Saudi Arabia to behead and crucify paedophile...

[matthew123]

Steal an apple and be hanged or resist the temptation - what would you choose?

[legalbeagle]

I might steal it anyway. I might die soon if I don't eat. I might be so terrified of the person who ordered me to steal it that I steal it regardless of consequence. I might think that it is impossible to catch me and prove I stole it. I might have an unexplained compulsion to eat only apples because of a medical condition.

It simply is not self evident that capital punishment deters crime.

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd say

> anyone who did what they did then laughed when

> interrogated is almost certainly barking.needs to

> be remved from society, but executed?

The issue here is legal insanity rather than mental abnormality. Mental illness (or, for example, involuntary intoxication, psychosis caused by prescribed medications, etc - so-called exogenous causes) can only provide a defence when someone is unable to form a criminal intent or is unaware of the nature and quality of their actions through delusion, hallucination, irrational thinking (i.e. paranoia), clouding of judgement, etc.

From what I've read about the case, my impression is that the laughter was intended or interpreted as a lack of remorse for the three-year-old victim?s suffering, but there's not enough information in the public domain to form a firm opinion.

In any event, Islam (in common with exorcising Christianity) tends to view mental illness as possession by Jinns [aka Ginns] (i.e. entities similar to Christian evil/unclean spirits). On the other hand, Saudi's medical facilities are amongst the finest in the world: administered and staffed mostly by US doctors under contract - so there's no lack of expertise if the judicial system needs it. I don't know whether modern forensic psychiatry plays any part in the Saudi criminal justice system, though.

BTW, my comment about Amnesty International above is motivated by their hypocrisy: they are quick to highlight Human Rights violations elsewhere in the world (invariably citing mental illness in death penalty cases) but they don't give a monkey's about the failings of the British criminal justice system.

[HAL9000]

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Steal an apple and be hanged or resist the

> temptation - what would you choose?

Theft of food motivated by hunger is not punishable under Sharia Law.

[Mick Mac]

i find your posts informative hal almost without fail.

But as regards Amnesty International and their lack of interest in the uk justice system, they were active in highlighting human rights violations in northern ireland and this was a great help in having these issues brought to international attention.

[Keef]

Questions 4

If the person in question 3 had committed the same crime in the UK, what would be the appropriate punishment?

Answer: whatever the court decides under English Law

Seriously? So the state shouldn't be questioned then if that is how you feel.

By the way, just want to say I'm not trying to fall out with you Mick, and am not picking on you. Just disagree on this one.

[HAL9000]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But as regards Amnesty International

Note: There's Britain and then there is the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.

As far as I am aware they do not campaign on behalf of individuals in conflict with the British criminal justice system whereas they have organised hundreds of campaigns on behalf of foreign individuals under similar circumstances.

My colleagues and I have written - it must be several dozen letters by now - to AI about various Human Rights violations of prisoners convicted within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales. AI has always declined any support or involvement.

[Mick Mac]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But as regards Amnesty International

>

> Note: There's Britain and then there is the United

> Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.

>

> As far as I am aware they do not campaign on

> behalf of individuals in conflict with the British

> criminal justice system whereas they have

> organised hundreds of campaigns on behalf of

> foreign individuals under similar circumstances.

>

I know this subject matter is very contentious and unproven but to prove a point to Hal, here is an example of Amnesty working against the UK government:

Amnesty International supports the call of Geraldine Finucane, Patrick Finucane's widow, to all senior judges in England, Wales and Scotland not to serve on an inquiry into her husband's case held under the new legislation.

"By proposing to hold an inquiry into the Finucane case under the Inquiries Act 2005, the UK government is trying to eliminate independent scrutiny of the actions of its agents. Any judge sitting on such an inquiry would be presiding over a sham," Amnesty International said.

Patrick Finucane, an outspoken human rights lawyer, was shot dead in his home in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on 12 February 1989 by Loyalist paramilitaries. In the aftermath of his killing, prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by police and military intelligence agents, acting in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder, emerged. In addition, allegations have emerged of a subsequent cover-up by different government agencies and authorities.

[Mick Mac]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Questions 4

> If the person in question 3 had committed the same

> crime in the UK, what would be the appropriate

> punishment?

> Answer: whatever the court decides under English

> Law

>

> Seriously? So the state shouldn't be questioned

> then if that is how you feel.

>

> By the way, just want to say I'm not trying to

> fall out with you Mick, and am not picking on you.

> Just disagree on this one.

I like a good argument Keef - you are not likely to fall out with me.

But I'm not quite sure what that question means - I was stating that I agree with whatever is the appropriate sentence in the UK for the crime committed (provided its a life sentence that is).

[HAL9000]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> here is an example of Amnesty working against the UK

> government:

Point taken. I applaud their stance in this case whatever their motive...

> Patrick Finucane, an outspoken human rights

> lawyer, was shot dead in his home in Belfast,

> Northern Ireland, on 12 February 1989 by Loyalist

> paramilitaries.

... although it comes as no surprise that an organisation staffed by Human Rights lawyers has taken up the case of a murdered Human Rights lawyer.

> In the aftermath of his killing,

> prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by police

> and military intelligence agents, acting in

> collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in his

> murder, emerged. In addition, allegations have

> emerged of a subsequent cover-up by different

> government agencies and authorities.

The irony is that we at Innocent, along with many others action groups, have been fighting exactly this sort of high-level corruption for years while Amnesty turned a blind eye - until it bit them in the arse!

[Alabama]

To be absolutely clear on this, I do not feel sympthathy for the paedophile. I feel discomfort about the public execution and crucifixtion and state sanctioned death penalty. I guess what has muddied the waters is that I feel discomfort and not outrage - which I would if this person were to face the same punishment but for a different crime, e.g. stealing. I'm appreciating the interesting and worthwhile debate but PLEASE stop suggesting I feel sympathy for this man or I'm somehow trivialising his crimes, as I'm not. The fact that the crimes are so horrendous means that we are all motivated by emotion (that's hatred and revulsion by the way Mick - not sympathy) as it is impossible not to be - and does that cloud the judgement? I do not agree with the death penalty and feel uncomfortable about the public crucifixtion.

[mockney piers]

Sadly it is the very emotive reaction to his crimes that clouds sensible debate about the death penalty of you ask me.

A quick note on deterrence, in the 1780's over two hundred crimes were punishable by death, from rape and murder through to stealing morethan a shilling, illegally cutting down a tree in an orchard and breaking the border of a fish pond. In 1789 Thomas Morgan and James smith , 14 & 12!!!!!respectively were executed for stealing silk handkerchiefs. In that period 624 people wee executed attyburn alone, yet a crime wave continued.

Two homosexuals were put in pilloried and very nearly stoned to death from the mob that formed to abuse them.

tls like anecdotali grant you but it was precisely this period that led to the end of the death penalty for all but the highest crimes (hence revenge rather than deterrence) and forgive me if the baying righteous (he raped a child/they were sodomisers) should never be they types to make policy.

[Mick Mac]

well if thats not stating the obvious mockney i dont know what is.

The point that is being debated most recently is whether if you disagree with the death penalty, you need therefore to feel discomfort or sympathy about a person executed for the most serious of crimes against children. I have no problem remonciling my objection to the death penalty with a total lack of interest in this mans sentence. I dont see the need to engage in debate to defend his very specific position. This imo is what the debate is about.

[mockney piers]

Actually reading my post I'm not even sure what I'm stating, leave alone that it's obvious.

I think I was trying to underline the point about deterrence, which it seems is not so obvious as there's a whole underlying circular argument that never resolves.

So fair point, anything that needs to have been said, particularly on the narrow point you mention, has been said.

Fair enough.

[Mick Mac]

Well, I'm glad you took it that way Mockney. I had after posting thought it was rathar rude and was going to amend it in the hope I would not annoy you! but was too busy at work.

I did think that similar points to yours had already been made tho and we all agree and understand how we have over time achieved a more thoughtful form of justice to other jurisdictions.

[Mick Mac]

JoJo09 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To be absolutely clear on this, I do not feel

> sympthathy for the paedophile. I feel discomfort

> about the public execution and crucifixtion and

> state sanctioned death penalty. I guess what has

> muddied the waters is that I feel discomfort and

> not outrage - which I would if this person were to

> face the same punishment but for a different

> crime, e.g. stealing. I'm appreciating the

> interesting and worthwhile debate but PLEASE stop

> suggesting I feel sympathy for this man or I'm

> somehow trivialising his crimes, as I'm not. The

> fact that the crimes are so horrendous means that

> we are all motivated by emotion (that's hatred and

> revulsion by the way Mick - not sympathy) as it is

> impossible not to be - and does that cloud the

> judgement? I do not agree with the death penalty

> and feel uncomfortable about the public

> crucifixtion.

Fair enough JoJo. Understood.

I have not yet had anyone say why it makes them uncomfortbale without that suggesting to me that they are thinking of the criminal. But I feel now that it is purely that they do not approve of the barbaric nature of the crucifiction. Which I agree is an awful way to be treated, but in this case I'm not going to lose any sleep over this guy.

[matthew123]

I think the watering down through history of capital punishment is more to do with a maturing civilisation than because of it's positive or negative effect on statistical crime waves... there is no doubt that much of the sentencing was immoral, for instance you could also be hanged for being 'in the company of gypsies for a month'.

I keep hearing this word Revenge, and it suggests punishment is no deterrent. If we are to believe that theory then we may be driven so far to the left by apologists that even more of society becoming lawless - which eventually risks a bounce back towards darker days.

There needs to be a balance - a punishment needs to fit the crime and also act as a deterrent. In this Saudi Arabian case they seem to have it right - otherwise what is the alternative as a fair punishment and deterrent?

[mockney piers]

I genuinely can't follow your logic at all, leaving aside what on earth a watered down capital punishment involves, or the conflatory and implicitly derogatroy use of the terms apologist and left, you seem to think a country that has the legal killing of women who commit adultey as getting it right.

Once more here, society is imperfect because people are imperfect, you acknowledge that watering down capital punishment is a sign of maturity because it acknowledges that, then say that however that is being apologist for criminals and will bring about barbarity (though no evidence of us heading that way that that I can see).

Remeber just because the daily mail screams about our society falling apart doesn't mean it is.

[matthew123]

What has killing a woman because of adultry got to do with passing the death penalty on the murdering Saudi paedophile... oh yes it's all black and white isn't it, get one thing wrong and everything else must be wrong with their entire legal system blah blah blah

Tell me an alternative punishment for this particular man found guilty, taking into account they apparently kill women for adultry, what they gonna do to the 'laughing / mentally ill' Saudi down in the prison / torture chamber. Come on Judge Mockney what is your sentence?

As for 'apologists', that goes back to it's all about Revenge, Revenge, Revenge rather than Justice.. If the death penalty does not act as a deterrent then what the hell other sentences are going to act as a deterrent for other crimes. With that simple logic what is the point of even sending people to prison if it's only purpose is Revenge? Surely no sentence should be given if it is driven by just Revenge.. thus we are driven towards no prison and without prison what is going to hold more people back from breaking the law and committing serious crime (yoga?)... this breakdown would lead to a lawless society. Now how long do you think a lawless society would survive... ultimately to avoid further disintergration order would have to be restored and it wouldn't be by just switching back on the old laws it would require stiffer measures than today.

BTW, I don't read the Daily Mail to know society is falling apart I do that by browsing the EDF... and apologies for the rant but at least I put it through the spell checker ;)

[Huguenot]

"they apparently kill women for adultry"

"apologies for the rant but at least I put it through the spell checker ;)"

no you didn't... ;-)

Punishment as deterrent can only conceivably work if the crime is rational and calculated. There's a crime graph out there that has crime on the 'x' axis and punishment on the 'y'. It goes crime crime, punish punish and under the graph is deterrent deterrent.

When crime pushes into the way f*cking mental zone all other elements fall by the wayside.

I'm surprised that people can argue that punishment is a deterrent, as in this case it clearly has not been! This case proves that it is not a deterrent!

Besides, some people are just too bloody stupid to think beyond the next five minutes. Most criminals fall into this category. 'Punishment' is some vacuous concept that isn't happening to them right now, so it doesn't count. We all do it with fags and booze.

[huncamunca]

.

[vinceayre]

The problem in the English courts is not having a prescriptive regime of punishment that is fixed and not flexible dependant on circumstances.

Mr Robber breaks into a house and steals all the valuables that some poor sod has worked hard for simply because he is a lazy good for nothing. He gets caught and is found guilty. The judge simply opens his little book of punishments and finds page 10: Breaking and entering, theft. 1 year in prison. No get out in six months , no my daddy beat me so can i get out in three months no , I didn't have any money because society let me down educationally and I resent people who have money. Non of these mitigating circumstances or as they are in fact, excuses.

Mr Murderer breaks in and kills a person to steal their goods, gets caught found guilty. The judge simply opens his little book of punishments and finds page 129: Breaking and entering, theft, murder 100 years in prison.

In fact we could all have a vote every 20 years on punishments for crimes, now that would be interesting to see what people really thought.

I believe that if a person has been given half a dozen or a dozen ( the number is pretty much irrelevant) chances to behave within the accepted laws of this society and is unwilling or unable to do so they should be locked away until they die. Why should I as a law abiding person have to accept that these people can do as they please with no final consequence, and if that is going to be the case maybe i should start breaking the law when it suits me as well because there would seem to be no reason for me to obey it.

Justice must be seen to be done for society to work and at the moment we have a system so tied up in red tape by clever lawyers/protest groups that we have little or no faith in it. I believe in the death penalty not as a deterant but as punishment for certain crimes so abhorrent that nothing else will suffice. I look at my beautiful little boy and know that despite my catholic upbringing, despite my despising people who commit murder, despite all this if some person did that to my son they would have to die and very very painfully. So revenge is in my opinion a valid response either by the state in a form of punishment or by an individual let down by the state.

[vinceayre]

The problem in the English courts is not having a prescriptive regime of punishment that is fixed and not flexible dependant on circumstances.

Mr Robber breaks into a house and steals all the valuables that some poor sod has worked hard for simply because he is a lazy good for nothing. He gets caught and is found guilty. The judge simply opens his little book of punishments and finds page 10: Breaking and entering, theft. 1 year in prison. No get out in six months , no my daddy beat me so can i get out in three months no , I didn't have any money because society let me down educationally and I resent people who have money. Non of these mitigating circumstances or as they are in fact, excuses.

Mr Murderer breaks in and kills a person to steal their goods, gets caught found guilty. The judge simply opens his little book of punishments and finds page 129: Breaking and entering, theft, murder 100 years in prison.

In fact we could all have a vote every 20 years on punishments for crimes, now that would be interesting to see what people really thought.

I believe that if a person has been given half a dozen or a dozen ( the number is pretty much irrelevant) chances to behave within the accepted laws of this society and is unwilling or unable to do so they should be locked away until they die. Why should I as a law abiding person have to accept that these people can do as they please with no final consequence, and if that is going to be the case maybe i should start breaking the law when it suits me as well because there would seem to be no reason for me to obey it.

Justice must be seen to be done for society to work and at the moment we have a system so tied up in red tape by clever lawyers/protest groups that we have little or no faith in it. I believe in the death penalty not as a deterant but as punishment for certain crimes so abhorrent that nothing else will suffice. I look at my beautiful little boy and know that despite my catholic upbringing, despite my despising people who commit murder, despite all this if some person did that to my son they would have to die and very very painfully. So revenge is in my opinion a valid response either by the state in a form of punishment or by an individual let down by the state.

[Y'man]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If they behead him what's the point of also then

> crucifying him?

>

They behead him, that's punishment and rightly so to my mind. They then crucify him, that's self gratification and the 'poke your tongue out' mentality. Right or wrong, who's to say, we don't live in their world.

[SteveT]

It would be nice to see the punishment fit the crime, and for it to be seen to be done.

Although legalbeagle says that the death penalty does not stop crime, it certainly stops them committing any other crimes.

Leaglebeagle said we all know that the guildford four and the Birmingham six were guilty until we found out they weren't, but Private Eye had been publishing about the fragility of the cases for years, but the judiciary is so corrupt it was all ignored to enable the police to hang it on someone.

If I were a leagleWeasel I would never choose the death penalty, as it could seriously affect my earnings potential.

This city after dark is a no go area for many inhabitants, and it is my belief that we could reverse that with very little effort.

Straightening out the judicial system in this country will not happen in my lifetime.