You are completely missing the point. I said if the victim ends up dead the option of death penalty should be variable.
You came " no one deserves being killed not rapist, not murderer, not terrorist". And you added even if you beat someone to an inch of their life and cripple them so much that they can not even have their food without a straw " you don't deserve a death penalty.
Your sales pitch lost me there already in the very beginning. A person with such an utter disregard for value and sanctity of another person's life deserves to lose his rights.
That's a fundamental difference in my and your thinking. Your focus is on the life and rights of the accused but the victim is in a corner.
Well killing still takes that one murderer off doesn't it? In the least it does that much. That by itself prevents will prevent that person from doing another crime. You can keep denying it - your problem.
I said I believe criminal forfeits it in proportion to his aggression.
You again drag in a political example but where was this sense of outrage against human rights when the West was dropping bombs on Iraq? Or aiding Taliban?
Did Saddam deserved to die? Can Iraq make a case of human rights violation against the involved countries in UN and succeed?
Maybe Bin Laden's family should try to sue USA for violating his human rights.
If the victim ends up dead then it is not just a rape, then it is a murder. How can you say "oh, rapists deserve death," and then say you meant rapists who also murdered their victim? I think it's pretty obvious that there is a very real difference between raping someone, and raping and murdering them.
And yes, I still believe that. When we account for those with extenuating circumstances were are left, I believe, with a very small group of people who are often mentally ill or very unbalanced, but I believe that we can help even these people. But, of course, if we can't then they should be kept away from other people. No matter what I do not believe that it is right to kill them.
That's your problem. You think killing the offender helps the victim, but it doesn't. You don't care about helping the victim, just about punishing the offender. You think it helps someone recover from a terrible experience if we just tell them that we've killed their rapist? Let us offer therapy instead, access to support groups, understanding from the workplace and the community. Let's work to rehabilitate the offender and make him or her see the error of their ways.
Capital punishment is simply wrong. It is a relic from medieval times.
But incarcerating them has the same effect? Don't try to take the moral high ground with your simplistic view of justice. Killing a thief also prevents them from stealing again, but it is no less wrong. It's a Stalinist view of justice; no man, no problem. If people are a danger to others we incarcerate them. When they are not we let them out.
Didn't you just berate me for using political examples? Pot to kettle, come in kettle!
And the outrage was there, of course, but you don't care about that. You just watch CNN and feel outraged that Iraq doesn't get as much airtime as the attacks in Paris, or other places in Europe. You'll excuse me if I think you're absolutely mental for thinking that means that there is no outrage over these things. Sometimes some things just receive more attention. An example would be the 'Free Mandela' campaign. Where was the outrage for Walter Sisulu, whose story mirrored Mandela's own? Have you ever even heard of him?
Sometimes the story just centers around one thing, or one person. It's media spin, not the "evil Europeans."
The UN will have a hard time berating the US, since they are on the Security Council, but it is the same for China, Russia, the UK and France. It's just how things are. The comparison is moot.
But no, I do not believe Saddam Hussein deserved to die. He should have been brought before the ICJ and imprisoned for life.
