With all their campaign promises about doing something decisive aboutMore than the last lot did.
crime pretty smartly, what have they just announced? A ministerial
advisory group which might come up with some ideas in maybe a few weeks.
Run a flag up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes, is a phrase that
comes to mind. Maybe one of those brainstorming sessions where there are >“no stupid ideas”.
And then maybe some months more after that to work on new laws or
something.
So how’s the “boot camp” idea going? Not having second thoughts about >subjecting the young toughs to a “dose of discipline that’ll do ’em >good”,
are they?
The man leading the enquiry is the outspolken vocal spokesperson that
has been representing some of the victims for a long time.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No I don't think like that. I am in no doubt that you do though. How sad your life must be.
The man leading the enquiry is the outspolken vocal spokesperson that
has been representing some of the victims for a long time.
Also a good way of putting the blame on him if his ideas don’t pan out, >don’t you think?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
The man leading the enquiry is the outspolken vocal spokesperson that
has been representing some of the victims for a long time.
Also a good way of putting the blame on him if his ideas don’t pan out, >>don’t you think?
No I don't think like that.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:30:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Who are "they" and what ideas have "they" not followed? Do tell.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
The man leading the enquiry is the outspolken vocal spokesperson that
has been representing some of the victims for a long time.
Also a good way of putting the blame on him if his ideas don’t pan out, >>>don’t you think?
No I don't think like that.
Wonder what happened to their own party ideas, that they were not shy to
tout in the lead-up to the election?
With all their campaign promises about doing something decisive about
crime pretty smartly, what have they just announced? A ministerial
advisory group which might come up with some ideas in maybe a few weeks.
Run a flag up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes, is a phrase that
comes to mind. Maybe one of those brainstorming sessions where there are
no stupid ideas.
And then maybe some months more after that to work on new laws or
something.
So hows the boot camp idea going? Not having second thoughts about >subjecting the young toughs to a dose of discipline thatll do em good, >are they?
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
With all their campaign promises about doing something decisive about
crime pretty smartly, what have they just announced? A ministerial
advisory group which might come up with some ideas in maybe a few weeks. >>Run a flag up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes, is a phrase that >>comes to mind. Maybe one of those brainstorming sessions where there are >>no stupid ideas.
And then maybe some months more after that to work on new laws or >>something.
So hows the boot camp idea going? Not having second thoughts about >>subjecting the young toughs to a dose of discipline thatll do em good, >>are they?
The crime problem would have to be one of the the easiest to fix.
Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be expensive.
Bill.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:07:14 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
With all their campaign promises about doing something decisive about >>>crime pretty smartly, what have they just announced? A ministerial >>>advisory group which might come up with some ideas in maybe a few weeks. >>>Run a flag up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes, is a phrase that >>>comes to mind. Maybe one of those brainstorming sessions where there are >>>no stupid ideas.
And then maybe some months more after that to work on new laws or >>>something.
So hows the boot camp idea going? Not having second thoughts about >>>subjecting the young toughs to a dose of discipline thatll do em good, >>>are they?
The crime problem would have to be one of the the easiest to fix.
Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be expensive.
Bill.
Could you give an example, Bill?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:And what point is that?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
That’s a “no”, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one that’s supposed to >provide the proof.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
That’s a “no”, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one that’s supposed
to provide the proof.
And what point is that?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:18:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Ah there you are, the real you. Believing there actually are sides.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
That’s a “no”, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one that’s supposed >>>to provide the proof.
And what point is that?
There you go: somebody else who doesn’t get it. And I thought you two were >on the same side?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:18:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Ah there you are, the real you. Believing there actually are sides.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
That’s a “no?, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one that’s supposed >>>>to provide the proof.
And what point is that?
There you go: somebody else who doesn’t get it. And I thought you two were >>on the same side?
Only losers take sides, the rest of us understand that we are all on the same >side - ergo no sides exist.
I hope that little bit of philosophy doesn't tax your mind too much but I am >afraid it might.
Good luck.
And I said:Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be expensive.
Bill.
Could you give an example, Bill?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
Thats a no, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one thats supposed to >provide the proof.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:09:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are all over the place, if you really insist on making yourself look stupid perhaps you could answer in context.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:18:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Ah there you are, the real you. Believing there actually are sides.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:25:59 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:07:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Could you give an example, Bill?
Have you no imagination?
That’s a “no?, then.
Remember, the one trying to prove the point is the one that’s supposed >>>>>to provide the proof.
And what point is that?
There you go: somebody else who doesn’t get it. And I thought you two were >>>on the same side?
Only losers take sides, the rest of us understand that we are all on the same >>side - ergo no sides exist.
I hope that little bit of philosophy doesn't tax your mind too much but I am >>afraid it might.
Good luck.
BR said:
And I said:Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be expensive.
Bill.
Could you give an example, Bill?
No sides, no points, just a question to Bill.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Or would you just for one moment try to understand what Bill is saying, so far it has gone whoosh right over your sadly deficient head.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:24:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I do not believe in the death penalty, but I am aware that some do. I
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>>>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
There are some cases where a bullet would be justified.
Do you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?
Bill.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:01:36 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Indeed, thank goodness that we did not do that at the last election, the one before that however was an absoluite betrayal of common sense. Thanks for raising that.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:24:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I do not believe in the death penalty, but I am aware that some do. I
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>>>>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
There are some cases where a bullet would be justified.
Do you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?
Bill.
am also in favour of effective punishment and rehabilitation where
possible - and that does require quite a bit of work and
understanding, but we know that some countries that follow that path
have lower crime rates than those that follow the criteria set out by
BR, and consequentially lower costs. For those with Christian beliefs,
read Romans 12:19-21; Deuteronomy 32:35. Or alternatively do not
vote for idiots that wish to impose their own "reckons" without
seeking or listening to impartial expert advice.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:to
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroto
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could
beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
That would be a no. Just call it justice theatre:
sounds dramatic and
with just enough gratuitous violence to appeal to those with an
authoritarian streak
(and who watch too many Hollywood movies), but
completely useless in practice.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:01:36 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:24:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to >>>>>> be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment
so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
There are some cases where a bullet would be justified.
Do you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?
Bill.
I do not believe in the death penalty, but I am aware that some do.
I am also in favour of effective punishment and rehabilitation
where
possible - and that does require quite a bit of work and
understanding,
but we know
that some countries that follow that path
have lower crime rates than those that follow the criteria set out by
BR, and consequentially lower costs.
For those with Christian beliefs,
read Romans 12:19-21; Deuteronomy 32:35. Or alternatively do not
vote for idiots that wish to impose their own "reckons" without
seeking or listening to impartial expert advice.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 11:34:05 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Because we have not followed what those countries where it is working
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:01:36 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:24:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and >>>>>>> strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment >>>>so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>>>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be
expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?>>>>
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
There are some cases where a bullet would be justified.
Do you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?
Bill.
I do not believe in the death penalty, but I am aware that some do.
The question was not "Do you believe in the death penalty?" It was "Do
you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?"
If you think Tarrant doesn't deserve a bullet, just say so.
I am also in favour of effective punishment and rehabilitation
Rehabilitation in and of itself is a waste of time and money. If the >consequences of committing a crime are severe enough, rehabilitation
will emerge out of that. Criminals need to fear the consequences of
their lawbreaking, otherwise they will just continue to laugh in the
face of all the patsy judges and social workers.
where
possible - and that does require quite a bit of work and
understanding,
Even the stupidest of crooks understand pain, and that is the only >understanding that matters.
but we know
Who's "we"? Who else do you claim to speak for?
that some countries that follow that path
have lower crime rates than those that follow the criteria set out by
BR, and consequentially lower costs.
So why isn't it working here?
For those with Christian beliefs,
read Romans 12:19-21; Deuteronomy 32:35. Or alternatively do not
vote for idiots that wish to impose their own "reckons" without
seeking or listening to impartial expert advice.
So where do you get your "impartial expert advice"?
Bill.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 05:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions >>to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
That would be a no. Just call it justice theatre:
You don't think it will work because it is justice theatre. That's
your argument?
sounds dramatic and
with just enough gratuitous violence to appeal to those with an >>authoritarian streak
Define authoritarian.
(and who watch too many Hollywood movies), but
completely useless in practice.
The criminals don't believe that. How do you think criminal gangs keep
order in their own ranks? By using restorative justice or some other
equally idiotic nonsense? No, of course not. Any gang member who
snitches on his associates gets the crap kicked out of him. Even those >possessing the very meanest of intelligence understand a beating.
Bill.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:56:07 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Cite?
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 11:34:05 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Because we have not followed what those countries where it is working
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:01:36 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:24:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and >>>>>>>> strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions >>>>>>>>to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
Bill.
You set the criteria, Bill:
"Anyone found guilty of a serious crime should experience a punishment >>>>>so unpleasant that they would never dare to ever risk a repeat of the >>>>>experience. Administration of such a punishment need not be >>>>>expensive."
Do you think it fits that criteria?>>>>
Or would you prefer a cheaper permanent solution being a bullet?
There are some cases where a bullet would be justified.
Do you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?
Bill.
I do not believe in the death penalty, but I am aware that some do.
The question was not "Do you believe in the death penalty?" It was "Do
you think Brenton Tarrant deserves a bullet?"
If you think Tarrant doesn't deserve a bullet, just say so.
I am also in favour of effective punishment and rehabilitation
Rehabilitation in and of itself is a waste of time and money. If the >>consequences of committing a crime are severe enough, rehabilitation
will emerge out of that. Criminals need to fear the consequences of
their lawbreaking, otherwise they will just continue to laugh in the
face of all the patsy judges and social workers.
where
possible - and that does require quite a bit of work and
understanding,
Even the stupidest of crooks understand pain, and that is the only >>understanding that matters.
but we know
Who's "we"? Who else do you claim to speak for?
that some countries that follow that path
have lower crime rates than those that follow the criteria set out by
BR, and consequentially lower costs.
So why isn't it working here?
have done.
For those with Christian beliefs,
read Romans 12:19-21; Deuteronomy 32:35. Or alternatively do not
vote for idiots that wish to impose their own "reckons" without
seeking or listening to impartial expert advice.
So where do you get your "impartial expert advice"?
Bill.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:55:24 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Oh, you stupid man.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 05:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions >>>to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
That would be a no. Just call it justice theatre:
You don't think it will work because it is justice theatre. That's
your argument?
sounds dramatic and
with just enough gratuitous violence to appeal to those with an >>>authoritarian streak
Define authoritarian.
(and who watch too many Hollywood movies), but
completely useless in practice.
The criminals don't believe that. How do you think criminal gangs keep >>order in their own ranks? By using restorative justice or some other >>equally idiotic nonsense? No, of course not. Any gang member who
snitches on his associates gets the crap kicked out of him. Even those >>possessing the very meanest of intelligence understand a beating.
Bill.
So that is what you propose because you think the gangs are always
right - that's your argument?
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:55:24 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 05:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:07:37 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 06:03:51 +1200, BR wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:53:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Those found guilty of a serious crime could be stripped naked and
strapped onto an A frame. Then a strong and physically fit man could >>>>>> beat him on the bare arse with a big stick, the number of repetitions >>>to
be determined by the court.
Quick, cheap and effective.
Does it work?
What do you think?
That would be a no. Just call it justice theatre:
You don't think it will work because it is justice theatre. That's
your argument?
sounds dramatic and
with just enough gratuitous violence to appeal to those with an >>>authoritarian streak
Define authoritarian.
(and who watch too many Hollywood movies), but
completely useless in practice.
The criminals don't believe that. How do you think criminal gangs keep >>order in their own ranks? By using restorative justice or some other >>equally idiotic nonsense? No, of course not. Any gang member who
snitches on his associates gets the crap kicked out of him. Even those >>possessing the very meanest of intelligence understand a beating.
Bill.
So that is what you propose because you think the gangs are always
right - that's your argument?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 495 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 52:12:59 |
| Calls: | 9,752 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,184,804 |