Robinho sentenced to 9 years for involvement in sexual assault

[Madthinker]

That's not true though, as there are plenty of people on death row who are in fact innocent. Being locked up can in some way be made up for through financial recompense at a later date, that can't happen if you're dead. That is the single most important part of this debate which people who advocate the death penalty either don't think about - making the whole argument pointless to begin with as it's not intelligent, or they don't care about - making them hypocrites and the whole argument pointless to begin with. For every person who then backtracks and says 'nononono what I actually mean is, only in cases where it's 100% absolutely cast iron guaranteed that they did it and they've got like 30 different kinds of evidence' there is someone else who then points out an example where that supposedly happened and it was false. Therefore it's incredibly flawed, and you cannot run with it if a possible eventuality is that we have state sponsored execution of innocent people. That's what is essentially being supported.

I think you're confusing my arguments with others. I'm not in favour of the death penalty.

The argument that @2 Man Midfield seemed to be making was to equivocate capital punishment to murder. That's the argument I take issue with. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person - by definition, execution by the state is not murder. In the same way, to imprison people in cells is not the same thing as kidnapping, and issuing fines is not the same thing as theft. There is no equivocation here.

As an aside, if an innocent person dies in jail, their life has essentially still been taken away. If they are imprisoned but later released, a proportion of their life has still been taken away. It seems to me that capital punishment is only really different to imprisonment in terms of scale. As a society, we have hangups about death, and in particular capital punishment, but there's no getting around the fact that the other punishments we enforce do take life away from potentially innocent people. We can only limit this problem as much as possible (which is sufficient reason to be against capital punishment).

 

[2 man midfield]

I never said Kill, I asked you guys question. What do you think is a fair prison time knowing there is a chance that person might commit the same crime?

But you did though? You want the death sentence for murder and rape, no?

There's a chance every criminal might re-offend, but if they serve their time then they're a free person and have a right to rejoin society. That's why prisons reward good behaviour, if you can prove you belong with society then they will let you rejoin it. You get a second chance to prove you can be part of a civilised society.

 

[2 man midfield]

I think you're confusing my arguments with others. I'm not in favour of the death penalty.

The argument that @2 Man Midfield seemed to be making was to equivocate capital punishment to murder. That's the argument I take issue with. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person - by definition, execution by the state is not murder. In the same way, to imprison people in cells is not the same thing as kidnapping, and issuing fines is not the same thing as theft. There is no equivocation here.

As an aside, if an innocent person dies in jail, their life has essentially still been taken away. If they are imprisoned but later released, a proportion of their life has still been taken away. It seems to me that capital punishment is only really different to imprisonment in terms of scale. As a society, we have hangups about death, and in particular capital punishment, but there's no getting around the fact that the other punishments we enforce do take life away from potentially innocent people. We can only limit this problem as much as possible (which is sufficient reason to be against capital punishment).

Apples and oranges. People still end up dead when they shouldn't. Nobody has the right to end anybody else's life.

 

[Zarlak]

Let me answer you this way, I celebrated when capital punishment was handed to some terrorist and a rapist.

No one wants innocent getting punished but when you know the clear cut case then I don't mind.

You keep avoiding the question, and I suspect it's because you know that your answer goes against your point. You've already been given examples of when it was clear cut and it turned out to be false. Therefore you're supporting the possibility that innocents may die, just so that one person you think is guilty ends up dead. I suspect the reason you won't give a proper answer is because you know how that sounds - but when you create laws and legislation, you have to answer all of these questions you can't just hide from them.

 

[Zarlak]

I think you're confusing my arguments with others. I'm not in favour of the death penalty.

The argument that @2 Man Midfield seemed to be making was to equivocate capital punishment to murder. That's the argument I take issue with. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person - by definition, execution by the state is not murder. In the same way, to imprison people in cells is not the same thing as kidnapping, and issuing fines is not the same thing as theft. There is no equivocation here.

As an aside, if an innocent person dies in jail, their life has essentially still been taken away. If they are imprisoned but later released, a proportion of their life has still been taken away. It seems to me that capital punishment is only really different to imprisonment in terms of scale. As a society, we have hangups about death, and in particular capital punishment, but there's no getting around the fact that the other punishments we enforce do take life away from potentially innocent people. We can only limit this problem as much as possible (which is sufficient reason to be against capital punishment).

Fair enough, I thought you were justifying the death penalty with your locking up and having a choice in a murder post - my mistake.

 

[Wibble]

So he should have tagged/replied to the correct post then. I suggested nothing like most of what he blabbers on about.

You didn't?

I think this is one thing that the Sharia law has got perfectly right.

 

[Wibble]

Ok, let me ask you a simple and specific question. Do you think a terrorist who was caught killing people deserved death penalty. A simple yes or no would suffice as it's not about whether the accused was guilty or not, as he was caught on the streets killing people.

No.

 

[sullydnl]

Aside from anything else, I'm fairly sure a "clear cut cases only" death penalty system would quickly fall apart legally as you're creating two strands of guilt, guilty and really guilty. People could probably make the case that given they haven't been sentenced to death they obviously can't be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Or, that they've been disproportionately punished based on the nature of the evidence against them rather than the nature of their crime. Or hundreds of other legal arguments that would quickly see guilty people walk free.

Aside from any moral questions, it would be a ludicrously unmanageable system.

 

[2 man midfield]

Aside from anything else, I'm fairly sure a "clear cut cases only" death penalty system would quickly fall apart legally as you're creating two strands of guilt, guilty and really guilty. People could probably make the case that given they haven't been sentenced to death they obviously can't be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Or, that they've been disproportionately punished based on the nature of the evidence against them rather than the nature of their crime. Or hundreds of other legal arguments that would quickly see guilty people walk free.

Aside from any moral questions, it would be a ludicrously unmanageable system.

Exactly. Which is why these arguments usually go round in circles, because then they say things like 'ok well only in cases where they admit it'. Then cases like the Birmingham Six are brought up, or where a mother might confess to protect a guilty child, and then it unfolds much like the last couple pages have.

 

[AshfordLad]

I'm doing neither.

What an angry bitter world you must live in.

And wumming again. You're 50+ years old ffs stop.

 

[Rado_N]

And wumming again. You're 50+ years old ffs stop.

He's not wumming, he's highlighting your nonsense.

 

[AshfordLad]

He's not wumming, he's highlighting your nonsense.

I don't see it that way. I am sure he is wumming.

Why else would he target my fairly reasonable post while there were posters calling for "balls being chopped off"?

 

[kouroux]

Is there a chance he'll even spend one week in prison ?

 

[Rado_N]

I don't see it that way. I am sure he is wumming.

Why else would he target my fairly reasonable post while there were posters calling for "balls being chopped off"?

There's nothing remotely reasonable about the notion that Sharia law has punishment right.

 

[AshfordLad]

There's nothing remotely reasonable about the notion that Sharia law has punishment right.

That's just your opinion which is different from mine, and thats okay.

You still have no answer as to why he would specifically target my post when there were other posts suggesting grotesque inhuman things. So again you have any idea why?

 

[2 man midfield]

That's just your opinion which is different from mine, and thats okay.

You still have no answer as to why he would specifically target my post when there were other posts suggesting grotesque inhuman things. So again you have any idea why?

But you support sharia law?

 

[Rado_N]

That's just your opinion which is different from mine, and thats okay.

You still have no answer as to why he would specifically target my post when there were other posts suggesting grotesque inhuman things. So again you have any idea why?

To accuse anyone of shitposting while you're standing by Sharia law takes a special kind of ignorance.

He also responded to other posts, not that he'd be required to in order to somehow validate him pointing out your nonsense for what it is.

 

[AshfordLad]

But you support sharia law?

Not anything else. Just the punishment for manslaughter/homicide/murder/rape. Find and read my original post, it clearly states that.

 

[AshfordLad]

To accuse anyone of shitposting while you're standing by Sharia law takes a special kind of ignorance.

He also responded to other posts, not that he'd be required to in order to somehow validate him pointing out your nonsense for what it is.

Because that's how forums work?

Sometimes you pick one particular post to respond to rather than responding to each and every person involved in the opposing side of the argument. Though in this case he did actually engage with other posts too.

Not sure what response you were expecting once you started glibly bigging up sharia law.

​

Have you read my post. Saying someone has got one thing right does not equal agreeing with everything one says. Surely you couldn't be that oblivious to simple logic?

Also, I have now gone through his response to other posters and they seem very reasonable. Where as the reply to my post is clearly drafted to wum.

 

[sullydnl]

That's just your opinion which is different from mine, and thats okay.

You still have no answer as to why he would specifically target my post when there were other posts suggesting grotesque inhuman things. So again you have any idea why?

Because that's how forums work?

Sometimes you pick one particular post to respond to rather than responding to each and every person involved in the opposing side of the argument. Though in this case he did actually engage with other posts too.

Not sure what response you were expecting once you started glibly bigging up sharia law.

 

[2 man midfield]

Not anything else. Just the punishment for manslaughter/homicide/murder/rape. Find and read my original post, it clearly states that.

I find this sort of pacifism total bollocks. I think this is one thing that the Sharia law has got perfectly right. There should be death penalty for everything starting from manslaughter/culpable homicide upwards and definitely for all forms of murder and rape.

Even so, sharia law is well renowned as a degenerate idea. You must surely acknowledge that if part of your beliefs come from a wider thing that most sensible people find abhorrent, then even that opinion on its own must be backwards on some level too?

 

[AshfordLad]

Even so, sharia law is well renowned as a degenerate idea. You must surely acknowledge that if part of your beliefs come from a wider thing that most sensible people find abhorrent, then even that opinion on its own must be backwards on some level too?

Wrong. Death penalty existed and still exists in places without Sharia law. It has nothing to do with Sharia law itself.

That reference was only a side note of my post and anyone reading carefully should be able to figure that out.

 

[Santos J]

Is there a chance he'll even spend one week in prison ?

He's starting today against Corinthians and the Brazilian law 'doesn't recognize the Italian sentence against him' so no it's not looking likely.

 

[2 man midfield]

Wrong. Death penalty existed and still exists in places without Sharia law. It has nothing to do with Sharia law itself.

That reference was only a side note of my post and anyone reading carefully should be able to figure that out.

Yeah they have it in parts of America. Coincidentally the parts that many people find backwards.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Death penalty is the easy way out for those that are guilty. Let them live with their conscience and be alone and miserable in a cold dark room for the rest of their meaningless lives. Wanting someone to die or suffer is revenge not justice.

 

[JustAFan]

Death penalty is the easy way out for those that are guilty. Let them live with their conscience and be alone and miserable in a cold dark room for the rest of their meaningless lives. Wanting someone to die or suffer is revenge not justice.

So are you for or against having them suffer?

 

[Wibble]

I don't see it that way. I am sure he is wumming.

Why else would he target my fairly reasonable post while there were posters calling for "balls being chopped off"?

Saying Sharia Law has it right is far worse than an emotional "cut their nuts off". Islamic law allows for public lashing, publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion for what we would often consider minor crimes (or not even crimes) and retributional punishments (qisas) e.g. lopping hands off for theft, are also widespread. To suggest that qisas is a good approach to crime and punishment, as you did, is bizarre at best.

BTW those suggesting that we chop rapists nuts off have been receiving warnings to ask them to control such behavior.

 

[Raoul]

That's just your opinion which is different from mine, and thats okay.

 

[Wibble]

Wrong. Death penalty existed and still exists in places without Sharia law. It has nothing to do with Sharia law itself.

That reference was only a side note of my post and anyone reading carefully should be able to figure that out.

Qisas is not the same as capital punishment, even though death can be the result in both cases, as it is directly based on eye for an eye for murder and many other crimes. Are you now saying you didn't know wha you were suggesting and that you just meant to say that you supported capital punishment for murder?

 

[Wibble]

Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.


Edmund: Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]


Rum: Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn’t.

Blackadder II

 

[Wibble]

You still have no answer as to why he would specifically target my post when there were other posts suggesting grotesque inhuman things. So again you have any idea why?

You seem to be struggling with this. Lets try an analogy. The streets are covered with dog shit. You know this and think it is wrong but you walk to work without giving it much thought. However, before you get there you slip on the biggest dog turd on the street. When you get to work you do complain about the steamer that you trod in but don't mention the others.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

So are you for or against having them suffer?

They can suffer all they want. It's their choice. It just won't be anyone else's doing.

 

[whatwha]

What do you feel would be an appropriate punishment ?

Did I seriously get banned for my post in this thread? Or for something else? All it said on the ban screen was "Rule violation", but I can't think of a rule I've broken.

I must have worded my post really poorly. I didn't mean to downplay the seriousness of the crime, or cause offense. I only wanted to express surprise because, typically when I see a sentencing for rape the perpetrator gets max 4-5 years, as far as I can remember. So I wondered why Robinho could get much more than that.

 

[JustAFan]

I must have worded my post really poorly.

That's an understatement

 

[whatwha]

That's an understatement

Brevity is the soul of idiocy, in my case

 

[::sonny::]

Confirmed, there is an arrest warrant for him in Italy, asking the extradition

If he arrives in europe the interpool going to arrest him immediately

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[maniak]

Yeah he'll never leave Brazil again. Shame.

 

[Paxi]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2 man midfield]

Does that mean Brazil have to comply or is it basically meaningless unless he leaves the country?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Does that mean Brazil have to comply or is it basically meaningless unless he leaves the country?

Apparently they don't extradite their own citizens to any country. He will get arrested if he steps foot in Italy or any of the 150 or so countries that have an extradition treaty with Italy.