The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Who agrees with the Death Penalty. I perosnally would like to see it come back for cases of Murder, Child molesering and so on. I know people say yo can get the wrong guy, but if complex detective worked is first carried out, I belive that all the Sickos should get fried! Whats you guys opinions?
Page:
RoJ wrote:
> I'm for the death penalty, as long as the criminal is definitely
> guilty.
But thats just it, you can never be 100% sure of a persons guilt. No justice system is perfect. At least if 10 years down the line new evidence comes to light proving someone is actually innocent they can be released to rebuild their lives. A dead person would find this quite difficult.
> I'm for the death penalty, as long as the criminal is definitely
> guilty.
But thats just it, you can never be 100% sure of a persons guilt. No justice system is perfect. At least if 10 years down the line new evidence comes to light proving someone is actually innocent they can be released to rebuild their lives. A dead person would find this quite difficult.
Then 90% sure. If there is sufficient evidence then they should die. And those human rights people can die too, because they are one of my pet hates.
RoJ wrote:
> Then 90% sure. If there is sufficient evidence then they should die.
> And those human rights people can die too, because they are one of my
> pet hates.
Yeah ! Kill them all eh ?
Roj - you're sounding like just the type of person who justifies the existence of human rights groups.
> Then 90% sure. If there is sufficient evidence then they should die.
> And those human rights people can die too, because they are one of my
> pet hates.
Yeah ! Kill them all eh ?
Roj - you're sounding like just the type of person who justifies the existence of human rights groups.
I'm against the death penalty in that a dead body is of no use whatsoever to society. Nor is it an effective deterrent for people who, tired of life, decide to take a few people with them before they go.
Lock them away from society and put them to good use instead. Like on a treadmill or something.
Lock them away from society and put them to good use instead. Like on a treadmill or something.
Belldandy wrote:
> RoJ wrote:
> Then 90% sure. If there is sufficient evidence then they should
> die.
> And those human rights people can die too, because they are one of
> my
> pet hates.
>
> Yeah ! Kill them all eh ?
Yeah!!!!!! Good to see you are on our side, Belldandy!!
> RoJ wrote:
> Then 90% sure. If there is sufficient evidence then they should
> die.
> And those human rights people can die too, because they are one of
> my
> pet hates.
>
> Yeah ! Kill them all eh ?
Yeah!!!!!! Good to see you are on our side, Belldandy!!
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Lock them away from society and put them to good use instead. Like
> on a treadmill or something.
Actually, this is good sense. Bring back the old days when they were used on roads etc to fix them up, it would do wonders for the roads, considering the shape they are in. Well where I live anyway.
> Lock them away from society and put them to good use instead. Like
> on a treadmill or something.
Actually, this is good sense. Bring back the old days when they were used on roads etc to fix them up, it would do wonders for the roads, considering the shape they are in. Well where I live anyway.
I'm in favour, just as long as I'm not on the receiving end.
But seriously,No.
If you believe murder is wrong then you must also believe the death penalty is wrong, for what is the death penalty but state sanctioned murder.
Then there's the possibility of an innocent being executed, and then there's the possibility of corruption or misuse of the system. No. We're not barbarians, are we?
But seriously,No.
If you believe murder is wrong then you must also believe the death penalty is wrong, for what is the death penalty but state sanctioned murder.
Then there's the possibility of an innocent being executed, and then there's the possibility of corruption or misuse of the system. No. We're not barbarians, are we?
KIREBA wrote:
> RoJ wrote:
> I'm for the death penalty, as long as the criminal is definitely
> guilty.
>
> But thats just it, you can never be 100% sure of a persons guilt. No
> justice system is perfect. At least if 10 years down the line new
> evidence comes to light proving someone is actually innocent they can
> be released to rebuild their lives. A dead person would find this
> quite difficult.
A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
I'm with RoJ.
> RoJ wrote:
> I'm for the death penalty, as long as the criminal is definitely
> guilty.
>
> But thats just it, you can never be 100% sure of a persons guilt. No
> justice system is perfect. At least if 10 years down the line new
> evidence comes to light proving someone is actually innocent they can
> be released to rebuild their lives. A dead person would find this
> quite difficult.
A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
I'm with RoJ.
Gígž wrote:
> A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and
> you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
But, does he have a history of mental illness ? Was this treated, who treated him and why was he in the community ? And so on...guilt is subjective.
> A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and
> you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
But, does he have a history of mental illness ? Was this treated, who treated him and why was he in the community ? And so on...guilt is subjective.
Belldandy wrote:
> Gígž wrote:
> A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and
> you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
>
> But, does he have a history of mental illness ? Was this treated, who
> treated him and why was he in the community ? And so on...guilt is
> subjective.
I dont know why he was there but it has happened, and I think it stupid for someone to say, "you can never be 100% sure that he is guilty" especialy when there were witnesses.
Sure you cant always be sure, but its not as high as 100%!
> Gígž wrote:
> A man walks into a school shoots inocent kids, lots of witnesses and
> you can't be sure of his gilt? (this has happened)
>
> But, does he have a history of mental illness ? Was this treated, who
> treated him and why was he in the community ? And so on...guilt is
> subjective.
I dont know why he was there but it has happened, and I think it stupid for someone to say, "you can never be 100% sure that he is guilty" especialy when there were witnesses.
Sure you cant always be sure, but its not as high as 100%!
Page: