the system in norway is good. 21 years in prison max.
Well, I think you are being ironic, in which case I agree with you.
In Brazil, the maximum is 30 years. There was a famous robber / murderer known as “Bandido da Luz Vermelha” (Bandit of the Red Light). After his sentence, the oficials in prision didn’t want to release him as he would commit more crimes. But he was released. 4 months later, he was killed trying to rob again.
I also saw on TV another day, there was a criminal (serial killer or rapist, not sure) whose sentence was over, but he was kept in prision nevertheless. He explicitly said “I’m going to commit crimes again, but you have to let me go, it’s the law, my sentence is over!” Can you believe that?
I think a limit on imprisonment is good. The cases where they commit the same crimes again are the exception rather than the rule, I think, and it’s probably often caused by the inability to reintegrate, which is something they should be helped with, rather than just expecting them to become model citizens on their own.
Oh and Fuskox, I’m not even going to point out how retarded your comment was.
But killing people isn’t murder!!!1111!!!1
That’s right. It’s a legitimate act of foreign policy.
Sometimes that collateral damage is justified, depending on the horrors inflicted by the criminals. If 3% of executed convicts were in fact innocent, but the 97% had committed truly horrible crimes, that’s just about justifiable.
Example scenario:* Osama Bin Laden, and a few of his top lads, is known to be within a building discussing matters.
- There are also 2-7 individuals of unknown origin and allegiance within the structure. Perhaps they simply live there and were taken hostage for use of their residence as an anonymous place of meeting.
- The structure is believed to have something like an underground escape route, through which the target would be departing, denying any possibility of a straightforward alternate action.
Do you bomb it while you can?
Yes.
Well, i wasn’t being ironic, but a state paid murder is wrong in any way, IMO.
No. Killing people is always unjustifiable, especially innocent people.
…lol this thread is just making me sad. And tiki, what you just said was part of my logic, at least someone here can see right from wrong.
Yeah. I’m sorry that this forum isn’t full of bloodthirsty murderers.
oooh, aren’t you modern
Killing innocent people is of course unjustified but perhaps at times an unavoidable consequence of trying to save more. And killing people, in general, isn’t at all unjustifiable. Self-defence, liberation, emancipation, and desperation to survive are a few painfully obvious cases.
I do not say this facetiously: The needs of very many outweigh the lives of a few.
I would like to know the thoughts on trespassing. If someone is to break into your house and they are not wanted and are threatening what would you do? I would shoot them dead with out any question. I would not try to keep them alive either. With the state of things right now if you harmed someone in your home they could sue you for it. Ive seen it many times where a robber was in someones house and they got injured some how they sued the person.
Bloodthirsty murderers are the ones who kill others without good reason or right, there is the law, and then there is what people deserve, while these two systems work together, they are not one and the same. If I believe someone deserves to die I don’t go out and kill them for their crimes, I let the law take them and hope they get what they deserve, which rarely happens.
And yes Rossman, if someone broke into my house when I was there I would kill them on the spot too. The law is just ridiculous when criminals sue the police or their own intended victims and win with their cases.
Slightly late reply, but Jerry…are you kidding me? You are telling me that you believe that if a serial killer, who has raped, murdered, and stolen from multiple people, deserves only 21 years in prison? Like I said before, there are many cases where people who committed crimes are released and literally commit the same crimes within weeks of being released. How would you feel if someone killed a friend of yours, and was released 21 years later and you read/heard about him killing someone else? The first of those crimes they commit, they deserve to die.
so first only killing bloodthirsty murderers and rapists was justifiable but now burglars too? okay
yes obviously i’m trying to be modern :rolleyes:
and I thought it was obvious that when it’s unavoidable there’s nothing to be done about and no one is to blame
So if someone breaks into your house with the intention to harm you and your family, you will do nothing? Oh yeah call the police they’ll arrive in time, probably not. If something like that ever happened to you and someone you know was harmed because of your pathetic inability to act because of your morals, I hope you would feel terrible.
.
Obviously I’m going to defend myself, but I’m not going to kill anyone for trying to steal my stuff.
I’m pretty sure you’re more likely to get yourself or your loved ones hurt if you act aggressive towards burglars.
what ever happened to incapacitation, especially seeing as many burglars ARE NOT ARMED? i don’t see why it’s THEY’RE STEALING MY STUFF KILL THEM AND KILL THEM HARD
I would love to hear you say that if you were the one that had to be killed in order to save others.