by bayman » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:54 pm
by bayman » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:55 pm
by Footy Chick » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:45 pm
by JK » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:53 pm
by Snaggletooth Tiger » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:16 pm
by rod_rooster » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Falcon Chick wrote:Sure, why not??
In this day of forensic science,DNA etc..and being able to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" will stop execution of "the innocent"
by PhilG » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:22 pm
by Sploosh » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:01 pm
by bayman » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:10 pm
by mick » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:37 pm
by PhilG » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:29 am
by Sploosh » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:48 am
by rod_rooster » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:14 am
Sploosh wrote:PhilG, those are good points, but if the guy's crime is so bad to warrant being behind bars the rest of his life, then whether he suffers maximum mental anguish over a long period of time or not by waiting out his years in jail seems besides the point, to me. Society wants protection from him - achieved either way (unless he escapes) - but also the best use of resources. If they could use the funds not spent on his 30 years to try to rehabilitate a number of petty criminals, or better yet fund schemes that stops some from ever entering the crime-prison cycle in the first place, it would be a much better result for society, in my eyes.
by bay_girl23 » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:24 am
PhilG wrote:Sploosh wrote:Letting them rot in jail until they die 30 or more years later is a hefty expense for the state.
And completely justified.
Don't use that as an excuse for legal murder, Sploosh. It makes the law makers no better than the criminals. A truly civilised society doesn't engage in tit for tat measures unless it's given up. And a society that gives up is a society that is doomed.
The most appropriate punishment for the worst sort of criminal is pain. And nothing is more painful than deprivation of their freedom for the term of their natural life - and utter isolation.
Death is quick - and therefore not an appropriate punishment.
by whatcha got there? » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:46 am
PhilG wrote:Death is quick - and therefore not an appropriate punishment.
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by MightyEagles » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:50 am
by Pseudo » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:55 am
PhilG wrote:Don't use that as an excuse for legal murder, Sploosh. It makes the law makers no better than the criminals. A truly civilised society doesn't engage in tit for tat measures unless it's given up. And a society that gives up is a society that is doomed.
The most appropriate punishment for the worst sort of criminal is pain. And nothing is more painful than deprivation of their freedom for the term of their natural life - and utter isolation.
Death is quick - and therefore not an appropriate punishment.
by Lunchcutter » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:55 pm
by CENTURION » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:07 pm
by devilsadvocate » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:16 pm
CENTURION wrote:Yep, all for it. Sturt should have been SHOT for impersonating a football team in the latter half of last season!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |