mesoteto said: 1) to those who think themselves better---what about the little kid---you call for justice in the name of the criminal but not in the name of the little kid---and we are supposed to be the sick ones
2) the only reason he/she will have to live the rest of her life disfigured and scarred both physicaly and mentaly is because of this man abusing her--She will have to live with her shame and pain for life, and you think he should only get 15 years...shame on you
3) fair trials should be reserved for those that deserve them...not the ones that are guilty and caught red handed
4) you say there is a chance for redemption...sure i am for that, but this man does not feel guilty about what he has done, only that he got caught for it
5) so when climb up on your high horse you need to remind yourself who really was the victim in this crime
|
1) Yes, justice does need to be served for the kid. That is why we have a legal system which should offer a fair trail to those accused.
2) Murderers can get less and they completely take somones life. Which is better? Being dead, or being alive but suffering? (I'm not asking for an answer, just think about it)
3) So someone who get caught red-handed shoplifting shouldn't deserve a fair trial? They should be tortured the same way as this guy, right?
4) Where does it mention his remorse (or lack of it) in the article? I see about a dozen sentences with very little detail. This is why we have fair trails and not vigilante justice. Most here already have judgement laid down and punishment ready and the article barely mentions any details.
This is the exact same problem as sex offender lists (at least with current laws). Someone who is caught urinating in public can land themself on this list, then people like you come along and see they are registered and condemn them to burn in hell with all the other paedophiles without actually asking questions first.
5) If the 'mob' ever comes for you, you won't be complaining about those who are on their horses.
For all of you who ask "what if it was your kid". Sure, I'd be pissed. I could almost guarentee I'd probably be spouting the same stuff that 90% of the posts in this thread are, but that is why we have a legal system which isn't based on my immediate emotion to the situation.
@Crashman and Rath: It's good to see that not everyone has jumped on the 'Think of the children!' bandwagon.