"Sir.Tony" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%
[email protected]...
>
> "MeatballTurbo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You know that special relationship we have with the states?
> > It's very special. They have been ****ing us for years, without having
> > to worry about making any ties or commitments.
>
> Hanging should be brought back for: Murder, rape and death by dangerous
> driving.
You, sir, are an utter tit.
Not only do you fail to reply to the points of the above post, and spew
forth utterly irrelevent views, but your views are, to say the least,
unfounded and hysterical.
Have you any idea how many miscarriages of justice there are, and therefore
how many innocent people would hang for the above crimes? And just think,
for every innocent person murdered by the state, there's still an
unconvicted guilty person on the loose. and no-one will be looking, because
instead of having a chance to realise they were wrong, the police will be
sat smugly thinking justice has been dserved.
Also, put into context the act of murder. Could it be a result of years of
physical or mental abuse at the hands of a spouse or family member? Could be
it manslaughter, but the barrister was not a good one? I dare you to try and
state that it's a truly black and white issue, when every sentient being
knows life is more often than not shades of gray.
Define dangerous driving. For example, a very drunk cyclist on a main road,
late at night, with no lights, and no streetlights, swerves into the path of
an oncoming car. The driver of the car was going at 50% more than the speed
limit (speeding is a heinous crime according to many). The driver doesn't
see the unlit cyclist until it is far too late to stop. Dead cyclist. Does
the driver deserve death because he hit a near invisible obstacle?
>
> The law at the moment, is far too soft on drunk drivers
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes.
Drink driving, in this day and age, is a very silly thing to do. The ever
changing law on the amount of alcohol means many people don't actually know
if they've had a drink too many or not. Many people still think 3 pints is
the limit, some thing one sniff of a weak shandy is, and so on. And some
people simply are not *drunk* on the amount the law says is currently
acceptable. I'm not sure you actually comprehend the difference between
drink driving, and drunk driving, either. Which wouldn't surprise me, as I
doubt you comprehend a great deal. At the level currently set, very very few
people would be considered to be drunk. Mildly impaired enough to be a high
risk, and therefore prosectued, but drunk, no. That is an important point.
Terminology, in a court of law, can be the make or break of a case.
It is also important to remember that like speeding, drinking does not
automatically result in major damage to people or property. An analogy might
be it is legal to own a carving knife. It is illegal to threaten someone
with it. It is illegal to kill someone with it. But should threatening
someone (with no intent to harm) be subject to the same punishment as
actually killing someone? So should someone who is slightly over the limit,
but in reasonable control of their faculties, suffer the same consequences
as someone who is out of their tree and mows down a bus queue?
I doubt you'll reply to this, as it means actually having to construct an
argument, the best I can hope for is another spectacular failure of yours to
say anything in context, but I'm bored (literally watching paint dry) and
playing with the feeble minded morons on usenet sometimes amuses me.
Oh, and once in a while, try to keep to some standards of posting, or Mr.
ISP might not let you play with the interweb any longer.
