bring back the noose (98)
It has been proven that the Capital Punishment does not deter criminals ... they believe they will commit their crimes and get away with it .. 
Hard labour is what should be put back into the prison system ..
I'd like to see some CriMs swing from a tree too ... though offing people is not the answer either ...
We are not barbarians ... lets not adopt their ideals ...
jmo of course .....
Hard labour is what should be put back into the prison system ..
I'd like to see some CriMs swing from a tree too ... though offing people is not the answer either ...
We are not barbarians ... lets not adopt their ideals ...
jmo of course .....
human beings dont deserve to be hung by the neck.Even when they commit a crimeand are tried for it,but when a human being turns into a killing machine,like in norway recently,or when a deranged individual beats an aged pensioner to death,that individual has lost its right to live on planet earth,its no longer a human being its a terrorist and should be put out of its misery and let the maggots do the rest of the work six feet under.jmo
_PrOwLeR: It has been proven that the Capital Punishment does not deter criminals ... they believe they will commit their crimes and get away with it ..
Hard labour is what should be put back into the prison system ..
I'd like to see some CriMs swing from a tree too ... though offing people is not the answer either ...
We are not barbarians ... lets not adopt their ideals ... jmo of course .....
While you are right capital punishment isn’t a deterrent, however it does weed out the gene pool.Hard labour is what should be put back into the prison system ..
I'd like to see some CriMs swing from a tree too ... though offing people is not the answer either ...
We are not barbarians ... lets not adopt their ideals ... jmo of course .....
AgentAjax: While you are right capital punishment isn’t a deterrent, however it does weed out the gene pool.
AgentAjax: While you are right capital punishment isn’t a deterrent, however it does weed out the gene pool.
Depends AA ... I am of the belief that most scum breed at an early age ...
kind of like a perpetual cycle if you will ....
Sadly there are two forces in this world ... GooD and EviL ... some people are just purely EviL ... Tis just another sad fact of life ....
pebbles8bambam: human beings dont deserve to be hung by the neck.Even when they commit a crimeand are tried for it,but when a human being turns into a killing machine,like in norway recently,or when a deranged individual beats an aged pensioner to death,that individual has lost its right to live on planet earth,its no longer a human being its a terrorist and should be put out of its misery and let the maggots do the rest of the work six feet under.jmo
PeBB's the governments of the day closed up all the institutions where these sorts of mentally deranged folk were once kept ...
They were tipped into the street and put in amongst main stream society. (to save money basically)
Most are fine whilst loaded up with the many medications that is needed to keep many of these potential monsters calm ...
Its our fault as a community also for allowing this to happen ..and happen it will again and again and again pebb's ...
Why blame the animal ?? it knows what it does, why not take your angst and anger somewhere as a collective voice to attempt to keep these creatures off the streets in a productive way ...
again mate ... just my thoughts ...
It was once pointed out to me that the government acts on our behalf. Therefore unless you can pull the lever, or push the button on the convicted criminal yourself... can you legitimately ask anyone else to do it for you?
I agree with Prowler that the prison system is too easy. I rather like the 'tent cities' they have in the US. If they are convicted of a crime, they should lose rights. That is their punishment. Instead we have a prison system where they have better gyms than the ones we pay a thousand dollars a year to attend, they have good food ( not that I am adverse to basic living conditions, but should 'good' necessarily be better than some welfare people in Australia), they have access to satellite TV... For some of them, they live better on the inside than the out.
I agree with Prowler that the prison system is too easy. I rather like the 'tent cities' they have in the US. If they are convicted of a crime, they should lose rights. That is their punishment. Instead we have a prison system where they have better gyms than the ones we pay a thousand dollars a year to attend, they have good food ( not that I am adverse to basic living conditions, but should 'good' necessarily be better than some welfare people in Australia), they have access to satellite TV... For some of them, they live better on the inside than the out.
Just a question with a reverse scenario…. something you have heard many times over but probably never had the time to think it over.
A person claims, if his life’s effort saves one life then his life and his efforts would have been worth the sacrifice… and the crowd stands up in applause
If the same person ends up on jury duty and he wrongly sends a person to death… will he still get the same applause for he’s efforts?
A person claims, if his life’s effort saves one life then his life and his efforts would have been worth the sacrifice… and the crowd stands up in applause
If the same person ends up on jury duty and he wrongly sends a person to death… will he still get the same applause for he’s efforts?
Abagail: You just advocated the death penalty for kidnapping. Tell me, how does it work when it's a desperate plight of a man who loves his children, and removes them from their mother, because he misses them desperately. However, because he does not have custody, this is considered 'kidnapping'.
So, let's kill him, shall we? After all, why on earth would you show compassion for a man whose crime is based from love?
So, let's kill him, shall we? After all, why on earth would you show compassion for a man whose crime is based from love?
I do not class custody disputes as kidnapping, though I am sure the radical feminists would love to kill as many men as possible.
Carl96190: I do not class custody disputes as kidnapping, though I am sure the radical feminists would love to kill as many men as possible.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is a point of law. It is kidnapping. Is it right?
Radical feminists? hmmm... Interesting term. One would think they are on your list of likely people to put to death too, after all , you personally do not agree with them.
The simple cowboy life, eh Rock?
Yep, they never got things wrong... and if they did, they could always tie another one up.
Abagail: Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is a point of law. It is kidnapping. Is it right?
Radical feminists? hmmm... Interesting term. One would think they are on your list of likely people to put to death too, after all , you personally do not agree with them.
Radical feminists? hmmm... Interesting term. One would think they are on your list of likely people to put to death too, after all , you personally do not agree with them.
No, all that needs to happen to neutralise these loonies is for their real agenda to be exposed.
Even women who call themselves feminists generally have no clue about the real agenda of the loonie left feminists, even though they have been thoughtful enough to publish it and talk about it openly.
As for custody disputes, under my version of the New Order that would not be kidnapping.
AgentAjax: Just a question with a reverse scenario…. something you have heard many times over but probably never had the time to think it over. A person claims, if his life’s effort saves one life then his life and his efforts would have been worth the sacrifice… and the crowd stands up in applause If the same person ends up on jury duty and he wrongly sends a person to death… will he still get the same applause for he’s efforts?
A person on jury duty is doing their civic duty, they have not personally chosen to sit on that particular case. ( Can you imagine the implications IF you were allowed to choose the case?) Therefore , they are choosing their verdict based on the facts and information given to them. So while they were wrong... and an innocent man or woman goes to their death... Can they be held accountable? One would not think that doing one's civic duty would bring about applause either...
However, I can see where you are going with this. For instance, an ambulance officer is the one sitting on the jury... he saves lives and helps people in life. You can applaud his personal choices. If he sat on a stand and wrongly convicted someone, would you still hold him in esteem? The fine line here is drawn because they are presented with the case, the facts... wouldn't you be holding the person responsible who presented the facts that were not in fact true.
Carl96190: No, all that needs to happen to neutralise these loonies is for their real agenda to be exposed.
Even women who call themselves feminists generally have no clue about the real agenda of the loonie left feminists, even though they have been thoughtful enough to publish it and talk about it openly.
As for custody disputes, under my version of the New Order that would not be kidnapping.
Even women who call themselves feminists generally have no clue about the real agenda of the loonie left feminists, even though they have been thoughtful enough to publish it and talk about it openly.
As for custody disputes, under my version of the New Order that would not be kidnapping.
Under your version? So of course, this leads me to ask... what are your qualifications to undertake this task of writing your own order?
Abagail: A person on jury duty is doing their civic duty, they have not personally chosen to sit on that particular case. ( Can you imagine the implications IF you were allowed to choose the case?) Therefore , they are choosing their verdict based on the facts and information given to them. So while they were wrong... and an innocent man or woman goes to their death... Can they be held accountable? One would not think that doing one's civic duty would bring about applause either...
However, I can see where you are going with this. For instance, an ambulance officer is the one sitting on the jury... he saves lives and helps people in life. You can applaud his personal choices. If he sat on a stand and wrongly convicted someone, would you still hold him in esteem? The fine line here is drawn because they are presented with the case, the facts... wouldn't you be holding the person responsible who presented the facts that were not in fact true.
However, I can see where you are going with this. For instance, an ambulance officer is the one sitting on the jury... he saves lives and helps people in life. You can applaud his personal choices. If he sat on a stand and wrongly convicted someone, would you still hold him in esteem? The fine line here is drawn because they are presented with the case, the facts... wouldn't you be holding the person responsible who presented the facts that were not in fact true.
How many times have you seen crims beating the system while many innocent spending the best part of their life behind bars.
What I was actually saying- Sending one wrongly accused person to death it is not the same as spending your life trying to save a life. Yet one comes with reward while the other is dismissed as poor judgment. However it does make everybody on that jury duty a murderer by conscious.
conscience 
AgentAjax: conscience
I don't agree with them being murderers. IF they chose to condemn the person based on their personal feelings towards them, ie. they don't like their nationality, their looks, they tattoo, piercings etc... Then that would be different.
The person making a choice on a jury is doing so with the evidence before them. If the evidence is flawed, one has to ask why? Who compiled it? A police officer? A coroner? Scientists?
There is no perfect answer for situations like these. It's the same as someone stopping to render first aid. They cannot always know of a condition that their patient may have. Whilst they are doing everything to aid that person, they may unwittingly be their cause of death. Should the first aider not offer that person assistance at all? And would you consider that first aider culpable?
Abagail: I don't agree with them being murderers. IF they chose to condemn the person based on their personal feelings towards them, ie. they don't like their nationality, their looks, they tattoo, piercings etc... Then that would be different.
The person making a choice on a jury is doing so with the evidence before them. If the evidence is flawed, one has to ask why? Who compiled it? A police officer? A coroner? Scientists?
There is no perfect answer for situations like these. It's the same as someone stopping to render first aid. They cannot always know of a condition that their patient may have. Whilst they are doing everything to aid that person, they may unwittingly be their cause of death. Should the first aider not offer that person assistance at all? And would you consider that first aider culpable?
big question isint it. Years ago many nurses coped the raw end of that deal for doing exactly that… providing first aid outside of hospital where the victim died.The person making a choice on a jury is doing so with the evidence before them. If the evidence is flawed, one has to ask why? Who compiled it? A police officer? A coroner? Scientists?
There is no perfect answer for situations like these. It's the same as someone stopping to render first aid. They cannot always know of a condition that their patient may have. Whilst they are doing everything to aid that person, they may unwittingly be their cause of death. Should the first aider not offer that person assistance at all? And would you consider that first aider culpable?
More Threads
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
s*xual skills
Kultur-multur
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
men's perspective towards women
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
4,316 Views
97 Comments
Created: Jan 2012
Last Viewed: Apr 23
Last Commented: Jan 2012
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
- Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
- s*xual skills
- Kultur-multur
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- men's perspective towards women
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
they wont take a second bite at a banana when its full of bones