... i.e. theft or burglary or the so called white collar crimes such as fraud... and you have them take the kibble that once was a murder or rapist (yep I think rape should be a capitol offence)... and plow them into the ground...
The capitol offenders become much needed nutrients for soil... and this will deter the lesser offenders from trying harder crimes...... we could use the capitol offenders for growing all sorts of vegatables and fruits which the prisons and jails could use to subsidize their menus in their cafeterias...

The problem with our justice system is the jury... I am not saying it is a bad system.. but of course innocent people are charged with heinous crimes everyday.... There is currently not way to be absolutly certain a person is innocent or guilty when the evidences comes in...
-Lord of Bobmodeus

Fact is... it didn't prevent him from doing what he did. Even though there's the death penalty, he still did it. The whole deterrent effect of death penalty is... pointless. Sure you can execute that guy (which Iran has done), but what did it change? The dead are still dead.


If you think of the death penalty as a deterent then no it is not effective. If you think of it as prevention of future crime by the individual, then it is 100% effective. If you consider it as retribution it is also effective.

I know that many people do not like to think of legal punishment as retribution, but it is a factor, a powerful one.

If you think of the death penalty as a deterent then no it is not effective. If you think of it as prevention of future crime by the individual, then it is 100% effective. If you consider it as retribution it is also effective.

I know that many people do not like to think of legal punishment as retribution, but it is a factor, a powerful one.

Under common law, the retribution is always a factor in sentencing.

It prevents recidivism and it's entertaining. I'm a big fan of hanging.

We could fix the court system in the US - we should only hang those who are convicted by video and/or DNA evidence. Eyewitness testimony is invariably suspect.

DNA evidence may also be suspect, though-you need to have the full package of evidence, not just one or two methods. This is what got O.J. off-the "Mountain" of evidence included suspect and planted materials-including blood samples. The jury didn't buy in because of that.

You need the entire range of evidence to point to guilt, including (unfortunately) any eyewitness evidence that can be confirmed. Just rely on DNA, and anyone with a hardon for a suspect can turn him into a perpetrator.

With video-editing getting as advanced as it is, Video itself may be doubtful as evidence as well-again, if you want to set someone up, just "Enhance" their face/body type onto the screen.

You need a LOT of tools in your toolbox if you're going to execute someone for a heinous crime. The nice thing is, most serial killers, when they're caught, tend to give in and admit it, even boast about it. So there's not much of a problem there.

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm
Awesome.

It prevents recidivism Er, so does being locked away in jail or in forced labour camps, don't you think?

What about those men convicted of IRA bomb aid, who were then acquitted? OR, those British mothers who apparently killed their children?

Er, so does being locked away in jail or in forced labour camps, don't you think?

What about those men convicted of IRA bomb aid, who were then acquitted? OR, those British mothers who apparently killed their children?

There are murderers in the US who kill again in prison.
There are plenty of examples of prisoners who had "life with no parole" who were released because of prison overcrowding.

I'm in the US. While courts make mistakes, that's a problem that needs to be fixed whether you sentence someone to death or not. The court system certainly could be improved - and if it is improved, I have no problem with the death penalty for certain cases.

Er, so does being locked away in jail or in forced labour camps, don't you think?

What about those men convicted of IRA bomb aid, who were then acquitted? OR, those British mothers who apparently killed their children?

You present Two good examples of why, if you're going to have the Death Penalty (or, for that matter, Life imprisonment), you better damned well get your facts straight in the Investigation, and have every possible avenue of appeal. this prevents Executions from being a means to cheapen life, and it prevents serial-murderers from claiming legal/moral equality with bankrobbers and other 'honest crooks'.

Execution is not about 'punishment', it is about 'removal'.
permanent Removal- a lifer can be released if the Governor or someone of similar distinction pardons him or her. they have been, and can be, released by mistake. The Death Penalty is society's way of saying "You may have an innocent heart, but you still killed, cooked, and ate fifteen people after sodomizing them with a monkeywrench. You're too much for US to handle. you can go talk to your god now."
(a friend of mine who worked for the state called it "Forwarding their case to final judgement".)

I meant bitching about inhumane punishment. I'm saying that there would be more of that amoungst the crowd that turned out in some other countries.
I remember thousands(millions?) of US mothers bitching about a US teen cougth Vandalizing in Singapore...

yet the Singapore people went ahead and spanked the kid anyways.

I don't know. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, but it won't bring back those children. Does it make things right? I think murderers are treated far too gently this this country (the UK - for example, I'm sickened by what happened to those boys who killed James Bulger), but... I don't know. The whole thing just makes me incredibly sad.

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm
Wow, and I thought your "Who Gives a Damn About Human Rights Club" was just a joke.

I remember thousands(millions?) of US mothers bitching about a US teen cougth Vandalizing in Singapore...

yet the Singapore people went ahead and spanked the kid anyways.
Hahaha, I remember that case. It still makes me laugh.
I'm no proponent of the death penalty, but I think that corporal punishment and forced labour would be a much better subsitute. Think about it, you get something out from the sentenced in the form of labour and you also get the administer 3 (or 4 or whatever) lashes at the end of each day, just to remind him of why he's there.
Pain is nature's way to tell us that something's wrong. So, let's use it.
As for human rights, human rights call for a fair and open trial, and a punishment proportional to the crime. Nowhere it says that punishment has to be "nice".

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm



[...]nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted[...]

Go live somewhere else?

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm

Can anyone who think this was fair try to say how the hell whipping someone before you execute them is a good idea? Are they deterred from killing again as the noose is being put round their neck?

It's a deterrent for others.
If you have undeniable evidence of a crime, like say several witnesses, a video tape and DNA I see no reason why not punish someone full tilt.

It rediculous that even obvious murderers are sentanced lightly. Front page today in the calgary herald was a drunk driver who killed two people and only got a 5000$ fine.

If you have undeniable evidence of a crime, like say several witnesses, a video tape and DNA I see no reason why not punish someone full tilt.

It rediculous that even obvious murderers are sentanced lightly. Front page today in the calgary herald was a drunk driver who killed two people and only got a 5000$ fine.for the record...Im 100% against using the Death Penalty for traffic accidents involving Alcohol.

for the record...Im 100% against using the Death Penalty for traffic accidents involving Alcohol.

It is unlikely that an alcohol-induced accident is the first time that the person both used alcohol and drove.

People like that tend to repeat themselves - driving drunk again and again.

To make sure they don't do it again, it would suffice to hang them from the nearest lightpole.

Relatives' fury halts Iran trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3739856.stm
A murder trial in Iran has been adjourned after relatives of the dead screamed and shouted at one of the accused and tried to attack him.
The attack occurred as the defendant coolly confessed to his crime.

No new date has been set for the trial, which is taking place behind closed doors, to resume.

Two men are being tried for the murders of 17 children and three adults in the deserts on the outskirts of Tehran over the course of a year.

Reports from inside the courtroom depict a scene of chaos after the defendant, Mohammad Bijeh, started recounting how he had killed his seventh victim.

They wanted to kill the accused men with bare hands

Witness
"He was completely calm and free of any remorse," a witness told the news agency AFP.

"He gave all the gory details... The family of the victim then rose from their seats and ran towards him. Then other relatives of the victims began shouting and running at the accused. They wanted to kill the accused men with bare hands.

"The police then quickly whisked the accused out of the court. The courtroom was a mess and the hearing was halted," the witness said.

for the record...Im 100% against using the Death Penalty for traffic accidents involving Alcohol.

To be devils advocate here; why?

A person, knowingly and willingly drinks alcohol, to a level at which theie judgement is impaired. They then enter a machine that is as lethal as almost anything we have invented. They operate this machinery in this self inflicted impaired state, and in the process they kill someone. How is the person any less responsible for the death that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.
Pulling the trigger does not show intent to kill, it just shows intent to operate a lethal piece of machinery. Starting a car is the same.

Both are murder, both should be punished the same way.

Both are murder, both should be punished the same way.

It's identical to shooting blindly out a window. If you hit someone and kill them, it's murder.

Relatives' fury halts Iran trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3739856.stm
*snip*

and your point with this is?

The Bijeh is the man who was whipped and hanged, in case you didn't realise that.

What you did not comment was the final paragraph

But some of the families of the victims, who are very poor, have asked for blood money from the killers instead of the death penalty as is their right under Islamic law, our correspondent reports.

This states clearly which law was being applied.

I wish we treated murderers like this in our country
Good way to make no distinction between yourself and the murderers.

Good way to make no distinction between yourself and the murderers.
It's not what you do.
It's why you do it.

It's not what you do.
It's why you do it.
The ends do not justify the means.

The ends do not justify the means.

The motive may justify the action though.
The ends, in this case, a dead person, does not justify anything.
The means is actualy irrelevent.
It is the reason why it should or should not be done that counts.

The ends do not justify the means.
Since when?

Good way to make no distinction between yourself and the murderers.

There is a strong distinction, here. The man being executed preyed upon children, used them for his own sexual gratification, then murdered them.
By contrast, the state is removing this creature from even the possibility of preying on the innocent again. It's like the difference between waging war, and committing murder. There are times when it is justified to kill, and times and conditions when it is not. Whispering Legs has it right here-the REASON counts far more than either the Means, or the physical ends.
The difference between criminal negligence and an accident is likewise easy to understand, which is why one of them is a crime, and the other is an unfortunate situation.

So too, Execution is (in most societies that practice it) done only under the gravest circumstances, with the best available information, in a controlled manner to a specific individual for a reason beyond merely satisfaction of a base desire.

To make sure they don't do it again, it would suffice to hang them from the nearest lightpole.
That's a load of extreme statist crap. Sensibly, they should be imprisoned for several years (for life if their victim dies), and be banned from driving for life.

hm good for medieval ages not for today, capitl punishment is wrong and NOT a dettereant, as many people say.

By contrast, the state is removing this creature from even the possibility of preying on the innocent again.
They are doing far more than that. They are making a show of it, while a crowd is allowed to cheer and chant. Their act has all the power of a religious ritual.

The ends do not justify the means.
The motive may justify the action though.
The ends, in this case, a dead person, does not justify anything.
The means is actualy irrelevent.
It is the reason why it should or should not be done that counts.
The means, here, is the method used, and far from being irrelevant, it is the very thing that prompted the news article. I doubt this story would have reached the UK at all (and hence our board) if the Iran courts had used a method of execution more familiar to Western sensibilities.

The ends (justice) is not served by making a roaring spectacle of the murderer's execution.

It's not fine. We must not kill anybody, because if you do so, you become the murderer you wanted to kill.

It's not fine. We must not kill anybody, because if you do so, you become the murderer you wanted to kill.
No, because we didn't go around killing 20 innocent children. We simply removed a person who demonstrated an inability to function safely within society. This is ultimately the purpose of the death penalty. When one shows such extreme inability to be a contributing member to the greater good, it becomes nessesary to remove them from society so that they cannot pose a threat to others. The extent of their inability to function safely within society affects the extent of the removal from society, death being the farthest removed one can be.

There is no difference between the means and the end. If an end cannot be accomplished without using the wrong means, it is the wrong end. If an action can serve no other purpose than an end which is wrong, the action, too, is wrong.

The means are not justified by the end. The means incriminate the end.

And the death penalty is nothing but a great big show of blood for the people. The Romans had their coliseums and gladiators for that. It does not serve as a deterrant, but rather further takes away inhibitions (as was stated above). If I kill one person, I can expect the death penalty, so I have nothing to lose. I would then do all within my power to evade the law, even through killing further people.

No... You really don't. You didn't really kill the murderer's children now did you. You didn't thoughlessly slaughter innocent people either.

Consider me just another bed-wetting liberal, but I have to say that any plan which basically says 'our country would be improved if we flogged people a hundred times, stabbed them while doing so, and then slowly asphyxiated them by suspending them from cranes' is greeted by a tiny touch of reservation on my part.

There is no difference between the means and the end. If an end cannot be accomplished without using the wrong means, it is the wrong end. If an action can serve no other purpose than an end which is wrong, the action, too, is wrong.

The means are not justified by the end. The means incriminate the end.
people.
By that logic:
The seperation of the American colonies from the British Empire was not justified.
The allied efforts in WWII were not justified.
Hell, the liberation of numerous death camps and the end of the slaughter of innocent people in the holocaust was not justified because it took a bloody war to acheive.

Unless, violence is sometimes the correct means. But this would then imply that violence on a much smaller scale would also be justified.

Consider me just another bed-wetting liberal, but I have to say that any plan which basically says 'our country would be improved if we flogged people a hundred times, stabbed them while doing so, and then slowly asphyxiated them by suspending them from cranes' is greeted by a tiny touch of reservation on my part.

Bloody, UnAmerican Commie!!! You deserve to die for your treason against our free country! How dare you say we must not flog people a hundred times, stab them while doing so and then slowly asphyxiate them by suspending them from cranes? Doing so is the mark of a free society! You are an anti-American unpatriotic moonbat!

It's not fine. We must not kill anybody, because if you do so, you become the murderer you wanted to kill.Um.. What if you applied your logic differently?

We must not jail anybody, because if you do so, you become the kidnapper you wanted to lock up.

Good way to make no distinction between yourself and the murderers.See above. There's no distinction between police taking someone from thier home and locking them away in a prison and criminals taking someone from their home and locking them away in their basement?

I can't say as I'd want to see anyone tortured like that.

However, I will say that such a thing would be a supreme deterant to anyone considering future crimes - you might get a LOWER crime rate, overall, with a punish sentance like that.

I really don't see how brutality will make the US a better place.

Yeah you'll think its awesome until you're the one whos hanging up there being throttled to death by a nylon rope because the judicial system fucked up.
The Iranian judicial system did not Fuck up...they delivered Justice...and freed their children from a murderer and pedophile rapist.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
.

You wanna know what a Judicial Fuck-up is?? :mad: ...Its when the expert says the monster "had lost his mind"..then Judge sends the monster to a Psychiatric closed Hospital...they cure and free him after 20 years...only for the monster to rape another dozen kids...thats a Fucked-up judicial system :mad:

To be devils advocate here; why?

A person, knowingly and willingly drinks alcohol, to a level at which theie judgement is impaired. They then enter a machine that is as lethal as almost anything we have invented. They operate this machinery in this self inflicted impaired state, and in the process they kill someone. How is the person any less responsible for the death that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.
Pulling the trigger does not show intent to kill, it just shows intent to operate a lethal piece of machinery. Starting a car is the same.

Both are murder, both should be punished the same way.They are just not the same, Pulling the trigger could warrant a death penalty...

but, DrinkandDrinving doesn not warrant the death penalty .

They are just not the same, Pulling the trigger could warrant a death penalty...

but, DrinkandDrinving doesn not warrant the death penalty .
I think overwhelming stupidity that results in manslaughter should warrant the death penalty.
Like getting drunk then driving a large metal box of pointy things..

I think overwhelming stupidity that results in manslaughter should warrant the death penalty.


So, you believe that stupid people should be executed purely on the basis of stupidity? Old idea that one: thing called eugenics, no?

So, you believe that stupid people should be executed purely on the basis of stupidity? Old idea that one: thing called eugenics, no?

He said people should be executed for stupidity, not for being stupid. There is a difference there. He also implied that this stupidity had lethal consequences.
Is there not some value in the idea that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If this is the case then kiling someone by stupidly driving a car whilst drunk is the same as kiling someone by stupidly pulling the trigger of a loaded and safety off gun whilst pointing it at them. If the penalty for one is death, then the penalty for the other should be death.

What is being punished is the action, not the characteristic of being stupid.

They are just not the same, Pulling the trigger could warrant a death penalty...

but, DrinkandDrinving doesn not warrant the death penalty .

Why not? That is the question I am asking.

So, you believe that stupid people should be executed purely on the basis of stupidity? Old idea that one: thing called eugenics, no?
I said "that results in manslaughter." Read the WHOLE sentence

Why not? That is the question I am asking.because DrunkDriving does not have the "intent to kill" element.

because DrunkDriving does not have the "intent to kill" element.
Neither does shooting some one with a firearm some times. It's still resultant in the death of a person. Fatal gross stupidity should count as intent to kill

I agree with the death penality in principal, the problem with it is the judicial system.

Both defence and prosecition lawyers should be employed by the state on a fixed wage. It's an unfortunate fact these days that money can often buy you a get out of jail free card (or a least a lesser sentence).

I said "that results in manslaughter." Read the WHOLE sentence

I read the whole sentence, but at root you are executing them because they are stupid, yes? If they weren't stupid they wouldn't have been responsible for manslaughter.

If this is the case then kiling someone by stupidly driving a car whilst drunk is the same as kiling someone by stupidly pulling the trigger of a loaded and safety off gun whilst pointing it at them. If the penalty for one is death, then the penalty for the other should be death.

What is being punished is the action, not the characteristic of being stupid.

I believe that what is actually being punished in these two different cases depends, in most courts, on the intentions behind them: if you and I are engaged in japery and I accidentally shoot you, then I am likely to be charged with manslaughter, rather than murder. Similarly if I get drunk and run you over by accident then I will be charged with manslaughter. However, if I deliberately (or am perceived to have done so) shoot you or run you over, then I will likely be charged with murder.

Um.. What if you applied your logic differently?

We must not jail anybody, because if you do so, you become the kidnapper you wanted to lock up.

See above. There's no distinction between police taking someone from thier home and locking them away in a prison and criminals taking someone from their home and locking them away in their basement?I've posted this on about 4 or 5 different death penalty threads and have never got an answer.

The Iranian judicial system did not Fuck up...they delivered Justice...and freed their children from a murderer and pedophile rapist.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
.

You wanna know what a Judicial Fuck-up is?? :mad: ...Its when the expert says the monster "had lost his mind"..then Judge sends the monster to a Psychiatric closed Hospital...they cure and free him after 20 years...only for the monster to rape another dozen kids...thats a Fucked-up judicial system :mad:

Nice use of selective quoting there.

I've posted this on about 4 or 5 different death penalty threads and have never got an answer.

You know the answer. The police isn't just 'somebody'. It's the government. And it's (hopefully) for the better of the society. Plus he should get a proper trial and stuff.

Rather than some crazed person kidnapping for no reason.

Unless your talking about the Patriot Act or something. Thats a different case and for another thread.

See above. There's no distinction between police taking someone from thier home and locking them away in a prison and criminals taking someone from their home and locking them away in their basement?
Actually, on second thought, I was wrong. The authorities in Iran were *much* worse than the criminal. The criminal did what he did for his own perverse pleasure; the authorities did it for the perverse pleasure of their whole nation.

"Officials then invited the mother Milad Kahani to put the blue nylon rope around his neck."

'Blue nylon'? How positively gauche.

The death penalty is fine, but the type of public execution done in Iran is too glorified, I think. Making criminals fear the punishment makes sense, but the massive attention they get with a spectacle like that only encourages the egoists and the glory-seekers.

The death penalty is fine, but the type of public execution done in Iran is too glorified, I think. Making criminals fear the punishment makes sense, but the massive attention they get with a spectacle like that only encourages the egoists and the glory-seekers.

Given that the murderer in this case seemed to be driven to commit more than one killing, then in what way is the death sentence to work as a deterent to discourage those who have already killed from killing again?

Given that the murderer in this case seemed to be driven to commit more than one killing, then in what way is the death sentence to work as a deterent to discourage those who have already killed from killing again?

They think it's a deterrent. And also it brings humiliation to the family and the murderer. And "Maybe" bring peace to the family of the bereaved.

It doesn't necessarily deter. But hey, it's Iran. You think they think things out logically? :D

Given that the murderer in this case seemed to be driven to commit more than one killing, then in what way is the death sentence to work as a deterent to discourage those who have already killed from killing again?

I don't care whether it's a deterrent or not, but if it's a circus, some guy's gonna want to be the freak. Let's fry em in private, deny them the attention they want. That's how I'd do it.

But hey, it's Iran. You think they think things out logically? :D

But hey, it's being advocated here by Americans for use in the US. You think they think things out logically?

But hey, it's being advocated here by Americans for use in the US. You think they think things out logically?

I advocate death sentence. Especially for mass murderers who definitely have no chance of getting out of prison. And unless we're going to put him into labour, he's eating taxes.

Well.. thats my reason for death sentence. But he needn't get tortured and humiliated in public.

But thats their laws. "Make him suffer before he dies"..

Actually, on second thought, I was wrong. The authorities in Iran were *much* worse than the criminal. The criminal did what he did for his own perverse pleasure; the authorities did it for the perverse pleasure of their whole nation.

And who are you, Willamena, to judge that this punishment is, by their standards, is a peverse pleasure. If they have a legal system that imposes this kind of punishment, and they do, then it is not perverse in their culture.

Or would you have them decree that what is acceptable in our society, as you are trying to do to their's.

I believe that what is actually being punished in these two different cases depends, in most courts, on the intentions behind them: if you and I are engaged in japery and I accidentally shoot you, then I am likely to be charged with manslaughter, rather than murder. Similarly if I get drunk and run you over by accident then I will be charged with manslaughter. However, if I deliberately (or am perceived to have done so) shoot you or run you over, then I will likely be charged with murder.

While I would like to agree with you, there is the slight difficulty of knowing and showing the actual intentions of another person. You can only get as far as "any normal person would agree that the intention was... ".

There is also the question of getting drunk and then driving. How can this be non intentional? It could happen, under strange circumstances such as non alcoholic drinks being spiked, but it is not usual. If, you accidently shoot someone, because you were intentionaly playing with a gun, you are as likely to be charged with murder as with manslaughter. This is based on the position that you did something intentionaly that you knew could and did lead to the death of a person. The same should apply to drunk driving.

There is also the question of getting drunk and then driving. How can this be non intentional? It could happen, under strange circumstances such as non alcoholic drinks being spiked, but it is not usual. If, you accidently shoot someone, because you were intentionaly playing with a gun, you are as likely to be charged with murder as with manslaughter.In the UK, you might be so charged because firearms are illegal, but the priniciple would be that you were only playing, so it would be manslaughter

This is based on the position that you did something intentionaly that you knew could and did lead to the death of a person. The same should apply to drunk driving.To drunk driving it definitely should apply

You know the answer. The police isn't just 'somebody'. It's the government. And it's (hopefully) for the better of the society. Plus he should get a proper trial and stuff. Hehe, exactly!

I was addressing the "The government can't kill, coz then it's just as bad as a murderer" argument. It is a crappy argument.

And who are you, Willamena, to judge that this punishment is, by their standards, is a peverse pleasure. If they have a legal system that imposes this kind of punishment, and they do, then it is not perverse in their culture.

Or would you have them decree that what is acceptable in our society, as you are trying to do to their's.
I'm am a person expressing an opinion. It is not a judgement; there is no obligation for anyone to abide by my opinion. It is my opinion, and they can have all the opinions they like of me and mine.

1. Actually, on second thought, I was wrong. The authorities in Iran were *much* worse than the criminal. The criminal did what he did for his own perverse pleasure; the authorities did it for the perverse pleasure of their whole nation.

2. I'm am a person expressing an opinion. It is not a judgement; there is no obligation for anyone to abide by my opinion. It is my opinion, and they can have all the opinions they like of me and mine.

Firstly, no one is denying you the right to your opinion. If that is what it is. In post 1. above you state, emphatically and categorically that the authorities were much worse than the criminal. There is no indication that this is an opinion. It is presented as a verifiable statement, not an opinon.

Secondly a judgement is an opinion, it is just an opinion that includes a moral dimension. If I ask whether I should buy a blue car or a silver car, I am asking for an opinion. If I ask if the death penalty is right, then I am asking for a judgement.

Firstly, no one is denying you the right to your opinion. If that is what it is. In post 1. above you state, emphatically and categorically that the authorities were much worse than the criminal. There is no indication that this is an opinion. It is presented as a verifiable statement, not an opinon.

Secondly a judgement is an opinion, it is just an opinion that includes a moral dimension. If I ask whether I should buy a blue car or a silver car, I am asking for an opinion. If I ask if the death penalty is right, then I am asking for a judgement.
1. I'm sorry? Since when is "better/worse" not an opinion? :confused: How could my opinion possibly be verifiable? Others may agree, if their that is also their opinion. I assure you, it is a statement of opinion.

2. Fine. Then I am a person expressing a judgemental opinion.