Leave it to Eurotrash to be criminal sympathizers. A 21 year max and no death penalty. Has it ever occur them them that the only people who would find a 21 year sentence worth it are murderers and mass murderers?
5.A dead murderer has zero chance of escaping.
First off, that's their laws. They are a sovereign nation and allowed to construct their own laws. If that's what they want, that's what they can have. Their choice.
Secondly, it's already been pointed out in this very thread how it is possible to hold the man longer, and in this case very likely to do so.
I agree with you on that.However I am free to point out the flaw in their choice and bash it.
If this is true then I guess it is better than nothing.
For the love of god....the miss information is ripe over on the other side of the pond.
Maximum sentence is 21 years yes.
However there is Forvaring. This is a statute that states, if the criminal is a threat to society after his sentence then he/she can be put in "forvaring" (jail type scenario) form 10 to 21 years and then after that it can be extended every 5 years. This means he can be held for life.
How often are people escaping from our maximum security prisons though?
From the first page:
Doesn't Pete like in Spain not Norway?
Escape from maximum security prisons do happen. Inmates have 24/7 to think about what they are going to do. A guard has only 8 hours a day to think about what inmate are going to do.
2 Convicted Killers Escape From Maximum-Security Indiana Prison
Six Escape From Maximum-Security Prison - Caption - NYTimes.com
Prison Escapes on the Decline - ABC News
1.Because he or she murdered a innocent person.I know scumbag sympathizers do not give a **** about the victims of these monsters, but normal people do and this is one of the reasons why we punish criminals and why the death penalty exists.
2.With the murderer dead the victim's loved ones are not paying to keep the victim's murderer alive.They are not paying for the murderer's medical bills, food or life time security to keep him alive safe and healthy.
3.A dead murderer is someone who can not harm or murder other people.
4. A dead murderer can not be pardoned or released for oil or to idiotic reasons like the UK did with the Lockerbie bomber.
5. A dead murderer can not give tv interviews.
5.A dead murderer has zero chance of escaping.
An executed innocent person has zero chance of being released.
An executed innocent person has zero chance of being released.
Does not make sense what you wrote, but if I try to decode it... then..
No I am not Spanish but Danish, as from Denmark, the country south of Norway, and former colonial master of Norway. Also Norway shares many of the same laws and legal framework as Denmark, including the law of "Forvaring".
Forvaring is only used against the most harden violent offenders that are a threat to society despite spending decades behind bars.
Yes, but an executed guilty person has zero chance of doing the crime again.
Murder is a legal term. The state accidentally killing an innocent man is not murder.And if the state kills an innocent person, should those involved be killed as well (it would be murder after all and premeditated as well
In other words as has been shown to occur a few innocent people have been executed by the state for crimes they did not commit. Should not the judge, jury, and person/people involved in the execution be charged with murder and then put to death for it
I feel like the 8th amendment should be brought up at least to refresh everyone's memory of it.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Murder is a legal term. The state accidentally killing an innocent man is not murder.
Yup.
The death penalty does not deter, and homocide rates are higher in death penalty states:
ABSENCE OF EXECUTIONS - A special report. - States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates - Special Report - NYTimes.com
Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center
Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder, According to New Study
And if the state kills an innocent person, should those involved be killed as well (it would be murder after all and premeditated as well
In other words as has been shown to occur a few innocent people have been executed by the state for crimes they did not commit. Should not the judge, jury, and person/people involved in the execution be charged with murder and then put to death for it
This is just hyperbole. People that are in the legal system are protected against such things. And for good reason. For example if a cop breaks down the door of a house because he/she had reason to believe that something bad was going on they are not liable to pay for the door if it turns out that he/she was wrong. The reason for this is so that cops don't have to second guess themselves because they are worried about having to pay the bill...which could stop them from successfully helping someone that IS in trouble on time. This applies to judges, and juries also. Would you really want a jury to let someone that was guilty as hell go just because they were worried that they might be convicting an innocent person and if found later to be innocent have to go to prison for X number of years? Sounds stupid to me.
For the love of god....the miss information is ripe over on the other side of the pond.
Maximum sentence is 21 years yes.
However there is Forvaring. This is a statute that states, if the criminal is a threat to society after his sentence then he/she can be put in "forvaring" (jail type scenario) form 10 to 21 years and then after that it can be extended every 5 years. This means he can be held for life.
WOW!!! If thats true then this dood killed a whole lotta people and will be released when he is 53 years old???
If at 53 he is found to be a threat, he will be held for a much longer time. Serial rapists or murderers would be held untill they are too old or invalidic to be a threat
If the person was innoccent, but still alive he/she can be released and compensated which has occured both in Canada and the US. If the person is innocent but killed by the state, he/she can not be compensated,
and as killing an innoccent person is murder, someone should have to pay for it. As you can execute the entire government, the people involved directly can be. It certainly would make all involved far more careful in who they decide to sentance to the death penatly
Thier family can be compensated.
And you just totally ignored what I said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?