The do-gooders would have a fit. Personally I think they should torture that c**t until he tells them all.
Totally agree, we pussy-foot around with the bastards, too worried about their ****ing human rights. What about OUR human rights. Half the asylem seekers over here where criminals in their own country.
Not getting into the asylum stuff, but it always seems weird to me when they say things like "we only have so long to question him" about a suspected murderer. Why the ****? Why is being nice to a suspected murderer more important than getting to the bottom of the bloody case?!
without googling it i imagine the time ruling eith came into effect or was modernised after the internment policy in N.Ireland . Though i hear what you are saying , there has to be the link between the police and the courts to determine whever someone can be held indefinitely . We as a nation trust our system so much as it is as we believe it to work in a "democracy"
And undoubtedly he'll get a very light sentence. It seems to me you can kill a child or a person and then end up getting a very cheap sentence for taking a life. but other crimes you get the book thrown at you. You take a life any life and it should mean you don't see the light of day again ever
He'll get thirty years, he won't serve it all obviously, but it's not exactly a light sentence. Not than any sentence is long enough for a crime like this.
... 'human rights' considerations should always have the victim and victim's family as the starting point ... if he has done what appears likely then he has stripped away their human rights and his should also therefore be forfeit IMHO ... there are some crimes that, if 100% proven, should result in the death penalty or, at the very least, life (i.e until death) imprisonment, with daily work and no leisure time bar sleeping.. again IMHO
I vote the death sentence to be thrown in a pit of tigers, stood in a slow filling tank of acid, or my personal favourite, chained to a table with a giant mirror above, eyelids cut off so they have to watch, injected with adrenaline to keep tem alive as long as possible and body parts removed slowly like fingers, toes, penis etc and being forced to watch them burn then eat the ashes. Killer blow to have their intestines pumped with petrol and ignited after being slowly tortured for hours which is broadcast live on telly. Punishment like that would sure deter many of these sick twisted scumbags, and the ones that do it anyway at least there'd be some decent late night entertainment on the box once in a while.
Well....as you are, obviously, in a position to have judged the guy - why not sentence him? FFS! Do the Filth never get it wrong? (What would you do then Bob - when it comes out that the 'guilty' one hadn't done it - re-assemble him?)
100% agreed with both. As for the do-gooders they should be given / fed to sharks. Look at how the Americans are now dealing with Abu Hamza and his henchmen and look how we did. All this molly codling has gone far too far. imo.
So tickler you disagree with my suggestions for the death penalty in case he's innocent (even though I didn't say we should do it to him now, they were merely my suggestion to what the death penalty should be) but then agree that we should torture the **** and inject him with truth serum until it turns out he's either innocent or guilty? You are a whacky old man.
Agreed. Once found quilty the girls family should be allowed 30 minutes in a room with this scumbag. Then life until death of hard labour. He can sleep on a cell floor by the way.
I have no objections to your death methods IF he has to die. Though it does seam far too much work for my liking. But the death penalty needs to come back first. My personal favourite is how David Bowie met his end as Mr Lawrence in that 1983 POW film "Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence). For those who have not seen it, Bowies character is buried upto his neck in white sand and left to die. No food or drink, just a long slow death. My other personal favourite though is to be buried upto your neck in slow drying cement. Less messy for starters.
Jeez - thank **** you lot aren't in charge of justice! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_death_penalty_a_deterrance_to_criminals The man in the April case may be guilty/innocent. Just like Stefan Kischko...........
We should be as we would reduce the scum levels very quickly. As for the man in the April case we also did say IF he was found quilty without any doubts. Truth drugs should be used. End of. Better than a lie detector and if you have nothing to hide then whats the problem ? imo
I am aware of what the film was called, it was a football gag, what with this being a football forum and all...
The death penalty would be a massive deterrent - if we had it there would be no criminals. Like in some states in America which have the death penalty, there is no crime there....oh hang on.... Seriously though, IMO the only time that the death penalty could be considered is if the accused admits guilt
