- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,703
- Reaction score
- 28,002
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Nah the name I gave him suits him.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.
But he very well could be a cowboy...
Nah the name I gave him suits him.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.
But he very well could be a cowboy...
Good for him, but everyone is not an Adolf Hitler who's all for the genocide of one race.
in my opinion , the rejection of death penalty seems that some people tend to care about the rights of criminals rather than innocent victims.
yes.Should there be a death penalty?
in my opinion , the rejection of death penalty seems that some people tend to care about the rights of criminals rather than innocent victims.
What do you think of the death penalty.
I think that the Death Penalty is an appropriate consequence to murder, rape, molestation or kidnapping.
OR kidnapping?
So, a loving father who, in the midst of a brutal custody battle, takes his child with him and is arrested for kidnapping should be sentenced to death?
No. Of course not. Just as an 18 year-old she not be charged with a sex crime when shagging his 17 year-old girlfriend. There should, if there aren't already, be levels of kidnapping and the worst ones like for ransom should qualify.
I have to say though that I am a loving single father in the middle of a brutal custody battle and I haven't once thought of taking them...
In what freaky mirror universe does the victim of a crime obtain the right to the life of another? What possible right of a victim is infringed by not killing another human being? Turning around and demanding the death of another person doesn't make a victim whole. All it does is destroy more life. It takes away someone's father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, or son. Destruction only begets more destruction.
And, of course, what pro death penalty people always forget is that it is important to protect the rights of accused criminals, because no conviction is 100% sure.
I partly agree with you on the sex crime issue, but I don't agree that the state has jurisdiction or a moral obligation to take the life of its citizenry.
As for you personally, I don't know your circumstances. But I do know there have been cases where the courts prematurely give primary (or sole) custody to the mother (or even father) when that person is dangerous and irresponsible. By the time the responsible parent convinces the court otherwise, the children may be teenagers who hate their father (or mother). On top of that, they may have acquired some of the bad habits of the bad parent.
In those cases, I would almost be glad if the responsible parent took the children and left. It wouldn't be legal, but in an ironic set of circumstances, you sometimes have to be willing to break the law in order to do what is right.