Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Search results for 'capital punishment'

Search Results for: capital punishment

Dangerous Musings: Sex, Children, Capital Punishment

My view is very similar to yours Yale, there are crimes for which it is most appropriate, and as you suggest as long as there is no doubt of their guilt then the rope definitively removes them from society. and that is after all the most important thing, that society be protected from their recidivism.
Cheers Comrade Yale

Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan deserve to be shot and then forgotten

Awaiting execution: Myuran Sukumaran, left, and Andrew Chan. Photo: AAP

Awaiting execution: Myuran Sukumaran, left, and Andrew Chan. Photo: AAP

“Australian government appeals are neither heroic nor heartfelt; Canberra is merely trying to save their own ‘subject bodies’ from the firing squad, while slowly disposing of ‘abject bodies’ it does not want through inhumane detention centres or returning them to foreign regimes that will probably finish the job for them,” Mr Marthinus said in an opinion piece in The Jakarta Post.

The impact of the executions on bilateral relations is coming under intense scrutiny in the English-speaking press in Jakarta, with conjecture that the decision to drop plans to waive visa requirements for Australian visitors to Indonesia could also be related.

However, this has been denied by the government and is also considered unlikely by migration agents.

And Bali’s Governor Made Mangku Pastika has said he would not like to see the execution take place on Bali because it could hurt the island’s public image.

source

I wonder If I am alone in feeling somewhat embarrassed by the excessive gnashing of teeth over the pending execution off these two scumbags?  There is no doubt that they did the crime, being caught red handed  with the heroin strapped to their bodies takes care of that, these two were the ringleaders of the scheme  so they deserve a harsher punishment than the other seven idiots. that make up the “Bali nine”gang. That said  I am sure that the usual suspects will whine and posture about how capital punishment is wrong in principle.  Frankly its not something that I believe. there are crimes that clearly deserve a capital sanction multiple murder, or murder in the name of a vile ideology are obvious to me, as is the repeated sexual abuse 0f children, when it comes to drug dealers its a little less clear. Personally I tend to think that some drugs are worse than others and  that those who deal in opiates, cocaine or crystal Meth are worse than those who sell a bit of Ganga.

So in the not too distant future Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan will have their stroll in the jungle , be tied to a post and shot dead this little black duck won’t shed a single tear nor will most of my fellow Ausies either. The usual suspects on the other hand will have an almost orgasmic out pouring of leftist angst all because these men happen to Australian citizens…

The sooner they are shot the sooner they can be utterly forgotten because they certainly do not deserve to be remembered.

Cheers Comrades

three-girls-in-bikini-shooting-assault-rifles-o

If scumbags are shot in the jungle and no one sheds a tear…

The naive minions of the left and aberrant sexuality

There is nothing that I love more than discovering that our friends from the left have been caught with their hands down the trousers of children, hang on let me clarify that, I detest the abuse in fact there is nothing more abhorrent to me but I certainly do love it when the naive maleficence of the left is revealed. I had great joy in the discovery of the way that the prototype of the Australian Greens endorsed paedophilia     and a very spirited  debate in the comment thread. Any how it seems that another element of the left has been caught out flirting with nonces, this time its elements of the left wing of the British Labor party:

Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in 1982 Photograph: Pa

Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in 1982 Photograph: Pa

But how did the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose affiliation to the NCCL has been exhaustively investigated by the Daily Mail, come to get a ticket to the party?

“It was an extraordinarily liberal period,” said Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert who at the time was the senior social worker for the National Council for One Parent Families. “The abortion laws had come in and capital punishment had been abolished.” People were pushing at every boundary – sexual, moral, legal. Fletcher recalled how the groups would spend hours debating whether the NCCL, which became the campaign group Liberty, should defend the right of someone with racist or homophobic views to express themselves. The discussion about defending the National Front’s right to march went on for months.

But by far the most divisive topic centred on the lowering of the age of consent. Many on the left thought that criminalising sexual behaviour between consenting teenagers was misguided and wanted it lowered to 14, a proposal endorsed by the NCCL’s executive committee. Others, like Fletcher, felt such a move would give a licence to older men to prey on young girls. Into this permissive climate crept the PIE, a group that actively promoted sex between children and adults and that was allowed not only to affiliate to the NCCL (in return for paying a £15 subscription) but enjoyed considerable recognition and support for its right to speak out on such issues.

The group inveigled itself so successfully into the NCCL that, as reported in the May 1978 edition of its magazine MagPIE, the council’s annual meeting passed a motion in support of PIE’s rights. Motion 39 stated: “This AGM reaffirms the right of free discussion and freedom to hold meetings for all organisations and individuals doing so within the law. Accordingly, whilst reaffirming the NCCL policy on the age of consent and the rights of children; particularly the need to protect those of prepubertal age, this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia, and reaffirms the NCCL’s condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons.”

That motion was passed two years after Harman has claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL. “They had been pushed to the margins before I actually went to NCCL and to allege that I was involved in collusion with paedophilia or apologising for paedophilia is quite wrong and is a smear,” she told the BBC last week. She said her husband had successfully fought to stop PIE having any influence in the NCCL in 1976 – two years before she joined as its legal officer.

Admittedly, any group could join the NCCL, which had more than 1,000 affiliate member organisations and the council’s motion probably owed more to defending the principle of free speech than defending PIE. And it would be wrong to portray PIE as a major force. Being small, comprising only a handful of activists and with a membership estimated to be between 300 and 1,000, PIE was not a powerful voice at a time when the main debates within the council were about sexual equality and race relations. But its views were so profoundly abhorrent to most of Britain that it is still hard to see why the council did not do more to disown PIE from the start.

click for source

What I find most darkly amusing about the report from the Guardian that I quote from is the headline “How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights” there was clearly nothing covert at all about the creeps from PIE joining the NCCL they were entirely open about their beliefs and their desire to make their perversion more socially acceptable. there was therefore no infiltration, they asked to join and they were welcomed. That is what makes these minions of the left so culpable now.  Eventually PIE  were shunned by the NCCL but the shame of the left was that they were ever  allowed to have the supposed respectability of membership in the first place.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here? The prototype of the Greens endorses paedophilia, the British Labor party is complicit in endorsing PIE so it seems to me  be in the DNA of the left to accept any expression  of abnormal sexuality . Can it be that the far left (and maybe those further from the extreme as well) might just have some equally vile skeletons in their collective closets?  OK that is enough Schardenfreude for this morning I realise taht the Australian left are of course just that little bit better than its European precursors but then again they don’t have much to say about followers of Islam who take the life of the Prophet as their template to “marry” pre-pubescent girls do they? Hmm maybe they are not that much better after all…

Cheers Comrades

swing

Moving

The husband of murdered rape victim Jill Meagher says her killer, Adrian Earnest Bayley, is ‘unrepentantly evil’ and had been let off too many times by the justice system.

A very moving interview with the widower of murdered Melbourne  woman Jill Meagher and the reasons for this man’s grief sadly brings to mind so many of the debates that I have had both at this blog and elsewhere about capital punishment how anyone can think that Adrian Earnest Bayley should be allowed to continue to draw breath horrifies me.  Its a total indictment of the leftist position that sanctions from the bench should be all about reforming the miscreant first and foremost. If ever there was a man who unequivocally deserves the rope its Adrian Earnest Bayley, Instead of that he is going to spend at least the next 35 years is warm cell at which point some learned friend will undoubtedly be arguing that he is reformed and no longer a threat to society…

With respect Comrades

 

Truth and consequences in abortion

We all generally agree that life is precious and that killing another human being is one of the most heinous crimes that we can imagine. and when it comes to killing we scale our disgust on a basis of how well that killing can be justified. Thus we  think that killing someone who is threatening our lives is both justifiable and entirely acceptable whereas killing for pleasure or expedience is most abhorrent and we, as a species usually have social mechanisms to excuse the former and punish the latter. I jurisdictions that execute killers it is considered most humane to use drugs to carry out a sentence of death. There is a part of me that is very old school when it comes to capital punishment. Old school insofar as I think that some crimes are so terrible that the guilty deserve a terrible end rather than something that is painless and entirely sanitised.   There is also a part of me which  thinks that a similar principle should apply to abortion, that we should never allow it to be too easy, too sanitised and too easy to deny the reality of what is being done, it is the killing of another human being. Like the killing that I began with it can be justified under certain circumstances but we are lessened as creatures of virtue if we allow the conceit that what is being done is anything less than killing another human being.

Which brings me to the announcement yesterday that chemical methods of procuring an abortion are to be come more available as a method of killing the unborn:

click for source

I am reminded of one of the themes of Umberto Eco‘s book “The Name of the Rose” was essentially that just because we can do something should not mean that we should do so and when we make something like abortion too easy we make it too easy to pretend that the life of a person is being ended and by doing that we are all diminished. Make no mistake I am not one of those absolutists who thinks that all abortion is murder and that it should be prohibited by law. I am far too much of a realist to suggest that. But like the consideration of killing that I opened this piece with I do think that there is a variation in how we should consider the justifiability of abortion. That scale has at one end a procedure to save the life of a woman who would die if the pregnancy were to continue and at the other end an abortion that is done in response to a “failure” or a “failure to use” contraception. And in-between those situations there are lots of different scenarios where an abortion can be well justified. The thing is just like executions there are also good arguments for making the procedure as significant as the act of killing that it is even when it entirely justified by circumstances because at the very least then the woman who is ending that life will truly understand what it is that they are doing. Just being able to end a life by taking an a drug is just too easy and it make denying the humanity of the unborn far too easy as well.

With respect Comrades.

Natural Justice and arrogant latte-sipping lawyers

It is of course understandable that those in the legal profession would think that justice actually requires the performance in their own  theatre, with appropriate posturing  from their own stars of that stage. They truly think that the courts and the legal profession have an absolute monopoly upon the dispensing of justice. Personally I think that the claim for justice being the exclusive business of lawyers and judges is  flawed. Firstly  I shall give you the  example of   Geoffrey Robertson who says this in the Age and was very quick of the mark at the ABC making essentially  the same argument:

I do not minimise the security problems of holding a trial or overlook the danger of it ending up as a squalid circus like that of Saddam Hussein. But the notion that any legal process would have been too hard must be rejected. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – also alleged to be an architect of September 11 – will go on trial shortly. Had bin Laden been captured he should have been in the dock alongside him, so that their shared responsibility could have been properly examined.

Bin Laden could not have been tried for the attacks on the twin towers at the International Criminal Court, since its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the United Nations Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict that would have convinced the Arab street of his guilt.

This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature – never more to be remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man. Since his videos exult in the killing of innocent civilians, any cross-examination would have emphasised his inhumanity. These benefits that flow from real justice have been forgone.

The obsessive belief of the US in capital punishment – alone among advanced nations – is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise. Barack Obama has most likely secured re-election by approving the execution. This may be welcome, given the alternatives of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (who have both urged that Julian Assange be hunted down in similar fashion) or Donald Trump. But it is a sad reflection on the continuing attraction of summary execution.

There seems to be a great deal of post facto suggestions that Bin laden should/could have been taken alive but this is absolutely unrealistic. So many of Bin Laden’s acolytes have been willing to detonate explosives when they faced capture that the police and military just do not give the the benefit of the doubt a head shot is the best way to ensure that a cornered Jihadist is the only one sent to meet their maker, it is only later when they have been neutralised can anyone be sure if they posed a real threat to those sent to capture or kill them. In that very short time between entering the room and firing the fatal shots with a full on adrenaline rush there would have been no scope for the arrest of Bin laden. firing the fatal shots would have been a split second decision and fully consistent with the reputation of the target and the expectations of those commandos that the target would not “come quietly”.  When one side does not acknowledge any limits to their behaviour (as the Jihadists have proven so many times by deliberately  killing innocents) and they think that dying for their cause buys them a place in paradise it is unreasonable to expect that they should be captured as a first preference rather than the safest option of them being killed
At its heart the notion of justice requires that someone who acts in an unacceptable manner receives a sanction that is an appropriate recompense for their crimes. What we consider to be a crime in the first place is essentially decided by social consensus and we rely upon the same sort  social consensus to decide if someone accused of a crime is guilty by the use of a jury. Thus it is that the courts and Lawyers like Robertson are really just the proxies for  the people. However there are times when we just do not need such proxies. The man was guilty and his death was just, the fact that there was no convoluted legal ritual preceding his well deserved demise is a blessing because we have been spared the same sort of  evil court room grandstanding  we saw when the Bali Bombers were tried and eventually executed. We all think that there is a justice of sorts evident when bad things happen to bad people. There is merit in this belief because we see that sort of happen-stance as a balancing of the books which is after all what we understand justice to be isn’t it?
The arrogance of the legal profession here is breath taking. Is there really any doubt that Bin Laden was guilty of the crimes that he boasted about to the world?  What sentence would Robertson deem appropriate given his oft stated objection to capital punishment? Anyway this raise the question what precisely is Justice and does it require the theatre that made Robertson a star?
So I’ argue that the killing of Bin laden is just, he got what he deserved, and that would have been the judgement of a reasonable court anyway so in terms of natural justice there is no problem here at all.
Cheers Comrades

The Labor dog finally to resist the wagging effort from the Greens tail

But if your political dog is being wagged by its tail, docking may actually be a very good idea...

It was very nicer to read in the OZ this morning that the federal back bench of the Labor party is finally realising that Joolia  letting the Greens set their agenda on the government is not such a good idea. Frankly it is a very good way to both loose uberleft voters to the Greens (why vote for the wagged when you can vote for the wagger?) and a good way to lose their traditional supporters (why vote for the wagged when you can vote the party that will stand up for ordinary Aussies?).

Those Labor  members on the back benches have the most to lose should the bill proposed by Brown  get up. No that is not quite correct, the terminally ill have the most to lose because were this bill to get up it would be an express lane to legalising euthanasia and Gay marriage. The former is of course something that can so easily be the subject of abuse by those who stand to gain by the demise of a terminally ill person* and the latter is simply window dressing for a Gay agenda to remould the wider community in the shape of the gay subculture. (how long will it be before this type of trousers become part of school uniforms ? 😉  )

The ALP members are  realising that they may need the Greens to hold office now but if they want to dock that annoying tail after the next election then they had better make sure that they still have a viable dog in the mean time.

Cheers Comrades

*isn’t it amazing that those who are so “for” euthanasia are so often anti-capital punishment?

Trouble and strife among the slaves or lets declare the CPS a terrorist organisation

Cats, ah well I have a sort of grudging respect for their ability to enslave the people that they live with. heck I have even been known to acknowledge how handsome a particular feline may be to their servants but I find all of the squabbling amongst members of Victoria’s  Cat Protection Society absolutely hilarious:

Why do cats lick their own genitals? Because they can comrades

Ms Fedrizzi and Ms Watts stepped down after the society voted to oust director Jasmine Alexandra, who had called for more to be done to reduce the group’s kill rate for cats and kittens, which rose from 63 per cent in 2008 to more than 90 per cent last year.

Cats believe in capital punishment, especially for slaves who are late with their dinner

Ms Fedrizzi said board members should not be stopped from asking pertinent questions.

”I believe that members should in fact be encouraged to do this without fear of backlash or repercussion from within the group,” she said. Ms Fedrizzi said the society had to be more transparent when it came to the reporting of statistics and information.

Ms Alexandra claimed the society had lost its way. ”How can an organisation which claims to care about cats and has millions of dollars in the bank let their adoption rate fall every year?” Ms Alexandra said. ”I worked as hard as I could to increase the number of cats being adopted out and not killed, which resulted in me being thrown off the board.”

Ms Alexandra, dumped after a special general meeting on October 18, said the society had become complacent. ”It’s important the general public understands what’s going on,” she said. ”These cats are being killed because of complacency, a lack of effort. I think homes could be found for these cats, certainly more cats than are currently being adopted out.

Click for source

 

 

As I see it there is a classic conflict between those who want to keep the enslavement of humanity to a manageable level and those who want to increase the numbers of people who will worship at feline feet. Cats  do it, not with whips and chains but  by getting into their victims with the underlying “cuteness” of cats and Kittens:

It is so sadly ironic that so many of our Latte-sipping™ brethren are so  in the thrall of their feline masters that they don’t even realise the reality of their enslavement. Cats are just that sneaky and  evil. But getting back to the Cat Protection Society woes, perhaps this country  would be better off if we declared that the CPS a terrorist organisation and that cats themselves should be declared a prohibited species to be rounded up and humanely executed. Oh I know that  some of their slaves will object some might even try to mount legal objections to their own  liberation but for the love of humanity this is something that has to be done. Heck we may even be able to turn the 90%ers  in the CPS around to the notion that with just a little more effort they can go for a full 100% kill rate…

You know this makes Purrrrrrrrfect sense Comrades

%d bloggers like this: