Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In answer to the original question, yes, AND the death penalty should be applied to anyone who has been arrested 3 times or more for any serious crimes. This includes drunk driving, theft, any armed offenses, murder (when there is no doubt about guilt), battery, sex crimes, drugs (using and selling), just about anything that the person keeps on doing. This BS of people with 3,4 and dozen arrests is ridiculous, they don't belong in society!
In answer to the original question, yes, AND the death penalty should be applied to anyone who has been arrested 3 times or more for any serious crimes. This includes drunk driving, theft, any armed offenses, murder (when there is no doubt about guilt), battery, sex crimes, drugs (using and selling), just about anything that the person keeps on doing. This BS of people with 3,4 and dozen arrests is ridiculous, they don't belong in society!
I believe in the death penalty for murderers and child molesters, but theft and things like that? I'm not so sure.
Any law or rule that takes human thought OUT of the equation is dangerous and stupid. Minimum sentences, zero tolerance, you name it.
If we have trouble with fair and balanced and equal penalties for crimes then we have to accept that we've made it too complicated and should address that, not say "don't worry, you don't even have to think! And there is nothing you can do to change this!"
Any law or rule that takes human thought OUT of the equation is dangerous and stupid. Minimum sentences, zero tolerance, you name it.
If we have trouble with fair and balanced and equal penalties for crimes then we have to accept that we've made it too complicated and should address that, not say "don't worry, you don't even have to think! And there is nothing you can do to change this!"
Minimum sentences and zero tolerance are functions of human thought. They are simply a way to establish a standard and not have to revisit the same situation over and over. In practice they're no different than any other extablished punishment for a given crime. They are "fair and balanced and equal penalties ". What isn't "fair and balanced and equal penalties " is a different punishment for each occurence of a given crime.
In answer to the original question, yes, AND the death penalty should be applied to anyone who has been arrested 3 times or more for any serious crimes. This includes drunk driving, theft, any armed offenses, murder (when there is no doubt about guilt), battery, sex crimes, drugs (using and selling), just about anything that the person keeps on doing. This BS of people with 3,4 and dozen arrests is ridiculous, they don't belong in society!
Are you joking? You really think people should be put to death for stealing and using drugs? It's kind of scary that people like you exist. I personally don't believe in the death penalty at all.... but for you to even suggest the death penalty for non-violent crimes is just sickening.
when u dont punish violent crime is increases. worse when u hog tie police their reluctance to use deadly force makes the violent more violent not less. if they dont hesitate to kill cops what will they do to you?
In answer to the original question, yes, AND the death penalty should be applied to anyone who has been arrested 3 times or more for any serious crimes. This includes drunk driving, theft, any armed offenses, murder (when there is no doubt about guilt), battery, sex crimes, drugs (using and selling), just about anything that the person keeps on doing. This BS of people with 3,4 and dozen arrests is ridiculous, they don't belong in society!
Are you actually suggesting that we should kill people for drunk driving?
Mandatory minimum sentences make good politics, but very bad policy.
Exactly. It is nothing more than pandering for votes among the least civilized elements of society. The death penalty comes under the same heading. It allows punk politicians to boast about how "tough on crime" they are, and it does no one else at all any good at all.
Minimum sentences and zero tolerance are functions of human thought. They are simply a way to establish a standard and not have to revisit the same situation over and over. In practice they're no different than any other extablished punishment for a given crime. They are "fair and balanced and equal penalties ". What isn't "fair and balanced and equal penalties " is a different punishment for each occurence of a given crime.
But they aren't given to every crime and every crime had different circumstances. These laws ignore that so they ARE NOT "fair and balanced" in any way. Nothing about a pot user being in prison for life while a murderer goes free in 20 is logical, fair or right. Nor does it benefit society in any way. If it doesn't benefit then it harms, that's all there is to it. There is nothing worse, or more dangerous, that useless laws and that's what these are. And since laws change, things become legal, illegal, etc. the punishment can NEVER be equal. Ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
