₦airaland Forum

texazzpete: The NLC people are stoopid. How can you call off a strike at 1am?

Did mama-gee hack into your account to post this? They should have continued with the strike because negotiations were concluded at midnight? Nope. The information was duly released to the electronic and and online news services. Besides, by evening, before everyone went to bed, it was announced that they were in a meeting. It was only sensible for everyone to listen up for the result of those meetings.

JeSoul:
I do appreciate the fundamental Liberal theology of progressiveness, really. Its just that I feel this modern incarnation of it is on steroids. Ah no love for Sarah Palin? I like the woman, which is why even when I dislike some of what she does/says politically I simply look the other way. McCain your favorite? I would've never guessed that. You like them experienced and seasoned it sounds like. I like them fearless and 'I don't give a damn'-ish.

Generally speaking, I think patriotism, particularly the American brand, is a steroid and Mrs Palin is one Calvinistic right-winger high on it! I like McCain because he doesn’t go “I am a conservative, I am a conservative” or “I am a moderate, I am a moderate.” He says and does whatever he thinks is right without recourse to ideology or party. But I really like Obama, too.

JeSoul: You'd be one tough judge sir. I agree taking into account all the other details would be central to making a good decision. I think that I would've acquitted Hailey - especially considering in that case if the races/colors had been reversed, he would've been lychned at city hall with the law enforcement as cheering spectators and a parade thrown with hotdogs served afterwards.

So I thank God I have never had the power of life and death in my hands.

I feel you on Hailey case. When I was reading the book I was rooting for him to get away, what with the KKK and all, that’s what my heart would want. But as a judge, while I will not rip my heart out and will listen to it, decisions will be taken in my head and I doubt I would find it in my head to see how letting someone get away with a brutal double murder, an act of pure revenge perpetrated on people who were already on trial, have served the course of justice or improved the society.

vescucci:
I came here pretty sure what I would say but these two over sane people with Jays in their names have scattered my head. All I know is this: If someone murders someone I love, I'll murder the person on the spot if it's within my power. That wouldn't be me acting in cold blood. It'd be a crime of passion. I wouldn't expect to simply walk away and go home because I've done the State's work for it. I'd expect to go to jail, probably for life but I'd do it. I'm sure of it.

In the discussions, I noticed some of you segue from "what the Lord says" to "what I think" to "what the secular law says" and it's causing confusion. If not that the posters here are people with sense and maturity, we'd have been breaking beer barrels on each others' backs.

Morality is a tricky subject. This is a case of who will watch the watchers. If you don't deserve to live, you shouldn't. We should consider that we'll all die anyways. The punishment is just fast forwarding due date. We're all on death row.

Btw,  I support the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing. But then, that is impossible to prove when cold blooded murder is concerned. How do you know voices in his head didn't make him do it? Or he has MPD? The whole thing is really tricky. It may well be best if capital punishment was abolished altogether

Lol. When I was writing it did flash through my mind I was “segueing”. There should be no confusion if you separate them, but maybe I am wrong to expect my readers to automatically do this because that is exactly what I am doing mentally. There is (1) what  is reasonable in my opinion- don’t kill them because (i) we can’t really tell who is guilty and don’t know all the circumstances involved (ii) they should get a chance to suffer the consequences and possibly reflect on things and make amends (2) what the law currently says which I’d be obliged to implement if I am a judge – kill them (3) what the Bible says – show mercy. But, of course, I’d plead guilty to bringing in the Bible only when it was convenient for my argument! For Nigerian audience what the Lord says becomes relevant in a purely political matter if it will help to make the point. People believe their holy books say these people must be killed, and you want to show them it doesn’t. JeSoul made such a reference quite early in the conversation, in a response to M_Nwankwo, I think. In the US, particularly the Bible Belt, it is not uncommon to hear God mentioned in court rooms. And if you report for jury assignment, you’d be lucky to get in if word leaks out you are an atheist. If you find yourself in such a courtroom, what do you do? Remind them God is merciful.

As for those who “deserve” to die, you will observe that we have been sparing to them for a long time. There is a 15 year old boy in custody somewhere at Oyo or Osun state, not sure which. He was arrested by the police for beheading a child and selling the head to ritualists. When he is convicted he will be not get the death penalty because he is underage. But everyone knows a 15 year old who kills a child knows precisely what he is doing! As did that kid who recently made himself a name as the UK's youngest assassin. John Alan Mohammed’s spotter is now in jail while Mohammed was executed because he (spotter) was only seventeen at the time of the killings and can’t be executed due to the Eight Amendment. You will probably agree with me he deserved to die as much as Mohammed. That laws which exempt these people from being executed, using the somewhat arbitrary figure of 18, was based on compassion.

I agree with what you said about breaking bottles. JeSoul has been the only Nairalander I extensively discussed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with. I knew there would be no broken bottles, or even 9mms(!) and there wasn't.

This photo of taken of inmates matriculating at the Enugu federal prison study centre of the National Open University of Nigeria yesterday.

JeSoul:
MyJoe! finally have some time to reply properly. Honestly, I think I gain percentage points in brain cells everytime I read from you . You're so smart and knowledgeable, exactly the type of elder I need to sit at their feet and learn

Now, you are making my head swell by 50 percentage points in size! 

JeSoul: and btw *offtopic* you been seeing the wahala in Egypt? Am I joining the conspiracy ranks to think our friends in the MB are smiling at the instability?

What I think they are doing is flowing with the CROWD in order to remain relevant. Even if they have any ideas, they are smart enough to know the military will become more assertive once they show any fangs. Remember Egypt is one of the countries where the military is so powerful that while it is not always what they want that happens, what they don’t want certainly never happens. The Algerians, the Turkish and the Pakistanis can testify to this. But if the MB have said or done anything that seems contrary to their professed progressiveness and modernism so far, I have missed it. I am still giving them “the benefit of the doubt” and placing them in the same category as the AKP of Turkey. All the wahala are not that surprising, though, when you consider this is a country coming out of years of diarchical and securocratic dictatorship, with the new leaders trying hard to please the people. They will soon tell themselves a country can’t be ruled from the streets and try becoming more assertive, and then things may get worse before they improve. Or not improve at all but degenerate to an all-out civil strife. The latter is less likely.

JeSoul: I see you're not a an american-flavored pop-tart liberal democrat .

No. I guess I am neither liberal nor conservative, as I take issues on a case by case basis (Sandra Day O’Connor was my favourite associate justice and Clarence Thomas my least favourite), but conservatives tend to piss me off more often than liberals. If I was put in a jail and a judge wanted to get me I’d hope no one whispers into his ears to force me to listen to The Collected Speeches of Sarah Palin! John McCain is my favourite American politician for the same reasons I like O’Connor. But I wonder how you cope living and voting in the most liberal state in the US!

JeSoul: Well said, and I would tend to agree with you. And I think this is one of the main reasons pardons can be granted after the sentence. And I would say even if the sentence wasn't commuted, in the eyes of the Law, his genuine change in the eyes of God is what truly matters both here and afterhere. [b]The bible itself also shows us hardknock, brutal, immediate and swift judgement resulting in death - from God. And we also see the opposite in great mercy extended. [/b]We need both ends of a single-edged sword in our society - that's what I think.

Yes, but you will recall that God (1) is all-knowing (2) would take the whole circumstances into consideration (3) can bring back to life. Note there is no single instance in the New Testament where God instructed MEN to kill anyone. He is only alleged to have done that in the OT when a different order was in place.

JeSoul: Interesting. We've seen that compelling evidence doesn't always equate guilt so I can't argue in the offense. At the same time felons have been known to play the system. Stalemate for real. That is why I could never be a judge. Not to mention my heart melts to see people cry/weep. Don't buy the hard talker you see here, I'm a sucker for repentance lol.

Right. That is what actually happens in most cases – they exploit anything they can find – loopholes, public sympathy, anything at all. And that is why it is so hard to know those ones who are wrongly accused. That is what the “governator” believed Tookie was doing, but we will never know for sure.

JeSoul: Not sure I understand you fully here but . . . that's why they have their day in court and usually armed with a team of the best lawyers and usually for free.

I merely used it as an illustration concerning the fact that we may not be right 100% of the time in 100% of the cases we think we know who. Imagine a sniper shows up in Metro Dade shooting people at random. MDPD psychologists come up with a profile. After some days the MDPD, working on field data – someone, a former army sniper, bought a gun, asked some funny questions, was sighted after dark staking out a place, has been depressed since losing wife, was abused as a kid – release information that they believe John Schulz is the sniper. When the public gets this information they will watch out for Schulz and those who know Schulz personally will keep shaking their heads. One day the sniper is shot and killed as he is about to shoot someone. It then turns it wasn’t who the police suspected – John Schulz has been away on an extended visit to his brother at a bush camp. Now, that is a very rare situation, but it happened in that Forsyth book and came in handy to illustrate a point.

JeSoul: We just caught Whitey Bulger - a dude on the FBI's top 10 most wanted & who's been on the run for 16yrs, 16yrs, imagine. He's from down the street here in Boston and was a notorious crime boss. You need to see how heads are fighting to be on his defense team. In developed countries, I think its pretty darn hard to lynch the wrong guy that 'everyone' knows is guilty.

Right

JeSoul:
Very interesting! I am curious, if you were the judge, what would you have ruled?

At a superficial level, I buy the Supreme Court judgment. But details would be important for me – whether we have reasons to believe she planned it, what weapons, if any, were used, what she did immediately after the killing, and a whole lot else. But I disagree with the jury in the Hailey case. I would have convicted him but taking the situation of his daughter into consideration, would probably have agreed to ameliorate “murder” to something less severe and he would have got away with fifteen years or so. This tends to happen more at the Supreme Court level in Nigeria. I am pretty certain that Hailey, the vigilante, would not have walked from any Nigerian court.

texazzpete:
There are registered and licensed security outfits that can easily provide bodyguards to these people. The Mobile Policemen are funded from Tax Payers monies. It is utterly wrong and condemnable to attach Mobile Policemen to people just because they have money.
What next, we argue that they also ought to be given the right to use sirens because they 'provide employment'?

When DSK was under house arrest in New York, he had to pay for security and the surveillance equipment with his own money.

I'm surprised you're taking this stance.

Private security firms are not allowed to carry firearms in Nigeria. In fact, they are hardly "security" outfits in any sense. When foreigners come to Nigeria they hire mobile policemen to follow them around. When a lawyer is handling a big case and he thinks there might be threats to his life he does the same.  There is nothing anyone can do about it. In a country where private citizens are not allowed to carry firearms, it is only reasonable that anyone who feels there is a credible threat to his life is accorded ARMED police protection. But that, however, is not exactly how it mostly works. How it works mostly is you get these mopols if you can PAY. These payments are receipted - I guess that takes care of your tax payer concern.

Great thread! Bring it on, brainboxes.

hercules07:
The problems with our politicians is that while trying to do something good, they commit several heinous crimes, she has so many allegations against her that there is no way she will not be blackmailed, the PIB is not a personal thing, if Allison is not appointed let someone else who is clean take up the fight and make sure that it is passed, as far as I am concerned, she is incompetent.

Thank you.

[quote author=haka_nai link=topic=700713.msg8605573#msg8605573 date=1309250230]^^^^ Why?If i may ask how would you Know?
Even in the Niger delta when the military was involved, They had people in the Military providing weapons and sales of such to the militants.Some included even Military information.I do remember in one occasion where a classified military document meant for the DHQ and ministry of defense was intercepted and the details made available to the militants about Government plans to fight militancy.With that said ,no be today! At the end government always have there way.Because the FG has more at her disposal than just a group.The FG would always out live or survive it!!![/quote]Of course, the government will win round two - militarily. They will find out where these creeps live and "crush" them, like they did last time when Yusuf, the leader, was assassinated in police custody. But then the group will regroup again and more Nigerians will be killed. To prevent that you need intelligence. Watch, intercept, infiltrate, monitor, etc. It appears that was not done last time; once the government assassinated Yusuf they went to sleep. The Nigerian government is not "trying".

^^^ The army says he is to be handed over to the BRT people for prosecution.

Court martial is widely applied against soldiers who commit various offences for which a civilian would normally be tried by a civil court. No where is it restricted to amorphous "service laws". When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court martial, you appeal to the Court of Appeal of Nigeria. The Court of Appeal can through a single pronouncement vacate the decision of the court martial and restore him to the army with full entitlements. So there is actually no negation of "democracy" or the civil court system.

percipi1:
The rules of common law demands that an accused person is given fair hearing. This dismissal failed the test of reasonableness. if the soldier had truly defied traffic laws, then the appropriate place to try such offender is the Civil court as breaching a civil code does not in itself take away the employment rights of the offending party .

The soldier might have breached a civil code but dismissing the accused from his employment was more of a publicity stunt by his insensitive boss than a desire to correct the perceived wrong.

This is a democracy not a military system. the rule of law must not be trampled upon. If we the citizen support this barbaric reaction to the breach of our civil laws, then we are no better than cavemen

I take it you are not familiar with court martial at it applies to military personnel all over the world.

stagger:
Well, I just headed to the Garden City as part of my state contingent to the sports festival, and I just captured two soldiers beating a woman close to the East West Road junction there for God knows what.

I was too close to the action so did not attempt to start filming with a camera. The way guns were being cocked and civilians being chased, I did not want to wind up a victim of any accidental discharge.

However, I will be on the lookout and if there are any more incidents, yours truly will capture them, from afar.

Those soldiers should be ashamed of themselves.

Evil Brain:
Everyday, I see Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious lunatics preaching and ranting against blood transfusions.

Yet in all my years as a doctor, I have never seen a single one of these people refuse blood once it becomes clear to them that their life was at risk. In every single case I've seen, they change their mind at the last minute.

And yet these hippocrites spend their time trying to reduce the blood supply, discouraging people from donating and shortening the rations of those of us who aren't re.tarded like them. They'll happily accept blood to save their own lives, yet they work to deny others the same option. I for one think these people are scum.

So here's my suggestion. If you oppose blood transfusions on religious grounds and you happen to have an accident, or are bleeding to death after childbirth. Or if perhaps your newborn baby has jaundice and is about to be permanently brain-damaged. Please be a good christian: stay at home and die there. Practice what you preach and be true to your religion, even to the bitter end.

Many Witnesses do reject blood till the very end - cases abound worldwide. There have even been Supreme Court cases in Nigeria arising from this matter. There have also been cases in Nigeria of doctors losing their license due to misconduct arising from this matter.

The problem of rejection of blood transfusion by the Witnesses cannot be solved by denying the issue, denying them treatment, or going on and on about the fact they risk death if they persist in their ways. They know that. I think it can be be solved by engaging the leadership of the religion on the theological basis for rejecting blood transfusion - which is very weak.

LagosShia:
Holy Quran 2:275:

Those who swallow usury cannot rise up save as he ariseth whom the devil hath prostrated by (his) touch. That is because they say: Trade is just like usury; whereas Allah permitteth trading and forbiddeth usury. He unto whom an admonition from his Lord cometh, and (he) refraineth (in obedience thereto), he shall keep (the profits of) that which is past, and his affair (henceforth) is with Allah. As for him who returneth (to usury) - Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

You can see none of the contributors in this thread is carrying a Christian placard against this banking system. We are looking to understand the mechanics of it.  In the light of the clear insights given here so far, I was hoping you would offer some of your own insight as to  how the system is any different from the usurious secular banks which are well known for employing clever tricks to reap where they have not sown.

@LagosShia

Your attended is needed here

Enigma:
In all honesty, I don't know about Iran or Pakistan.

However, one important word I learned within myself (in my very brief involvement) is h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

So I wouldn't be surprised if it is business as usual ---- only by other (disguised) means.

Hmmm

Pastor AIO:
Abeg don't call Sweetnecta here, I'm actually enjoying these discussions.

Maybe LagosShia can help. Will try to summon him.

Sagamite:
Who's fault do you think it is primarily that the actions of extremists is used to judge Islam?

So where do some muslims get their edict to kill because their religion is disrespected?

Where do muslim scholars get the guidance to order killing or support it because they feel the religion has been offended?

How is tumult and oppression worse than slaughter? Are those violent?

Thank you. I have asked the above, particularly the bolded, again and again. Let's see how Shia answers.

^^^ That has occupied my mind whenever I think about it - just how do you do "non-interest banking" with the way the financial system works presently? With the global capitalist order? But maybe it somehow works differently in core "Islamic countries" like Pakistan and Iran?

LagosShia:
here is your call for a "mature" discussion on what the problem is:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-659269.0.html

Thank you. I'm reading the opening post and I think it's a good write-up - so far.

^^^ So some Islamic banks find a way to do what all banks do. I see. More, please. Where is Sweetnecta - if he can manage it with some clarity?

[quote author=Evil_Brain]I can't believe the sort of childish, nursery school arguments the muslims on this thread are using to defend their religion. Like "but, but, Richard the Lionheart was a christian and he killed people" or "see the violence in the US, and they're christians". Its really pathetic.

If you people had an ounce of sense, you would look at the mountain of evidence, admit you have a problem and start thinking of what little things you can do to fix it. Instead, you're pointing at others like a bunch of four year olds.

The first step on the road to a solution is acknowledging that there is a problem. From what I've seen from you people, Islam is going to remain a violent religion for a very long time. Pity.[/quote]You have said it all in this post. I specifically took up this Vodaxcool fellow on the "you-are-a-thief", "ehen-you-nko-you-no-be-thief" approach and all I got was crass illogicalities, going on and on about Bible and USA and Christians being violent. You get the sense these guys can't even appreciate there is a problem they need to find a solution to. You try to discuss religious violence in the 21st century with a supposedly educated adult man and he tells you Joshua killed people 3000 years ago or that the US government has bombed people! It's a pity, indeed.

babaearly:
Religion to me is a disease. the number confusionist of mankind. it makes you feel so truthful in your own world and every other person's belief is trash.

You were a spirit-filled, Bible-chewing, born-again Christian, last we knew. What happened to you? Care to tell us the story?

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=699032.msg8590563#msg8590563 date=1309033123]sanusi must go[/quote]You're sounding like them Nigerian students in the military era.

I have yet to see good arguments formulated against this "Islamic banking" thing. All we have seen is hyperventilation from some Christian leaders and the high priests of secular pseudo-jihadism.

1. What exactly is wrong with Islamic banking?
2. How does the fact of some Islamic people carrying on Islamic banking affect the rights of Christians or other non-Moslems?

Idehn:
I do not understand why you are so opposed to Calvinism. John Calvin only took the doctrines of original sin, onimax properties, and salvation to their logical conclusions. That it is "God" not man that decides who ultimately is saved and who is not. Truth is that the bible is so convoluted that you could find verses that both support entirely and reject absolutely the Calvinist propositions.

You are right there are biblical precepts that appear to support and reject Calvinist propositions, but there is good reason to oppose Calvinism. From burning people at the stake to Apartheid South Africa, there's very little good that has come out of "Calvinist mumbo jumbo."

@OP
What no one has bothered to explain yet is (1) what is wrong with "Islamic banking" and (2) how the fact some Islamic people carry on Islamic banking affects anyone.

JeSoul:
Question sir. Have you seen the movie "A Time To Kill"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(film)
If yes, what are your thoughts? (see me, na movies me I dey recommend  )

Movies sure are magical. I watch a good number of them nowadays. But I'm glad I stayed almost completely away from them till my 30's. I have not seen this one, but I read the book in 2001.

Michael Aondoakaa [Ah-on-DOH-kar], a recent Attorney-General of Nigeria, is well-known, not least for his crooked ways, which included openly advocating for people suspected of looting the public treasury and rendering millions of Nigerians poor and desperate. He was also the AG blackmailed by Pfizer in the pharmaceutical company’s efforts to avoid making payouts to victims of their drug trials in Kano. What many don’t know about Mr Aondoakaa is his huge contribution to Nigerian and, perhaps, Common Law, criminal jurisprudence; an achievement that singularly qualified him for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, a rank that made it possible for the cabal he served as their poodle to make him Attorney-General. There was this case involving a woman whose husband would not stop cheating on her. (I did not actually read this case from the law report or journal but had it narrated by a trusted narrator. So I am giving you a summary of a summary!) The man was so brazen he would actually bring a woman into their bedroom and order the wife out! The woman bore her cross like many Nigerian women of the traditional school would. But one day she snapped and ended up killing him.

At the high court the state argued that for a plea of PROVOCATION to be successful, the accused person must take action within a reasonable time frame after the action said to cause the provocation. That is, poster A cannot say something nasty to poster B in one thread today, and tomorrow, poster B says something nasty to poster A in another thread and claim he was under provocation. It is assumed that anger passes with the passing of time. Aondoakaa, the defence lawyer, argued that the passing of a certain amount of time does not on its own nullify a plea of provocation. The high court accepted the prosecution’s argument, convicted the woman for murder and sentenced her to die by hanging.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution. But the Supreme Court accepted Mr Aondoakaa’s argument and, bingo – the law on provocation has been re-written! Law students will study that case for decades to come.

I think the case in Grisham’s book is similar. I agree when you said you would give weight to the fact someone is under drugs, is mentally ill, or emotionally unstable. Angry people are emotionally unstable. And that is the primary consideration behind the law on provocation, intoxication and insanity – the fact the accused person was not in full control of his senses at the time of commission of crime. Even when we move beyond strict legalism, it is the same question that arises: was the woman in the case above and Carl Lee Hailey in that book in control of their senses at the time they killed their victims? Hailey took his time to carefully plan his murders. It was an act of revenge. But, then, there is the immensely important fact that not too long before and not too far away the law had failed miserably in a similar case – four white boys who raped a little black girl had been acquitted. Now, that is enough to drive any father whose little girl’s life had been ruined crazy. It was Mississippi and many black people still feel put upon by the system in some of these Southern states. But couldn’t he have waited for the law to take its course? Shouldn’t he have? What I objectively think is that his action would, perhaps, have been more understandable (though not right) if he had waited for the trial and had acted only because the system failed to bring “justice” like in the other case. But it was not my daughter. If it was my daughter I doubt I would be objective. It is hard to say exactly what you would do in these kinds of situations unless it actually happens to you.

JeSoul:
Yup. The DC sniper guy I know. I had to google the Anini guy you mentioned (don't laugh at me oh ).

Back in those “ember months” of 1986, nobody at school would discuss anything else but outrageously embellished stories of Anini. I think it was when the police caught up with that guy that I first started having doubts that juju, at least those imported from India, can do all the things attributed to it. 

JeSoul: Fuel it? Hmm . . . I'm not so sure. I think like you said there's lots of pro and con arguments that have been put forth, and I would argue that it is pretty darn hard to determine either way.

The idea is about bandits having more incentive to kill witnesses. I don’t think a strong argument can be made there, but it appears there have been cases of bandits killing another person, and another person, and another person, just to avoid the gallows since they already killed one.

JeSoul: Wait a second . . .  so that means that scene in the Shawshank Redemption (I hope you've seen this movie) did just the opposite?

So it appears. I have not seen this movie, but I just checked it out at imdb.com and it’s the kind of movie I’d like to watch in a few days. This judge did it for real. If you like classical music then you definitely have stories to tell of people around you not being keen on this particular like of yours. Now, imagine a guy from some slum in LA who eats and sleeps Tupac or heavy metal being forced to listen to Bach and Tchaikovsky under circumstances where he can’t simply walk away!

JeSoul: AK-47 armed inmates in Venezuela? Then why are they still inmates? lol.

You gotta give it up for them Latin American prisoneros. There was a fight between two rival gangs at that jail and many inmates were killed. The government moved in to restore order but the prisoners armed with automatic weapons took positions and have refused to surrender. At least, one soldier is already dead. More than two dozen people have died so far. I think the government is currently negotiating with them.

JeSoul:
Can we reward good behavior after the fact? If I steal a million dollars and then dedicate the money to the poor, does it partially soften my crime? make it more palatable? less egregious?

The act of giving crime proceeds to the poor, by itself, does not make it less egregious in my opinion. Lawrence Anini and most of the big Nigerian 419ers do this. Left to me the poor should reject anything from these sort of people. I think genuine remorse involves a change of heart, a change of mindset. If someone engages in armed robbery, maiming and killing and gives his proceeds to the poor, is caught and keeps repeating that he did it all for the poor, the law ought to take its course. I believe anyone who knowingly does hurt to any human being is building his own hell. I fail to see any morality in depriving someone of a possession, even if they have in abundance, to give to those who don’t have it. But if someone engages in banditry and murder, realizes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that it is bad to steal or kill and he should never have stolen or hurt anyone, and demonstrates this by seeking out and apologizing to his victims or giving everything he owns to the needy, or working with social workers to help delinquent kids, there is a case for mercy. The Bible says the angels of God rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10).

JeSoul: I don't have a definite opinion on this - in the eyes of the Law I still committed the crime. In Tookie's case, the governor could've issued a pardon . . . but honestly and from a strictly legal (or it is judicial? abi criminal?) standpoint, I equally don't see his decision not to as wrong as he is bound by the Law.

Right, the “governator” was right legally speaking. Even beyond strict legalism, some of the reasons he gave for denying pardon were compelling. But he was within the law to grant a pardon. He acknowledged Tookie’s good work, but said he could not grant a pardon since remorse can only be demonstrated by an acknowledgement of guilt. To him, the evidence against Williams’ culpability in the murders was compelling – beyond reasonable doubt. Tookie insisted that while he did a ton of bad things he was not responsible for these four murders. He probably could have saved himself from the gallows by just admitting he did it. But the said he didn’t. To Mr Schwarzenegger that was the problem – he found it impossible to reconcile Williams’ claim of innocence with his claim of change of heart in the face of so much compelling evidence. Stalemate. I believe the governor acted without malice.

JeSoul: Haba MyJoe lol. Justice doesn't necessarily mean "do me, I do you" now  . As I understand it, it is merely punishment (however the Law has chosen to define it - and the Jury of their peers chooses to sentence them) for a crime.

Yes, that is “legal justice” or "formal justice". But what is justice then – I mean “justice” without a qualifying adjective? I’m not sure I can do a good job of answering that. Maybe that is why the phrase in the legal community is “substantial justice”. I doubt absolute justice is achievable – we have to get used to that. And maybe someone will run a thread on “what is justice” around here one of these days.

JeSoul: That is the heart of the matter ain't it. Maybe when I'm wiser and more seasoned like you I will believe otherwise

Ha ha. It’s all relative. You may actually be much wiser even though seeing it differently from the way I currently do.

JeSoul: Even me self, I don't get the hoopla over 'killing law enforcement officials' and why it is more heinous than the average joe.

It's definitely not more heinous. I think the idea is that those we pay to keep the peace also deserve some peace. When people deliberately target policemen, firing at UNIFORMS, it sets off a whole lot of problems – families losing bread winners, low morale, trigger happy cops, corruption, etc, all contributing to making everyone less safe.

JeSoul: But yes there is! There is no dispute on the DC sniper is there? that teenager in Mont Vernon as well, there's no dispute there either. Thankfully the law doesn't go 'life for life'. Its the jury and judge that have a say in the sentence - so the power does not rest with one man.

But you already alluded to the impossibility of having laws that objectively captures just a category of people. No wiggle room – that’s how it mostly works. Imagine having a law that sentences to death only when there is a confession or video evidence, or, perhaps, only when there is a confession since video evidence can be manipulated! We may also talk of those who become famous, that is, “everyone” knows and talks about them while the state is in pursuit – we get these sort of people every now and then: Johnny Dillinger, Al Capone, Ishola Oyenusi (“when you talk to me like that I gun you down”), Lawrence Anini. But how does a law capture this objectively? That’s the point I was making. In The Day of the Jackal, “everyone” involved in the matter knew Charles Caltrop was the Jackal at some point, but at the end of the day they turned out to be wrong.

Moreover, under the current system of “beyond reasonable doubt”, anyone found “not guilty” is instantly set free, not put in jail. Now, try imagining how that will work under a system of “beyond a shadow of doubt”! It’s all a “delicate balancing act”.

PhysicsMHD:
https://village.grioo.com/images/users/403/1012/13086635952381.jpg


lmao


The contrast is hilarious. . .

Yeah. We like our women big in Africa. Got any problems with that?

nuclearboy:
@MyJoe:

I actually asked that question because of you but not of you. I KNEW (100%) that M_Nwankwo (since he had shown up) would give a balanced response that would probably even go where even I did not consider (AND HE DID); because my understanding of Jesoul's "9mm" post seems to me to exactly replicate that scenario.

My meaning is that Jesoul would NOT commit murder under less than extreme conditions just as M_Nwankwo too has suggested "may" be his leaning if such comes up. Very recently, I have been proud to do something on this forum I would under other conditions absolutely rebel against. And I would happily do so again under same conditions.

Have you considered there could come up situations so extreme that you would gladly trade places with Jesoul and after using the 9mm, apply a "UTC" (axe) as well? Its all well and good to hold the moral high ground but I feel it premature to decide whats right or wrong when none of us knows what the future holds for us. Many have done unbelievable things, not because they wanted, but because of situations. And governments have been known to allow such as the "death penalty", simply because of public opinion (to restrain jungle justice but rather have a controlled implementation)

By the way, I'm curious - whats your take on the originating post at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-654729.0.html ?

Thank you, Nuclearboy, but I am surprised you wrote that post because of me, albeit not for me, since the scenario addresses a different issue, and the answer is easy – remember it’s a different issue! It would have any bearing on my understanding of the point being debated here, the one I am making, if you had asked what my argument would be if the criminal is arrested, tried and sentenced to death for murder. (I do not share your understanding of JeSoul’s 9mm scenario, not that I took any issues with that scenario in particular, though. I only expressed dissent when she spoke up for the death penalty. That remains my position.) Would I plead for mercy in his behalf since he killed my daughter? And no, I have no "moral high ground" to hold and am not holding any, nor have I tried to impose my views of right and wrong on anyone – I wonder how you reached those conclusions. Maybe there is something in my posts that make you think I see this matter lightly and am doing intellectual exercises. Well, that is not the case.  What I am doing is making the case for compassion as a ground for abolishing the death penalty. M_Nwankwo has addressed the matter largely from a spiritual or moral perspective and I share his views like I have stated, I am offering my views on the logical case which is what can be sold to parliaments and to voters in any democratic country, such as Nigeria or the USA. Neither M_Nwankwo’s spiritual angle nor my personal views of right and wrong (which are not what I am about) can. But I understand that the religiously inclined almost always argue strongly for the death penalty due to deeply held notions of sin and recompense and the way they understand these.

And I think we need to be careful how low we set our bar for “conditions”. Not that I share the view, from the start, that just about anything is permissible under “conditions”, as I would approach that on a case-by-case basis.

I skimmed through the Akaluka post soon after it came on the home page yesterday. I can’t see the correlation right now, but I will go through it again and muse on it. If have anything to share then I will.

JeSoul:
Revenge is not the right word sir, more like justice.

For a person who exhibits genuine remorse - I am a bit torn. Only because I still believe in forgiveness and moving on. But at the same time Laws are not created with wiggle room - or else they won't be laws. They cannot be applied dynamically and subjectively on a case-by-case basis or should I say reversed/not reversed depending on the future remorse of the perpetrator. If the law says you commit murder, and you will be subject to death - it is your own choice to ¹ leave the society ² obey the law or suffer the consequences - people who chose the latter and unfortunately turned over a new leaf after the crime, must still suffer the consequences.

Thanks for the above because it brings out my point very well. In fact, when I mentioned Stanley “Tookie” Williams, what you wrote above is exactly what I was thinking.

Now let’s look at the “degrees of murder” and why I believe a comprehensive abolition of the death penalty is the way to go.

First, there are people for whom we are not sure that they actually committed the crime. A guy commits murder and makes it look like someone else did it. In fact, there is a picture of “someone else” holding the gun. Or the prosecutor argues that since the victim died at three thirty and it has been clearly demonstrated that no one else entered the premises between 2.30 and 4pm, he did it. The jury agrees. Most capital offence cases fall into this category – no confession, no video. We believe they did it, but we don’t know. Stanley Williams’ case fell into the category. For you, we should not apply the death penalty in this case. I agree.

Second, there are people who confess, plead extenuating or mitigating circumstances and demonstrate their remorse. For these people, you are torn, but feel the law should be applied, anyway. I see it differently. If you re-read what you wrote, you will observe that you used the word “unfortunately” in describing the act of showing remorse on the part of a willful killer. Maybe it was an error or you meant unfortunately in the sense that it is only coming after the crime, but I think it demonstrates the revenge feelings behind the death penalty. A life for a life, full stop. He killed someone, so he should be killed, full stop. Tookie, for instance, devoted his life to turning kids off crime and serving humanity and only God knows by how many the lives he saved outnumber those he allegedly killed (he never confessed). And how many more he would have saved had he been allowed to continue the good work. Can you see why I think what is at work here is revenge, and not justice?

But if justice means giving people a punishment commensurate with their crime then the death penalty, as practised in Nigeria and the US, still does not quite measure up. I mean, what is someone enters a house, massacre the men and rape the women before strangling them? Or if someone kills someone by pouring raw acid on them, does the court order a corresponding punishment? No. He gets hanged, injected or sent to an electric chair. Now, the Iranians who will pour acid on the fellow believe that is justice – before Allah and man! Tribal men in Pakistan will wipe out the entire family of the first scenario I have – to them that is justice before Allah and man! But I guess the Americans will claim these are “barbaric” and insist that their own method which gives a punishment that is far less than the crime in this case is “justice”.

Third, there are those who confess, make a victory sign and spit on the legal system the way someone around here spits on any post she doesn’t quite like – many here will remember Monday Osunbor of the Anini gang. You believe these ones should be sent straight to the gallows, in fact, the only problem you have with the death penalty in cases of this nature is that it is not swift enough. In my opinion, do these people deserve to die? Yes. Should we kill them? No. (If someone close to me is the victim of a crime in this case and he insists that the state kills I will not say anything to try to change his mind. I will go along the way I will go along if a woman close to me got pregnant as a result of rape and opted for an abortion. The abortion would be wrong to me, but I may drive her to the hospital if she so decides. That is my present view.)
Because –
1. We run the risk of killing innocents by having laws that allow us to kill these kinds of people.
2. He should live and suffer the consequences of his crime in a prison, get a chance to reflect on his life and choose to make amends.
3. By killing him the state desensitizes itself, loses its capacity for compassion and becomes blood-guilty. They shoot suspected armed robbers at Nigerian police stations – this has created a whole lot of problems, policemen who go around rounding up people and shooting them.

When the state of New Mexico, I think it was New Mexico, came up with a modified form of the death penalty, applying it only to those who killed law enforcement officers or witnesses to a crime, I applauded it. But when I thought long and hard about it, I realised that the problems associated with the death penalty have not gone away with all this modification. NM has since abolished it altogether, I believe.

It would be impossible to apply the death penalty exclusively to the third group because “laws are not created with wiggle room - or else they won't be laws”. No matter how much we try, there is simply no method of ensuring that only the guilty get executed. Once the law says “murderers”, all convicted murderers will get the gallows. The only path of compassion that safeguards those innocently accused and convicted is to put them all in jail. A jail is bad enough, but it does not have the quality of finality that the death penalty has. In my opinion, there is something amiss when humans who can’t bring someone to life executes someone.

I think the real problem with the West is that they have gone too soft on criminals –this applies in the US where they have the death penalty and Western Europe where they don’t. An enforcer for a drug cartel gets caught in the act. Rather than lock him up and throw the keys away, some judge grants bail and he goes off to kill some witness as soon as he is released. Lock them up for life – no parole. But what you find is the parole boards puting hardened criminals back into the streets and everyone is at risk. In places you can simply buy your way out at the police station. These are the areas that need to be tightened up.

JeSoul:
Nuclearboy your scenario is . . . lol.

I would actually treat very differently people who were impaired at the time of their crimes. Drug addicts, mentally ill, emtionally unstable people etc I think should be judged and sentenced differently from people who merely took a stroll out and decided to kill someone for the heck of it.

That scenario actually raises an entirely different issue – the extent to which we will go to prevent a crime. The answer is not hard. I, for one, am not in support of the Nigerian government negotiating with Boko Haram. These guys have killed law enforcement officers and clearly intend to kill more. Should we start negotiating they are likely to kill more policemen while negotiations are going on – not even the Pakistanis have seen the ferocity and frequency with which these guys now carry out their attacks. The only way to stop them is to fight them in the war they themselves have declared. Killing someone in a fight of this nature is one thing. But it is a different thing when someone is arrested and handcuffs are placed on his hands and feet and he is then shot. The purpose then, is no longer to prevent a bandit from killing your daughter, but to avenge your daughter’s death.

JeSoul:
I only support the application of the death penalty where it is indeed beyond [b]a shadow [/b]of doubt - not just reasonable.

I understand. I was merely re-stating how the legal system actually does it.

JeSoul: Your argument is strong and compelling and I do agree 1000% in the famous saying "it is better for a guilty man to go free, than an innocent man spend a day behind bars". I strongly agree that there are few things worse than innocent men imprisoned. So circle the wagon back to my first quote above - I only support it when the case is irrefutable - and usually when there is a confession involved, video evidence, independently confirmed DNA evidence from pro and anti parties etc. Eye witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable and subjective so I place little value on those in capital offense cases.

You mean where we actually know, like Lawrence Anini or John Alan Mohammed.

JeSoul: Let me present to you this case that happened in my backyard few yrs ago . . .

- A quiet evening in Mont Vernon, NH. 4 teenagers randomly pick a house. Armed with a machete & knife, they break in and brutally stab and slash and gash a mother to death as she lay sleeping in bed. Then turn and apply the same treatment to her 11-yr old daughter - stab, slash and gash her with a machete and knife (dad was away on a business trip). They leave them to their death. They take/steal absolutely nothing. Their only goal was to kill whoever was in the house. Miraculously the little girl survived, but will live a life terribly scarred. They're caught and brought to court. During the trial, none of them denies anything, they confess their only aim was to simply kill. 3 of them expressed regret and remorse - but the leader of the gang laughed out loud in court several times, relishing the attention. He even gleamed and smiled in pride as gory details were recounted and presented. 

I honestly want to know why such a bastard (pls forgive my choice of words) should be allowed to live? People who have shown wanton, lascivious, devilish, reckless, remorseless care for human life - do not deserve to have that same courtesy shown to them. By committing such grave, incomprehensible crimes, they give up the right to be treated as valuable human beings.

I see the point. I share these sentiments. Never doubted them their validity. It’s hard to ague against them.

JeSoul: Maybe I'm merciless.

You certainly are not. Those who ask that those who show complete disregard for human life get what they asked for are not merciless. I don’t even think they are “wrong”. I just feel they are not taking certain things into consideration.

JeSoul: But my mother returning home one evening with her car riddled with bullet holes from a robbery attempt was enough to impact my young mind more than any philosophical or hypothetical musings. I can still remember putting my small fingers into the holes, trying to comprehend what have happened. Evil must be made to face the music for their crimes. Future murderers must be shown that there are grave and severe consequences for taking another human life. Why should they sit in a comfortable jail cell (paid for by me btw) to live out their days while their victims lie 6 feet under?

The death penalty does not deter crime, it has been known to fuel it – there’s a lot of Pro and Con text on that about and I have found one side far more compelling than the other over the years. And most cells certainly aren’t comfortable. An American judge a couple of years back came up with the clever idea of constantly playing. . . wait for it, classical music for inmates! He realized that most inmates hated the cool sounding stuff and hated jail as a result! On a more serious note, I understand some US federal jails are not that bad, but with the rate at which aggressive commercial interests are using prisoners for hard labour in America nowadays I won’t pray for a US jail. Besides you have got to see places like Parchman in Mississippi to believe that “hell is real” is no idle talk. I won’t bore you with details of what I saw when I had an opportunity to meet robbery suspects, many of whom have since been killed, years back at someplace I was quite reliably informed was a hotel compared to a standard Nigerian jail. I do understand that the prison system is flawed, what with AK-47 and M-16-wielding inmates defying soldiers in their fortified cells in Venezuela as we speak here. But the problems with the prison system border largely on sabotage and corruption and are much easier to deal with than that of killing innocents.

JeSoul: I do understand that there are 'degrees of murder' - we should not be rounding them all up and lining em up for the firing squad  - but killers like in my example above, I fully support the DP.
Ah! surely you must know how I feel about China and co . . . those people execute people for looking at them the wrong way, or using the president's toilet. When I say DP, I'm refering to how its practiced in developed and generally 'moral/reasonable' societies - not jungles like many countries in Africa and North Korea and co.

One of these days, the Motley Gang of Nairaland Mugabists is going to come for you at the FA section!

karmrash:
i need a full comprehensive knowledge on the abduction i need to hw frusterated 1 mit be to gone for abduction after years of childless

I'm sure you mean adoption. Yeah, I, too, would like the Islamic view on this.

^^^ Ha! This is the first one naa! The one I mentioned in the Foreign Affairs section I haven't even read, myself.