StarGateWars Forums

i'm in favour of capital punishment for scum like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/0 ... n-offences
and this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arker.html
and this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 471327.ece so long as it is backed by irrefutable evidence such as DNA or caught in the act video evidence, or anything else which proves NOT beyond reasonable doubt evidence(i dont class reasonable doubt as solid ground with which to execute someone), but as i said, 100% concrete and irrefutable evidence...

what say ye brits?

i also welcome comments from non-brits...obviously.

As a non-Brit I am jealous of the existence of irrefutable and concrete evidence.. as a human being I am quite convinced there is no such thing.. but I understand the sentiment, and would rather have one hundred people killed of which ten were guilty of the horrible and sickening crimes these people allegedly committed, instead of letting nine guilty people go and kill the one who we'd have this exceptional kind of evidence to convict for.


edit; That was a messed up sentence, let me see if I can get it right.
I understand the sentiment. From 100 serious suspects of crimes like this, it would be best to have them all killed and eradicate the 10 guilty people among them, instead of waiting for irrefutable and concrete evidence - which I believe does not exist of anything - and letting 9 of the 10 guilty people go free, because we only have evidence for the 1.



Did that make sense, grammatically? I can see it wouldn't make ethical sense, but .. did I get my point across? This kind of crimes .. bah. I need a drink. Human scum.

i understand what your saying and to some degree i agree that letting the guilty go because they are shall we say and for lack of a better way to put it...lost in a crowd is not acceptable. however, the way you describe it (and to give credit that you acknowledge this) is throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.

of the 3 cases i posted links to above ALL 3 are guilty beyond every measure of the word 'guilty' so i would class that as irrefutable and concrete...

if you see what i'm getting at.

Death penalty? Nah, forced labour camps....at least make them useful

Capital Punishment is not the answer. Although I do agree sever punishments should be passed, who gives us the right to say who can live or die?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Capital Punishment can be used as a suppression of freedom and justice, when is it ever just to murder someone?

I use the term murder because you are indeed murdering them if one does pass down capital punishment.

Death penalty? Nah, forced labour camps....at least make them useful

Thats what im thinking too..... i.e Work them to death haha

you of all people who frequent this part of the forum should know that capital punishment under certain circumstances is sanctioned by the bible?


such as:

Crimes that deserved the death penaly in the Old Testament:

[spoiler]According to Numb 35:31 there are criminals which "deserves to die". In the Old Testament the following crimes deserved the death penalty:

1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).

2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).

3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17).

4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23).

5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).

6. Practising magic (Ex 22:18).

7. Fortune telling and practising sorcery (Lev 20:27).

8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20).

9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).

10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21).

11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).

12. The daughter of a priest practising prostitution (Lev 21:9).

13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).

14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).

15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).

16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).

17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13). (i couldn't agree more with this 1!!!)

18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).

19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19).

20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13).

The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8).[/spoiler]

there is no one who claims that every age and every country has to introduce the death penalty for exactly the crimes that are described in these Biblical books written thousands of years ago. The most important and conclusive fact is that the Bible as a principle accepts the capital punishment as a legitimate form of punishment. The Bible gives "the divine sanctification" to the death penalty.

PS, someone forgot to add paedophilia to the above list

PSS. sick individuals such as those i linked to in my original post should be publicly stoned to death, hanging is to good for them and i will be the first in line to throw the first stone!

Wait. Difference between deserving to die and having to die must be expressed.

i thought it was obvious?

deserve to, as those above...

have to? i dont follow.

We both expressed an ethical concern earlier that circles around an issue of definition.

Billy deserves to die, because Billy acted against the aforementioned laws. However, killing Billy would be murder, (which coincidentally appears as Capital Offence number 1 on your list). Next prudent question would be, does Billy have to die?
If Billy's death is the only way his crimes can be 'avenged' or 'balanced out', then yes, Billy has to die. Someone will have to kill Billy; thus taking on themselves the burden and guilt of 'justified murder'.
If Billy's crime can be balanced out by another punishment, then that punishment becomes the logical preferred choice, as killing Billy would be a Capital Offence. It stands to reason that killing Billy would require another killing, namely the killing of his executioner.
Endless circle.



So, we can agree that mr. Barker deserves to die for his alleged crimes; but can we agree that he has to die? There are a few in this thread who expressed their opposition, and in fact suggested an idea that might indeed have merit above killing mr. Barker.
That is my point, which I crudely expressed as the question "deserve to or have to?"

forgive my slowness, i'm with you now.


hmmm...well that's a tough 1 for sure!

it will probably depend on the why and how billy killed. IE, if billy went on a murderous rampage and would do it again if freed (as many murderers have expressed after being caught), then he deserves death and it should be carried out without mercy.

if billy was walking along and someone tried to mug him and he defended himself but in the course of defending himself he killed the attacker, then no punishment should given to billy if it was the only way to stop the attacker...unless he went out of his way to kill the attacker.
if billy goes out of his way to kill the attacker then he should get life in prison because he was first provoked.

we could go on and on and on with these hypothetical situations involving billy and anyone else we can think of lol

If Billy, a convicted murder, is killed by the state, through the legal system, then it is not murder by definition, because it is sanctioned by the law.

If Billy, a convicted murder, is killed by the victim's family, outside the legal system, then it is indeed murder, and the killer in this instance is, therefore, guilty of murder.



A subtle difference, and some would say completely superficial difference, but that is why you're endless circle does not appear OB

well, all i can say about scumbags like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 054001.ece
is, the family should have the right to exact bloody retribution on the perpetrator in ANY way they deem fit!

sorry, thats just the way i feel about it...whether i am right or grossly wrong, IS a debate for another topic.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:you of all people who frequent this part of the forum should know that capital punishment under certain circumstances is sanctioned by the bible?


such as:

Crimes that deserved the death penaly in the Old Testament:

[spoiler]According to Numb 35:31 there are criminals which "deserves to die". In the Old Testament the following crimes deserved the death penalty:

1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).

2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).

3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17).

4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23).

5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).

6. Practising magic (Ex 22:18).

7. Fortune telling and practising sorcery (Lev 20:27).

8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20).

9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).

10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21).

11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).

12. The daughter of a priest practising prostitution (Lev 21:9).

13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).

14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).

15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).

16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).

17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13). (i couldn't agree more with this 1!!!)

18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).

19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19).

20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13).

The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8).[/spoiler]

there is no one who claims that every age and every country has to introduce the death penalty for exactly the crimes that are described in these Biblical books written thousands of years ago. The most important and conclusive fact is that the Bible as a principle accepts the capital punishment as a legitimate form of punishment. The Bible gives "the divine sanctification" to the death penalty.

PS, someone forgot to add paedophilia to the above list

youforgot to mention that:
in old times the court was an assembly of 70 wise man (known as "senhadrin"), and that a senhadrin that sanctioned even 1 person in 70 years to death was considered a "lethal senhadrin". execution was just not that acceptable punishment in those times (in cummunities following the bible. i have no information regarding other communities).

i wasn't aware of that. i was only aware that capital punishment was sanctioned in the bible, and that's the basis for protestant nations use of this as a punishment....

we all live and learn, still, i am in favour of it for such heinous crimes as those i have linked to above.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 559750.stm

The father's minimum jail term of 19-and-a-half years was cut to 14-and-a-half years at the Court of Appeal in May 2009.