Predicto Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins Dude, You're 18.. What do you know about idiot politicians? You're only 18 for pete's sake. Liberty may be 18 but he shows more brains and knowledge than most people on this board, even when you disagree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins Dude, You're 18.. What do you know about idiot politicians? You're only 18 for pete's sake. probably more than most people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty probably more than most people Using precious brain cells on idiot politicians is a waste, unless some day you want to be an idiot politician yourself. I waste tons of brain cells on sports, video games, and movies so I shouldn't be talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Guys, don't divert attention from the topic. And someone's age, while it can factor into maturity, knowledge and wisdom, does not mean they don't have the ability to form an intelligent opinion(or the right to form a stupid one, if they wish.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 This is why mandatory minimum sentences are fing ridiculous. Of course over the last decade it has mostly been used in drug cases which have produced equally horrible sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Originally posted by NoCalMike This is why mandatory minimum sentences are fing ridiculous. Of course over the last decade it has mostly been used in drug cases which have produced equally horrible sentences. I agree for the most part. Obviously drug cases are really dumb because the entire WoD is ridiculous and is probably more responsible than any other public policy venture for the erosion of civil liberties, wasteful spending and increase in the police state since its inception(far more than the war on terror or anything of the like) BUT, I would say that I think mandatory minimums/sentences are legitimate for actual murder cases, child rape and serial rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by endzone_dave The story doesn't say how far into her pregnancy she was but since she didn't get get an abortion, I'm guessing she was far along into it. To me, ending the life of twins who were only a few months away (maybe less) of being born by pounding on them is sick. "Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy" :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 This guy definitely deserved to be punished though I am not sure about the harshness of the sentence. I mean their are cold blooded murderers that only get 25-30 years. This kid shouldve got 30 years in prison, even that may be a bit harsh to some here but it would serve a purpose, that you CANT cheat the system and murder babies like this. Its about sending a message, thats what most of law is, is sending a message to others. Still, the life sentence definitely doesnt seem justified though the crime is sick in more ways than one. It just seems hypocritical to me really, boyfriend stomps on gf's stomach illegally or scissors jammed in back of babies head legally. Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.