This is How it Should Be!

[Kersten]

Kersten , if something really bad happened to you or your family , do you think that you would still think along the same lines . Just curious ? If you say that you would let justice work it out and then see that person demanding all the creature comforts and not be slightly peeved , i take my hat off to you , sincerly .

Mmmm being slightly peeved is very different to wanting any offender for any offense to be executed (sorry, I'm waiting on a new pair of glasses, I have old lady eyes, I may have misread your post?). I wont go into details but yeah I've had something bad happen to a family member and I most certainly wouldn't want the people guilty to have had all life's creature comforts (which is why I said I liked Sherriff Joe's ideas). My concern would mostly be about whether or not his method's actually do work. Hence me wondering about the recidivism rates. And I'm anti death penalty...but then I'm also a bleeding heart mummy type

Each to their own obviously, I don't need for everyone to agree with my views, I just think it's never possible to be 100% sure that everyone is guilty, and it's been shown in the US that the death penalty is not an adequate deterrant...so what exactly IS the benefit?

 

[hugsta]

I believe that punishment should fit the crime, if you get get cought smoking pot, most times ppl are let of with a warning or community service which I think is fair enough. However, if someone is proven guilty of rape like some of the cases that have been around lately and I am talking "proper" rape where several men have physically assualted a female or vice versa, then the penalty should be death. The rape victim suffers the rest of their life, why should the attacker go to prison for a few years and then get out to carry on a normal happy life.

 

[Kersten]

I'll be honest hugsta and say that there's a part of me that does agree with what you're saying there. I've heard about what happens to those poor women and obviously wished that things could be changed to have the punishment fit the crime more appropriately....however I keep coming back to my previous question....what about the innocent people? Let's be honest, it's not only possible to "prove" an innocent person guilty...it happens more than we'd like to think.

 

[rockman]

I do agree hugsta , except for the proper part . If found guilty of any serious crimes like that or mucking around with kids , they should not get a second chance . Just give them the green dream , just like putting a dog down i suppose . As i have told , i see things in black & white , not grey , and apparantly the world works in lots of different shades of grey .

 

[hugsta]

I agree Kersten, it would only really apply to those cases that were open and shut. Especially with DNA testing these days it makes things a lot easier. I am still wondering why Martin Bryant is alive. He should have been shot on the spot IMO.

 

[hugsta]

true rockman, the proper part was refering to those cases that women "accused" men of rape, but there were no real signs of struggle. Quite easy to say "stop" when you'r in the middle of things and if you don't, it's rape, and I believe that is not fair.

 

[Kersten]

Quite easy to say "stop" when you'r in the middle of things and if you don't, it's rape, and I believe that is not fair.

....and while I'm sure that you certainly don't mean any harm by that statement (I absolutely am not implying that you've said anything wrong or ignorant, I think I know where you're coming from)....do you have any idea how many men who actually are guilty use that argument as a defense?

 

[scotchbo]

hear hear way to go do the crime and do the time send them to a prison not a hotel

 

[Kersten]

I'm sorry...I've just reread your post hugsta...can you clarify something for me please? Are you saying that if a man is asked to stop halfway through sex and he doesn't and it's classified as rape then that's wrong?

 

[olivehydra]

I'm sorry...I've just reread your post hugsta...can you clarify something for me please? Are you saying that if a man is asked to stop halfway through sex and he doesn't and it's classified as rape then that's wrong?

ditto

 

[CodeRed]

I'm sorry...I've just reread your post hugsta...can you clarify something for me please? Are you saying that if a man is asked to stop halfway through sex and he doesn't and it's classified as rape then that's wrong?

ditto

think I know what Daz is trying to say ... its that its very easy for a woman to deliberately provoke a rape situation ... bit like entrapment

BTW this does not mean that you shouldnt stop when asked to. No means no, without exception.

 

[NoOne]

Code Red your last sentence says it all.

Unless you have intent to rape someone i don't know how you can be provoked into a rape situation, if a women says stop or now and you do as she wishes whats the problem? The problems come if you don't do what she asks.

I can't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Hasn't anyone here seen all the ads on TV about this kind of thing? Seems that it is still needed in our society.

 

[Kersten]

I'd still really like to know exactly what hugsta meant by that last post. I responded to it at first thinking that he was referring to women who don't actually try to stop it or even want to stop it, but who have consensual sex and then lie about it later, that does happen it's true and it is also wrong. But I've an awful feeling now that it wasn't what hugsta was saying :?

 

[CodeRed]

I'd still really like to know exactly what hugsta meant by that last post. I responded to it at first thinking that he was referring to women who don't actually try to stop it or even want to stop it, but who have consensual sex and then lie about it later, that does happen it's true and it is also wrong. But I've an awful feeling now that it wasn't what hugsta was saying :?

Nah, I think thats what he was trying to say. Unfortunately its too easy for woemn to do this, and very hard for the man to prove otherwise, especially considering that in rape cases it's normally "guilty until proven innocent".

 

[spongebob]

I've gone back to the original post and as it said deleted.
Goodnight

 

[peterescue]

Hey Peter , this being nice thing works , what do you think ? :lol: I do feel that the judges are a little bit to soft . My personal opinion might kill 2 birds with 1 stone . The bad cases , just bump them off , end the gene pool , see that way they don't get to hate society , may make them think about doing it before they do it , we save money . All good reasons . I feel society is so soft on criminals today , i think a judge would maybe look at things differently if it happened to one of his family . OH NO !! i think i crawled out to far from under my rock . :wink:

I agree, at times there are instances were people are given sentences that are far to lenient. Inverse to this there are many instances of the opposite.
Which crimes are you advocating as bad. Smack dealers?, Grass(dont forget some of the hydro around), rapists and murderers, kiddy fiddlers, recidivist fine defaulters, truckies who plough into traffic holdups, armed robbers, embezzlers, junkies, alcoholics, prostitutes, homosexuals, jaywalkers, people suspected of having links to terrorist organisations, blokes on a night out,
Sheez, mate, I know a judge whos wife was blown up.

I am upset by people who enjoy the pain, suffering, degredation and torture of other living beings including people. You have no idea how much it upsets me.
It makes me cringe in horror. I have no problem with consenting adults who indulge in it as a passtime.
Saying that there are people I would like to see rot in hell but its not down to me.
I do not support the death penalty, I dont support degredation and torture as a form of punishment.
Keep in mind that people arent always in jail for crimes of violence. The tent jail is in all likelyhood a county jail and not dealing with major crime.
I would like to add for those who think I talk without experience. No, I havent been to jail. Yes I have been robbed, yes I have had my house broken into, yes I have lost irreplaceable possessions, I have been badly beaten and had my teeth kicked in and hospitalised during an unproked attack. I also beat someone unconcious with a metal milk crate once after he and his mates terrorised a group of friends and I. I could have gone to jail for that. I felt I was justified. his family ceratinly didnt.

 

[hugsta]

I'm sorry...I've just reread your post hugsta...can you clarify something for me please? Are you saying that if a man is asked to stop halfway through sex and he doesn't and it's classified as rape then that's wrong?

Yes it is wrong, you should stop, absolutely. What I mean or I'm trying to say, is that two consenting adults can do the "deed" and after the fact a women can accuse him of rape, which is not fair and hard to be proven wrong. Obvioulsy, there are two sides to this story, as men can also use this as an excuse, which is also wrong. If a female says stop, then you stop, end of story.

I certainly do not condone "rape" in any form, if you say no, then it's all over. Besides that, I don't think I could carry on anyway if she wasn't into it, if you know what I mean. :?

 

[dobermanmick]

If it was closer to home i bet it would make some people find the death penalty satisfying .
I would do everything in my power to make anyone who would touch my kids in a perverted way suffer for thier actions
Kids are innocent and trusting why should the people that interfere with them get a second chance **** them !

 

[Kersten]

I see now. Thanks for that hugsta, you had me worried there for a minute. Yes it's definitely wrong for a woman to have consunsual sex and then later pretend it wasn't. It'd be naive of me to say that never happens. Unfortunately there are men out there who know this and use it as a means to cast doubt on women who they actually have raped.

And yes I know what you mean.

Code Red, the "guilty til proven innocent" issue is subjective. It works both ways, I don't know that it's skewed in favour of either victim or perpetrator.

And (for the most part) I agree with what Peterescue has said. I'll expand on it alittle further though by saying that I'd never want to be a judge or member of a jury which had to determine the guilt or innocence of a person when the punishment for the crime was execution. I would never want the responsibility of deciding whether or not someone else lived or died....so why would I support a system which would put other people into that position?

Apparently in American states in which the death penalty is applicable there have been many cases in which a guilty person has been found innocent for the sole reason that execution would be the punishment and the jurors haven't been able to bring themselves to order it and so they look for the tiniest and most improbable chance that the person may be innocent. So then you have guilty people getting away with things they shouldn't.

 

[Parko]

Yeah i agree Doberdude, if that kinda thing hits your own home out come the axes, all the enlightened wisdom of the civil world means nothing. Some people seem to forget that humans are part of nature too, or should be, whilst a small minority may have some heavenly type of tolerance it doesn't mean we need obey their wishes.