So what's your preferred fun way of doing it....

I think that should be up to the victims family,

Personally I don't think they should be coddled all comfy cozy and lulled into unconsciousness with sedatives, (they're doing that now even before they put you in the chair).

In family matters (as in organized) the method fits the crime, being beaten to death slowly with shovel heads (after you've already dug your own grave with said shovel) is popular.

Or you could be taken out quick and sweetly with a .22 to the brain stem via the ear.

khall64au - No worries we all have differing opinions on issues such as the death penalty, politics, religion. I still think you are lovely person even though I disagree with you.

If everyone agreed on everything what a boring place the world would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow....... this was the first thing I saw in Bedlam when I logged back in - your post, BM! Thanks......our differing opinions do count! It is what makes the world go round.

If the jailers were humanly trained to deal with the world's criminals, our society's could be a better place!

Come on Khall, that's PC gone nuts. The criminals get treated very well in the majority of the world's prison's. 3 square meals a day and satellite TV. Better off than than alot of the worlds unfortunates, who still have more self respect than to go out and commit crime.

As for reform, the one's we're talking about here are people who would otherwise be executed and so, if serving jail time, they would not be released anyways. Why try to reform them? They're going to be put back into society.

They should at the very least be treated like the &lt;deleted&gt; way in which they treated their victims. By the sounds of it, you would like them to be tucked up every night, with a hot cup of Cocoa and put to sleep after singing them a lullaby

Mr Bj............. I expected alot more from you........... too bad! I didn't think we'd come to this! I'd like to express myself in a forum that revealed more in life. You caught me by surprise. I didn't think we'd come to this........!! sorry!

Khall, i'm upset that you have taken my views so personally, they where certainly not meant that way. For that i apologise, but i can't apologise for my view, in which way "I personally" think, mass murderers (in particular) should be treated.

I fully concur with what Brit said, i too think that you are a lovely person, even though we disagree on this issue but this is only a discussion and not to be taken personally. And by the looks of it, it is about the only thing that we do disagree on, so that's not too bad eh

No death penalty. To me it is a barbaric anomaly.

You do not show others the value of life by killing.

Revenge should not be the driving force in the justice system.

I have always the same reply when this question is asked to me. I can´t tell. I reserved my own opinion. I have never been in a situation where any of my family member or people I love have been assesinated, tortured, raped...

If that ever happen ( i hope not) I don´t know what I will do...

If someone do something bad to my beloved ones...I just don´t know how I will react...

I only hope I never have to find out....

Khall,

Jailers in most western countries are trained to deal with prisoners in a humane way, The emphasis is on rehabilitation, Prisoners are in prison as punishment not for punishment, the removal of their liberty being punishment enough. Khall, are you aware that a crim can leave jail with a uni degree that is paid for by the state, whereas a law abiding citizen has to pay and sacrifice for the same thing. Where is the justice in that??

Some people actually commit crimes to return to prisons because they cant handle life outside or to take advantage of the benefits they have inside. Some have managed to control their drug habits while inside, they are given courses in such things as Anger management, drug rehab, drink rehab, sex offender courses etc...

You have to look at it from the crims point of view....I do a crime and go to jail, I get food and lodging, I get education, Eventually I may get to a low security prison where I can get extra benefits. I also get to meet a lot of people and have a society that I can fit into. Why wouldnt they do the crime???...If the thought was, "if I do this I could end up dead" I am sure that a lot of them wouldnt do the crime in the first place.

Please dont put the blame on the officers at the prisons, They do a very dangerous job, every day thay go home with a bloodless shirt is a good day. I think that most of them would have been offended by your comment. I deal with crims every day and I know that every day I go home without a major incident, I count my blessings.

BTW....I know this thread was started in response to another closed thread. The recent execution of a certain Oz drug mule....in the news today, the preacher for the first time revealed that Van Nguyen did indeed have a shady past, something I hinted at previously, he was not the innocent that the media portrayed. He turned from this shady past only 2 years ago....1 year after he was caught and jailed.

I was wondering if everyone who is FOR the death penalty could also comment briefly (briefly!) on their opinion on abortion? It's highly relevant to any serious exploration of the death penalty and whether or not ones views in advocating a certain course of action are consistent or perhaps the product of emotions (such as 'if my daughter was murdered I would x or y').

I was wondering if everyone who is FOR the death penalty could also comment briefly (briefly!) on their opinion on abortion? It's highly relevant to any serious exploration of the death penalty and whether or not ones views in advocating a certain course of action are consistent or perhaps the product of emotions (such as 'if my daughter was murdered I would x or y').

Yes....abortion is the killing of a complete innocent.....execution is not

Khall,

Some have managed to control their drug habits while inside, they are given courses in such things as Anger management, drug rehab, drink rehab, sex offender courses etc...

Well, rehabilitation is a good thing for all of society, don't you think?

BTW....I know this thread was started in response to another closed thread. The recent execution of a certain Oz drug mule....in the news today, the preacher for the first time revealed that Van Nguyen did indeed have a shady past, something I hinted at previously, he was not the innocent that the media portrayed. He turned from this shady past only 2 years ago....1 year after he was caught and jailed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What was his shady past, that he left 2 years ago?

Does it warrant his execution for drug smuggling?

I was wondering if everyone who is FOR the death penalty could also comment briefly (briefly!) on their opinion on abortion? It's highly relevant to any serious exploration of the death penalty and whether or not ones views in advocating a certain course of action are consistent or perhaps the product of emotions (such as 'if my daughter was murdered I would x or y').

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatever the expectant mum decides - her body her choice.

Khall,

Some have managed to control their drug habits while inside, they are given courses in such things as Anger management, drug rehab, drink rehab, sex offender courses etc...

Well, rehabilitation is a good thing for all of society, don't you think?

BTW....I know this thread was started in response to another closed thread. The recent execution of a certain Oz drug mule....in the news today, the preacher for the first time revealed that Van Nguyen did indeed have a shady past, something I hinted at previously, he was not the innocent that the media portrayed. He turned from this shady past only 2 years ago....1 year after he was caught and jailed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What was his shady past, that he left 2 years ago?

Does it warrant his execution for drug smuggling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Singapore he deserved it!!!

I was wondering if everyone who is FOR the death penalty could also comment briefly (briefly!) on their opinion on abortion? It's highly relevant to any serious exploration of the death penalty and whether or not ones views in advocating a certain course of action are consistent or perhaps the product of emotions (such as 'if my daughter was murdered I would x or y').

Yes....abortion is the killing of a complete innocent.....execution is not

A good question Will, one that is more than worthy of it's own thread but to answer briefly. I would concur with gburns view. However, i do have certain reservations as to the wishes of the parents being taken into account.

Khall,

Some have managed to control their drug habits while inside, they are given courses in such things as Anger management, drug rehab, drink rehab, sex offender courses etc...

Well, rehabilitation is a good thing for all of society, don't you think?

BTW....I know this thread was started in response to another closed thread. The recent execution of a certain Oz drug mule....in the news today, the preacher for the first time revealed that Van Nguyen did indeed have a shady past, something I hinted at previously, he was not the innocent that the media portrayed. He turned from this shady past only 2 years ago....1 year after he was caught and jailed.

What was his shady past, that he left 2 years ago?

Does it warrant his execution for drug smuggling?

rehab only works if the offender is willing to accept and use it....many use it as a means of early release, then go back and do the same things again. The onus is really on parents.....monkey see, monkey do.....a child raised with the right morals is less likely to offend.

Van was a gang member....well and truly enmeshed in the drug trade long before he got caught. The media was playing for sympathy so unlike the Bali 9, his previous history and any other air movements he made was kept out of it.

Yes....abortion is the killing of a complete innocent.....execution is not

I would concur with gburns view.

Is this to say you would not permit abortion but would permit death penalty in certain cases?

Certainly justified in the case of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot and the like...

Yes....abortion is the killing of a complete innocent.....execution is not

I would concur with gburns view.

Is this to say you would not permit abortion but would permit death penalty in certain cases?

Will, please don't try to twist the topic round. Like i said before it's worth a topic of it's own, so if you'd like to start a topic on Abortion, i would be more than willing to contribute my views.

I think for a topic of this particular nature, with 78 replies, all staying on topic, with constructive, educated views and no ranting, it's pretty good. I'd appreciate it if we could keep it on track.

Cheers

But that's where you are misinformed. Your opinion on abortion is highly relevant to your opinion on capital punishment.

This is not a question of the issues involved in the arguments about death penalty pro vs against but rather one of the validity of your thoughts. The reason such a comparison is vital to answering a question about either abortion or capital punishment is that in comparing your PROs and your CONs you can see if your opinion is the result of a logical bit of thinking or an error of your emotions, or perhaps unquestioning product of your parents, or what you were taught at school but never questioned, or just simple stupidity. Simply - did you think this through.

In this specific case, I hinted earlier that there might be a contradiction brewing in some peoples opinions on the death penalty. If you we can never allow capital punishment yet you think abortion is ok in certain circumstances then you are contradicting yourself in logical terms. Similarly, maintaining that abortion is wrong yet the death penalty can be used sometimes is also illogical.

If you want me to go deep into the formal logic of why this is the case I'd be happy to, but perhaps you can see it for yourself now.

Whatever you happen to believe about the issue of the death penalty, you need to be consistent and make good logical sense if you want to convert anyone to your side of the argument. The only way you are exempt from this is if you really don't care about being rational at all but that position causes you a whole host of bigger problems.

So as you see, my post was the most 'on track' yet.

But that's where you are misinformed. Your opinion on abortion is highly relevant to your opinion on capital punishment.

This is not a question of the issues involved in the arguments about death penalty pro vs against but rather one of the validity of your thoughts. The reason such a comparison is vital to answering a question about either abortion or capital punishment is that in comparing your PROs and your CONs you can see if your opinion is the result of a logical bit of thinking or an error of your emotions, or perhaps unquestioning product of your parents, or what you were taught at school but never questioned, or just simple stupidity. Simply - did you think this through.

In this specific case, I hinted earlier that there might be a contradiction brewing in some peoples opinions on the death penalty. If you we can never allow capital punishment yet you think abortion is ok in certain circumstances then you are contradicting yourself in logical terms. Similarly, maintaining that abortion is wrong yet the death penalty can be used sometimes is also illogical.

If you want me to go deep into the formal logic of why this is the case I'd be happy to, but perhaps you can see it for yourself now.

Whatever you happen to believe about the issue of the death penalty, you need to be consistent and make good logical sense if you want to convert anyone to your side of the argument. The only way you are exempt from this is if you really don't care about being rational at all but that position causes you a whole host of bigger problems.

So as you see, my post was the most 'on track' yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whaoo !!! what a perfect exposure of logic arguments. Don't expect a logic answer from the Pro Death Penalty/Pro Life type though. You got it right.

What is the logic behind all this ? a lot of logic contradictions. Mostly because it's all judgemental and emotional justification. Not logical justification.

But that's where you are misinformed. Your opinion on abortion is highly relevant to your opinion on capital punishment.

OK Will, i see your point but the argument as to what is a "Human life" is the point i was making about this thread going off topic. There are some that feel a newborn is a human person. People disagree about whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human person. People also have different opinions about the stage at which human life becomes a human person. This is the core disagreement that drives the abortion conflicts. That is why i feel "abortion" deserves a thread of it's own, so that we don't all go off at tangents.

This thread is about, clearly defined "Human Life" who commit crimes that in some countries warrant execution and whether you agree with that said punishment.

For instance. In the news at the moment, an Iraqi militant group are holding four Western peace activists hostage and they have extended the deadline for their execution, al-Jazeera reports. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4508640.stm

These are people who have voluntarily gone out to Iraq in the name of peace but this militant group may execute them.

Now, my point is, if the Militants do execute this group of innocent men (trying to help others in the name of peace) and then were subsequently caught. What punishment would you think, best suits that crime? Bearing in mind, the captives never had the chance of a "fair" trial or the fact that the executioners never executed them in a "humane" way i.e. Lethal injection.

P.S. I know that they haven't executed them yet but many other militants have done this before.

But that's where you are misinformed. Your opinion on abortion is highly relevant to your opinion on capital punishment.

This is not a question of the issues involved in the arguments about death penalty pro vs against but rather one of the validity of your thoughts. The reason such a comparison is vital to answering a question about either abortion or capital punishment is that in comparing your PROs and your CONs you can see if your opinion is the result of a logical bit of thinking or an error of your emotions, or perhaps unquestioning product of your parents, or what you were taught at school but never questioned, or just simple stupidity. Simply - did you think this through.

In this specific case, I hinted earlier that there might be a contradiction brewing in some peoples opinions on the death penalty. If you we can never allow capital punishment yet you think abortion is ok in certain circumstances then you are contradicting yourself in logical terms. Similarly, maintaining that abortion is wrong yet the death penalty can be used sometimes is also illogical.

If you want me to go deep into the formal logic of why this is the case I'd be happy to, but perhaps you can see it for yourself now.

Whatever you happen to believe about the issue of the death penalty, you need to be consistent and make good logical sense if you want to convert anyone to your side of the argument. The only way you are exempt from this is if you really don't care about being rational at all but that position causes you a whole host of bigger problems.

So as you see, my post was the most 'on track' yet.

If a woman becomes pregnant after being raped, then I think that abortion should be allowed. If a person commits a crime that carries the death penalty then so be it. In each case the circumstances of the situation needs to be looked at. One cannot say I approve of this or that in a general sense.

Your original question was if you ar pro death penalty are you also pro abortion, The answer is YES...depending on the circumstances involved.

But that's where you are misinformed. Your opinion on abortion is highly relevant to your opinion on capital punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK Will, i see your point but the argument as to what is a "Human life" is the point i was making about this thread going off topic. There are some that feel a newborn is a human person. People disagree about whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human person. People also have different opinions about the stage at which human life becomes a human person. This is the core disagreement that drives the abortion conflicts. That is why i feel "abortion" deserves a thread of it's own, so that we don't all go off at tangents.

This thread is about, clearly defined "Human Life" who commit crimes that in some countries warrant execution and whether you agree with that said punishment.

For instance. In the news at the moment, an Iraqi militant group are holding four Western peace activists hostage and they have extended the deadline for their execution, al-Jazeera reports. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4508640.stm

These are people who have voluntarily gone out to Iraq in the name of peace but this militant group may execute them.

Now, my point is, if the Militants do execute this group of innocent men (trying to help others in the name of peace) and then were subsequently caught. What punishment would you think, best suits that crime? Bearing in mind, the captives never had the chance of a "fair" trial or the fact that the executioners never executed them in a "humane" way i.e. Lethal injection.

P.S. I know that they haven't executed them yet but many other militants have done this before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The militants who kill these people feel that they are guilty of a capital offense beyond a reasonable doubt...I'm sure...I guess in some places they go through the motions of a trial before they kill someone and in other places they just dispense with the time wasteful trial process. Militants feel that their system of justice is better than yours!!! I imagine that you feel that yours is better than theirs!!! If you think that more of your friends agreeing with you that your way is better actually makes your way better or that this will convince them that they are wrong then I think you are mistaken, and I would say the exact same thing to them.

4 missionaries and an electrician. You have to love those terrorists - do pick worthy targets.

In relation to the recent Singapore execution that prompted this topic - the following news story may be of interest to this discussion :

Hangman has the final say

Michael McKenna

December 03, 2005

HIS was the last face that hundreds of prisoners saw before the noose was placed around their necks as they heard the now well-known final promise of being sent to "a better place". But until this week, the identity of Singapore's chief executioner, Darshan Singh - who admits to having hanged more than 850 condemned men and women in a 46-year career - has been a secret in his own country.

The pot-bellied, Malaysian-born grandfather made a surprise public appearance, featuring in a two-page article in the government-owned tabloid The New Paper, in an unexpected, and unintended, debate in the city-state over its death penalty laws.

The cause of this rare local publicity for Singapore's capital punishment in the paternalistic state dominated by founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party was Australian Nguyen Tuong Van.

The convicted drug courier early yesterday lost his fight for survival, dying on the gallows at the new Changi Prison almost three years to the day after he was arrested with 396g of heroin in transit at Singapore's international airport.

But to some Singaporeans, Van's death has given life to the possibility of reform of the mandatory death sentence laws that have made the thriving Asian hub of four million people one of the execution capitals of the world. Amnesty International estimated last year that more than 400 people had been hanged in Singapore between 1991 and 2003.

Despite the numbers and, partly due to scant local coverage of the frequent Friday morning killings, opposition to the death penalty has been almost non-existent in the republic's 40-year history.

The Government, headed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, has left the executions in near secrecy, never announcing a scheduled hanging and prohibiting officials from ever talking. Instead, the unwavering policy of dealing death, mostly to non-violent offenders (100 of the 138 executed from 1999 to 2003 were for drug-related offences) has long been justified to its population, and the rest of the world, as keeping its famously clean streets from a drug scourge plaguing Southeast Asia.

"In the case of drug trafficking, the death penalty has deterred drug syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore," a government website says in response to the Amnesty International report.

And the death penalty seems to be supported by Singaporeans. While there has never been a definitive study, some past polls have shown that up to 70 per cent of Singaporeans back the laws.

The common view of Singaporeans who spoke to Inquirer was: "They knew the laws, paid the price and there are few cities as safe as ours in the world."

But while the deterrent affect of Singapore's capital punishment is debatable, it is not something that, until the Van case, has ever had a real chance of being widely questioned.

According to local reporters, lawyers and civil libertarians, it was only earlier this year, with the May 13 hanging of Van's death-row friend and champion athlete Shanmugan Murugesu, 38, that the city-state's anti death-penalty movement gained traction.

A civil rights group, the Think Centre, marshalled the popularity of the internet among young Singaporeans to bypass the pro-government mainstream media and protest against Murugesu's hanging for smuggling 1kg of marijuana and call for abolition of the death penalty.

In August, that action was followed by a concert at which police barred demonstrators from displaying the image of Murugesu and forced the removal of T-shirts saying Abolish Death Penalty and F--- Your Politics.

But the protests, and the message, hardly rated a mention in the leading newspapers or broadcasters. It was hardly surprising.

This year, global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore as 140th out of 167 countries in its annual press freedom index, alongside the likes of Azerbaijan (141), Egypt (142) and Syria (145). RSF attributed Singapore's ranking to the absence of independent newspapers as well as radio and television stations, the application of prison sentences for press offences and self-censorship by journalists. An employee of The Straits Times, the country's largest and most influential daily newspaper, told Inquirer "there would be at least a few" in the newsroom who would work for the Government's secret service. "But that is the same in newspapers around the world, it is not something we would strike or picket over."

During an October press conference held by local civil rights lawyer M. Ravi to seek to prevent Van's impending execution, the representative of The Straits Times not only broke the accepted rule of reporters worldwide in leaving his mobile phone on, but commenced a loud and animated conversation just as proceedings began. It wasn't much of stretch to wonder if the call was an attempt to distract rather than bad manners. Regardless, there was no coverage of the press conference the next day, in line with previous attempts to bring the issue to the attention of the wider public.

But all that changed in recent weeks. The onslaught of attention on the Van case by the incoming Australian media and Singapore-based foreign press, as well as diplomatic exchanges, particularly between Prime Minister John Howard and Lee at multilateral forums, made it too big to ignore. Day after day, as Van's execution date drew closer, the local coverage grew.

Indeed, it was The Straits Times that published a spirited defence of the death penalty with an editorial this week and a near-full page piece by senior columnist Andy Ho.

The newspaper called for Australians to "take an objective look at the crime, not only the punishment" and warned that more would face the gallows if they tried to smuggle heroin through Singapore.

For death penalty opponents such as Ravi, the simple recognition of the issue is progress. "The Nguyen case has taken Singapore by storm, it has raised a plethora of issues in the public eye for the first time," he says.

"The debate would never have been pushed this far and people are starting to question the policy, particularly the use of mandatory death sentences for drug offenders. I think the fear factor is starting to go away."

Change may begin first in the unwavering use of the mandatory death sentence laws, particularly for drug-related offences.

Under Singaporean law, anyone convicted of possessing more than 15g of heroin or 500g of marijuana is presumed to be trafficking and faces the death penalty.

Those convicted of murder, treason and some firearms offences share the same fate. There is no discretion for the presiding judge to lessen the penalty even if, as in Van's case, the convicted criminal shows remorse, provides information to police and appears to be a first offender.

Van exhausted all avenues to escape death, including a petition for clemency to Singaporean President S.R. Nathan. It was refused on the advice of the cabinet, and particularly the attorney-general, whose department oversaw the prosecution. No statement of reasons for the denial was ever provided. Only six condemned prisoners have been granted clemency since Singapore won independence.

Howard's reported five personal pleas on behalf of Van to his counterpart Lee, culminating with a meeting at the CHOGM forum in Malta, as well as Labor Opposition and union calls, fell on deaf ears publicly.

Requests for an application to the International Court of Justice were rejected by the Howard Government because Singapore would not recognise the court's jurisdiction. Government-level ties between the two countries are very close and go well beyond the annual $15 billion worth of bilateral trade deals. The relationship embraces sensitive defence and intelligence links and growing corporate investment. It was regarded as a separate issue.

This week, Lee, in dismissing any last-minute reprieve for Van, appeared resolute against reforming the hardline penalty policy that his lawyer-father developed. "[it is] necessary and is part of the criminal justice system," Lee told France's Le Figaro newspaper in rejecting claims it was inhuman and outdated for people convicted of non-violent crimes. "The evil inflicted on thousands of people with drug trafficking demands that we must tackle the source by punishing the traffickers rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards."

But high-profile lawyer Subhas Anandan, founding president of the Singapore Criminal Lawyers Association and a supporter of the death penalty for some offenders, believes the signs for change are emerging.

Interestingly, a column in The Straits Times says the death penalty should be reassessed by lawyers, officials and citizens alike, while opponents could be more "strategic" and focus on the mandatory aspect of the punishment rather than the full abolition of capital punishment.

While Van's Singapore lawyer Tito Isaac, who was appointed by the Government, refused all requests for an interview, his Australian barrister Lex Lasry, QC, has been an outspoken critic of the sentencing laws and believes change will happen.

Not surprisingly, it is the hangman Singh, whose identity was revealed to the world last month in an exclusive interview with The Australian, who has dominated conversation among ordinary Singaporeans. After The Australian's article, Singh reportedly told a Sydney newspaper he had been sacked for granting the interview - and would be missing out on his $470 special executioner's payment.

Some speculated his comments were a Government-devised ruse to deflect attention away from the hanging. It is not known whether he did execute Van. Midweek, The New Paper ran an interview depicting him as a solid civil servant duped into talking to The Australian and posing for a photograph.

The article drew heavily on Singh's description in The Australian of his vocation, his job satisfaction and his now infamous send-off to the condemned: 'I am now sending you to a better place than this. God bless you."

Whatever the intent of the article, it also brought home to Singaporeans the brutal nature of their hangings.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...5E28737,00.html

Seems that the people of Singapore do not have as much freedom in assessing the validity of the death penalty as some on this forum may have previously assumed. Not surprising then that prior early 2005, 70% of Singaporeans were seen to support the death penalty. Would TV forum members - who respect the laws of countries with the death penalty- still have the same pro-execution views if countries like Singapore allowed press freedom and then listened to the voices of their citizens?

If the jailers were humanly trained to deal with the world's criminals, our society's could be a better place!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on Khall, that's PC gone nuts. The criminals get treated very well in the majority of the world's prison's. 3 square meals a day and satellite TV. Better off than than alot of the worlds unfortunates, who still have more self respect than to go out and commit crime.

As for reform, the one's we're talking about here are people who would otherwise be executed and so, if serving jail time, they would not be released anyways. Why try to reform them? They're going to be put back into society.

They should at the very least be treated like the &lt;deleted&gt; way in which they treated their victims. By the sounds of it, you would like them to be tucked up every night, with a hot cup of Cocoa and put to sleep after singing them a lullaby

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr Bj............. I expected alot more from you........... too bad! I didn't think we'd come to this! I'd like to express myself in a forum that revealed more in life. You caught me by surprise. I didn't think we'd come to this........!! sorry!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Khall, i'm upset that you have taken my views so personally, they where certainly not meant that way. For that i apologise, but i can't apologise for my view, in which way "I personally" think, mass murderers (in particular) should be treated.

I fully concur with what Brit said, i too think that you are a lovely person, even though we disagree on this issue but this is only a discussion and not to be taken personally. And by the looks of it, it is about the only thing that we do disagree on, so that's not too bad eh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your personal comments on me being a "lovely person" Mr BoJ, BritM- nice of you to say- but I don't really care about what most think of me. Would you say the same if I was not a woman? It's the human condition that I think about.

We are so busy clubbing each other over the head - for what we think and how we feel - concerning our individual views on the norms of our collective local societies. In times past (and even today, in some locales) man did the same for territorial rights to food / wealth and population.

Now, we are so consumed by survival in the modern world that we have almost forgotten what it is to be human. If it don't fit the norm "kill it"? I'm not a religious person, although I did go to Sunday school as a toddler, and yet... in these past few months of serious soul-searching and self-political debate... I must say that I do find our attitudes to human compassion seriously wanting for a little reform.

If we forget our humanity we are no better than rats in the scramble for survival. That is what I meant (BritM) in my previous comment of ... "what goes around, comes around- again and again". Shall we choose to keep killing each other through revenge and social retribution- "An eye for an eye" - to determine the "survival of the fittest"?. Cos that is what is occurring, for example, with the kidnappings and executions of "innocents by militants".

Can we not rise above and be liquid, intelligent humans (supposedly the superior race on the planet) and stop killing each other for whatever reason? Re-program our kids or whatever it takes, but let's stop killing each other.

The planet has gone mad, as far as I'm concerned, and the human social impact is a direct reflection. Don't blame the nuts, blame the profiteers! Can't we at least look to the future and help heal those who are are ill? Maybe then we can find more compassion in our selves! Maybe then the planet will be worth saving!

Khall - your gender has no bearing on my feelings towards you. I'd say the same thing if you were a lad. You are very idealistic and there is nothing wrong with wanting a perfect world where we all can co-exist and live in harmony. However this is a mental world and you do the best you can for you and your mates/reles and try to be kind/generous to all those you encounter on a daily basis.

Unfortunately there are evil people out there who won't hesitate to do damage to you or your loved ones and sometimes the worst possible penalty is needed perhaps it won't change much in the long run, but that is one less person for the world to worry about.

4 missionaries and an electrician. You have to love those terrorists - do pick worthy targets. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's wrong that the kill, what ever the reason, but what do missionaries do? Where I live there was a local couple who went to the South Pacific be preach the word of Chirst to a community of Muslims. They were taken hostage and one was shot. The wife came back to America and every one felt so sorry for her. What wouold you do if some came to your home and said what you believe, what you hold dear is wrong, no matter how sweetly they told you? What is they sent up places were they could live and work while they went about you people trying to get them to give up their culture?

She went to someone else's land, told them to give up their culture cause her's was better in exchange for food and education and what ever else they were promising.

As I said, very sad and wrong, but I wouldn't get too worked up over missionaries.

Just before this topic gets buried forever (pardon the pun), I stumbled on this website by accident: 'Botched Executions' - from the US Dealth Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478

Just before this topic gets buried forever (pardon the pun), I stumbled on this website by accident: 'Botched Executions' - from the US Dealth Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well no one promised the death penalty was going to be a painless way to go.

Just before this topic gets buried forever (pardon the pun), I stumbled on this website by accident: 'Botched Executions' - from the US Dealth Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478

Well no one promised the death penalty was going to be a painless way to go.

Au contraire brit...

Arnold - the Governator of California will soon decide if the lovely 'Tookie' Williams who was convicted of slaughtering 4, count 'em 4, customers at a 7-11 with shotgun blasts to the back of their heads - will die of lethel injection tomorrow.

That's pretty cheap & painless way to go...

Just before this topic gets buried forever

I didn't push it any further, as i felt there could be some emotions surfacing

That's pretty cheap & painless way to go...

Yep, a lot less painless than the barbaric SOAB gave his victims

Arnold - the Governator of California will soon decide if the lovely 'Tookie' Williams who was convicted of slaughtering 4, count 'em 4, customers at a 7-11 with shotgun blasts to the back of their heads  - will die of lethel injection tomorrow.

Decision made

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4523502.stm

"After studying the evidence, searching the history, listening to the arguments and wrestling with the profound consequences, I could find no justification for granting clemency," Arnold Schwarzenegger said

"Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologise or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption," he said.

"Based on the cumulative weight of the evidence, there is no reason to second-guess the jury's decision of guilt or raise significant doubts or serious reservations about Williams' conviction and death sentence," the governor added.