It was a dark day in history yesterday...
-
TorstenH. wrote:
If she is no thread,
If she is no threat
Ah :laugh: ok, yes. Too much coding, now I see.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
because: 0. he will never again have a social stable life. especially if he caused the death of 4 children. 1. most criminals are repeat offenders (believe me, i live in Brazil, here we listen to things like "...he is being arrested by the tenth time...") 2. in the specific case of this thread, she deserved capital punishment. the rape of 6 underaged girls and death of 4? I do not want to live on the same planet as her. she has to leave. :mad: 3. we are too soft with those criminals. we need to go back to the old empires methods. ten thousand lashes in public square for each girl. :mad: and yes, lists start in 0.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
and yes, lists start in 0.
:thumbsup: She was a sidekick in this thing. I don't know much about that case - it's too long ago and I did not spent much attention to it at that time. But as this is a highly critical watched thing too release here from jail, the decision makers will have made it not easy.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
Edit: now I figured it. The "Thread" :laugh: *You're That's the law. I did not invent it. But serious: if someone would get out of jail after 10 years and is in jail making a good progress - why not release him after 6 years and get'em back to a social stable life?
regards Torsten When I'm not working
TorstenH. wrote:
But serious: if someone would get out of jail after 10 years and is in jail making a good progress - why not release him after 6 years and get'em back to a social stable life?
In principle I agree, but in this case it is a clear no,no. if you need one objective reason: she already had her chance in 1992 when she was released early for a similar crime. Would Breivik also have the chance to be released early you think?
V.
-
because: 0. he will never again have a social stable life. especially if he caused the death of 4 children. 1. most criminals are repeat offenders (believe me, i live in Brazil, here we listen to things like "...he is being arrested by the tenth time...") 2. in the specific case of this thread, she deserved capital punishment. the rape of 6 underaged girls and death of 4? I do not want to live on the same planet as her. she has to leave. :mad: 3. we are too soft with those criminals. we need to go back to the old empires methods. ten thousand lashes in public square for each girl. :mad: and yes, lists start in 0.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
It is an easy conclusion to call for the death penalty. At what point do you introduce the death penalty? Only for killing minors or more than one person? As soon as there is a threshold, what do you do about the person who kills someone a day after the age limit? Or only kills one person but assaults hundreds? At what point do you decide this one lives or dies? ANY murder should result in the death penalty? What about a mercy killing? This is a big issue at the moment here in the UK. It is still murder, the pre-meditated taking of a life, so should they be hung as well? Even with an absolute defensible limit, how much evidence is needed? The number of acquittals and retrials occurring for people found guilty of multiple murder 10,20, even 30 years ago is worrying. What if these men and women had been executed for the crimes we now know for certain they did not commit? The taking of a life is to me morally indefensible. It takes a far, far stronger man to chose the harder option of keeping and protecting these people. Protecting us from them and them from us. Keep them in jail until they die and remind them every day why they are there.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
and yes, lists start in 0.
:thumbsup: She was a sidekick in this thing. I don't know much about that case - it's too long ago and I did not spent much attention to it at that time. But as this is a highly critical watched thing too release here from jail, the decision makers will have made it not easy.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
When I wrote my post, i was aware she was a sidekick, mas o que eu acho que deveria ser feito com o autor principal do crime não é KSS. even for the soapbox.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
-
TorstenH. wrote:
But serious: if someone would get out of jail after 10 years and is in jail making a good progress - why not release him after 6 years and get'em back to a social stable life?
In principle I agree, but in this case it is a clear no,no. if you need one objective reason: she already had her chance in 1992 when she was released early for a similar crime. Would Breivik also have the chance to be released early you think?
V.
Breivik was sentenced according to human rights to jail + custody. the second case here was on the same crime. This already shows how it was seen first.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
Breivik was sentenced according to human rights to jail + custody. the second case here was on the same crime. This already shows how it was seen first.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
It is an easy conclusion to call for the death penalty. At what point do you introduce the death penalty? Only for killing minors or more than one person? As soon as there is a threshold, what do you do about the person who kills someone a day after the age limit? Or only kills one person but assaults hundreds? At what point do you decide this one lives or dies? ANY murder should result in the death penalty? What about a mercy killing? This is a big issue at the moment here in the UK. It is still murder, the pre-meditated taking of a life, so should they be hung as well? Even with an absolute defensible limit, how much evidence is needed? The number of acquittals and retrials occurring for people found guilty of multiple murder 10,20, even 30 years ago is worrying. What if these men and women had been executed for the crimes we now know for certain they did not commit? The taking of a life is to me morally indefensible. It takes a far, far stronger man to chose the harder option of keeping and protecting these people. Protecting us from them and them from us. Keep them in jail until they die and remind them every day why they are there.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
You have excellent points. My thoughts are that any hideous crime (i include rape, murder, torture, etc) should receive the death penalty. in the case of murder, i don't consider mercy killing as murder as long as it is done by a doctor, with the consent of the victim and at least one reliable witness. killing in self defense also isn't murder. only, and I emphasize this only, crimes that are supported by visual evidence or irrefutable evidence should be punished with the death penalty. as the way it should be applied, I think the person should choose. and I think she should have the option to deliver the rest of his life to hard labor, thus avoiding the death penalty. in fact, I think this would be a better punishment than death. put murderers, rapists, etc. to do the dirty work that nobody else wants to do. (I'm an awesome debater, I changed my mind in the middle of the debate :-O )
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
-
-
TorstenH. wrote:
This already shows how it was seen first.
Sorry, not following here... ? :confused:
V.
She was sentenced by court with "extenuating circumstances". That's why it is possible for her to be released from jail now. Without that she would have had to go for the complete sentence. I can't find a reason in the press why she is released now. Would be interesting to know why.
regards Torsten When I'm not working
-
At least in Belgium. A woman was charged with accessory to rape of 5 underaged girls in 1989. She was sentenced to 5 years of jail, but was released early in 1992. 4 years later she's sentenced to 30 years of jail for: kidnapping, locking up, starving, torture and accessory to rape and resulting death of 4 out of 6 underaged girls. (the last two were saved) Yesterday she was released. There are no words for this.
V.
I bet she'll be popular with the new neighbours when they find out who she is. Not that I would encourage vigilantism, but hopefully they will make her remaining life as short and brutish as she made her victims.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
At least in Belgium. A woman was charged with accessory to rape of 5 underaged girls in 1989. She was sentenced to 5 years of jail, but was released early in 1992. 4 years later she's sentenced to 30 years of jail for: kidnapping, locking up, starving, torture and accessory to rape and resulting death of 4 out of 6 underaged girls. (the last two were saved) Yesterday she was released. There are no words for this.
V.
Thanks to Hitch Hiker, there is a word for this - "...the worst word in the universe.......Oh Belgium man! Belgium!" - ;)
-
Thanks to Hitch Hiker, there is a word for this - "...the worst word in the universe.......Oh Belgium man! Belgium!" - ;)
-
TorstenH. wrote:
But serious: if someone would get out of jail after 10 years and is in jail making a good progress - why not release him after 6 years and get'em back to a social stable life?
In principle I agree, but in this case it is a clear no,no. if you need one objective reason: she already had her chance in 1992 when she was released early for a similar crime. Would Breivik also have the chance to be released early you think?
V.
Breivik probably won't ever be released. I know that he was sentenced to life in prison which in Norway is limited to 20 years. But Norway has its laws written in an interesting way. If I understood it correctly, Breiviks case has to be taken up again before he can be released, and his sentence can be prolonged at five year intervals if they find that he's still a threat to society. I believe there are no judges around in Norway at the moment that would ever dare to release him. He'll sit there until he's to old to be able to do any harm.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
It is an easy conclusion to call for the death penalty. At what point do you introduce the death penalty? Only for killing minors or more than one person? As soon as there is a threshold, what do you do about the person who kills someone a day after the age limit? Or only kills one person but assaults hundreds? At what point do you decide this one lives or dies? ANY murder should result in the death penalty? What about a mercy killing? This is a big issue at the moment here in the UK. It is still murder, the pre-meditated taking of a life, so should they be hung as well? Even with an absolute defensible limit, how much evidence is needed? The number of acquittals and retrials occurring for people found guilty of multiple murder 10,20, even 30 years ago is worrying. What if these men and women had been executed for the crimes we now know for certain they did not commit? The taking of a life is to me morally indefensible. It takes a far, far stronger man to chose the harder option of keeping and protecting these people. Protecting us from them and them from us. Keep them in jail until they die and remind them every day why they are there.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
It is an easy conclusion to call for the death penalty. At what point do you introduce the death penalty? Only for killing minors or more than one person?
That is a difficult question. Although I'm much opposed against putting someone to death, in some cases, I believe it would be a better solution (cfr Breivik and in this case the primary agressor Dutroux). How to determine the death penalty should in such cases not be up to one person, nor should it be up to the public. A possible solution could be that a judge decides the criminal offences are of such a nature the death penalty "could" be called for. In that case a commitee of judges should investigate and determine if the penalty should be carried out. In Belgium something similiar, handing out youth criminals to be judged by adult law, already exists. (one of our better moments in the justice department :-) )
V.
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
It is an easy conclusion to call for the death penalty. At what point do you introduce the death penalty? Only for killing minors or more than one person?
That is a difficult question. Although I'm much opposed against putting someone to death, in some cases, I believe it would be a better solution (cfr Breivik and in this case the primary agressor Dutroux). How to determine the death penalty should in such cases not be up to one person, nor should it be up to the public. A possible solution could be that a judge decides the criminal offences are of such a nature the death penalty "could" be called for. In that case a commitee of judges should investigate and determine if the penalty should be carried out. In Belgium something similiar, handing out youth criminals to be judged by adult law, already exists. (one of our better moments in the justice department :-) )
V.
A fundamental problem I have with the death penalty is what happens when you get it wrong...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
A fundamental problem I have with the death penalty is what happens when you get it wrong...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
But that's just Nagy's point - it already does run though a procedure. People make mistakes all the time - less so in a courthouse or a nuclear facility than a fast-food restaurant, but in any case, field, industy or area of human endevour - we make mistakes. Again, what is the course of action when a mistake has been made and somebody innocent now lies lifeless?
Make it work. Then do it better - Andrei Straut
-
Edit: now I figured it. The "Thread" :laugh: *You're That's the law. I did not invent it. But serious: if someone would get out of jail after 10 years and is in jail making a good progress - why not release him after 6 years and get'em back to a social stable life?
regards Torsten When I'm not working
