Liverpool FC Forum

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:05 pm

yeah since the advent of DNA testing many prisoners in the US, including those on death row have been proved to be innocent. however these days it is less likely to happen as the burden of proof is so great, if it can be proved forensically that the person is guilty then they should hang for murder

by **peterc1992** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:06 pm

i agree with it but i think they should punnish him more,the death penalty is an easy way out for him

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:13 pm

Big Niall wrote:When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

The police shot and killed a Brazilian bloke on the underground for being a suspected bomber. You are always going to get bad or lazy policemen just as in any other section of society. Which is worse being locked up for perhaps 25years for a crime you didnt commit or being shot or hung?

The only real benefit would be a lot of real murderers wouldnt have the chance to repeat their crimes and also wouldnt be a burden on the taxpayer. £33,000 a year for 25 years is a lot of money!

by **taff** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:27 pm

I am against the death penalty and like Sabre am not going to change my mind for one off cases.

I also would not like to turn him into a Martyr

by **daxy1** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:28 pm

Ciggy wrote:Well I would'nt want to be near Iraq when he gets hung, there will be more blood spilt than ever before.
He deserves hanging but not the way things are there at the moment.

totally agree with ciggy my brother is out there i hope it doesnt kick off more than it is right now but like ciggy said when they hang the tw@t there's goin to be major major trouble!!!! there allready callin up more troop's because of his sentence when it happens it's goin to be bad!!!

by **EddieC** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:33 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:Well the only viable solution is to bang the feckers up for life. If they're found to be innocent - they can get released. If not - they spend years suffering.

Yes it's a burden on the taxpayer, but seeing as we're the World's bitch anyway, what difference would it really make to us?

I'd rather my tax money was spent on keeping scum locked up, than a bunch of idle foreign b*stards in the lap of luxury.

Agreed.

Personally I'd only agree with the death sentence for pre-meditated murder, it's easy to go over the top in the heat of the moment & it doesn't neccessarily make someone inherently evil.

There will always be the problem of what if someone turns out to be innocent. For me, one innocent life lost is one too many. We should have life sentences that mean life unless your innocence comes to light.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:35 pm

Im not sure which would be worse, to hang him and have a period of violence, or locking him up and having it drag on for years with him as a focal point for further trouble.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:37 pm

s@int wrote:Im not sure which would be worse, to hang him and have a period of violence, or locking him up and having it drag on for years with him as a focal point for further trouble.

Civil war for many years to come either way.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos....25hdg--

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:52 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
Big Niall wrote:When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

Is that why you hate the English so much Niall ?

Yeah, the police tortured me until I confessed to being a Man Utd fan :down:

That and the chuckle brothers.

by **67-1161385641** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:30 pm

I have and never will agree with death penalty, no matter how evil the person/persons are involved. Using the death penalty is also a form of murder because you're taking someone's life, which breaches the fundamental rule of life and that's a right to life. You can't just use a form of glorified lynching to rid the world of evil and callous people. When you murder you should lose your right to liberty and crimes like murder, rape and other severe crimes should come with life in prison (life meaning life). That to me is enough. Death sentences aren't needed, not in a "civilised" society like ours.

by **red37** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:55 pm

Big Niall wrote:When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

if this was 20 years ago, id fully support that stance myself.

but...DNA testing and its applications in criminal investigation, can have no other benefit but for the compliment of the phrase..."beyond all reasonable doubt"- there shouldnt be any now, the way science removes the dark veil of guilt and exposes its face to the world. countless thousands before were not afforded such luxury..thats what made the system flawed.

in the 21st century and with the current mindset of many of the people who dwell in it..for the sake of humanity, there IS a case for the ultimate penalty to be handed down, across the globe, not just locally for crimes of this magnitude i believe. and thats painfully evident each time you turn on the news. though whether you prefer to seek shade under the umbrella of "the eye for an eye" theory, or simply that, you believe heinous acts require total thourough investigation first before not casting a stone at all...and then sweep it under the carpet for a bit because of a volitile reaction? is the providence of living in a democracy. time will tell until the next toll of the 'doom' bell has everyone ranting and foaming at the mouth, demanding retribution....we all have to have someone/thing to blame, after all.

as for Bush and Blair...well that throws up yet another scientific dichotomy: the fact that the blind really can and do, lead the blind.

by **JBG** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:20 pm

Its a hard one to call.

My own emotional feeling is that Saddam deserves the hangman's rope.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but won't this be the first case where a former head of state is tried and executed? Even Napoleon, in less informed times, was sent into exile, while none of those at Nuremberg who were hanged were head of state.

Its a difficult one, as I think Saddam (and his supporters) will turn things around and portray himself as an anti-Western Islamic martyr.

From a purely political point of view I think the smarter thing would be simply to lock him up for life in a jail somewhere: he doesn't deserve that, but at least then it would avoid making him a martyr.

Going back to Niall's points, during the 1916 Easter rising in Ireland the Irish rebels did not have much popular support when they led the uprising and they were actually attacked with rotten vegtables by members of the public when they were being led into captivity. It was only when they were executed that they roused public sentiment, executions which backfired dramatically on the British.

Its always dangerous, politically soeaking, executing leaders, as a nonsensical myth can grow up around them after they are gone, with people forgetting their past crimes and remembering them as martyrs who died at the hands of the enemy.

There is an arguement that its was a pity that Hitler escaped the hangman's rope by committing suicide as he deserved to have his crimes read to him and proved in court and then executed, but it was probably better all round that Hitler shot himself, as he would probably have turned his trial into a mockery of anti-semitism and justification for his actions, turning him into a Nazi martyr that would have lingered into history.

by **jkop** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:17 pm

I served in Iraq in 2003 so i have seen first hand in what Saddam has done to his country. In my opinion he deserves to be hanged.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:39 pm

red37 wrote:
Big Niall wrote:When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

if this was 20 years ago, id fully support that stance myself.

but...DNA testing and its applications in criminal investigation, can have no other benefit but for the compliment of the phrase..."beyond all reasonable doubt"- there shouldnt be any now, the way science removes the dark veil of guilt and exposes its face to the world. countless thousands before were not afforded such luxury..thats what made the system flawed.

in the 21st century and with the current mindset of many of the people who dwell in it..for the sake of humanity, there IS a case for the ultimate penalty to be handed down, across the globe, not just locally for crimes of this magnitude i believe. and thats painfully evident each time you turn on the news. though whether you prefer to seek shade under the umbrella of "the eye for an eye" theory, or simply that, you believe heinous acts require total thourough investigation first before not casting a stone at all...and then sweep it under the carpet for a bit because of a volitile reaction? is the providence of living in a democracy. time will tell until the next toll of the 'doom' bell has everyone ranting and foaming at the mouth, demanding retribution....we all have to have someone/thing to blame, after all.

as for Bush and Blair...well that throws up yet another scientific dichotomy: the fact that the blind really can and do, lead the blind.

The police faked the latest scientific evidence of the day then too. If they want to frame somebody, they can.

Also, while the brazilian guy shot was an accident, where did the CCTV footage go, funnily it "disappeared". Also, they spread lies to the media immediately and the head of the police didn't want an investigation.

I wouldn't fancy my life in their hands.

by **66-1120597113** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:48 pm

Most of this debate is actually pointless and going miles away from the initial post!

Yes in the past people have been executed wrongly...very true!

But its fuc.king Saddam Hussien we are talking about here people.
Probably one of the most evil men since Hitler.He is unquestionably responsible for the torture,maiming,humiliation,starving and sadistic cruel murders of tens of thousands of innocent people.
His guilt is in no way doubted!

The bast.ard deserves to die like the coward he is and be humiliated in the process!

Liverpool FC Forum

Saddam sentenced to death

Who is online