Rapist and murderer of schoolgirl hanged

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's Kidicious. Don't expect intelligence from him.

Better walk lightly. Ming is in hear.

[Jamski]

A state has no right to take the life of one of its citizens, regardless of the crime they may have committed.

This is in the upcoming European Constitution. We have morals here on the civilised continent.

-Jam

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's Kidicious. Don't expect intelligence from him.

And I would suggest you also stop with the crap... people who try to toss gasoline on flame wars also get restricted... and usually for a lot longer

[KrazyHorse]

It's not a war if only one side is fighting. In this thread I've been perfectly behaved

:brownnose:

EDIT: I suggest you don't look in some of the other threads though. I've been trolling again

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, I would argue in my own defense, that I would not be justified in the use of force to kill my assailant, even in self-defense, which would confirm your point that you are making here, but that's just me.

There is another argument available that makes a distinction between the actions of an individual and those of the state. An individual can act in self-defense by killing someone in order to spare their own life. The state cannot do the same.

The state has similar rights as individuals. That allows the state to do a better job at keeping order. It's true that an individual defending hiself is different, but the justification is similar to the justification of a state confining individuals. The criminal loses his rights by commiting crimes, so the state is justified in punishment.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state has similar rights as individuals. That allows the state to do a better job at keeping order. It's true that an individual defending hiself is different, but the justification is similar to the justification of a state confining individuals. The criminal loses his rights by commiting crimes, so the state is justified in punishment.

The state cannot say that by killing someone they protect someone else from dying. A person who is being attacked, can say that by killing the person.

In essence a person can kill someone in their own self-defense. A state cannot.

[grobnok]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

You get caned for sparypainting a car, smashing a window. And in school, not doing your assignments.

But its not just spray painting a car, or smashing a window, which, I may say, vandalism is already a very serious crime in Singapore. Oppressive? Hardly. Conservative? Yes.

But its not just that, its some stupid idiot who thinks, just because he's American, he can do whatever he wants to our property.

Therefore a strong deterrent sentence has to be imposed, as a sign, as in principle, that we will NOT tolerate US nationalism or arrogance of any kind.

A country can't be abritriary and use inhumane punishments. You can't say my country my law.

[Natalinasmpf]

Yes I can. Since when was caning "inhumane"? We take a lot of medical considerations, it is corporal punishment, that's all. There's a limit to how many strokes one can apply...

Its our country, we have to HAVE our sovereignty. We can't just omit caning for little idiotic Michael Faye because he's American. We have our rights, and he comitted the crime on our soil, therefore, we do with him as we see fit.

Of course Clinton had to go all the way down to beg for him, to reduce his sentence by a stroke, and we had to go all soft...

We cannot give up our sovereign rights - if we had given way, it would have simply paved the way that we accept US nationalism/arrogance, and that cannot happen.

Personally, there's nothing wrong with caning criminals if their crime is large enough. Vandalism suits the bill. American vandals who think they can do whatever they can do our property because of their nationality should taught a proper lesson.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The state cannot say that by killing someone they protect someone else from dying. A person who is being attacked, can say that by killing the person.

In essence a person can kill someone in their own self-defense. A state cannot.

An officer of the law can kill individuals to defend other individuals.

I'm not with you on the 'kill only in self-defense' thing actually. Again, you lose and equivilent right to the state for your crime. If you kill the state should then have the right to kill you, although again I'm only for the death penalty in rare cases.

[grobnok]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Yes I can. Since when was caning "inhumane"? We take a lot of medical considerations, it is corporal punishment, that's all. There's a limit to how many strokes one can apply...

Its our country, we have to HAVE our sovereignty. We can't just omit caning for little idiotic Michael Faye because he's American. We have our rights, and he comitted the crime on our soil, therefore, we do with him as we see fit.

Of course Clinton had to go all the way down to beg for him, to reduce his sentence by a stroke, and we had to go all soft...

We cannot give up our sovereign rights - if we had given way, it would have simply paved the way that we accept US nationalism/arrogance, and that cannot happen.

Personally, there's nothing wrong with caning criminals if their crime is large enough. Vandalism suits the bill. American vandals who think they can do whatever they can do our property because of their nationality should taught a proper lesson.

This is totally abritriary.

[Natalinasmpf]

Anything wrong with being abritrary?

It is our SOVEREIGN right.

Our SOVEREIGN state.

Our SOVEREIGN laws.

Surely nations should respect that? Unless the US wants to intervene again and Reagan Jr's wants claim it in the name of democracy? Hey, if you don't like the laws, don't come in the first place!

He came as a tourist, and ended up a criminal on our soil. Too bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Personally, there's nothing wrong with caning criminals if their crime is large enough. Vandalism suits the bill. American vandals who think they can do whatever they can do our property because of their nationality should taught a proper lesson.

Caning is degrading. Only young children should be spanked, and never hard enough to leave a mark other than a very temporary red spot. Anyway vandalism is a very minor crime in my book, and I'm sure in most peoples book anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

An officer of the law can kill individuals to defend other individuals.

Yes, but often in these cases the officer is also in danger. Again, if someone pulls out a gun, and starts shooting people, that's different than a criminal in confinement. You can say that in the first case, that other lives are in imminent danger, whereas in the latter, that they are not.

I'm not with you on the 'kill only in self-defense' thing actually. Again, you lose and equivilent right to the state for your crime. If you kill the state should then have the right to kill you, although again I'm only for the death penalty in rare cases.

Why only in rare cases?

Secondly, why equivalent? That implies Lex Talionis, life for life, blow for blow, etc. Why not say that the man who has been wronged has the right to seek vengeance to an equivalent measure to the harm he received? Why should only the state have the authority to execute others?

[Natalinasmpf]

Caning is not that degrading, just painful. The main thing is the barb attached to the end of the cane...its all conducted in private, the last thing on your mind is modesty.

But our parliament lawmakers apparently think its acceptable, (so do I) and here, where there is LARGE POPULATION density, HIGH use of public facilities, vandalising something would affect much more people, then say, vandalising something out in the Dustbowl in the US.

You should be glad we don't adopt the Chinese practice of chaining people to five vehicles, and then the vehicles drive in five different directions, tearing the person apart. Caning is ordered with discernment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anything wrong with being abritrary?

You want to eliminate the privilege of extraterritoriality? Removal of arbitrary convictions goes a long way to encourage trust between different nations.

If you do a good job than other nations are less willing to intervene on behalf of their citizens. If your laws are seen as harsh and arbitrary, than each nation is going to sit on you to release those you have in custody so that they can recieve proper justice at home.