mr friend said this to me the other day does anyone think that an ok to say
2006-07-31 23:57:26 · 24 answers · asked by Huggles [mozzafan] 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sorry, but that's about the most stupid thing I've ever heard. I thought humans evolved from Apes, but even apes have more sense than some humans.
+ It would put the screws out of jobs and they wouldn't pay any tax, so would would have to pay their bit of tax + their dole money.
Don't forget, money is never spent, only recycled!
2006-08-01 01:26:34 · answer #1 · answered by stickyricky 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
As most women in British prisons are in there because of having no TV licence or non payment of council tax I personally think it is a bit harsh.But as for the paedophiles and rapists and murderers yep i agree just shoot them.
2006-08-01 08:04:15 · answer #2 · answered by pig m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
erm as my dad is in jail for a relatively minor crime, I'd be a bit upset if he was shot. Most of the guys in there need a fresh start in life, and prison offers them that - only a few re-offend, most go on to lead very good, very upstanding lives - they were a victim of circumstance or of greed, and get re-educated and given a second chance by prison.
2006-08-01 07:02:38 · answer #3 · answered by Mudkips 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
would you like it if you were victim of a justice error?
Killing is way too final to allow justice to be able to rejudge a crime if there is new evidence... If there is new evidence, the crime MUST be rejudged. And if the "criminal" is already dead... well, it's kinda difficult to do it, in that case, isn't it?
But of course, I've heard the story of a man, in the states who was condemned for a crime, then new evidence arose and the state refused to rejudge him on the basis that he already had a "fair trial" (with judges a jury and everything)... I doubt it could have been fair if elements had been missing, but still : that kind of things happen in the states. So if you have a justice that won't allow rejudging, then kill the man : he won't be able to get out anyway.
2006-08-01 07:01:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you mean is punishment is not what it used to be. This is the result of undue influence of the Liberal Left on Government Policies.
If the conditions in prison were harsher then the criminal would soon realise that crime does not pay. Shooting can be OK if you can undo it. Can you?
2006-08-01 07:13:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow!
Because you are in Democratic country.
Also there are people in Jail for Minor offences. do we shoot those as well?
Can I suggest that we re-invest some of those taxes on education, so that many maybe in the long run there would be less people in prison.
2006-08-01 07:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by nonconformiststraightguy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's ok if you put Allegedly at the end :)
Anyway. Most of the criminals are free.
If the government had it's way. Bank robbers would do community service working in banks. etc.
That may sound a mad idea but things like this happen often.
2006-08-01 07:04:55 · answer #7 · answered by JeffE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. It's a good statement. Why should bad people who break the law get any of my money! they get 3 meal a day, a bed, cable tv, and they don't have to spend a dime. We all pay for it. Shot them all!
But the crime must be a bad one, i.e. rape murder, child molest.
2006-08-01 07:02:05 · answer #8 · answered by smoothsophie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think maybe your friend might like to see the reintroduction of the death penalty for serious crimes, but surely not for lesser crime! I personally think for lesser crimes there should be more community service given to criminals so they are made to give something back to society
2006-08-01 07:05:02 · answer #9 · answered by Stephen H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if your friend forgot to pay their tax or t.v licence would you be the one to shoot them?
2006-08-01 07:01:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋