housepainter Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 I think they should have been given life. If the sentencing works like it does in other countries, then criminals only serve around 30% of their sentence. So with good behaviour they could be out after only serving 570 years. I thought the courts were there to keep us safe and not have such dangerous criminals back walking the streets issuing charity receipts. I'm fitting extra locks from tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 What are the particular advantages of being royally decorated? It seems like it's not worth the risk whatever they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beetlejuice Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 (edited) I don`t believe it. With good behavior they`ll be out and about within the next 795 years. But really, how bad a crime must someone commit to be given a sentence such as this? War criminals, murderers and rapists have received less. This is definately a strong case of human rights abuse in it`s worst form. Don`t cross swords with the state or you`re for it. No one has the right to do this to anybody. Judge Freisler comes into mind. Edited November 21, 2010 by Beetlejuice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now