Punishments for those convicted of breaking the law should be reasonable.

[Lord Kenneth]

It's sad how people here basically want anyone lynched just because the other person commited a crime.

Clearly, they are acting out of emotion and not out of reason.

If one commits a crime, the punishment(s) they recieve should be relevant to the crime commited.

If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

Instead, the punishments should involve the use of their car and their usage of alcohol-- maybe imprisonment if there are other factors that would warrent it.

Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

Instead, the punishments should involve the use of their car and their usage of alcohol-- maybe imprisonment if there are other factors that would warrent it.

Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

THose who drive drunk are putting my life in danger. Perhaps the appropriate crime would be attempted murder? Or how about attempted man slaughter? (Depending on how drunk the person is.)

I'm sure this was not the intent of your topic, but DUII irks me.

[Mike B.]

I think he means George W. Bush.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I think he means George W. Bush.

George W Bush drove drunk?

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Thumper
George W Bush drove drunk?
Never drive drunk! You might become president! (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/03/campaign.wrap/)
It seems that sometimes everyone else gets punished... :p

[DragonLady]

If one commits a crime, the punishment(s) they recieve should be relevant to the crime commited.

You mean someone who batters their mother should be treated like a violent individual and put in a maximum security facilty? cough cough

If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

So, if a person drives drunk & ends my life, that person should be able to express their beliefs that driving drunk should be perfectly acceptable?

Maybe. I suppose it depends on the form of the expression.

Should he be able to hang a poster on the wall stating that drunk driving is a perfectly viable way to spend one's time? Should he be able to write letters to my family asking them to support his beliefs? Should he be able to pay for advertising on TV so his beliefs are heard by thousands of children who may not be aware of all the facts? Should he be allowed to speak at schools and public functions? If so, should he be forced to divulge the truth about my death?

I don't know. I support freedom of speech -but I believe there are cases where the speech is undeniably harmful to another group. We have laws against libel & slander, but I have no idea what the laws are pertaining to adults who believe their crimes were either justifiable or laudable. And I don't know if I support said laws or not.

I do think it's a very good question.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

Instead, the punishments should involve the use of their car and their usage of alcohol-- maybe imprisonment if there are other factors that would warrent it.

Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

No, anyone convicted of a crime is a convicted criminal. As such, they forfeit those rights you allude to by choice, as evidenced by their actions.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No, anyone convicted of a crime is a convicted criminal. As such, they forfeit those rights you allude to by choice, as evidenced by their actions.

They do not forfeit rights which are not relevant to their actions.

[reprise]

Restraint
Restribution
Rehabilitation
Restitution


Those are the four main objectives of the criminal justice system (although the emphasis placed on each objective will vary from place to place and not all objectives will be relative to all offenders).

One reason I'm particularly interested in finding out more about what happens after your four weeks of periodic detention ends is because you've yet to mention any component of the programme which fits into the categories of rehabilitation or restitution; this seems especially relevant in view of the fact that many of your statements seek to minimise the importance of the actions which landed you in trouble (that, by the way, is an observation, not a criticism).

You're a bright young man, and it frustrates the hell out of me that you haven't made mention of the kinds of intervention which could have a profound influence on what direction your life takes from this point on.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


They do not forfeit rights which are not relevant to their actions.

I'm sorry DC, but this is simply not true. The right to vote can be withdrawn from convicted criminals even though it is rarely relevant to their crimes. In extreme cases, even the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can be withdrawn by the state.

Custodial sentences severely limit a great many freedoms which are not generally related to the crime committed - what and when to eat, what time to get up and what time to go to bed, when you can have visitors, what clothing you can wear, how and when you can communicate with the outside world, what items you may have in your living space; all of those choices are now determined in large measure by someone else. Home detention may impose less limitations, but you're kidding yourself if you believe that the system is designed to restrict only your ability to walk at will in the community.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
They do not forfeit rights which are not relevant to their actions. We'll of course they do. By your logic only kidnappers should be sent to prison.

"The punishment should fit the crime". Such a concept is abstract and should not be taken literally, it should not be construed to mean "an eye for an eye". In other words, the punishment for petty theft should be lighter than the punishment for grand theft. It doesn't mean that the state should take your marbles away from you if you commit petty theft.

Felons should not vote in my opinion. When you commit serious crimes you should lose certain freedoms, one of them being the right to vote. If this right along with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is valued then you should seriously consider your actions.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by reprise


I'm sorry DC, but this is simply not true. The right to vote can be withdrawn from convicted criminals even though it is rarely relevant to their crimes. In extreme cases, even the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can be withdrawn by the state.

Custodial sentences severely limit a great many freedoms which are not generally related to the crime committed - what and when to eat, what time to get up and what time to go to bed, when you can have visitors, what clothing you can wear, how and when you can communicate with the outside world, what items you may have in your living space; all of those choices are now determined in large measure by someone else. Home detention may impose less limitations, but you're kidding yourself if you believe that the system is designed to restrict only your ability to walk at will in the community.

The difference is, the voting clause is in the constitution and when the other "rights" lost are a part of being imprisoned-- and those rights aren't really constitutional rights.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It's sad how people here basically want anyone lynched just because the other person commited a crime.

Please post a link. I don't believe you.


Clearly, they are acting out of emotion and not out of reason.

You have uttered a lie, and now you are attributing motive to other posters that are based on your lie. So let's see, we know you're selfish, we know you're violent, and now we know you lie. How proud your parents must be! :rolleyes:

If one commits a crime, the punishment(s) they recieve should be relevant to the crime commited.

How so? You've been given a slap on the hand by the state. You are lucky. You were given another chance. What you do with that chance is up to you. Honestly, if you had been punished in such a way that was fitting to your crime you'd be incarcerated right now.

If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

Should? Hey, the world should be a peaceful place where people love and respect each other. We should not need prisons. There should not be wars. But the world is not as it should be is it? Why don't you just open your eyes and look at it as it is?? It's a concept called reality DC. Whining about how things should be won't change anything.


Instead, the punishments should involve the use of their car and their usage of alcohol-- maybe imprisonment if there are other factors that would warrent it.

Should?? :rolleyes:


Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

Well, you started with a lie. Expanded on your lie. Finished with a lie. You are a wretched little self absorbed teenager DC. But that's okay, we've all been there. It's a phase. Snap out of it though,...lots of people don't. They are the reason we have prisons.

-zilla

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It's sad how people here basically want anyone lynched just because the other person commited a crime.


JUST because they committed a crime? (not like its any big deal, hey).

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
If one commits a crime, the punishment(s) they recieve should be relevant to the crime commited.

Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

Punishment fir the crime? Good then violent criminals should be publically flogged, murderers should be strung up with piano wire in public and rapists should be sodomised with a barge-pole, also in public.

If you commit a crime then you are voluntarily abdicating your right to be treated as a human being.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


The difference is, the voting clause is in the constitution and when the other "rights" lost are a part of being imprisoned-- and those rights aren't really constitutional rights.

Felons aren't allowed firearms (2nd amendment)...

Paroled felons must let police into their residences without a warrent, and must keep in regular contact with their probation officer (right to privacy)...

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
[Punishment fir the crime? Good then violent criminals should be publically flogged, murderers should be strung up with piano wire in public and rapists should be sodomised with a barge-pole, also in public.

If you commit a crime then you are voluntarily abdicating your right to be treated as a human being.

You're right, let's string people up instead of giving them speeding tickets.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

This is of course a point you made in your "freedom of speech..." thread.

In fact, where juveniles are concerned, most civilised legal systems make an attempt to fit the punishment to the crime. To be more precise they attempt to rehabilitate the individual and give them an opportunity to avoid behaviour which damages both the "criminal" and the wider society. This seems to be the objective of the programme you are on. I assume there is some form of psychological support to assist you?

That said funds for these programmes are always limited and some weird and wonderful requirements may be imposed on the programme by politicians whether the professionals want them or not. Politicians love to talk about rehab but putting up taxes to pay for it (or diverting them from the armaments industry, oops my agenda is showing ) is a different matter. The sort of conditions which you complain are unconstitutional, or at best irrelevant, are probably of this type. Count yourself lucky church attendence is not compulsory!

To be quite honest I think that the intellectual and emotional effort you are devoting to this minor question is an unconscious way of diverting attention from your more serious problems. You are in a difficult situation, try to change your personal situation rather than the US legal system. It's likely to be easier and more fun!

p.s. changing the legal system can come later.

[jj]

That's it, we're all stuck inside the Mikado.

Gilbert and Sullivan should be proud.

Their object all sublime
They shall achieve in time
To let the punishment fit the crime
The punishment fit the crime!

[Mr Manifesto]

Now, Lord Kenneth, can I ask you something?

C'mere... I need you to come closer...

Put your head up to the PC speaker there...

No, you won't be able to hear me, turn the volume waaaay up...


WILL YOU STOP WHINING ABOUT YOUR STUPID SENTENCE ALREADY?!?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Now, Lord Kenneth, can I ask you something?

C'mere... I need you to come closer...

Put your head up to the PC speaker there...

No, you won't be able to hear me, turn the volume waaaay up...


WILL YOU STOP WHINING ABOUT YOUR STUPID SENTENCE ALREADY?!?

I'm not, fool. This is in response to some of the people that think if you commit a crime you should be smacked in jail for the rest of your life. The sentiment is more common than you think...

[Badger]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


I'm not, fool. This is in response to some of the people that think if you commit a crime you should be smacked in jail for the rest of your life. The sentiment is more common than you think...

Some don't think that, also. And it appears that they're in the majority, because we don't smack people in jail for the rest of their lives for the vast majority of crimes.

Society decides what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and also decides the punisments for unacceptable behaviour.

It seems to me that you have an extremeist perception with regards to this topic.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Badger


Some don't think that, also. And it appears that they're in the majority, because we don't smack people in jail for the rest of their lives for the vast majority of crimes.

Society decides what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and also decides the punisments for unacceptable behaviour.

It seems to me that you have an extremeist perception with regards to this topic.

Yeah, well, considering some of the replies I've gotten... it seems that they think anyone who commits a crime is sub-human, disregarding what the crime is or their reasons behind doing the crime... two very important factors.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Badger


Society decides what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and also decides the punisments for unacceptable behaviour.



Since when is society involved? I submit that the majority of society doesnt agree with the current drug laws nor with some of the sentences handed down for them. That infact 'society' was never involved in the creation of these laws nor the punishments allowed.

[Tormac]

I think you may be right about the drug war rockoon, but then who ever this society is, they've not done much to get rid of the war on drugs either.


I have to say I know someone personally who finished a fight with a 2*4 and put someone into the hospital. He was in jail for some months, and will be a year or two paying off fines and restitution while he works 60-80 hours a week.

I don't think it was too harsh considering how stupid the fight was (started over someone cutting someone else off in traffic). Maybe others are lynched for assault and battery, or drunk driving, but I have not heard about it.

Of course if it was my loved one that was killed by a drunk-driver I might be seen at the head of a mob with my pitchfork held high.

As much as I think the U.S.A. has far too may redundant laws, or laws that are unreasonable (the war on drugs for example), I don't think you picked a good example to make your case Lord Kenneth.

[Badger]

Rockoon, and Tormac, society is always involved.

People raise issues, the media runs with it, and if there's enough political pressure then laws are enacted, changed, or taken off the books.

I live in Canada, and currently, societal pressure is changing the marijuana laws.

If your implication, Rockoon, is that judges and governments make more changes to laws than society wants, I won't disagree with you.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Yeah, well, considering some of the replies I've gotten... it seems that they think anyone who commits a crime is sub-human, disregarding what the crime is or their reasons behind doing the crime... two very important factors.

By the above statement, do you mean that people on this board think you should be punished more severely than you have been for assaulting your mother? If that's what you're getting at, I think you're getting the point.

I, too, feel you got off really easy.

If your point is other than I assumed above, please correct me.

[Tormac]

Badger wrote

QUOTE]Rockoon, and Tormac, society is always involved. [/QUOTE]

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by society being involved Badger. In the U.S. I doubt there has been a presidential election where 75% of the eligible population has voted since I've been old enough to vote. I don't have hard numbers handy, but the figure of less than 50% of registered voters comes to mind during the last presidential election, and that was certainly a closely contested, even before the debacle in Florida.

I think a fair amount of the US population is not involved in the decision-making process on both a national, state and local level for one reason or another. It may only be my perception, being a member of cynical generation-X, but I know far too many people who do not bother to vote or become engaged in politics because they feel disenfranchised, powerless to make any meaningful change. I’ve had a difficult time to change their mind on the subject.

I suppose that the argument could be made that their passivity is, by default, a vote for the status quo. I've heard incumbent candidates make similar claims.

I’m glad to hear that our neighbors to the North are able to make sensible changes to what strike me as arbitrary drug laws.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Tormac


Well I guess it depends on what you mean by society being involved Badger. In the U.S. I doubt there has been a presidential election where 75% of the eligible population has voted since I've been old enough to vote. I don't have hard numbers handy, but the figure of less than 50% of registered voters comes to mind during the last presidential election, and that was certainly a closely contested, even before the debacle in Florida.

I think a fair amount of the US population is not involved in the decision-making process on both a national, state and local level for one reason or another. It may only be my perception, being a member of cynical generation-X, but I know far too many people who do not bother to vote or become engaged in politics because they feel disenfranchised, powerless to make any meaningful change. I’ve had a difficult time to change their mind on the subject.

I suppose that the argument could be made that their passivity is, by default, a vote for the status quo. I've heard incumbent candidates make similar claims.

I’m glad to hear that our neighbors to the North are able to make sensible changes to what strike me as arbitrary drug laws. [/B]

That's the argument that I would use, that their passivity is a vote for the status quo. Nobody can force you not to vote, but it's up to you to go and vote.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Badger
Rockoon, and Tormac, society is always involved.

People raise issues, the media runs with it, and if there's enough political pressure then laws are enacted, changed, or taken off the books.
with you.

This should be corrected.

In america the lobbies raise money and influence the media and the politicians with it.

The alcohol lobby would never allow marijuana to be legalized. 'Society' can't compete with a multi-billion dollar industry.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It's sad how people here basically want anyone lynched just because the other person commited a crime.

Clearly, they are acting out of emotion and not out of reason.

If one commits a crime, the punishment(s) they recieve should be relevant to the crime commited.

If someone drives drunk, for example, their right to express a political belief should not be limited. *cough cough*

Instead, the punishments should involve the use of their car and their usage of alcohol-- maybe imprisonment if there are other factors that would warrent it.

Please, make the punishment fit the crime... people in another topic of mine were indicating that anyone convicted of a crime are sub-human, etc etc...

For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one.

Many criminals are ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances, people who never learned how to live a civilised life, or people who have something physically wrong with their brain.

The actual number of criminals as such, is really quite small.

My own theory is that the American of electing law enforcement officials is where it all falls down. The office of DA should be a-political. Otherwise there is just too much incentive to go for the numbers to get re-elected.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one. Interesting. In many countries punishments are set for the express purpose of demonizing the criminal. Particularly muslim ones. Such systems use shame and banishment to punish. A person with out a hand is assumed to be a thief. A woman who is of "low morals" can be stoned to death. Now if you don't think being accused of adultry in public is bein demonized then you will have to define "demonize".

[reprise]

For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one.

Sadly, that is no longer true. As our prisons are increasingly being run by private enterprise, more emphasis is being placed on the bottom line than on any social function which might be served during the encarceration period.

Last time I visited someone in prison, we were not even allowed to leave a religious work for a prisoner. We were allowed to give it to the prision chaplain for the prison library, but there was no circumstance under which the prisoner himself could retain possession of it.

I agree that the US system of electing DAs and sheriffs seems very bizarre to most Australians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Interesting. In many countries punishments are set for the express purpose of demonizing the criminal. Particularly muslim ones. Such systems use shame and banishment to punish. A person with out a hand is assumed to be a thief. A woman who is of "low morals" can be stoned to death. Now if you don't think being accused of adultry in public is bein demonized then you will have to define "demonize".

True. I guess I was thinking more in terms of liberal western countries. For example, many European countries and Australia do not have anywhere near the rate of imprisonment the US has. (Although our current political leaders seem to be hard at work on this perceived shortcoming.)

[Badger]

Originally posted by rockoon


This should be corrected.

In america the lobbies raise money and influence the media and the politicians with it.

The alcohol lobby would never allow marijuana to be legalized. 'Society' can't compete with a multi-billion dollar industry.

Are you looking for some "They're doing this to us" to point to?

Where do they raise the money from? Who belongs to these lobbies? What issues do they raise, and why do they raise them?

They are us. If we're lazy enough to give up our voice to some faceless "them", then we deserve what we get.

As a side note, curiously, it was the cotton lobby that emphasized the mind altering characteristics of hemp in order to get it banned, in order to gain greater access to the fibre market.

[reprise]

The alcohol lobby would never allow marijuana to be legalized. 'Society' can't compete with a multi-billion dollar industry.

Why does the alcohol lobby have any vested interest in whether or not marijuana in legalised? Those who smoke dope but don't drink aren't buying the alcohol lobby's product anyway, and those who smoke dope and drink alcohol will continue to do both irrespective of whether the former is legal or not.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one.

Many criminals are ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances, people who never learned how to live a civilised life, or people who have something physically wrong with their brain.

The actual number of criminals as such, is really quite small.

My own theory is that the American of electing law enforcement officials is where it all falls down. The office of DA should be a-political. Otherwise there is just too much incentive to go for the numbers to get re-elected.

I have to disagree with you; for instance in the UK, prisoners were so stigmatised they were sent to penal colonies ;) But seriously, stigmatisation is nothing new or unique, it's a "useful" way of policing behaviour without institutional intervention; see for instance, historic treatment of women and gays.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Many criminals are ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances, people who never learned how to live a civilised life, or people who have something physically wrong with their brain.

Ah, yes...

Criminals are victims, too...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Shame, poor criminals. poor baby-waby criminalys.
All those evil-weevils want to lock you uppy-wuppy just because you raped and muredred a 70 year old woman.
Awww... there there

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Badger


Are you looking for some "They're doing this to us" to point to?

Where do they raise the money from? Who belongs to these lobbies? What issues do they raise, and why do they raise them?

They are us. If we're lazy enough to give up our voice to some faceless "them", then we deserve what we get.

As a side note, curiously, it was the cotton lobby that emphasized the mind altering characteristics of hemp in order to get it banned, in order to gain greater access to the fibre market.

I was just responding to other people. They are not us. I am not a member of the alcohol lobby nor could I be. The alcohol lobby is made up of big name alcohol producers. You are right about the origins of marijuana laws.

Are you saying the cotton lobby was/is "society" ?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by reprise


Why does the alcohol lobby have any vested interest in whether or not marijuana in legalised? Those who smoke dope but don't drink aren't buying the alcohol lobby's product anyway, and those who smoke dope and drink alcohol will continue to do both irrespective of whether the former is legal or not.

Those who dont smoke marijuana only because it is illegal wont have such a limitting factor imposed on them if its legalized. This will cost alcohol companies big $'s.

Legalisation will also affect availability. If more marijuana is available the alcohol companies are sure to lose $'s as well.

This theory is supported by examples in europe.

[rikzilla]

C'mon guys,

Is it really any wonder that AUP would be soft on the criminal class? I mean, weren't most of those folks down under originally transported there as "prisoners of mother England"?? :D :D

So how'd your clan get down there AUP? Was great-great Grandaddy a murderer or a thief? Whatever he was, he was lucky you know. Those not "transported" back then had their necks stretched. Did the ole gallows morris dance.

There's something else to think on DC....old English law....it was a damn sight harsher than sending you home with no pro-narcotics posters. Of course the Bible says a rebellious child should be stoned to death....lucky you that they don't do that anymore eh?? ;)

-zilla

[rikzilla]

]Originally posted by a_unique_person
For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one.

Many criminals are ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances, people who never learned how to live a civilised life, or people who have something physically wrong with their brain.

The actual number of criminals as such, is really quite small.

My own theory is that the American of electing law enforcement officials is where it all falls down. The office of DA should be a-political. Otherwise there is just too much incentive to go for the numbers to get re-elected.

Ordinary people, caught up in extraordinary circumstances! Like poor maligned Bobby Swisher. His execution was stayed by Virginia Governor Warner because a sentencing form may have been confusing to some jurors. :mad:

II. THE EVIDENCE
On February 5, 1997, Dawn McNees Snyder disappeared from a florist shop where she worked in Stuarts Draft in Augusta County. Her body was found on February 21, 1997, near a riverbank about two miles from the florist shop. Animals had eaten extensive portions of her face, neck, and upper chest, and her identity was established by use of her dental records.
On February 22, 1997, the defendant, age 20, was at an apartment with two friends, one of whom was Clarence Henry Ridgeway, Jr. Swisher told Ridgeway that Swisher had abducted, raped, sodomized, and killed Snyder. Swisher stated: "You know the woman, Dawn Snyder . . . I killed her." Swisher related the following details to Ridgeway.
On February 5, 1997, about 7:15 p.m., Swisher's uncle drove Swisher by car to a grocery store located near the florist shop where Snyder worked. Swisher left the grocery store and walked to the florist shop. Swisher entered the shop, approached Snyder, and said, "I have a gun in my pocket." Swisher showed Snyder a "butcher knife with ridges" and directed her to go with him.
Swisher forced Snyder to leave the florist shop through a rear door, and they walked for some distance until they reached a field by the South River. Then, Swisher stopped Snyder and told her to "suck his dick." He forced her to perform an act of oral sodomy upon him, and he made her remove her clothes. After he raped her, she put her clothes on, and he forced her to perform another act of oral sodomy upon him.
Swisher decided to kill Snyder because she had "seen his face." He "pulled out the butcher knife" that had "ridges around the edge of the blade," and he "slit her across the left side of the face and was holding her; then slit her throat and then gouged her and then tossed her into a river." He walked along the riverbank, watching her in the river, asking her, "[a]re -- are you dead yet?" After Snyder floated in the river for awhile, Swisher saw her "crawl up the bank." Then, "he got scared and took off running straight to his house from that field." Swisher threw his knife in the river.
When Swisher finished his confession to Ridgeway, Swisher stated that "[i]t feels like [I] could do it again." The following morning, Ridgeway informed the Augusta County Sheriff's Office of Swisher's crimes.

Poor Bobby,...just an ordinary boy caught up in extraordinary circumstances!

BAH! Friggin' liberals!! :mad:

-zilla

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Ordinary people, caught up in extraordinary circumstances! Like poor maligned Bobby Swisher. His execution was stayed by Virginia Governor Warner because a sentencing form may have been confusing to some jurors. :mad:



Poor Bobby,...just an ordinary boy caught up in extraordinary circumstances!

BAH! Friggin' liberals!! :mad:

-zilla

Don't get so emotional -zilla.
It makes the things you say actually less credible.

BTW, I'm all for sensible punishment, but can't believe there are actually STILL people like you who are in favor of the death sentence. It's just barbaric - and irreversible for the poor schmocks who receive it in error...

- m.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Don't get so emotional -zilla.
It makes the things you say actually less credible.

BTW, I'm all for sensible punishment, but can't believe there are actually STILL people like you who are in favor of the death sentence. It's just barbaric - and irreversible for the poor schmocks who receive it in error...

- m.


Sorry, but there are many people out there who think that there are crimes people can commit for which their life should be forfeit...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak



Sorry, but there are many people out there who think that there are crimes people can commit for which their life should be forfeit...

There are many people out there who think that all Arabs are Muslim extremists who want to blow up the world because the voices in their head told them to.

Once, there were many people out there who thought the world was flat and at the centre of the universe.

Just because the majority think something's right doesn't make it so.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There are many people out there who think that all Arabs are Muslim extremists who want to blow up the world because the voices in their head told them to.

An absurb attempt to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with capital punishment.


Once, there were many people out there who thought the world was flat and at the centre of the universe.

See above.


Just because the majority think something's right doesn't make it so.

I made no such claim. Reasonable people can disagree.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Don't get so emotional -zilla.
It makes the things you say actually less credible.

BTW, I'm all for sensible punishment, but can't believe there are actually STILL people like you who are in favor of the death sentence. It's just barbaric - and irreversible for the poor schmocks who receive it in error...

- m.

BP,

I don't believe you actually read what poor misunderstood Bobby did, let me reiterate:
Swisher forced Snyder to leave the florist shop through a rear door, and they walked for some distance until they reached a field by the South River. Then, Swisher stopped Snyder and told her to "suck his dick." He forced her to perform an act of oral sodomy upon him, and he made her remove her clothes. After he raped her, she put her clothes on, and he forced her to perform another act of oral sodomy upon him.
Swisher decided to kill Snyder because she had "seen his face." He "pulled out the butcher knife" that had "ridges around the edge of the blade," and he "slit her across the left side of the face and was holding her; then slit her throat and then gouged her and then tossed her into a river." He walked along the riverbank, watching her in the river, asking her, "[a]re -- are you dead yet?"

So tell me again what's barbaric about the death penalty as far as poor widdle Bobby Swisher is concerned?

The only thing wrong with it as far as I can see is that they don't make him dance on the end of a rope in the town square. :mad:

-zilla