Why does America care about countries being a islamic state?

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Palax"]

[QUOTE="faisal123456"]When Iran became an islamic state the US government had much critism on them. There is also a lot of critism of islamic law.sentencedogu

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm hoping that it's the humanitarian issues that arise from islamic states. Such as women not having rights, or practicing the age old custom of "stoning" for punishment.

How is "stoning" wrong?

Like in a brutal way? Would you like to be stoned to death? Death is a big deal my friend.

Come now, last time I saw a topic here on the forums. It was about the man who had used his daughter as a sex slave forcefully. Weren't many people commenting on giving him even more brutal deaths than stoning? Personally, i believe that for certain crimes, stoning is appropriate.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Napster06"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Napster06"]

How many are there violent states?

MFaraz_Hayat

Pretty much all of them were violent and/or oppressive. It's the nature of any theocracy in which the religion considers itself and it's members in divine favor, or to a lesser extent, it's the nature of any theocracy with an Abrahamic religion (Even the Jewish kingdoms way back then were violent and oppressive).

Saudi Arabia is theocracic. And earlier I said the generalization was on Islamic theocracies. Not on theocracy overall.

And thus, oppressive, and thats why it sucks.

Islamic theocracies suck. Not because it's Islamic, but because it's a theocracy, and in this day in age, the majority of them happen to be Islamic.

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Napster06"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Napster06"]

How many are there violent states?

whipassmt

Pretty much all of them were violent and/or oppressive. It's the nature of any theocracy in which the religion considers itself and it's members in divine favor, or to a lesser extent, it's the nature of any theocracy with an Abrahamic religion (Even the Jewish kingdoms way back then were violent and oppressive).

Saudi Arabia is theocracic. And earlier I said the generalization was on Islamic theocracies. Not on theocracy overall.

And thus, oppressive, and thats why it sucks.

Islamic theocracies suck. Not because it's Islamic, but because it's a theocracy, and in this day in age, the majority of them happen to be Islamic.

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="RKfromDownunder"]

Because America would prefer they be a Christian state. You know its true. America is a predominantly Christian nation, and has historically been rather unaccepting of other religions, with the notable exception of judasim.

Name ONE religion, other than Islam, that America (as a nation) has been intolerant of. Go on. Try it.

Name me a theocracy better than any secular nation. Go on. Try it. The whole reason America was great for so long was because the constitution was based on secular ideals, and invariably secular ideals defend religion more than religious ones do!

Because you're so tolerant and accepting?

Let's see, theocracies that are better than America. . . .Egypt? Nah, what did they do, other than rule the world for a few centuries? China? No, since when did medicine ever do anything for the world? Greece? No, astronomy is useless. . . . .gee, it seems you're right.:roll:

Dracargen

Uhhh...yea...kinda just made you look like an idiot...

Did you happen to miss these words?

"AS A NATION."

The United States AS A NATION has never opposed a religion unless it was extremely violent. What you linked to is an article about people in America who are antisemitist.

Yeah, you certainly made someone look like an idiot.

You knew about the whole American antisemitism thing before I even linked it, I take it?

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

MFaraz_Hayat

No, it is not that low. And your point is totally irrelevent to the point I made.

"But aren't car accidents highest in Saudi Arabia, even though they banned alcohol?"

See, that's totally irrelevent.

You knew about the whole American antisemitism thing before I even linked it, I take it?

Video_Game_King

Yes. . . .I know about the Great Depression. But as the article says, Jewish Americans enjoy a comfortable life in America just like any other follower of any other religion.

Come now, last time I saw a topic here on the forums. It was about the man who had used his daughter as a sex slave forcefully. Weren't many people commenting on giving him even more brutal deaths than stoning? Personally, i believe that for certain crimes, stoning is appropriate.

MFaraz_Hayat

He is probably arguing against the situations in which stoning is used. Many of them are not justifiable.

But there is also the fact that stoning requires a group of people rather than a single person.

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

MFaraz_Hayat

Laws are meant to punish, not prevent. Laws don't "work against" anything, they are rules made by the judgement of people. Besides, if a person steals, and you cut his hand off, you are the one who is worse in the wrong. One person stole something that can probably be replaced, the other disables him for the rest of his life.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

The_Ish

Laws are meant to punish, not prevent. Laws don't "work against" anything, they are rules made by the judgement of people. Besides, if a person steals, and you cut his hand off, you are the one who is worse in the wrong. One person stole something that can probably be replaced, the other disables him for the rest of his life.

You can't change his mind. As I mentioned earlierit's about the education. There is no true justification for this case because of cultural relativism.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

The_Ish

No, it is not that low. And your point is totally irrelevent to the point I made.

"But aren't car accidents highest in Saudi Arabia, even though they banned alcohol?"

See, that's totally irrelevent.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

The_Ish

Laws are meant to punish, not prevent. Laws don't "work against" anything, they are rules made by the judgement of people. Besides, if a person steals, and you cut his hand off, you are the one who is worse in the wrong. One person stole something that can probably be replaced, the other disables him for the rest of his life.

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

So, what you'r basically saying is that Laws are not meant to prevent. Well my friend, they are meant to punish and then prevent crime out of fear of punishment. If laws are not meant to prevent, then what is the use of them. People should just keep comitting crimes and get punished. This is not practical....

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

whipassmt

No, it is not that low. And your point is totally irrelevent to the point I made.

"But aren't car accidents highest in Saudi Arabia, even though they banned alcohol?"

See, that's totally irrelevent.

So who said that in Saudi Arabia, Islamic laws have been implemented to their best? In certain cases they are good in others they are not.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

The_Ish

No, it is not that low. And your point is totally irrelevent to the point I made.

"But aren't car accidents highest in Saudi Arabia, even though they banned alcohol?"

See, that's totally irrelevent.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

MFaraz_Hayat

Exactly...your are making a permanent solution to an temporary problem. Besides, cutting off someone's hand is much worse than stealing. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point. :(

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

The_Ish

Exactly...your are making a permanent solution to an temporary problem. Besides, cutting off someone's hand is much worse than stealing. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point. :(

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

MFaraz_Hayat

Exactly...your are making a permanent solution to an temporary problem. Besides, cutting off someone's hand is much worse than stealing. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point. :(

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

whipassmt

Exactly...your are making a permanent solution to an temporary problem. Besides, cutting off someone's hand is much worse than stealing. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point. :(

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

Wow, big deal. You're an American and you defend American ideas and traditions.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

You knew about the whole American antisemitism thing before I even linked it, I take it?

Dracargen

Yes. . . .I know about the Great Depression. But as the article says, Jewish Americans enjoy a comfortable life in America just like any other follower of any other religion.

:x You and your present tense :P!

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Well, i believe that if a person is stealing for greed, he should be punished in this manner. Like I said, this punishment of cutting hands need not be given in all circumstances. First, investigations have to be made, the magnitude of crime is to be judged.

whipassmt

Exactly...your are making a permanent solution to an temporary problem. Besides, cutting off someone's hand is much worse than stealing. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if car accidents are highest in Arabia, alcohol is not the only factor controlling it. If we look at other crimes such as rape, stealing etc. they are usually commited due to evil motives.

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point. :(

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

Who defends what is not the question. It is the question that whether it is right or wrong that one is defending.

BTW, if muslims are not going to defend Islamic rules, who is????

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

MFaraz_Hayat

You missed the point yet again. Crimes aren't always committed over and over again by the same person, especially if they are rehabilitated after serving out their debt to society.

BTW, if muslims are not going to defend Islamic rules, who is????

MFaraz_Hayat

The rules you defend are not Islamic, they are archaic.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

What part of his statement was misleading? Islamic theocracies do have a history of being violent.

Palax

as do other theocracies, but one could make the assumption based on this post that Islamic theocracies are...renowned for being so.

They are "renowned for being so." But the poster didn't make a statement that only Islamic Theocracies have a history of violence. Within the context of the topic it was accurate and not misleading.

If you look back far enough then you would see that every country at some point in time could be perceived as having a violent history. I don't think the post was inaccurate or misleading, but I do think that it was a pathetic answer to the question, and by being so pathetic I gathered that it was a statement made out of prejudice.

Yes I do feel the prejudice from him.Marth6781

Are you sure that's my prejudice you're feeling, and not just an ulcer?:roll:

I'm not prejudiced against. . . .what, exactly? God forbid I keep the topic in context.

I'm not prejudiced against. . . .what, exactly? God forbid I keep the topic in context.

Dracargen

I dunno. what are you not prejudiced against?

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

LEt me remind you, that crime as such is not a temporary problem. It is comitted again and again. And the only way to stop it, is to cause fear of punishment for on'es wrong actions. For you not agreeing to the punishment, is just difference of opinions.

Oh, and can you explain that point plz...

The_Ish

You missed the point yet again. Crimes aren't always committed over and over again by the same person, especially if they are rehabilitated after serving out their debt to society.

BTW, if muslims are not going to defend Islamic rules, who is????

MFaraz_Hayat

The rules you defend are not Islamic, they are archaic.

[QUOTE="Marth6781"] Yes I do feel the prejudice from him.Dracargen

Are you sure that's my prejudice you're feeling, and not just an ulcer?:roll:

I'm not prejudiced against. . . .what, exactly? God forbid I keep the topic in context.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

I'm not prejudiced against. . . .what, exactly? God forbid I keep the topic in context.

Hewkii

I dunno. what are you not prejudiced against?

Religion.:|

I'm prejudiced against drug users and neo-atheist fundamentalists. . . . .I'm just loud at everything else.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="Marth6781"] Yes I do feel the prejudice from him.Marth6781

Are you sure that's my prejudice you're feeling, and not just an ulcer?:roll:

I'm not prejudiced against. . . .what, exactly? God forbid I keep the topic in context.

I swear, people who keep bringing up Christianity go on about how I'M prejudiced. . . .take a look in the mirror; you're bringing up my beliefs in a topic that has nothing to do with them in a desperate attempt to somehow discredit what I have to say about Islamic theocracies. Which of us shows greater signs of prejudice?

How so? Anyways by your logic the US punishment system is also archaic, when minorities are given more time for the same crime problems are obvious. When people can buy their way out, and since trials are based on the opinion of a group of jury who can be inherently biased/prejudice. People have DIED in the US for crimes they navent committed, some even spending majority of their lives in prison. IF this IS NOT archaic then what is?Marth6781

Ooh boy...there are a lot of fallacious arguments here. Lets start:

Anyways by your logic the US punishment system is also archaic, when minorities are given more time for the same crime problems are obvious.Marth6781

Lol, no.

Minorities do not get harsher punishments. The law treats equally. If you murder someone, steal from someone, or hurt someone, you get the same punishment regardless of race, religion, and usually, sex. I'd really like to see proof of your claim otherwise, since your the one who brought it up.

When people can buy their way out Marth6781

People do not buy there way out. No one does. You can post for bail if the judge allows it, or get a lawyer you trust before the court case. That is it.

and since trials are based on the opinion of a group of jury who can be inherently biased/prejudice. Marth6781

That's why they ask you if you have any prejudices against anyone before they give out the details of the trial, no matter what.

People have DIED in the US for crimes they navent committed, some even spending majority of their lives in prison. IF this IS NOT archaic then what is?Marth6781

Of course people have. Like in every law system. Or is human error only a trait of the American court system? :roll:

[QUOTE="Marth6781"]How so? Anyways by your logic the US punishment system is also archaic, when minorities are given more time for the same crime problems are obvious. When people can buy their way out, and since trials are based on the opinion of a group of jury who can be inherently biased/prejudice. People have DIED in the US for crimes they navent committed, some even spending majority of their lives in prison. IF this IS NOT archaic then what is?The_Ish

Ooh boy...there are a lot of fallacious arguments here. Lets start:

Anyways by your logic the US punishment system is also archaic, when minorities are given more time for the same crime problems are obvious.Marth6781

Lol, no.

Minorities do not get harsher punishments. The law treats equally. If you murder someone, steal from someone, or hurt someone, you get the same punishment regardless of race, religion, and usually, sex. I'd really like to see proof of your claim otherwise, since your the one who brought it up.

When people can buy their way out Marth6781

People do not buy there way out. No one does. You can post for bail if the judge allows it, or get a lawyer you trust before the court case. That is it.

and since trials are based on the opinion of a group of jury who can be inherently biased/prejudice. Marth6781

That's why they ask you if you have any prejudices against anyone before they give out the details of the trial, no matter what.

People have DIED in the US for crimes they navent committed, some even spending majority of their lives in prison. IF this IS NOT archaic then what is?Marth6781

Of course people have. Like in every law system. Or is human error only a trait of the American court system? :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Stop living under a rock, law cannot be equal.

[QUOTE="Napster06"]

And remember, Al Qaeda does not attack for no apparent reason.

streak000

This is a horribly misguided comment. Nothing happens for no reason, but I think that Al Qaeda tends to be a little too extreme in their responses to these "reasons"... No reason can justify 9/11, and I'm not even American.

I certainly don't like the Christian nuts who enjoy so much power in the US nowadays, and I hate the policies of the current US government. Yet, I find that Al Qaeda have absolutely no excuses. It's a loosely connected association of utter lunatics and suicidal halfwits. Their only "reason" is to cause as much death and destruction as they can, so that the West will fear them. They murder indiscriminately, and it's hard to see any rhyme or "reason" to their actions, other than instability and carnage. And I, my good sir, do not like those "reasons".

And the biggest tragedy is that they still manage to find support among the misinformed or disillusioned Muslims from all over the world, who make excuses for them, and try to justify their despicable acts.

Yes I condemned very much all attacks that is carried out by Al Qaeda and same goes with what America is doing.

Al Qaeda did not strike the first blow but rather they striked hard.

Terrorism is a disease, the attacks are the symptoms and what is the cause of terrorism? You probably know very well Al Qaeda isn't.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

MFaraz_Hayat

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

So let's examine MFaraz_Hayat's views in a little detail, shall we? He is actually in favour of the government ruling by fear, as long as the crime rate is low. He believes that amputating someone's hand for stealing is an appropriate punishment. Further, he sees nothing wrong with public stoning.

How is it possible that a rational human being would actually support these barbarous views and practices? It makes me sad. It has nothing to do with religion or different cultures. Sharia Law is barbaric, and there is absolutely no justification for it. It actually scares me a little bit to see first hand that some people would actually try to justify the apalling crimes against human rights described above. You, Faraz, should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. I shudder to imagine what your views on womens' rights are....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Stop living under a rock, law cannot be equal.

Marth6781

Best merit-less response ever! :lol:

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But isn't crime rate in Suadi Arabia extremely low?

streak000

I don't see any other type of laws working against crime, this effectively.If it is fear of law and punishment that prevents people from comitting crimes then so be it.

BTW, not all types of stealing are punished in Islam. If a person steals to feed his family, he should be pardoned, given food and the government should take responsibilty of feeding them to prevent them from stealing in future. This was made clear during the rule of Hazrat Umar.

So let's examine MFaraz_Hayat's views in a little detail, shall we? He is actually in favour of the government ruling by fear, as long as the crime rate is low. He believes that amputating someone's hand for stealing is an appropriate punishment. Further, he sees nothing wrong with public stoning.

How is it possible that a rational human being would actually support these barbarous views and practices? It makes me sad. It has nothing to do with religion or different cultures. Sharia Law is barbaric, and there is absolutely no justification for it. It actually scares me a little bit to see first hand that some people would actually try to justify the apalling crimes against human rights described above. You, Faraz, should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. I shudder to imagine what your views on womens' rights are....

You misunderstoond me ( whether intentionally or unintentionally, i don't know). According to my "views" only criminals need to be in fear of the law. If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to fear. I believe, that if via fear criminals can be stopped from comitting crimes, then what is wrong with that? It only means that wrong-doers are the ones to be punished, not the innocent. When did I say, that the government should rule by employing fear tactics? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said, that government should employ laws so as to instill fear in hearts of criminals, to prevent them from comitting crimes. If you think that is wrong, then we must disagree.

Once again, stealing has many criterias. Before amputation, crime and motive need to be investigated in. A person driven by need should always be exempted. And talking about public stoning, I have said in my previoius post that it is correct for certain crimes. Was it not on this very forum, that people were talking about skinning that man alive and sprinkling salt on him, who had used his daughter as a sex slave? Stoning is certainly less "barbaric" than that.

I am not ashamed of my opinions. They are my own to analyze and correct. BTW, who are you to tell me that I should be ashamed of myself? Do you think that your words are of any worth to me? Are my words of any worth to you?

P.S. I believe in equal rights for women.

[QUOTE="Marth6781"]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Stop living under a rock, law cannot be equal.

The_Ish

Best merit-less response ever! :lol:

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

Marth6781

Wrong, as before.

I don't think you understand how the law works at all.

[QUOTE="Marth6781"]

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

The_Ish

Wrong, as before.

I don't think you understand how the law works at all.

Rich people who can afford good lawyers get acquitted more often than poor people who are given public defenders. I think that's what this person meant when he mentioned people buying their way out.

Just look at O.J. Simpson. Do you think O.J. Simpson would have been declared innocent if O.J. had a public defender?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Marth6781"]

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

Palax

Wrong, as before.

I don't think you understand how the law works at all.

Rich people who can afford good lawyers get acquitted more often than poor people who are given public defenders. I think that's what this person meant when he mentioned people buying their way out.

Just look at O.J. Simpson. Do you think O.J. Simpson would have been declared innocent if O.J. had a public defender?

Do you?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Marth6781"]

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

Palax

Wrong, as before.

I don't think you understand how the law works at all.

Rich people who can afford good lawyers get acquitted more often than poor people who are given public defenders. I think that's what this person meant when he mentioned people buying their way out.

Just look at O.J. Simpson. Do you think O.J. Simpson would have been declared innocent if O.J. had a public defender?

exactly, and theres much more, but you seem to not see it happen all around you.

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Marth6781"]

doesn't matter, in the REAL WORLD law isnt equal.

The_Ish

Wrong, as before.

I don't think you understand how the law works at all.

Rich people who can afford good lawyers get acquitted more often than poor people who are given public defenders. I think that's what this person meant when he mentioned people buying their way out.

Just look at O.J. Simpson. Do you think O.J. Simpson would have been declared innocent if O.J. had a public defender?

Do you?

I do and I am 110% sure O.J. would be in prison if he couldn't afford the lawyers that he had.

Having a public defender pretty much seals your fate.

exactly, and theres much more, but you seem to not see it happen all around you.

Marth6781

Hilarious, because you can't make your own points or back them up with evidence.

The better the lawyer, the less likely you will be proven guilty, because of the lawyer's skill in proving your innocence, rather than the judge or jury going easier on you. Granted, that means not everyone can buy top notch lawyers, but one can be allowed to change their lawyers if they wish. You obviously don't know how the law works from what I have seen you post about it.

[QUOTE="Marth6781"]

exactly, and theres much more, but you seem to not see it happen all around you.

The_Ish

Hilarious, because you can't make your own points or back them up with evidence.

The better the lawyer, the less likely you will be proven guilty, because of the lawyer's skill in proving your innocence, rather than the judge or jury going easier on you. Granted, that means not everyone can buy top notch lawyers, but one can be allowed to change their lawyers if they wish. You obviously don't know how the law works from what I have seen you post about it.

Good lawyers also know a lot about Jury selection and getting cases moved to avoid certain judges.

I do and I am 110% sure O.J. would be in prison if he couldn't afford the lawyers that he had.

Having a public defender pretty much seals your fate.

Palax

You don't know that. I doubt you could have done much better, or anyone for that matter.

No it doesn't. Not only is that untrue, since there are plenty of cases in which the less wealthy defender wins the court case, but thats also insulting to the capabilities of public lawyers in general. Nice job.

And other than that, his entire argument was that our Law system is archaic...which it's not. Especially compared to those in the Middle East.

Good lawyers also know a lot about Jury selection and getting cases moved to avoid certain judges.

Palax

And competent lawyers know they can appeal to different courts.

It all balances out.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

I do and I am 110% sure O.J. would be in prison if he couldn't afford the lawyers that he had.

Having a public defender pretty much seals your fate.

The_Ish

You don't know that. I doubt you could have done much better, or anyone for that matter.

No it doesn't. Not only is that untrue, since there are plenty of cases in which the less wealthy defender wins the court case, but thats also insulting to the capabilities of public lawyers in general. Nice job.

And other than that, his entire argument was that our Law system is archaic...which it's not. Especially compared to those in the Middle East.

LOL.....you know you wouldn't take a public defender over a hot shot if it was your ass in court. I'm not insulting public lawyers....I'm just stating the obvious. You get what you pay for.

LOL.....you know you wouldn't take a public defender over a hot shot if it was your ass in court. I'm not insulting public lawyers....I'm just stating the obvious. You get what you pay for.

Palax

Of course I would not, I'd get a lawyer I can trust, even though public defenders are sufficient. What is your point?

When Iran became an islamic state the US government had much critism on them. There is also a lot of critism of islamic law.faisal123456

No different than our great distaste for communism. The fact is America thinks they' know better and go around the World trying to make everyone like them.

We don't know better. No one does. The only person that knows better is the one with more guns and angrier people.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

LOL.....you know you wouldn't take a public defender over a hot shot if it was your ass in court. I'm not insulting public lawyers....I'm just stating the obvious. You get what you pay for.

The_Ish

Of course I would not, I'd get a lawyer I can trust, even though public defenders are sufficient. What is your point?

So Public Defenders can't be trusted? Guess I already made my point.