Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1782209)

Eye for an Eye....

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1782209)

Eye for an Eye....

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782470)

I agree. And not doing this is what makes the U.S. justice system so fked up. It seems to me that our justice system is geared to protect the criminal rather than the victim.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782470)

I agree. And not doing this is what makes the U.S. justice system so fked up. It seems to me that our justice system is geared to protect the criminal rather than the victim.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782470)

I agree. And not doing this is what makes the U.S. justice system so fked up. It seems to me that our justice system is geared to protect the criminal rather than the victim.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1782486)

You're right.

When I found out that criminals could sue people for getting injured in their homes while committing crimes, I was completely outdone. I think for the most part our justice system could use some work.

As for putting his eyes out, I see no reason for them to be humane about it. They should do the same thing to him that he did to her.

I feel so bad for this poor woman.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1782522)

You're right - until the "criminal" is, y'know, convicted.

Seriously - people have rights, no matter what they've done. This is not a bad thing. I challenge you to find a better system than ours, anywhere - from Britain to Jordan to Narnia, I'm almost 100% sure you can't find one.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1782531)

Absolutely - and while we're at it we should get rid of that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" stuff too.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1782763)

Zeph -- are you unhappy with the law or just the results?

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782766)

Good question. I've never thought about it that way. I would have to say both. When I speak of both, OJ's case would be an example of the results, death row would be an example of the law. There are other examples, those are just two.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1782778)

I see what you're saying. I'll probably be doing criminal defense (private) among other things very soon, so your opinion is interesting to me.

For now, let's throw out the insanity defense as I'll bet I could probably show you some cases where such a defense is viable and morally supportable.

Other than that, what would you change?

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1782778)

I see what you're saying. I'll probably be doing criminal defense (private) among other things very soon,

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782762)

My argument is how is our legal system any better when clearly you have to have money in order to get off, when you've done the crime? Like OJs first crime with his wife, we all know he killed her. To think differently shows complete stupidity. If that were me or anyone else on this board, that trial would have been over in two minutes and we would still be in prison. How is that justice? In other countries can the criminal actually sue? Like deepimpact said. That's stupid. Rights? Why? So Ted Bundy should have rights after he killed all of those women. Just lock em' up and throw away the key. So what makes our justice system any better than theirs?

Yeah, I agree. We also need to get rid of the pleading insanity rule too. It's dumb. Charles Manson is a good example of that. He lucked up and escaped the death penalty too. And that reminds me, death row is unecessary too. Get rid of it. If you know they've done the crime, kill em' right away. What's the point of a death row? Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry guys, our justice system sucks and frankly I think it's just as bad as other countries. Here it's all about money. How is that any better? It's still an unfair system that can be made fair.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782793)

My law school friend I were talking about this earlier, she was showing me a few real life cases in one of her many books she studies. Everything she tried blasting me with I found something that was flawed. I know you know more than I do as does she, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who can handle an hour of law school, but I told her that there wouldn't be so much to study and know if a lot of the pointless garbage was taken out.

I would change alot of things. I would start with how members of the jury are selected. I find it to be a bit strange when a country who is supposed to have a decent justice system, can pick and choose who should be on the jury and who shouldn't based on an interview process. I also would get rid of death row. There are some criminals on death row who clearly have done the crime and will actually die of natural death rather than receiving what they gave to someone else. My way would be: Once they're found guilty and the death penalty is applied to them, DO IT. THAT DAY! The end.

I'm still blown away knowing the fact that someone can break into my home that I'm paying for, where I eat, sleep and live, and yet if I shoot him as he's fleeing, I go to prison? WTF!!! I know you're an attorney or headed in that direction, but dude, seriously. On top of that, if he's injured in my place of residence, he can sue me??? If that isn't fking insane, then I don't know what is. Excuse my langauge but I call total bullshit on that whole stupid rule. If someone is breaking and entering in my home, he should be open game. He's on my property, so I should be able to do whatever tf I want to, to him without going to prison. What if I have a family? I can't protect my wife and kids??

Like I was saying. The criminal is WAY too protected in this country. What about the drunk drivers? Don't get me wrong, I'm all about drinking, but there's a time and place for that, and also I have to be willing to except the consequences if I've had too much to drink. The bar shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Question for you. She and I got into a debate about that issue. She told me that if someone had too much to drink, it's actually the bar's responsibilty to stop serving him. How is that? Once again, the prick is protected. If he's had too much to drink and hurts someone, throw him behind bars. Not for just a few days, but 20 to life. Our crime rate would drop tremendously if we just made these few changes. It's bad, because people know if they hire the right attorney they can either get off, or get a smaller sentence. Like I said, I know you know more than me, but you've got to admit it yourself dude, some things have got to change. Seriously. You've got car jackings, theft, insurance fraud, etc, all of these things would change if we had a harsher justice system. Basically it needs to be designed to protect and serve the innocent, not the guiltly. I agree with Ksig 100% on that whole innocent until proven guilty mumbo jumbo.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 1782799)

I agree that if someone breaks into your home, they shouldn't be able to sue you. That's ridiculous.

In terms of the bar being responsible... this is true. I've worked in many restaurants, and we would hold the same responsibility. You're trained in how to deal with someone when you're serving them alcohol. This is why some people will get cut off in bars. If someone attempts to leave, they're clearly drunk, and they don't have a DD, then yes, you're supposed to stop them (ask for their keys, offer to call them a cab, tell them to call a friend to pick them up, etc.) The same would be true if you had a party at your house, one of your friends was wasted, and they were allowed to walk out the door and drive home.

As to everything else.. you say that the system is flawed. But I guarantee that every other system is flawed, more so than ours ever will be.

You talk about getting rid of insanity pleas. This will never happen. As long as a few people could actually be deemed mentally insane (which is obviously the case), then this won't go away. No matter how much this plea is abused.

You say that you'd change how members of the jury are selected. What exactly would you change? You implied that there is an interview process.. It's not like you're applying for a job, and you have better "qualifications" than someone else. Possible jury members are selected at random, and from those, it is narrowed down by getting rid of people who are biased or prejudiced. If a white person is a potential juror in a case where the defendant is black, and they are known to not like black people at all, why is it so bad to get rid of them? I'm confused by your logic here.

In terms of the death penalty... I don't care if they sit in jail for 10 years before they're killed. To me, death is an easy way out. I say leave them in jail for life. It'll be more torturous.

And in terms of rights for criminals... again, it comes down to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Hell, I know that if I was arrested for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be a little pissed when someone says to me, "By the way, your trial is going to last 2 minutes, you're clearly guilty, and we're going to kill you tomorrow."

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782762)

Yeah, I agree. We also need to get rid of the pleading insanity rule too. It's dumb. Charles Manson is a good example of that. He lucked up and escaped the death penalty too. And that reminds me, death row is unecessary too. Get rid of it. If you know they've done the crime, kill em' right away. What's the point of a death row? Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry guys, our justice system sucks and frankly I think it's just as bad as other countries. Here it's all about money. How is that any better? It's still an unfair system that can be made fair.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782793)

My law school friend I were talking about this earlier, she was showing me a few real life cases in one of her many books she studies. Everything she tried blasting me with I found something that was flawed. I know you know more than I do as does she, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who can handle an hour of law school, but I told her that there wouldn't be so much to study and know if a lot of the pointless garbage was taken out.

I would change alot of things. I would start with how members of the jury are selected. I find it to be a bit strange when a country who is supposed to have a decent justice system, can pick and choose who should be on the jury and who shouldn't based on an interview process. I also would get rid of death row. There are some criminals on death row who clearly have done the crime and will actually die of natural death rather than receiving what they gave to someone else. My way would be: Once they're found guilty and the death penalty is applied to them, DO IT. THAT DAY! The end.

I'm still blown away knowing the fact that someone can break into my home that I'm paying for, where I eat, sleep and live, and yet if I shoot him as he's fleeing, I go to prison? WTF!!! I know you're an attorney or headed in that direction, but dude, seriously. On top of that, if he's injured in my place of residence, he can sue me??? If that isn't fking insane, then I don't know what is. Excuse my langauge but I call total bullshit on that whole stupid rule. If someone is breaking and entering in my home, he should be open game. He's on my property, so I should be able to do whatever tf I want to, to him without going to prison. What if I have a family? I can't protect my wife and kids??

Like I was saying. The criminal is WAY too protected in this country. What about the drunk drivers? Don't get me wrong, I'm all about drinking, but there's a time and place for that, and also I have to be willing to except the consequences if I've had too much to drink. The bar shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Question for you. She and I got into a debate about that issue. She told me that if someone had too much to drink, it's actually the bar's responsibilty to stop serving him. How is that? Once again, the prick is protected. If he's had too much to drink and hurts someone, throw him behind bars. Not for just a few days, but 20 to life. Our crime rate would drop tremendously if we just made these few changes. It's bad, because people know if they hire the right attorney they can either get off, or get a smaller sentence. Like I said, I know you know more than me, but you've got to admit it yourself dude, some things have got to change. Seriously. You've got car jackings, theft, insurance fraud, etc, all of these things would change if we had a harsher justice system. Basically it needs to be designed to protect and serve the innocent, not the guiltly. I agree with Ksig 100% on that whole innocent until proven guilty mumbo jumbo.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782797)

When you say private, you mean not for an actual law firm? What's the difference between private and actually working for a law firm?

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1782824)

I know it looks like the criminal is protected to the detriment of the innocent person, but I think there's another way to look at it. Not every person who is accused of a crime is guilty, and not every crime is as serious as it appears at first glance. The laws are set up (or, the aim is that the laws are set up) so that, in those cases when someone is actually innocent, or that the crime wasn't as serious as first thought, the person has a fair shot of re-entry to society. Now, it doesn't work out that way in a lot of cases; innocent people are put on death row or spend years in prison, and guilty people walk the streets.

On the death row issue; check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ . There's also lots of resources on the web that talk about innocent people who have spent decades in jail, or who have been put to death. There are also first-hand accounts from those innocent people who spent 10, 20, 30 years or more in prison. Having executions the same day as guilty verdicts would virtually ensure that more innocent people were put to death.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul (Post 1782891)

Truth. My husband worked with the Innocence Institute while he was in college (as a journalist). He worked on a team that ended up clearing a man of murder. There were gross errors in the casework when the original trial happened, and one witness came right out and admitted he had lied on the stand. By the time the innocence institute took his case, did the research, and filed the appeal, he had spent something like 10+ years in jail. Lost his wife and family, his home, his livelihood.....and he was innocent.

That is why a same day execution is a BAD BAD idea.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1782793)

Question for you. She and I got into a debate about that issue. She told me that if someone had too much to drink, it's actually the bar's responsibilty to stop serving him. How is that? Once again, the prick is protected. If he's had too much to drink and hurts someone, throw him behind bars. Not for just a few days, but 20 to life. Our crime rate would drop tremendously if we just made these few changes. It's bad, because people know if they hire the right attorney they can either get off, or get a smaller sentence. Like I said, I know you know more than me, but you've got to admit it yourself dude, some things have got to change. Seriously. You've got car jackings, theft, insurance fraud, etc, all of these things would change if we had a harsher justice system. Basically it needs to be designed to protect and serve the innocent, not the guiltly. I agree with Ksig 100% on that whole innocent until proven guilty mumbo jumbo.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1782824)

Just a note...I was being sarcastic about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I firmly believe in the doctrine, and I think too many people ignore it.

That said - when someone pleads insanity, it's not like they get to walk right out the door and re-enter society. They get treatment for what is most likely a serious mental defect. It's not always like in "Law and Order" where they're throwing it out as a last-ditch defense or some sort of bargaining tactic. Some of these people have serious mental issues, and honestly don't know the difference between right and wrong.




On the drunk driving and the bar being responsible for your actions...that's not the case in every state. Some states have statutes that protect bars from liability if someone they are serving goes out and injures another person; the rationale is that the bar/tavern shouldn't be responsible in a civil or criminal sense for every person that they serve. There are a number of states that agree with your rationale, but a bunch don't; it really just depends where you are.

I know it looks like the criminal is protected to the detriment of the innocent person, but I think there's another way to look at it. Not every person who is accused of a crime is guilty, and not every crime is as serious as it appears at first glance. The laws are set up (or, the aim is that the laws are set up) so that, in those cases when someone is actually innocent, or that the crime wasn't as serious as first thought, the person has a fair shot of re-entry to society. Now, it doesn't work out that way in a lot of cases; innocent people are put on death row or spend years in prison, and guilty people walk the streets.

On the death row issue; check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ . There's also lots of resources on the web that talk about innocent people who have spent decades in jail, or who have been put to death. There are also first-hand accounts from those innocent people who spent 10, 20, 30 years or more in prison. Having executions the same day as guilty verdicts would virtually ensure that more innocent people were put to death.

I'm just a law student, not yet a lawyer, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt...it's just my views on the whole thing.



Law practice can be broken down, for the most part, into private practice and public service. When Kevin says he's going "private," he means that he'll do criminal defense for a law firm, rather than being a public defender.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1782976)

The law can be broken down into some fairly simple concepts. There's broad overarching policy, then there's the minutia. Basically, at least in response to some of the situations you've described, I see two overarching principles: 1) Everyone has to act within the parameters of reasonable care, always; 2) You can only harm someone when necessary, and when it's necessary, you can only use the amount of force which is reasonably calculated to stop them from harming you.

Maybe these things won't seem so bad if you understand the logic behind them.

With respect to the bar, the bartender knows or should know when someone has been served too much to be driving. We require those bartenders to not intentionally, by action or inaction, put drunk drivers on the road. To do so is to create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to the public at large, not to mention the drunk. In one of these cases, the drunk is not 'protected.' He gets sued also. It's just that in this society, we like to make injured people whole as priority one. We let the insurance company of the drunk and the insurance company of the bar/bartender fight amongst themselves to decide who pays what.

With regard to the second thing, you have a fleeing burglar. While you might feel violated, society does not condone you taking a life because you have suffered some feeling of harmed security and maybe lost some property. We think lives, even those of criminals are worth more than stuff and hurt feelings. If, however, that burglar is in your home, generally speaking (DO NOT ACT ON WHAT I AM SAYING HERE!!! KNOW YOUR OWN STATE LAW BECAUSE I DON'T!!!), you can use whatever force is reasonable in getting them off of your property or abating the risk they pose.

As for juries, most countries don't use juries. We do. Look at what just happened over in Pennsylvania where a couple of judges were caught taking payments from private prisons for sending youthful offenders their way. The jury system keeps that sort of corruption from infiltrating our criminal justice system for the most part. There are lots of other reasons for and against juries, but as to the jury selection, a/k/a voire dire, both sides want to have a fair and unbiased jury. It's important to know whether any jurors have certain biases which could either result in a mistrial or someone being wrongfully acquitted/convicted. Maybe that's flawed also, but I can't think of a better system really.

In sum, if you have a problem with the law, it's best to take a step back and examine the underlying broad principles. I think those'll help you make better sense of what at first seems unfair.



Working for a law firm is private. Working for the state isn't. I don't want to get into what exactly my plans are (you could probably search through my old posts if you care), but I'm not going to be working for the government.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1783718)

To Kevin and Ksig, you both made valid points, but think about what you're saying here. I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot who can't control his liquor. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that? Or what if it was 2am and some asshole broke into your home, and as he was taking your things, you chased him out with a gun (not shooting him to avoid getting prosecuted yourself) he comes back, because you didn't blow him away, and he kills a loved one.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1783718)

I don't care what society says about the value of human life. If he's a criminal and he's in my house, taking my things, or making my family feel unsafe, I should be able to blow his fking brains out without being prosecuted. If the United States passed laws that looked at the criminals as the pos that they are, then the crime rate would drop tremendously. I'm all for the jury law, but I'm not for the selection process. I agree, it's very flawed because I think it's unfair to select who gets put on the jury and who doesn't. We all have racist and biased reactions to people. Anyone who tells you they don't they're full of sht. And for the sick people who murder innocent people and then plead insanity, just get rid of them. If they really are sick, why should they get treatment, but then the innocent victims still have to suffer the loss. Forever. Fk em. Get rid of em.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1783718)

I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot falsifying a report or messing up police work or flat-out inventing evidence that resulted in a conviction of your loved one, who spent the rest of their life in prison (or was executed) because the law is intended to immediately and swiftly malign the criminal rather than protecting the rights of legitimate citizens. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1783724)

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 1783791)

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 1783791)

"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1783724)

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.



I could go on for pages about this topic, but I'll keep it short...

You're taking a very specific situation (someone breaking into your house), and asking that the entire criminal law be re-written to answer that concern. I understand the emotional response, but you really need to look at it big picture.

As to those who plead insanity - again, it's not sane people pleading it as some sort of bargaining chip. If you're that interested and passionate about the topic, it may be worth it for you to do some research into the area, and read stories of people who were actually mentally ill when they have committed serious crimes. When these people go into treatment, it's not like they're going to the Hilton. Additionally, they're still being taken out of society, so it's not like they automatically get to walk the streets free and clear.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1783772)

I mean . . . you really have to look at both sides here.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 1783791)

I don't know what you mean, Zyphyrus, when you say, "Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?" but I would not want him to get the death penalty. I do believe, however, that he should definitely do jail time, which he is.

Another thing to remember is that people make mistakes. Sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes it's a one time thing and they learn their lesson, sometimes they just don't know any better. Let's take the whole breaking and entering example... let's suppose people break into your house. You hear noise from your bedroom, you get up, grab your gun, and you head downstairs. It's dark, but you see two men in your kitchen going through your purse. They notice you and they start to run out the back door. As they're running across your lawn, you shoot and kill them both.

You call the police. They arrive. They go through the pockets of the two guys lying on the ground outside and they find their wallets with their IDs. They were both 16. The parents of the two young boys show up and are devastated.

Would you not feel the least bit guilty?

You said a few posts back that you'd be surprised that you would go to jail if you shot at burglars as they were leaving your house. In the example you gave in your last post, you said something to the effect of, " What if you don't shoot him as he's leaving and he comes back and kills a loved one?" Well guess what, that sucks. But you can't preemptively kill someone because you have a hunch that they might come back and kill your family. What kind of a defense would that be?

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1784059)

I'm saying to get rid of the insane too (if they hurt or kill someone) Basically whatever they do to someone else, do the same exact thing back to them. It's only fair man. It's only fair. That way the morons who try to use that as a cop out, fry too.

Back to your drunk driving incident. First off, I'm sorry to hear that happened to you and your wife, glad to see you're still here to talk about it. What baffles the hell out of me is why was that his 3rd DUI? See, this is what erks the fk out of me. It's shit like this that, that make the law all wrong. No, I can't change it, but I can voice an opinion on it, like I'm doing now. I just can't see what you don't get about that. I know you're in school for it, so you have to understand the law in order to enforce or defend it, but I would have a hard time enforcing something or defending something that I believe is wrong. Seriously dude, think about what you just said. This sick fuck hit you and your wife at over 70mph, and then on top of that it was his 3rd DUI. WTF!!!! How does that happen? Here's a story for ya. Today, I had to get a ticket waved. A few weeks ago the cops stopped me because my tail lights weren't working, so he said that I would get a ticket in the mail. He said it would be waved once I got the matter fixed. I fixed it that day and kept the receipt. I got the ticket in the mail a couple of days ago, and it said that I had to mail it in before 3-5-09. He said that I could have any cop sign off on it, so I took it to the cops in my city to have it done. Out of curiosity I asked the cop behind the counter what would happen if I forgot to mail it in. He said if it wasn't mailed in by the 5th there would be a warrant out for my arrest. Once he told me that, I decided to drive the signed off ticket to the court house rather than mailing it to make sure that it was waved. I had them make copies of everything for my records, and that cost me 2 bucks. Now, what kind of shit is that. There would be a warrant out for my arrest for a simple fix it ticket, but yet you and your wife get hit by a drunk driver who is out doing the shit again for the 3rd fking time. Then OJ Simpson gets off on murder charges (his own fking wife). Dude, that's bullshit! If it isn't then I don't what is. If I forgot to to have the ticket signed off on, fine me and then garnish my wages, but don't arrest me. I could see if I killed or hurt someone, or robbed a bank but a fix it ticket? Give me a break.


I didn't see it that way. I was mainly talking about after the fact or knowing without a doubt, that he committed the crime.


So fking what! Pay for the mistake. We all make them, so we pay for them. You call driving drunk a mistake? It's not a mistake, it's a dangerous act that can possibly kill someone else who has done nothing but get into his car. Fk that! Yeah, if he kills someone he should fry. If he hurts someone, he should hurt, if he ruins the car, he should buy them a new car even if it has to come out of his check through garnishment.

You just don't get it do you?
Listen. It's MY house, MY fking property that I pay for, why the hell should anyone I don't fking know be there? Do they pay the bills there? No they don't. No, I wouldn't want to shoot a 16 year old kid or anyone else for that matter, but if it's dark and he's in MY house, he dies. I wouldn't care if the lights were on, I'm blowing him away, and should be justified in doing so. If I later find out he's 16, no I wouldn't feel guilty. Not at all. He shouldn't have been in my house on my property. I wouldn't shoot him for the fear of him coming back to kill my family, I would be protecting my family at the time the incident happened. I HAVE THAT RIGHT!!! I call total bullshit on your whole post. It's almost like your own their side. This is what I mean. The criminal is protected and given too many rights in this country. I'm all about an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Whatever you do to me, should be done right back to you. Have you ever seen the movie " An Eye for an Eye"? it was about this woman who's daughter got raped by some controlling sexually crazed prick. What pissed me off about the whole movie it this dick head is out running the streets after he raped and killed this woman's daughter. She basically had to go around the law or trick the law just to kill this guy. What should have happened is the cops should have found this guy and asked her what she wanted to do. It should be her chioce. Me personally, I would send him to prison, let him get raped there, and then let him out so I could put a bullet right through his head. The same thing he did to my daughter should be done back to him. What part of that are you not understanding? This country puts too much value on human life and they should, provided that person is humane.

I disagree with you 100%. No fking way.

And I'm a dude so I don't carry a purse.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1783802)

Vigilante justice is a scary concept.

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218 (Post 1784235)

This is also a part of the world that encourages honor killings of female rape victims...

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1784059)

I'm saying to get rid of the insane too (if they hurt or kill someone) Basically whatever they do to someone else, do the same exact thing back to them. It's only fair man. It's only fair. That way the morons who try to use that as a cop out, fry too.