mass murderer brutally executed in Iran

Double Barrel said:
Even in self-defense? Say your family is being threatened, would you kill someone to protect them? Or would your morality prevent you from taking action and you would simply stand idle while your family is slaughtered? :confused:
You're making two mistakes here.

First, you're assuming that I in every situation would do what my morality says I should do. I am, I'm afraid, no angel.

Second, you missed the part about justification. What you're describing is a situation in which by doing a wrong I can prevent a greater wrong.
 
CurtSibling said:
I am blinded by your shining intellect....Not.

I care not what your reaction is.

Because you are entrenched in an unreal attitude anyway.
*yawn*
During the time this post was made, scores of people were executed worldwide,
do you think it really matters that you cry into your expresso over the humanity of it all?
If I were to do that, it would matter about as much as your preaching does.
A mad dog should be put down - The christian morality play is absurd.
Watch your barking; people might conclude you are a mad dog. :p

Why do you bother? You can't honestly expect that I care what you think.
 
His accomplice, Ali Gholampour, was acquitted of involvement in the murders but was convicted of taking part in some of the kidnappings, to which he confessed. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 100 lashes.

I find this strange. This punishment seems both fair and just?
Had they been after revenge surely he would have been condemned to death also given the hidious nature of the crime and outrage surrounding them?

Iam sure by western standard this would be considered lax. As courts would have also charge him with complacenitcy the murders.

perhapes a short comming ?
 
The Last Conformist said:

Feeling tired?

Why not go to bed?

The Last Conformist said:
If I were to do that, it would matter about as much as your preaching does.

You preach just as long and as often, only to a different tune.
It seems you are merely more interested in trying to look academic.

The Last Conformist said:
Watch your barking; people might conclude you are a mad dog. :p

And since when did I care what the chattering audience thinks?

The Last Conformist said:
Why do you bother? You can't honestly expect that I care what you think.

You insist on answering to my posts, and you expect me to let your rubbish stand unanswered?

If you don't want a response, don't quote and answer my posts.

Even you should be able to understand that one.

:)
 
I hope he burns in islamic hell (which i assume is much worse than normal hell, as muslims never do things half arssed)
 
quite popular during the dark ages. (Insqusition)

dark ages, and inqusistion (i cant spell) were along tiem apart
..............
Humans shouldn't kill (at least in cold blood, one drug dealler shooting another or soldeirs isnt so bad) each other Humans. But when someone murders (and rapes?) 20 kids, they lose there humanity. so its ok to kill them. I think burning them so there alive but burt all over then sand papering.
 
Jawz II said:
are you kidding me?

you dont have to celebrate anything, just admit you were wrong instead of making up insane conspiracy theories!

Well we all know that when the police arrest someone they MUST be guilty. :rolleyes:

And by the way - it's not an "insane conspiracy story". If you knew the incident(s) in Canada that he's referring to you'd undestand this.

The pro-death penalty advocates would be the first ones to jump on Iran as a brutal dictatorship that should be toppled by the mightly lightning bolts from Bush's arse.. yet when it comes to the death penalty they all of a sudden put their faith in their (Iran's) police forces/justice system.
 
RedWolf said:
Well we all know that when the police arrest someone they MUST be guilty. :rolleyes:

And by the way - it's not an "insane conspiracy story". If you knew the incident(s) in Canada that he's referring to you'd undestand this.

The pro-death penalty advocates would be the first ones to jump on Iran as a brutal dictatorship that should be toppled by the mightly lightning bolts from Bushes' arse.. yet when it comes to the death penalty they all of a sudden put their faith in their (Iran's) police forces/justice system.
This makes a very good post for my point of view.
 
the only thing better than the death penalty is working the criminal to death in the acid mines

you don't fight a tiger with a paper knife, we should be cilvilized toward other civilized people, but we should be the most brutal sobs toward other brutal sobs.
 
Syterion said:
1. It is a proven fact that 100% of criminals locked away for life never commit a crime again(any escape's chances are so astronomical that they are negligible).

i can't believe no one caught this little gem :mischief:

um, you've never heard of people in prison killing other prisoners and/or prison guards?
 
The reasons I'm against the death penalty... (in the US)

1) It is unevenly applied when race is factored in (yes, weighting for percentages of crimes committed). A black man is six times more likely than a white man to be executed for the same crime. Six times.

2) One in seven death row inmates is innocent, if he is executed before that is discovered, then no matter how sorry the state is, he's still dead.

3) As revenge, state-sponsored or no, is reprehensible, the only possible value of the death penalty is as a deterrent. Lethal injections won't deter anyone. Executions like this one performed in Iran are what the death penalty should be like. Chalk that one up as a point for the Iranians, assuming this guy was actually guilty. To be a deterrent, executions need to be brutal in the extreme, painful in the extreme, and public in the extreme. Roman-style impalings, hanging (by lifting, not the 'short drop, sudden stop' method), and similar techniques should be used in preference to 'humane' methods. The whole point of execution is that the condemned is less than human, doesn't deserve to live, and is going to serve as an example to others of what society does to people that do what he did. A quick merciful death is the last thing society should grant to someone that it intends to serve as an example.

I would support the death penalty in the US if solid, non-circumstantial evidence, first-hand, unimpeachable eye-witness testimony, or an unforced confession were the only means of securing it, it was sought in every case of the appropriate type regardless of race or other factors, and it was revoltingly brutal, televised on every channel, and done at noon so everyone was awake to watch it, and rebroadcast later that night so night shift workers could watch it when they woke up. Short of those changes, I will oppose it as useless and unfair.
 
ïf youd look up statistcs, you would know, the only point to death penalty would be revenge, and i dont see why revenge is so "reprehensible"

RedWolf said:
Well we all know that when the police arrest someone they MUST be guilty. :rolleyes:

And by the way - it's not an "insane conspiracy story". If you knew the incident(s) in Canada that he's referring to you'd undestand this.

The pro-death penalty advocates would be the first ones to jump on Iran as a brutal dictatorship that should be toppled by the mightly lightning bolts from Bush's arse.. yet when it comes to the death penalty they all of a sudden put their faith in their (Iran's) police forces/justice system.


am i saying that cops never make misstakes?

i am talkin abvout this one specifik case, the serial killer screwed up and left the last victim alive!

it hardly gets any clearer than that, i cant think of any better evidence, unless that kid had a camera strapped to him or something!
 
I would let the family or the one closed to the murdered decide what to do with the criminal.(forgive,jail or death)
A bit barbaric,but i don't see a justifull alternative
 
Akka said:
I agree that justice should be served without passion nor prejudice.

But sorry, I can't really feel empathetic with the guy, and he fully deserved what he got.

Guess it's a case of "I know it's wrong, but I don't care".

I guess those are my feelings too. As an American, I'm appalled by this brutal execution. As a human being, I'm horrified by this mans crimes to a much greater extent.

I think they should change their laws - but I don't feel sorry for this guy at all. Anyone who would do something that bad deserves the worse death imaginable.
 
philippe said:
I would let the family or the one closed to the murdered decide what to do with the criminal.(forgive,jail or death)
A bit barbaric,but i don't see a justifull alternative

Under Islamic law you can pay a "blood price" to the families if they agree to it and be set free. Obviously in this case the families rejected this.
 
I think the principle of REVENGE that goes hand in hand with the death penalty should - and is - being seen as quite anti-christian.

Public executions are to please the lust for revenge of the crowd.

I think it may not be a good thing that this is needed, and there are studies that proof that even terrible executions done to murderers do not prevent others from doing so.

But hell, he did something terrible, and it is just right that he did not fare better in the end.

In a perfect world, we would convert him back to a good citizen. We have no perfect world, let us at least please our lesser feelings, like the lust for revenge and punishment of wrongdoers.

It is barbaric, but I would not stop them from doing this to a mass murder...
 
i still fail to see why revenge is so wrong?

i thought revenge was the only reason for the whole judicial system....

why is it immoral to revenge?

which one of the holy books said "an eye for an eye" ?

i think all 3 ?
 
Jawz II said:
i still fail to see why revenge is so wrong?

open your eyes than

Jawz II said:
i thought revenge was the only reason for the whole judicial system....

I can only judge for my country, but the reason is different, to protect society and to punish. Punishment shall include the possibility to regret. Chopping of heads doesn't fit in here.

Jawz II said:
why is it immoral to revenge?

because the Lord said the revenge is HIS

Jawz II said:
which one of the holy books said "an eye for an eye" ?

As already someone pointed out somewhere the original meaning is that not more than an eye- instead of e-rasing the ehole family or tribe as often found this days- 1st part of you question- the ols testament should be. Becasue ne new one deals with Jesus and he told a lot about loving and forgiving. The NEW testament is in fact more valuable for Christianism- the old one is simply more easy to follow. It's easier to kill than to forgive.

Jawz II said:
i think all 3 ?
I think not.
 
E-Raser said:
I can only judge for my country, but the reason is different, to protect society and to punish. Punishment shall include the possibility to regret. Chopping of heads doesn't fit in here.
I wouldn't care less if a serial killer regretted what he did: he should be working under chains to mines and be treated like a dog, because with death he'd have it easy to leave this world.

Yes, I'm against the death penalty, of course: serial killers/maniacs/lunatics deserve much-much worse penalties than death, and believe me, death would be a redemption for them comparing with other penalties.
E-Raser said:
because the Lord said the revenge is HIS
Which Lord? Lord of the Rings? Gundalf? Lord of the House of Lords?(j/k)
E-Raser said:
It's easier to kill than to forgive.
Who said that I would want to forgive a pshycho or give him a second chance? Will the brutally murdered victims have a second chance(?) - they're dead.
 
Jawz II said:
i still fail to see why revenge is so wrong?

which one of the holy books said "an eye for an eye" ?

i think all 3 ?

And I care what any of the "holy" books say because why? Sorry - I try not to base my laws on a 2000 year old book.
 
Back
Top Bottom