mare24
Magistrate
Death penalty yea i am for thatAre you talking about the death penalty, or just so many hours on the cross depending on the violation?
Death penalty yea i am for thatAre you talking about the death penalty, or just so many hours on the cross depending on the violation?
For all criminals? That seems rather harsh.Death penalty yea i am for that
For betray own country yes i supportIn real life, absolutely not.
In my fantasy reality, absolutely.
Look up at "safew crucifixion". Like the mediveal garroting, the idea is to humiliate the condemned and then it is even important that he or she does not die....As a vegetarian (trying to become vegan), I am opposed to the taking of life,
Some may say that allowing state-sponsored killing inures people to the concept of taking human life and may even encourage murder to eliminate witnesses.
Discussing the death penalty in a broad sense, I suggest using data like these as a reference point.Are you for or against the crucifixion of criminals such as traffic violators, domestic abusers, murderers, and those convicted of theft?
Something, something, cruel and unusual punishmentThey have many forms of execution in use today. I've always wondered why crucifixion isn't one of them. Line the streets with crosses. Crime rate would drop tremendously.
So if I speak out against the government, what should my fate be?For betray of country we should have death penalty.....
I am for that
What do you expect it should be?So if I speak out against the government, what should my fate be?
The government is not the country.So if I speak out against the government, what should my fate be?
Dream on!As long as courts are independent from the government,
137 dead, that's one hundred and thirty-seven. I don't know what should happen to the terrorists but I do know that those 137 people didn't derserve to die.I wouldn't mind if terrorists were sentenced to crucifixion. In my city three days ago there was a terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall.
That's not the case in the UK, judges are appointed by an independent Judicial Commission (in Scotland, Judicial Appointments board) While appointments are recommended to the Lord Chancellor,who is a government minister (in Scotland, the First Minister), s/he has very limited powers of veto, hardly ever exercised, and the Commissioners, and the judges they appoint, are staunchly resistant to any hint of political interference. Of course, judges have to apply the laws that have been enacted by Parliament (or by the devolved legislatures), which usually followed the wishes of the government at the time they were made law, but that doesn't mean they 'do what the Government expects them to do', they actually rather often frustrate and annoy the Government. My understanding is that the independence of the judiciary is a requirement for membership of the European Union, too - which is why Hungary and (until lately) Poland have been at odds with the EU Commission.Dream on!
The courts will just do what the government expects them to do. After all, it's the government that nominates the 'independent' judges!
So, critics of the government, expect your naked back soon scratching the crux wood!