This Knife wil blow you apart

Look up SA's basic law on wiki. It's all there I think.

Okay then…

Corporal and capital punishment; right to representation Saudi Arabia is one of a number of countries where courts continue to impose corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for robbery, and lashings for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" and drunkenness. The number of lashes is not clearly prescribed by law and is varied according to the discretion of judges, and ranges from dozens of lashes to several thousand, usually applied over a period of weeks or months. In 2002, the United Nations Committee against Torture criticized Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under its interpretation of Sharia. The Saudi delegation responded defending "legal traditions" held since the inception of Islam 1400 years ago and rejected interference in its legal system.

No it's not, it's perfectly acceptable. The individual did not need to do what they did, they were perfectly aware of what they were doing, and of the punishment. They deserved it in every way. It's that sort of thinking Martin that has screwed up society in the UK Martin.

Tell you what Odai, you have some very, very extreme views, it's actually quite worrying.

The perpetrator deserved a punishment that was fitting for the crime, to chop off a persons limb for stealing a wallet is so ridiculously barbaric and over the top, that it belongs in a totally barbaric and primitive society.

Martin, I've said time and time again, nobody should care whether your arguments on ethics have any foundation or not (I believe they don't), what matters is this way of punishment DOES have an effect; a positive one. It protects innocent people. So you're willing to let criminals get away without these so called "barbaric punishments", knowing very well that it results in far higher rates of crime against innocent people? Lack of capital punishment in the Uk has resulted in the deaths of many people who have done nothing wrong. There is less of a deterrent in the UK. I don't give a damn if it's backward, barbaric, inhumane. What I do care about is the fact that what you call dark-age techniques for punishing criminals saves lives.

As I said, you would hammer in a nail with a nuclear bomb, hate to be around when you do your DIY.

So you say not chopping off peoples hands for minor crimes has screwed up society, I see. If you don't see how preposterous that statement is there's something wrong somewhere.

Martin, I've said time and time again, nobody should care whether your arguments on ethics have any foundation or not (I believe they don't), what matters is this way of punishment DOES have an effect; a positive one. It protects innocent people. So you're willing to let criminals get away without these so called "barbaric punishments", knowing very well that it results in far higher rates of crime against innocent people? Lack of capital punishment in the Uk has resulted in the deaths of many people who have done nothing wrong. There is less of a deterrent in the UK. I don't give a damn if it's backward, barbaric, inhumane. What I do care about is the fact that what you call dark-age techniques for punishing criminals saves lives.

Well, don't know where to start on that one, there's so many holes in it it's untrue.

You don't seem to have a clue what moral values actually are.

knowing very well that it results in far higher rates of crime

Not according to the criminologists it doesn’t.

There is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, quite the opposite actually as Richard said, consider the US and many other nations were the death penalty exists and the murder rate is high. There is plenty of research out there on this.

 There is less of a deterrent in the UK.

Very true, the sentences are a joke. And don't forget that no western nation apart from some states of the US have a death penalty.

dark-age techniques for punishing criminals saves lives.

No they don't, except in your mind. See my link later.

Prove it. Martin, in almost every debate we have on this forum, you constantly make assumptions which have no basis at all, and which you never provide proof for. I've thrown in plenty of evidence for what I've said.

And your proof for the effectiveness of the death penalty please? I haven't seen any yet. And I mean real proof, in terms of many nations, not just your opinion based on the murder rate in one country that just happens to be low.

Are you serious?? Just what bizarre ideas do you have about this form of punishment? What on Earth does "brutalising criminals" have to do with the survival of the human race? If anything, it's lack of punishment and deterrents that threaten the survival of the human race.  

If  lashing [torture] of a criminal, and a petty criminal at that, and the decapitation and severing of limbs all sanctioned by the state, isn't indicative of a primitive and barbaric society then I don’t know what is. If the human race continues down the road of barbarity that can hardly be a good indicator for our future survival can it Odai. Or do you think that an advanced species continues to engage in torture and murder? Not my definition of advancement. There’s no hope for us if we retain that sort of abhorrent attitude. Sorry you don't get it.

No, what we DROPPED hundreds of years ago. We haven't made progress at all.

Totally incorrect, if I interpret that the way you intended. Of course we have made progress in terms of crime. In the days of being hung drawn and quartered, crime was prevalent in society. To suggest that there is more crime now tells me you need to study history a little more.

I actually reckon you've made a good point there, except for one thing. It's A reason. Not THE reason. The acceptable reason is that, again, it protects innocent people. Forget emotive responses, it achieves results, which is why people suggest it.

No, emotive responses to crime achieve exactly the opposite, It results in the innocent being convicted and the punishment not fitting the crime.

If anyone harmed any of my family, I wouldn’t need the law to be extreme, I would rip the guys head off myself... which is precisely why the police, the judge, the jury, and the people that determine the penalties, absolutely have to be impartial and emotionally detached. It's the basis of the law in any free and fare society.

 As for your last response, I would suggest you give up your intended study of physics and study logic, ethics, and philosophy in general.

you aren't just arguing with me, you are arguing with the most learned people on the planet and the governments of the entire western world, the death penalty and the ridiculous punishments you advocate were outlawed in the western world long ago... thank god.

Oops, sorry I nearly forgot.  Your comment regardin... ’my assumptions with no basis in fact’, you know me better than that, something I never do.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

 

A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect. (M. Radelet and R. Akers, Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts, 1995) Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

At a pivotal moment in the debate over capital punishment, a new report finds that California's death penalty system is "dysfunctional" and "close to collapse." For decades, opponents of capital punishment have been saying just that: The death penalty doesn't work, it risks executing innocent people, it's riddled with (literally) fatal errors and it costs far more that the alternative of permanent incarceration.

Sorry, I could post more but i would be here all night. there's loads out there.

Tell you what Odai, you have some very, very extreme views, it's actually quite worrying.

The perpetrator deserved a punishment that was fitting for the crime, to chop off a persons limb for stealing a wallet is so ridiculously barbaric and over the top, that it belongs in a totally barbaric and primitive society.

I understand Odai point here! if i go to saudi tomorrow get drunk and have sex in the street i know what will happen and what my punishment would be and as such i would have no grounds to complain when it was carried out

actually as Richard said, consider the US and many other nations were the death penalty exists and the murder rate is high. There is plenty of research out there on this.

And if you look close at the research you see there is many reasons why that is so. Its no suprise to learn a death penalty state like california has more murders than North Dakota

To engage in the same act as a violent offender is obviously wrong.

Come on martin your a clever man right? were not talking gang rape and torture  followed by a brutal murder to put someone to death, were talking a needle prick in the arm in a controlled measured enviroment.

Nice to see another discussion on this forum that gets me thinking

flightboy

For those who consider any form of capital punishment an acceptable punishment for a crime:

Think about the following questions, answer comprehensively, don’t cut corners.

________________________________________________________________________

For what reasons do criminals commit crimes?

Do you agree with the statement: ‘once a criminal, always a criminal’?

Should convicted criminals be given the opportunity to rejoin society with the same attributes as the rest of society?

Can some crimes be repaid/corrected/repaired?

Should a convicted criminal be made to pay the penalty of the crime for the rest of his/her life?

How might a convicted amputee be limited in their likelihood of finding employment?

Are all crimes acts of cruelty?

If the basis for law is ‘an eye for an eye’, what problems may arise?

________________________________________________________________________

I really think those arguing for capital punishment haven’t really thought things through properly.

For what reasons do criminals commit crimes?

Many! but whether your hooked on crack or a pedophile if you commit a crime you have to be punished and i think this is a problem in the uk we like to make excuses for people.

Do you agree with the statement: ‘once a criminal, always a criminal’?

Depends! a thief who steals bread to feed his family is a bit diffrent to fred west. Some can be helped some cant it depends on what crimes they commit obv.

Should convicted criminals be given the opportunity to rejoin society with the same attributes as the rest of society?

Again depends on the crime. You want a child killer living next door because some accademic has treated him and says hes no danger? or would you just want no risks atall?

Can some crimes be repaid/corrected/repaired?

Raise the dead? if you can let me know a new elvis album would be amazing! but is 50hours community service going to stop a mugger from mugging? or a gang member from stabbing another?

Should a convicted criminal be made to pay the penalty of the crime for the rest of his/her life?

Again your asking a very open question! people who steal a pint of milk or steal your car obv not but killers and other serious criminals yes!

How might a convicted amputee be limited in their likelihood of finding employment?

 Again SA has its own rules and im not debating them as it has noting to do with our country. When i go there i would live by their rules like they have to ours when in the uk.

Are all crimes acts of cruelty?

Again so open its hard to answer. Steal food for your family no obv but kill a child because you drink drive yes.

If the basis for law is ‘an eye for an eye’, what problems may arise?

Zero. I think you thinking i want you to be punched if you get in a fight were talking serious crimes not shoplifting or jumping a red light. Can i see a problem of being a member of a society that kills the animals that kill others? no i see no problem

flightboy