greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


I accept your apology.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


For God sake man! Stop playing with semantics or I'll issue a Fatwa against you! You won't want to meet Mustafa the Machete Maniac on your doorstep at midnight during a full moon. He's known to utter long and mournful ululations to the moon before and after he has fulfilled his contract.

There are all sorts of definitions that describe different kinds of human killings.

My brother wasn't 'murdered' when the palliative care doctor happened to give the syringe-plunger a bit of a nudge that delivered an overdose of morphine.

During WWII it wasn't murder when my headmaster shot a soldier who was sitting against a fence with half his head blown off.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


There's also no proof that it isn't a deterrent. How many women are raped by ... quote: family members, neighbours, people they know, work colleagues'?

Heaps. And yet these easily identified rapists don't kill the victim in order to conceal their identity. How many men are in jail for rape? Thousands ... because they didn't dare go that next step and throttle their victims.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


That's a Good News story. Moral degenerates climbing into people's houses at night for a bit of burglary and perhaps with the hope of a little rape-action as a bonus - deserve to have themselves terminated by irate husbands and single-occupier spinsters and widows.

No tears from a majority of the population I dare guess.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


This is a favourite of Kat's.

Unfortunately its bunkum, of course. The State does not terminate the lives of horrific murderers for reasons of criminal mischief and moral degeneracy.

Certain individuals are so monstrous in their psychology that these judicial executions should be seen more in the nature of 'late terminations' than anything else. They should have been aborted at birth. Better late than never.

The removal of these Hannibal Lecters gives finality to the families of victims, as well as ensuring they never offend again. There is no such thing as 'life' in prison. It means 25 years ~ and  then the parole system kicks in. Not good enough.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:58am:


Read my above post. No death penalty upon circumstantial evidence. Too much opportunity for tampering with the evidence to produce a desired outcome.

I take your point that the police are totally untrustworthy when giving evidence in court. I agree.

Well, Peter, I think we can reach a compromise.

If you promise me never to ask a palliative care doctor to shorten your life of misery on your death bed ~ (it's Murder Most Foul you've told us here) ~ then I promise I'll vote "No" if I ever find myself on a jury in a murder case.

Do we have a deal? 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 6:22am:

I dont support Sharia law but I do support the types of punishments I mentioned. Good try at a strawman argument though.

ian wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 11:31am:



"I'll do anything, Br'er Turnkey - jes' don' put me up in dat 'lectric chair!"

"It's on'y incidental, Br'er Rabbit!  Take it like a man!  Dis here Green Mile awful long, but ain' no thang! "

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

It actually varies state by state. Most states must set a minimum term, in Western australia  for instance the average life term is around 14 years before parole. But you make a good point, life does not mean life at all under sentencing laws. It should mean in all cases for the term of your natural life.

FriYAY wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 10:23am:


How can a simple fact be hysterical -even "sooo hysterical"?

ian wrote on Jun 27^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:


you need to read a bit more about Singapores 'justice' system which doesnt grant the right to free speech, a proper trial or due process.