US soldier gets life for Iraq rape

[Zico]

US soldier gets life for Iraq rape

A former US soldier convicted of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family, has been jailed for life, after a jury failed to agree on a death sentence.

Steven Dale Green, 24, was convicted two weeks ago of the crimes near Baghdad, where he and his unit were serving in 2006.

The jury of nine women and three men could not decide after two days of deliberations if Green should be executed or given life without parole, so the life sentence prevailed.

Judge Thomas Russell of the Kentucky district court said on Thursday that he would formally sentence Green on September 4.

Prosecutors said Green was the ringleader of a group of five soldiers who plotted to invade the home of the family of four to rape the girl.

They said he later bragged about the crime, saying what he had done was "awesome".

'Trigger-happy'

Green, 19 at the time of the crime, was described as the trigger-man in the group who donned black "ninja" outfits and raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and shot her, her father, mother and six-year-old sister.

"I do think it will allow him
to have some semblance of a
life and I'm very grateful for that"
Doug Green, brother
of convicted soldier

The soldiers later set fire to the girl's body to try to cover up the crime.

The rape-murders took place after the soldiers drank whiskey, played cards, and plotted the attack in Mahmudiya, 30km south of the Iraqi capital, the court heard.

Three of the four other soldiers pleaded guilty in the attack and the fourth was convicted, all in military courts martial.

They were sentenced to between five and 100 years, but could be paroled much sooner.

Green was tried in federal court as a civilian on murder, rape and obstruction of justice charges because his arrest came after he was discharged from the army for a "personality disorder".

The defence team acknowledged that he took part in the killings but argued that he should be spared the death penalty.

Defence

During the trial Green was depicted as a victim of a bad childhood and combat stress after the death of close colleagues in the combat zone south of Baghdad.

"Steven Green was responsible [for the rape and murders] but the United States of America failed Steven Green," Scott Wendelsdorf, a defence lawyer, told the jury in his final submission.

"And it failed a lot of soldiers in Iraq. And that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it were not the United States of America now seeking to put Steven Green to death."

As representatives of the Iraqi family openly wept in court, Green smiled slightly when the jury gave its decision.

His father, John Green, said the result was "the better of two bad choices, but the better one by far".

The ex-soldier's brother, Doug, added that "it's the only appropriate verdict" given the choices.

"I have mixed emotions about it, but I do think it will allow him to have some semblance of a life and I'm very grateful for that.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...154954975.html
================================================== ======

And yet people wonder why Mid Easterners frown upon Westerners foreign political policies. <_<
Double standards anyone?

[Tony]

I know where I would place that "hill of beans". Dont understand how law works in these cases, but would have liked him to be dealt with in Iraq. This sort of thing makes me wish he could be dealt with by sharia law. Failing that release him, in town centre with a sign attached that tells all he is a paedo.
If someone touched my kids or familly I would not be happy with this outcome

[GreyKode]

I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.

[Pygoscelis]

I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.

Why do you think atheists would be morally opposed to the death sentence? Can you think of no non-religious reason to support it?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[GreyKode]

Why do you think atheists would be morally opposed to the death sentence? Can you think of no non-religious reason to support it?

I didn't generalize, but anyway what is your opinion, what does he deserve.
For example in sharia law this guy would have his ass whipped off his head.

[Pygoscelis]

That would be a horrible waste of a resource. Can't we use him for organ donation or scientific research?

[HopeFul]

Yeah, after he's been, well done justice with!

[Trumble]

I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.

Do you actually have a useful point to make? If so, please try and do so.

Yes, I consider the death sentence immoral, here as in any other case. A great many theists are also opposed to the death sentence. Indeed, I find your implication remarkable; I would have thought that those who believe there is a God would actually be far less likely to think they have some sort of right to decide who lives and who dies, particularly in the interests of revenge (which is, in a modern society, the only purpose that the death penalty serves). After all, what's the significance of debating death vs. life without parole in the context of the eternal torment God can supposedly dish up?

Moral opposition to the death penalty has to be consistent, otherwise it is just a conceited hypocrisy. Sure, this guy 'deserves' to die as much as anyone, but many who die for a multitude of reasons deserve to live, and we have no say in that (does God?) You can't cross the line if you never draw it, but once you do you lose control of where it is drawn and sooner or later somebody dies who should not, even in the absence of any miscarriage of justice (and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk). Many of us, theist and atheist alike, think that's too high a price to pay.

[جوري]

Actually those who believe in God like to implement his commands and carry out justice, the penalty for murder is to be put to death. Everything is about cause and consequence.. Just like the adage 'Extremis malis, extrema remedia' / Serious diseases require serious treatment- like wise dangerous criminals require serious punishment..

No one takes pleasure in seeing anyone put to death, it isn't about the satisfaction of seeing someone dead, it is about getting justice for the people wronged and removing a serious malignancy from the midst of society as well making an example for others who think this is some sort of an easy joke, kill a few ragheads and get three square meals!..

No one ever says.. oh I have cancer, pls give me the so so medication.. everyone wants serious medication given that it is their survival or the cancer's survival.. try to apply that analogy to criminals as even where some diseases can be symbiotic in your body a criminal only practices criminality. I'd personally not have my tax money to put a roof over his head and three square meals a day for the rest of his life not to mention health care that a few millions in America alone can't afford and not because they are leeching off, but because they actually can't afford it. While these animals eat, drink, get treated even with transplants as they are put on lists like everyone else and the occasional pat on the back for killing a few Muslims!

Also if a person is sincerely repentant the punishment of death is an expiation of sin.. there is no hypocrisy there, there is common sense!
The only high price incurred is that of maintaining a murderous criminal behind bars instead of a 39c bullet through the head!

[KAding]

I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.

I'm opposed to the death sentence, including in this case. Though I'm not sure if my opposition is based on 'moral' grounds really. I oppose it because there will inevitably be too many miscarriages of justice, which we simply aren't in a position to correct if we chop someones head off.

Can't really see what that has to do with atheism though.

[جوري]

atheism to most minds has to do with a subjective brand of justice rather than an agreed upon moral code.. that is why those who bring atheism up, do so in such contexts!

all the best

[KAding]

atheism to most minds has to do with a subjective brand of justice rather than an agreed upon moral code.. that is why those who bring atheism up, do so in such contexts!

all the best

But I think to most people opposition to the death penalty is based exactly on this argument that too many mistakes are made when handing out justice. This isn't an moral argument IMHO, rooted in a different 'subjective' moral code, it is a very practical argument based on an understanding of how humans systems can fail. Obviously all of us agree that someone who rapes a 14 year old and kills her family has committed a morally reprehensible crime and needs to be punished.

Surely Muslims don't believe that, say, Sha'ria judges or Muslim investigators are infallible?

[جوري]

But I think to most people opposition to the death penalty is based exactly on this argument that too many mistakes are made when handing out justice. This isn't an moral argument IMHO, rooted in a different 'subjective' moral code, it is a very practical argument based on an understanding of how humans systems can fail. Obviously all of us agree that someone who rapes a 14 year old and kills her family has committed a morally reprehensible crime and needs to be punished.

Surely Muslims don't believe that, say, Sha'ria judges or Muslim investigators are infallible?

Perhaps if the system weren't set up to 'fail' then there wouldn't be mistakes? The system should be made to tighten the confidence interval in justice, the law and fairness. Those that leave you with a shadow of a doubt are the ones where you can contemplate alternatives, but not the other way around.. This is nothing but mere laxity and stupidity and a carte blanche for other criminals to carry out similar brand actions, after all what is a deterrent?

People thought once or twice about murder when they saw a town square execution. The death penalty is supposed to amongst others establish two things:

1- A remembrance of those whose life was lost, most folks dwell on handling the criminal with kid glove to remember the victims.. in his case he has multiple crimes to pay for including rape, for which he should be cut off from limb to limb before a death penalty is imposed!

2- Appreciating the sanctity of life, that taking a life is a grave action and merits a hefty payment.. not three square meals, a pet friend named bubbah to take care of frequent urges and health care for thousands upon thousands of dollars every year from the hard earned money of hard working individuals.. is this some sort of a joke?

if you had a margin of doubt why put him in jail to begin with? what brand of hypocrisy is this?

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

If raping and murdering a girl then her family doesn't deserve death, I don't know what will.

[GreyKode]

Do you actually have a useful point to make? If so, please try and do so.

Yes, I consider the death sentence immoral, here as in any other case. A great many theists are also opposed to the death sentence. Indeed, I find your implication remarkable; I would have thought that those who believe there is a God would actually be far less likely to think they have some sort of right to decide who lives and who dies, particularly in the interests of revenge (which is, in a modern society, the only purpose that the death penalty serves). After all, what's the significance of debating death vs. life without parole in the context of the eternal torment God can supposedly dish up?

Moral opposition to the death penalty has to be consistent, otherwise it is just a conceited hypocrisy. Sure, this guy 'deserves' to die as much as anyone, but many who die for a multitude of reasons deserve to live, and we have no say in that (does God?) You can't cross the line if you never draw it, but once you do you lose control of where it is drawn and sooner or later somebody dies who should not, even in the absence of any miscarriage of justice (and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk). Many of us, theist and atheist alike, think that's too high a price to pay.

heh..
The reason I said this is because I knew that this thread would attract a lot of athiests, and most of them on this forum usually criticize how sharia Law is unjust and extreme and that the death sentence is an immoral one.

I was just making a point that this case is an example of how just the sharia Law would be in dealing with the crime. Punishments in sharia are mainly to serve justice in this life for the people and not to satisfy "god's anger".

We don't decide who lives or who dies, it is GOD who does, and according to us muslims we believe the Qur'an is the rule.

and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk

so... who do you suggest should make the decisions?
Should we leave everything just hanging and take no action?

[Trumble]

No one takes pleasure in seeing anyone put to death, it isn't about the satisfaction of seeing someone dead, it is about getting justice for the people wronged and removing a serious malignancy from the midst of society as well making an example for others who think this is some sort of an easy joke, kill a few ragheads and get three square meals!..

It's exactly about "the satisfaction of seeing someone dead", or at least a particular person dead; it just requires some self-honesty to admit it. I don't mean to imply that satisfaction is the same as any sort of sadistic pleasure in seeing someone die, clearly it is not. There is no evidence the death penalty functions as a significant deterrent, and of course it wouldn't matter to my and KAding's arguments if it did unless you choose to adopt a 100% utilitarian approach that would be as inconsistent with my beliefs as it would be with yours.

I'd personally not have my tax money to put a roof over his head and three square meals a day for the rest of his life not to mention health care that a few millions in America alone can't afford and not because they are leeching off, but because they actually can't afford it.

Maybe not. I cannot, however, take any argument for capital punishment based on the idea that it saves money (even if it might) as worthy of serious moral consideration.

if you had a margin of doubt why put him in jail to begin with? what brand of hypocrisy is this?

It's not hypocrisy at all. There is always a 'margin of doubt'. In the English legal system, and I assume yours, it is (beyond) reasonable doubt. What constitutes 'reasonable doubt'? Opinion will vary, although perhaps not that widely, but nevertheless even within a legal system that is reliable as we can make it 'mistakes' (insofar as the wrong conclusion is reached - it may have been reached quite correctly) can, and will occur. When capital punishment exists, sooner or later an innocent will die... as many already have. But, 'reasonable doubt' is a practicality. 'No doubt' is an unreasonable aspiration, and a legal system based upon it could not function at all. No criminals would ever be convicted - but at least if they are still alive any mistake can at least be partially rectified.

We don't decide who lives or who dies, it is GOD who does, and according to us muslims we believe the Qur'an is the rule.

so... who do you suggest should make the decisions?
Should we leave everything just hanging and take no action?

I have seen nothing so far that suggests God has done any more than set down the circumstances in which the death penalty can be applied. The decisions are made by the only entities that can, people. And as always, people are subject to making mistakes.

Nobody is advocating 'taking no action', the soldier was sentenced to life without parole, not given a pat on his head and sent on his way. In the 21st century judicial systems admitting capital punishment are the exception rather than the rule, but I am not aware of a shred of evidence suggesting that the system in, say, the UK, France or Germany is any less efficient - particularly with regard to preventing murder - than that in the US or China.

[Tony]

My heart says kill him and display his head on a pole, he murdered a 6 yr old girl, raped a girl and murdered her and familly.
My sense of injustice is outraged that this "man" is alive to breath Gods air.
My fear of Allah says, he is in Allahs books and the hellfire will be awaiting his death, this is enough and more.
My soul says Allah you know best, forgive us for the deeds our hearts would have us commit but for your saving grace. And enter this familly straight to Jannah. Ameen

[Yanal]

It is sad that army men think these kinds of things while serving their country,I am glad I do not live in the US.

[ragdollcat1982]

As a Chrisitan I am oppossed to death penalty as I believe only God can give or take life. I base this on a verse in Romans that says avenge not yourselfs vengence is the Lords. However this guy will not have a good life, it is over. Life in Fort Levenworth is a hellhole and he should be locked in a cell and all over the wall should be pictures of what he done and that should be all he is allowed to look at. No books, no mail, no visitors, nothing. He will go to Hell unless he repents and I do not think he will to be honest.

[Tony]

As a Chrisitan I am oppossed to death penalty as I believe only God can give or take life. I base this on a verse in Romans that says avenge not yourselfs vengence is the Lords. However this guy will not have a good life, it is over. Life in Fort Levenworth is a hellhole and he should be locked in a cell and all over the wall should be pictures of what he done and that should be all he is allowed to look at. No books, no mail, no visitors, nothing. He will go to Hell unless he repents and I do not think he will to be honest.

wow that would be worse than dying

[ragdollcat1982]

wow that would be worse than dying

Yep, death is too easy IMHO for some people . In the USA it cost more to execute someone than to keep them alive when one facotrs in the cost of a capital trial and appeals. We have a supermax Federal prision in Colorado where some convicted terrorist are kept even though they want to be executed so they can be martyrs and they have no contact with the outside world.

[جوري]

It's exactly about "the satisfaction of seeing someone dead", or at least a particular person dead; it just requires some self-honesty to admit it.

You don't get to decide what it is about.. you are quite emotive for someone who should be pragmatic, or so alleges!
Establishing justice isn't just about the family, but the community at large, they deserve to not have criminals in their midst because of a lax judicial system!

I don't mean to imply that satisfaction is the same as any sort of sadistic pleasure in seeing someone die, clearly it is not. There is no evidence the death penalty functions as a significant deterrent, and of course it wouldn't matter to my and KAding's arguments if it did unless you choose to adopt a 100% utilitarian approach that would be as inconsistent with my beliefs as it would be with yours.

Given that there were only 4 crimes of theft in Saudi Arabia compared to Robberies 420,637in the U.S last year, I'd say the type of public punishment received is indeed a major deterrent! but you prefer to bury your head in the sand!

Maybe not. I cannot, however, take any argument for capital punishment based on the idea that it saves money (even if it might) as worthy of serious moral consideration.

Again, not simply money, but justice.. until you can fully mature that term in your head we'll get no where!
although perhaps when you think of it in terms of financial future, as it definitely drains the resources of future generation, causes unnecessary overcrowding in prisons, and eventually releases unrehabilitated criminals back into society, the choice is rather easy!

It's not hypocrisy at all. There is always a 'margin of doubt'. In the English legal system, and I assume yours, it is (beyond) reasonable doubt. What constitutes 'reasonable doubt'? Opinion will vary, although perhaps not that widely, but nevertheless even within a legal system that is reliable as we can make it 'mistakes' (insofar as the wrong conclusion is reached - it may have been reached quite correctly) can, and will occur. When capital punishment exists, sooner or later an innocent will die... as many already have. But, 'reasonable doubt' is a practicality. 'No doubt' is an unreasonable aspiration, and a legal system based upon it could not function at all. No criminals would ever be convicted - but at least if they are still alive any mistake can at least be partially rectified.

I find that grossly funny.. and I certainly don't want to run or partake in a system that has a margin of error.. perhaps indeed, if they didn't lift 12 uneducated idiots off the streets to decide the fates of others there wouldn't be any margin of error?.. I don't see how with DNA testing, pathology reports, hairs, fibers, motives, weapons and confessionals and folks studied in law can leave any doubt they are made so that there is no reasonable doubt and that is certainly the case for this animal!.. if you are sending a man to prison for life you might as well send him for his death, you have ended his life as he knows it no matter what.. I am sure an apology can be served if a 'mistake' is made with the same sincerity given to the victims and their families!







all the best

[Trumble]

Given that there were only 4 crimes of theft in Saudi Arabia compared to Robberies 420,637in the U.S last year, I'd say the type of public punishment received is indeed a major deterrent! but you prefer to bury your head in the sand!

I believe we were talking about murders and capital punishment, not robberies and public punishment. Would you like to pull up the states comparing murder rates in otherwise comparible jurisdictions without capital punishment and those with it, or shall I?

Again, not simply money, but justice.. until you can fully mature that term in your head we'll get no where!
although perhaps when you think of it in terms of financial future, as it definitely drains the resources of future generation, causes unnecessary overcrowding in prisons, and eventually releases unrehabilitated criminals back into society, the choice is rather easy!

We'll get nowhere because your comments are incoherent. You mention 'justice', and then bang on about money again.. I'm afraid it is you who do not appear to grasp the meaning of the word.

I find that grossly funny.. and I certainly don't want to run or partake in a system that has a margin of error.. perhaps indeed, if they didn't lift 12 uneducated idiots off the streets to decide the fates of others there wouldn't be any margin of error?.. I don't see how with DNA testing, pathology reports, hairs, fibers, motives, weapons and confessionals and folks studied in law can leave any doubt they are made so that there is no reasonable doubt and that is certainly the case for this animal!..

You seem to be living in a total fantasy world. Such mistakes have been made, are been made and will in all likelihood always be made. People make mistakes. There are no shortage of case studies.

I am sure an apology can be served if a 'mistake' is made with the same sincerity given to the victims and their families!

An apology to whom? The victim of the miscarriage of justice is dead, executed by the state for the purpose of proving revenge (not 'justice') for the benefit of its citizens. The victims of the crime have a connection only to the guilty party, not the innocent.

[جوري]

I believe we were talking about murders and capital punishment, not robberies and public punishment. Would you like to pull up the states comparing murder rates in otherwise comparible jurisdictions without capital punishment and those with it, or shall I?

File:Homicide-world.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size of this preview: 800 × 352 pixels
Full resolution‎ (1,427 × 628 pixels, file size: 37 KB, MIME type: image/png)

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.

English: Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 0-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
>20
Individual countries based on en:List of countries by intentional homicide rate, US states by

0-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20 Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants.


there was another site where Saudi Arabia and Qatar were the last two from the bottom where Columbia ranked number one and U.S number 24 though above is more comprehensive!
England I assume has a low crime rate though not as low as KSA simply because they ban firearms... I don't know whether or not the death penalty is imposed there, but at least they tighten one area of sudden gusty wind, unlike the U.S!


I am sure you can follow the map and the colored boxes and draw your own conclusions otherwise!

We'll get nowhere because your comments are incoherent. You mention 'justice', and then bang on about money again.. I'm afraid it is you who do not appear to grasp the meaning of the word.

When you have a severely ailing argument, you enjoy getting lost in semantics as I have come to notice.. justice amongst other things means fairness, and swiftness, I don't believe criminals should be rewarded in any fashion and part of that reward is sustaining their life with food, shelter and health care-- perhaps if you'd think more of the victims and society at large you wouldn't whine so much about justice for criminals?

You seem to be living in a total fantasy world. Such mistakes have been made, are been made and will in all likelihood always be made. People make mistakes. There are no shortage of case studies.

Indeed, also murders will be committed, go unsolved, and criminals go free justice won't be dispensed (how does that figure into atheism) btw? (is there at least a concept of what goes around comes around, since there seems to be no judgment in the after life)-- I'll take the paradoxically atheistic approach and say, there seems to be simply one chance at dispensing with justice and let's have it served in the here and now! I'd rather have the laws more stringent than more lax!

An apology to whom? The victim of the miscarriage of justice is dead, executed by the state for the purpose of proving revenge (not 'justice') for the benefit of its citizens. The victims of the crime have a connection only to the guilty party, not the innocent.

Victims usually have families! the purpose is indeed Justice, for the benefit of the dead victim, their families and the community at large. Everyone suffers from a crime committed not just the victims.. Empathy anyone?

I suffered to follow the Megan Kanaka case (amongst many others), and I suffered with a reversal of the law that led the repeat sexual predator that raped and put her in garbage bags off death row. I think of her the same way I think of my little nieces and nephews, as a human life that was terribly wronged and of the possibility that this can happen to anyone's kids no one is immune so long as liberal law makers continue to handle such animals with kid gloves and then put them back out on the streets ergo a parole hearing or what not to live amongst private citizens. Why else follow the news at all? for entertainment purposes?

all the best

[Trumble]

I am sure you can follow the map and the colored boxes and draw your own conclusions otherwise!

Of course. You have drawn none that plausibly support yours. In my last I mentioned otherwise comparible jurisdictions. You are supposed to be a scientist, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why. If you need a hint, look at your own comments on gun laws.

When you have a severely ailing argument, you enjoy getting lost in semantics as I have come to notice..

Now that IS funny. You will never recognise the irony, of course.. :D

justice amongst other things means fairness, and swiftness, I don't believe criminals should be rewarded in any fashion and part of that reward is sustaining their life with food, shelter and health care-- perhaps if you'd think more of the victims and society at large you wouldn't whine so much about justice for criminals?

Life imprisonment without parole is no 'reward' let alone the sort of holiday camp you seem to think it is. Many consider it far worse than death, free health care not. I haven't even mentioned 'justice for criminals', let alone whined about it. Had you been paying attention you would have noticed my concern is protecting the innocent, specifically those convicted of crimes they did not commit. You have failed to provide any evidence capital punishment protects any other innocents.

Indeed, also murders will be committed, go unsolved, and criminals go free justice won't be dispensed (how does that figure into atheism) btw? (is there at least a concept of what goes around comes around, since there seems to be no judgment in the after life)

I'm surprised you don't know that that presents no problem for Buddhists, as the whole religion is based on that exact principle, in various forms. I won't speak for other atheists, but suffice to say no God is required, just natural processes.

I suffered to follow the Megan Kanaka case (amongst many others), and I suffered with a reversal of the law that led the repeat sexual predator that raped and put her in garbage bags off death row. I think of her the same way I think of my little nieces and nephews, as a human life that was terribly wronged and of the possibility that this can happen to anyone's kids no one is immune so long as liberal law makers continue to handle such animals with kid gloves and then put them back out on the streets ergo a parole hearing or what not to live amongst private citizens.

Strawman time. Nobody is talking about 'kid gloves' or putting anybody back on the streets. Nowhere does the exclusion of capital punishment also exclude the possibility of mandatory life without parole sentences. You just have to decide where that is appropriate. In this case (which I am not familiar with) I assume it is. But what of the brutally beaten wife over many years who finally cracks and murders her husband? There, is life without parole 'justice'? Who is at risk should she be paroled?

[Saad Wakeel]

US soldier gets life for Iraq rape

A former US soldier convicted of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family, has been jailed for life, after a jury failed to agree on a death sentence.

Steven Dale Green, 24, was convicted two weeks ago of the crimes near Baghdad, where he and his unit were serving in 2006.

The jury of nine women and three men could not decide after two days of deliberations if Green should be executed or given life without parole, so the life sentence prevailed.

Judge Thomas Russell of the Kentucky district court said on Thursday that he would formally sentence Green on September 4.

Prosecutors said Green was the ringleader of a group of five soldiers who plotted to invade the home of the family of four to rape the girl.

They said he later bragged about the crime, saying what he had done was "awesome".

'Trigger-happy'

Green, 19 at the time of the crime, was described as the trigger-man in the group who donned black "ninja" outfits and raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and shot her, her father, mother and six-year-old sister.

"I do think it will allow him
to have some semblance of a
life and I'm very grateful for that"
Doug Green, brother
of convicted soldier

The soldiers later set fire to the girl's body to try to cover up the crime.

The rape-murders took place after the soldiers drank whiskey, played cards, and plotted the attack in Mahmudiya, 30km south of the Iraqi capital, the court heard.

Three of the four other soldiers pleaded guilty in the attack and the fourth was convicted, all in military courts martial.

They were sentenced to between five and 100 years, but could be paroled much sooner.

Green was tried in federal court as a civilian on murder, rape and obstruction of justice charges because his arrest came after he was discharged from the army for a "personality disorder".

The defence team acknowledged that he took part in the killings but argued that he should be spared the death penalty.

Defence

During the trial Green was depicted as a victim of a bad childhood and combat stress after the death of close colleagues in the combat zone south of Baghdad.

"Steven Green was responsible [for the rape and murders] but the United States of America failed Steven Green," Scott Wendelsdorf, a defence lawyer, told the jury in his final submission.

"And it failed a lot of soldiers in Iraq. And that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it were not the United States of America now seeking to put Steven Green to death."

As representatives of the Iraqi family openly wept in court, Green smiled slightly when the jury gave its decision.

His father, John Green, said the result was "the better of two bad choices, but the better one by far".

The ex-soldier's brother, Doug, added that "it's the only appropriate verdict" given the choices.

"I have mixed emotions about it, but I do think it will allow him to have some semblance of a life and I'm very grateful for that.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...154954975.html
================================================== ======

And yet people wonder why Mid Easterners frown upon Westerners foreign political policies. <_<
Double standards anyone?

This news disgust me and in my opinion this person should be killed without any doubt, these things are becoming to frequent and should be dealt with very seriously making sure people like this soldier do no escape justice

[جوري]

Of course. You have drawn none that plausibly support yours. In my last I mentioned otherwise comparible jurisdictions. You are supposed to be a scientist, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why. If you need a hint, look at your own comments on gun laws.

I don't support the U.S political/judicial system on anything (foreign or domestic) I don't think your system is that much better, but you've done away with somethings that have improved your certain outcomes though not as comparable to nations that implement a very strident approach in dealing with criminals or what it is that criminals can carry in their possession in which to bring harm on other folks!

Now that IS funny. You will never recognise the irony, of course.. :D

I guess I won't, but given that you had the same remarks in your ammo to use on everyone on board whose position differs from yours, I suppose the irony is lost to you as well!

Life imprisonment without parole is no 'reward' let alone the sort of holiday camp you seem to think it is. Many consider it far worse than death, free health care not. I haven't even mentioned 'justice for criminals', let alone whined about it. Had you been paying attention you would have noticed my concern is protecting the innocent, specifically those convicted of crimes they did not commit. You have failed to provide any evidence capital punishment protects any other innocents.

I have provided sufficient evidence, You are simply refractory to it. it isn't a matter of what is put on the table, it is whether or not you wish to subscribe to it.. Sort of like the surgeon general warning on a cigarette box that smokers never take heed of, and cite that Milton Berle lived to be a hundred and born with a cigar in his mouth.. your statistics if they in fact exist and not out of your fanny are NEGLIGIBLE.. do you want to show me the percentage of 'innocent' behind bars?-- compared even to say the percentage of those who die from freak accidents? I'd still take my chances by putting them out..
You've never been to jail so don't come and speak with bravado on how good or bad it is, and yes they get free health care and ARE PUT on organ transplant lists, they come to regular hospitals with regular people with mere guards at their door while others die on the waiting table so don't come and speak of a fate far worst than death.

I'm surprised you don't know that that presents no problem for Buddhists, as the whole religion is based on that exact principle, in various forms. I won't speak for other atheists, but suffice to say no God is required, just natural processes.

And how does the Buddhist 'natural process' take care of criminals that get away?

Strawman time. Nobody is talking about 'kid gloves' or putting anybody back on the streets. Nowhere does the exclusion of capital punishment also exclude the possibility of mandatory life without parole sentences. You just have to decide where that is appropriate. In this case (which I am not familiar with) I assume it is. But what of the brutally beaten wife over many years who finally cracks and murders her husband? There, is life without parole 'justice'? Who is at risk should she be paroled?

You speak of strawman yet come up with these asinine scenarios that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
1- You need to establish for us how many 'innocents' are in fact behind bars? I am not into hypotheticals!
2- You need to establish why depleting hard working individual's resources to keep them alive is of value?
3- You need to establish if there is in fact rehabilitation from imprisonment?
4- You need to account for why they are deserving of health care or any type of mercy, yet fail to have the same emotion for regular everyday hard working folks on minimum wage who don't make enough to have private insurance and aren't completely invalid as to qualify for medicare?..

until such a time I really don't want to hear of the 0.00000000001% chance that an innocent could be put to death since according to you life in prison is far worst than death.. so you'd sentence an innocent man to a fate far worst than death or are we hypocrites?


all the best

[Trumble]

do you want to show me the percentage of 'innocent' behind bars?

Now you are being ridiculous. If we knew who was innocent, they wouldn't be behind bars. Or at least in your and my country, they wouldn't.

You've never been to jail

How do you know?! But no, not as an inmate, anyway. I think the 'free health care' issue must be an American thing; as everyone in the UK is entitled to it anyway the thought that prisoners should be denied it doesn't really occur to anybody. I'm not sure what alternative you prefer.. maybe you think we should just let them die?

And how does the Buddhist 'natural process' take care of criminals that get away?

The doctrine of karma is the ultimate example of 'what goes around comes around'. If by 'get away' you mean those who are never caught, it seems just as satisfactory as leaving the job to God, not least because it doesn't actually require one. Even Buddhists, though, realize that in the case of those who are caught justice requires rather more than some unprovable metaphysics to be seen to be done, and hence tend to accept and indeed create the same sort of judicial system as everybody else.

You speak of strawman yet come up with these asinine scenarios that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

I spoke of a strawman because that is clearly what you presented. You are now resorting to desperate waffle... the relevance of all my 'scenarios' is obvious. I 'need to establish' none of those things. The first is absurd as I have already explained. In the case of the second there is a blatant implicit assumption that the people concerned are guilty; obviously my concern is that they might not be. The third I don't understand; of course there is 'rehabilitation from imprisonment'. Only in some cases, obviously but when has anyone ever claimed it never happens? It's a nonsense point. And the last we might have to put down to cultural differences.. although I would like to know your preferred alternative.

until such a time I really don't want to hear of the 0.00000000001% chance that an innocent could be put to death since

I really don't know where you pull that figure from, you seem to still be in your fantasy world.

LINK

LINK

LINK

and so on, and so on. Fifty years ago, all of those men would have been executed.

according to you life in prison is far worst than death

I know you are flailing desperately, but please have the courtesy to not deliberately represent me. I did not say that, I said that some people (in particular those actually serving a life sentence) think it, that is they would prefer death.

[جوري]

Now you are being ridiculous. If we knew who was innocent, they wouldn't be behind bars. Or at least in your and my country, they wouldn't.

Then to whom do you advocate? I enjoy a fantasy read as much as the next guy, but world's affairs is the wrong section for that when we have a creative writing section!

How do you know?! But no, not as an inmate, anyway. I think the 'free health care' issue must be an American thing; as everyone in the UK is entitled to it anyway the thought that prisoners should be denied it doesn't really occur to anybody. I'm not sure what alternative you prefer.. maybe you think we should just let them die?

I know because I have had several pts who are prisoners duh.. I don't know their crimes, they don't bring them with their actual names the computer generates names for them and they are accompanied by two guards, and sometimes restraints... I can't speak for England but that is the case for the U.S..
I wouldn't deny health care to folks in need of healthcare and luckily I don't know the crimes of any of them save for just one elderly gentleman whom I had written about on LI before, and his crime if I can call it that was being an illegal, he kept crying and telling everyone about it because he was clearly humiliated, he in my opinion didn't deserve to be escorted and treated like a common criminal by the cops but the others I don't know but it could been anything.
I have no desire to develop human feelings for criminals, simply as they don't think and react from the same platform as the rest of humanity. So yes, I'd rather the courts and those who specialize in the law deal with them in an appropriate fashion.

The doctrine of karma is the ultimate example of 'what goes around comes around'. If by 'get away' you mean those who are never caught, it seems just as satisfactory as leaving the job to God, not least because it doesn't actually require one. Even Buddhists, though, realize that in the case of those who are caught justice requires rather more than some unprovable metaphysics to be seen to be done, and hence tend to accept and indeed create the same sort of judicial system as everybody else.

But how do you leave the job to God and think that is satisfactory when you don't believe there is a God? I mean honestly and sincerely how do you reconcile this in your mind? Knowing someone got away with a crime and you believing wholeheartedly at the same time that there is no divine justice to catch the ones who'd fallen into the cracks?

I spoke of a strawman because that is clearly what you presented. You are now resorting to desperate waffle... the relevance of all my 'scenarios' is obvious. I 'need to establish' none of those things. The first is absurd as I have already explained. In the case of the second there is a blatant implicit assumption that the people concerned are guilty; obviously my concern is that they might not be. The third I don't understand; of course there is 'rehabilitation from imprisonment'. Only in some cases, obviously but when has anyone ever claimed it never happens? It's a nonsense point. And the last we might have to put down to cultural differences.. although I would like to know your preferred alternative.LINK

LINK

LINK

and so on, and so on. Fifty years ago, all of those men would have been executed.

I really don't know where you pull that figure from, you seem to still be in your fantasy world. Three cases from a bygone era hardly have any relevance to our topic especially with our current technology. Crime investigation isn't the shame it is used to being where you and about 25% of the population share the same odds if you inhabited the same city, based on old methods alone..
1- You need to establish for us how many 'innocents' are in fact behind bars? I am not into hypotheticals! Not absurd except in your own mind... if there is a reasonable doubt then no death penalty should be imposed, it is that simple and I have stated as much.. if there is no reasonable doubt that I see no point in fostering any form of a life to a murderous criminal!

2- You need to establish why depleting hard working individual's resources to keep them alive is of value? and a safely concluded assumption indeed on my part, why else bring people to trial at all if they have no connection whatsoever to a crime?

3- You need to establish if there is in fact rehabilitation from imprisonment?
I have no idea what is difficult to understand with this one? where do you come up with 'of course'?

you might benefit reading:
U.S. prison system a costly and harmful failure: report
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...0071119?rpc=24

prison neither rehabilitates nor fixes the problem: as said by one wise blogger:
It warehouses criminals while they serve their debt to society. It offers them an opportunity to change, but does not make them change. Prison offers criminals an opportunity to come together and plot and plan their next move upon their release!

and such indeed was the case of young Megan Kanka whose repeat sex offender came out, got a house next door to hers and did what he knows best, raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed a little girl before throwing her in garbage bags and you want to come and speak to me about your nano percentage of possible error?.. does his semen recovered from 6 year old orifice enough evidence in your opinion?


4- You need to account for why they are deserving of health care or any type of mercy, yet fail to have the same emotion for regular everyday hard working folks on minimum wage who don't make enough to have private insurance and aren't completely invalid as to qualify for medicare?..


my preferred alternative for any number of the above is to implement shari3a law... I don't believe there is any use at all to the prison system or a trial by 12 ignorant jurors, I certainly am not studied enough in Islamic jurisprudence to judge how each crime is handled, but will go back to repeating my earlier post, of serious disease requires serious remedies, like wise with criminals, the more serious the crime the more serious the penalty and in the case of this turd bag who raped young girl and murdered an entire family, not only do I believe he doesn't deserve any form of health care, he needs to be punished for each crime he committed in the order they took place, first for rape then for murder! No I don't believe the average hard working american needs to foster any form of a life for that SOB!

I know you are flailing desperately, but please have the courtesy to not deliberately represent me. I did not say that, I said that some people (in particular those actually serving a life sentence) think it, that is they would prefer death.

Again, with the semantics. If they'd prefer death, and it is what they deserve then they should get it plain and simple!
I see all the rest as you trying desperately to console yourself over a very lax and allowing moral compass!

all the best

[nebula]

he should have been given death!, if someone raped your family and killed them would you let them go? or would u want them to be given death? hmm

[Banu_Hashim]

Reading the article just makes my blood boil; a life sentence is too kind for a person of such low moral etiquette and principles.

[Trumble]

Then to whom do you advocate? I enjoy a fantasy read as much as the next guy, but world's affairs is the wrong section for that when we have a creative writing section!

Oh, please. WAFFLE!! The point is quite straightforward. You can't provide statistics on numbers of illegal immigrants, either, for pretty much the same reason. And the examples I gave show the figure is likely to be significant even if it can't be quantified.

I know because I have had several pts who are prisoners duh..

No, I meant how did you know I haven't been in jail. :)

But how do you leave the job to God and think that is satisfactory when you don't believe there is a God? I mean honestly and sincerely how do you reconcile this in your mind?

I was comparing two positions - yours and mine, not trying to suggest I hold both. I don't, of course, as I don't believe there is a God.

Knowing someone got away with a crime and you believing wholeheartedly at the same time that there is no divine justice to catch the ones who'd fallen into the cracks?

As I have explained, no divinity is required.

Three cases from a bygone era hardly have any relevance to our topic especially with our current technology. Crime investigation isn't the shame it is used to being where you and about 25% of the population share the same odds if you inhabited the same city, based on old methods alone.

Nonsense. Sure, technology has improved; but some could (and, I'm sure, did) make exactly the same claim as yourself when they started admitting fingerprints or any of a number of other forensic techniques as evidence. And, as I keep saying, even if the science could be guaranteed, people cannot. The convictions were not contemporary, of course, as the discovery of such miscarriages of justice - outside Perry Mason movies anyway - does tend to take time, which is rather my point.

As we obviously cannot agree on this, let's throw it open to others. Is there anyone out there who, regardless of your thoughts on this particular case, accepts gossamer's suggestion that modern technology means that any murder convinction in the US or UK must now be effectively 100% from any chance of a miscarriage of justice?

It offers them an opportunity to change, but does not make them change. Prison offers criminals an opportunity to come together and plot and plan their next move upon their release!

In many cases that is undoubtably true. Certainly in my country there is concern about sending convicted criminals, particularly young ones, to 'universities of crime' if it could be avoided. However, I can't take the general claim you seem to be making (the article certainly does not) seriously. Your turn.. to make your point you 'need to establish' that no prisoner has ever repented and 'gone straight' as the result of a spell in jail.

and such indeed was the case of young Megan Kanka whose repeat sex offender came out, got a house next door to hers and did what he knows best, raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed a little girl before throwing her in garbage bags and you want to come and speak to me about your nano percentage of possible error?.. does his semen recovered from 6 year old orifice enough evidence in your opinion?

We are going round in circles. Firstly, the release of this person can be set aside from the argument as, as I have explained, a prohibition of capital punishment does not entail prohibition of life sentences without parole, 'kid gloves' treatment, early release, or rehabilation. Clearly, he should never have been released; but Megan's death would also have been prevented if he never had been. On the subject of his guilt, that certainly seems beyond reasonable doubt. But murderers shouldn't be convicted unless the case against them is proven without reasonable doubt, yet, as I have shown, the wrong people are convicted. I am not arguing that they shouldn't be, they have to be to have a functioning legal system.. as we can never have 'no doubt', 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the best we can do. But the wrongly convicted cannot be released if you have already killed them.

You need to account for why they are deserving of health care or any type of mercy

Sometimes i find it hard to believe this is a religious forum. Are Islamic values really so different from Christian and Buddhist values?

[~Raynn~]

As far as this particular case is concerned, in a place where capital punishment is used, I don't know what the jury saw that made them decide against the death penalty...I understand about the cases of wrong convictions, but if there ever is such a thing as being beyond all reasonable doubt, this seems to be it :-\.

This is all incredibly saddening...

[جوري]

Oh, please. WAFFLE!! The point is quite straightforward. You can't provide statistics on numbers of illegal immigrants, either, for pretty much the same reason. And the examples I gave show the figure is likely to be significant even if it can't be quantified.

You speak often of waffles and pancakes, I think you miss the point entirely. Until such a time we have figures (which is something I'd love for many a reasons) then we can ignore your feelings on the matter and pass on the syrup...

No, I meant how did you know I haven't been in jail. :)

I don't.. I can only work with what you have given me..

I was comparing two positions - yours and mine, not trying to suggest I hold both. I don't, of course, as I don't believe there is a God.

Yes, and you haven't explained your position well, I walked away feeling empty!

As I have explained, no divinity is required.

Then I don't understand how justice is served as per Buddhism?

Nonsense. Sure, technology has improved; but some could (and, I'm sure, did) make exactly the same claim as yourself when they started admitting fingerprints or any of a number of other forensic techniques as evidence. And, as I keep saying, even if the science could be guaranteed, people cannot. The convictions were not contemporary, of course, as the discovery of such miscarriages of justice - outside Perry Mason movies anyway - does tend to take time, which is rather my point.

fingerprints and DNA was never initially what crime investigation is about, I am no cop but there are many factors which those new advances undoubtedly improve upon.. You are getting lost in so much nonsense, I feel you miss the point entirely, which is this turd in the title raping and murdering a family! Again, I like a case by case scenario, that is how we approach any problem!

As we obviously cannot agree on this, let's throw it open to others. Is there anyone out there who, regardless of your thoughts on this particular case, accepts gossamer's suggestion that modern technology means that any murder convinction in the US or UK must now be effectively 100% from any chance of a miscarriage of justice?

I think save for a few atheists and a few wishy washy theists, everyone has unanimously agreed the turd above gets the death penalty. You narrowing it down to be solely based upon a side point I have made won't change the matter any!

In many cases that is undoubtably true. Certainly in my country there is concern about sending convicted criminals, particularly young ones, to 'universities of crime' if it could be avoided. However, I can't take the general claim you seem to be making (the article certainly does not) seriously. Your turn.. to make your point you 'need to establish' that no prisoner has ever repented and 'gone straight' as the result of a spell in jail.

And I have already told you many a posts ago, that 'repentance' has nothing to do with paying for your crime... your son or daughter stealing a cookie from the cookie jar which you forbade does not automatically denote that:
1- you don't love your son
2- that your son isn't sincerely sorry he disobeyed your rules!

if stealing in your house comes with a punishment then you'd implement that regardless of the two points above!

We are going round in circles. Firstly, the release of this person can be set aside from the argument as, as I have explained, a prohibition of capital punishment does not entail prohibition of life sentences without parole, 'kid gloves' treatment, early release, or rehabilation. Clearly, he should never have been released; but Megan's death would also have been prevented if he never had been. On the subject of his guilt, that certainly seems beyond reasonable doubt. But murderers shouldn't be convicted unless the case against them is proven without reasonable doubt, yet, as I have shown, the wrong people are convicted. I am not arguing that they shouldn't be, they have to be to have a functioning legal system.. as we can never have 'no doubt', 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the best we can do. But the wrongly convicted cannot be released if you have already killed them.

You are inconsistent at best, you tell me you don't want to use an isolated case yet assert your point using a couple of obsolete isolated cases.. until you can be forth coming at least with your own person, we really are going no where. The point above atop many other things is that, no rehabilitation comes from prison, I have actually given you an article from a sea of articles on the matter concerning the failure of American prison system -- at this stage if you wish to hold on to your stubbornness just for the sake of saving face by all means...
but you haven't and you can't make a case for yourself based on a nonexistent statistic or a possibility when we are speaking of real lives and real human beings!
you need to do a few things
1- round me a number that will send us aghast!
2- see where the errors are made in the system to improve them and find a solution so that at least the U.S system is comparable to Japan (forget KSA) although KSA still ranks better than Japan (which was third on the bottom)

Why Japan Still Has the Death Penalty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan15.html

Sometimes i find it hard to believe this is a religious forum. Are Islamic values really so different from Christian and Buddhist values?

I don't know, I have never been a Buddhist or a christian, although I generally consider Christians people of the book, I'd take a Buddhist over a christian, they seem mellower at the end of the day and you are actually no exception ..

all the best

[-Elle-]

I am quite certain that MANY cases like these occur daily, yet they go unheard of.But that's just my opinion.

I don't believe in black and white situations but this is as clear as day; something so horrible deserves the worst punishment.

Like ragdollcat1982 mentioned before, being locked up and forced to stare at pictures of what he did, with visitors/media/etc allowed...seems far worse in my opinion. Putting someone to death might bring some sort of justice to the family; but their pain will not be relieved by much IMO. It seems like you would mourn more for the loss of the person than for the lack of justice being served...

Anyway, it is stories like these which make me wonder what the world is coming to. How can anyone be truly happy knowing such devastating thing are happening around the world? What if you were put in that situation?

We cannot even begin to IMAGINE the pain and horror that girl was put through...
imsad

Peace

[Muezzin]

Like ragdollcat1982 mentioned before, being locked up and forced to stare at pictures of what he did, with visitors/media/etc allowed...seems far worse in my opinion.

Am I the only one who thinks this sort of thing will give this scumbag the idea to write books/sell interviews and otherwise profit from this disgusting crime later on in life, under the guise of 'reformation' if required?

Like that book OJ Simpson wrote.

[-Elle-]

It is simply an idea; and this considering that he would have absolutly no contact with th eoutside world/media,as stated before.

But still,good point. Maybe there is such lack of conscience/emotion/ the basic sense of humanity that he would not feel guilt nor remorse if forced to stare at such things.

I mean,if he raped a girl and murdered her family,its possible.

it's hard to imagine someone not being mentally tortured by it though.

Harder to believe what humans have come to, where you should fear them more than you fear jinns..(I don't remember where I read that!)

La 7awlah wala kuwata illah bilah:(..

[AntiKarateKid]

Yep, death is too easy IMHO for some people . In the USA it cost more to execute someone than to keep them alive when one facotrs in the cost of a capital trial and appeals. We have a supermax Federal prision in Colorado where some convicted terrorist are kept even though they want to be executed so they can be martyrs and they have no contact with the outside world.

1. It shouldn't cost that much. Take a sword and chop their head off. It's cheap and painless. :enough!:

2. I don't understand your objection to the death penalty. "God gives and takes life," well sure. But... you have killing in self defence, giving a poor man money so he can stay alive, putting a premature baby on life support, pre-emptive war etc etc.

I think you might not understand the broadness of such a statement as "only God gives and takes lives". God gave us the ability to take lives too, but only in the proper situation.

And besides, if what you say is true then how come the Old Testament had the death penalty? It seemed like a good idea to Him then huh?

[Trumble]

Am I the only one who thinks this sort of thing will give this scumbag the idea to write books/sell interviews and otherwise profit from this disgusting crime later on in life, under the guise of 'reformation' if required?

He may well have the idea, but he will never have the opportunity. 'Without parole' means just that.

Like that book OJ Simpson wrote.

OJ Simpson was acquitted. On the murder charge, anyway.

[seeker-of-light]

that guy was horrible, and ya on him he deserves death penalty. at least in my opinion.

[themuffinman]

you guys have to understand the American psyche, to us americans worse than death would be our freedom taken away so i think the life sentence is right on. id take a death penalty anyday over life sentence.we value our freedom more than anything

[Clover]

Rape is a terrible thing. I would support death penalty in his case. Bad Childhood? Give me a break, daddy whooped him as a child, so what. I used to get whooped, then I learned, hey, don't do that, he obviously doesn't want you too. I haven't got whooped in years, cause I learned the concept "don't do this, and no punishment". If he was beaten, for no reason, then sorry to him, but he isn't the only one in the Military who was, and I doubt all of them go out and rape women.

[ragdollcat1982]

1. It shouldn't cost that much. Take a sword and chop their head off. It's cheap and painless. :enough!:

2. I don't understand your objection to the death penalty. "God gives and takes life," well sure. But... you have killing in self defence, giving a poor man money so he can stay alive, putting a premature baby on life support, pre-emptive war etc etc.

I think you might not understand the broadness of such a statement as "only God gives and takes lives". God gave us the ability to take lives too, but only in the proper situation.

And besides, if what you say is true then how come the Old Testament had the death penalty? It seemed like a good idea to Him then huh?

Christians are no longer bound by the Mosiac law. Other than the 10 commandment which is reiterated in the New Testament. In the book of Romans it says avenge not yourselves, vengence is mine saith the Lord. Jesus also stopped a woman accused of adultery from being stoned to death because one there was no tangible evidence and many Chrisitans myself included look at these passages as reason not to support capital punishment. Self defense and war are not the same thing as singling out a person and planning on killing them whether it be murder or execution. If I killed someone in self defense to save my life or my family I would still be down on my knees praying and asking God for forgiveness. You say just chop off their head, did you know that under Mosiac law that punishment would not be allowed as it forbids blood to touch the ground? Also executing them takes away any chances they may have of repenting of their sins.

[GreyKode]

Christians are no longer bound by the Mosiac law. Other than the 10 commandment which is reiterated in the New Testament. In the book of Romans it says avenge not yourselves, vengence is mine saith the Lord. Jesus also stopped a woman accused of adultery from being stoned to death because one there was no tangible evidence and many Chrisitans myself included look at these passages as reason not to support capital punishment. Self defense and war are not the same thing as singling out a person and planning on killing them whether it be murder or execution. If I killed someone in self defense to save my life or my family I would still be down on my knees praying and asking God for forgiveness. You say just chop off their head, did you know that under Mosiac law that punishment would not be allowed as it forbids blood to touch the ground? Also executing them takes away any chances they may have of repenting of their sins.

Isn't there in the Mosaic Law a punishment for adultery/rape etc?

[ragdollcat1982]

[QUOTE=Muezzin;1148865]Am I the only one who thinks this sort of thing will give this scumbag the idea to write books/sell interviews and otherwise profit from this disgusting crime later on in life, under the guise of 'reformation' if required?

Like that book OJ Simpson wrote.[/QUOT


A lesson in the US jurisprudence. As a general rule a convicted criminal is not allowed to profit from there crimes. OJ was accquited of the murder is how he was able to write the book, but he did not profit from it as the Goldman family one rights to the royalites. This bum was convicted in a military court and will serve out his life sentence in Fort Leavenworth most likely. That place is hell on earth, worse than our civialian prisons. He will not be allowed to give interviews or profit in anyway from his crime and also too in American prisons child molesters and rapists tend not to have a long life span. They usalluu die "accidental deaths".

[ragdollcat1982]

Isn't there in the Mosaic Law a punishment for adultery/rape etc?

Yes. If a man raped a woman he may go to her father and offer to marry her. Adultery called for death. But Jesus let a woman accused of adultery go and told her to sin no more. But in the New Testament it is warned that drunkards, adulters, forincatiors thieves etc will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. If they do not repent and change there ways they will be tossed into the Lake of Fire.

[Zafran]

Yes. If a man raped a woman he may go to her father and offer to marry her.

Is that realy how the Mosiac law is applied for rape???

[ragdollcat1982]

Is that realy how the Mosiac law is applied for rape???

If the woman is not married then yes the man could pay her father money and take her in marriage. I believe this is found in deuteronmy 22.

[Clover]

If the woman is not married then yes the man could pay her father money and take her in marriage. I believe this is found in deuteronmy 22.

That sounds in-moral, and retarded to me. If a man raped my daughter and came to me, well, he might get a 1-way ticket to my swamp, or death row.

[ragdollcat1982]

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Actions..._Old_Testament

[Zafran]

what if the women is marriad? The article above is realy biased against the OT.

[ragdollcat1982]

what if the women is marriad? The article above is realy biased against the OT.

I think if she was married it could possibly fall under being considered adultery. I usally find Wikipedia to be neutral on most matters and didnt find it biased myself. :-[

[Zafran]

I think if she was married it could possibly fall under being considered adultery. I usally find Wikipedia to be neutral on most matters and didnt find it biased myself. :-[

I found the below to be bias in the article

Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion. (Deut 22:25).

look at this one though

Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) (Quite a few of us might have a problem with this one)(Deut 21:18-21)

why is the article even bringing that up. It would be intresting to see how Jews view this - pity we dont have anyone whos Jewish on this forum.

[Trumble]

That sounds in-moral, and retarded to me. If a man raped my daughter and came to me, well, he might get a 1-way ticket to my swamp, or death row.

It's not so much immoral or retarded as a product of its times. Obviously much 'law' appropriate for the social context of two or three millennia ago is inappropriate today even as much remains just as relevant.