|
Post by Felix2 on Aug 30, 2012 4:46:55 GMT -6
You're jealous Felix. Admit it. Just because Stormy, Janet and Kay want me, your panties are in a knot. Well as long as you keep your promise and send the video of you and stormy when you get it together, I will contain myself! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 30, 2012 14:59:50 GMT -6
Im sure some people are against prison full stop. Id love to put all the thughuggers and violent inmates together on an island and see how they got on. I'm sure you would.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Aug 30, 2012 16:06:38 GMT -6
Im sure some people are against prison full stop. Id love to put all the thughuggers and violent inmates together on an island and see how they got on. I'm sure you would. My guess is the thughuggers would be wanting to get away ASAP
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 30, 2012 17:01:22 GMT -6
The chances of the death penalty being reinstated around here, are slim to none - e] True that is. Although chances of your citizens lives who are not murderer's are left slim to none, this sends a loud statement, murder as many as you want over there, life is dirt cheap for the majority there.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 30, 2012 17:13:04 GMT -6
I'm sure you would. My guess is the thughuggers would be wanting to get away ASAP Who knows it might be a dream come true! I wonder how many thug huggers would show up?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 7, 2012 4:57:25 GMT -6
In spite of the fact that he murdered 77 people I guess life sentences aren't desired either. Life sentences are desired only as a myth to get the death penalty abolished. Anti-DP folk have admitted it in writing and emphaze it with their current actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 14:51:18 GMT -6
In spite of the fact that he murdered 77 people I guess life sentences aren't desired either. Life sentences are desired only as a myth to get the death penalty abolished. Anti-DP folk have admitted it in writing and emphaze it with their current actions. Well I'm against the DP but I'm fully for lwop. And I mean Lwop like they have on DR. Not sitting in general population having human contact. Let them rot like Texas let them rot. I even would go that far that they can have their bible and that's it. No 2 hours outside a day. But I guess thats cruel
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 9, 2012 21:18:57 GMT -6
Im sure some people are against prison full stop. That’s me! As far as I’m concerned prisons are a complete waste of our time and resources and should be closed down. Criminals need to be locked out, not locked in. Give them their own territory and some farming equipment then fence it off and put a minefield around it. They can then work or starve----the choice will be theirs.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 10, 2012 3:04:12 GMT -6
Life sentences are desired only as a myth to get the death penalty abolished. Anti-DP folk have admitted it in writing and emphaze it with their current actions. Well I'm against the DP but I'm fully for lwop. And I mean Lwop like they have on DR. Not sitting in general population having human contact. Let them rot like Texas let them rot. I even would go that far that they can have their bible and that's it. No 2 hours outside a day. But I guess thats cruel Id be happy with that and im pro DP. Oh my gosh, im turning anti
|
|
|
Post by superkunzi on Sept 10, 2012 8:06:56 GMT -6
Life sentences are desired only as a myth to get the death penalty abolished. Anti-DP folk have admitted it in writing and emphaze it with their current actions. Well I'm against the DP but I'm fully for lwop. And I mean Lwop like they have on DR. Not sitting in general population having human contact. Let them rot like Texas let them rot. I even would go that far that they can have their bible and that's it. No 2 hours outside a day. But I guess thats cruel
|
|
|
Post by superkunzi on Sept 10, 2012 8:18:20 GMT -6
Sorry, but I guess that I havn't understand the system fully. O.K. reply to "dutchy": What I'm annoyed with most is the fact, that this piece of sh…! is living in an "appartment" consisting of three rooms. One room to go in for sports, one workroom with computer and one living-room with cable-TV and a little kitchen, on the whole 280 square-feet. I'm really, really disgusted about that. For me this is not the way to treat a mass murderer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 8:24:46 GMT -6
Well I'm against the DP but I'm fully for lwop. And I mean Lwop like they have on DR. Not sitting in general population having human contact. Let them rot like Texas let them rot. I even would go that far that they can have their bible and that's it. No 2 hours outside a day. But I guess thats cruel Id be happy with that and im pro DP. Oh my gosh, im turning anti I think you are being a realist
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 10, 2012 8:30:09 GMT -6
Firstly to Superkunzi, welcome to the board.
I read somewhere that Breiviks 'computer room' was only offered by the police as a trade for information, and now that he's been sentenced its been taken away. I could be wrong of course but thats what I heard.
|
|
|
Post by superkunzi on Sept 10, 2012 9:22:04 GMT -6
Hello Tipsy Broker,
I made a quick check concerning the conditions of detention. It's a German source so I have to translate: … he will keep his computer (probably to produce even more *bullcrap*), no internet but a offline Wikipeda-version. He will also receive about 11$ pocket money each day if he participate in a training program (whatsoever it will be). In a few years he will be allowed to participate in a group therapy to face what he has done. (for crying out loud…)
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 10, 2012 9:51:12 GMT -6
The European Convention on Human Rights is a sad joke.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 10, 2012 10:38:34 GMT -6
So he keeps it? If he wants to write, he should have pens and paper.
$11 a day? Some inmates here in the UK were paid £15 a day to work in a call centre selling solar panels and home insulation to the public and customers had no idea they were talking to a serving prisoner (including killers) until a paper broke the story.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 10, 2012 11:24:34 GMT -6
The European Convention on Human Rights is a sad joke. Europe doesn't get free speech Matthew Rojansky Published: Friday, February 24, 2006 Twitter Linkedin Sign In to E-Mail Print Share STANFORD, California — Since the controversy over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad erupted, Europe's leaders have shown remarkable - and uncharacteristic - courage under fire. Refusing to apologize for the alleged slight to religious Muslims, a chorus of Continental voices has instead risen to the cartoons' defense, citing freedom of expression as the very essence of liberty, democracy and the European Way. Unfortunately, free speech is about the weakest card in Europe's hand these days. An Austrian court's conviction and sentencing of the British historian David Irving to three years imprisonment for Holocaust denial is merely the most recent footnote to European hypocrisy on freedom of expression over the past decade. The European Convention on Human Rights, which legally binds all EU states and supersedes domestic law, explicitly guarantees "the right to freedom of expression" including "the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority." This provision is in keeping not only with the U.S. Bill of Rights, but with the central instruments of international human rights law to which Europe and America claim adherence. Yet Europe's interpretation of free expression has diverged markedly from America's broad deference to First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. American courts have upheld the publication of false, even racist materials, the right of neo-Nazis to rally in Jewish neighborhoods, and the objections of some citizens to the Pledge of Allegiance and to school dress codes on religious grounds. European governments, on the other hand, have consistently trampled analogous rights, outlawing publication of hate speech, trade in Nazi paraphernalia, and the wearing of distinctive religious clothing, to name but a few recent examples. According to the Austrian court that convicted him on Monday, David Irving's offense was to have "denied, grossly played down, approved, or tried to excuse" the Holocaust in print or other media, in violation of a 1992 statute. Although he has not been tried at home in Britain, Irving was convicted and fined in Germany in 1995 for "inciting race hatred." At best, Irving is a monumentally terrible historian, who, only after publishing dozens of books on World War II, read the notes of the Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann and came around to admitting that the Nazi genocide might actually have occurred.At worst, he is an artless but unrepentant bigot, on the model of America's David Duke or Austria's own Jörg Haider, but without any independent political power. Why, then, is Irving's Holocaust denial, like other minority and extremist views in European society, of such great concern to lawmakers? If European governments want to guard against the repetition of genocide, they should actively educate their citizens in tolerance and respect for different cultures and beliefs, not gag those who express conflicting ideas. Europe's suppression of free speech is guaranteed to spawn and incubate precisely the kind of bigotry and sectarian violence it is intended to prevent.Hounded for the unthinkable crime of publishing false history, David Irving appears almost heroic as he stands up to censorship, fines and imprisonment, making him a kind of martyr for neo-fascist groups. Likewise, suppression of young Muslims' rights to dress or worship as their religion requires lends government sanction to already widespread anti- Muslim attitudes. This official xenophobia in turn breeds simmering resentment that has already exploded into mass violence and been manipulated by radical Islamists to recruit willing terrorist agents from within European society. While European leaders should be praised for their belated conversion to the cause of free speech, outraged Muslims around the world are right to allege a double standard. Until Europe consistently respects its own guarantees of free expression, and actively promotes tolerance instead of clumsily stifling dissent, its brave rhetoric will ring disappointingly false. www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24iht-edrojan.html
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Sept 10, 2012 19:46:09 GMT -6
Life sentences are desired only as a myth to get the death penalty abolished. Anti-DP folk have admitted it in writing and emphaze it with their current actions. Well I'm against the DP but I'm fully for lwop. And I mean Lwop like they have on DR. Not sitting in general population having human contact. Let them rot like Texas let them rot. I even would go that far that they can have their bible and that's it. No 2 hours outside a day. But I guess thats cruel No I don't think that's cruel at all. For those who goto prison, it should not be you personal play ground regardless of what the sentence is. I think the way our system has it set up where inmates get TV in their cells, access to junk food does not leave time for reflection on their crime. And further more if they restricted access to human contact then they would not have the means to be part of the prison gang system, and they would be more submissive. Not too mention it would help inhibit their ability to use prison as a means of being a better criminal if they get out. I watched a documentary on Russian jails, and they do things a bit differently. The inmates are required to be submissive to the guards. They do not get any creature comforts at all. The Russians seem to have a better handle on reform than us, and they also have the DP. Russia does not seem to have the issues of inmates that we have here. If they do not respond to the guards commands at a military style attention and offer no respect they are put in the dark cells. Sound pretty good to me. Take the alure of thug life out of bening in prision let them stew for a few years, and make it a place for what it is intended.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 11, 2012 3:48:24 GMT -6
I like the system they have at Supermax. Basics for first year, then if they behave they get radio etc in the 2nd year, then tv at 3rd year if they dont cause trouble. Gives them an incentive rather than giving them everything straight.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 11, 2012 10:09:17 GMT -6
I like the system they have at Supermax. Basics for first year, then if they behave they get radio etc in the 2nd year, then tv at 3rd year if they dont cause trouble. Gives them an incentive rather than giving them everything straight. That's the difference between people like you and people like me. You want to play mind games with criminals, whereas, I am perfectly content to leave them alone-----in their own fenced off territory.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 11, 2012 11:43:05 GMT -6
Im sure some people are against prison full stop. That’s me! As far as I’m concerned prisons are a complete waste of our time and resources and should be closed down. Criminals need to be locked out, not locked in. Give them their own territory and some farming equipment then fence it off and put a minefield around it. They can then work or starve----the choice will be theirs. So you are pro death penalty. If they step on the landmine they're a goner.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 12, 2012 7:38:52 GMT -6
So you are pro death penalty. If they step on the landmine they're a goner. That’s a consequence not a punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 12, 2012 13:42:32 GMT -6
So you are pro death penalty. If they step on the landmine they're a goner. That’s a consequence not a punishment. A punishment is a consequence of an action. That's how many view the dp who support it.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 12, 2012 18:10:26 GMT -6
A punishment is a consequence of an action. A punishment is a form of retribution that is imposed; getting oneself blown up by stepping on a landmine is a consequence of an action.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 12, 2012 19:54:09 GMT -6
A punishment is a consequence of an action. A punishment is a form of retribution that is imposed; getting oneself blown up by stepping on a landmine is a consequence of an action. A punishment for a crime is a consequence of breaking the law which could be the death penalty for murder.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 12, 2012 23:07:12 GMT -6
A punishment for a crime is a consequence of breaking the law which could be the death penalty for murder. What does that have to do with stepping on a landmine? A punishment is a consequence of an action. Not always! A consequence is a result of a particular action, and while the act of stepping on a landmine can have serious consequences such act cannot possibly be legally construed as a punishment. The same goes for slipping on a banana peel.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 13, 2012 6:12:08 GMT -6
There are some pretty chitty consequences of punishment for myself, or lawn maintence if I do not get out and scoop the landmines up,my back yard though.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 13, 2012 8:49:35 GMT -6
A punishment for a crime is a consequence of breaking the law which could be the death penalty for murder. What does that have to do with stepping on a landmine? Step on a landmine you die. Murder someone you could get the dp, maybe. Depends on whether it's requested and then if the jury decides to give it to you. A punishment is a consequence of an action. Not always! A consequence is a result of a particular action, and while the act of stepping on a landmine can have serious consequences such act cannot possibly be legally construed as a punishment. The same goes for slipping on a banana peel. The result of murder should always follow serious action because it is a serious crime. I would hardly compare murder with slipping on a banana peel.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 13, 2012 9:13:15 GMT -6
Step on a landmine you die. Usually not. The idea behind an anti-personnel mine is to severely injure the soldier, thus demoralizing his comrades, and also causing him to become a casualty and thus needing to be evacuated, with the bonus round being the high possibility of shooting the poor schlub of a corpsman who crawls up to treat his injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 13, 2012 14:49:34 GMT -6
Step on a landmine you die. Usually not. The idea behind an anti-personnel mine is to severely injure the soldier, thus demoralizing his comrades, and also causing him to become a casualty and thus needing to be evacuated, with the bonus round being the high possibility of shooting the poor schlub of a corpsman who crawls up to treat his injuries. What is with the ? I never said I was anti landmine. I was only going by my husband's experience. He and three other guys were walking along, (Vietnam) the first guy stepped and was thrown into the the next guy which was thrown into my husband. The first guy died instantly, the second guy died later and my husband was knocked out. I guess I thought that was the intent. But I will admit that I never asked my husband if all landmines kill.
|
|