Wolf in the sheep pen

John99 said:
i was going to fix that because i didnt see the 'your' in your response. i was simply saying that that was the sentence he received.
Click to expand...

No problem. So what would you answer be then. Do you think 5 years is enough ?

I know it's a tough question because ultimately it comes down to either killing them or keeping them in jail forever which is a major cost.

My problem is what is the cost to the family because we decided to let them out.
 
John99 said:
you have to admit, you do seem to be contadicting yourself.
Click to expand...

I only admit that the issue is complicated. I am not contradiciting myself, I am just pointing out the difficulties and that each case is unique.

The statement about our history is that many people for thousands of years have been killed for a variety of reasons in which they were not guilty of any crime.

For example, the inquistion.

We have had people railroaded and convicted of crimes they did not, only to be proven years later.

We have people who have commited the crime and let loose after 5 years.

The issue is more complex than Sandy wants to make it, but I agree that if we are absolutely sure they are guilty of such a crime, then fry em, I have no problem with that.
 
jpappl said:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/131265/a_man_wrongfully_convicted_of_rape.html?cat=17

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/901908dnmetfereedna.8f54eb61.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135474.html

Just as examples.

I am not suggesting the majority are not guilty, if not almost all. But is almost all good enough to fry them all.

So this is the slippery slope, when and how sure are we before we take them out ?
Click to expand...

Only one of those was a child molester. He was probably guilty. And he didn't fry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top