MontyBurns

The victims and their families do. The victims want tough justice.

The Liberals wouldn't do this though I'm sure.

Do you say this to your Islamic friends about Mohammed? I bet that you don't.

This was forced by the opposition. Liberals advocated it and supported it all the way.

What's wrong with being tough on crime? You don't believe we should be getting tough on gang violence? The majority of Canadians think we should.

I guess Harper should be more socially elitist like yourself.

But they ARE the enemy.

Tough justice for those guys too if they get out of line.

Big enough to cause moderate to severe pain. Small enough to avoid permanently damaging our subject. It is about finding the right balance.

Maybe instead of sentences we can interrogate the druggies to find out who their drug dealers are. Then we can administer tough justice to the dealers.

It isn't only the criminal that we have to concern ourselves with. If a family member of yours was killed by a serial killer wich option would you rather for the criminal: A) 5 years in jail with rehabilitation/tolerance/love and early release Or B ) 25 years in jail and regular ass whippings for good measure I think the answer is obvious.

It isn't about being vindictive. It's about administering tough justice. If are tough on criminals they will learn that they have to pay dearly for crimes. The families of the victims will feel better knowing that strict punishment has been meted out to these buggers. It is a win-win situation for all.

If somebody killed a relative of yours would you be concerned with prevention? I think you would be more interested in punishment.

I don't. You do though.

I said we need to use stricter punishments on criminals. Not on people indiscrimintely. Criminals need to know that if they commit serious crimes like terrorism, murders or organized crime they will pay dearly.

Just goes to show that tough justice works. People respond to harsh discipline and not this love/tolerance/prevention crap. Like I said, whip the criminals arses and the country will be better as a whole for it.

They work in Saudi Arabia. If punishment doesn't work then what does? Letting all criminals go free perhaps?

Now you're talkin'. I am willing to bet that gangs, drug dealers, pedophiles and the like could be dealt with more effectively by increasing the severity of the punishment. It would also be fun for citizens to gather at their local town square and see the criminals getting their arses whipped.

There is. It's called punishment.

Not the state. The criminal's arse you fool.

Yeah. Shouldn't "human rights" be for everyone.

In my view, if you break the law you pay the price. For example, if you are caught traffiking drugs you should be whipped publicly then thrown in jail. You cannot have a world where there are no consequences for bad behavior. It would be anarchy.

Blacks and women never had rights at one point either. A fetus is human by the way.

I agree that jail time does not work. We should whip criminals in public places for minor crimes and have public hangings for serious crimes. That should bring an end to illegal practices. Look at how successful Saudi Arabia is in reducing crime.

If the embryos are human shouldn't "human rights" apply at any stage of development?