Paedophile to be beheaded and crucified in Saudi Arabia for string of sex attacks where he left toddler to die in desert
Last updated at 8:54 AM on 04th November 2009



Article

Wish they would do that to some of the street scum here.

Apart from giving them the opportunity to re-enact a famous scene from Life of Brian, what difference would it make?

There is nothing wrong with executing baby rapists/murderers. Or chavs.

The stereotypical chav is an aggressive teenager or young adult who often engages in anti-social behaviour, such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdy behaviour.

If you have a flawed system that is bloated, overly bureaucratic, inefficient and simply doesn't work very well, that is just a poor system.

In this particular instance, if there was no doubt of his guilt and he never denied what he did and there was all the evidence they needed to convict him speedily, why not execute?

What's wrong with preventing recidivism?

I'm just pointing out that it is simply not true to say deterrents don't work anywhere in the world.

The main benefit of the death sentence is that it removes scum from society who have forfeited their right to be a part of it.

I find it rather odd you would be so passionate in your defence of a serial baby rapist/murderer.

As a deterrent, the death penalty is really useless in its current state. What needs to be done is live broadcasts of the events, preferably during a halftime event during large sporting events. Okay, it probably wouldn't deter anyone that way either, but damn, would it make sports much more interesting.

Not if they're let out no. And if they're not (rare, because 'life' rarely means life) then they rack up huge costs at the taxpayer's expense.

No, it isn't. Once again you're talking about a system, not the punishment. If you have a system that makes people languish on Death Row for years and is bogged down with bureaucracy that is just a bad system. It's not a reflection on a particular punishment.

I'm not talking about systems at all. If you cold bloodedly murder someone in a room full of eye-witnesses and have no excuse as to why you did it other than he looked at you funny, it's a pretty clear cut case.

You and that other guy seemed obsessed with a crappy system that might possibly execute undeserving people for whom there could be doubt as to their guilt. But no one is talking about that.

There is no reason not to execute those who are deserving and whose guilt has been established just because a crappy system in another country might occasionally execute people in error.

That's an ignorant thing to say. The anecdotes of people who live in a place and have done so for years tell you what it's like to live there. That's how people know what it's like to live in a certain place. And when thousands or millions of people tell you exactly the same thing that's how you learn for sure what a particular place is like.

If for some reason you don't believe all those people, you are welcome to get on a plane and see for yourself with your own eyes. I personally have visited many such places in the world and can testify as to what it's like first hand.

Sadly, most of the places where you can leave your wallet unguarded or walk home late at night free from muggers or rapists have the downside of being run by dictatorial or oppressive governments. So they might make an interesting place to go on holiday but you wouldn't want to live there.

There are plenty of convicted people in the world facing all sorts of punishments who have been caught red handed and who can't deny what they did. If one of those commits a crime so bad it's deserving of a death sentence then do it.

If someone is facing a death sentence but there is doubt over whether he committed his crime then you need a system that can deal with that and how you do that is not what we're talking about here.

If you want to start a thread debating the relative merits of the world's various penal systems that is up to you. I'm just pointing out that the world is full of criminals for whom there is no doubt as to their crimes and if one of those is worthy of the death sentence then I have no problem with it.

Not if they're let out no. And if they're not (rare, because 'life' rarely means life) then they rack up huge costs at the taxpayer's expense.

Ok, I'm TOTALLY against the death penalty, but after hearing about the long time it takes to set up and go through an enlectric chair or lethal injection execution, and how often they are stuffed up, IF you are going to have a death penalty at all, I'm much in favour of a very very sharp sword/axe/guillotine.

Life has, in many past systems, meant life. Sending people to Australia certainly removed them from British society.

If someone is facing a death sentence but there is doubt over whether he committed his crime then you need a system that can deal with that and how you do that is not what we're talking about here.

If someone is facing a death sentence but there is doubt over whether he committed his crime then you need a system that can deal with that and how you do that is not what we're talking about here.

That's how people know what it's like to live in a certain place. And when thousands or millions of people tell you exactly the same thing that's how you learn for sure what a particular place is like.

Not if they're let out no. And if they're not (rare, because 'life' rarely means life) then they rack up huge costs at the taxpayer's expense.

Vive France!

To be fair, I think the level of UK based poster was not representative of the UK as a whole. We needed someone to lower the balance a bit.

Vive la France!

We've sent people to the guillotine for less than this.

In 1791, as the French Revolution progressed, the National Assembly sought a new method to be used on all condemned people regardless of class. Their concerns contributed to the idea that capital punishment's purpose was the ending of life instead of the infliction of pain.

The guillotine was thus perceived to deliver an immediate death without risk of suffocation. Furthermore, having only one method of execution was seen as an expression of equality among citizens. The guillotine was then the only legal execution method in France until the abolition of the death penalty in 1981.

The Revolutionary Tribunal sentenced thousands to the guillotine. Nobility and commoners, intellectuals, politicians and prostitutes, all were liable to be executed on little or no grounds; suspicion of "crimes against liberty" was enough to earn one an appointment with "Madame Guillotine" (also referred to as "The National Razor"). Estimates of the death toll range between 15,000 and 40,000.

The last public guillotining was of Eugen Weidmann, who was convicted of six murders. He was beheaded on 17 June 1939, outside the prison Saint-Pierre rue Georges Clémenceau 5 at Versailles, which is now the Palais de Justice. The allegedly scandalous behaviour of some of the onlookers on this occasion, and an incorrect assembly of the apparatus, as well as the fact it was secretly filmed, caused the authorities to decide that executions in the future were to take place in the prison courtyard. Jules-Henri Desfourneaux, the presiding "number one" executioner at this time was variously reported as slow, possibly drunk, and indecisive, certainly a far cry from his well-regarded immediate predecessor Anatole Deibler. He was also prone to arguing with his cousin and "number two" André Obrecht which led to the latter's resignation on two separate occasions, the last involving a fistfight between the pair after an execution.

The guillotine remained the official method of execution in France until France abolished the death penalty in 1981. The last guillotining in France was that of torture-murderer Hamida Djandoubi on 10 September 1977.

Yeah, I was thinking that. By the way, do you post on the Wiki forums also?

I made the very simple point that if someone's guilt has been established quickly and easily for a heinous crime then I have no problem with the death penalty being applied.

Here, I'll help you out.

If it were that simple, then yes, your point would mean something. Hell, I'd agree with you. However, no system created to date, has proven to be even remotely that simple, so everything Red and Locke are saying are valid points.

I feel sorry for jtftaru. Must be rough being unable to grasp reality :(

More nonsense and still not respnding to the point I actually made.