Poll: Paedophile sentenced to be beheaded then crucified

[Akai Shizuku]

What about the fact that he was caught in the act and the kids can give testimonies?

Let's talk about that.

Framing, lying and false accusation are still possible in that equation. It is a very rare situation that can be substantiated by an irrefutable mountain of evidence, since people are generally smart enough not to offend in a place with more than five witnesses, and not all incriminations can be supported by genetic evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a fair trial. I'm just presenting the fact that he was caught.

And I've already responded to that point.

In fact, how do we even know this guy was caught in the way they claim.
Maybe everyone was getting so frustrated trying the catch the rapist that two local police officers got a bright idea in their heads. They then went off and rounded up the nearest mentally ill man they found and claimed they'd caught him abducting a boy. Now everyone feels better because the "criminal" has been caught and sentenced, and there's no way any of the truth could come out because he didn't have a fair trial.

That's certainly possible, and another reason why I hate authority.

 

[lacktheknack]

It sounds humane enough if he's beheaded first.

 

[Internet Kraken]

You're missing the point.

Maybe I am, but then again, a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye (And IMO, a poor one). Why aren't you off arguing against that?

There is a big difference between preventing someone from doing further harm and brutally killing them.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

In fact, they often encourage future offenses.

So the whole concept of prison is wrong and ineffective? How so? Please, explain, I'm sure we might be onto a great breakthrough in the field of crime and punishment here.

I would but I can't find my sauce to copypasta.

Am I supposed to "lol" here?

Also, I guess a communist would be expected to have such backwards ideas.

That was an unwarranted personal attack which I take offense to.

Reported.

 

[Baby Tea]

Anyone who says "No, it's inhumane" is a ****. It's "inhumane" to rape kids. That is literally the worst thing someone can do, apart from torturing cats.
And no, they shouldn't crucify him, that's far too dignified. I say, cut his cock off, tattoo "nonce" on his face repeatedly, and release him into society. The people will find a fitting punishment to compliment the mutilation...

Well I think it's wrong.
I certainly don't condone what he did, but the death penalty is a poor poor response.
It always is.

EDIT: Let me also add that 'mob law' is a piss poor excuse for justice.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

*Applause*

 

[Akai Shizuku]

How needlessly barbaric. A single shot from an AK would have been enough. I suppose it would be too much to ask for, though.

A blade is better than a gun in this case; why waste a round?

 

[Knaas]

hope they do it with a deaf spoon :S

But still, It's saudi, why even begin to discuss why they do what they do? I mean, They aren't ready for our "sissy" type of punishment (think it's quite fine, Murder 6 years, drugs 12...?)

 

[Jumplion]

It may be overkill...no pun intended, but it shows criminals what could happen.

(Note, you're just the first poster I could relate to this. This is direct to all people who say similar things, really)

Yes, because doing a public execution where public executions are sadly more or less the norm in a region where violence and this sort of things happen all the time will totally have an effect on other criminals because they now know (as if they didn't know already) what will happen to them.

Really now, if this sort of execution was anywhere effective at all, Saudi Arabia would be the most civilized nation in the world.

I don't understand the mentality of pro-death people who say "If you kill them, it sets an example for the rest, hence no more violence!" No. That is not the way it works at all. I'm not pro-death or anti-death penalty, I can have some leeway on certain events and occurrences. But this stupid, and frankly, idiotic (without trying to insult you or anything) mentality that "If they see what will happen, they won't do it!" does not make any sense whatsoever. If that were the case at all, we'd never have any crime especially back in the day where these kinds of executions would be the norm everywhere.

Killing people just to set an example is a piss poor way of setting standards. If you kill people to set standards, then you're just going to be killing everyone who shop lifted a can of soup.

 

[MGlBlaze]

He deserves to die for what he did, if you ask me, but I believe beheading and Crucifixion to be needlessly brutal, especially in this day and age.

And yet I will admit there is a part of me that wants him to suffer a death like that, but the greater part of me knows better. The man has a right to a trial (Although to be honest, if he won, I would have even LESS faith in the government), and if he is sentenced to death it should be done by lethal injection, not like that.

Not to mention, and this is probably the thing that is the main source for why I think the punishment is wrong; they are stringing up his dead body for display on wooden poles. That's just disgusting.

Then again, much of Saudi Arabia is built on human rights violation from what I've heard, so I hold almost as much contempt for the country as a whole as I do hatred for that monster.

I don't understand the mentality of pro-death people who say "If you kill them, it sets an example for the rest, hence no more violence!" No. That is not the way it works at all. I'm not pro-death or anti-death penalty, I can have some leeway on certain events and occurrences. But this stupid, and frankly, idiotic (without trying to insult you or anything) mentality that "If they see what will happen, they won't do it!" does not make any sense whatsoever. If that were the case at all, we'd never have any crime especially back in the day where these kinds of executions would be the norm everywhere.

Killing people just to set an example is a piss poor way of setting standards. If you kill people to set standards, then you're just going to be killing everyone who shop lifted a can of soup.

I agree with you on this, too. People need to ask themselves "If it's working so well, why do we/they end up doing it so often? Why do the crimes keep happening anyway?"

 

[asdasdasdasda]

You're missing the point.

Maybe I am, but then again, a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye (And IMO, a poor one). Why aren't you off arguing against that?

There is a big difference between preventing someone from doing further harm and brutally killing them.

Except, most of the time, you're not preventing them from doing further harm, and furthermore, sticking them in a place full of people like them will only make them worse.

 

[mikecoulter]

Can't they just prove they're better than he is and do it humanely?

 

[Terramax]

Wait, so they're going to behead him then crucify him?

That seems a bit unnecessary. Not because it's inhumane or anything, but because he's already dead after the whole beheading.

Beat me to it. I thought the whole objective of crucifiction was a slow and painful death. If they're doing it just for show or the principle then don't crucify him, put his head on a pike. It's adding insult to death and it's an effective detterent!

I think they're using crucifiction as a way of making an example to other potential rapists.

Hundreds of years back in England when people were executed (usually hung) their bodies were left for days for people to see for the same effect.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Eh, even though I said myself that this isn't the best thread for this discussion, I can't help being an argumentative bastard. I hope you'll forgive me.

I agree, animals aren't humans. However, humans are animals.
(If you deny this, then I suppose that's because you've never had sexual feelings for another.) If a dog has to be taken care of, perhaps that is how it should be, but I believe the same for humans. I do not want to pay tax money for this man that has raped children to live. Why does he deserve to be cured? and above all...how do we know it can be cured?

I will not deny that humans are essentially animals. The reason I believe that a human is worth curing is because I believe life (all life) has an intrinsic value. This goes for animals, and even plants. Hell, I suppose one could say the same goes for non-living things as well, but that's hardly the point. Anyway, since humans are animals, humans have this intrinsic value as well. However, since animals aren't humans, this value is not equal. I believe (and I admit I'm horribly biased by being human) that the value of a human life is much, much higher than that of an animal life. This is more a matter of personal philosophy than pure fact so I feel slightly uncomfortable using this as an argument, but we're talking about a rather subjective thing here in the first place.

We can spend all of our time, all of our money just to fix that one mans problem, or we can do it the most efficient and fair way - end him. Also, who put you in charge to decide what's life is more valuable then another?

We can spend our money on curing someone, because money is less valuable than lives. There we go with the intrinsic value again. Money has none, or at least very little. The value of money is entirely in what you can do with it, and saving a man's life is a worthy goal. Who to put in charge? In real life, this is a near-impossible question that's best left to better men than me to answer, but in this case I will provide an answer: We put me in charge. Why? Because in this case, I'm the one who disagreed with killing the man and I'm the one who said humans are worth more than animals, so obviously I'm the one I'd put in charge, if you get what I mean. This is a very personal opinion, and I wouldn't trust anyone with my opinion more than myself.

The most us humans have done was screw up the world, exploit, destroy, and bastardize. It could even be argued that animals have more of a reason to exist then us. At least without us humans the world wouldn't be in it's horrible shape as it is today.

If you claim that all animals have a right to be on this planet, and that humans are animals, it would be logical to assume that humans belong on this Earth, wouldn't it? And if we agree on that, wouldn't you say that the actions of us humans belong here as well? Yes, humanity has been responsible for a near-infinite amount of fucked-up things on any scale, and things would be better if we'd all get along with nature a lot better, and took better care of our own planet. I won't argue that. But when push comes to shove, I'll stay with what I said earlier: I'll personally club a thousand cute and fuzzy baby seals to death if it meant saving one person's life.

We're also 99.7% from an animal that flings it's excrements around, with organs just like a pigs.(Also, we taste like pigs too, cannibals would call humans 'long pig.')
So there, I suppose your idea of a more valuable life is one that's diseased, conceited, with the capabilities of an ape, and the organs of a pig.

So happy to see we understand eachother.

 

[asdasdasdasda]

a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye

No it isn't.
The point of a prison sentence is to keep the offender off of the streets until they rehabilitated.
Or, at least, it ought to be.

See, the thing is, when you've raped 5 people, you're likely not going to rehabilitate. Not to mention, in most cases, you're getting a life sentence. Just accelerate the whole process, torture him to death over a week, cost a lot less money then feeding him for years.

And what if he's innocent? Even the fairest judicial system will sometimes make mistakes. People have been released only days from their execution.
Life imprisonment keeps the guy away from society and allows mistakes to be rectified if they are found later.

I'll agree with that to a point. But there's several cases with DNA evidence and such. Our police force is only getting better and better at this sort of thing. Yes, sometimes there's mistakes. But if you've got witnesses, dna, etc. Then why not?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye

No it isn't.
The point of a prison sentence is to keep the offender off of the streets until they rehabilitated.
Or, at least, it ought to be.

See, the thing is, when you've raped 5 people, you're likely not going to rehabilitate. Not to mention, in most cases, you're getting a life sentence. Just accelerate the whole process, torture him to death over a week, cost a lot less money then feeding him for years.

And what if he's innocent? Even the fairest judicial system will sometimes make mistakes. People have been released only days from their execution.
Life imprisonment keeps the guy away from society and allows mistakes to be rectified if they are found later.

Even if he was stone cold guilty, I am against this kind of thing. I personally compare this kind of crap (the whole beheading and crucifying thing) with the ghoulish executions they have in the USA, with people all collected outside the prison, waiting for someone to announce the person dead.

I just think there is something intrinsically unhealthy about a society which is so comfortable with murdering its own citizens, no matter what they have done. If rape, torture, murder are really all beyond what we expect from civilized people then why should we sanction these things ourselves?

 

[Internet Kraken]

I don't see how chopping off someones head and then crucifying them is humane. Though I guess that I'm biased since I'm against killing people for any reason.

You're probably retarded, since this guy didn't have the same bias against leaving his victims to die.

A lot of people on this website have said that pedophiles should be horribly punished, so they should like this.

Beheading people is a lot quicker, cleaner, and less painful than lethal injection. And once you're dead, you can't feel anything, so the crucifixion doesn't really affect you.

Are you a pedophile, or just a bleedingheart?

So because I don't like pointlessly killing people I'm either a retard of pedophile? I know there are many flaws in my belief that everyone deserves to live. But that;s why I said I am biased.


And who says a beheading is quick and clean? Depending on how you do it, it can be incredibly painful. And just because you can't feel crucifixion that doesn't change the fact that it's still barbaric and unnecessary.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Fuck him. I'd take a whack at his neck if I could. I wish courts had the stones to punish that shit as severely here.

You don't try to reason with a mad dog. You take him out of the equation and out of the gene pool.

 

[Terramax]

You're missing the point.

Maybe I am, but then again, a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye (And IMO, a poor one). Why aren't you off arguing against that?

There is a big difference between preventing someone from doing further harm and brutally killing them.

Except, most of the time, you're not preventing them from doing further harm, and furthermore, sticking them in a place full of people like them will only make them worse.

And wasting a lot of money keeping them alive in the process.

 

[Sindaine]

If you're going to frame someone, why go to all the trouble of raping five toddlers to do it? You could just say he'd forgotten to pray or looked in the direction of someone else's wife or something. That's so fucked up I don't see how it applies.

And the problem with your locking-up-as-justice is, it's no justice at all. He gets locked up nice and safe, fed and cared for on the State's dime for howevermany years, meanwhile his victims--the ones that managed to survive what he did to them--continue to suffer, forgotten. At least this way they can have some measure of peace, knowing he's dead and can never come hurt them again. (Though most probably still have nightmares about that very thing.)