:
|
And what about the idea of Redemption? The idea that "a man can change"? Isn't every crime subject to a trial and re-trial?
Also, basic Human Rights would say "You can't torture me" and, IMO, testing potential lethal concotions on me would be torturous.
|
I understand what you're saying and I do take your point, but can a rapist or a murderer really be believed to change? Sure in some cases they can, but in others, they don't. And releasing someone like that or treating them nicely in the hope/belief they'll change and become contributive citizens is for the most part false hope. And the point of my arguement was that once you commit such a crime, you lose human rights. Rapists, pedophiles and murderers should have no human rights-they've violated others' rights.
:
|
Someone who raped and murdered a 9 year old girl can have SARS tested on his eyeball for all I care. People hide behind the law to much. And the law protects criminals like that way to much.
If you don't want to have stuff tested on you, then don't rape a goddamn kid. It's that simple realy. At least by testing they still make a good contribution to society.
|
That's pretty much what I meant by the testing thing, and my opinions on crime. and Slig_Cake, I see your point and I agree- the innocent man is sometimes found guilty, or in other cases the guilty man was in the right (The Peter Martin case for example). That's the danger with any extreme punishment on criminals, so such punishments should only occur on those they can 100% truthfully prove committed the crime, but that is hard to do usually. Its a difficult issue. (Boy, have I drifted off topic here)