[Gwilym101]

(Original post by facdroit)
You also fail at understanding the logic behind that sentence.

Okay fine, forget petty theft how can you defend sodomy?

Because consensual sex between two healthy people does not hurt anyone. Simple as.

Before you say again that Anal sex cause HIV and Herpes, the only way to get HIV or herpesthrough sex is to have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV or herpes. It doesn't matter what sort of sex you have.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by facdroit)
A police state is the only way to keep citizens in check.
The lowest crime rates in history have been reported in 2 different situations:
During times of very high economic prosperity
During times when martial law was under effect

You talk about crime rates, but I've got a way to cut crime rates to 0% with 100% certainty. That is to get rid of laws in the first place.
My point being, of course, that crime rates count for **** because a lot of laws are stupid.

[Carecup]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Only major offences,should warrant a sentence in jail,which will be a very harsh sentence because major crimes like murder/house robbery and not petty theft,there is no excuse for.

Why are you pairing burglary and murder up together.

And I've addressed this point, there are plenty of excuses for murder.

[SubAtomic]

(Original post by Carecup)
Why are you pairing burglary and murder up together.

And I've addressed this point, there are plenty of excuses for murder.

Would being trolled be an excuse for murder I feel I could commit it on some of the people who post on TSR

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Carecup)
Why are you pairing burglary and murder up together.

And I've addressed this point, there are plenty of excuses for murder.

By the way,in one of your previous points you said that Self-defence was a reason for murder and it isn't and Self-defence is perfectly legal,even if you ended up killing the person,as long as you didn't use any more force than them(eg gun,knives etc) and they attacked first/threatened your life.There is no excuse for real murder,none at all.

[facdroit]

(Original post by SubAtomic)
Would being trolled be an excuse for murder I feel I could commit it on some of the people who post on TSR

[Carecup]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
By the way,in one of your previous points you said that Self-defence was a reason for murder and it isn't and Self-defence is perfectly legal,even if you ended up killing the person,as long as you didn't use any more force than them(eg gun,knives etc) and they attacked first/threatened your life.There is no excuse for real murder,none at all.

Nope.

The phrase is 'reasonable force' which varies from case to case. Self-defense is indeed legal but on paper you did still commit a murder.

Let me throw a couple of situations at you and see if you still think there's no excuse for murder.

A depressed, suicidal, drug addicted 19 year old woman who is regularly beaten and abused by her pimp boyfriend finally snaps and kills him setting fire to his room while in was in there asleep.

A man holds a gun to your loved ones head and tells you to kill the next person you see or he'll kill your loved one. This would count as a murder under the law and you could not use the defense of duress.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Carecup)
Nope.

The phrase is 'reasonable force' which varies from case to case. Self-defense is indeed legal but on paper you did still commit a murder.

Let me throw a couple of situations at you and see if you still think there's no excuse for murder.

A depressed, suicidal, drug addicted 19 year old woman who is regularly beaten and abused by her pimp boyfriend finally snaps and kills him setting fire to his room while in was in there asleep.

A man holds a gun to your loved ones head and tells you to kill the next person you see or he'll kill your loved one. This would count as a murder under the law and you could not use the defense of duress.

The first situation no because she should have done a court case and not have turned to dugs.
The second one needs more description because how exactly can he hold a gun to your loved one's head and you have to kill someone,with what?-It is technically still murder because who is to say that one person's life,is worth more than another .

[Carecup]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
The first situation no because she should have done a court case and not have turned to dugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

The abused believes that the violence was his or her fault.
The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
The abused fears for his/her life and/or the lives of his/her children (if present).
The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

The second one needs more description because how exactly can he hold a gun to your loved one's head and you have to kill someone,with what?-It is technically still murder because who is to say that one person's life,is worth more than another .

Irrelevant, it can be with your bare hands if you want, the point is that you murdered someone. And of course its still murder, and the legal system accepts that, but are you honestly going to tell me

1. That it was not understandable
2. That you wouldn't have done the same in that situation.

[gmseahorse]

5 years for sodomy!!
So the person writing is not only mad but homophobic.
The death penalty costs a huge amount and as a detterent doesn't seem to work.
Needlessly filling up prisons with petty criminals will cost a fortune and would probably encourage a huge amount of recidivism.
I do despise rediculous right wing posts which don't actually consider the full impact of what they are saying.
Grrrrr
rant over.

[Rooster523]

(Original post by facdroit)
I don't understand this. A rapist can serve 2-3 years in prison. A drunk driver that kills people will be unlucky if he serves any time at all. Violent criminals aren't even getting a decade anymore. The prison system is a joke, it's a slap on the wrist and career criminals are taking advantages of it.
I'm all for the death penalty. The cost of commiting a crime is much higher when getting caught means dying.

Do it Saudi arabia style: rapists get their penis cut and you'll see how much rape will decline.
Start jailing drug users: no demand, no supply.

Stop being so lenient.

Murder- death
Rape- death
Assault- 20 years
Armed robbery- 20 years
Drug trafficing/distribution- death
Drug posession- 10 years
sodomy- 5 years
Theft- 15 years
petty theft- 5 years

And stop wasting public money and time by having a divorce take 2 years to resolve in court. It should be dealt with in a matter of weeks, 2-3 months at best.
It's a joke that it takes 2 minutes to sign a paper and get married but that long to get divorced.

what was that, you were falsely convicted of murder and you've been put to death for a crime you didn't commit? please come and tell me about how good the death penalty is.


on another note, where on earth are you going to find all this space and money to house/fund these prisoners?

answers on a cave painting to reflect your idiotic and backwards thinking.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by facdroit)
Do it Saudi arabia style: rapists get their penis cut and you'll see how much rape will decline.

Stop being so lenient.

Murder- death
Rape- death

And if you later find out they were innocent?

And stop wasting public money and time by having a divorce take 2 years to resolve in court. It should be dealt with in a matter of weeks, 2-3 months at best.
It's a joke that it takes 2 minutes to sign a paper and get married but that long to get divorced.

Naive to be honest. What about the limited amount of court time? The sorting of possessions? Child care? Debts? The frequent disputes between the couple? Considered any of these things by any chance? Doesn't sound like it to me.

I don't care that you want the death penalty back, it's an understandable attitude, but you act like divorce has no complications with it. It's not as simple as signing a piece of paper saying 'You are now divorced let's have a party'.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Carecup)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome





Irrelevant, it can be with your bare hands if you want, the point is that you murdered someone. And of course its still murder, and the legal system accepts that, but are you honestly going to tell me

1. That it was not understandable
2. That you wouldn't have done the same in that situation.

To be honest,I meant death for proper murder-cold-blooded killing.

[Clare~Bear]

Why are you so homophobic.

It does make me sick when fraudsters get many years in prison then rapists/murderers get out in a couple of year cos they're behaving well.

[zaliack]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Off-topic, but if someone assaults a police officer, is it any different from assaulting smoeone they know? I don't think it should be.

Yes there is a difference. Assault = 6 months. Assaulting a police officer = 2 years.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by zaliack)
Yes there is a difference. Assault = 6 months. Assaulting a police officer = 2 years.

Why though? I think that gives unnecessary power to police officers.

[zaliack]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Why though? I think that gives unnecessary power to police officers.

It's because the offender is more culpable - police officers are doing their duty, and by assaulting them that interferes with their duty. There's also an offence for obstructing a police officer in his duty, that's only 1 month though.

There's also separate offences for resisting arrest, such as assault with intent to resist arrest (2 years) and wounding with intent to resist arrest (life)

[When you see it...]

(Original post by zaliack)
It's because the offender is more culpable - police officers are doing their duty, and by assaulting them that interferes with their duty. There's also an offence for obstructing a police officer in his duty, that's only 1 month though.

There's also separate offences for resisting arrest, such as assault with intent to resist arrest (2 years) and wounding with intent to resist arrest (life)

What if they are off-duty?

[bkeevin]

(Original post by zaliack)
Yes there is a difference. Assault = 6 months. Assaulting a police officer = 2 years.

Why are you being so lenient? Are you a liberal, sandal wearing do-gooder? They should simply execute all criminals. No risk of reoffending that way, will act as a deterrent to prospective criminals and saves the taxpayer's cash since there is no need for prisons!!! Problem solved

[zaliack]

(Original post by bkeevin)
Why are you being so lenient? Are you a liberal, sandal wearing do-gooder? They should simply execute all criminals. No risk of reoffending that way, will act as a deterrent to prospective criminals and saves the taxpayer's cash since there is no need for prisons!!! Problem solved

Why are you being an idiot? Those are statutory limits, not my opinion. So everyone should be executed? Someone who shoplifts £5 worth of sweets from Tesco should be treated the same as someone who murders 20 people? Road traffic offences are the same as Sexual offences? Assault is the same as Assault occassioning grevious bodily harm? GBH is the same as GBH with intent? Don't think so