- Mar 22, 2009
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
Canada has a minimum of 25 years and it uses supermax facilities.
As long as Canada is still sentencing people to life imprisonment in supermax facilities, you have no business pointing the finger.
Intentionally stoning an innocent woman to death is no different than accidently sentencing a innocent person to life imprisonment.
Yes I know by sponsoring the Khmer Rouge's principle opposition we are responsible for the Khmer Rouge coming to power. :roll:
That's not true. There isn't a required minimum.
How is putting someone to death more humanitarian than imprisoning them? That's some weird logic there, kiddo.
We're talking about the death penalty (i.e. stoning), not life in prison? Maybe you should relook at what this thread is about.
She's not innocent according to her country's laws.
Hmmm that is not what happened, but you are free to read and believe whatever version of history you wish.
7-25 before parole eligibility, and those in the supermax are not going to get parole.
Try out 23 hour lock down for a month and tell me you wouldn't rather die than do that for the rest of your natural life.
If stoning innocent women to death is the moral equivalent to executing murderers then sentencing murderers to life imprisonment is the moral equivalent to executing murderers.
That's kind of the entire point here. According to any rational human being having sex is not a crime and certainly not a crime to be punished by death.
Then that makes the minimum requirement 7 years, not 25. Do you have trouble admitting when you're wrong?
I also don't know why you are harping on the supermax thing. We're talking about the death penalty. Even in a supermax, a conviction can be appealed. Also, the vast majority of people in a supermax have the opportunity to transfer to maximum security prisons with good behavior or demonstrated progress in rehabilitation. Since supermaxes are a new phenomenon, you're going to have trouble proving that any prisoner has stayed in one for life.
There are differing views on this, and there can be because the prisoner is still alive and kicking. When they're dead they're just gone. Besides, even holding them in a supermax is more cost effective than putting them to death.
You just made this up in order to equivocate, but I don't think it's what you truly believe. Most people with life sentences have the opportunity for parole, and while they're in prison they can even get an education, join rehab programs, and try to turn their lives around.
A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean a life of torment. But if you execute them, then they're dead and there is zero chance of progression.
So no, a life sentence is not equal to or worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.\
According to any rational human being that thinks logically, executing someone for a crime and "valuing human life" do not belong in the same sentence, and yet in the U.S. people seem to think that's the case.
So yeah, like you said, moral relativism is a bitch. I'm sure there are hard line conservatives in Iran that support stoning for pre-marital sex just like there are conservatives in the U.S. who are staunchly pro-death penalty for purely emotional reasons.
You are trying to apply rational rules to an inherently irrational system. You forget that you're dealing with human beings here. It's mainly why I am pointing out the hypocrisy of some people pointing the finger at Iran for their irrational system, yet seeing no problem with their own country's irrational system.
Jump on a plane and fly to Iran.
That is not a bad idea. I did it. I didnt do it specifically to protest against stonings. It was more to experience what it is actually like to be there. It was a mystery country for me, appart from what I had read in the media, and a couple of books and movies I had seen about it.
But, as far as politics and protesting against things such as Islamic barbaric behaviour, our going there can do something. We cant openly protest, unless we dont mind being arrested, but with so few tourists going there, those who do are the face of the west. When we go there, we are the west, as far as many Iranians are concerned. They see that we are real people, who have real lives, and like food, music, clothes, have families..., just like they do. It helps lessen the concept of many that we in the west are all the enemies of Iran, who are agressing and supporting its invasion by the US, and often prompts them consider if there might be something good about how we live, and our more free political systems.
As well at that, there are the religious Iranians and the more progressively minded ones. The progressively minded ones, which are a lot of them affiliate with western lifestyle more than the rigid, strict Islamic lifestyle. The progressively minded ones will immediately connect with you and treat you like you are the same as they are, rather than a foreigner who is different.
Here are some emails I sent to my boyfriend while I was in Iran, for anyone who may be interested.
Emails from Iran
Anyways ya I'm sure there are plenty of liberal minded peoples in Iran perhaps even in the majority but the problem is that they don't have the ability to change their government through peaceful means.
...but the problem is that they don't have the ability to change their government through peaceful means.
People with life sentences are sentenced to supermax facilities, that is far more inhumane than the death penalty. Spending even two years in 23 hour lockdown is worse than the death penalty.
Putting them in a supermax is less humanitarian than the death penalty, so I guess we're all on equal footing with Iran who goes out its way to intentionally stone women to death. If Americans have no business pointing the finger at Iran then your country has no business of pointing the finger at the U.S.
People in a supermax facility will not get paroled and they are on 23 hour lock down.
You mean how like you try to equivocate executing murderers to going out of your way and intentionally executing an innocent woman?
A life sentence in a supermax is worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.
For any rational person "valuing human life" and placing someone in a supermax facility for a life do not belong in the same sentence.
The U.S. is no better than Iran who intentionally goes out of its way to execute innocent women and Canada is no better than the U.S. because it places people in supermax facilities under 23 hour lock down which to any rational person is far worse than the death penalty.
If you ask people in supermax prisons if they'd prefer the death penalty, virtually none of them would say yes. Even for people in long term isolation, self-preservation is paramount. So your subjective non-sense doesn't add up. Any living being faced with death will want to live.
If this is your attempt to make a dig at my nationality in order to get even, it's a sad one.
Two of Canada's supermax facilities are for non-Canadian security risks, especially ones that are about to be deported. The third houses Canadians.
As I said, with good behavior many can be transferred to maximum security where they have more freedoms. Many who end up in supermax prisons are there because they committed crimes while in the prison system and temporary solitary confinement was not enough to disuade them. Thus, with good behavior they can also travel backwards.
I am anti-death penalty for any reason, so yes, they are both the same in my eyes. I will say that executing the woman for pre-martial sex is immoral to me, but I do not live in Iran and so I am not bound by its laws.
You can say this over and over but it won't make it true, whereas I have provided actual reasoning for why the death penalty is immoral regardless of how it's carried out and for what reason. You haven't really provided a persuasive argument as to why the two are en par, aside from your say so. You can try to distort logic all you want and you may even believe it but it simply does not add up. Nice try though.
So you are basically saying that instead of putting people in supermax prisons we should be executing them because it is more humane.
As I said earlier, ask any inmate if they want to die and you will get the same answer. If they really had a death wish they would just pick a fight with an armed guard, another inmate, or commit suicide.
Your argument is baseless.
Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. A dead person has no reprieve or recourse. At least in a supermax there may be systems in place to allow them to go to a lower security level and have more freedoms. People largely end up in supermaxes because they refuse to obey the rules of the internal system. They know that murdering other inmates will get them into hot water but they do it anyway. Their punishment is assured, whereas the application of the death penalty is entirely inconsistent and emotional, and is based on revenge.
Actually quite a few of them would say yes which is why they have such large suicide rates.
And regardless this is all subjective, and IMO executing people is more humane than sentencing them to life in a supermax, your opinion is irrelevant.
You have no right to point fingers at the U.S. since the U.S. has no right to point fingers at Iran.
No that's not how it works in many cases people are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities.
Life imprisonment in my eyes is more immoral than the death penalty.
Sentencing someone to solitary life in a box is quite possibly those most extreme punishment short of being tortured to death as can be imagined.
I am saying that it is far more humane.
They are under constant surveillance due to the high rate of suicide attempts, when they attempt suicide they are put in restraints on top of being in solitary confinement.
Some are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities. A person sentenced to life imprisonment in a supermax facility is a dead man walking, and to force a person to live in solitary confinement for even 10 years is more inhumane than the death penalty.
Your argument is baseless.
What really is baseless, is for anyone to argue against the worthiness of particular human beings, of the human rights standards that should apply to all human beings.
This discussion should have ended long ago, because it should be taken for granted, that throwing stones at somebody until (s)he is dead is wrong. There should be no other opinions.
But, not everybody in the discussion makes this moral equivocation. I certainly dont. Anyone who does, simply does not have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others, long enough to consider what they are supporting. Maybe they really are so insensitive, or maybe they are arguing for the sake of it.My problem is with the moral equivocation based on their execution methods vs. ours, as if we are more righteous and justified in killing our prisoners.
But, not everybody in the discussion makes this moral equivocation. I certainly dont. Anyone who does, simply does not have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others, long enough to consider what they are supporting. Maybe they really are so insensitive, or maybe they are arguing for the sake of it.