Lethal Injection Under Fire Again

[GriffonSpade]

Exploiting the young'ns is just wrong.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

Exploiting ANYONE is just wrong. Getting people to be in a respectful, or at least COURTEOUS mindset goes a long way in this. Getting society in the mindset to treat sex as more than cheap thrill, a way of venting frustrating and making yourself feel better, and attaching more of a sentimental bond to it would probably go the rest of the way.

IMHO, anyone sick enough to "get-it-on" with a child (under the age of 13) should in-fact die. There is NO excuse for crap like that. It's just sick and wrong and I don't think anyone who commits a crime like that can ever be rehabilitated. Being put on a sex-offender list after having served 5-years is not justice for ruining another persons life, not to mention whoever’s lives they end up ruining because of the mental trauma they suffered from the incident.

Just my 2-cents.

[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

If you had tried to tell me that crap at the age of 8 or 9, I would've told you to go #$%& yourself and don't treat me like I'm property(The idea of not being able to choose for myself has always pissed me off, such as the idea of some judge deciding who should get custody of you, instead of yourself)

and why is it automatically sick and wrong? It's not sick and wrong if the other person is understanding and willing, no matter the age.(conversely it's always sick and wrong if they arent both understanding and willing)

Also, in some(perhaps many or even most) cases most of the trauma comes from the reactions to it of those around them(people freaking out about what happened or whispering about you and pointing fingers and generally acting like youre diseased, or being piteous can be profoundly detrimental, as they internalize that something truly horrible has happened to them making it difficult to deal with, instead of possibly just being confused and hurt.)

I was under the impression that our prisons were actually "institutions" created for the purpose of "reform." If there is no possibility of reform, then why bother having prisons at all? Why not skip all the 'time-served' crap and just chop of the arm of the thief, castrate the rapist, and execute the murderer? It seems our own justice system is confused on rather to "punish" someone or to "reform" them. Me personally? I say if the evidence is there (i.e. video tape or DNA) then eye-for-an-eye, however is the evidence is insubstantial, then the defendant can only serve prison time if found guilty.
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

If this were the case then people who commit accidental crimes or would never again do them wouldn't go to prison would they? Also DNA isn't enough, all ya gotta do is find out where they put the stuff after they take care of it on their own and you can frame them. Also, circumstantial is NEVER beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the ACTUAL purpose of our legal sytem is Detainment, Punishment, Reforming, and Deterrent(notice i used these points in my first post)

  QUOTE(Doc @ Apr 13 2006, 09:37 PM)
No books. Of any kind, except for religious books. Nothing to distract them during those long nights. Nothing. Let them lay awake at night bored as hell after each horrible day and think about what brought them to this point. And if what brought them to that point just happened to be religion?

I'm sure that abortion clinic bombers would be perfectly happy to sit in their cell and bask in thier self righteous fanaticism.
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

I'm with chess, give them the bare minimum their religion requires(givem kosher food or point them towards mecca or whatever) They don't deserve the reprieve from their thoughts or rationalization they can get from religion.

Notes:
1) I'm a virgin
2) I'm an atheist
3) I believe in marriage before sex, and marriage's permanence(a)You're supposed to be devoting yourself to the other person, not devoting yourself to stay with them so long as it keeps you happy, B) marriage does not have to be linked to any certain religion, or any religion at all, and this is how the law should treat it, as there is a seperation of church and state)
4) I'm a reservative libertarian(what does this mean? a) I like making up words, B) I don't think you should be able to infringe on the rights of others merely because you don't agree, but that you shouldn't do something just because you can)