|
|
Post by 101ABN on Apr 25, 2005 19:11:04 GMT -8
Well Gang, Let 'er rip!
|
|
|
|
Post by Remey688 on Apr 26, 2005 9:20:57 GMT -8
Jackson should be sentenced to 20 years in San Quentin's general population.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReformedLiberal on Apr 26, 2005 16:03:06 GMT -8
I doubt he'll skate this time 'round. And if he gets the klink, get ready for some more 'protests' in the streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 27, 2005 7:12:58 GMT -8
As a molester of not only children, but also the very future upon which the endurance of our Nation depends, Jackson should face the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by mateo on Apr 28, 2005 0:16:26 GMT -8
As a molester of not only children, but also the very future upon which the endurance of our Nation depends, Jackson should face the death penalty. Ids there any crime someone could commit where you don't want them killed? What is this fascination of yours with death? |
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Apr 28, 2005 9:18:36 GMT -8
My position on this issue may be a bit surprising.
Though I think Michael Jackson is a complete wacko and should not be sleeping with children, it's obvious that he's far too nice to kids. This family that has him in criminal court is an absolute joke. I don't see how any witnesses against Jackson are credible in this case. Just my take.
One would hope, if acquitted, Jackson would learn to stop having kids over to his place. Only if stupidity were a crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 28, 2005 10:00:04 GMT -8
Ids there any crime someone could commit where you don't want them killed? What is this fascination of yours with death? Well, no one should be committing crimes in the first place, now should they? |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 28, 2005 15:24:32 GMT -8
As a molester of not only children, but also the very future upon which the endurance of our Nation depends, Jackson should face the death penalty. Haha holy shit....I burst out laughing reading this post. Hahaha |
|
|
|
Post by mateo on Apr 28, 2005 17:40:22 GMT -8
Well, no one should be committing crimes in the first place, now should they? So you think death should be the mandatory sentence for every crome. |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 28, 2005 19:11:17 GMT -8
So you think death should be the mandatory sentence for every crome. No, but it should be an option, dependent on the extent that the crime has violated the basic foundations of our Nation and harms [an]other individual(s). |
|
|
|
Post by mateo on Apr 28, 2005 21:55:58 GMT -8
No, but it should be an option, dependent on the extent that the crime has violated the basic foundations of our Nation and harms [an]other individual(s). There must be 100% proof that the individual committed the crime. While there exists the possibility of an innocent person being put to death, then I cannot support the death penalty. As a Christian, I can never condone the killing of anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Apr 29, 2005 0:34:59 GMT -8
There must be 100% proof that the individual committed the crime. While there exists the possibility of an innocent person being put to death, then I cannot support the death penalty. As a Christian, I can never condone the killing of anyone. Society must be protected against those who would hurt the innocent. As long as we allow these things to live on there is always a risk of another life being taken away, or ruined because of societies in-action. |
|
|
|
Post by mateo on Apr 29, 2005 1:57:12 GMT -8
Society must be protected against those who would hurt the innocent. As long as we allow these things to live on there is always a risk of another life being taken away, or ruined because of societies in-action. No one ever gets the point on this. They immediately fall back on the idea the death penalty is justified becaues it protects the innocent. Great. IU'm not arguing that. Nobody can admit to themselves that the judicial system itself invalidates the deat penalty. If just one innocent person could potentially be put to death, then the death penalty must be abolished. |
|
|
|
Post by ReformedLiberal on Apr 29, 2005 10:08:59 GMT -8
If just one innocent person could potentially be put to death, then the death penalty must be abolished. The absolutist, all or nothing argument... If just one innocent person can potentially be killed by a gun, no one should be allowed to have them. If abortion can potentially save the life of just one woman, then all women should be allowed to have them...anytime. If the combustion engine can potentially harm the environment, then it must be outlawed. If one little girl could potentially be beaten by her father for getting pregnant, then no minor should be denied an abortion for not having parental consent. Yada, yada, yada... |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 29, 2005 13:22:43 GMT -8
No one ever gets the point on this. They immediately fall back on the idea the death penalty is justified becaues it protects the innocent. Great. IU'm not arguing that. Nobody can admit to themselves that the judicial system itself invalidates the deat penalty. If just one innocent person could potentially be put to death, then the death penalty must be abolished. I am largely against the death penalty as well but as Steven points out, I don't get the logic that you use. Innocent people die in war all the time - but no one is about to out-law war. Except at least not people who have common sense. |
|
