Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

I can see why you feel passionately that some people be punished to the most severe extent for such crimes.. how would u feel if the wrong person was lined up against the wall and murdered in punishment for such a crime and the real person walked free

There is a saying in an old English case called R v Woolmington which states (dont have exact wording) that the golden thread that runs through our justice system is that it is better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man be convicted of a crime he did not commit..

Lining people against the wall does not leave much room for scope.

But I can understand ur passion.. :

Remember Derek Bently the last guy in Britain killed by the death penalty. He was later found to be innocent and what if the Birgmingham 6 and Guilford 4 had been given the death penalty?.

The death penalty is wrong and must be abolished.

I said:

'crime or crimes against humanity of the most heinous, inhuman kind '

and 'should' not ARE.



I am sorry to bring up such a sordid subject:

A mother found that her 18 month year old baby was vomiting frequently but could not discern the cause. She took it to the hospital and the doctors discovered that it was vomiting from its father’s semen.

This is not a one off case (UK).

Rest assured that I would put a needle in the man’s arm and end his existence myself without compunction or compassion. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Indeed, I would have the same thing done to me if I could do such a thing to my own 18 month year old daughter.

I laugh at people who are against the death penalty to prevent heinous crimes, when hundreds and thousands are shot and bombed and blown to bits every year.

Ted Bundy was executed, and even HE agreed in an Interview the day before that people like him deserved the highest punishment the law could deliver.

Our laws are becoming more lenient everyday to the determent of mankind!

It is about setting up counter-motives to destructive human motives as a DETERENT.

I have had a loved one, close to my heart, be accused of a heinous crime, innocent of that crime. I have been there before.

A sociopath does not change. If there is no doubt that he/she has done the crime, then they should shoot him/her in the head, and be done with it. It saves people when that criminal gets out on parole, and plenty of them do, going back to a life of killing and maiming.

The government understands collateral damage, and the States should as well. How old is that saying? With DNA now, they can prove cases beyond the shadow of a doubt. Heck, they are backtracking cold file cases, doing dna tests and finding the killers.

An eye for an eye. Aye?

Im almost tempted by that story but no.. I would give that F**ker Life NO parole.. in a sense its worse for him.. cause Death would be more of a relief...

So far no one has tried to define just what is or constitutes "murder by the state" Is there such a thing as "good murders" or "bad murders" by "the State" Why would there be any differences,(if any) between the State murder of people convicted of certain crimes and covert ops that murder untold numbers of "collateral damage" victims by agents of the State...lines and logic seem to be getting very blurry.
Crowds gather outside prisons that "murder" those supposedly proven guilty of murders that they committed, to protest murder by the State, yet do not gather outside any State Security or Intelligence Agency to protest murders committed by their employees....are those "good murders"...and can continue without any accountability, but let someone not an agent kill someone or several and are convicted and sentenced to die by execution, protesters come out of the proverbial woodwork to protest..?
Then there are those in the places of execution that use the "electric chair" and put a whoopie cushion on the seat....

Aries I agree with ya all the way, life with no chance of parole.

makes one wonder why its called criminal justice? like theres no justice for non crimanals and a lot of times there is not.

"And so to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honour, and peace, until the Gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand."

George Bernard Shaw

and a socialist to boot!

Nothing wrong with that.....if he was a real one!

With all due respect for ol' George, if you know your mythologies, it was the ancient Gods that taught Mankind to murder by their examples. Only one ever expressed any remorse over it...Enki.

It's about taking responsibilty for ones actions...There are years of appeals...There is another saying..."Live by the sword...die by the sword"...I'm sorry but if you decide to commit murder...that's your choice...suffer the consequences!!!!!!!!!

R v Woolmington (1935)

Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006

[1935] AC 462 (House of Lords). Also reported as Woolmington v DPP. The material facts of the case are these: Woolmington's wife left him shortly after their marriage; he went to where she was living and shot and killed her with a shotgun.

Woolmington's defence was that he had not intended to kill his wife. Instead, he intended to kill himself if she would not return. The gun went off accidentally while he was remonstrating with her.

The original trial judge ruled that the case against the defendent was so strong that he would have to demonstrate the accidental nature of the shooting. If he could not do this, then it would be murder.

This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but allowed by the House of Lords. The Lords ruled that however bad things looked for the defendent, he was allowed the benefit of any doubt:

Throughout the web of English law one golden thread is always to be seen: that it is the duty of prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt...

This case was not, of coure, the first time that a defendant in a criminal trial had relied on the maxim ``innocent until proven guilty''. The presumption of innocence is now enshrined in the EuropeanConventionOnHumanRights, but is even now not absolute

Couldnt agree more. If there is NO doubt tak em out!!!!!!!!! It costs WAY TOO much $ keeping these worthless freeks alive. It makes me

Well I'm glad to see you are for FIRM punishment!

I agree with Aries too: the highest punishment the law can deliver. Whatever that may be.

And I know what I would have it be . . .

Good man. Such men are needed.

I disagree. I know what happed in South Africa when the death penalty was abolished.