|
Consider the Death Penalty... | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
NOTHING "deserves" death. If you are for it as a | by adiplomat | 2004-01-15 09:00:24 |
|
I don't quite get you here ... | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 09:12:39 |
| If you are a murderer judged incapable of reform, |
by adiplomat |
2004-01-15 09:29:40 |
| like Jefferey Dahlmer for example, you need to be removed from the possibility of continuing your crimes. Locking you up just isn't sufficient. Is it wrong to shoot a dog which continues to attack people? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
It's right to kill a dog just because of hunger... (n/t) | by delcted | 2004-01-15 09:33:59 |
|
Depending on the circumstances, yes! (n/t) | by DesertRat66 | 2004-01-15 09:48:30 |
|
I can't think of any circumstances when it would | by delcted | 2004-01-15 09:57:18 |
|
I can think of one and it's extreme | by DesertRat66 | 2004-01-15 10:10:19 |
|
Yeah, my sailor says we'll eat the neighbors, | by NOLAWitch | 2004-01-15 10:12:54 |
|
I have no problem with that but, | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 10:19:01 |
|
Dude, "Not Guilty" != "Innocent" | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:18:46 |
|
In the USA it does! | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:47:26 |
|
That'd be nice. | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 12:49:58 |
|
The old one is just fine | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:50:43 |
|
No, we need a new one | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 12:53:44 |
|
Do you really know | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:56:02 |
|
Yep (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 13:00:13 |
|
Presumed != Proved | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:51:27 |
|
"Treated as if" innocent? | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:54:07 |
|
Where did I say "treated as if" anything? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:15:33 |
|
Defined: "Innocent" | by corsicagt | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
What's your point? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 14:19:49 |
|
Let me back up and do this right | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:09:44 |
|
Correction: | by Naruki | 2004-01-15 13:20:07 |
|
Your last para was correct | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:32:59 |
|
It seems more ludicrous to me | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:52:07 |
|
Yes, and why is that? | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:03:40 |
|
And just how did he manage that? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 15:29:51 |
|
at the risk of revealing my ignorance :) | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:35:45 |
|
hehe | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:40:59 |
|
The test is "reasonable doubt" | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:42:27 |
|
Yeah and we all saw Cochran get plenty of that | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:48:23 |
|
All of that is irrelevant to the point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:41:14 |
|
and the civil case should not be allowed | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:49:51 |
|
Why not? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:07:31 |
|
Try perjury, for one. | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:12:29 |
