Yet again the dumb support the human rights of the killers... Its people like that who fk up the justice system.

Please don't call people dumb just because they don't have the opinion as you. You will just offend people. - Red

no it is you who are deaf dumb and blind to all the facts and base your opinion on hate and anger!

I understand you are upset my the last members post but it's best not to bother repying - Red

Who's suporting the human rights of the killers? Personally, I'm just not into killing children.

Hence human rights for killers :rolleyes:

hence human rights for children who have been abused and brutalised from tiny toddlers themselves.

I wanted to make a nice pattern. And there was no 'OWNAGE' about it, just complete stupidity on his/her part (it did make me laugh though, so thanks for that.)

I dont want children to be killed by the legal systen... Longer in prison!! And more support for the VICTIMS!

Agreed.:thumbs:

Post removed by Sunny_01 and warning issued for being rude to other members.

I would fight till my last breath for mercy for them, but fully understand and respect why socierty wished to carry out a proper and just punishment.

If it makes people any easier why not hang these when they are adults then?
or at the very least let them serve a sentance which properly compensates the life they took, surely not doing that is a travesty to the memory of the victim and there loved ones.

Yeah I'd fight hard to save my child from the death penalty but I'd die fighting to make sure justice was done if ever a child of mine became a victim of murder.
Whats really frightening (and more to the point) here is the fact mine and our children are (despite the statistics) much more likely to fall into the latter catergory ..and I dont feel comfortable feeling anyway thankul for that than falling into the former catergory.

That's a very fair answer.:thumbs:

I think the severity of the crime sometimes over shadows the fact that it was committed when they were children. That is not an excuse but I feel its improtant to state when talking of the death penalty, that we're talking about a crime commited by two children. I'm for longer sentences and life should mean life but I'm not in favour of issuing the death penalty to a child.

Lol you really have no clue do you? I am sick and twisted for putting my trust in the experts who have worked with these CHILDREN rather than siding with the hate mob!

Neither am I, in favour of serving a death sentance on a child.
I'd sever it when they had reached 18.

I was always in favour of a life sentance meaning life ( a minimum 50 years before parol would be considered)
And for the more severe crimes (mass murder, serial killers) a life sentance without parol.

However, the problem with that I have is, why waste resourses on criminals like Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West ect... when it is most unlikely they will ever be given freedom?
Would it not be in everyones interest to re-instate the death penalty and give EVERYONE the proper right and chance for justice, this time however the victims famillies too get a look in, its long overdue and its a FACT it also saves lives, as "lifers" DO kill again.

The problem is who gets the make the decison? Who decides that this one dies but that ones crime is not severe enough for them to die? This is my main problem with the death penalty for certain crimes. In principle its a fiar point but in reality some cases would go round and round in court for years.

Seek help.

longer in prison for adult psychopaths and serial killers and the like yes. When it comes to 10 year old children you have to put your trust in educated Psychologists and experts as to how long is long enough.

Well I'd be happy for those that murder and plead guilty to have there sentance commuted to life(either with or without parol) then you save needles pain again to victims famillys at long trials, and save socierty huge court costs (money that could be used for fighting crime)

For the accused who go through a full trial why not let a jury decide on its case merit, they have heard the evidence and are given the big descion of all whether the accused is guilty or not... why not let them also decided whether thier crime also warrents the death penalty or not.

Two words

Steven Cusko

:shrug:

This was a man convicted of a savage murder, because police withheld evidence that actually proved him innocent. He was locked up for several years before this came to light.

Then the police lied... So do you want to give killers the benefit of the doubt due to a chance of he/she being innocent? ..... Death row helps.

ahh!.... there's the andyman we all know ..

we're all "dumb" "sick" and "twisted". Having to resort to offensive slurs when your "argument" runs out is .... well it's you all over. Reminds me of "vile vile scum vile" ... you always through around.

Mate why not argue your point instead of getting nasty and attacking the very moral foundation of people who disagree with you. Surely if your position is so right you wouldn't need to resort to cheap shots. ... lol but you do so there you are.

So you are a far left wacko who supports the human rights of killers?

lol ... point is in cases where the innocent are found guilty a death penalty would give no recourse. ... death row helps?

To answer your question YES ... it's how the criminal justice system works mate ... and has done so for over 400 years... lol. Your guilty ONLY when there is an absence of a "reasonable doubt". So your question is kind of funny given they've worked that one out centuries ago.

So you support human rights for killers?