You've gotten a rise and dishonest answer out of exactly nobody, here, Locke.

So you're arguing based on that? Tell you what, go look up the term "emotional appeal" and get back to us.

For some reason, when I hear him talking about this, I think of people convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg. And remember that several of those convicted, including two sentenced to life imprisonment, were released due to ill health.

Meh - I told you all how I feel, and why I feel it - I understand that nothing I could say could change your minds. It's just the way it works online.

I'm heading to bed now - gotta fly in the morning. Ciao.

And we told you why what you feel is small minded and has nothing to do with justice.

Feel free to "feel" your way into reading a few books before the next time you talk. Truthiness is funny but not at all applicable in the real world.

It's not the lack of precedent for his position that bothers me as much as the notion that prisoners should receive treatment dependent entirely on the opinion of the families of victims.

"Mrs. Harris, new DNA tests have shown that Gerry Woods could not have possibly killed your daughter, therefore we're freeing him."

"Well, that's bullshit and it makes me mad!"

"Oh, well, in that case. Lock him back up, boys!"

I agree with this utterly and completely. There's no bullshit, it's straight down and freed from human emotion.

And for this exact reason, I don't see why he should go free all of a sudden. Somehow 'care' got involved.



EDIT:
Why was he just freed?

No it didn't. Politics did.

See Pang's argument concerning martyrdom.

Then maybe too much softness has gone into politics for my taste, I don't know.

Hey Locke. Are you comfortable telling this member of the victims families your position?

Lockerbie bombing: victim's father to sue - Telegraph

Seems he's pretty cool with it, son.

There's a similar catastrophe mentioned in that article – Iran Air Flight 655, which was shot down by the US Navy in 1988, killing 290 people including 66 children. Obviously, the gunman on the USS Vincennes should be in jail for the rest of his life, yes? He should be murdered for that, yes?

Well, he wasn't. Everyone on the boat got ribbons of commendation. The air-warfare commander got a medal. And you're angry this chump's dying in fresh air, Locke? Really?

Actually it's Obama who is in the minority. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ot-smugdog.gif

Because he's black, see. Therefore nothing he says counts

because he's black

I'm guessing you're fairly unfamiliar with the British legal system and that's fair enough, you've had no reason to be familiar with it up until now but over here, life very rarely means life. There are only a handful of people serving true life sentences over here and those that are are generally only doing so for their own protection from the public. Life here means 20 years with the possibility of parole in some cases after 10. Also, letting terminally ill people out early happens pretty often. Ronnie Biggs was let out early just last month for example and he killed a bunch of people, stole millions of pounds then fucked off to Rio for most of his life, only coming back to take advantage of our medical care.

As I understand it, he wasn't cheered off the plane because he killed a load of Merkins, he was cheered because the general feeling in Libya is that he never did it and was provided as a scapegoat by the Libyan government to appease ours and your government. I remember there being a fair bit of cheering when Clinton freed those two journalists from North Korea but I bet the North Korean public weren't too impressed. These women had been found guilty in their courts after all and were as guilty in the North Korean legal system as Lockerbie boy was in ours.

If you think that our legal system is so infallible as to preclude every sending anyone home then by the same standards, evey time the Iranians capture and convict some US military personel or the Koreans lock up a journalist, they should stay to face their punishment.

Prisoners are released home all the time all over the world and it works both ways. You're being incredibly blinkered and naive on a number of levels here.

Were you not outraged when Mozzam Begg was released from Guantanamo back to the UK? He was charged with terrorist offences too and there was a fair bit of celebrating when he landed in the UK. I'm not sure he was even charged with anything actually, I think you guys just locked him up for a few years and flew him to Pakistan to be tortured but never quite made it to court.

Do you not see how these things are very similar events? Can you not appreciate the massive double standards in your stance here?

MAN, FUCK. Shin, one of these days I'd like to click on one of these long, horribly drawn out and boring as fuck threads and not see your name pop up with a wall of text that I can't be bothered to read because you're a terrible human being.

I am henceforth suggesting that all posts of yours over 400 characters long be replaced with a picture of those wing shoes of yours so we can laugh at you.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise this thread had already degenerated into snappy one liners and pictures. Maybe next time you could leave an official announcement of when the time for discussion of the subject has passed so I know not to bother. I'd hate to think I'd made you read stuff, on a discussion forum.

Though she didn't have quite the death toll of the Lockerbie bomber, Squeaky Fromme was released from prison on compassionate grounds just last week.

You are so gross.

We're never gonna hear from Locke again, he discovered that one of the passengers on today's flight was a convict who got out early on good behavior so he slammed the plane into a mountain for :savepoint:JUSTICE:savepoint:

Getting to ride on an airplane? Pretty good reward for robbing a Dollar Tree, scum. NOT ON MY WATCH

I know you're joking, but petty theft is in no way analogous to the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians.

Locke isn't airing an unreasonable stance, either. Now, I don't necessarily agree with him, but when did keeping a man charged with mass murder behind bars become a controversial position?

I don't disagree with his stance as a general principle. All things being equal I agree that felons should mostly serve their sentences in full, whatever they may be.

What's being mocked here is the absurd, bombastic way in which he's presented his position: the blubbery insistence that we THINK OF THE FAMILIES COULD YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO THE FAMILIES, the appeals to capital-J JUSTICE, the notion that eye-for-an-eye is a sensible way to run things.

I find no fault with Locke's conclusions; I find fault with his methodology and the mad conclusions it may later lead him to.