Nine To Face Stoning In Iran

[RandFan]

Nine face stoning death in Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7516238.stm)

At least eight women and one man are reported to have been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran.

The group, convicted of adultery and sex offences, could be executed at any time, lawyers defending them say.

The lawyers have called on the head of Iran's judiciary to prevent the sentences from being carried out.

The last officially reported stoning in Iran last year drew strong criticism from human rights groups and the European Union. The eight women sentenced, whose ages range from 27 to 43, had convictions including prostitution, incest and adultery, Reuters news agency reported.
DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.

[Pardalis]

"could be executed at any time"

Does this mean they could be stoned at any time of the day, anywhere without warning?

Boy, that's some death penalty.


ETA: Actually, thinking about it, that would be a rather cool death penalty to adopt. Instead of death row where one knows what to expect, why not let the prisoner loose with only one promise: that he'd get killed somehow within the next week.

Of course I'm joking but what else can one do with such depressing news?

[kerikiwi]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.

I am not! I refuse to accept any responsibility for anything that has nothing at all to do with me. The list is, of course, very long.

[DOC]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.

And we electrocute, inject drugs, and even relatively recently hung and subjected people to the firing squad to execute people in the US. We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.

[Hokulele]

We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.


Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, Lonnie Latham, Earl Paulk, Coy Privette, Joe Barron...

Yep, you are right. :rolleyes:

[Darat]

For me this is completely barbaric but then I don't support the state having the right to kill me.

[DOC]

Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, Lonnie Latham, Earl Paulk, Coy Privette, Joe Barron...

Yep, you are right.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

http://www.gospeldefender.com/mambo/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=191

And God has a way of humbling people who become too full of themselves.

Also when people are overworked and stressed out (for example someone responsible for a large international televised ministry) sometimes they more easily fall prey to temptation.

I don't know about the others but Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker are still doing God's work. God is forgiving to those who sincerely ask that for that forgiveness. Jesus said to forgive 7 times 70 times. Of course I believe this is if you are "sincerely" sorry.

[Hokulele]

Cool. So god doesn't take prostitution and adultery seriously either as long as the spirit is willing. Lucky for them. :rolleyes:

[TheAntiLuddite]

I don't know about the others but Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker are still doing God's work. God is forgiving to those who sincerely ask that for that forgiveness.


Right, if by "God's work" you mean fleecing the faithful. Both are back at it again with new televangelism "ministries".

But I shouldn't be totally critical. Swaggart hasn't been caught with a prostitute for a while now and Bakker needs a money-generating machine to pay off his remaining 6 million dollar debt to the IRS. Also, with a ready and willing customer base literally begging to be robbed, I'm sure it's hard to resist their old ways.

[aggle-rithm]

And we electrocute, inject drugs, and even relatively recently hung and subjected people to the firing squad to execute people in the US. We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.

One of the big problems with the death penalty is that it is surprisingly difficult to kill someone while maintaining two requirements:

1. It must be painless and quick for the person being executed.

2. It must look "civilized" to observers.

These are two mutually exclusive requirements. There are many ways to kill someone quickly and painlessly, most involving the brain being instantaneously obliterated, but they look barbaric to observers. The ones that look civilized, such as lethal injection, are very unpredictable in the effects they will have on the victim. Ideally, the prisoner will be unconscious when his heart is stopped, but there is no way to guarantee that.

We as a society either need to accept that there is no way to kill someone in a civilized manner and just decide to be uncivilized, or we need to stop killing people.

Personally, I'm on the fence.

[aggle-rithm]

And God has a way of humbling people who become too full of themselves.


Actually, people have a way of humbling themselves when they are too full of themselves.

It's a form of homeostasis.

[Achán hiNidráne]

And here I thought SunniMan would be the one chime in to defend his religion's barbaric notions of sexuality.

Not that DOC's Christian-inspired sexual fascism is any better.

[~enigma~]

And we electrocute, inject drugs, and even relatively recently hung and subjected people to the firing squad to execute people in the US. We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.
Meaning you agree?!

[fuelair]

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

http://www.gospeldefender.com/mambo/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=191

And God has a way of humbling people who become too full of themselves.

Also when people are overworked and stressed out (for example someone responsible for a large international televised ministry) sometimes they more easily fall prey to temptation.

I don't know about the others but Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker are still doing God's work. God is forgiving to those who sincerely ask that for that forgiveness. Jesus said to forgive 7 times 70 times. Of course I believe this is if you are "sincerely" sorry.I must agree that that group and a few posters in this forum are certainly full of something - possibly each other:jaw-dropp or possibly something else - besides themselves. All about as useful as the primitive slime in Iran in the OP[still on topic you note]:)(not the stonees, of course!!!) that need to be freed from their Earthly bonds.:mad:

[Thinking in CT]

Let me point out a real difference between the kind of bloody, shocking and barbaric death penalty as practiced in The Islamic Republic and the modern death penalty as practiced in, say, Connecticut.

In Iran the purpose and effect of these stonings is to terrorize the public. The ranting chanting spectators of these barbarous proceedings know one thing for certain; that any deviation on their part from the whims of the rulers could have devastating consequences, immediately and on scant evidence.

In Connecticut, (and many other US states) executions are rare (we've had one since the early 1960's) done in private, occur usually many years after conviction, and usually after exhaustive legal proceedings and appeals. The purpose and effect? Perhaps to allow politicians a way to satisfy a crime weary public that "something" is being done to "fight crime" and practically, it gives prosecutors a handy tool to convince murderers to cop pleas to life or long sentences rather than to risk execution.

[Nogbad]

It is pretty shocking but I guess the Mullahs' track record would suggest that this is par for the course. Fairly ghastly people who expound a fairly ghastly version of faith and religion generally. I think in time their power will wane (all religious extremist societies burn out eventually indeed most extremist societies burn out sooner or later) but it certainly sucks to be an Iranian under their cosh at the moment.

[Pardalis]

And here I thought SunniMan would be the one chime in to defend his religion's barbaric notions of sexuality.

Not that DOC's Christian-inspired sexual fascism is any better.

IMO, the only thing that's stopping the Christian Right from being as barbaric and violent than radical Islam is the secular justice system.

They'd like to round up all homosexuals and adulterers and execute them but they can't, legally.

[Silentknight]

And here I thought SunniMan would be the one chime in to defend his religion's barbaric notions of sexuality.

Not that DOC's Christian-inspired sexual fascism is any better.

IMO, the only thing that's stopping the Christian Right from being as barbaric and violent than radical Islam is the secular justice system.

They'd like to round up all homosexuals and adulterers and execute them but they can't, legally.
As well as apostates and infidels, plus further down the priority list (but still present nonetheless) we've got followers of other religions...

[geni]

IMO, the only thing that's stopping the Christian Right from being as barbaric and violent than radical Islam is the secular justice system.

They'd like to round up all homosexuals and adulterers and execute them but they can't, legally.

I doubt it. Western populations just haven't been that keen on exiction post WW2. Sure round up and ah "treat" homosexuals and maybe hit adulterers with prision terms (although these days they probably know to many divorced people to support that) but actualy exicution less so.

[Magyar]

wow, shock of all shocks

sunni maggot hasn't made his appearnance yet explaining to us the higher moral value of doing this to whores.

[fuelair]

wow, shock of all shocks

sunni maggot hasn't made his appearnance yet explaining to us the higher moral value of doing this to whores.
I'm assuming the one (or more) for incest was raped by a male relative - based on how those feces eaters usually work.

[DOC]

In Iran the purpose and effect of these stonings is to terrorize the public. The ranting chanting spectators of these barbarous proceedings know one thing for certain; that any deviation on their part from the whims of the rulers could have devastating consequences, immediately and on scant evidence.

I'm not sure, but isn't the purpose because it actually says to do these things in the Koran.

[DOC]

Meaning you agree?!

Christ preached to prostitutes and adulterers so I'm not for executing them.

[DOC]

IMO, the only thing that's stopping the Christian Right from being as barbaric and violent than radical Islam is the secular justice system.

They'd like to round up all homosexuals and adulterers and execute them but they can't, legally.

This is totally false.

[Sunni Man]

They were all convicted and sentenced after a trial in a court of law.

So what's the problem?

We convict and sentence people to death here in America.

[~enigma~]

This is totally false.
homosexuality is not just a sin but it is an abomination (if you believe the bible). Christianity teaches that god can't coexist with that which isn't holy and an abomination surely isn't holy. Sad to say but ANY christian that doesn't want to kill homosexuals is slapping god in the face and if you believe in god, it really isn't such a good idea to slap him (or her) in the face.

[~enigma~]

They were all convicted and sentenced after a trial in a court of law.

So what's the problem?

We convict and sentence people to death here in America.
Yes we do but it is neither religious law or a cruel and unusual way to die.

[RandFan]

And we electrocute, inject drugs, and even relatively recently hung and subjected people to the firing squad to execute people in the US. We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.So, you think we should stone to death prostitutes and adulterers?

God likes killing. I'm telling you, if there is a god he or she just loves killing. Especially children. The Egyptian children. The infants and toddlers in the flood.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9

[Hughnon]

They were all convicted and sentenced after a trial in a court of law.

So what's the problem?

We convict and sentence people to death here in America.
I'm not arguing with the process - trial, conviction, sentence - so much as with the set of values in effect. What they're being tried for and sentenced to, in fact.

Additionally, sentencing people to death in America is another shocker and bringing it up doesn't defend the practice so much as spread the blame. "Hey, they do it as well!"

It's a backward practice based on an outdated and fundamentally unsound value system.

[cgordon]

Pardalis said: They'd like to round up all homosexuals and adulterers and execute them but they can't, legally.

DOC responded: This is totally false
Nope. Sadly. See Christian Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism.

[Beerina]

One of the big problems with the death penalty is that it is surprisingly difficult to kill someone while maintaining two requirements:

1. It must be painless and quick for the person being executed.

2. It must look "civilized" to observers.

These are two mutually exclusive requirements. There are many ways to kill someone quickly and painlessly, most involving the brain being instantaneously obliterated, but they look barbaric to observers. The ones that look civilized, such as lethal injection, are very unpredictable in the effects they will have on the victim. Ideally, the prisoner will be unconscious when his heart is stopped, but there is no way to guarantee that.

I would say the person should be concious right up to the end.

In any case, why don't they use that stuff they kill animals with? Inject, a few seconds later, done. Even if painful, which it isn't, since animals don't flinch or scream, it's only a few seconds, not some minutes.


Given people are arguing the current 3-drug cocktail may actually be painful, with the painkiller wearing off after the muscles are numbed so the criminal can't move or speak, so they die as the killing drug painfully attacks them.

I don't wonder if the guy who invented this did so for just that reason, putting one over on government officials.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes we do but it is neither religious law or a cruel and unusual way to die.

While stoning may be cruel it does not seem to be unusual in Iran so it would pass constitutional tests.

[MarkCorrigan]

And we electrocute, inject drugs, and even relatively recently hung and subjected people to the firing squad to execute people in the US.

I think, if I'm reading this right, that for once DOC actually has a point....

Personally I consider leathal injection compared to stoning to be a rather pointless comparison. I don't see why the state has the right to do either and still consider itself (as both do) to be based upon sound principals.

I find stoning to be merely a slightly more horrific form of the same shocking bloodthirsty and, I hate to use the word, barbaric culture. I find them all (although not QUITE equally, close enough it makes no difference) disgusting.

I await the personal attacks, appeals to emotion and, from the other side of the coin, the religious zealots (Sunniman and any who are like him) and the other nonsense I will probably get for stating this.

[I Ratant]

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

[rocketdodger]

They were all convicted and sentenced after a trial in a court of law.

So what's the problem?

We convict and sentence people to death here in America.

So what's your point?

[Hokulele]

I think, if I'm reading this right, that for once DOC actually has a point....


Just so you know, DOC overgeneralized in his statement. Not all states in the US allow a death sentence, and some have never allowed such.


(Semantic quibble before all the nitpickers jump in, capitol punishment has always been illegal since Hawai'i acheived statehood, but it was allowed under the territorial government. It was repealed two years before statehood was attained.)

[RandFan]

I think, if I'm reading this right, that for once DOC actually has a point....
I'm against the death penalty but I think there is a huge difference between stoning and other forms of execution. Stoning wouldn't pass the cruel and unusual test of the US Constitution. Stoning intentionally extends the time it takes to kill the individual and it subjects him or her to public ridicule and humiliation. It's torturing someone to death.

I plan on ending my life if and when I'm in serious pain and the prognosis for me is nil. I don't plan on being stoned in the public square. If you were in a position to end your life would you chose it?

But Doc misses the important point, those being stoned would NOT even receive death sentences in America or just about any other civil society. These people are being made a public example of in a cruel manner for religious BS.

[Pardalis]

I'm against the death penalty but I think there is a huge difference between stoning and other forms of execution. Stoning wouldn't pass the cruel and unusual test of the US Constitution. Stoning intentionally extends the time it takes to kill the individual and it subjects him or her to public ridicule and humiliation. It's torturing someone to death.

I plan on ending my life if and when I'm in serious pain and the prognosis for me is nil. I don't plan on being stoned in the public square. If you were in a position to end your life would you chose it?

But Doc misses the important point, those being stoned would NOT even receive death sentences in America or just about any other civil society. These people are being made a public example of in a cruel manner for religious BS.

Plus, doesn't stoning involve the general public in the execution itself, aren't crowds of people the executioners, and not government employees?

[RandFan]

Plus, doesn't stoning involve the general public in the execution itself, aren't crowds of people the executioners, and not government employees? Yes, which is why I mentioned public ridicule and humiliation. It might be easy to dismiss it but that is one of the greatest fears of humans. We don't want to be publicly humiliated. We will go to great lengths to avoid it.

[Pardalis]

Good point. Also, actually making the general public be participants in the killing seems absolutely horrific, in my view. Not to mention the hypocricy of basically giving them the opportunity to do what they're not supposed to do otherwise.

"You're not allowed to kill, but here's a rock and bash that girl's head in."

It makes the execution a social event, almost like a sport, or entertainment. I bet it gets to a point of collective euphoria.

[MarkCorrigan]

Just so you know, DOC overgeneralized in his statement. Not all states in the US allow a death sentence, and some have never allowed such.


(Semantic quibble before all the nitpickers jump in, capitol punishment has always been illegal since Hawai'i acheived statehood, but it was allowed under the territorial government. It was repealed two years before statehood was attained.)

I know. I'm still (possibly?) in full agreement with him though.

While I quite agree that in many ways stoning IS so much worse (and I hadn't thought of the aspect of it being an activity the crowd REALLY get into) I still say the difference is negligable because of the end product. You still end up with a "criminal" who is killed by the state, and I do not think that's ever, ever justifiable or even allowed any leeway simply because one nation does it in a slightly less bloody way.

[erlando]

14th century barbarians! 'nuff said.

[~enigma~]

While stoning may be cruel it does not seem to be unusual in Iran so it would pass constitutional tests.
I really enjoy the way you pick on semantics...

[Hughnon]

It makes the execution a social event, almost like a sport, or entertainment. I bet it gets to a point of collective euphoria.And I'd bet that the euphoria stems from not being the ones in the middle, having stones thrown at them.

[JCL]

I really enjoy the way you pick on semantics...

A similar argument has been used by the US government.

Judge Roberts explained that torture is legal, due to the fact it is not punishment. Cruel and unusual, yes. It is not punishment, so it is OK by the US constitution.

[I Ratant]

14th century barbarians! 'nuff said.
.
Not really, there's more to it.
It's 14th Century BCE barbarism.
With peer pressure to force those who see it is totally savagery to not say squat.
The "crimes" themselves, if they're not just made up in the minds of the accusers are hardly worth that major a punishment, but the mullahs and imams need that mandatory crowd participation to keep the people under their thumbs.

[~enigma~]

A similar argument has been used by the US government.

Judge Roberts explained that torture is legal, due to the fact it is not punishment. Cruel and unusual, yes. It is not punishment, so it is OK by the US constitution.
Ok but isn't that a different topic than stoning in Iran? If you want to discuss torture in the USA please start a new thread.

[RandFan]

I know. I'm still (possibly?) in full agreement with him though.

While I quite agree that in many ways stoning IS so much worse (and I hadn't thought of the aspect of it being an activity the crowd REALLY get into) I still say the difference is negligable because of the end product. You still end up with a "criminal" who is killed by the state, and I do not think that's ever, ever justifiable or even allowed any leeway simply because one nation does it in a slightly less bloody way.I'm against the death penalty because it administered unevenly. Poor people are fare more likely to get the death penalty than a rich person even when we account for the fact that there are more poor people than rich people. Also blacks are also far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites even as a percentage.

That said, I would be perfectly happy for the state to kill Dennis Rader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader). And there are others.

[Travis]

We find out when and where the stoning will take place. We let the crowd of rock throwers gather and then a lone B-2 flying overhead drops two 2000 pound JDAMS on them. The condemned get a quick painless death and the barbarians that would have killed them are now all human puree. Everything is good............except the following war with Iran.

[Sunni Man]

.
Not really, there's more to it.
It's 14th Century BCE barbarism.
With peer pressure to force those who see it is totally savagery to not say squat.
The "crimes" themselves, if they're not just made up in the minds of the accusers are hardly worth that major a punishment, but the mullahs and imams need that mandatory crowd participation to keep the people under their thumbs.It's their country and their laws.

Stoning seems to work for them. So why should we be against it?

I wish that we had that form of punishment here.

Crime would go way, way down.

[fuelair]

We find out when and where the stoning will take place. We let the crowd of rock throwers gather and then a lone B-2 flying overhead drops two 2000 pound JDAMS on them. The condemned get a quick painless death and the barbarians that would have killed them are now all human puree. Everything is good............except the following war with Iran.I like that essentially, but my pref works slightly differently. It involves the "criminals" (this assumes they are criminals like rape victims, prostitutes, adultresses, people who just made their rectum sucking families look bad,atheists, renouncers of Islam,etc. as opposed to real criminals) being removed safelyand the stoners, judges and the rest of the below scum being executed - the judges of the court and available witnesses slowly, the stoners and casual observers otherwise.

[Darth Rotor]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.

1. I do not care to be classed as "we" with the stone them to death crowd, your "we as a species" is grossly broad to the point of being useless.

2. A bullet to the head is far more humane.

[I Ratant]

...

2. A bullet to the head is far more humane.
.
If you look on the 'net, you'll see those Stone Age savages do that right!
.
These people aren't interested in humanity, they're interested in terror.
Keep the population afraid of the religious police, lest some nut-case decide you have committed some egregious offense against what's his frog, and if you aren't murdered on the spot, gets some religious loony to condemn you.
Simple terror.

[Sunni Man]

.

These people aren't interested in humanity, they're interested in terror.
They believe in "Justice".

Here in America convicted murderers are executed with a small pin prick to the arm and a gentle eternal sleep.

In those countries the murderers are made to pay for there crimes in a painful way.

Just like the pain they inflected on their victims.

That's JUSTICE!

[tracer]

We just don't take prostitution, and adultery as serious in our increasingly material and sexual culture.

Thank God for that!

[Hokulele]

Just like the pain they inflected on their victims.


So when a woman is raped and then stoned for adultery, who is exactly is the victim, and what pain was inflicted that would justify such barbarity?

[Darth Rotor]

.
If you look on the 'net, you'll see those Stone Age savages do that right!

These people aren't interested in humanity, they're interested in terror.
I'd have used the word "control" rather than terror. However, they are indeed interested in humanity, just differently than you are.
Keep the population afraid of the religious police, lest some nut-case decide you have committed some egregious offense against what's his frog, and if you aren't murdered on the spot, gets some religious loony to condemn you. Simple terror.
Right out of the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath: all you need to do is substitute in a revolutionary term for the word "religious" and you need not change anything else.

Let's see:

Keep the population afraid of the secret police, lest some nut-case decide you have committed some egregious offense against the revolution, the Cause, and if you aren't murdered on the spot, gets some fanatical revolutionary loony to condemn you.

Simple terror.

Vive le Frogs, and the legacy they left to the world. :p The Rights of Man was only a little part of it.

DR

[Sunni Man]

So when a woman is raped and then stoned for adulteryWhen and where did this happen?

[Hokulele]

When and where did this happen?


Sharia law dictates that a sexual act is only rape if there are 4 male Muslim witnesses. Without the witnesses, it would be considered adultery, and therefore subject to the punishment of stoning. In this case, who is the victim?

[Darth Rotor]

So when a woman is raped and then stoned for adultery
When and where did this happen?
One could look at it as a one way version of guilt free sex. Trouble is, it takes two for that, and one seems to get the short end of the stick, eh? Hmm, maybe the short end is what she revealed, at which point the jig was up, and a stoning ordered as a way to silence dissent dissatisfaction.

[Sunni Man]

Sharia law dictates that a sexual act is only rape if there are 4 male Muslim witnesses. Without the witnesses, it would be considered adultery, and therefore subject to the punishment of stoning. In this case, who is the victim?Why are you presenting only half of the law? Biased?

It takes 4 female witnesses if a man is being accused.

[Oliver]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.


DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we morons as a species are still sentencing people to death:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

Greetings from an even more civilized western, non-death penalty-country. :rolleyes:

[~enigma~]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we morons as a species are still sentencing people to death:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

Greetings from an even more civilized western, non-death penalty-country. :rolleyes:
Who should foot the bill for the condemned if there was no death penalty?

[Travis]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we morons as a species are still sentencing people to death:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

Greetings from an even more civilized western, non-death penalty-country. :rolleyes:

Are you honestly saying there's no difference between executing a convicted murderer by lethal injection and stoning a woman to death for adultery?

[rocketdodger]

It's their country and their laws.

Stoning seems to work for them. So why should we be against it?

I wish that we had that form of punishment here.

Crime would go way, way down.

Except for the crime of bludgeoning a human being to death, which would sharply rise.

[rocketdodger]

In those countries the murderers are made to pay for there crimes in a painful way.

I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem with people accused of arbitrary nonsense being made to pay for their non-crimes in a painful way.

[RandFan]

1. I do not care to be classed as "we" with the stone them to death crowd, your "we as a species" is grossly broad to the point of being useless. I guess it is a matter of perspective. Humans are the only species capable of rational thought. We are the only ones capable of solving problems using logical reasoning. For me it's not a mater of what I care to be classed with but a matter of what is.

:) But we can disagree.

[RandFan]

Greetings from an even more civilized western, non-death penalty-country. :rolleyes:

Really? (http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-4/holocaust-remnants2.GIF)

[Darat]

That was from the 1940s i.e. over 60 years ago. I pretty certain that Germany does not undertake holocausts these days....

[RandFan]

That was from the 1940s i.e. over 60 years ago. I pretty certain that Germany does not undertake holocausts these days....?

Are Germans today inherently (genetically) different from those who aided, abetted and committed the atrocity?
I would suggest that you and Oliver attend the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. There are two doors to enter. One is marked "prejudiced" the other is marked "non-prejudiced". The one marked non-prejudiced is locked.

Enlightened Jews, following the Holocaust realized that the Germans weren't inherently evil. They were not inherently different from Jews.

What makes us (humans) different is our circumstances (see Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel). THAT'S the point of the Museum of Tolerance and that's my point.

If Germans, a mere 60 years ago, a society that was "civilized" and, you know, the 20th century, a period of time that is after the enlightenment, not before, could commit such an atrocity perhaps we should stop thinking of good humans and bad humans and simply figure out that we all are inherently the same.

I recommend the trip.

[Darat]

?

Are Germans today inherently (genetically) different from those who aided, abetted and committed the atrocity?
I would suggest that you and Oliver attend the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. There are two doors to enter. One is marked "prejudiced" the other is marked "non-prejudiced". The one marked non-prejudiced is locked.

Enlightened Jews, following the Holocaust realized that the Germans weren't inherently evil. They were not inherently different from Jews.

What makes us (humans) different is our circumstances (see Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel). THAT'S the point of the Museum of Tolerance and that's my point.

If Germans, a mere 60 years ago, a society that was "civilized" and, you know, the 20th century, a period of time that is after the enlightenment, not before, could commit such an atrocity perhaps we should stop thinking of good humans and bad humans and simply figure out that we all are inherently the same.

I recommend the trip.

Good excuse for your silly comment Randfan but it doesn't wash with what you actually posted and responded to.

[JCL]

Ok but isn't that a different topic than stoning in Iran? If you want to discuss torture in the USA please start a new thread.

It was just an example of a semantic quibble that the leaders in our own society have made. There has been a lot of talk of how stoning would never occur in the good ol’ US of A, so it seemed rather on topic to me.

[~enigma~]

It was just an example of a semantic quibble that the leaders in our own society have made. There has been a lot of talk of how stoning would never occur in the good ol’ US of A, so it seemed rather on topic to me.
Stoning in Iran is the topic not prospective stoning in the USA.

[I Ratant]

The stone throwers are just as capable of mass murder for the same ignorant reasons.
Strapping on a bomb and killing as many as possible is a good thing!
21st Century technology enlisted for Stone Age hysteria.

[zooterkin]

I'm not sure, but isn't the purpose because it actually says to do these things in the Koran.

And why do you think the writer of the Koran wrote what is in that fairy tale? Or do you believe it to be divinely inspired?

Are you honestly saying there's no difference between executing a convicted murderer by lethal injection and stoning a woman to death for adultery?

Why do you think he's saying that? It's quite possible to regard the death penalty, however administered, as barbaric, while still finding the method of stoning to be more abhorrent.

[JCL]

Stoning in Iran is the topic not prospective stoning in the USA.

Who should foot the bill for the condemned if there was no death penalty?

Shouldn’t your question have been…

Who should foot the bill for the condemned in Iran if there was no death penalty stoning?

…to be on topic?

Brings to mind another phrase about throwing stones.

[Travis]

Why do you think he's saying that? It's quite possible to regard the death penalty, however administered, as barbaric, while still finding the method of stoning to be more abhorrent.

But it's also absurd because at least the person being executed in the US actually committed a horrible crime. Adultery shouldn't even be a crime of any degree let alone one that is punished with death.

[zooterkin]

But it's also absurd because at least the person being executed in the US actually committed a horrible crime. Adultery shouldn't even be a crime of any degree let alone one that is punished with death.

What's absurd? Leaving aside the issue of how certain you can be that the conviction was correct, it is still the case that many people regard the death penalty, for whatever crime, as barbaric and uncivilised.

[Travis]

What's absurd? Leaving aside the issue of how certain you can be that the conviction was correct, it is still the case that many people regard the death penalty, for whatever crime, as barbaric and uncivilised.

I'm against the death penalty too, you should know.


Question: If you had to have the death penalty would you want it the way it's done in America with automatic appeals, with a relatively painless method and is only used on those who have taken others lives or the Iranian version where you get battered to death by an angry throng and your crime might have been nothing more than being a homosexual or having committed adultery?

[zooterkin]

Question: If you had to have the death penalty would you want it the way it's done in America with automatic appeals, with a relatively painless method and is only used on those who have taken others lives or the Iranian version where you get battered to death by an angry throng and your crime might have been nothing more than being a homosexual or having committed adultery?

What's that got to do with your original question to Oliver?

[Travis]

What's that got to do with your original question to Oliver?

Oliver seemed to be implying that the US was just as barbaric for executing murderers as Iran was for executing adulterers. I don't think they are equally barbaric even though I oppose both. I feel saying they are equally barbaric is absurd and that is why I asked Oliver to clarify if that was indeed what he was intending to imply.

[Meadmaker]

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.


So weak, you can break it with a stone! Maybe we should get all biblical on Haggard and co.? Who has the rocks?


In all seriousness, it's one thing to joke about stoning a televangelist or mega-churchie just because it turns out that perhaps he might be breaking a commandment or two, but it's incredible that somewhere in the world, people are actually going to die for having sex the wrong way.

[RandFan]

Good excuse for your silly comment Randfan but it doesn't wash with what you actually posted and responded to. You might have a point. I don't quite see it the way you do and I think that I actually have a point but I will concede that the argument was weak. My biggest gripe is with the other poster and it's hard to respond given that we are supposed to address the arguments and not the individual. I don't take his posts seriously given the us vs them mentality he routinely demonstrates. This poster has actually suggested that nations like Iran that have secret courts and execute people for adultery are morally equivalent to America. I trust you don't think the same, right?

What makes a society civil? Is Germany truly more civil than the US? German ranks 22nd in HDI. The US ranks 12th. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) Perhaps the death penalty isn't in and of itself the only metric. What do you think? Is it really as simple as that? And what of the Holocaust? Godwin isn't really some kind of absolute standard to determine the logical validity of an argument. In fact it can be a bit of a red herring.

Thanks Darat.

[zooterkin]

Oliver seemed to be implying that the US was just as barbaric for executing murderers as Iran was for executing adulterers. I don't think they are equally barbaric even though I oppose both. I feel saying they are equally barbaric is absurd and that is why I asked Oliver to clarify if that was indeed what he was intending to imply.

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. I don't think Oliver was saying that it was as barbaric. Nevertheless, from the perspective of many Western Europeans, having the death penalty does seem like barbarism.

[RandFan]

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. I don't think Oliver was saying that it was as barbaric. Nevertheless, from the perspective of many Western Europeans, having the death penalty does seem like barbarism. Having followed Oliver for some time there is little if any question in my mind that he is equating the two. Never mind that there is due process and open courts in America, never mind that capital crimes in Islamic countries includes adultery, homosexuality, being a rape victim, sacriliges, etc.

[Pardalis]

I'm against the death penalty too, you should know.

Question: If you had to have the death penalty would you want it the way it's done in America with automatic appeals, with a relatively painless method and is only used on those who have taken others lives or the Iranian version where you get battered to death by an angry throng and your crime might have been nothing more than being a homosexual or having committed adultery?

Never mind that there is due process in America, never mind that capital crimes in Islamic countries includes adultery, homosexuality, being a rape victim, sacriliges, etc.

You're both making excellent points here.

Even though in Western society it is the public (the jury) who eventually decides to send a prisoner to death row, through careful prosecution, but it's the legal system that takes it from then on, and utlimately carries out the execution. But in the case of stoning, this gap is eroded as the public itself administers the punishment, which in my view makes it extremely different and incomparable. It reinforces the individual's place in the societal judgment value that lead to the execution, in other words it makes it even more difficult for these issues (homosexuality, adultery and so on) to be accepted or humanized in these societies, because the public is indistinguishable from the process.

[RandFan]

...in other words it makes it even more difficult for these issues (homosexuality, adultery and so on) to be accepted or humanized in these societies, because the public is indistinguishable from the process. Great point.

[zooterkin]

Having followed Oliver for some time there is little if any question in my mind that he is equating the two.

I think we can only deal with what he actually said, not what you think he might be thinking.


Never mind that there is due process and open courts in America, never mind that capital crimes in Islamic countries includes adultery, homosexuality, being a rape victim, sacriliges, etc.

That doesn't remove the fact that many consider the death penalty for any reason, and by any method, to be abhorrent. That also doesn't prevent those people finding the stoning in Iran to be more abhorrent.


Even though in Western society it is the public (the jury) who eventually decides to send a prisoner to death row,

How many countries in 'Western society' use the death penalty?

[RandFan]

I think we can only deal with what he actually said, not what you think he might be thinking. It would take a perverse form of denial to ignore Oliver's history. This guy has come here and day after day, month after month for at least a year perhaps years with a singlemindedness not seen in most posters. His threads and posts are amost always if not always anti-American.

It's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.

I'm on solid ground on this one. That said you don't need to take my word for it. Just stick around long enough.

That doesn't remove the fact that many consider the death penalty for any reason, and by any method, to be abhorrent. I never said otherwise. I'm not sure of the significance though. People have every right to consider the death penalty abhorrent. On the otherhand, many don't consider the death penalty abhorrent and that is also their right. I'm not sure of the point unless you are making an ad numerum argument.

FTR, I'm against the death penalty. That said, I don't personally find it abhorent in principle and I've never encountered an argument that would cause me to think otherwise. I've not allways been against it. My change in position was based on long and serious considerations of the arguments made. There is certainly nothing axiomatic about the death penalty being abhorent. I certainly respect those who think so. I just don't share the POV.

[Pardalis]

How many countries in 'Western society' use the death penalty?

Google is your friend right?

I was also talking historically.

[Silentknight]

It's their country and their laws.

Stoning seems to work for them. So why should we be against it?

I wish that we had that form of punishment here.

Crime would go way, way down.
They believe in "Justice".

Here in America convicted murderers are executed with a small pin prick to the arm and a gentle eternal sleep.

In those countries the murderers are made to pay for there crimes in a painful way.

Just like the pain they inflected on their victims.

That's JUSTICE!
Never mind that this topic is about the punishment being used for adultery, not a violent crime such as murder. I guess he can't miss a chance to advocate a more extreme punishment than the actual offense that has been committed. Though this isn't surprising coming from a mentality that believes violent retribution is an acceptable response to thought and speech "crimes."
Why are you presenting only half of the law? Biased?

It takes 4 female witnesses if a man is being accused.
Funny how he could flat out ignore this part of the article:

Women 'poorly represented'

In theory the penalty of stoning to death applies to both men and women.

But the lawyers say that in practice, many more women than men receive the sentence because they are less well educated and often poorly represented in court.

Human rights group Amnesty International earlier this year called on Iran to abolish "this grotesque punishment" and said many facing execution by stoning were sentenced after unfair trials.

Under Iran's strict penal code, men convicted of adultery should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests for stoning. The stones used should not be large enough to kill the person immediately.


Incidentally, I also find it funny that "Sunni" Man is defending a bunch of Shi'ites you'd expect him to want to explodificate. But I guess nothing unites the sects quite like sexism. (Oh yes, pun intended.)

[RandFan]

Incidentally, I also find it funny that "Sunni" Man is defending a bunch of Shi'ites you'd expect him to want to explodificate. But I guess nothing unites the sects quite like sexism. (Oh yes, pun intended.) Oh, and the killing, don't forget the killing. There's nothing better on a Friday night than stoning to death an adulterer or at least someone accused of adultery. Hell, whatever let's just have the stoning.

Just be sure to bring your popcorn (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/485222603_a2827c1d56_o.jpg).

[billydkid]

Let me point out a real difference between the kind of bloody, shocking and barbaric death penalty as practiced in The Islamic Republic and the modern death penalty as practiced in, say, Connecticut.

In Iran the purpose and effect of these stonings is to terrorize the public. The ranting chanting spectators of these barbarous proceedings know one thing for certain; that any deviation on their part from the whims of the rulers could have devastating consequences, immediately and on scant evidence.

In Connecticut, (and many other US states) executions are rare (we've had one since the early 1960's) done in private, occur usually many years after conviction, and usually after exhaustive legal proceedings and appeals. The purpose and effect? Perhaps to allow politicians a way to satisfy a crime weary public that "something" is being done to "fight crime" and practically, it gives prosecutors a handy tool to convince murderers to cop pleas to life or long sentences rather than to risk execution.I am not an advocate for the death penalty (not that I don't believe that some people do deserve to die) but it important to distinguish between executing people for committing murder and executing them "morality" crimes. Certainly it can be argued that murder is immoral, but that isn't why it is illegal or why people are punished for it. I think it is important to separate morality from the law, with the law being based on certain basic principles of such as the notion that all people have the right to life and liberty and people should only be sanctioned by the state for depriving others of those basic rights.

[zooterkin]

Google is your friend right?
Indeed, it is. As far as I can tell (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png), the US is nearly alone in 'Western society' on this issue, so to use the term in this context is a little misleading.

I was also talking historically.

Ok, that wasn't clear from your use of the present tense.

[zooterkin]

It would take a perverse form of denial to ignore Oliver's history. This guy has come here and day after day, month after month for at least a year perhaps years with a singlemindedness not seen in most posters. His threads and posts are amost always if not always anti-American.

I know, I've seen his posts. In this particular case, what I've specifically been commenting on is Travis's reaction to Oliver's comment. Oliver's post does not depend on viewing the treatment of the people in Iran as identical with that of people executed in the US. It's highlighting the fact that a similar sense of incredulity is felt in some countries to the persistence of the death penalty in a civilised country as is felt in the US (as elsewhere) with regard to the persistence of stoning in Iran.

[RandFan]

I know, I've seen his posts. In this particular case, what I've specifically been commenting on is Travis's reaction to Oliver's comment. Oliver's post does not depend on viewing the treatment of the people in Iran as identical with that of people executed in the US. It's highlighting the fact that a similar sense of incredulity is felt in some countries to the persistence of the death penalty in a civilised country as is felt in the US (as elsewhere) with regard to the persistence of stoning in Iran.Ok, I understand your point. Yes, I agree.

[Oliver]

:rolleyes:

Really? (http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-4/holocaust-remnants2.GIF)


Really (http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/grundgesetz/index.html).


[offtopic edit] Happy Birthday, RandFan (http://blog.ice-lingen.de/content/binary/happy_birthday_cake.jpg)! :grouphug6:beerflag: (I still didn't figure out your first name, sorry for that...) [/offtopic edit]

[RandFan]

Really (http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/grundgesetz/index.html). No sprechen zie deutsch.


[offtopic edit] Happy Birthday, RandFan (http://blog.ice-lingen.de/content/binary/happy_birthday_cake.jpg)! :grouphug6:beerflag: (I still didn't figure out your first name, sorry for that...) [/offtopic edit][/quote]

Thank you. In all sincerity. Thanks.

[moon1969]

So Iranian Revolution was just like from the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. Important question is that would Iran be a better place if the Shah would still be in power?

[Oliver]

No sprechen zie deutsch.


Thank you. In all sincerity. Thanks.


I refuse to accept any further thanks from you until I know your forename, RandFan... :p

[RandFan]

I refuse to accept any further thanks from you until I know your forename, RandFan... :p


RandFan
RandFan
RandFan
RandFan
Want to know my fivename?

[moon1969]

It is amazing to think that history still effects us today. USA supported the 1953 coup in Iran because prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was going to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. Mohammed Mosaddeq maybe was a communist. Because of complicated historical evolution Iran is the way it is today. You can"t just blame America for the current situation in Iran. Iran probaly would be a better place if the Shah was still in power. Shah was a moderate and secular muslim.

[Oliver]

RandFan
RandFan
RandFan
RandFan

Want to know my fivename?


[off-topic] Look, RandFan - I know you are not a shy one - and I already started a thread about your friggin B-Day and so I'm waiting for your first name for an appropriate thread title. So would you mind to stop derailing this thread any longer by simply telling me your forename? :p [off-topic]

[on-topic] Does the Iranian Regime even officially support the stoning of citizens[/on-topic]

[Oliver]

Are you honestly saying there's no difference between executing a convicted murderer by lethal injection and stoning a woman to death for adultery?


Personally I don't differ between a death sentence based on one kind of death compared to a death sentence based on another kind of death. The end result is death, isn't it?

So living and growing up in a country without Death-Sentences, in your opinion: why should I support one death sentence over another? :confused:

[Try to adopt my POV here]

[Hooloovoo]

Personally I don't differ between a death sentence based on one kind of death compared to a death sentence based on another kind of death. The end result is death, isn't it?

So living and growing up in a country without Death-Sentences, in your opinion: why should I support one death sentence over another? :confused:

[Try to adopt my POV here]

Have you been asked to support one death sentence over another?
Most of the posts I've read in this thread are anti-death penalty all the way around. I don't support any death sentence either, but that doesn't mean I believe lethal injection is equally as inhumane as stoning.

You can compare one death to another death. The end result may be death either way, but sheesh. It's the difference between quickly swatting a fly verses slowly tearing off its legs and wings. The end result is death, but one way is far nastier and more inhumane than the other.

[SezMe]

So Iranian Revolution was just like from the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. Important question is that would Iran be a better place if the Shah would still be in power?

It is amazing to think that history still effects us today. USA supported the 1953 coup in Iran because prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was going to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. Mohammed Mosaddeq maybe was a communist. Because of complicated historical evolution Iran is the way it is today. You can"t just blame America for the current situation in Iran. Iran probaly would be a better place if the Shah was still in power. Shah was a moderate and secular muslim.
Take it to a new thread, moon, if you want to discuss the Iranian revolution and its aftereffects.

[fuelair]

It is amazing to think that history still effects us today. USA supported the 1953 coup in Iran because prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was going to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. Mohammed Mosaddeq maybe was a communist. Because of complicated historical evolution Iran is the way it is today. You can"t just blame America for the current situation in Iran. Iran probaly would be a better place if the Shah was still in power. Shah was a moderate and secular muslim.

No argument there, he was replaced by walking fecal matter.

[fishkr]

DATELINE 2008 - It's the 21st century and we as a species are still stoning people.

Indeed. I am known to be unkind to the Mormon (your past) faith because of its many similarities to Islam, but this is where the two (thankfully) diverge. Slavery, childrape, the repression of women, etc., are things they seem to have in common. No stoning though. A good thing.

[Travis]

Personally I don't differ between a death sentence based on one kind of death compared to a death sentence based on another kind of death. The end result is death, isn't it?

So living and growing up in a country without Death-Sentences, in your opinion: why should I support one death sentence over another? :confused:

[Try to adopt my POV here]

So, just to clarify things, you don't see any difference?

You do realize that acts that are perfectly legal in your country and in the USA will get you executed by the government in Iran? Yet you think both systems are equally repressive? In which country would you prefer to be on trial and, if convicted, by which method would you prefer to die?

[Travis]

Indeed. I am known to be unkind to the Mormon (your past) faith because of its many similarities to Islam, but this is where the two (thankfully) diverge. Slavery, childrape, the repression of women, etc., are things they seem to have in common. No stoning though. A good thing.

Yeah, those Mormon slave owners are such a nuisance. They have all those big plantations and haul the slaves around in pick up trucks and have them beaten if they try to call up their embassy with a cell phone.:rolleyes:

[Oliver]

So, just to clarify things, you don't see any difference?

You do realize that acts that are perfectly legal in your country and in the USA will get you executed by the government in Iran? Yet you think both systems are equally repressive? In which country would you prefer to be on trial and, if convicted, by which method would you prefer to die?


Since God doesn't exist in my world, I would like to be impeached in Germany. No matter what I did, I know that I will not face the death penalty. So even if I consider stoning as a pretty inhuman kind of death, I think that the US death sentence isn't conform to the way I grew up, either.

Feel free to cite the Bible's moral POV here: Why should the Death Penalty be allowed despite our current, modern, civilized human level? ...

[fuelair]

Since God doesn't exist in my world, I would like to be impeached in Germany. No matter what I did, I know that I will not face the death penalty. So even if I consider stoning as a pretty inhuman kind of death, I think that the US death sentence isn't conform to the way I grew up, either.

Feel free to cite the Bible's moral POV here: Why should the Death Penalty be allowed despite our current, modern, civilized human level? ...Because death is the only way to even begin to even out for certain crimes (most physical but not all). If I believed in a Dog AND if - never mind, that part is a logical impossibl\ility. Let's just say, murder a kid, torture and/or murder a kid (or many other classes of person) and I won't feel even for that vileness (even if not mine or related) just with death. I really want educational, long (a week or two at least) death for things like that. Whether sane or insane, whether treated well or treated badly during life, I want them to die understanding fully that they are being punished for what they did. The bibble/xtianity or other religion, etc. has no bearing or effect on me about this.

[Oliver]

Because death is the only way to even begin to even out for certain crimes (most physical but not all). If I believed in a Dog AND if - never mind, that part is a logical impossibl\ility. Let's just say, murder a kid, torture and/or murder a kid (or many other classes of person) and I won't feel even for that vileness (even if not mine or related) just with death. I really want educational, long (a week or two at least) death for things like that. Whether sane or insane, whether treated well or treated badly during life, I want them to die understanding fully that they are being punished for what they did. The bibble/xtianity or other religion, etc. has no bearing or effect on me about this.


So you don't think that a lifetime-sentence is even more punishing than death?

To me a death sentence is just some kind of satisfaction rather than a logically based sentence. You seem to prefer personal satisfaction over logical punishment as well. By that I mean: As longer you have time to think about what you did, as longer you have to struggle with it. [I should add that a lifetime sentence in liberal Germany is 15 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Germany)]

Why is that / Where did you get your moral point of view?

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, and the killing, don't forget the killing. There's nothing better on a Friday night than stoning to death an adulterer or at least someone accused of adultery. Hell, whatever let's just have the stoning.
I prefer to do them to ensure a good harvest: Lottery in June, corn high soon.

It may not be fair, it may not be right (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417917/), but it's how we do things around here, mister. ;) In Iran they haven't yet decided to stop doing that. Funny, they are not on my short list of "must visit" countries, to be taken up when I stop being mad at the airlines
Just be sure to bring your popcorn (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/485222603_a2827c1d56_o.jpg).[/QUOTE]
It's only a flesh wound. :p

[gumboot]

[I should add that a lifetime sentence in liberal Germany is 15 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Germany)]



No it isn't. Life is life. Period. The clue is in the name.

15 years is the minimum non-parole period.

Oliver, what is your obsession with knowing poster's actual names? Frankly I find it rather disturbing. Please respect other poster's privacy.

[gumboot]

So you don't think that a lifetime-sentence is even more punishing than death?


Personally I don't think a death sentence is a form of punishment, and I think people who perceive imprisonment as punishment have forgotten what the real purpose of it is.

Imprisonment is intended to remove people from society that have demonstrated an inability to conform to society's expectations. For minor crimes it is hoped a short while in exile from society will convince the criminal to see the error of their ways. For more serious offenders, who are obviously beyond saving, they must permanently be exiled from society in order to protect society.

Obviously we can't exactly exile people these days as there's no "wilderness" to exile them to, so the alternatives are either death, or permanent imprisonment. Imprisonment avoids the conscience of having executed another human, but puts a not-insignificant drain on society. Keeping prisoners costs money.

A life sentence; be that literally the taking of the prisoner's life or merely life time imprisonment, is not done to punish the prisoner. It is done to protect the society that they had betrayed.

I also am opposed to the death sentence, however I can see the logic for those that advocate it for especially heinous crimes.

A distinction can be made between the acceptance or not of the death penalty, the actual method of the act of execution, and the crime for which the execution is being issued.

One could certainly agree that there is no difference, in terms of execution in principle, between Iran and the USA. Both states impose death sentences on convicted criminals.

However to try and pass this off as the entirety of the issue is utterly dishonest, and not a ploy an intelligent person will fall for. It leaves out two crucial factors; indeed two factors that some would argue are far more relevant;

1) Method of execution employed
Consider, if you will, the execution of animals for the purpose of meat. If "dead is dead" what different does it make how humanely and quickly the animals are slaughtered, right? They'll be dead anyway, rather than an expensive and carefully controlled system, why not torture the animals for a bit first?

2) Justification of execution
Does the punishment fit the crime? If we accept that the primary purpose of a life sentence of any kind is to protect society by removing wholly corrupt and unsuitable elements from society (such as mass murderers) what does it say of a society if adulterers or homosexuals or rape victims are lumped into this category?

I trust now, the hypocrisy of those who claim one execution is no different to another is clear.

(There's also the matter of determining guilt, but I think point 2) overshadows guilt in any regard; what does it matter if individuals were guilty or not, if the alleged act does not justify punishment?)

[Roadtoad]

Well, let's consider the "crime" listed in the OP. These nine are being charged with the heinous crime of Adultry. They had sex outside the bonds of wedlock.

It's interesting that eight of those convicted are women, but we don't see the men being held for punishment of this act. It's an odd situation. What did these women do? Masturbate? Someone needs to call in Betty Dodson, and quick.

Frankly, if I'm going to see someone whacked in the name of justice, it would be Richard Allen Davis, who murdered Polly Klaas. I didn't shed any tears for Robert Alton Harris, who murdered a couple of teenage boys for no reason, other than he wanted to. There was no question of either man's guilt, and their crimes were sufficiently heinous enough to warrant a death penalty.

But what do you do for those who are being cleared by The Innocence Project? People who have spent decades in some cases on Death Row. What do you do about men and women who have made false accusations regarding the guilt of people who have, in fact, done nothing wrong?

More to the point, what do you do regarding a society that punishes someone for getting a little nookie on the side by stoning them, a vicious, cruel, prolonged and humiliating form of punishment? I don't see where the punishment fits the crime, particularly when you consider that if a guy cheats on his old lady here in the states, she gets half of everything. (Or more, for that matter. I think in Idaho, if you pull such a stupid move, you lose it all.)

Sorry, you can't stay silent about this. This does not stop the cheating. It just adds to the kick. Particularly in a repressive society like Iran.

[fuelair]

So you don't think that a lifetime-sentence is even more punishing than death?

To me a death sentence is just some kind of satisfaction rather than a logically based sentence. You seem to prefer personal satisfaction over logical punishment as well. By that I mean: As longer you have time to think about what you did, as longer you have to struggle with it. [I should add that a lifetime sentence in liberal Germany is 15 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Germany)]

Why is that / Where did you get your moral point of view?Let me clear this up for you - and I suggest you look into the psychology of a)criminals/criminology and b) sexual perversions before returning to this. If you actually think most of theses slimes (at the level I am referring to) have any sense of right or wrong and any sense that anything happened other than they were put in prison because of evil people who do not understand them, (simplification but not inaccurate, just don't want to do a treatise here). Most (and I am really not interested in seperating the ones who are not quite in the category)would repeat if they escaped (of course, no one ever has, but...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:)/were paroled and would /will eventually die still believing they had a right and were right doing what they did. If I thought they could never escape, would have no input or contact with other prisoners/guards/family etc. and live out their life in a, say (to go with your generosity to them ) 8X8foot cell 7' high (I would go with 4X4X4), and be fed oatmeal* twice a day for the rest of their lives (delivered mechanically) I might go fo that. But if they are treated like human beings, not if I can help it. It would,by the by, almost certainly not result in any sorrow/remorse for what they did - but they would be damned.....sorry they did it.

The advantage of my preference is they will be sorry sooner and we won't waste money housing and feeding the garbage.





*I have nothing against oatmeal, but although nourishing, without sweetener it is bland - if you get my drift.

[Pardalis]

So, just to clarify things, you don't see any difference?

You do realize that acts that are perfectly legal in your country and in the USA will get you executed by the government in Iran? Yet you think both systems are equally repressive? In which country would you prefer to be on trial and, if convicted, by which method would you prefer to die?

Since God doesn't exist in my world, I would like to be impeached in Germany. No matter what I did, I know that I will not face the death penalty. So even if I consider stoning as a pretty inhuman kind of death, I think that the US death sentence isn't conform to the way I grew up, either.

Feel free to cite the Bible's moral POV here: Why should the Death Penalty be allowed despite our current, modern, civilized human level? ...

I don't follow.

What the hell does god have to do with Travis' response? :confused:

Nice way to completely avoid Travis' very good point by building a strawman. Oh well, business as usual in Oliverland.

[Travis]

Since God doesn't exist in my world, I would like to be impeached in Germany.

Great, way to avoid answering. I did not ask where, of any country, you would like to be tried in court I was asking you to specifically choose between two countries. Your avoidance is noted.

No matter what I did, I know that I will not face the death penalty. So even if I consider stoning as a pretty inhuman kind of death, I think that the US death sentence isn't conform to the way I grew up, either.

Speed limits on freeways don't conform to the way you grew up either, however the way you grew up isn't relevant. Avoidance to answer is again noted.

Feel free to cite the Bible's moral POV here: Why should the Death Penalty be allowed despite our current, modern, civilized human level? ...

What does the Bible have to do with my question? I oppose the death penalty too, and I'm not a Christian, but I can at least distinguish that this isn't an entirely black or white issue that Capitol Punishment can be done in ways of various levels of ethicality and in some countries is reserved for only the most heinous crimes and is done in a system that offers some semblance of legal protection.

If you choose to not distinguish any difference between a country that will kill you for adultery in brutal way done by a mob and a country that will only kill you for killing other humans and will do it in a humane way, that's your prerogative.

[Oliver]

Great, way to avoid answering. I did not ask where, of any country, you would like to be tried in court I was asking you to specifically choose between two countries. Your avoidance is noted.

Speed limits on freeways don't conform to the way you grew up either, however the way you grew up isn't relevant. Avoidance to answer is again noted.

What does the Bible have to do with my question? I oppose the death penalty too, and I'm not a Christian, but I can at least distinguish that this isn't an entirely black or white issue that Capitol Punishment can be done in ways of various levels of ethicality and in some countries is reserved for only the most heinous crimes and is done in a system that offers some semblance of legal protection.

If you choose to not distinguish any difference between a country that will kill you for adultery in brutal way done by a mob and a country that will only kill you for killing other humans and will do it in a humane way, that's your prerogative.


Since we all know that civil law isn't something the current administration acknowledges if it's in their way of "justice", I'm not sure what country would be more appropriate for a trial. After all, the Quran might be a more revealing explanation for my indictment than the US-legal code... :D ;)

Well, and I grew up in a country that thinks that the death sentence is "out of date". And even if "stoning to death" is even more out of date than using computer-regulated-sci-fi-anti-sattelite-and-radar-unmanned aerial vehicle-death-techniques, it's still a death sentence after all.

So I refuse to accept your flawed logic of assuming that "killing people is just fine if the US does it". [Google Iraq (http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=iraq%20casualties&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)]

And before I answer the rest of your questions: Does Iran officially support their citizens stoning to death? [Sources appreciated]

[Pardalis]

Ladies and gentlemen, Oliver has left the orbit of the earth.

[Oliver]

Ladies and gentlemen, Oliver has left the orbit of the earth.


No I didn't - I still had enough decency to congratulate RandFan to his Birthday - in contrast to some other folks in here... :D:p Anyway: what is your criticism about today ... before I fall asleep after staying awake waiting for your B-Day-congratulations... :mad::p

[Pardalis]

Oliver, this is a yes or no question.

Is there a considerable difference between executing someone for having committed a murder, and executing someone for being who they are (for example a homosexual).

No Bush, no Iraq, no "computer-regulated-sci-fi-anti-sattelite-and-radar-unmanned aerial vehicle-death-techniques", just Yes or No.

[kerikiwi]

Is there a considerable difference between executing someone for having committed a murder, and executing someone for being who they are (for example a homosexual).


Perhaps the better question would be whether people should be punished for homosexual acts ( they are not convicted for being homosexual, but for homosexual activities), not whether they should be killed.
Once you establish that no, homosexual acts should not be illegal, then the death sentence question is redundant.

[Travis]

Since we all know that civil law isn't something the current administration acknowledges if it's in their way of "justice", I'm not sure what country would be more appropriate for a trial. After all, the Quran might be a more revealing explanation for my indictment than the US-legal code... :D ;)

Care to point out any criminal trials that the Bush Administration has subverted? Care to point out any statistics that show that the criminal justice system in the US is substantially different under Bush than under Clinton?

Oh, and you seem to have made at least one choice. You prefer Quaranic law, okay, let that show you have chosen to be tried in Iran and not the US.

Well, and I grew up in a country that thinks that the death sentence is "out of date". And even if "stoning to death" is even more out of date than using computer-regulated-sci-fi-anti-sattelite-and-radar-unmanned aerial vehicle-death-techniques, it's still a death sentence after all.

Are you seriously calling JDAM bombs a means of Capitol Punishment? Are you seriously calling causalities in a war the victims of state execution?

So I refuse to accept your flawed logic of assuming that "killing people is just fine if the US does it". [Google Iraq (http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=iraq%20casualties&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)]

Wow, did I ever say it was "fine?" I merely said it was less horrid and more fair. You seem to have a hard time acknowledging even that. Can you at least give the US some credit for not imprisoning, let alone executing, homosexuals and adulterers? In my state we even let homosexuals marry.

And before I answer the rest of your questions: Does Iran officially support their citizens stoning to death? [Sources appreciated]

Does the fact that a court ordered the sentence and the government hasn't intervened to stop it mean anything?

[Oliver]

No it isn't. Life is life. Period. The clue is in the name.

15 years is the minimum non-parole period.




So a 150 years life sentence (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6DF163AF931A25751C0A9659C8B 63) and above does make sense as you? :confused:

Anyway: Life sentence isn't meant to be for a lifetime over here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sentence#Germany

[Roadtoad]

So a 150 years life sentence (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6DF163AF931A25751C0A9659C8B 63) and above does make sense as you? :confused:

Anyway: Life sentence isn't meant to be for a lifetime over here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sentence#Germany

Sorry, Oliver, but in the case you cited, it seems to me that 150 years is incredibly lenient. And as to Germany, I could honestly wish that in Germany, in cases such as this particular one, a long term sentence like that one would be meted out.

It reminds me of a case I heard about regarding an American soldier who mudered a German woman. In the end, the German government handed the soldier over to American authorities under the Status Of Forces Agreement. In Germany, the killer could only receive a life sentence. In a Court Martial, he was ordered to face execution. It happened around 1982 if I recall. Maybe someone has better info than my fallible memory.

IIRC, the murder was particularly brutal. While Germany did hold jurisdiction, the local authorities decided to hand the killer over to the Americans because we could not only hold him longer, but because we still have the DP.

[Oliver]

Sorry, Oliver, but in the case you cited, it seems to me that 150 years is incredibly lenient. And as to Germany, I could honestly wish that in Germany, in cases such as this particular one, a long term sentence like that one would be meted out.

It reminds me of a case I heard about regarding an American soldier who mudered a German woman. In the end, the German government handed the soldier over to American authorities under the Status Of Forces Agreement. In Germany, the killer could only receive a life sentence. In a Court Martial, he was ordered to face execution. It happened around 1982 if I recall. Maybe someone has better info than my fallible memory.

IIRC, the murder was particularly brutal. While Germany did hold jurisdiction, the local authorities decided to hand the killer over to the Americans because we could not only hold him longer, but because we still have the DP.


That would be the first case in which the German Government did sponsor the death penalty - which would be quite a surprise to me. From all similar cases I know, the German Government never supported any harsher penalty than it would've been over here, especially when it comes to the widely unsupported and criticized death penalty...