It has never been more appropriate a time for the UK to reinstate its long-held death penalty (last used in 1964). With the trial of the Muslim fanatic killers of Lee Rigby, this perfectly is why the death penalty is necessary. These 2 dirtbags, with no regard for human life, filled with hate, and confused as to who good guys and bad guys are, are walking time bombs. To let them live is to akin to insuring the more people will be killed, from their insane Muslim radicalism. Life in prison has always been inappropriate for convicted killers, but it is especially wrong in the case of these deranged Islamic lunatics, as more than confirmed by their statements, and mindsets. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...than_free.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...United_Kingdom
Do you really think these clowns should be allowed to live, at taxpayers expense, all the while spewing their hate messages on forums like this, if not killing someone, all over again ? Well, do you ?
Executions are only for cases that are 100% positive (DNA, on video crime, heavy evidence with confession, etc)" Just as pertinent a question is how many people are being killed because some killer did NOT get the death penalty. How many have have died as a result of the killer being spared. Some criminalogists believe that Al Capone may have killed dozens more people after his incarceration, and he's just one example. "In 1980, the homicide rate in US state prisons was 54 inmates per 100,000. The homicide rate for the general population outside prisons, in 1980 was 10.2 per 100,000." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...than_free.html
Oh, I don't know, thread after thread of hate-filled ramblings complaining about hate-filled individuals?
we are talking about taking a human life vs. allowing human lives to be taken because of NOT taking that human life. How many people will be killed by the convicted killer while he is allowed to remain alive, and able to kill again ? Sure, we must be 100% positive in the case of any execution, and it must be for ONLY these type of cases. But we must not overlook the RISK to the general public of NOT executing someone, and for delaying his execution for much too long, as so often is the case in America. Every day that goes by is another day that the convicted killer could strike again, and history shows they do just that. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...than_free.html
So you have no evidence of anything, just a bland ad hominem personal attack. right ? Got an (that means even ONE) example of a "hate-filled rambling" to show here ? -other than the hate (against me) filled ramblings you're now posting, that is I'll give you credit for one thing though. You did say one thing right >> You said "Oh, I don't know"
Ah the age old question. Is it ok to take a life of someone who took a life? What does that make the first taker? Does the guise of 'law and order' supersede the first commandment (for the religious amongst us)? Now what if you had to perform the execution? Does it make it better when it's out of sight out of mind? Personally I have a hard time with the idea of executions. Part of me believes it has a place when the evidence is incontrovertible, as it saves money for incarceration, and ends any possible chance of escape/parole giving the opportunity to reoffend. The other part of me believes that if I'm not capable of pulling the cord/pressing the button (whatever method used) then putting that on someone else for my own feelings of 'safety' is cowardice on my part.
Sounds reasonable enough. But not everyone can do every job. Lots of people couldn't do a lot of jobs. I couldn't be one of those guys who way up to the top of bridges to paint them, or whatever they do up there. It's a good thing there's a lot of different type of folks around. To answer your previous post about wondering when you'd see your first public meltdown....it's when they close your thread for the 3rd of 4th time in a row, before it's even barely gotten started, and then give some phony reason for doing so. Wonder no more.
But he was referring to threads of the PAST (as he said it). So let him choose among them..He was referring to a certain kind of hate (not like your link) I told you, If there;s informing to do, I'll inform you, now go back to your seat.
Just because someone is in a prison, doesn't mean it's OK for him to be killed. Prison inmates deserve protection from murderers just as much as anyone else. And they often don't get it, as long as the convicted killers didn't get executed, and as such, still represent a risk. http://www.jailsergeant.com/Prison_Inmate_Deaths.html
Doesn't need to be ANY criminologists commenting on it at all, for the person of average intelligence to be convinced. Simply that dangerous convicted killers can kill other inmates in the prison, and/or communicate to others outside to kill people outside the prison, is common sense. And they don't have to be crime lords like Al Capone, or the modern day gang leaders. They could be anyone. This is understood. Convincing isn't necessary (for those of average intelligence or above).
You asked for one example. Whig Out's works (since mine got deleted). So, yeah, hate-filled ramblings.
I think if they are sentenced to life in high security prison then it is very unlikely they will ever harm someone again. Islamists are keen on killing and death penalties, but Britain should not step down to their level, IMHO.
There is a massive difference between a guy painting bridges high up and a man intrusted to end the lives of those we deem not worthy of it. Worlds apart. As for your previous threads, I will just say this. You can say anything you want if you word it right. If you don't, you get you threads shut down. Be less d*ckish in your posts and no one will have any reason to shut you down (valid reason anyway).
