Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: X-ray on December 13, 2006, 02:20:31 PM
-
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1322#
Quite interesting, he is totally detached from it, emotionally. I would have thought he would have had serious issues with this, having seen his father execute someone when he was only a lad. He says also that he has executed people he knows. I don't know if I could execute someone, but I definitely wouldn't be able to execute someone I know :-o
-
I can recommend The Last Hangman (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4852622.stm) starring Timothy Spall as Albert Pierrepoint. Pierrepoint was the executioner who saw Ruth Ellis on her way and gained a dubious honour for dispatching people in remarkably quick time. He was commissioned to deal with dozens of Nazi criminals after the war and had to set up a conveyor belt system to handle the job. Contrary to popular images, Pierrpointe was a religious man who treated his charges with a quite remarkable respect.
JaX
-
Ruth Ellis: the pub where she shot that guy dead is not from me and the bullet holes are still there in the masonry!
IIRC she was the last woman hanged in Britain.
-
X-ray wrote:
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1322#
Quite interesting, he is totally detached from it, emotionally. I would have thought he would have had serious issues with this, having seen his father execute someone when he was only a lad. He says also that he has executed people he knows. I don't know if I could execute someone, but I definitely wouldn't be able to execute someone I know :-o
Horrific! On more than one level too. :-o
-
Maybe I am sick, but I had to laugh when he was talking about "Diff'rent Strokes" (For diff'rent folks?)
(http://images.starpulse.com/AMGPhotos/dvd/cov150/drt400/t470/t47098of9sc.jpg)
"What you talkin'bout Willis?" ;-)
ps That bird in the pink headdress is rather tasty I reckon!
-
X-ray wrote:
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1322#
Quite interesting, he is totally detached from it, emotionally. I would have thought he would have had serious issues with this, having seen his father execute someone when he was only a lad. He says also that he has executed people he knows. I don't know if I could execute someone, but I definitely wouldn't be able to execute someone I know :-o
Executing people for a living, regardless of the method isn't the sort of thing I would think the normal human being is capable of. His emotional detachment from his work doubtless speaks volumes about his mental health.
Saudi is keen to enforce sharia punishment as a deterrant but is far less bothered about the justice system behind it. Consequently a lot of people end up facing this penalty on the flimsiest of convictions when it is supposed to be the last resort for the soundest convictions for the worst crimes.
-
"What you talkin'bout Willis?"
Me? Never said a word. :-P
-
I found the whole thing utterly barbaric. That this was televised is revolting enough, but the questions asked by the interviewers were equally sick and voyeuristic. That this so-called 'man' could surround himself with children and utter such words over them left me numbed. I know nothing, nor do I wish to learn anything of that culture, but what I witnessed was not, in my opinion, anything related to civilisation.
JaX
-
JaXanim wrote:
I found the whole thing utterly barbaric. That this was televised is revolting enough, but the questions asked by the interviewers were equally sick and voyeuristic. That this so-called 'man' could surround himself with children and utter such words over them left me numbed. I know nothing, nor do I wish to learn anything of that culture, but what I witnessed was not, in my opinion, anything related to civilisation.
JaX
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?
-
JaXanim wrote:
I found the whole thing utterly barbaric. That this was televised is revolting enough, but the questions asked by the interviewers were equally sick and voyeuristic. That this so-called 'man' could surround himself with children and utter such words over them left me numbed. I know nothing, nor do I wish to learn anything of that culture, but what I witnessed was not, in my opinion, anything related to civilisation.
JaX
I thought the host questions showed a morbid interest in the details.
What was your most difficult beheading?
Have you ever beheaded someone you knew?
Do you execute both men and women?
Do you feel anything different when you execute a woman or a man? We know you are merely carrying out [the sentence], but what do you feel?
When you behead more than three or four people at once, does it affect you?
Do you need a break between executions? Does it affect you or not?
we've heard that one day, you were executing several people, and the sword broke. Is that true? Tell us that story, please.
What time do you get up? Do you eat a special breakfast?
All these details are very important to us.
-
CannonFodder wrote:
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?
The legal system and the equality, fairness and justice it renders are what make a system civilised.
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?
The legal system and the equality, fairness and justice it renders are what make a system civilised.
I am confused. Beheading murderers would be civilized if it was performed in America?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?
No. But you seem to have missed my point entirely.
JaX
-
JaXanim wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Is the custom of beheading murderers anyless "civilised" than electrocuting them to death via the cranuim?
No. But you seem to have missed my point entirely.
Which is?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
Which is?
That the interview was considered worthy television. That the producers considered any audience would wish to experience it. That the executioner should display the tools of his trade with such pride. That the interviewers, for whatever purpose and with seeming relish, ensured every detail was elicited. That children, for whatever reason, should form part of it. I found the experience inconscionable of civilised society. It was disquieting that I wasn't watching a grusome blood-letting movie but a story of someone's actual daily life. There's surely an argument that any section of humanity which kills its criminals, by whatever procedure, for the purpose of extracting revenge can never be truly 'civilised'.
JaX
-
JaXanim wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Which is?
That the interview was considered worthy television. That the producers considered any audience would wish to experience it. That the executioner should display the tools of his trade with such pride. That the interviewers, for whatever purpose and with seeming relish, ensured every detail was elicited. That children, for whatever reason, should form part of it. I found the experience inconscionable of civilised society. It was disquieting that I wasn't watching a grusome blood-letting movie but a story of someone's actual daily life. There's surely an argument that any section of humanity which kills its criminals, by whatever procedure, for the purpose of extracting revenge can never be truly 'civilised'.
JaX
So I didn't miss your point then as I agree with it.
I still think electrocution to death via the cranium is a far more horrific way to die than having ones head chopped off.
-
I'd rather not do either ;-)
-
Karlos wrote:
I'd rather not do either ;-)
Glad to hear it, but which one would you prefer to have done to you? ;-)
-
well, i would certainly prefer the head chopping off because then i at least get the satisfaction of spraying my blood every where,
all executions are barbaric operations (much like animal slaughter) dressing it up as though it is painless or civilised is daft, let it be what it is! a {bleep}ing nasty business. But in my opinion a good way to scare the {bleep} out of criminal minded individuals, or get a tasty protein filled meal (from animal slaughter of course)
PS. some geezer who was executed in florida via leathal injection wriggled in pain for 35 minutes before he died ,due to liver disease that prevented the drugs from working.
-
CannonFodder wrote:
I am confused. Beheading murderers would be civilized if it was performed in America?
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
Beheading is a French and Islamic traditional method.
The British method of hanging, drawing and quartering for High Treason is what is being refered to as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
...
Mary Blandy uttered the famous words, "for the sake of decency, gentlemen, don't hang me high". (April 6th, 1752)
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
I am confused. Beheading murderers would be civilized if it was performed in America?
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
Beheading is a French and Islamic traditional method.
The British method of hanging, drawing and quartering for High Treason is what is being refered to as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
...
Mary Blandy's uttered the famous words, "for the sake of decency, gentlemen, don't hang me high". (April the 6th, 1752)
That is an horrific way to die too.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
-
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
An *illegal* cruel and unusual punishment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stm)
-
I believe killing people, for whatever reason and regardless of method, (apart from self defence) is uncivilised.
-
I would argue that chopping off ones head is much less painful that being hanged by the neck. A bullet to the brain would also be a better method than hanging.
-
Wilse wrote:
I believe killing people, for whatever reason and regardless of method, (apart from self defence) is uncivilised.
Good job you changed your mind and didn't sign up for the Army eh?
-
@thread
Information from the DPIC (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=479#firing) seems to suggest that all present forms of execution used in the US take longer and are typically more painful* than being decapitated.
*lethal injection shouldn't be if done properly but there are reported cases of it failing due to misinjection of the various chemicals into muscle tissue etc.
-
Ah men, these threads always give me a nasty feeling.
-
Ja it seems there are two issues:
1) The death penalty itself
2) The mode of execution
We have had a thread about number (1) already. This is the summary of that thread as I recall it:
Those who reject the death penalty say:
1) The planned taking of a life is never justified.
2) There are other options such as incarceration.
3) The death penalty is partly fuelled by revenge.
4) The wrong man could die.
Those who support the death penalty say:
1) The condemned man put himself in that position when he committed whatever crime he committed.
2) It deters crime.
3) It consumes less resources than a life sentence.
4) As long as the evidence is sound, there is no chance for a mistake.
If I remember correctly it was one of those threads that couldn't arrive at a specific conclusion ;-)
Maybe we should just concentrate on the methods of execution. I just saw on the news that a dude who underwent lethal injection did not die according to plan, so the question is:
1) What do you regard as a humane way to kill somebody?
2) Of all the methods that are humane, which is the most reliable?
My opinion is that a rifle round to the head is probably the best. I'm not a fan of beheading (whether by guillotine or sword) or hanging. I have to assume that there is still some sensory input above the level of spinal cord disruption in these cases and that is not so cool in my book.
I suppose one way that would be 100% effective would be to have a hydraulic press that could bring two huge metal plates together at high speed. Yeah it sounds like a Wile E Coyote scenario but I reckon a high-speed squish would be painless and certain.
-
@X-Ray
In another, much older thread, you said that the bullet through the head thing was often fatal due to the loss of blood pressure in the brain rather than the immediate damage to the brain tissue itself. I would assume that decapitation would cause this effect every time, since the carotid arteries would be totally severed. The worst thing about decapitation by sword (other than the grim spectacle), I imagine, is when it takes more than one stroke :-/
As for the metal plates, think of the cleaning problems...
To be fair, *if* you must execute people I guess that the most humane way would be to gas them with an anesthetic until overdose - or administering a heart stopping drug once fully under.
There'd be no risk of misinjection into body tissues, no frying, no slow strangulation at the end of a rope, no struggling against the first wisps of bitter almond, no repeated blows with a blunted sword, no waiting for the firing squad. Just sleepiness then oblivion...
-
"...In another, much older thread, you said that the bullet through the head thing was often fatal due to the loss of blood pressure in the brain rather than the immediate damage to the brain tissue itself..."
---------------------------------------------------------
That wouldn't apply to a high velocity shot from a rifle. The quote sounds a bit off, too...do you know which thread it was?
Squish: ja, it's messy. Maybe they could have a plastic layer on each surface that can be peeled off and then the remains could be rolled up like a swiss roll and disposed of/buried according to the family's wishes.
If the head comes off, I don't know how much blood can come out of the carotid arteries, because the link between the vessel and the pump is gone. So it isn't going to spurt, if you see what I mean. I wonder if they have done any observations on severed heads to look for eye or mouth movement. That would be interesting.
Nah, I am sticking with the squish.
-
It was a really old thread. You wrote something to that effect, complete with an example from some investiagtion involving a guys body being found some distance from where he was shot in the head having apparently walked there (or maybe somebody else gave that example), in response to a post quoting that a palestinian girl that was shot in the head by a sniper (according to the source) managed to say "allahu akbar" before dying...
-edit-
Must be old as hell, I remember Kenny was in it.
-
Aaah yes I found it:
Kenny said: " the thing that makes people unconcious when they are capitated (hit in the brain) is loss of blood pressure "
And I said: "For the purposes of this thread (and without going into gory details) yes, let's call it loss of blood pressure. There are quite a few factors/variables involved, but they don't go against the gist of Kenny's or Karlos's arguments"
The links to the Allah Akbar article aren't valid anymore and I can't find it. What I suspect happened in that case was that the bullet was either tangential or did not have enough velocity to cause the typical rupture you get when a high velocity round goes through a head. In retrospect I over-simplified it, because we were talking tactics and forensics more than wound ballistics.
In a firing squad setup you have guaranteed shot placement, velocity and a perforation of the head. It will be game over, instantaneously.
-
Maybe we should just concentrate on the methods of execution. I just saw on the news that a dude who underwent lethal injection did not die according to plan, so the question is:
1) What do you regard as a humane way to kill somebody?
2) Of all the methods that are humane, which is the most reliable?
My opinion is that a rifle round to the head is probably the best. I'm not a fan of beheading (whether by guillotine or sword) or hanging. I have to assume that there is still some sensory input above the level of spinal cord disruption in these cases and that is not so cool in my book.
I suppose one way that would be 100% effective would be to have a hydraulic press that could bring two huge metal plates together at high speed. Yeah it sounds like a Wile E Coyote scenario but I reckon a high-speed squish would be painless and certain.
Would a heroin overdose be a less horrific/messy way to do it?
It's the best pain killer known to man after all. :-)
-
CannonFodder wrote:
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
An *illegal* cruel and unusual punishment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stm)
Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami on December 22nd, 1979. Angel Nieves Diaz, while robbing The Velvet Swing topless club with two accomplices, shot manager Joseph Nagy with a silencer-equipped gun. Diaz had a long criminal history including a murder conviction and an escape from prison in his native Puerto Rico and another prison escape in Connecticut.
The French will award him an honorary citizenship and naming a street in his honor soon ...
-
@Karlos
Mr resident Muslim sir, is death by sword the only allowed way to execute a criminal according to the Quran/Hadith?
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
An *illegal* cruel and unusual punishment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stm)
Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami on December 22nd, 1979. Angel Nieves Diaz, while robbing The Velvet Swing topless club with two accomplices, shot manager Joseph Nagy with a silencer-equipped gun. Diaz had a long criminal history including a murder conviction and an escape from prison in his native Puerto Rico and another prison escape in Connecticut.
This cut'n'paste is relevant to the question, how exactly?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
I am confused. Beheading murderers would be civilized if it was performed in America?
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
Beheading is a French and Islamic traditional method.
The British method of hanging, drawing and quartering for High Treason is what is being refered to as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
...
Mary Blandy's uttered the famous words, "for the sake of decency, gentlemen, don't hang me high". (April the 6th, 1752)
That is an horrific way to die too.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
The fairness of the legal system is the what determines "civilized", not the method of execution.
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
I am confused. Beheading murderers would be civilized if it was performed in America?
Long drop hanging would be the traditional American method. Receint innovations were the electric chair and lethal injection.
Beheading is a French and Islamic traditional method.
The British method of hanging, drawing and quartering for High Treason is what is being refered to as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution:
“That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.”
...
Mary Blandy's uttered the famous words, "for the sake of decency, gentlemen, don't hang me high". (April the 6th, 1752)
That is an horrific way to die too.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
The fairness of the legal system is the what determines "civilized", not the method.
As you have just repeated yourself, I shall reciprocate. Again.
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
An *illegal* cruel and unusual punishment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stm)
Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami on December 22nd, 1979. Angel Nieves Diaz, while robbing The Velvet Swing topless club with two accomplices, shot manager Joseph Nagy with a silencer-equipped gun. Diaz had a long criminal history including a murder conviction and an escape from prison in his native Puerto Rico and another prison escape in Connecticut.[/quote]
This cut'n'paste is relevant to the question, how exactly?[/quote]
consider his crime(s). he wasn't worried about cruel and unusual when he committed his crimes.
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
An *illegal* cruel and unusual punishment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185007.stm)
Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami on December 22nd, 1979. Angel Nieves Diaz, while robbing The Velvet Swing topless club with two accomplices, shot manager Joseph Nagy with a silencer-equipped gun. Diaz had a long criminal history including a murder conviction and an escape from prison in his native Puerto Rico and another prison escape in Connecticut.
This cut'n'paste is relevant to the question, how exactly?[/quote]
consider his crime(s). he wasn't worried about cruel and unusual when he committed his crimes.
[/quote]
What he has done is not the issue here. The issue is that your legal system says that the method used to execute him is illegal.
Would it be civilised to chop his head off with a sword?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
Beheading may be accomplished, with an axe, sword, or knife, or by means of a guillotine.
The guillotine was considered (19th century) for use in the United States as a legal method of execution before introduction of the electric chair. Audiences to French guillotinings told numerous stories of blinking eyelids, moving eyes, movement of the mouth.
Historically execution by beheading uses a sword (or axe) was considered the "honourable" way to die for an aristocrat. If the executioner was clumsy, multiple strokes might be required to sever the head.
Only Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Qatar now execute by beheading with the sword, but only Saudi Arabia is known to carry out the sentence: a curved, single-edged sword is used.
Long drop hanging occasionally resulted in unintentional decapitation, such as "Black Jack" Tom Ketchum (http://www.badhombres.com/outlaws/black-jack-ketchum.htm) in New Mexico in 1901. His head was sewn back onto his body for burial.
The french (considered by some the most civilized society) had beheadings by guillotine until 1981.
The fairness of the legal system is the what determines "civilized", not the method of execution.
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
Beheading may be accomplished, with an axe, sword, or knife, or by means of a guillotine.
The guillotine was considered (19th century) for use in the United States as a legal method of execution before introduction of the electric chair. Audiences to French guillotinings told numerous stories of blinking eyelids, moving eyes, movement of the mouth.
Historically execution by beheading uses a sword (or axe) was considered the "honourable" way to die for an aristocrat. If the executioner was clumsy, multiple strokes might be required to sever the head.
Only Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Qatar now execute by beheading with the sword, but only Saudi Arabia is known to carry out the sentence: a curved, single-edged sword is used.
Long drop hanging occasionally resulted in unintentional decapitation, such as "Black Jack" Tom Ketchum (http://www.badhombres.com/outlaws/black-jack-ketchum.htm) in New Mexico in 1901. His head was sewn back onto his body for burial.
The french (considered by some the most civilized society) had beheadings by guillotine until 1981.
The fairness of the legal system is the what determines "civilized", not the method of execution.
CannonFodder wrote:
But you still haven't answered the question.
Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
What he has done is not the issue here. The issue is that your legal system says that the method used to execute him is illegal.
Would it be civilised to chop his head off with a sword?
Each state determines what method it will use for capital punishment. The US Constitution only prohibits "Cruel and Unusual".
Lethal injection used to execute Angel Diaz is still legal in Florida. Gov Bush created a commission to review the state's lethal injection procedure to avoid missing anymore veins. (better technique).
A Judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in California, declaring that California's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads. The English used an axe or a sword to behead.
None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
What he has done is not the issue here. The issue is that your legal system says that the method used to execute him is illegal.
Would it be civilised to chop his head off with a sword?
Each state determines what method it will use for capital punishment. The US Constitution only prohibits "Cruel and Unusual".
Lethal injection used to execute Angel Diaz is still legal in Florida. Gov Bush created a commission to review the state's lethal injection procedure to avoid missing anymore veins. (better technique).
A Judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in California, declaring that California's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads. The English used an axe or a sword to behead.
None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".
That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"
-
CannonFodder wrote:
@Karlos
Mr resident Muslim sir, is death by sword the only allowed way to execute a criminal according to the Quran/Hadith?
No, that's just the one prescribed by Saudi. There are worse ways, especially historically. I think stoning is the worst, it's in no way different from being beaten to death and was used as a serious deterrent for many crimes.
However, where the penalty for a crime is death, there is nothing of which I am aware that specifically insists one method or another must be used. For many years, death by firing squad was used in Saudi, beheadding was (re)introduced more recently. I am not aware of any fatwah that would preclude the use of more humane methods of execution*
*if you can regard execution as humane in the first place.
I'm not a pro-death penalty supporter per se, but I don't think the option should be totally forbidden either as there are certain criminals (guilty on multiple counts of the most horrific types of crime) who are perhaps beyond rehabilitation and classes of crime (eg genocide etc) for which the example of zero tolerance applies**. I guess that's about as "on the fence" as you can get in a subject as polarised as this one...
**yes, I am well aware of the irony in this statement; after all, genocide -> state sanctioned murder of many; death penalty for those guilty of it -> state sanctioned murder of one.
-
Karlos wrote:
**yes, I am well aware of the irony in this statement; after all, genocide -> state sanctioned murder of many; death penalty for those guilty of it -> state sanctioned murder of one.
Corrupt regimes tend to misuse the penalty anyway and do not care to follow the prescribed regulations.
The rich ones with "contacts" get away scott free wheras some peasant that was forced to steal for food gets his hands chopped off. Where is the justice in that?
The ones carrying out the ultimate execution penalties tend to forget that the Death penalty in Islam can only be administered in a purely, shariah following, Islamic state and even then only when there is a free and willing admission from the murderer of his crime -- THREE times at different intervals and under no duress!! -- Each time a cooling off period is allowed for the accused to withdraw the admission. During this period if the admission is retracted then the death penalty cannot be administered. Full stop.
Sharia has a humane and just legal system as opposed to the misinformed and distorted crap we hear about it in the media. Its probably because nobody is really practicing it properly anywhere at this time. Those that purport to do so twist it and modify it to suit their own goals.
The torturing that goes on in Saudi to extract admissions is a known fact. They are not practising Sharia or any other kind of law there. They are a brutal Monarchy that are supported by the west for political reasons unfortunately . :-(
-
@Cannonfodder
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads. The English used an axe or a sword to behead.
None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".
That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"
I think he said yes.
-
As societies become more 'civilised' their death penalty becomes less brutal/painful/protracted/etc so one wonders what it actually achieves for these societies. In the past, the death penalty was purposely brutal/painful/protracted/etc in order that the recipient suffered dearly for this crimes and so his soul could be purged. That is the perception Western societies had at the time. The principle of cause and effect. Today, in our 'more civilised' societies, we try to dispatch the recipient in ways which minimise his suffering at all costs. In recent times, hanging was considered quick, the only suffering being in the preliminaries of binding, hooding and noosing. In the UK, these stages were refined into a matter of seconds by Pierrepoint, who I mentioned earlier. Florida's recent fiasco may actually bring a cessation of the death penalty because it's still not painless or quick enough. Clearly the motivation for and the 'value' in killing have changed. Today, the motivation seems to involve mainly revenge/deterance/economics/protection of society rather than 'penalty'. A penalty has to involve suffering by definition and if we mitigate against that the term 'death penalty' is meaningless. Perhaps the words 'final solution' come to mind.
TC
-
JaXanim wrote:
As societies become more 'civilised' their death penalty becomes less brutal/painful/protracted/etc so one wonders what it actually achieves for these societies. In the past, the death penalty was purposely brutal/painful/protracted/etc in order that the recipient suffered dearly for this crimes and so his soul could be purged. That is the perception Western societies had at the time. The principle of cause and effect. Today, in our 'more civilised' societies, we try to dispatch the recipient in ways which minimise his suffering at all costs. In recent times, hanging was considered quick, the only suffering being in the preliminaries of binding, hooding and noosing. In the UK, these stages were refined into a matter of seconds by Pierrepoint, who I mentioned earlier. Florida's recent fiasco may actually bring a cessation of the death penalty because it's still not painless or quick enough. Clearly the motivation for and the 'value' in killing have changed. Today, the motivation seems to involve mainly revenge/deterance/economics/protection of society rather than 'penalty'. A penalty has to involve suffering by definition and if we mitigate against that the term 'death penalty' is meaningless. Perhaps the words 'final solution' come to mind.
Interesting thoughts, though you've discounted the stress of waiting on death row. Ultimately, civilisation has made executions a private, mysterious, though supposedly more humane affair, but brought with it the modern legal system, appeals, etc. Were I a guilty man on death row, I think I'd want it over with.
On the question of lethal injections: I've been put under general anaesthetic before and there was literally enough time to utter "Be gentle!" after it was administered before I blacked out. I had very little time to worry about what lay ahead. Why a lethal injection should take minutes before rendering the recipient unconscious (never mind half an hour) is a mystery to me.
-
NoFastMem wrote:
Interesting thoughts, though you've discounted the stress of waiting on death row.
Yes, I purposely discounted that aspect. As evidenced by the Florida case, typical death row waits are decades long during/after which time I suspect any suffering has long past. It could be argued that the 'long wait for death' is the actual penalty. If so, it's clearly not considered as brutal or painful as death itself.
[EDIT: Were death row waits prespecified without recourse, the 'penalty' would clearly be more effective. In the case of Saddam Hussein for example. I believe the rules state his execution must take place within/after 30 days of sentence being confirmed.]
JaX
-
Karlos wrote:
@Cannonfodder
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads. The English used an axe or a sword to behead.
None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".
That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"
I think he said yes.
one word answers not allowed!
;-)
-
that we discuss these things makes us civilized
that we care about cruel and unusual punishments makes us civilized.
personally i think locking a person away in a cell and telling them they will never see freedom again is cruel, but not unusual.
any method of dispatching a criminal that is not too messy and is not used for the entertainment of onlookers is ok. in many countries (us included) executions were public specticles. that i dont beleive was civilized and it drove many to realize that and change it. in france there was emootional effects on many especially children from seeing beheadings. (i printed a book on it once)
-
KThunder wrote:
- - - in france there was emootional effects on many especially children from seeing beheadings. (i printed a book on it once)
Which brings us back to the executioner and his 'explanations'.
JaX
-
The torturing that goes on in Saudi to extract admissions is a known fact. They are not practising Sharia or any other kind of law there. They are a brutal Monarchy that are supported by the west for political reasons unfortunately .
You are so correct, the saudi version of 'shariah law' is perverse as it does not apply to everyone especially the dictator and his numerous family members. This regime which stifiles economic development by its mere existence is supported by the west whilst the taliban are labeled as bunch of scum bags! (didnt stop the US trying to make an oil pipeline deal with them back in the day)
This guy who is doing the executions, beleives he is doing his duty, its better that he is very astute at his work than sloppy.
In islam when some one is executed for murder for example and admits it and takes his punishement in this life, it means that in the hereafter his punishment will be reduced - in the executioners eyes he is doing them a favour, if u see my point.
Supermax prisons:
In the states i imagine rotting in a supermax prison is a worse fate than death, that is what i call cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine no contact with any human being ever again, no death to spare your mind while you go slowly insane, how can that be allowed? some things are worse much worse than death, its really quite horrible the level to which humans can stoop.
-
metalman wrote:
Karlos wrote:
@Cannonfodder
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
...
The guillotine is the French approved "civilised" way to remove heads. The English used an axe or a sword to behead.
None of these methods are "Cruel and Unusual".
That's as maybe, but "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?"
I think he said yes.
one word answers not allowed!
;-)
In your own words "Would beheading murderers be civilized if it was performed in America?" (No more than 200wds)
-
you are pushing to see if there is some type of double standard arent you. do you dislike americans?
i think most of us are on the same page here. beheadings are quick, clean, and painless (there were lots of debates for years and the best scientists could say was that there was likely no pain)
parading the head or headless body around afterwards would not be civilized. but i think the term civilized has been thrown around a bit without definition. why dont you define it for us cannonfodder
-
KThunder wrote:
you are pushing to see if there is some type of double standard arent you. do you dislike americans?
i think most of us are on the same page here. beheadings are quick, clean, and painless (there were lots of debates for years and the best scientists could say was that there was likely no pain)
parading the head or headless body around afterwards would not be civilized. but i think the term civilized has been thrown around a bit without definition. why dont you define it for us cannonfodder
To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.
Anyone who says otherwise is just a common pleb.
-
To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.
Hehehe.... I'm with you mate.
:pint:
-
earl grey or darjeeling old boy?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.
Anyone who says otherwise is just a common pleb.[/quote]
ok so when you ask if beheading would be civilized if done in america we all have to say no because it has nothing to do with tea and telly?
i like tea, but i dont know quite what hobnobs are and i dont like most documentaries. so am i partly civilized?
hobnobs hmmmm dont sound particularly appetizing, anything like spotted dick?
-
hobnobs mmmm. its a buscuit but it is the king of buscuits, damn i want some now, but tescos is closed :(
-
nadoom wrote:
hobnobs mmmm. its a buscuit but it is the king of buscuits, damn i want some now, but tescos is closed :(
Bloody unions! How dare they demand decent working hours for their staff? Bloody plebs.
-
KThunder wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
To me, "Civilized" is sitting down with a nice cup tea, a plate of Hobnobs and watching a good Attenborough documentary on the Beeb.
Anyone who says otherwise is just a common pleb.
ok so when you ask if beheading would be civilized if done in america we all have to say no because it has nothing to do with tea and telly?
i like tea, but i dont know quite what hobnobs are and i dont like most documentaries. so am i partly civilized?
hobnobs hmmmm dont sound particularly appetizing, anything like spotted dick?[/quote]
Are you American or do you just live there?
My decision on whether you are civilized will have to be postponed until I know, as it is a known empirical fact that Americans cannot make tea properly.
That said, only the British, the Pakistani's, the Indians and Bangladeshi's seem to able to make decent tea, so you are not alone if it is the case that you are indeed American.
-
As I understand it, Hobnobs are an American concept, formulated as they are with large stick-in-the-teeth pieces of oat husks. As you know, America has always been partial to its husks. The purportedly more civilised British, on the other hand, were far more content, from the historical perspective, with the smoother, rounder textures of Rich Tea and Crawfords Digestive.
It seems then, that the question of who is the more civilised nation has been blurred, perhaps irrevocably, by the very priciples the British extoll to define themselves. What a dilemma this is.
JaX
-
JaXanim wrote:
As I understand it, Hobnobs are an American concept, formulated as they are with large stick-in-the-teeth pieces of oat husks. As you know, America has always been partial to its husks. The purportedly more civilised British, on the other hand, were far more content, from the historical perspective, with the smoother, rounder textures of Rich Tea and Crawfords Digestive.
It seems then, that the question of who is the more civilised nation has been blurred, perhaps irrevocably, by the very priciples the British extoll to define themselves. What a dilemma this is.
JaX
Who said I was British?
And oat biscuits are a delicacy belonging to the Scots (eg Part of Britain) not the USA. :-P
-
nadoom wrote:
Supermax prisons:
In the states i imagine rotting in a supermax prison is a worse fate than death, that is what i call cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine no contact with any human being ever again, no death to spare your mind while you go slowly insane, how can that be allowed? some things are worse much worse than death, its really quite horrible the level to which humans can stoop.
Prison Pen Pals.com., Cyberspace Inmates, Penn-Pals-Prison Inmate Service Network, Transcend the Walls and Cell Pals are but a few internet sites that routinely list personal ads from inmates, including many on death row. Many death row inmates use the Internet to run scams, obtain money and attract followers.
Triple killer Michael E. Correll (http://ccadp.org/michaelcorrell.htm) is a death row Casanova and a self-described lover of "animals and nature" who's apparently getting women he meets on the Internet to help finance his legal defense. His Ad is posted on the Web site of the Canadian Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Correll, was sentenced to death in 1984 after being convicted of murdering three people in Phoenix. 1 was strangled; 2 were shot to death. Correll and another man, went to a trailer to rob the victims of money and drugs. On his site Correll claims he was wrongly convicted of murder. He says he is seeking "sincere and caring hearts" who wish "to bring the light of day" into his life. He provides a Fabio style picture of himself, showing his muscular body and long hair. His ads have attracted several women followers around the world.
-
CannonFodder wrote:
My decision on whether you are civilized will have to be postponed until I know, as it is a known empirical fact that Americans cannot make tea properly.
Make tea, add lots of ice, very refreshing!
Drink it by the gallon.
:cheers:
:lol:
:-P
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
My decision on whether you are civilized will have to be postponed until I know, as it is a known empirical fact that Americans cannot make tea properly.
Make tea, add lots of ice, very refreshing!
Drink it by the gallon.
:cheers:
:lol:
:-P
Dear God!! :-o
-
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
My decision on whether you are civilized will have to be postponed until I know, as it is a known empirical fact that Americans cannot make tea properly.
Make tea, add lots of ice, very refreshing!
Drink it by the gallon.
:cheers:
:-P
Dear God!! :-o
Yes...quite disgusting!....... Savages aren't they!!?. :lol:
Us Brits we even repair aeroplanes with teapots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6206738.stm) (How British is that!) and these Americans choose to desecrate our traditions with foul recipes :roll:
-
civilized or not nothing hits the spot on a hot summer day like a big glass of iced tea. you should try it. with or without lemon. then try downing a piping hot cup of tea and see if it has the same effect.
you seem to have successfully thrown us ot cannonfodder. but since you asked, yes i am an american. i do like hot tea as well but of the oriental persuasion not the british. earl grey is ok but id take a good coffee over it any day.
btw i believe the original traditions would be from asia and since brits have tea differently than most asians i would say you fouled the traditions first.
-
btw i believe the original traditions would be from asia and since brits have tea differently than most asians i would say you fouled the traditions first.
Why do you keep accusing me of being British?
-
GadgetMaster wrote:
Yes...quite disgusting!....... Savages aren't they!!?. :lol:
Us Brits we even repair aeroplanes with teapots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6206738.stm) (How British is that!) and these Americans choose to desecrate our traditions with foul recipes :roll:
Concern after Nimrod aircraft 'teapot fix'
American Heritage Dictionary - nim·rod (nĭm'rŏd')
1. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
2. also Nimrod A hunter.
:lol:
Iced tea:
brewed from Black tea, served in tall iced filled glasses, with a long spoon and slice of lemon.
:cheers:
-
i was responding to gadgetmaster not you cannonfodder
so far you havent said were you are from and i dont really think that it matters. you reacted similarly to the mention of iced tea and since tea is what this thread is about now...
-
metalman wrote:
GadgetMaster wrote:
Yes...quite disgusting!....... Savages aren't they!!?. :lol:
Us Brits we even repair aeroplanes with teapots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6206738.stm) (How British is that!) and these Americans choose to desecrate our traditions with foul recipes :roll:
Concern after Nimrod aircraft 'teapot fix'
American Heritage Dictionary - nim·rod (nĭm'rŏd')
1. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
2. also Nimrod A hunter.
:lol:
Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the great grandson of Noah.
Don't you Americans know your Bible?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
metalman wrote:
Concern after Nimrod aircraft 'teapot fix'
American Heritage Dictionary - nim·rod (nĭm'rŏd')
1. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
2. also Nimrod A hunter.
:lol:
Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the great grandson of Noah.
Don't you Americans know your Bible?
know (nō)
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6.a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic, To have sexual intercourse with.
Depends on what your definition of "Know" is.
-
yes i know who nimrod was, but the thread was all about tea and rather than introduce another 133.5 degree turn in the discussion by introducing a Bible topic i thought id let it drop.
here in the states if you call someone a nimrod you arent calling them a mighty hunter or a Biblical person you are usually calling them an idiot. thats why when we see some british group called nimrods in one way or onother fixing a plane with a teapot it is kindof funny.
-
did any one say the nimrod was any good?
it has some benefits, but its seriously old tech.
-
Nimrod isn't a group but a fighter plane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Nimrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Nimrod)
-
its also a patrol aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod
one of these crashed / was shot down in afghanistan recently
based on the old de haviland comet... hmmmm
-
interesting thread, so far it has been about executions, tea, strange plane repairs, nimrod, and definitions.
anything else we need to discuss?
harrier jump-jet thats a cool plane.
any amiga flight sims have it in them?
i had a sim for the c64 that had an american f4 in it that was pretty cool too.
i had a c64 back in college, as retro thing.
i moved to new york to go to college.
got married in new york.
my wife makes good iced tea :-)
ok i circled back on my own now i should really stop typing.
-
i did manage to get to tescos in the end ,and buy some hobnobs :)
-
KThunder wrote:
harrier jump-jet thats a cool plane.
any amiga flight sims have it in them?
i had a sim for the c64 that had an american f4 in it that was pretty cool too.
The A10 Warthog Amiga game was pretty good. ;-)
-
metalman wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the great grandson of Noah.
Don't you Americans know your Bible?
know (nō)
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6.a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic, To have sexual intercourse with.
Depends on what your definition of "Know" is.
It also depends on which Bible version you're refering to.
The New Progressive Bible (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=992&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) with revised inspirational stories of moral relativism, wealth redistribution and equality of outcome for all, is favored by progressive Democratic party members. The Progressive Bible is wisdom-free. All opinions of narrow-minded and provincial ethical piety have been removed.
Progressive Bible: Book of Joshua
...and the Proletariat spoke unto Joshua saying "Jericho is a quagmire" and "No Blood for Milk and Honey".
And Joshua did consult the polls, saying "Let it be done according to the Party. Let us gird our loins in garter belts and fishnet stockings and go forth unto Sodom and Gomorrah with the Ark of Non-Binding Suggestions. There, with federal funding, we will offer up excuses and apologies and rebuild what was destroyed. There we will raise a monument so that our children and our children's children might know the sins we have committed against the Canaanites."