Kaiserschmarrn wrote:which obviously refers to the sentences handed out by UK courts for those people found guilty for inciting riots. Note that people died during these riots and the destruction brought about by them cost a lot of money. So, your post is off-topic and provides no context (just like mine was but at the same time you are complaining about me not providing context ).
Where did I say they shouldn't be sentenced? My point is the laws in Scandinavian countries are ridiculous. In UK, posting on facebook can even bring more fierce punishment than raping a 10 year old girl in Finland. Got it?
Seems to me your contribution is total confusion.
for example robbery and theft
You're very good at quoting out of context, neglecting my post and keeping making pointless post whatsoever.
Why robbery and theft cannot get you death penalty under any circumstances(even stealing nuclear weapon cannot?)? Where did any article say robbery and theft can always get you death penalty? I clearly said 'All these are reasonable to result in death penalty under certain circumstances, for instance depending on the amount of money involved.' If you have a problem with this statement, then argue about this. Don't bring up the irrelevant robbery and theft which can be applied with the exact same principle and I have to repeat things again and again.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Hence, my point is that the UK is far more civilised than countries like China when it comes to punishment for crimes. China in particular has some barbaric laws. Considering the information of the document I linked earlier, I'm sure you agree?
Agree what? How do you define civilized laws in the first place? China punish criminals harsher than UK so China is barbaric. UK punish criminals harsher than Finland so UK is barbaric?
Each country set laws depending on its own environment and a lot of westerners is still unaware that your 'perfect' system does not work everywhere.
Yeah, it's quite a dirty secret. China executes so many of its own people that it does not dare to tell the world the numbers.
Seriously do you have trouble understanding English? I said this is not at all a dirty secrets compared to others that all nations around the world keep as state secrets, for example the war crimes committed in Iraq.
What's the point to point a finger at other countries' state secret when the state secrets of yours are no less dirty? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.
Is any there idiot seriously trying to lecture others what should be kept as state secrets and what should not? For example keeping the number of execution as secret is immoral because it's against the right to know but keeping the war crimes as secret is justified because you want to keep occupying others' land legitimately?
Give me a break!