Mass Killer pleads 'Guilty' to Bomb Making

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
Now, I'm not normally in favour of the death sentence.

However, why is it the most prolific (strike rate) killers always seem to get the 'get into Rampton free' card? On the grounds of being crazy in the coconut.

I can only assume that the loony bins are as full as the prisons, hospitals, no houses, mass immigration, blah, etc, etc
 

ACAB

LE
Now, I'm not normally in favour of the death sentence.

However, why is it the most prolific (strike rate) killers always seem to get the 'get into Rampton free' card? On the grounds of being crazy in the coconut.

I can only assume that the loony bins are as full as the prisons, hospitals, no houses, mass immigration, blah, etc, etc
I would have thought killing 5 people that that would be endex as far as parole goes. Obviously not! Talk about defending the indefensible.
 

philc

LE
Heard this lunch time, just how many do you have to kill to get actual life?
 

mac1

LE
I would have thought killing 5 people that that would be endex as far as parole goes. Obviously not! Talk about defending the indefensible.

Nail. Head. Been watching "Snapped" about female criminals - mostly murderers. Seems the yanks don't mess about when it comes to prison sentences.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
I liked the one where the guilty one was sentenced to something like 800 years. He had done something really bad. His lawyer announced he was going to appeal as the sentence was unfair and unconstitutional.
Everyone returns to court, lawyer does his thing. Judge agrees that the original penalty was indeed too harsh and knocked 500 years off.
 

alib

LE

ACAB

LE
Just in case you're blood pressure wasn't high enough: when he was released from the loony bin, he was given a new identity. Can't have law abiding, tax paying citizens actually knowing their new neighbour was a mass murderer. Dear me, no. That would never do.:rolleyes:
For his own safety no doubt. Jesus F&cking Christ!
 
For his own safety no doubt. Jesus F&cking Christ!

Just as well the people responsible for looking after poor, misunderstood victims like this have their priorities right. No doubt a bloody Neanderthal like you would actually condemn him rather than nurture his rehabilitation into a productive member of society. You make me sick, you Fascist thug!:)
 
I liked the one where the guilty one was sentenced to something like 800 years. He had done something really bad. His lawyer announced he was going to appeal as the sentence was unfair and unconstitutional.
Everyone returns to court, lawyer does his thing. Judge agrees that the original penalty was indeed too harsh and knocked 500 years off.





With sentences like that, I think it's nice to knock off a third for good behaviour.........
 

Slime

LE
For his own safety no doubt. Jesus F&cking Christ!

I suspect that wasn't the new name he was given...........it tends to draw attention :)
 
How do you know when someone's going to go spectacularly off the rails in future?
Oh yeah. When their past history includes the pro words 'killed five people,' and, 'was released from Broadmoor'.
 
How do you know when someone's going to go spectacularly off the rails in future?
Oh yeah. When their past history includes the pro words 'killed five people,' and, 'was released from Broadmoor'.

But it was all in one incident, its not like he went out and murdered somebody on 5 different occasions.




I wrote that thinking I was being (vaguely) amusing, on reflection I can actually see that being an argument put forward.
 

Ritch

LE
I liked the one where the guilty one was sentenced to something like 800 years. He had done something really bad. His lawyer announced he was going to appeal as the sentence was unfair and unconstitutional.
Everyone returns to court, lawyer does his thing. Judge agrees that the original penalty was indeed too harsh and knocked 500 years off.

There was one case where the bloke in question got six life sentences plus 999 years. What was that judge drinking?
 

ACAB

LE
But it was all in one incident, its not like he went out and murdered somebody on 5 different occasions.




I wrote that thinking I was being (vaguely) amusing, on reflection I can actually see that being an argument put forward.
Correct. The first makes him a Mass Murderer, the second would make him a Serial Killer.
 
Correct. The first makes him a Mass Murderer, the second would make him a Serial Killer.

I am now bagging my head against the wall.


Although more sensibly I can see the logic and the difference. However the crucial thing taken into consideration has got to be the trigger.

If Mr A snaps after his wife runs off with his best mate, leaves him destitute and denies access to his kids, whilst the CSA are crippling him as well then I would accept the argument he is unlikely to be a danger.

If he snaps because his neighbours are noisy then he probably shouldn't be let out.
 

Latest Threads

Top