wow this is how all child rapists should be punished EDIT: NOW WITH 200% MORE LINKAGE

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang

You seem to find no wrong with the punishment because it was legal in that country, a country in which our constitution has no jurisdiction over?

No, I find no wrong in it because that is the law in their country. I don't think it needs to be taken to that extreme here, I am saying leave our constitution out of it because it has nothing to do with this case.

Hey, murdering millions of Jews was the law in Nazi Germany....but it don't make it right.

 

[0roo0roo]

too bad this kinda sh*t happens to adulterous women and sh*t too.

 

[Kibbo]

One more thing:

Seeing a US Marine give attitude to a Navy Jag Officer is strangely familiar to me.

I wonder where I've seen that before?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
One more thing:

Seeing a US Marine give attitude to a Navy Jag Officer is strangely familiar to me.

I wonder where I've seen that before?

I prefer it the other way around.

YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang

You seem to find no wrong with the punishment because it was legal in that country, a country in which our constitution has no jurisdiction over?

No, I find no wrong in it because that is the law in their country. I don't think it needs to be taken to that extreme here, I am saying leave our constitution out of it because it has nothing to do with this case.

i think you're missing the point. simply because the US constitution doesn't apply to Iran doesn't imply that its message or meaning shouldn't be applied. if you believe in the constitution, then you hold a set of moral values that should be upheld regardless of location (and to some degree, vice versa).

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang

You seem to find no wrong with the punishment because it was legal in that country, a country in which our constitution has no jurisdiction over?

No, I find no wrong in it because that is the law in their country. I don't think it needs to be taken to that extreme here, I am saying leave our constitution out of it because it has nothing to do with this case.

Stop being such a moral relativist...

 

[rh71]

someone should've whipped out the flamethrower.

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Hey, murdering millions of Jews was the law in Nazi Germany.....

No it was not. Give me a break.

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Seminole,

The reason that we cannot treat our criminals this way is not because they deservve mercy or compassion. If one finds it in one's heart to feel mercy for "people" like this, it has more to do with one's own virtue, not what the criminal deserves. Oh, and I don't have that level of personal virtue.

Similarly, we cannot treat these pieces of crap like they deserve because of what that would turn us into. We would lower ourselves if we did that. And if we act like animals, we no longer have the ethically elevated position we need in order to sit in moral judgement of animals.

Why can we punish them? Because we're better than them.
Why can't we punish them the way our instincts tell us to? Because we're better than them.

I agree that we can't carry it to the extreme they did there. I am saying, BASED ON THEIR LAW HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. We can not and should not bring up our constitution as it is related to this case. Should our criminals be punished harsher and more quickly? YES! Should we allow public executions where the public participates? NO!

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Hey, murdering millions of Jews was the law in Nazi Germany.....

No it was not. Give me a break.

That's besides the point. I'll state it more generally. Just because one country has accepted laws doesn't make them just. If you are a US Marine, then I hope your definition of "just" is reflective of the US Constitution.

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: Mwilding


I prefer it the other way around.

YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Me?

I can handle the truth. The truth is this scumbag got what he deserved based on their laws. The truth is this would not happen here because we are supposedly a little more civilized. The truth is Mr. DonVito still has no idea who I am or what I do. So to say I don't know what I am talking about is him just spewing nonsense to make himself look better. I don't care that he prosecuted scumbag child molesters, did he ever look a murderer in the eye???


How is that for truth?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: Mwilding


I prefer it the other way around.

YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Me?

I can handle the truth. The truth is this scumbag got what he deserved based on their laws. The truth is this would not happen here because we are supposedly a little more civilized. The truth is Mr. DonVito still has no idea who I am or what I do. So to say I don't know what I am talking about is him just spewing nonsense to make himself look better. I don't care that he prosecuted scumbag child molesters, did he ever look a murderer in the eye???


How is that for truth?

That's pretty good for truth. Relevance, on the other hand......

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

That's besides the point. I'll state it more generally. Just because one country has accepted laws doesn't make them just. If you are a US Marine, then I hope your definition of "just" is reflective of the US Constitution.

OK, let me clear a few things up. Yes I am a Marine. Yes my definition of "just" is reflective of the constitution. My original post was in response to the scumbag who IMO got what he deserved. I in no way believe we should stoop to Iranian justice. It is just they do things differently. I can't stand child molesters and I can't stand child murderers. I think he got what he deserved. Morals aside. Anyone who thinks he was treated wrongly has the soul-searching to do. What he did to those kids was way more disgusting than anything that happened to him.

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: chuckywang


That's pretty good for truth. Relevance, on the other hand......

That is my whole point. What happened over there is NOT RELEVANT to our laws or constitution. That does not mean I think it is right or wrong, I only think it is justified under their laws, no matter how barbaric some think it is.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang


That's pretty good for truth. Relevance, on the other hand......

That is my whole point. What happened over there is NOT RELEVANT to our laws or constitution. That does not mean I think it is right or wrong, I only think it is justified under their laws, no matter how barbaric some think it is.

i stand corrected. i misinterpreted your responses.

 

[loic2003]

Bijeh was convicted of killing 17 children and three adults after apparently confessing to the authorities.

Back in the middle ages, hangings and public executions used to be a form of entertainment.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: chuckywang


That's pretty good for truth. Relevance, on the other hand......

That is my whole point. What happened over there is NOT RELEVANT to our laws or constitution. That does not mean I think it is right or wrong, I only think it is justified under their laws, no matter how barbaric some think it is.

Yes, it is justified under their laws, but not under the Declaration of Human Rights.

I would read Article 5.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine


I agree that we can't carry it to the extreme they did there. I am saying, BASED ON THEIR LAW HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. We can not and should not bring up our constitution as it is related to this case. Should our criminals be punished harsher and more quickly? YES! Should we allow public executions where the public participates? NO!

They do things differently (the right way) in other countries.

These two quotes are in opposition.

The first one says
A) That our system has nothing to do with this topic and
B) That we should not follow their example.

The second, earlier, one says that their approach is better than ours. That explicitly compares the two systems, and as such you brought the US constitution into this discussion.

It also puts the barbaric system in a positive light relative to ours.

I think that you should pick a position and stick to it.

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Yes, it is justified under their laws, but not under the Declaration of Human Rights.

I would read Article 5.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


I could go on and on........
Point is there are a lot of flaws to this DHR. If everything was followed to the exact wording then there would be world peace and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I know this one specific example might bring you some sense of redemption, but vigilante justice is illegal for a reason....

It offends queazy ball-less wonders is why

 

[SeminoleMarine]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine


I agree that we can't carry it to the extreme they did there. I am saying, BASED ON THEIR LAW HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. We can not and should not bring up our constitution as it is related to this case. Should our criminals be punished harsher and more quickly? YES! Should we allow public executions where the public participates? NO!

They do things differently (the right way) in other countries.

These two quotes are in opposition.



The first one says
A) That our system has nothing to do with this topic and
B) That we should not follow their example.

The second, earlier, one says that their approach is better than ours. That explicitly compares the two systems, and as such you brought the US constitution into this discussion.

It also puts the barbaric system in a positive light relative to ours.

I think that you should pick a position and stick to it.

Agreed the wording was bad. It should have read (the right way IN THIS CASE). As i have said, I HATE child molesters and child murderers. I think he got what he deserved. I do not think we should adopt those principles, but it sure would be interesting to see what happened to the crime rate if the possibility was there. To clarify, I am pro death penalty. Just not to that extreme, although I have no problem with what happened to him.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: DonVito
BS. I've prosecuted a number of child molesters, and even sent one to prison for life, but I wouldn't advocate this kind of thing. Child molestation is a crime that lends itself to at least the occasional conviction of an innocent person, so I hardly think it would benefit society to torture and kill them. Also, there's a reason the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment . . .

>>>......stunned their victims with blows from a stone, sexually abused them and buried the bodies in shallow graves in the desert south of Tehran.<<<

This isn't cruel and unusual though, huh? It is bleeding hearts like you that have our justice system so screwed up. This has nothing to do with an innocent person, he confessed. The only innocent ones here were the children. Besides, this didn't take place in our country so our constitution has no say in this case. They do things differently (the right way) in other countries. Scum like this get NO SYMPATHY from me. This also is more than a case of child molestation, this is MURDER.

Fine. Have no sympathy but have some human decency. The point is to not stoop to the murderer's level.

Only way to teach scum is by setting an example.

That's what the death penalty is for. A civilized, orderly death penalty.

Incorrect. A civilized, orderly death does not set an example. Showing what will happen to you if you fvck around will.

Um...you die. Hence, the death penalty. If repercussions such as death does not deter a murderer, then I don't think they'll be detered by anything.

You can't tell the difference between a nice peaceful painless death via lethal injection and a painful torturous well deserved death by stoning or what not? 😕

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SeminoleMarine

Originally posted by: DonVito

LOL - based on your posts, I can believe you, on the other hand, might actually be a Marine. I don't recall ever calling myself a DA, since I've never worked for any county or local government; indeed, I've never practiced in state court, other than an internship when I was in law school.

I am a Marine. Is there a problem????

So you are not a DA, just a lawyer. Just take my previous post and substitute the word lawyer where it says DA.

No problem as far as I'm concerned. In fact I was a JAG attorney for six years, though I'm now a civilian. Fortunately the UCMJ was written using a lot more common sense than you've exhibited here today. Keep in mind you've sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, which includes a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Your rhetoric could use a lot of work, IMO. You flew off the handle and attacked me for expressing my opinion, then acted as though I did something wrong for coming back at you. In short, you've been a real jerk, for no apparent reason, yet you seem to think I should appreciate it. 😕

 

[Wadded Beef]

theres no justice like angry mob justice... /simpsons

 

[MercenaryForHire]

They didn't make him Die in a Fire?

- M4H