Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

I started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

I started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Why? Because I pointed out why the death penalty is fatally flawed? Because I called YOU out on YOUR bullshit?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

I started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality.

When you discover WHY 'you', human beings, will do such things, then you will STOP having the idea that "human rights" can be forfeited.

By the way, who exactly decides on what "rights" 'you', human beings can and can not have?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here?

You NEVER started this thread to "discuss the ethics of the death penalty" (as though there is any 'ethics' in murdering human beings). You started this thread in the hope and belief that you could sway "others" to view and believe the same things that you view and believe. You have even stated this in another thread.

Your ideas are just 'that', 'your ideas' alone.

If you REALLY want "others" to come to have the same ideas as you do, then just formulate a sound and valid argument, then, that way, NO one could refute 'your idea'. And, so EVERY one would 'have to' AGREE with you.

Simple, really.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Why exactly might this forum be a 'useful forum' and the others not?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:48 pmWhy? Because I pointed out why the death penalty is fatally flawed? Because I called YOU out on YOUR bullshit?

You have made your opposition to the death penalty - and indeed, your opposition to anyone discussing it, quite clear. I would contend that you have only shown why the death penalty WAS fatally flawed; in an era before DNA, forensics, CCTV, cell phone location data - and a hundred other things I imagine police investigators now have at their disposal they didn't have before 1965. The miscarriages of justice you were able to produce were almost entirely from before 1986 - when DNA was first used in a criminal case. That was where your constructive arguments stopped. After that, you just got stroppy and abusive.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:34 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:48 pmWhy? Because I pointed out why the death penalty is fatally flawed? Because I called YOU out on YOUR bullshit?

You have made your opposition to the death penalty - and indeed, your opposition to anyone discussing it, quite clear. I would contend that you have only shown why the death penalty WAS fatally flawed; in an era before DNA, forensics, CCTV, cell phone location data - and a hundred other things I imagine police investigators now have at their disposal they didn't have before 1965. The miscarriages of justice you were able to produce were almost entirely from before 1986 - when DNA was first used in a criminal case. That was where your constructive arguments stopped. After that, you just got stroppy and abusive.

How touching is your complete faith in the legal process

Are you going to respond to Age?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen you discover WHY 'you', human beings, will do such things, then you will STOP having the idea that "human rights" can be forfeited. By the way, who exactly decides on what "rights" 'you', human beings can and can not have?

Your momma!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou NEVER started this thread to "discuss the ethics of the death penalty" (as though there is any 'ethics' in murdering human beings). You started this thread in the hope and belief that you could sway "others" to view and believe the same things that you view and believe. You have even stated this in another thread. Your ideas are just 'that', 'your ideas' alone. If you REALLY want "others" to come to have the same ideas as you do, then just formulate a sound and valid argument, then, that way, NO one could refute 'your idea'. And, so EVERY one would 'have to' AGREE with you.

It can be ethical to kill. Imagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot? If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger? If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing? Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen you discover WHY 'you', human beings, will do such things, then you will STOP having the idea that "human rights" can be forfeited. By the way, who exactly decides on what "rights" 'you', human beings can and can not have?

Your momma!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou NEVER started this thread to "discuss the ethics of the death penalty" (as though there is any 'ethics' in murdering human beings). You started this thread in the hope and belief that you could sway "others" to view and believe the same things that you view and believe. You have even stated this in another thread. Your ideas are just 'that', 'your ideas' alone. If you REALLY want "others" to come to have the same ideas as you do, then just formulate a sound and valid argument, then, that way, NO one could refute 'your idea'. And, so EVERY one would 'have to' AGREE with you.

It can be ethical to kill.

In 'your world' maybe.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm Imagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot?

It all depends.

Now, if we are going down the 'imagine' path. Imagine if we lived in a world without guns, and where innocent children do not grow up wanting to kill children.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger?

It all depends.

In ALL 'trolley problem' like scenarios there are always far to many variables to consider.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing?

When, and if, you ever discover WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, do what you do, then you WILL CHANGE your views.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

You really are STUCK in your own ideas and views, and NEVER do even consider asking for clarification on what "others" say and write. In fact you do NOT even think about what "others" say and write. From your perspective it is 'your view' or NO view AT ALL.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen you discover WHY 'you', human beings, will do such things, then you will STOP having the idea that "human rights" can be forfeited. By the way, who exactly decides on what "rights" 'you', human beings can and can not have?

Your momma!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou NEVER started this thread to "discuss the ethics of the death penalty" (as though there is any 'ethics' in murdering human beings). You started this thread in the hope and belief that you could sway "others" to view and believe the same things that you view and believe. You have even stated this in another thread. Your ideas are just 'that', 'your ideas' alone. If you REALLY want "others" to come to have the same ideas as you do, then just formulate a sound and valid argument, then, that way, NO one could refute 'your idea'. And, so EVERY one would 'have to' AGREE with you.

It can be ethical to kill. Imagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot? If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger? If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing? Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

So it's only predatory child-killing paedophiles who are executed? That's news to me. It's not the point anyway. The point is the imperfection and fallibility of the legal system.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmIt can be ethical to kill.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:16 pmIn 'your world' maybe.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmImagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends.

Too late, dead kid. Why didn't you shoot?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmNow, if we are going down the 'imagine' path. Imagine if we lived in a world without guns, and where innocent children do not grow up wanting to kill children.

Imagine we brought back the death penalty. That's what this thread is about.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends. In ALL 'trolley problem' like scenarios there are always far to many variables to consider.

I gave you a scenario that was clear cut on purpose. Your refusal to answer is either intellectually dishonest or idiotic.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen, and if, you ever discover WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, do what you do, then you WILL CHANGE your views.

Are you saying you're not human? This on philosophy forum. Why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, you fucking muggle!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou really are STUCK in your own ideas and views, and NEVER do even consider asking for clarification on what "others" say and write. In fact you do NOT even think about what "others" say and write. From your perspective it is 'your view' or NO view AT ALL.

I've taken a lot of time and care over my beliefs. I'm trying to help you - and it's like trying force feed a vicious dog. If you don't recognise that I know better than you, if you are that insecure and egoistic that you can't learn, twitter is for you!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmIt can be ethical to kill.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:16 pmIn 'your world' maybe.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmImagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends.

Too late, dead kid. Why didn't you shoot?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmNow, if we are going down the 'imagine' path. Imagine if we lived in a world without guns, and where innocent children do not grow up wanting to kill children.

Imagine we brought back the death penalty. That's what this thread is about.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends. In ALL 'trolley problem' like scenarios there are always far to many variables to consider.

I gave you a scenario that was clear cut on purpose. Your refusal to answer is either intellectually dishonest or idiotic.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen, and if, you ever discover WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, do what you do, then you WILL CHANGE your views.

Are you saying you're not human? This on philosophy forum. Why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, you fucking muggle!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou really are STUCK in your own ideas and views, and NEVER do even consider asking for clarification on what "others" say and write. In fact you do NOT even think about what "others" say and write. From your perspective it is 'your view' or NO view AT ALL.

I've taken a lot of time and care over my beliefs. I'm trying to help you - and it's like trying force feed a vicious dog. If you don't recognise that I know better than you, if you are that insecure and egoistic that you can't learn, twitter is for you!

What I've garnered from your 'carefully thought out argument' is that the death penalty should only be reserved for those who have murdered women you find attractive, and that men and unattractive women aren't much use anyway so their killers don't matter as much. Glad that's cleared up.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmIt can be ethical to kill.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:16 pmIn 'your world' maybe.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pmImagine you have a gun, and before you is a man surrounded by dead kids, with a knife advancing on another child. Would you shoot?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends.

Too late, dead kid. Why didn't you shoot?

Because that kid was going to grow up and kill far more women, children, and babies.

That adult who killed that child was doing 'the world' a favor. So, very luckily I did not shoot that adult.

As I said and pointed out earlier, there are just far to many variables to think about and take into consideration to answer these useless hypothetical questions properly and correctly.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmNow, if we are going down the 'imagine' path. Imagine if we lived in a world without guns, and where innocent children do not grow up wanting to kill children.

Imagine we brought back the death penalty. That's what this thread is about.

LOL

And if we did, you would have absolutely NO problem at all in killing innocent human beings, correct?

Now, if this is correct, then maybe you should be one of those on the death penalty.

Besides murdering human beings being wrong, which is what the death penalty does and is, you have already been informed about how imperfect the, so called, "justice" system is, and that innocent human beings end up being murdered.

And, EVERY thing you have said so far as being ways of not finding innocent people guilty are fallible.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you were trained, and sure that you could prevent a child's death, would you pull the trigger?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmIt all depends. In ALL 'trolley problem' like scenarios there are always far to many variables to consider.

I gave you a scenario that was clear cut on purpose. Your refusal to answer is either intellectually dishonest or idiotic.

What happens if it was that child who killed all the other children, and it was the adult who took the knife off of that child?

Or, could your brain not consider that possibility?

Until you inform me of EVERY variable, then I remain uninformed, and so not in a position to answer, properly AND correctly.

Contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, 'trolley problem' like scenarios are NOT as clear cut, in relation to REAL world scenarios, as you would love to believe.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm If you would, why - when some predatory paedophile child killing shitbag is caught, would you not want to see them swing?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmWhen, and if, you ever discover WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, do what you do, then you WILL CHANGE your views.

Are you saying you're not human?

No. WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am This on philosophy forum. Why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, you fucking muggle!

SEE how easy it was to manipulate and control adult human beings, in the days when this was written.

To sway them to LOOK AT and SEE things, which I NEVER even said NOR talked about, and to allow them to remain in those most ABSURD thinking and views, was about one of the most easiest and simplest things to.

One of the reasons I would not shoot that adult is because I KNOW WHY they are doing what they are doing, AND I can stop them without shooting. Do you know WHY they do what they do?

In fact do you even know WHY 'you' do what you do?

If yes, then WHY?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm Instead, you'd lock them up, at huge expense, for not long enough and let them out to do the same again. I gave you examples on the previous page - of released killers killing again. It happens more often than wrongful conviction.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:04 pmYou really are STUCK in your own ideas and views, and NEVER do even consider asking for clarification on what "others" say and write. In fact you do NOT even think about what "others" say and write. From your perspective it is 'your view' or NO view AT ALL.

I've taken a lot of time and care over my beliefs. [/quote]

That you would even have a BELIEF shows just how much you have yet to discover and learn.

Also, are you aware that it has been said that there are more wrongful convictions than there are the guilty not convicted?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:35 am I'm trying to help you - and it's like trying force feed a vicious dog. If you don't recognise that I know better than you, if you are that insecure and egoistic that you can't learn, twitter is for you!

Wow.

Have you found ANY one here who is listening to you and changing their views to yours?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then WHO?

Sabina Nessa: Man charged with teacher's murder
Published 6 minutes ago

A man has been charged with the murder of primary school teacher Sabina Nessa, who was killed near her home in south-east London.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58675196

Sarah Everard murder: We'll stop at nothing to jail more rapists - PM
By George Bowden
BBC News

The government "will stop at nothing to make sure that we get more rapists behind bars", Boris Johnson has said.

The PM told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show prosecutions for rape and sexual violence were "going wrong". He added women should have confidence in the police, with the nation's officers "overwhelmingly trustworthy". The jailing of Wayne Couzens for Sarah Everard's murder has raised questions about women's safety, and trust in the police and criminal justice system. Couzens was a police officer in London at the time of Ms Everard's murder, and the Metropolitan Police is facing questions over its failure to stop him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58779629

Couzens should be killed as a deterrent. It would cost £10 for the rope - instead of twice the average annual wage to keep him locked up forever; he should be hung, not merely because his actions entirely disregarded the human rights of Sarah Everard, but because he abused his authority as a police officer to commit this crime. This wasn't some drunken he said/she said - which are notoriously difficult to prosecute. "Stopping at nothing" to prosecute such cases risks confidence in the courts, as well as the police. This was a guilty as sin predator, using the authority of the state to murder a young woman - and if he were swinging in the breeze in Parliament Square right now, he'd be serving a deterrent purpose - rather than constituting a vast expense to the tax payer forever after.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:21 am ... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not!

Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:21 am ... he should be hung ...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:10 pm ... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrent. The conviction rate for crimes like rape is incredibly low - so the penalty needs to be incredibly high. It's also about the strain on the public purse. And also about the allocation of values; making it known that there are limits. From the death penalty, descends a moral order. Without an absolute, there's a proportionality problem. Like with this scumbag, who served 15 years of a life sentence, and killed again after release:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/t ... 06972.html

How is that justice? It's cost the tax payer at least 3/4 million pounds to keep that bastard locked up, so far, and bleeding heart liberals like you in Parliament, and on the parole board, coupled with an overcrowded and expensive prison system, are failing to protect the public.