

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #28 - lolollo (04/20/2013) [-]
And that's exactly the right thing to do. If you want to deter crime and terrorism, you make it where the punichment is swift and certain. The next time someone thinks of trying to **** **** up in Boston, they'll remember that the last guy who did it got his ass beat by the whole damn city police force the second it happened.
#29 to #28 - anonymous (04/20/2013) [-]
Except he'll be sitting on death row for 30 years. You might get caught quickly but actually being punished, good luck with that.
User avatar #63 to #29 - paintmered (04/20/2013) [-]
Now that I think about it, 19 is the worst possible age to commit a life-sentence worthy crime.
User avatar #61 to #29 - paintmered (04/20/2013) [-]
Life imprisonment's pretty bad. Arguably worse than death.
User avatar #30 to #29 - lolollo (04/20/2013) [-]
That's not something the people who catch the criminals have any sort of say in. That's an issue with how the bureaucrats in the judicial system do business.
#31 to #30 - anonymous (04/20/2013) [-]
I'm just saying, most people who commit these crimes take forever to get punished, the death penalty looses its point if they let the person live for a lifetime.
User avatar #40 to #31 - Jackimole (04/20/2013) [-]
There is no death penalty in MA.
#42 to #40 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
It costs $47,000 per year to keep somebody in prison. If this guy lives 50 more years in the pen, he'll have cost the government as much money as it would take to feed hundreds of starving people for a life time. I wish we could have enough faith in our justice system to allow the death penalty to be used in some situations, then maybe money could be put to better use than giving mass ********* health insurance.
 Friends (0)