@ Amsterdamsky

"...there are a few bastards that it would be good to draw and quarter them in public..."

 

Agreed. However the determination of who is included in the "few bastards" is subjective and personal. And who would do the drawing and quartering? Anyone who takes pleasure in such activities is no less dangerous to society than the convicted murderer.

 

"The death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases only."

 

Agreed.

 

"Both interfered horribly in the democratic processes of their countries by committing murder which is in my opinion the worst of all possible crimes."

 

Sometimes I am of the opinion that rape and severe cases of assault, in which multilation, maiming and disfigurement are involved equally warrant the death penalty. I am curious as to whether or not you believe so-called political murders are any more heinous than non-political ones? I believe such distinctions can lead to value judgements of the murder in question, depending on the accused's motivations. F.e. I do not believe that a Muslim raping a blonde girl in Sweden because she was not his slave and was not wearing a burkha or niqab is any inherently worse an act than a drunken date-rape in which both perpetrator and victim were Swedes.

 

In regards to my example above, I would however, regard the rape by the Muslim as an act of "terror," in the sense that it was an act of unconventional and undeclared war. Accordingly, I would support some form of collective punishment. Indeed, if the families of foreign criminals were assured of forcible repatriation, they might speak up at the mosque and do more to reign in their young men (mad dogs), who are acting in the same manner as the wild nomadic savages and mercenaries of the medieval era.

Crime is a necessary part of control

The politicians have to have a source of power, and an easy target to legislate against. They can claim they are targeting crime but they are actually targeting everyday people they wish to control. Hence, no death penalty. The death penalty does one thing quite well and that is to remove from society the people who can commit the most heinous of crimes without remorse. It’s the people who claim killing is wrong for any reason (read social liberals) who try and force their values on to the populace at large.

While some will say the penalty is barbaric, it does insure they will not commit the crime again.

Crime now has a pretty much free ride to commit as much mayhem as they can muster. The EU and it’s member countries have pretty much stated that you have NO RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF FOR WHAT EVER REASON. You must take what ever punishment the criminal’s meat out and let the ineffective police and court system pat them on the back for a job well done.

The EU has already shown it self to be the antithesis of what is good for the people. The EU will not allow a referendum on any subject, where the outcome is not assured to be as they want. You will not have a death penalty and they will get released from jail to commit these crimes again.

It is after all in the best intrests of the government.

Execute van de Graaf immediately

Kapitein,  I agree with you largely but there are a few bastards that it would be good to draw and quarter them in public like the bastard that murdered Pim Fortuyn and is due for release in maybe 5 or 7 years.  The death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases only.  Sirhan Sirhan in the US should receive the same treatment.  Both interfered horribly in the democratic processes of their countries by committing murder which is in my opinion the worst of all possible crimes.

In Response

flynn: "I have often heard them [European elitists] rant about the Texas death penality, but when I ask them if they would support the death penality if their own child or loved one were raped, tortured and brutally murdered, they then say "well that is different, and yes, I would want them to die"."

Who are they? What are their names? How is the point of view of a grieving relative of a murder victim less biased with regards to capital punishment than someone thinking objectively about the issue who is not personally affected? Furthermore, punishment involves more than just retribution.

flynn: "It is insane not to recognize the studies that a pedophile cannot be rehabilitated."

Most of the scientific community believes that it is insane not to recognise the threat of global warming and the role human activity has played in fomenting it.

flynn: "The rights to protect your children prevails over the rights of the convicted pedophiles."

Agreed.

Amsterdamsky: " 'And as for the death penalty issue, why doesn’t the EU have a referendum about it?' That would be way way too much like democracy."

 

If the question of capital punishment is put to a referendum or plebiscite, there would be favorable majorities in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and much of Western Europe, although there would be a great deal more resistance in the latter if not majorities opposed in Scandinavia and elsewhere in the region. The problem is that the public is largely fickle, and its decision would be rendered on its current mood. The international attention on Canadian accused serial murderer Robert Pickton means that his case receives a great deal of attention in the Canadian media, and one could assume that favorability towards capital punishment would be increased because of the heinousness of Pickton's crimes. However, the public could swing the other way due to the publicity of counter-examples - of people wrongly accused of murder e.g. Steven Truscott. Ultimately, this fickle public does not have to personally execute the murderer or wonder whether or not that person was in reality innocent. It is not so much that these murderers do not deserve death as who would be the executioner? Who could live with themselves after executing a later-proved innocent person? Nor, with the American appeals process, is execution any cheaper than life in prison. Legislators in the West generally believe that perhaps criminals should rot in prison, just in case they are innocent, and so that no one has to traumatise themselves doing the deed. While there are cases where capital punishment is warranted, in my opinion, I tend to agree with them.

Common Sense

All too often the European elitists have double standards regarding the death penality. I have often heard them rant about the Texas death penality, but when I ask them if they would support the death penality if their own child or loved one were raped, tortured and brutally murdered, they then say "well that is different, and yes, I would want them to die".

These same types of people also protect the rights of pedophiles. It is insane not to recognize the studies that a pedophile cannot be rehabilitated. In Texas and in some of the other states, you can type in your zip code and immediately know the location of all convicted pedophiles who live in your zip code area. The rights to protect your children prevails over the rights of the convicted pedophiles.

Representation - ( from a lengthy distance)

Among the comments following Wallstrom's blog, there was another directed apparently at another EU commentator.

 

"I've happened to be in several European cities when they were sealed off for EU meetings during the country's presidency - and I noticed how angry the people were at the haughty EU politicians that stop all the traffic and generally seal themselves off.
While I also am against the EU as it is run today, an expensive farm subsidised mishmash and a self-serving club for politicians and their hanger-ons that is neither democratic nor market efficient
- at least your mother has the guts to come and talk to people at the railings!"

"And as for the death

"And as for the death penalty issue, why doesn’t the EU have a referendum about it?
"

That would be way way too much like democracy.