The Sisters of Mercy Forum
Ramone wrote:I think they should give him a season ticket at Newcastle United and make him suffer a slow agonising death for all eternity.
Rudolf Hess was found guilty at Nuremberg in 1945 and imprisoned for life. He died in custody in 1987 (42 years later) by suicide. He was certainly not released after 20 years.Obviousman wrote:I don't know it myself either way, but what would Europe have looked like if the convicts of Nürnberg got a 'lifelong' sentence and got out of prison after a while, i.e. 20 years and got back into public life. Wouldn't have been too good for the whole of society I think...
Either way, just brainstorming a bit, what do you guys think?
Ah, thanks, I didn't remember thatlazarus corporation wrote:Rudolf Hess was found guilty at Nuremberg in 1945 and imprisoned for life. He died in custody in 1987 (42 years later) by suicide. He was certainly not released after 20 years.Obviousman wrote:I don't know it myself either way, but what would Europe have looked like if the convicts of Nürnberg got a 'lifelong' sentence and got out of prison after a while, i.e. 20 years and got back into public life. Wouldn't have been too good for the whole of society I think...
Either way, just brainstorming a bit, what do you guys think?
By the way, to clarify some more, I just said 20 years to say something, but much more meant current 'lifelong' sentences in most countries go for a limited number of years (I think it's 25 or 30 years or so in Belgium, don't know about other countries) Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial
Thank you for being the first person to give me an argument that might make life a better option than death, I was really getting desperate for thatlazarus corporation wrote:I'd be happy if Saddam got a proper life sentence (as in the old 'life means life'). That way he could still be questioned in detail throughout his long imprisonment about the crimes he committed - any answers might at least give some peace to the people whose relatives 'disappeared' during his reign.
This trial is not about ethics, it's about results, this way it'd bring a better result indeed and so be a better solution.If you want to be a true bringer of civilisation you must go through the hard bits, the bits that will be used against you, as well, such is life. But as they have been bringing hardly any extra civilisation to Iraq before, I doubt they will do so now.But that could be quite embarassing and inconvenient for the West since (as Ramone mentioned earlier in this thread) it was the West that put him in power and therefore enabled him to do these things...
That's what I put the 'quite' in there forBadlander wrote:Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial
But even then, at least it wasn't put on Europe by a completely alien regime (as in both the allied forces and Western Europe were/are Western nations, the USA doesn't compare to Iraq quite in the same way)
I agree with everything said, well put. I don't beleive in the death penalty no matter what I should add. Lock these monsters up for life and throw away the key but no to state-sactioned murder. My earlier post says why I think that way.lazarus corporation wrote:Yes - it's certainly true that many countries consider a 'life' sentence to be around 20 years.
I'd be happy if Saddam got a proper life sentence (as in the old 'life means life'). That way he could still be questioned in detail throughout his long imprisonment about the crimes he committed - any answers might at least give some peace to the people whose relatives 'disappeared' during his reign.
But that could be quite embarassing and inconvenient for the West since (as Ramone mentioned earlier in this thread) it was the West that put him in power and therefore enabled him to do these things...
Chapters do need to be closed in order to move on, which was what I beleive the objective of Nürnberg was. I don't know enough about the Nürnberg trials but what I do know is that not all the war criminals got their just deserves. The Catholic Church hid a number of nazis, how many others got away without punishment from the church and other regimes?Badlander wrote:Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial
Words of wisdom.James Blast wrote:I hear you people, and they're all well thought out and reasoned arguements, but I'd still cut his goolies off.
He was a complete and utter cnut, let's face it.
Just because I'm against the death penalty does not mean I'm against cutting off his goolies. I'm also for the removal of George Bush's goolies. Mind you, they had a problem when it came to his circumsision - as there is no end to that prick.James Blast wrote:I hear you people, and they're all well thought out and reasoned arguements, but I'd still cut his goolies off.
He was a complete and utter cnut, let's face it.
Would that be what deemed "creul and unusual punishment" or would the images shown as part of the trial bypass that, being called evidence or something somehow? To me, that would indicate part of the process to break him, which they didn't as he was defiant throughout. I wonder how he will behave in today's trial?DeWinter wrote:I actually felt some mild sympathy for him when pictures of his dead sons were being shown. That can't have been a pleasant experience. Guess now he knows how it feels..
That's Blair and Bush for you. I suppose they will claim that they don't want to interfeer with the Iraqui justice system. A convenient excuse but as you say, it never stopped them interfeering before. Blair has stated he is against the death penalty so why hasn't he said anything about Saddam's sentence? The two-faced, grinning twit.DeWinter wrote:I suppose a man has a right to be quiet and pale when he knows he's going to die, and in a pretty sordid way. I'm not sure what sickens me more, the sentence, or Blair and Bush refusing to intervene to stop it, claiming Iraqi's right to self determination. Didn't stop them interfering before..
No wonder he's called Tefflon Tony then. Would I be correct in saying that Lord Goldsmith, being a friend of Blair's, should not be in charge of any case involving Blair as it would be a conflict of interest? Or is the term 'friend' a figure of speech?DeWinter wrote:Blair may possibly be the first Prime Minister to face criminal charges. The investigation is being handled by the CPS, but the decision on prosecutions will be made by Lord Goldsmith, a friend of Blair's, and the same man who changed his mind rather rapidly on the legality of the Iraq war.
Blair may have managed what I thought no-one could, and have become more reviled than Margaret Thatcher. Mrs T divided opinion, Blair unites it, but purely in the negative.
Right.a.r.kane wrote:Go and learn something rather than believing the f**king propaganda from the executioners.
How can you not agree with the death penalty? Obviously you have never had any of your friends or family killed by someone. I have and lost way to way of my friends from someone snuffing out their lives. I would be the first in line to pull the hangman's noose.RetroGoth wrote: I don't beleive in the death penalty no matter what I should add. Lock these monsters up for life and throw away the key but no to state-sactioned murder.
