What crimes should get the death penalty?

[repiV]

The country IS the people.

 

[Asknoone]

It's an entirely different breed of crime. Crime against the individual is nothing compared to crime against the nation.

I see your point. Not that I'm agreeing.

 

[Solaris]

The country IS the people.

Nope.
Read a dictionary, the people and a country are different things.
One is a geo-political entity and the other is a group of people.

 

[repiV]

Nope.
Read a dictionary, the people and a country are different things.
One is a geo-political entity and the other is a group of people.

And in modern Western societies, that geo-political entity revolves around the people. The government is to be checked and balanced. By our value system, treason is a crime against the people, NOT the government. Hence, leaders can be tried for treason.

 

[Solaris]

And in modern Western societies, that geo-political entity revolves around the people. The government is to be checked and balanced. By our value system, treason is a crime against the people, NOT the government. Hence, leaders can be tried for treason.

I think both me and you would have no ethical quams if someone were to shoot Tony Blair, the shooter however would be tried, and if you got your way, executed.

 

[0mar]

Loose lips sink ships.

Treason is a crime in which every person of that nation is threatened. Regardless of the country, whether it were Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia or the USA, treason should bring the death penalty. If a general defected to the Iraqi resistence, gave away troop movements, personell files, convoy locations, etc etc, don't you think he deserves death? Likewise, if Heinrich Himmler defected to the Allies and gave vital information to them, he would deserve death for betraying his country.

 

[repiV]

I think both me and you would have no ethical quams if someone were to shoot Tony Blair, the shooter however would be tried, and if you got your way, executed.

Yes, they would - for murder. You can't just murder someone and get away with it.
Oh, wait. No they wouldn't - they'd be imprisoned for life. What are you talking about exactly?

 

[Solaris]

Loose lips sink ships.

Treason is a crime in which every person of that nation is threatened. Regardless of the country, whether it were Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia or the USA, treason should bring the death penalty. If a general defected to the Iraqi resistence, gave away troop movements, personell files, convoy locations, etc etc, don't you think he deserves death? Likewise, if Heinrich Himmler defected to the Allies and gave vital information to them, he would deserve death for betraying his country.

What?
If German soldiers, officers and generals had defected the holocaust would not have happened. Millions of lives would have been spared, surely that end alone justifies treason? Both above examples are justified. A country is not right just becuase it is a country.

 

[repiV]

What?
If German soldiers, officers and generals had defected the holocaust would not have happened. Millions of lives would have been spared, surely that end alone justifies treason? Both above examples are justified. A country is not right just becuase it is a country.

From our point of view they are very justified, and that's why they get protection when they defect.
From the other side, it's a very different story. You can't just let people get away with treason simply because ethics are relative. That's absurd.

 

[CptStern]

Loose lips sink ships.

Treason is a crime in which every person of that nation is threatened. Regardless of the country, whether it were Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia or the USA, treason should bring the death penalty. If a general defected to the Iraqi resistence, gave away troop movements, personell files, convoy locations, etc etc, don't you think he deserves death? Likewise, if Heinrich Himmler defected to the Allies and gave vital information to them, he would deserve death for betraying his country.

you voted for dessertion

should this person be executed?

 

[0mar]

you voted for dessertion

should this person be executed?

He should have thought about the consequences of being in the Army before breaking it's rules. He doesn't have any say, the Army owns your ass totally once you sign up. It'd be akin to saying your toaster has rights to refuse to cook your food. He was called to service to serve in war, he refused. Should we give him the Medal of Honor for his "courageous acts"? Or how about the Gold Star for his inspiring acts? Open and shut case. He should hang for his actions.

For the record, I was against the war from day first. I said that it'd solve nothing, fix no problems, and create a thousand more.

 

[CptStern]

He should have thought about the consequences of being in the Army before breaking it's rules. He doesn't have any say, the Army owns your ass totally once you sign up. It'd be akin to saying your toaster has rights to refuse to cook your food. He was called to service to serve in war, he refused. Should we give him the Medal of Honor for his "courageous acts"? Or how about the Gold Star for his inspiring acts? Open and shut case. He should hang for his actions.

For the record, I was against the war from day first. I said that it'd solve nothing, fix no problems, and create a thousand more.

he served in iraq, he just refused to do a second tour of duty ..still a hanging offense? btw there are an estimated 5500 US deserters ..should they hang too? ...if so I'm buying stock in rope

 

[Solaris]

From our point of view they are very justified, and that's why they get protection when they defect.
From the other side, it's a very different story. You can't just let people get away with treason simply because ethics are relative. That's absurd.

I belive in universal moral absolutes. It doesn't matter if your a nazi, hanging defectors is still wrong.

He should have thought about the consequences of being in the Army before breaking it's rules. He doesn't have any say, the Army owns your ass totally once you sign up. It'd be akin to saying your toaster has rights to refuse to cook your food. He was called to service to serve in war, he refused. Should we give him the Medal of Honor for his "courageous acts"? Or how about the Gold Star for his inspiring acts? Open and shut case. He should hang for his actions.

For the record, I was against the war from day first. I said that it'd solve nothing, fix no problems, and create a thousand more.

You're a heartless bastard. I'd give that guy a medal for his bravery in refusing to follow orders that result in killing Iraqis. America has no right in Iraq and you accept that, however you still support executing thoose who refuse to carry out such immoral actions.

 

[JNightshade]

In response to the question posed:

none.

 

[0mar]

he served in iraq, he just refused to do a second tour of duty ..still a hanging offense? btw there are an estimated 5500 US deserters ..should they hang too? ...if so I'm buying stock in rope

He should have thought about the consequences of joining the Army. Saying that one doesn't want to be a part of it anymore is not grounds to disobey a direct order. Desertation is a hangable offense in the Army, and it should be enforced. You can't sign up for the Army, get it's benefits, pay, and training then decide not to be a part of the fighting force when you realize you might have to kill shit. It just doesn't work that way. He signed up for the Army, which has certain obligations, whether right or wrong. He must fufill those obligations or face the punishments.

I belive in universal moral absolutes. It doesn't matter if your a nazi, hanging defectors is still wrong.


You're a heartless bastard. I'd give that guy a medal for his bravery in refusing to follow orders that result in killing Iraqis. America has no right in Iraq and you accept that, however you still support executing thoose who refuse to carry out such immoral actions.

The soldier agreed to certain obligations. Running from those obligations is cowardice, whether he was right or wrong. The Army wants him to serve another tour, he has to serve it, whether he wants to or not. Unfortunately, war is about killing. If he didn't want to do that, maybe he should have found some other way to make money. He had plenty of choices, it wasn't like a recruiter held a gun to his head and forced him to make that choice, nor was he drafted. He willingly choose to serve in the Armed Forces and now he's having doubts? Cowardice and desertation are hangable offenses and he should hang.

Why should he get a medal? For expressing a common sense opinion? He didn't do anything other than insult his profession, his unit and the US military. If he wanted to protest against the war, he should have done that. He should have become a conscientious objector or something along those lines. Instead, he was willing to accept the thousand dollar/month signing bonus, the increased hazard pay, the lifetime medical care, all the benefits of being a soldier and a veteran and now doesn't want to hold up his end of the bargin. People served in WW2 for several tours of duty, saw enough killing to last 10 lifetimes and still went obligating. They had a duty to do and they did it. There are a thousand ways to protest the war, but joining the Army, at a time when the payscale is higher than ever, wasn't a way I was aware of.

You have ****ed up priorities if you think someone like him should get a medal. People like Smedley Butler, Omar Bradley, and George Davis get medals. He's nothing but a coward.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Rape and murder dammit.

 

[Solaris]

He should have thought about the consequences of joining the Army. Saying that one doesn't want to be a part of it anymore is not grounds to disobey a direct order.

He's not saying he doesn't want to be part of the army. He has a moral problem against serving a secound tour in Iraq.

Desertation is a hangable offense in the Army, and it should be enforced. You can't sign up for the Army, get it's benefits, pay, and training then decide not to be a part of the fighting force when you realize you might have to kill shit. It just doesn't work that way. He signed up for the Army, which has certain obligations, whether right or wrong. He must fufill those obligations or face the punishments.

So breach of contract should be a hangable offense? My mate owes me two quid, he promised to give it me yesterday, can I have him shot?

The soldier agreed to certain obligations. Running from those obligations is cowardice, whether he was right or wrong.

Not really, its a damn brave thing to be willing to return facing a court marticial and probably military prison.

The Army wants him to serve another tour, he has to serve it, whether he wants to or not. Unfortunately, war is about killing. If he didn't want to do that, maybe he should have found some other way to make money. He had plenty of choices

He wanted to fight for freedom, not imperialism and oil.

Why should he get a medal? For expressing a common sense opinion? He didn't do anything other than insult his profession, his unit and the US military.

For putting his life on the line by refusing to help partake in an immoral occupation

People served in WW2 for several tours of duty, saw enough killing to last 10 lifetimes and still went obligating. They had a duty to do and they did it. There are a thousand ways to protest the war, but joining the Army, at a time when the payscale is higher than ever, wasn't a way I was aware of.

In WW2 they were fighting Nazism. The Iraqi people are not nazis.

 

[CptStern]

He should have thought about the consequences of joining the Army.

he did, and he still went to iraq ..he deserted because he didnt want to be involved in war crimes

Saying that one doesn't want to be a part of it anymore is not grounds to disobey a direct order.

why not? he didnt want to participate in an illegal war ..are soldiers mindless automatons who shouldnt question orders and do as they're told? ..if you answer yes then you justify all sorts of crimes for the sake of following orders: Hadditha, My Lai etc

Desertation is a hangable offense in the Army, and it should be enforced.

no it's not, I cant think of a single state that still uses hanging as a means of captial punishment ..it falls under "cruel and unusual punishment" ..and no he doesnt face the death sentence: court martial and jail time at worst

You can't sign up for the Army, get it's benefits, pay, and training then decide not to be a part of the fighting force when you realize you might have to kill shit. It just doesn't work that way. He signed up for the Army, which has certain obligations, whether right or wrong. He must fufill those obligations or face the punishments.

gh0st I mean Omar he didnt want to be part of an illegal war ..by your logic it should be george bush and friends who line up at the gallows ..why are they exempt?

The soldier agreed to certain obligations.

so did george bush, specifically not to ****ing lie to american people and send them to their deaths ..he should be executed, why arent you clamouring for justice to be served?

Running from those obligations is cowardice,

you're an idiot sorry but you truely are ..more so because you shoot your mouth off without having the facts ..makes you look like a pompous jackass. If he's a coward why is he returning to the US? he doesnt have to because he has a legitimate claim on canadian citizenship: his wife to be is canadian

whether he was right or wrong. The Army wants him to serve another tour, he has to serve it, whether he wants to or not. Unfortunately, war is about killing.

so by your logic since the commanding officer at hadditha ordered his men to butcher 24 defenseless iraqis (including children under the age of 5) they shouldnt bear the responsibility because they were "just following orders"?

it's completely idiotic and stupid for soldiers to give up their individualism when joining the military ..what sacrifice do those that send them to their deaths make? what pledge of fealty do they take to ensure that they are held accountable should they have less than honest intentions?

If he didn't want to do that, maybe he should have found some other way to make money. He had plenty of choices, it wasn't like a recruiter held a gun to his head and forced him to make that choice, nor was he drafted. He willingly choose to serve in the Armed Forces and now he's having doubts? Cowardice and desertation are hangable offenses and he should hang.

for the last time ..it's not a hangable offense ..jeez you'd think you'd research something your so adamant about (idiotically so) ..and again, HE SERVED his country, he just doesnt want to commit crimes in his country's name ..perhaps you cant see the nobility in that but he's hardly a coward ..a coward would have kept the status quo ..probably explains why 85% of US soldiers in iraq still believe saddam was behind 9/11

Why should he get a medal? For expressing a common sense opinion?

you're pulling shit out of your ass ..no one has said he should get a medal

He didn't do anything other than insult his profession, his unit and the US military.

blah blah blah spare me your nobility bullshit ..nobility doesnt come at the end of a gun

If he wanted to protest against the war, he should have done that. He should have become a conscientious objector or something along those lines.

wtf are you talking about? you cant just arbitrarily say "I dont agree with the war, I dont have to fight" ..it doesnt work that way

Instead, he was willing to accept the thousand dollar/month signing bonus, the increased hazard pay, the lifetime medical care, all the benefits of being a soldier and a veteran and now doesn't want to hold up his end of the bargin. People served in WW2 for several tours of duty, saw enough killing to last 10 lifetimes and still went obligating. They had a duty to do and they did it. There are a thousand ways to protest the war, but joining the Army, at a time when the payscale is higher than ever, wasn't a way I was aware of.

you'll have a hard time proving he joined the army because of inflated pay ..where do you ull this bullshit from? are you just making it up as you go along? please provide sources saying he joined because of higher pay

You have ****ed up priorities if you think someone like him should get a medal. People like Smedley Butler, Omar Bradley, and George Davis get medals. He's nothing but a coward.

earth to raving lunatic!!! ..when the hell did I say he should get a medal? man wipe the foam from your mouth, take a deep breath and reread the thread from the beginning ..point where i said he should get a medal

 

[PvtRyan]

0mar is gh0st? Finkle is Einhorn and Einhorn is Finkle? D:

 

[0mar]

He's not saying he doesn't want to be part of the army. He has a moral problem against serving a secound tour in Iraq.
So breach of contract should be a hangable offense? My mate owes me two quid, he promised to give it me yesterday, can I have him shot?


Not really, its a damn brave thing to be willing to return facing a court marticial and probably military prison.
He wanted to fight for freedom, not imperialism and oil.

It doesn't matter what he wanted, he joined the ****ing Army, not the Boy Scouts. What is the Army's job? To fight wars.

It wasn't a breach of contract, because it specifically says that extra tours of duty can happen.

For putting his life on the line by refusing to help partake in an immoral occupationIn WW2 they were fighting Nazism. The Iraqi people are not nazis.

It doesn't matter what the principles or ideals are, a war is a war and he signed up to fight. You can't quit rolling around in the mud because you don't like how it feels, especially when its your job. He's paid to fight, he should have thought about that before he decided to take all those sweet-ass benefits.

he did, and he still went to iraq ..he deserted because he didnt want to be involved in war crimes

why not? he didnt want to participate in an illegal war ..are soldiers mindless automatons who shouldnt question orders and do as they're told? ..if you answer yes then you justify all sorts of crimes for the sake of following orders: Hadditha, My Lai etc

War crimes are very subjective. What's happening in Iraq is immoral, no mistake about it. But war crimes? I doubt it. It's war, it's all a giant crime. However, he joined the Army, he didn't mind the G-check every two weeks, he didn't mind the free medical care for life, the sweet veteran's benefits. However, when he has to do his duty, he shies away from it. What better word is there, but cowardice.

no it's not, I cant think of a single state that still uses hanging as a means of captial punishment ..it falls under "cruel and unusual punishment" ..and no he doesnt face the death sentence: court martial and jail time at worst

Fine, give him the needle, or whatever the "humane" way is nowadays.

gh0st I mean Omar he didnt want to be part of an illegal war ..by your logic it should be george bush and friends who line up at the gallows ..why are they exempt?

No one wants to be a part of war, but that's the job the Army has. GWB should definitely hang for more than just Iraq, but let's be realistic here. I wouldn't mind seeing him and his cronies (hell, all of Congress) hang. The Army has a job, and it's to fight wars.

so did george bush, specifically not to ****ing lie to american people and send them to their deaths ..he should be executed, why arent you clamouring for justice to be served?

I'm being realistic. Leaders rarely get prosecuted for what they do. GWB deserves to hang.

you're an idiot sorry but you truely are ..more so because you shoot your mouth off without having the facts ..makes you look like a pompous jackass. If he's a coward why is he returning to the US? he doesnt have to because he has a legitimate claim on canadian citizenship: his wife to be is canadian

His cowardice was apparent on it's face when he ran from his duty.

so by your logic since the commanding officer at hadditha ordered his men to butcher 24 defenseless iraqis (including children under the age of 5) they shouldnt bear the responsibility because they were "just following orders"?

The tree rots from the top down. However, the soldiers shouldn't be blamed. They were simply following orders. The CO should have paid the price.

it's completely idiotic and stupid for soldiers to give up their individualism when joining the military ..what sacrifice do those that send them to their deaths make? what pledge of fealty do they take to ensure that they are held accountable should they have less than honest intentions?

Like it or not, that's the way the Army has to work. Everyone can't have a say otherwise nothing would get done. There's a chain of command and everyone has to listen to whomever is above.

for the last time ..it's not a hangable offense ..jeez you'd think you'd research something your so adamant about (idiotically so) ..and again, HE SERVED his country, he just doesnt want to commit crimes in his country's name ..perhaps you cant see the nobility in that but he's hardly a coward ..a coward would have kept the status quo ..probably explains why 85% of US soldiers in iraq still believe saddam was behind 9/11

Look, the politicians deserve death (or worse), but one can't shy away from his/her duty when called upon it.

you're pulling shit out of your ass ..no one has said he should get a medal

I'd give that guy a medal for his bravery in refusing to follow orders that result in killing Iraqis. America has no right in Iraq and you accept that, however you still support executing thoose who refuse to carry out such immoral actions.

I was responding to him.

you'll have a hard time proving he joined the army because of inflated pay ..where do you ull this bullshit from? are you just making it up as you go along? please provide sources saying he joined because of higher pay

I don't need sources, I know human nature. That 1,000 dollar/month signing bonus, hazard pay, benefits are all very tempting. It had to have play a role. If he was so against war and warfare, why'd he join the Army? If he didn't want to kill people, why'd he join the Army? The Army exists to fight wars and kill people. Not only is a coward, but also stupid.

earth to raving lunatic!!! ..when the hell did I say he should get a medal? man wipe the foam from your mouth, take a deep breath and reread the thread from the beginning ..point where i said he should get a medal

I'd give that guy a medal for his bravery in refusing to follow orders that result in killing Iraqis. America has no right in Iraq and you accept that, however you still support executing thoose who refuse to carry out such immoral actions.

Also, the penalty for desertion is death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion

The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death, although this punishment was last applied to Eddie Slovik in 1945.

It's just been a while since it was carried out.

 

[Viperidae]

Quote wars make kitty unhappy.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Last night I posted on this topic, overnight, it became 5 pages long. WOW!

 

[Dog--]

If you kill, then you should be killed.. If you spy, then you should get spied on in the shower :naughty:.. If you rape, then you get raped in the ass by some guy named Bubba in prison. Bitchs.

BTW, I don't see the difference between murdering a child, and murdering an adult, same with rape.. they are both humans, therefore the same.

 

[delusional]

people find it more offensive when a child is killed since they didnt have a chance to have a fuller life

 

[Steel.Inferno]

Never.

There are worse punishments than death for criminals such as these.

While it would be nice to be able to use "just" punishments, life in prison with no parole or appeal, is still worse than death.

Of course, that's assuming the country in question has suitable, secure, not overcrowded prisons, which most don't. In that case, kill them to make society safe.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Treason - defecting to the enemy should almost always be observed as an act of either protest or rebellion.

If the person betrayed because someone in his squad did something morally reprehensible, it could be considered an act of protest. If however, the person betrayed for the same reasons and inflicted injuries on this person or others of the side he was once with, life in prison; death debatable. But these factors depend on whats being presented and ultimately with at the end of it all the jury determines guilt or innocence and rules a penalty for either of these factors to any of the parties involved.

If the person betrayed because of a differing political view and intended to inflict harm on other people from its former side, death penalty optionable. Depends on what the jury rule and the evidence for something like life in prison. Rehabillitation? Possible. But the circumstances will weigh heavily on what else is in store for the person responsible of treason.

Murder 1 - depends on the actual murder and the circumstances. Quick, painless? Tortured and suffering? These things, will depend and the decisions for the guilty will weigh heavily on whats being presented or known to the case the people dealing with it. Rehabillitation acknowledged.

Rape of adults - depends on the violence for the act; and if the person raped was disabled for the rest of they're life from this act. Or, if the person was killed. If violent, but no murder, just physical and emotional scars, death penalty should not be warranted. Rehabillitation acknowledged.

Rape of Childern - Death penalty, probably not. Again, I stress what I stressed with the adults being raped. Rehabillitation acknowledged. Also, depends wholely on the crime. If a 15 year old trusts and enjoys having a physical or mentally intimate relationship with someone who is older but the parent swears up and down rape, it depends if the evidence points to it being a "rape" or not. Such things are interpretive, and certain crimes I believe should not warrant punishment if the parties involved are not emotionally or physically harmed, nay threatened. Certainly if the parent of the child is stressed and would wish for the relationship to stop, even if it was'nt harmful, the courts can legally exercise the right of the parent and make sure the venture is not pursued. Certain societies allow for such behaviors. However, certain evidence might be found later that a harmless relationship was infact harmful -- so child abuse crimes should always been handled with the utmost scrutinity. A sexual educator can technically be charged with sexual abuse because he's telling the children about they're bodies. Alls the child has to say is that he did'nt like what was going on, and BLAM! Instant finger in the Chili from the Wendys type scandal.

Theft - Death penalty? For this? Steal enough and its life buddy! If that ... but again, leaves to the jury to decide. If you know, the thefts were carried out brutally or resulted in loss of life.


Murder of law enforcement - Death possible. If the murder of law enforcement was to protect oneself from inappropriate force being enacted by the members of those services, its heavily debatable. Even for an element like punishment -- but this has to be argued appropriately and must involve bodies outside the case to ensure that nuetrality in this cases decision is maintained.

This removes the justice system locally dealing with this to give an unfair trail or exhibit vigilante justice over the accused.

If the murder of law enforcement was for a political reason and carried out without thought, or even with second thought, death is extremely possible. But cases like this must be monitored. And justice ensured.

Dessertion - Simply leaving does not warrant the death penalty, or life. You traded peace for peace essentially. If your leaving however inadverntley caused a death or wound in your countries operations, punishment is optional, but should never be dictated initially.

Spying - If proven, must be delt with in the forms of execution. However, case must be continually proded, open, closed, and opened again to ensure guilt is aimed at the right person. Jury must also be aware of dissent the alledged spy might try to spread. If he was, but causes enough doubt, letting him go with whatever information he knows is extremely dangerous and cannot be allowed.

If its known he is a spy, the government takes control so the public cannot in favor of his acts to disable the security over citizens, succeeds. From they're what happens to him will occur in a conversation between countries at the UN, and nothing more.

 

[Raeven0]

Death doesn't seem like a reparation, a rehabilitation, or a deterrent. What's the point?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Death can be a deterrent. It was never meant to be a rehabillitation. But I'm not advocating its use -- only explaining on why it was potentially used before.

 

[DaMaN]

I tend to argue against the death penalty - only on the grounds that death is ultimate and final.

It could be possible to be wrongly convicted of a death penalty crime, and be killed for it. I personally wouldn't like to be killed over something I didn't do.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

does killing a child rapist solve the problem of child/teen rapists? Not really. Much more effective ways of dealing with that kind of problem.

I voted never, but I think in a scenario, where death seems to be the only way to solve a problem, then i guess its ok. Death for revenge is in no way alright and should be shunned.