Anger After British Man Executed In China - Page 3

licec yesmur · 29-12-2009, 15:35

live by the sword,die by the sword

**Hugh** · 29-12-2009, 15:54

But he didn't have a sword (probably couldn't get it through the metal detector at the airport).

webcrawler2050 · 29-12-2009, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

But he didn't have a sword (probably couldn't get it through the metal detector at the airport).

Okay okay. Live by the drugs, die by the drugs

peanut · 29-12-2009, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender

He broke the law in china. He was tried in china. His punishment was issued by the Chinese. Fair play. He shouldn't have been trafficking drugs. It's one less scummy drug pusher off everyones streets as far as I'm concerned. Good ridence.

Pretty much how I see this situation, he was tried according to their law and that's all there is. How would it be different if we were going to execute someone for something and China butted in and try to change and dispute our laws, would we like it or make it any right or wrong?

Jules · 29-12-2009, 16:07

Cause we would back down in case we "offended" anyone.

NoKnowledge · 29-12-2009, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

Okay okay. Live by the drugs, die by the drugs

next people will be saying "live by the air, die by the air"

Sirius · 29-12-2009, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules

Cause we would back down in case we "offended" anyone.

peanut · 29-12-2009, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules

Cause we would back down in case we "offended" anyone.

I thought by the way we tried to stop the execution that it might work to start with, hoping we have some saying in the matters, but now that it's done, I have to respect China's decision. I don't think they had any choice in the matter now that it's done. If it was this in this country and China tried to interrupt it, then I think yeah we have too much leniency and might have gave in, but we wouldn't have the respect nor the have that message that other countries have.

webcrawler2050 · 29-12-2009, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Pretty much how I see this situation, he was tried according to their law and that's all there is. How would it be different if we were going to execute someone for something and China butted in and try to change and dispute our laws, would we like it or make it any right or wrong?

It's simply the "English" Government pushing their weight around, trying to "get China" to do something they don't wanna. If anybody tried that here, to tell us "how to run" our laws, our PM would have a field day and another point they keep referring, which is annoying me but I will keep my tongue behind my teeth.

peanut · 29-12-2009, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

It's simply the "English" Government pushing their weight around, trying to "get China" to do something they don't wanna. If anybody tried that here, to tell us "how to run" our laws, our PM would have a field day and another point they keep referring, which is annoying me but I will keep my tongue behind my teeth.

I get the feeling they knew it was a pointless exercise, but had to be seen that they tried more than anything.

29-12-2009, 16:19

my main concern here is the way the chinese conducted the trial ,as has been commented on by several news agencies it was little more than a kangaroo court ,now if the defendant was suffering from bi-polar which is quite possible then under chinese law he should not have been executed ,the problem is though the defence wasn't allowed to produce any expert witnesses to prove otherwise so one has to wonder why the courts decided to abandon due process in this case was it because he was a foriegner and they felt that some kind of point had to made ,i don't know the answer but it makes me very uneasy how easy it could be to get executed in china given the number of capital offences there are in china

**Chris** · 29-12-2009, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

If anybody tried that here, to tell us "how to run" our laws, our PM would have a field day and another point they keep referring, which is annoying me but I will keep my tongue behind my teeth.

It can happen, and has happened - Gorbachev raised the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six when he met Margaret Thatcher in 1989.

peanut · 29-12-2009, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

my main concern here is the way the chinese conducted the trial ,as has been commented on by several news agencies it was little more than a kangaroo court ,now if the defendant was suffering from bi-polar which is quite possible then under chinese law he should not have been executed ,the problem is though the defence wasn't allowed to produce any expert witnesses to prove otherwise so one has to wonder why the courts decided to abandon due process in this case was it because he was a foriegner and they felt that some kind of point had to made ,i don't know the answer but it makes me very uneasy how easy it could be to get executed in china given the number of capital offences there are in china

I thought that the bi-polar only came out after the hearing, so some last min clemency should have been accepted, that's the only part that I don't agree with. But then again I don't know all the ins and outs nor why this only came out afterwards and not during the trial.

webcrawler2050 · 29-12-2009, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

I thought that the bi-polar only came out after the hearing, so some last min clemency should have been accepted, that's the only part that I don't agree with. But then again I don't know all the ins and outs nor why this only came out afterwards and not during the trial.

Bi-Polar, is constant. Jeykle & Hyde situation. They can't control and or know what they are doing.

peanut · 29-12-2009, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

Bi-Polar, is constant. Jeykle & Hyde situation. They can't control and or know what they are doing.

I know but he didn't have any kind of psychiatric evaluation (or did he) or why his defense didn't use it (wasn't an issue at that point) or they didn't know at the time. Why didn't they know seems a bit odd as well as the fact it only came out close to the execution.