Abid Malhi and Shafqat Ali were convicted of gang rape, kidnapping, robbery and terrorism offences back in March 2021 over the attack on the Sialkot-Lahore Motorway.
Nop.I’m in an european country that way too lenient with criminals. Recent case we have an active disparition alert of a 10yo. The suspect had several complaint against him send to the police for several rape on multiple minor. This was more than on year ago. Nothing had been done. He was never auditioned.
Coountry is France.
We have litteral tool that doesn’t let any doubt regarding that matter. It s such a terrible bad argument that it never applied in any other situation.
“”“A subsequent investigation revealed that Mr Scott had
become implicated as a result of accidental contamination
of samples within the lab. The day before processing samples
from the alleged rape victim, the lab had handled a DNA
sample from Mr Scott, following a ‘spitting incident’ in Exeter,
UK. Unfortunately the disposable plastic plate used to analyse
this sample had been inadvertently reused in the rape case,
resulting in the misidentification.”“”
Not to mention corrupt cops and prosecutors.
Why the need to kill people? Why not just isolate them? Do you think it’s actually more practical to kill them or it’s just so you can feel better knowing they are dead?
It’s actually good that you’re uninformed. You can educate yourself and this may help you evolve your opinions beyond primitive ideas of justice like “eye for an eye”.
(profiling is part of matching, you match DNA profiles, you don’t sequence the entire genome).
First one say judgment is longer yet doesn’t take into account the cos of prolonged incarceration anywhere. Just that the procedure is longer.
Second is a survey and a comparaison without any source regarding different place where a lot more factor are involved.
Thoses arent study but opinion pieces.
Try again.
Also I dont care about your view about eyes for eyes since death penalty can t never equal thoses. About Christchurch do u think his death will have as much value than every life he took ?
Could just have a death sentence be only passed when there’s beyond doubt of guilt
This is the reason civil societies have mostly done away with the death penalty, simply because we cannot ever be 100% we have the guilty people. We like to think the court systems are infallible, but they sure arent.
I’d say it’s probably the biggest argument against the death penalty tbh. But then, at the same time, innocent people have died serving life sentences also.
Aren’t all conviction in US beyond doubt like… by definition? And there are always reviews and appeals and request for clemency to heads of states. And innocent people were executed many many times.
At some point saying that we ard only sure at 99.99% and not 100% so we fan t do anything about it is utterly ridiculous. No system is perfect and yet u use that argument at the age of cctv dna test and so on
You can do plenty of things but in a civilized country we tend not to punish people in brutal ways just to get some satisfaction. We isolate them, make sure they can’t hurt anyone and try to rehabilitate them.
And we do this, among other things, because systems are not perfect and doing irreversible harm to people is problematic. Even with CCTV and DNA tests.
For context, I’m thinking more of a recent murder case that happened in the UK. Basically a sikh guy stabbed a British student, then called the police on him accusing him of racism. Police arrived and handcuffed the dying student as he bled out, dying on the ground in handcuffs. The Sikh’s family were complicit
Obviously, a whole myriad of immigration tension has arisen again (happened with the southport stabbings also) and people are rioting.
I think if we publicly executed people who carried out these atrocities, it would quench the general public’s bloodthirst and restore order, hopefully reducing hate crimes on the innocent immigrants.
Pls, no country on earth has the ressource to rehabilitate every criminal nor they should try.
U cant just look me in the eyes and say to me yeah he was a neo nazi that killed 20 ppl in a place of cult but have you thinking about his rehabilitation and how horrible you will be if you think it will be a net positive for society if we kill him ?
No place for them in society as they were, but rehabilitation is always possible, always desired. There will be a place for them after rehabilitation.
We have to trust that system. If we don’t, then what’s the point of prisons in the first place? If nobody can ever change, then they’ll always just remain a threat and there’s no sense keeping everyone in prisons indefinitely. Either we believe they can rehabilitate or we should just kill everyone who’s ever unfit for society, I suppose, no?
Ceremonial killing, executions, are an antithesis to the concept of prisons, rehabilitation. It’s never just, if we have a belief that people can and will change.
Its only use would be to act as a scare of some sort, but a lifetime of forced life, contained in cells, always watched, always mistreated, never a chance for a dignified life, is way more of a scare than death. Death is easy. Death is quick. It’s merciful in comparison.
A temporary stay at a prison without the belief of anyone being able to rehabilitate, is just deferring and allowing further crimes and violence in future.
So we have to believe people can change. Because they can, and they do.
And if we hold that belief, killing is not only killing the misfit in question, today, but also any potential good deeds and meaningful life they might’ve lead after rehabilitation. It’s killing someone, in future, who deserves not to die.
I never understand people who advocate for temporary jail stints and death sentences at the same time. It never makes sense, it’s irrational.
Depends on who you ask. But, there’s plenty of people that believe strongly in a punitive system. Prison is primarily for punishment and retribution–the state empowering the (assumed) revenge desires of the victims. If there was a painless way to execute someone they wouldn’t want to use it; the suffering of the convicted is a feature, not a bug.
I agree with you that we should focus and rehabilitation and restoration, but the U.S. prison-industrial complex is not actually currently oriented with that being the primary purposes.
No it s not and even some ppl don’t deserve it simply.
When u do some heinous shit you pay the conséquence for it and your wellbeing and repentance isn’t my concern.
Right, so you say some deserve the chance and some don’t. Who or what makes the call? I bet the Arab countries that lynch homosexuals for example, they think and reason the same as you. So their well-being isn’t your concern? Or do you consider yourself the better moral compass? Should you make all the calls then? Or do you simultaneously judge others making the same rationale, but with different principles/rules, and advocate for the very same thing but with yours? You are fine with the dissonance, then?
You think pedophile shouylkd be shot omg what horrible person you are im sure you think the same about homosexual.
Basically your argument.
Some crime are so horrible and against any possible once of humanity that yes they should deserve death.
I dont see any dissonance and u trying to make one by comparing me with some third world country is dishonest.
I mean, if I asked them about it, their answer would likely be the very same as yours. They just have different view on what crimes are so horrible as to deserve death, otherwise it’s the same argument.
I’m not trying to dishonestly compare or liken you to them or anyone for that matter. Just trying to make you aware that their reasoning is the same, so the question I have is, which one of you is right, or are both right? And if not both, who makes the objective call on all these thresholds of horribleness that demand executions.
Which is to say, we can’t eat our cake and have it too. You can’t just say death is fine for my reasons, but not for someone else’s reasons, because that is dishonest. Either executions are fine, or they aren’t, but anything in between is just trying to have it both ways and assuming that your point of view is the better one than the others’ who do this same argument and ideology. Which is fair and all, you are you, these are subjective things. But the subjectivity is precisely what makes it such a disingenuous argument in the first place. Everybody defines those lines that get crossed, differently. Then based on whose point of view do we make the calls? It’s not obvious, it’s never going to be unanimous, and it will lead to further conflict and disdain in the long run, as we very well know and see ourselves, today.
But it’s a valid stance, it’s very human, I’m not saying you are wrong to think so. It’s just not very rational, is what I’m saying, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good argument for things that lead to deaths of people…
I understand the point you making.
But I think we fan clearly and with a large majority agree on some case that deserve death sentence. Like for terrorism, répéter offense of murder rape and pedophilia. I dont think saying thoses are subjective but rather objective.
I think the stance of we shouldn’t kill anyone cause somme could disagree is a weak argument. Some ppl think rape is ok, that doesn’t mean it should be ok or we shouldn’t punish it.
Many who are against the death penalty have issues on several fronts. If its found the conviction was in error then there is not reversing it. The response that well only for cases we are sure but its impossible to have that as we run into the lack of perfecttion both in our legal system and the people agreeing on when we are sure. After that there is if rehabilitation is possible and some believe its always possible. Then also you simply have the acceptance of group murder or institutional murder. The state as a collective is doing a thing that would be a crime from an individual but its fine because its the group or state (generally the state would not allow it from a group as well). With that its the hypocrisy of it. Now of course the state is allowed to go to war but usually that is predicated on a right to defend onesself.
We should do the same. No place for ppl like that in any civile society. Either death sentence or castration plus prison
Are you in the US? I have some bad news for you then…
Nop.I’m in an european country that way too lenient with criminals. Recent case we have an active disparition alert of a 10yo. The suspect had several complaint against him send to the police for several rape on multiple minor. This was more than on year ago. Nothing had been done. He was never auditioned. Coountry is France.
Ever heard about wrongful convictions?
We have litteral tool that doesn’t let any doubt regarding that matter. It s such a terrible bad argument that it never applied in any other situation.
What “literal tool” is that?
Dna CCTV localisation any numeric trace
https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/making-sense-of-forensic-genetics.pdf
“”“A subsequent investigation revealed that Mr Scott had become implicated as a result of accidental contamination of samples within the lab. The day before processing samples from the alleged rape victim, the lab had handled a DNA sample from Mr Scott, following a ‘spitting incident’ in Exeter, UK. Unfortunately the disposable plastic plate used to analyse this sample had been inadvertently reused in the rape case, resulting in the misidentification.”“”
Not to mention corrupt cops and prosecutors.
Why the need to kill people? Why not just isolate them? Do you think it’s actually more practical to kill them or it’s just so you can feel better knowing they are dead?
Practical, economical, dissuasive and also justified.
Your paper is about dna profiling and not matching.
It’s not economical, it’s common knowledge that the whole appeal process is more expensive then housing someone for life:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpi-series-facts-about-the-death-penalty-does-the-death-penalty-cost-less-than-life-without-parole
It’s also not dissuasive:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/
https://deathpenaltyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The-Death-Penalty-Project_Policy-Deterrence.pdf
It’s actually good that you’re uninformed. You can educate yourself and this may help you evolve your opinions beyond primitive ideas of justice like “eye for an eye”.
(profiling is part of matching, you match DNA profiles, you don’t sequence the entire genome).
Your link lmao.
First one say judgment is longer yet doesn’t take into account the cos of prolonged incarceration anywhere. Just that the procedure is longer.
Second is a survey and a comparaison without any source regarding different place where a lot more factor are involved.
Thoses arent study but opinion pieces.
Try again.
Also I dont care about your view about eyes for eyes since death penalty can t never equal thoses. About Christchurch do u think his death will have as much value than every life he took ?
Could just have a death sentence be only passed when there’s beyond doubt of guilt and have it approved by the head of state
This is the reason civil societies have mostly done away with the death penalty, simply because we cannot ever be 100% we have the guilty people. We like to think the court systems are infallible, but they sure arent.
I’d say it’s probably the biggest argument against the death penalty tbh. But then, at the same time, innocent people have died serving life sentences also.
Aren’t all conviction in US beyond doubt like… by definition? And there are always reviews and appeals and request for clemency to heads of states. And innocent people were executed many many times.
Isn’t all this common knowledge by now?
I basically mean cctv footage where it’s clearly them, or a guilty plea
https://innocenceproject.org/coerced-pleas/
Do you people not read at all?
I wasn’t referring to underdeveloped disorderly countries.
Like US?
Yes
At some point saying that we ard only sure at 99.99% and not 100% so we fan t do anything about it is utterly ridiculous. No system is perfect and yet u use that argument at the age of cctv dna test and so on
You can do plenty of things but in a civilized country we tend not to punish people in brutal ways just to get some satisfaction. We isolate them, make sure they can’t hurt anyone and try to rehabilitate them.
And we do this, among other things, because systems are not perfect and doing irreversible harm to people is problematic. Even with CCTV and DNA tests.
For context, I’m thinking more of a recent murder case that happened in the UK. Basically a sikh guy stabbed a British student, then called the police on him accusing him of racism. Police arrived and handcuffed the dying student as he bled out, dying on the ground in handcuffs. The Sikh’s family were complicit
Obviously, a whole myriad of immigration tension has arisen again (happened with the southport stabbings also) and people are rioting.
I think if we publicly executed people who carried out these atrocities, it would quench the general public’s bloodthirst and restore order, hopefully reducing hate crimes on the innocent immigrants.
Public executions… yeah, that would bring back the good times for sure.
What am I looking at exactly
Doing irrevserible harm to ppl is problematic ☝️🤓
Pls, no country on earth has the ressource to rehabilitate every criminal nor they should try. U cant just look me in the eyes and say to me yeah he was a neo nazi that killed 20 ppl in a place of cult but have you thinking about his rehabilitation and how horrible you will be if you think it will be a net positive for society if we kill him ?
Mother of god you really are a fucking moron… Every day I grow more ABs more weary existing here.
They may type like a moron, but they have a point. It’s easy for someone to sit behind a screen and type “just rehabilitate them” online.
And me thinking nobody will ever defend nazi here, here u are doing it with litteral nazi terrorist.
Implying people get locked up when there is still reasonable doubt? That sounds like a massive problem.
It does happen, such as Lucy Letby. I don’t think she should be executed.
No place for them in society as they were, but rehabilitation is always possible, always desired. There will be a place for them after rehabilitation.
We have to trust that system. If we don’t, then what’s the point of prisons in the first place? If nobody can ever change, then they’ll always just remain a threat and there’s no sense keeping everyone in prisons indefinitely. Either we believe they can rehabilitate or we should just kill everyone who’s ever unfit for society, I suppose, no?
Ceremonial killing, executions, are an antithesis to the concept of prisons, rehabilitation. It’s never just, if we have a belief that people can and will change.
Its only use would be to act as a scare of some sort, but a lifetime of forced life, contained in cells, always watched, always mistreated, never a chance for a dignified life, is way more of a scare than death. Death is easy. Death is quick. It’s merciful in comparison.
A temporary stay at a prison without the belief of anyone being able to rehabilitate, is just deferring and allowing further crimes and violence in future.
So we have to believe people can change. Because they can, and they do.
And if we hold that belief, killing is not only killing the misfit in question, today, but also any potential good deeds and meaningful life they might’ve lead after rehabilitation. It’s killing someone, in future, who deserves not to die.
I never understand people who advocate for temporary jail stints and death sentences at the same time. It never makes sense, it’s irrational.
Depends on who you ask. But, there’s plenty of people that believe strongly in a punitive system. Prison is primarily for punishment and retribution–the state empowering the (assumed) revenge desires of the victims. If there was a painless way to execute someone they wouldn’t want to use it; the suffering of the convicted is a feature, not a bug.
I agree with you that we should focus and rehabilitation and restoration, but the U.S. prison-industrial complex is not actually currently oriented with that being the primary purposes.
Oh my god
No it s not and even some ppl don’t deserve it simply. When u do some heinous shit you pay the conséquence for it and your wellbeing and repentance isn’t my concern.
Right, so you say some deserve the chance and some don’t. Who or what makes the call? I bet the Arab countries that lynch homosexuals for example, they think and reason the same as you. So their well-being isn’t your concern? Or do you consider yourself the better moral compass? Should you make all the calls then? Or do you simultaneously judge others making the same rationale, but with different principles/rules, and advocate for the very same thing but with yours? You are fine with the dissonance, then?
You think pedophile shouylkd be shot omg what horrible person you are im sure you think the same about homosexual. Basically your argument. Some crime are so horrible and against any possible once of humanity that yes they should deserve death. I dont see any dissonance and u trying to make one by comparing me with some third world country is dishonest.
I mean, if I asked them about it, their answer would likely be the very same as yours. They just have different view on what crimes are so horrible as to deserve death, otherwise it’s the same argument.
I’m not trying to dishonestly compare or liken you to them or anyone for that matter. Just trying to make you aware that their reasoning is the same, so the question I have is, which one of you is right, or are both right? And if not both, who makes the objective call on all these thresholds of horribleness that demand executions.
Which is to say, we can’t eat our cake and have it too. You can’t just say death is fine for my reasons, but not for someone else’s reasons, because that is dishonest. Either executions are fine, or they aren’t, but anything in between is just trying to have it both ways and assuming that your point of view is the better one than the others’ who do this same argument and ideology. Which is fair and all, you are you, these are subjective things. But the subjectivity is precisely what makes it such a disingenuous argument in the first place. Everybody defines those lines that get crossed, differently. Then based on whose point of view do we make the calls? It’s not obvious, it’s never going to be unanimous, and it will lead to further conflict and disdain in the long run, as we very well know and see ourselves, today.
But it’s a valid stance, it’s very human, I’m not saying you are wrong to think so. It’s just not very rational, is what I’m saying, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good argument for things that lead to deaths of people…
I understand the point you making. But I think we fan clearly and with a large majority agree on some case that deserve death sentence. Like for terrorism, répéter offense of murder rape and pedophilia. I dont think saying thoses are subjective but rather objective. I think the stance of we shouldn’t kill anyone cause somme could disagree is a weak argument. Some ppl think rape is ok, that doesn’t mean it should be ok or we shouldn’t punish it.
Many who are against the death penalty have issues on several fronts. If its found the conviction was in error then there is not reversing it. The response that well only for cases we are sure but its impossible to have that as we run into the lack of perfecttion both in our legal system and the people agreeing on when we are sure. After that there is if rehabilitation is possible and some believe its always possible. Then also you simply have the acceptance of group murder or institutional murder. The state as a collective is doing a thing that would be a crime from an individual but its fine because its the group or state (generally the state would not allow it from a group as well). With that its the hypocrisy of it. Now of course the state is allowed to go to war but usually that is predicated on a right to defend onesself.
I think we should do it publicly also
Yeah. The kill all men crowd really quiet when u say kill the rappist