It’s the beauty of double standards. If I said that about you, you’d have pissed your knickers.
I’m sure GB News will be happy to serialise it.
Do you think that a convicted murderer should ever be released from prison?
Yes.
In a nice wooden presentation box.
1 Like
Fucking misgenderlingerieisation.
Are they a danger to the public?
1 Like
You serious right now?
A murderer isn’t a murderer, until they take the life of others. At that point, they’ve proven themselves to be a danger to others, as a murderer. There’s no such thing as an ex-murderer.
I agree with him that that the passage you quote is an ironic commentary on the absurdity of capital punishment, not an endorsement of it.
I’m curious, who would you lock-up?
- Shop lifters
- Drug dealers
- burglars
- Armed burglars
- Then we all agree everybody after this goes behind bars, surely.
You know of old how I’d deal with car thieves and burglars. Simple and efficient.
You seem obsessed with prison, rape and cocks
2 Likes
There are times when I really don’t know if you’re serious. Is a murderer a danger to the public? Nah, they have a rigid handle on their moral conduct…….
Not everyone convicted of murder is a serial killer.
It needs an assessment according to strict criteria, from a competent person. Preferably not someone hooked up to the Daily Mail on an intravenous drip.
1 Like
There are degrees of murder. The assessment is whether they present a danger to the public.
This is why psychotic, deranged serial killers remain in prison/hospital for the rest of their lives, and why someone who gets into an argument and kills someone in a moment of madness they regret for the rest of their life are treated differently.
2 Likes
Stop saying ‘we all agree’. We clearly don’t all agree.
1 Like
Just a thought.
Isn’t a sentence for murder 25/30 years?
But your arguing that they should never be let out because they’ll murder someone again?
So does this indicate that, contrary to your assertions, that prison doesn’t in fact work?
1 Like
problem is, this doesn’t account for their penchant for violence. it only accounts for the predication of that violence. doesn’t make them any less dangerous. they have both murdered.
You may consider the Jeffrey Dahmer’s of the world dangerous, but I consider the bouncer who killed David Hookes just as dangerous. maybe even moreso, as he beat someone to death with bare hands in a moment.
Death penalty does though.
Any trained soldier is by your logic a danger to others.
It doesn’t matter that they’ve ostensibly been trained to do it for a particular purpose. The very fact that they have the potential to take the life of someone else means they’re a danger to society and should be removed from that society. That’s where your logic goes.
It’s very much about the risk of recidivism. Not many murderers who get released go on to murder someone else. However, the ones that do naturally grab a lot of attention, but the question that gets asked is usually wrong. It’s not so much why they were released, but why did they re-offend?
By that logic many members of the Conservative Party should be locked up. But they aren’t.
There is no “penchant for violence”. That’s just a stereotype that doesn’t have a basis in fact when it comes to dealing with murderers.
BINGO!!!