Crime and Punishment

[Whatsthepoint]

Were the young british lads who blew themselfs up in the London underground objectively responsible for what they did or were they efficiently brainwashed by Pakistani or some other islamic clerics? Both? What punishment do they deserve?

 

[جوري]

lol.. got to love that insanity plea..
can insanity be rehabilitated? DSM-IV states otherwise!
That is if we are to accept shmultzy assessment of insane mental status to begin with...

 

[tomtomsmom]

Were the young british lads who blew themselfs up in the London underground objectively responsible for what they did or were they efficiently brainwashed by Pakistani or some other islamic clerics? Both? What punishment do they deserve?

Well they blew themselves up so does it really matter?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

lol.. got to love that insanity plea..
can insanity be rehabilitated? DSM-IV states otherwise!
That is if we are to accept shmultzy assessment of insane mental status to begin with...

I wouldn't call it insanity...temporary insanity perhaps, temporary disability to control ones self and ones actions, caused by severe emotional trauma or something.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Well they blew themselves up so does it really matter?

Suppose they had survived...

 

[جوري]

I wouldn't call it insanity...temporary insanity perhaps, temporary disability to control ones self and ones actions, caused by severe emotional trauma or something.

lol.. ok I see.. so long as it gets them out?.. then once they get away with their crime, they can magically recover...

We thank you for that refreshing honesty..

cheers!

 

[tomtomsmom]

Suppose they had survived...

Well if they had survived and killed tons of people then they should be put to death. Let God sort them out.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

lol.. ok I see.. so long as it gets them out?.. then once they get away with their crime, they can magically recover...

We thank you for that refreshing honesty..

cheers!

Not at all. And even if they could, they should still be punished but not by death.
You're welcome.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

If a person proves to be unstable and dangerous he should be kept from the rest of the society for a while, for life if necessary.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

If a person proves to be unstable and dangerous he should be kept from the rest of the society for a while, for life if necessary.

He or she, naturally.
Could "they" be used in this particular case?

 

[islamirama]

I wouldn't call it insanity...temporary insanity perhaps, temporary disability to control ones self and ones actions, caused by severe emotional trauma or something.

Give them shock therapy like in pakistan, let's how many of them play that card

 

[MTAFFI]

Crimes are usually committed by sick, unbalanced or desperate people, who cannot think sanely and objectively and therefore are not fully responsible for their crimes. That's one of the main reasons why I am opposed to the death penalty, the other one being innocent people getting executed. I am also opposed to life imprisonment. A criminal should be imprisoned until he or she has been rehabilitated.

seems as though everyone is sick or unbalanced anymore, or at the very least using that as the favorite excuse to get away with raping a child, murdering a person(s) or whatever else their sick mind can conjure up. Here is how I look at it, if a man kills my family member, I will kill him/her and I dont care how sick that individual is, if you murder a perfectly balanced person and end their life, what gives you the right to rehabilitate your own? You shouldnt have the right, and you should be judged by the Lord immediately, he will know exactly what your hearts' true intentions were and he will know exactly what to do with such an individual. (And whether they were truly sick or not)

 

[MTAFFI]

whatsthepoint,

If some came and murdered the closest person to you in your life, in cold blood, for no reason, just to murder, would you still hope that person could live out his life, or live for 15 to 25 years in prison and then be back out on the street? I know I wouldnt, eye for an eye is retribution and would be the only thing to satisfy my thirst for revenge, in essence, keeping the individual alive would only provoke another crime and create a deep hatred for the legal system.

The thing to think about here is everytime you see someone was murdered or raped, that person is someone that another person considers the closest person to them, and more than likely that person and in most cases probably many other people will have their lives effected negatively for the rest of their lives. We all know that murder is wrong and I dont care who you are or what your mental state is, if you can work up the thought process to grab a weapon and use it to murder another person, you forfeit your basic human rights and you should die.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

seems as though everyone is sick or unbalanced anymore, or at the very least using that as the favorite excuse to get away with raping a child, murdering a person(s) or whatever else their sick mind can conjure up. Here is how I look at it, if a man kills my family member, I will kill him/her and I dont care how sick that individual is, if you murder a perfectly balanced person and end their life, what gives you the right to rehabilitate your own? You shouldnt have the right, and you should be judged by the Lord immediately, he will know exactly what your hearts' true intentions were and he will know exactly what to do with such an individual. (And whether they were truly sick or not)

If some came and murdered the closest person to you in your life, in cold blood, for no reason, just to murder, would you still hope that person could live out his life, or live for 15 to 25 years in prison and then be back out on the street? I know I wouldnt, eye for an eye is retribution and would be the only thing to satisfy my thirst for revenge, in essence, keeping the individual alive would only provoke another crime and create a deep hatred for the legal system.

The thing to think about here is everytime you see someone was murdered or raped, that person is someone that another person considers the closest person to them, and more than likely that person and in most cases probably many other people will have their lives effected negatively for the rest of their lives. We all know that murder is wrong and I dont care who you are or what your mental state is, if you can work up the thought process to grab a weapon and use it to murder another person, you forfeit your basic human rights and you should die.

Pedophilia is a disease and in the current situation no one dares to "come out" to seek treatment. Pedophiles marry and hide their affections which probably makes them even sicker...some of them apparently are unable to control their urges and end up killing a child. This of course is one of the cruelest crimes imaginable and I'm sure the baby meant everything to his or her parents, I'm sure they feel incredibly frustrated, betrayed for what happened to their child...but I really think the murderer in this case should not be executed.
Or a man who finds out his wife cheated on him and shoots her and her lover. Again, I do not think he should be executed.

I can imagine how I would feel if somebody killed a member of my family or some one I love...but I am aware that in such situations people aren't capable of thinking objectively. In my opinion, we mustn't let emotions take over our legal system.

I do support life imprisonments in some cases.

There of course are criminals who do not kill because of an emotional trauma but because of financial and other benefits. They plan their crimes thoughtfully, they see the advantages, they are aware of the consequences...those are the real criminals in my opinion, and they can as well get executed. But still, there is always a chance of cutting a wrong guy's throat, which is by far the worst thing a country can do. That's why I think death penalty has no place in a modern legal systems.

 

[Qingu]

I'd hate to interject a good duologue between good members... you may certainly do a random search on thefts committed in saudi Arabia compared to that in the U.S.. I am sure the numbers will astound you..

Personally, I'm less concerned with theft than murder. Saudi Arabia has a higher murder rate than the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

In any case, the point here is that stricter punishments does not correlate with less crime. There are plenty of countries high up on that list with very strict punishments.

I really don't see the point of feeding a criminal off tax payers money and giving them a roof on their head.. I mean for the love of God, there are children roaming the world who don't even have that and they are guilty of nothing!

I think criminals in prison should have to work. Many do. I also agree that every child should be provided for, but that is a separate issue.

you are simply not studied in sharia law and passing a random opinion..

You're the second person who has called me ignorant instead of responding to my points. Does this debate tactic normally work on this forum?

 

[Qingu]

Do you have evidence it doesnt?

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion.

So my question would be how can a stricter punishment not be at least a little more effective, when the punishment we are currently inflicting is obviously have very little effect

Your question is answered, repeatedly, by comparing the crime rates and severity of punishments to various states and countries. There appears to be no correlation.

I'm no criminal psychologist, but I would venture a guess that the reason behind this is that most criminals do not plan on getting caught, and so the severity of the punishment is not a deterrence because most criminals do not plan on getting punished in the first place.

One might also posit that a society that punishes criminals in violent bloody executions ends up fostering a more casual attitude towards violence in general.

Really? Do you have a link to show the number of violent crimes committed in the middle ages? Who was that was keeping track of that, the Middle Age Bureau of Statistics of Violent Crime? LOL, I am just kidding

Ha, good point. You are right, it's not really fair to compare a modern society, with police and a systemetized justice system, to a middle ages. Maybe Rome would be a better comparison but I couldn't find any figures on crime rate from that period either.

In any case, it should be sufficient to compare modern countries with various levels of severity in punishment.

I did not know that, could you provide a link as proof?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169

As you can see, there is no correlation between death penalty and lower murder rate. If anything, states without the death penalty seem to have a lower murder rate.

Granted, there could be any number of factors that also contribute to crime rates, but you see the same lack of correlation worldwide. I just don't think there's any evidence that shows the death penalty decreases crime.

Also, I would like to add that not all violent crime is punishable by death, and violent crime could include, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc. A criminal commiting these acts would recieve 10 years max, which may be a good break from their pitiful life, under Shariah the punishment would be much more severe and a person commiting such a crime may well think twice before putting his own life on the line or putting his back out for whatever the number of lashings may be....

It's possible ... but then again, it's possible that this isn't the case.

And death penalty, unlike imprisonment, is final and non-correctable. In my opinion, the best argument against the death penalty is that there are a number of people on death row who have later been proven innocent.

Also, from what I have looked at about the states with the death penalty, look at the number of people on death row in those states, it isnt like it is being carried out on every murderer, like it should, if the punishment is unlikely to be carried out, I wouldnt think many would be scared of it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You don't think enough crimes are punishable by the death penalty? That's a strange and sort of frightening position to take—especially considering how many people are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes.

There is no Muslim country that institutes Shariah law,

I disagree. Saudi Arabia and Iran have shariah law; many Muslims disagree on how this shariah law is implemented. But throughout history Muslims have always disagreed about how shariah law has been implemented, so this is nothing new.

Unless you believe that shariah law has never been in existence in any country at any time. Which seems to be a ridiculous position.

also I would add to that, that it is not fair to call Middle Eastern countries Muslim, I prefer Arab, because even though the overwhelming majority of the people there may be born Muslim, it doesnt mean they are practicing Muslims, and a non practicing Muslim wouldnt live by the rules of the Quran, which would lead to crime, etc. Dont judge Islam by the actions of the Arabs, judge Islam by the Quran and what it really stands for.

Don't Saudi citizens have to be Muslim, by law?

I agree with this, I dont really find many Muslims that think Shariah is in any way flawed. In my opinion, (and I know islamirama) already refuted me about this, but we all know you couldnt have a pagan or an atheist in an Islamic state, they would be killed, and this in my opinion is wrong, but then who am I to refute the Quran, but in my opinion as a man, I dont think it is right in todays time.

The Code of Hammurabi, which also claims to be handed down from on high by gods, also contains laws you likely find wrong (such as "thieves should be put to death"). Who are you to refute the Code of Hammurabi?

 

[جوري]

Personally, I'm less concerned with theft than murder. Saudi Arabia has a higher murder rate than the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Really? From your above website it is way further down on the list.. and I also assume we are speaking in percentages?

In any case, the point here is that stricter punishments does not correlate with less crime. There are plenty of countries high up on that list with very strict punishments.

I have already stated my concerns aren't about lessening the crime rather paying for it.. although, I think even your statistics speak differently..

I think criminals in prison should have to work. Many do. I also agree that every child should be provided for, but that is a separate issue.

I don't know what the whole prison system is about or for.. I do know from a medical stand point.. it is a cesspool for TB and when these folks are let back in the general population, they share more than crime...

You're the second person who has called me ignorant instead of responding to my points. Does this debate tactic normally work on this forum?

I am sorry I haven't seen new points on your part to have addressed... unless you just prefer not to register replies that contradict with your views and looking for a new more suitable reply??

further... I am not sure how much you know of jurisprudence if you are a Muslim sholar then that indeed is news to me, let me pull up a chair mawlana, see what you can teach.. but realistically, how much do you know of the NY pharmaceutical law on the distribution of its class IV formulary?

Islam is just that specific and that encompassing.. so frankly, I personally wouldn't tread high waters if all I have got for ammo was an inflated rubber duckie around my waist.. what do you think?

peace!

 

[Qingu]

Really? From your above website it is way further down on the list.. and I also assume we are speaking in percentages?

Wow! No, you're right, I was wrong. I don't know how I missed it.

I feel rather silly now.

In any case, my broader point is that there is no correlation between a severe punishment and crime rate. Many of the countries at the top of that list have quite severe punishments, and many of the ones low on the list are liberal democracies with prison systems.

You are correct, though, Saudi Arabia does have a low murder rate.

I am sorry I haven't seen new points on your part to have addressed... unless you just prefer not to register replies that contradict with your views and looking for a new more suitable reply??

I'm not sure to what you are referring to.

further... I am not sure how much you know of jurisprudence if you are a Muslim sholar then that indeed is news to me, let me pull up a chair mawlana, see what you can teach.. but realistically, how much do you know of the NY pharmaceutical law on the distribution of its class IV formulary?

Islam is just that specific and that encompassing.. so frankly, I personally wouldn't tread high waters if all I have got for ammo was an inflated rubber duckie around my waist.. what do you think?

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You are presumably not an ulema either and yet this doesn't prevent you from discussing shariah law. In fact, I think this is a rather underhanded attempt to limit all discussion of this aspect of your religion to people who happen to believe in it.

My main point, which has gone largely unanswered, is why things like blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality should be punished in the first place. While most of this discussion has been about the severity of shariah law, I have repeatedly said that my main problem with shariah law is what it punishes (rather than how hard it punishes).

Perhaps you'd care to tell me why you think it should be illegal to blaspheme your god but not any other god? Or why homosexuals should be punished? Do you have any reason whatsoever without appealing to your holy book, which 5/6 of the world does not believe? Why on earth should non-Muslims submit to this rule?

 

[جوري]

Wow! No, you're right, I was wrong. I don't know how I missed it.

I feel rather silly now.

Well-- thanks for admitting it..

In any case, my broader point is that there is no correlation between a severe punishment and crime rate. Many of the countries at the top of that list have quite severe punishments, and many of the ones low on the list are liberal democracies with prison systems.

OK AGAIN, TO ME and I am sure a host of others.. this is more about justice than being a liberal or a conservative.. forgive me but when you commit wrong you should be punished for it, not rewarded....

You are correct, though, Saudi Arabia does have a low murder rate.

Indeed!

I'm not sure to what you are referring to.

You accuse us of dodging your Q's.. but I am not sure what they are? you keep recycling the same ole rhetoric, hence mu query!

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You are presumably not an ulema either and yet this doesn't prevent you from discussing shariah law.

Where have I discussed sharia law?

In fact, I think this is a rather underhanded attempt to limit all discussion of this aspect of your religion to people who happen to believe in it.

I rather think I am limiting it to people who can guage in it with some dextrity?

My main point, which has gone largely unanswered, is why things like blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality should be punished in the first place.

Don't get caught blaspheming, offering your behind on a golden chariot or comitting adultery and you won't be punished.. if indeed you knew something of sharia law.. you'd understand that in the very least you need four witnesses in order for justice to be served.. unless you were engaging in an orgy, and your multiple partners ratted you out, I fail to see how you you would be punished for adultery?

While most of this discussion has been about the severity of shariah law, I have repeatedly said that my main problem with shariah law is what it punishes (rather than how hard it punishes).

It is a shame you wish to make crimes lawful I know... Homsexuality was considered an act of sexual deviance here in the states 1973 in the DSM-IV.. no different than necrophilia or pedophilia, why are the latters so ghastly and demode while the first so en vogue and politically correct? Do you see something wrong with the picture? in the very least I call them man-made laws subject to change to the whims of whomever... a few yrs down the line, homsexuality might become demode again, I'd watch out when I speak with such conviction, lest you be thought of as a criminal at some stage?!

Perhaps you'd care to tell me why you think it should be illegal to blaspheme your god but not any other god?

We don't blaspheme any God(s) in Islam you are being presumptious. Show me where in Islam it states go blaspheme their gods

Or why homosexuals should be punished?

see my previous replies!

Do you have any reason whatsoever without appealing to your holy book, which 5/6 of the world does not believe? Why on earth should non-Muslims submit to this rule?

Muslims are 1.86 billion of the world's population.. according to my calculation that nearly 1/3 .. sad to say you are off again with statistics... I think I have given enough reason without quoting once the Quran.. what do you think?

cheers!

 

[Qingu]

Don't get caught blaspheming, offering your behind on a golden chariot or comitting adultery and you won't be punished..

Why should these be punishable offenses in the first place?

In Stalinist Russian most of organized religion was outlawed. But I guess that's okay with you because all you'd have to do was make sure you didn't get caught worshipping Allah, correct?

if indeed you knew something of sharia law.. you'd understand that in the very least you need four witnesses in order for justice to be served.. unless you were engaging in an orgy, and your multiple partners ratted you out, I fail to see how you you would be punished for adultery?

I did know this, for a matter of fact (though I understand there is some difference of opinion on this matter). In any case, it is certainly not hard to imagine a situation where four people witness a case of blasphemy.

Again, you seem to be saying it's okay to have these laws because you could just avoid getting caught breaking them?

It is a shame you wish to make crimes lawful I know... Homsexuality was considered an act of sexual deviance here in the states 1973 in the DSM-IV.. no different than necrophilia or pedophilia, why are the latters so ghastly and demode while the first so en vogue and politically correct? Do you see something wrong with the picture?

Actually, it was the DSM-II, and it was a distinct disorder from "necrophilia and pedophilia," but that's not so important.

Of course, we've all heard the slippery slope argument against homosexuality before. To answer your question, pedophelia is wrong because it is generally agreed that a child cannot consent. Children are are vulnerable and easy to manipulate. Sex between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, simply doesn't encounter this problem (unless perhaps one of them is mentally retarded).

As for the problem with necrophelia, to be honest I'm not really sure I have a problem legally with it—irregardless of my personal feelings on the matter. Whether it's a psychological disorder, I'm not qualified to say either, though I would venture to guess that people who want to engage in such behavior have some rather disturbing personal issues. Homosexuality, on the other hand, seems to be a natural inclination among a small segment of the population; many people have reported feeling urges. Research has shown that gender is not a binary either/or difference but functions more like a spectrum. And homosexual behavior has been observed among a number of other species.

In light of all this, I can certainly see why the DSM was revised. As we learn more about nature and humanity, we must revise our knowledge.

in the very least I call them man-made laws subject to change to the whims of whomever... a few yrs down the line, homsexuality might become demode again, I'd watch out when I speak with such conviction, lest you be thought of as a criminal at some stage?!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is better to follow unchanging laws from 1,300 years ago than laws that are subject to change as we learn more about the world?

I suppose you also think it's better to follow the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews and Arabs, who believed the sun revolved around the earth—rather than believe in man-made science that's subject to change as we study nature?

We don't blaspheme any God(s) in Islam you are being presumptious. Show me where in Islam it states go blaspheme their gods

By the standards of Christianity, the Quran's claim that Jesus says God has no son is blasphemy.

Some sects of Hinduism would consider Islam's strident monotheism and disparaging remarks about the polytheists as blasphemy.

Muslims are 1.86 billion of the world's population.. according to my calculation that nearly 1/3 ..

That's a rather high estimate, most sources I've seen say 1.4, which, out of 6.5 billion, is about a fifth. Though I did round down a little because, of course, not all Muslims are practicing Muslims.

But of course, I'm sure you're aware that you're nitpicking here without addressing my question. Why should blasphemy against your religion be punishable when most of the world does not believe in your religion? I'm still waiting to hear an answer.

I think I have given enough reason without quoting once the Quran.. what do you think?

Your reason for punishing homosexuality is that it's better to blindly trust old laws than change laws as we learn more about the world.

Your reason for punishing blasphemy is that ... well, I haven't heard a reason there.

And you seem to be claiming that it wouldn't be so bad for homosexuals and blasphemers if these laws were on the books, since they could always just avoid getting caught.

In short, no, I don't think you've given any good reasons whatsoever.