They committed a CRIME and should be deported back to their shithole.
Why would you want them to go to in another country where they can continue to rape people?
Thank you for disagreeing with me without downvoteing. This isn't hyperbole, I think it's a very honorable practice. Voat should learn from people like you.
It's not that I want them to go to another country per-se, but there are variables which supersede this particular case.
1-The criminal justice system isn't anywhere close to 100% accurate 2-Some people are wrongly convicted. 3-It seems reasonable that the punishment for a crime ought to be considered for deportation.
Example: A Hong Konger who had publicly defaced a statue of Mao, took a video of himself burning a picture of Xi Jinping and beat up a mainland Chinese cop who was molesting a woman. He escapes to the US and due to bribery, or political threats is convinced of some crime he didn't commit. Now he is set to be deported where he may suffer grievous injury or death.
(This example is not the norm, or average. This is very unlikely but possible in form.)
The option for exile, as opposed to deportation seems to be able to fix several problems: 1) malicious prosecution 2) disproportionate punishment 3) toxicly altruistic soyboys demanding that they stay here because the punishment at their home would be too severe.
Exile doesn't guarantee that the individual won't go back to his home country, it provides a safety valve for those wrongfully persecuted. Ok, so these fucks for sure can't stay in our country (or in this case the UK) but if some other country has reason to believe that they hadn't committed the crime, or that the process of justice was not followed well enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, let that sovereign nation take the chance and petition for their custody; or let the criminals petition said government for asylum there.
I hope this better explains my comment. Thank you for your feedback.
edit- Tried to send you a private messge but I don't think it worked for some reason.
I upvoted you because you asked a legitimate question and your feedback was clearly thoughtful: Also, despite disagreeing with me you didn't hit the 'disagree' button.
Thank you for disagreeing with me without downvoteing. This isn't hyperbole, I think it's a very honorable practice. Voat should learn from people like you
and I happen to be Poal's admin, and we don't consider the downvote as a "I disagree" button as mentioned in the welcome page: https://poal.co/welcome
Your example, while making an interesting argument, can't be compared to convicted gang rapists.
The HK dude was in his own country
- The 8 Iraqi rapists are muslim refugees who committed a crime in a host country especially knowing that crime is 'supposedly' punishable by death in their home country.
Deporting them back there is totally justified.
You don't want to get deported, don't commit crime in your host country. It's as simple as that.
They don't deserve empathy, since they have proven as muslims that they don't have empathy for infidels and gang rape non-muslim women as they please, like mentioned in their shitty holy books.
Yes, AOU, I understand, and understood that you guys are Admin. That doesn't diminish how much I appreciate your keeping to your own ideals. For instance, reddit claimed to be free speech and that is of course laughable. Voat claims to be free speech, and to some extent is, but heavily penalizes those who vary from the hive mind by more than 10 or 15%.
Thank you for a fair critique of my example. I agree, that deporting them to their home country is totally justified. I don't agree (obviously I may be, and am often wrong) that the death penalty is justified for rape cases (I don't trust government officials to make such a claim, but would be completely fine with a victim being found not guilty of murder by way of self defence; or a "good Samaritan" not guilty because he(most likely) or she (improbable, but possible) defended a victim with deadly force.
>Your example, while making an interesting argument, can't be compared to convicted gang rapists.
Yes you , of course, are correct. My fictitious example doesn't compare well to gang rapist mussies. Specifically tried to make a hypothetical that you might feel more empathy for to illustrate why I think exile could potentially be more appropriate as a general rule.
To some extent I suppose our (equally valid) philosophies might differ from the start. I'd prefer that 10 criminals go free if it means that one innocent person is not wrongly convicted.
>You don't want to get deported, don't commit crime in your host country. It's as simple as that.
Also agreed, generally.
>They don't deserve empathy, since they have proven as muslims that they don't have empathy for infidels
I know that this is a minority viewpoint on Poal, but I don't think that muzzies don't deserve empathy per-se. They have proven to be much more likely to engage in horrendous crime, and, as such, ought to be viewed with suspicion and caution, but that, in and of itself, does not preclude them from empathy. Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue. Thank you for sharing yours.
I don't think that the death penalty is appropriate for rape,
*proceeds to post example of a guy who committed a crime in his own country while assaulting someone for molesting a women*
oNe Of ThEsE tHiNgS iS nOt LiKe ThE oThEr.
HONK HONK.
Thank you for the reply, and while I generally apprecite the "Honk Honk" meme, in this case, I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to elaborate?
(post is archived)