Real Justice.

A man in Saudi Arabia is to be beheaded and crucified after he raped five children and left one of them, a three-year-old boy, to die in the desert.
An appeal court in the capital Riyadh approved the death sentence handed down in June by judges in the northwestern oasis city of Hail where the convicted 22-year-old man carried out his crimes.


The rapist - who was not named - was arrested several weeks ago as he tried to seize another boy after offering him a ride home from school.
The seven-year-old - who escaped unharmed - helped identify the culprit.
The man’s victims were aged between three and seven. He was said to have lured them into his car as they left school at midday and then drove them to remote desert locations to rape them.


An investigation was launched after a 25-year-old father reported that his three-year-old son was missing and that he suspected the kidnapper to be a male driver of a white four-wheel drive vehicle.


The infant was later found under a scorching sun in the desert where he had died of thirst.


A panel of three judges in Hail sentenced the rapist to death for “abhorrent� crimes which they said had terrorised the community.

Crucifixion in the conservative desert Kingdom means tying the convict’s body to wooden beams to be displayed to the public after he is decapitated by a professional swordsman.

Saudi Arabia has executed 56 people this year under laws that allow the death penalty for rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking.
In extreme cases, the convict is executed and his body crucified in public.

Respect to Saudi Arabia.... that punishment wouldn't happen here!

Cue the Human Rights Brigade.

[Mr_love_monkey]

I fully support the action provided they have the right man....

[Flyboy]

And is the exact reason why the death penalty is pointless.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And is the exact reason why the death penalty is pointless.

Pointless?

That particular deranged individual is never going to offend again. I'd say that makes the world a better place.

[Ramrod]

Indeed

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Pointless?

That particular deranged individual is never going to offend again. I'd say that makes the world a better place.

Correct, he's not. But a policy of locking him up forever would achieve the same thing, with the added benefit of the next guy sent down for a vile crime - except this time, wrongly - would retain the possibility of appeal and eventual release. You can't be released from the grave, after all.

We have this same basic discussion every time a death penalty thread starts up on here. Capital punishment achieves nothing more than satisfying a short-term lust for vengeance at the inevitable expense of innocent people being wrongly deprived of their lives in the long term.

And it allows the self-righteous and self-loathing alike to keep telling themselves there are plenty of people in the world who are nastier than they.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

We have this same basic discussion every time a death penalty thread starts up on here. Capital punishment achieves nothing more than satisfying a short-term lust for vengeance at the inevitable expense of innocent people being wrongly deprived of their lives in the long term.

It also stops the guilty from being released (often before they have served their full term) to assault more children.....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It also stops the guilty from being released (often before they have served their full term) to assault more children.....

Yes, it does. But then so does a more extensive use of whole-life tariffs. Killing someone is simply not the only possible way of ensuring they don't commit further rapes or murders.

I suspect you knew that, which is why you prefer to plug your less-than-watertight argument with appeals to emotion ...

[AntiSilence]

Originally Posted by Chris

Correct, he's not. But a policy of locking him up forever would achieve the same thing, with the added benefit of the next guy sent down for a vile crime - except this time, wrongly - would retain the possibility of appeal and eventual release. You can't be released from the grave, after all.

A valid point.

But, in this country at least, the term "Life Imprisonment" should mean at least that (or close). But as it stands, we hear "Bob was sentenced to life and will have to serve a minimum of 12 years" (made up example). That's not right, surely?

I think a "life sentence" should be a minimum of 45 years with no chance of parole. Of course, if you're proved innocent in the mean time, then fair do's.

Originally Posted by AntiSilence

A valid point.

But, in this country at least, the term "Life Imprisonment" should mean at least that (or close). But as it stands, we hear "Bob was sentenced to life and will have to serve a minimum of 12 years" (made up example). That's not right, surely?

I think a "life sentence" should be a minimum of 45 years with no chance of parole. Of course, if you're proved innocent in the mean time, then fair do's.

A life sentence is designed to provide both punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation. The tariff ensures there is a minimum period in jail as adequate punishment, but this is only the period they must serve before applying for parole. There's no guarantee of release after that; if they don't convince the parole board they have reformed and no longer pose a risk, then they stay behind bars for as long as it takes.

[AntiSilence]

Originally Posted by Chris

A life sentence is designed to provide both punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation. The tariff ensures there is a minimum period in jail as adequate punishment, but this is only the period they must serve before applying for parole. There's no guarantee of release after that; if they don't convince the parole board they have reformed and no longer pose a risk, then they stay behind bars for as long as it takes.

I realise its the minimum they must serve before they can apply for parole, but it shouldn't be called 'Life'.

It should be, they're sentenced to 12 years... 20 years... etc.

A life sentence should be applied to some crimes, but 'Life' should have it's own terms... Such as a fixed minimum of a big magnitude such as 45 years. If you see what I mean?

I just don't think that they should use the term 'Life' and then say they must serve only 12 (again, an example) years before they can apply for parole (regardless of the chance of it actually being granted).

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

I suspect you knew that, which is why you prefer to plug your less-than-watertight argument with appeals to emotion ...

That wasn't an appeal to emotion.......I was simply pointing out that Sarah Payne (for one) would still be alive if Roy Whiting (to name just one man who has no right to still be breathing) had been dealt with properly in the first place.....but I suppose thats your way of belittling my stance

---------- Post added at 08:55 ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

A life sentence is designed to provide both punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation.

You do realise that this type person is very unlikely to be 'rehabilitated'?

Thing is I would not trust these nations to dispense justice to the right people all the time. Remember in Saudi a woman can be killed for cheating on her husband ( whereas here they get half your money lol )

The same thing can be said here, look through history of those unjustly hung Ruth Ellis Derek Bently and Timothy Evans (falsely hung for the Christie murders) and look at who would have been hung if the death penalty was still here The Guilford 4 The Birmingham 6 and Barry George.

1 innocent man put to death for a crime he didnt commit is enough reason for me to be happy that we do not have the death penalty

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You do realise that this type person is very unlikely to be 'rehabilitated'?

How can you possibly know that?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

How can you possibly know that?

Are you gay or straight?

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

Originally Posted by zing

1 innocent man put to death for a crime he didnt commit is enough reason for me to be happy that we do not have the death penalty

I'd only agree with the death sentence with something like the level of proof you get with uncontested DNA evidence or similar level of proof of guilt.....