No mercy for the merciless

[kai]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

To be better than them one must actually be better than them.
Claiming to be better, yet acting the same, does not make one better than them.
It makes one the same as them.

i agree

[tariqkhwaja]

I have posted this like so many times. 70 views and 5 replies which shows that either what was posted was uncriticizable or that it was too boring for anyone to bother. Either way:

"Remember that the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof; but whoso forgives and thereby brings about a reformation, his reward is with Allah. Surely, Allah loves not wrongdoers" [Quran 42:41]

Islam thus combines the best features of both the earlier teachings (of Judaism and Christianity) with the vital addition that forgiveness is commended provided it is likely to result in an improvement and in the correction of the defaulter, that being the real objective. If not, then punishment is held to be necessary, but not exceeding the degree to which one is wronged.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Tau

I do not claim to be better....

Protecting the innocent/vulnerable is the primary consideration here.

I do not percieve that there is any such thing as 'better' these amoral SOBs are simply doing what comes naturally, we cannot blame them entirely their genes and environments shape them, we are all part of the same gene pool and we all by our actions (and inactions) contribute to what society is, we reap what we sow.

However, practical necessity argues that to save money and to protect the innocent we simply humanely terminate all the very worst killers/torturers including obviously all those accused of war crimes and or crimes against humanity.

This does go against the core of my personal religious beliefs, I have become disillusioned with the idea that life is sacred, maybe all those who want to wage war and abort the unborn are right after all....maybe death is a valuable tool.

Who am I to argue?

What the hell, Kill em all and let God sort em out.

and you would be the judge of who is merciless and who is not eh?

[Tau]

Originally Posted by The_Her3tiK

How much mercy do you propose we give the merciless? Harsher crimes warrant harsher punishment; where do we draw the line on both acceptable behaviors and acceptable punishments?

Humane termination by lethal injection is probably acceptable.

Prisons should be awful hellish places for the worst offenders.

No lenient overnight sentences either, 3 years should mean 3 years not 18 months as in the UK.

Bring back hard labor and flogging for trouble makers.

Have the right to draw blood tissues from offenders (for the Health Service) and allow the State to have an automatic right to their personal organs and tissues when they expire.

Bearing in mind that none of the above would apply to those convicted of theft or drug offences or any other non violent/sexual offence.

Maybe thats a bit harsh, but as someone else said on this thread, if you know the score and break the rules anyway then you only have yourself to blame.

[Tau]

I can define for you what a merciless person is in my opinion if you wish kai.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Tau

I can define for you what a merciless person is in my opinion if you wish kai.

ok give it a bash

[Tau]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Islam thus combines the best features of both the earlier teachings (of Judaism and Christianity) with the vital addition that forgiveness is commended provided it is likely to result in an improvement and in the correction of the defaulter, that being the real objective. If not, then punishment is held to be necessary, but not exceeding the degree to which one is wronged.

I can see the logic.

But it has hard to know the mind of a man/woman by their actions and the circumstances surrounding them they should be judged redeemable or not.

For example a drug dealer kills another drug dealer in some shoot out, here there is no innocent victim, both the killer and his victim were 'equal' combatants, a death sentence for such a person would be (under the circumstances) extremely unfair.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Tau

Humane termination by lethal injection is probably acceptable. deliverd by a merciless technician who will then be disposed of by a merciless technician etc etc etc

Prisons should be awful hellish places for the worst offenders.yes with plenty of merciless gaurds who will be disposed of by lethal infjection by merciless technicians etc etc etc

No lenient overnight sentences either, 3 years should mean 3 years not 18 months as in the UK. the remission is the carrot without it theres no reason to behave.

Bring back hard labor and flogging for trouble makers. flogging administerd by a merciless flogger who will later be dispatched by a merciless technician etc etc etc

Have the right to draw blood tissues from offenders (for the Health Service) and allow the State to have an automatic right to their personal organs and tissues when they expire. my organs are mine not the states and i choose what happens to them on my death like my money and my car

Bearing in mind that none of the above would apply to those convicted of theft or drug offences or any other non violent/sexual offence.what! are you showing mercy?

Maybe thats a bit harsh, but as someone else said on this thread, if you know the score and break the rules anyway then you only have yourself to blame.

unless you are innocent of course

[kai]

Originally Posted by Tau

I can see the logic.

But it has hard to know the mind of a man/woman by their actions and the circumstances surrounding them they should be judged redeemable or not.

For example a drug dealer kills another drug dealer in some shoot out, here there is no innocent victim, both the killer and his victim were 'equal' combatants, a death sentence for such a person would be (under the circumstances) extremely unfair.

very merciful of you

[Tau]

Originally Posted by kai