I'm pretty surre I understand what anti-DP people are doing. I just think in some cases, their ideology is misplaced.
.......
....he forfeited his right to life.....
if you truly understand it, then stop saying I/we are defending "the sick and depraved". I am not telling you you are morally inferior to me, so I expect the same respect.
it is my belief that it is up to no one to decide who forfeits a life and who doesn't. to me it's as simple as that, and I don't believe that will ever change.
You might not be suggesting I am morally inferior to you... but some others have painted proponents of the death penalty as such- if not... then cavemen (sick, bloodthirsty, vengeful, etc.). And this is what I alluded to earlier: if you choose to ignore comments that are disrespectful to one side of the argument (with silence)... then i don't think it is fair to be vocal towards the counter-comments they provoke.
If civility and respect is what you expect on this forum then demand it from all sides of the issue- not just the one opposing your position.
I'll repeat myself stating that such dialogue amounts to nothing more than mud-slinging. But given the amount of time and energy I have contributed to this thread, I would hope you could understand the need to preserve my (and others) dignity when charged as nothing more than a buffoon.
As for your last statement... I agree somewhat. It wasn't up to Olson to decide who lived and who died; yet he still decided. Given such... he made the playing field. It makes no sense to me that we would afford him the rights he blatantly abused and ignored.
You might not be suggesting I am morally inferior to you... but some others have painted proponents of the death penalty as such- if not... then cavemen (sick, bloodthirsty, vengeful, etc.). And this is what I alluded to earlier: if you choose to ignore comments that are disrespectful to one side of the argument (with silence)... then i don't think it is fair to be vocal towards the counter-comments they provoke.
If civility and respect is what you expect on this forum then demand it from all sides of the issue- not just the one opposing your position.
I'll repeat myself stating that such dialogue amounts to nothing more than mud-slinging. But given the amount of time and energy I have contributed to this thread, I would hope you could understand the need to preserve my (and others) dignity when charged as nothing more than a buffoon.
interesting position.
you attack me for apparently not defending you, when in fact I actually did speak out about that pages ago (maybe not about you specifically, but about calling pro-DP people names-I'm not going to search through 82 pages to find it though). didn't think it was really my responsibility to defend you when you are completely capable of doing so yourself.
I'm not the forum police. don't expect me to be. I'm not here 24/7. If I see a comment I disagree with, I'll comment on it. Sometimes you also don't want to engage with someone who is obviously looking for an argument. I'll call someone (like you) on something because I respect you, not the opposite.
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The case in India will be of interest tomorrow when the world watches that sentencing.
The parents of that young lady are demanding the death penalty.......
the 4 accused are found guilty, but the law when they committed the crimes did not provide for death, it has been changed since their brutal attack, so should that option even be available?
discuss
I guess it depends on what one feels is justice, PD.
What is justice for such a barbaric crime? You have stated that the law has been changed since their brutal attack... so, I'm curious to know whether or not this is so because the law feels that the punishment in case does not meet the crime?
They tricked the couple on to the bus and the attackers beat the friend into submission, held down the woman and repeatedly raped her. They penetrated her with a metal rod, causing severe internal injuries that led to her death two weeks later.
The father, no doubtedly tortured by the story and pained by his daughter's departure from the earth and the circumstances in which she was to leave it, has been vocal for what he wishes to see in terms of justice: "For what happened with her, these brutes must be hanged," he told reporters as he left home for the courthouse. "Nothing but the death penalty is acceptable to us."
You might not be suggesting I am morally inferior to you... but some others have painted proponents of the death penalty as such- if not... then cavemen (sick, bloodthirsty, vengeful, etc.). And this is what I alluded to earlier: if you choose to ignore comments that are disrespectful to one side of the argument (with silence)... then i don't think it is fair to be vocal towards the counter-comments they provoke.
If civility and respect is what you expect on this forum then demand it from all sides of the issue- not just the one opposing your position.
I'll repeat myself stating that such dialogue amounts to nothing more than mud-slinging. But given the amount of time and energy I have contributed to this thread, I would hope you could understand the need to preserve my (and others) dignity when charged as nothing more than a buffoon.
interesting position.
you attack me for apparently not defending you, when in fact I actually did speak out about that pages ago (maybe not about you specifically, but about calling pro-DP people names-I'm not going to search through 82 pages to find it though). didn't think it was really my responsibility to defend you when you are completely capable of doing so yourself.
I'm not the forum police. don't expect me to be. I'm not here 24/7. If I see a comment I disagree with, I'll comment on it. Sometimes you also don't want to engage with someone who is obviously looking for an argument.
I never attacked you and I wasn't looking for you to defend me. I pointed out the fact that I was engaged with Callen when you chimed in protesting things I had written in response to some pretty unflattering remarks... while choosing to leave the 'barbaric caveman' comments unaddressed. This is the reality isn't it?
I never attacked you and I wasn't looking for you to defend me. I pointed out the fact that I was engaged with Callen when you chimed in protesting things I had written in response to some pretty unflattering remarks... while choosing to leave the 'barbaric caveman' comments unaddressed. This is the reality isn't it?
well, if that's your reality, I guess I'll just leave you to it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Has anyone ever looked down from a high horse and convinced anyone else of anything at all?
Probably not but when you strip down DP to its core its a pretty nasty subject and in a subject such as this, killing and murder...both by the criminal as well as sanctioned by "the people" being blunt can be a means of communication. We justify our beleifs and in doing so sometimes miss the core of the matter. Death and playing GOD.
I don't though conciously belittle and or look down from my horse but its a very emotional topic as proven by both sides of this argument and as such, sometimes we aren't as civil as we should be. I'm guilty. I respect those on this board and respect more those that are in the minority. Most humans cower in the corner and don't allow others views to interfer with their realities and truths. We on the train are different, we want to be provoked, challenged. Would have a beer with any of you. We'd have actual conversations.
But please understand, I believe we haven't moved forward as a society when we follow the same tactics as the Inca's or fundementalist muslims on punishment. We have to rise above killing as a means of resolution. We have to break the cycle of violence and that starts from the top...from what society says is okay. I'm rambling and will cease for now.
I never attacked you and I wasn't looking for you to defend me. I pointed out the fact that I was engaged with Callen when you chimed in protesting things I had written in response to some pretty unflattering remarks... while choosing to leave the 'barbaric caveman' comments unaddressed. This is the reality isn't it?
well, if that's your reality, I guess I'll just leave you to it.
Well then explain to me what I am missing here?
In response to Blood and vengeance such wonderful human qualities... I prefaced two statements (one of which you have taken offence to) with: You wish to contribute in this capacity? Okay... I'll offer this
I think the preface would stand alone as a clarification as to where I'm coming from offering what I did, but I also called the 'discussion' a mud-slinging affair. You might not have liked what I was saying, but I didn't like what was offered initially. And, it at least appeared that you chose to ignore the intial slur while focussing on the response. Coincidently, the intial slur that wasn't addressed lies on the side of the fence that you argue for.
The case in India will be of interest tomorrow when the world watches that sentencing.
The parents of that young lady are demanding the death penalty.......
the 4 accused are found guilty, but the law when they committed the crimes did not provide for death, it has been changed since their brutal attack, so should that option even be available?
discuss
I guess it depends on what one feels is justice, PD.
What is justice for such a barbaric crime? You have stated that the law has been changed since their brutal attack... so, I'm curious to know whether or not this is so because the law feels that the punishment in case does not meet the crime?
They tricked the couple on to the bus and the attackers beat the friend into submission, held down the woman and repeatedly raped her. They penetrated her with a metal rod, causing severe internal injuries that led to her death two weeks later.
The father, no doubtedly tortured by the story and pained by his daughter's departure from the earth and the circumstances in which she was to leave it, has been vocal for what he wishes to see in terms of justice: "For what happened with her, these brutes must be hanged," he told reporters as he left home for the courthouse. "Nothing but the death penalty is acceptable to us."
but on reading up on the legal system in India I wouldn't be convinced of its integrity.
There is every chance and likelihood that these 4 men did what they are accused of. But there is that shadow of doubt, allegations of torture before confessions were forthcoming, denials of guilt now, and a penalty being sought that didn't exist for that crime at the time it was committed.
The crime was sickening, and as always if it had been inflicted on any of my family I am certain I would feel very differently, but I wouldn't think the DP should be considered on this case. After all, I know the young lady died, and that is tragic especially in the circumstances, however was there any intention to kill?
These men were animals, and they should never ever see freedom again, but I think the DP would be a huge mistake. Although I expect that's exactly what will be handed down.
The case in India will be of interest tomorrow when the world watches that sentencing.
The parents of that young lady are demanding the death penalty.......
the 4 accused are found guilty, but the law when they committed the crimes did not provide for death, it has been changed since their brutal attack, so should that option even be available?
discuss
I guess it depends on what one feels is justice, PD.
What is justice for such a barbaric crime? You have stated that the law has been changed since their brutal attack... so, I'm curious to know whether or not this is so because the law feels that the punishment in case does not meet the crime?
They tricked the couple on to the bus and the attackers beat the friend into submission, held down the woman and repeatedly raped her. They penetrated her with a metal rod, causing severe internal injuries that led to her death two weeks later.
The father, no doubtedly tortured by the story and pained by his daughter's departure from the earth and the circumstances in which she was to leave it, has been vocal for what he wishes to see in terms of justice: "For what happened with her, these brutes must be hanged," he told reporters as he left home for the courthouse. "Nothing but the death penalty is acceptable to us."
but on reading up on the legal system in India I wouldn't be convinced of its integrity.
There is every chance and likelihood that these 4 men did what they are accused of. But there is that shadow of doubt, allegations of torture before confessions were forthcoming, denials of guilt now, and a penalty being sought that didn't exist for that crime at the time it was committed.
The crime was sickening, and as always if it had been inflicted on any of my family I am certain I would feel very differently, but I wouldn't think the DP should be considered on this case. After all, I know the young lady died, and that is tragic especially in the circumstances, however was there any intention to kill?
These men were animals, and they should never ever see freedom again, but I think the DP would be a huge mistake. Although I expect that's exactly what will be handed down.
Key phrase highlighted in blue.
It's simply too easy to weigh in with no personal investment and from the bar stool. The family (and country for that matter) is outraged and they seek a death sentence for the kidnapping, bondage, torture and murder of the young woman. For me... these characteristics relevant to the nature of the crime warrant the death penalty.
The crime was brutal. These men are animals (not to be too offensive to animals) and we seem to have no problem placing animals down when they behave poorly.
Has anyone ever looked down from a high horse and convinced anyone else of anything at all?
Probably not but when you strip down DP to its core its a pretty nasty subject and in a subject such as this, killing and murder...both by the criminal as well as sanctioned by "the people" being blunt can be a means of communication. We justify our beleifs and in doing so sometimes miss the core of the matter. Death and playing GOD.
I don't though conciously belittle and or look down from my horse but its a very emotional topic as proven by both sides of this argument and as such, sometimes we aren't as civil as we should be. I'm guilty. I respect those on this board and respect more those that are in the minority. Most humans cower in the corner and don't allow others views to interfer with their realities and truths. We on the train are different, we want to be provoked, challenged. Would have a beer with any of you. We'd have actual conversations.
But please understand, I believe we haven't moved forward as a society when we follow the same tactics as the Inca's or fundementalist muslims on punishment. We have to rise above killing as a means of resolution. We have to break the cycle of violence and that starts from the top...from what society says is okay. I'm rambling and will cease for now.
Peace
Callen
A much less confrontational post that reflects your values without crapping on other people's here, Callen. Thanks for making this effort.
It's simply too easy to weigh in with no personal investment and from the bar stool. The family (and country for that matter) is outraged and they seek a death sentence for the kidnapping, bondage, torture and murder of the young woman. For me... these characteristics relevant to the nature of the crime warrant the death penalty.
The crime was brutal. These men are animals (not to be too offensive to animals) and we seem to have no problem placing animals down when they behave poorly.
just out of interest, do you think there should be an intention to kill and commit murder to warrant the death sentence?
Im just of the belief that may have been missing in this case. Although I accept what they are alleged to have done with that metal bar is never going to produce a fairy tale ending.
If she had survived and been disabled by the attack leading to a much less privileged life would the DP still be suitable?
I know what you are saying about the subjectivity I applied which you highlighted, however I move to use those comments for one reason only. If I found myself in that position, I know I would never react rationally, I couldn't even function normally, so I know my reactions would be far from predictable........and that wouldn't be a good platform to work from in determining such an issue. I know my emotional limits, and that would far surpass those and probably challenge my mental capacity for as long as I lived.
It's simply too easy to weigh in with no personal investment and from the bar stool. The family (and country for that matter) is outraged and they seek a death sentence for the kidnapping, bondage, torture and murder of the young woman. For me... these characteristics relevant to the nature of the crime warrant the death penalty.
The crime was brutal. These men are animals (not to be too offensive to animals) and we seem to have no problem placing animals down when they behave poorly.
just out of interest, do you think there should be an intention to kill and commit murder to warrant the death sentence?
Im just of the belief that may have been missing in this case. Although I accept what they are alleged to have done with that metal bar is never going to produce a fairy tale ending.
If she had survived and been disabled by the attack leading to a much less privileged life would the DP still be suitable?
I know what you are saying about the subjectivity I applied which you highlighted, however I move to use those comments for one reason only. If I found myself in that position, I know I would never react rationally, I couldn't even function normally, so I know my reactions would be far from predictable........and that wouldn't be a good platform to work from in determining such an issue. I know my emotional limits, and that would far surpass those and probably challenge my mental capacity for as long as I lived.
For simply raping and destroying her womb... prison would have to suffice. For erasing her consciousness from the earth... more.
Interesting question regarding intent. I think this went very badly, but how could it not? It needs to be a case by case review before deciding that death should serve as justice. As I mentioned before, the variables in this one lead me to believe that a death sentence is warranted.
In the event where a robber whacks a guy over the head intending to take his wallet, but does so too hard and kills him... prison would suffice. Ramming a metal bar forcefully into a woman while laughing and high fiving... and ultimately killing her is a different matter- regardless of intent.
It's simply too easy to weigh in with no personal investment and from the bar stool. The family (and country for that matter) is outraged and they seek a death sentence for the kidnapping, bondage, torture and murder of the young woman. For me... these characteristics relevant to the nature of the crime warrant the death penalty.
The crime was brutal. These men are animals (not to be too offensive to animals) and we seem to have no problem placing animals down when they behave poorly.
just out of interest, do you think there should be an intention to kill and commit murder to warrant the death sentence?
Im just of the belief that may have been missing in this case. Although I accept what they are alleged to have done with that metal bar is never going to produce a fairy tale ending.
If she had survived and been disabled by the attack leading to a much less privileged life would the DP still be suitable?
I know what you are saying about the subjectivity I applied which you highlighted, however I move to use those comments for one reason only. If I found myself in that position, I know I would never react rationally, I couldn't even function normally, so I know my reactions would be far from predictable........and that wouldn't be a good platform to work from in determining such an issue. I know my emotional limits, and that would far surpass those and probably challenge my mental capacity for as long as I lived.[/quote]
For simply raping and destroying her womb... prison would have to suffice. For erasing her consciousness from the earth... more.
Interesting question regarding intent. I think this went very badly, but how could it not? It needs to be a case by case review before deciding that death should serve as justice. As I mentioned before, the variables in this one lead me to believe that a death sentence is warranted.
In the event where a robber whacks a guy over the head intending to take his wallet, but does so too hard and kills him... prison would suffice. Ramming a metal bar forcefully into a woman while laughing and high fiving... and ultimately killing her is a different matter- regardless of intent.[/quote]
We are agreed on one thing anyway, these men are scum. bottom of the barrel filth, and the punishment they receive has to be a harsh one.
as im not convinced that they ever set out to murder that day, I couldn't support any death penalty (my position on the DP is well documented in this thread), however I certainly understand why many would push for it.
I don't think anyone can comprehend that ladies terror during that attack.....she was disregarded throughout it at all as trivial and unimportant and an object of sexual desire. I haven't read the closer details of the attack, I didn't even know they were high fiving throughout or laughing, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the DP is just.....it just means they are depraved imbeciles, who have been raised in a country where women are largely disregarded as being below men, as commodities, and expendable.....I cannot help but think that in this situation - whilst the world is looking on outraged - India are going to try to make a statement and make an example out of these men.
They are appalling, but its more troubling to learn that there is an attack involving brutal gang rape reported every single day.....many suspected not reported, and through various levels of corrupt authorities and abuses of power many are swept away. This one hit the news, and for that reason they may end up swinging.
Surely India have a responsibility to stand up and start an era of change, starting out at primary education and working equality into their society......
Calling Baumgartner’s actions “a treacherous betrayal of trust,” the Crown submitted a joint request with the defence that Baumgartner be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years.
If that sentence is approved, it would set a precedent under legislation approved in 2011 preventing sentence discounts for multiple murders, and would be the harshest sentence in Canada since Arthur Lucas was executed in 1962.
Don't judge him too harshly. The guy was broke and needed some cash. We can call him stupid though. I mean... how did he ever think he would get away with such a crime? Of course he didn't and now a bunch of people are dead.
But boy oh boy... don't ever commit a triple homicide in Canada because if you do... 40 years (if that). This guy might have to spend 40 years until he's 63 before he can get out and golf again. I couldn't imagine.
I also couldn't imagine my colleague placing a gun to my head and blowing my face off either, but why focus on that?
Was that not just a crown recommendation ... The judge hasn't handed down the decision. Either way we will have to house, feed them, medical, dental for the next 40 years. Meanwhile good hard working and seniors continue to get shafted ... I'd rather take the thousands spent of this POS and spend it on worthwhile citizens.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
of course I can't be certain. I don't know the stats on triple murderers getting parole, but I highly doubt he ever will.
Don't be surprised if it happens though. We've got people working really hard at convincing parole boards that violent offenders are not violent anymore and deserve another chance. Every one of them has their personal set of advocates and we have some gullible/weak members that sit on parole boards.
Calling Baumgartner’s actions “a treacherous betrayal of trust,” the Crown submitted a joint request with the defence that Baumgartner be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years.
If that sentence is approved, it would set a precedent under legislation approved in 2011 preventing sentence discounts for multiple murders, and would be the harshest sentence in Canada since Arthur Lucas was executed in 1962.
Don't judge him too harshly. The guy was broke and needed some cash. We can call him stupid though. I mean... how did he ever think he would get away with such a crime? Of course he didn't and now a bunch of people are dead.
But boy oh boy... don't ever commit a triple homicide in Canada because if you do... 40 years (if that). This guy might have to spend 40 years until he's 63 before he can get out and golf again. I couldn't imagine.
I also couldn't imagine my colleague placing a gun to my head and blowing my face off either, but why focus on that?
of course I can't be certain. I don't know the stats on triple murderers getting parole, but I highly doubt he ever will.
Don't be surprised if it happens though. We've got people working really hard at convincing parole boards that violent offenders are not violent anymore and deserve another chance. Every one of them has their personal set of advocates and we have some gullible/weak members that sit on parole boards.
I was about to say "show me someone who has committed a triple homicide and been granted parole and I might agree with you". But I've done it for you. Disgusting. I don't know what to say.
from May 29, 2012
A man convicted for his role in a triple murder on Christmas Eve in 1987 has been granted full parole.
Jon Waluk was convicted of first-degree murder in the killings.
The parole board issued a report on May 25, which pointed to the Correctional Service of Canada assessing Waluk's "overall level of risk as manageable on both day and full parole."
The 63-year-old Waluk, who is in deteriorating health, plans to support himself through his investments.
He was previously granted full parole in 2008 but was suspended less than a year later for being suspected of selling illegal cigarettes.
The parole board imposed some conditions on the new round of full parole, including that Waluk abstain from alcohol and drugs and be required to attend counselling.
He is serving a life sentence for the slayings of Agnes Kirk-Kirton, her five-year-old daughter Sarah and 18-month-old son Evan at their Winnipeg townhouse on Christmas Eve in 1987.
Waluk and co-accused Larry Fisher were convicted of three counts of second-degree murder for gunning down the family members at point-blank range. The pair was looking to collect a drug debt from Terry Kirton, the woman's husband and father of the two children. Terry Kirton escaped through a window and survived.
At trial, Waluk claimed he saved Kirton's life by pushing him out the window. Waluk claims Fisher was the gunman and he had no idea Fisher planned to kill. Fisher was convicted of first-degree murder and died in prison.
Waluk's case has been referred to the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, according to documents.
Waluk wasn't eligible for parole for 20 years.
He was granted day parole in September 2007, then full parole in April 2008 with conditions. Waluk was in the community for a year until he and a second man were caught with almost 80,000 black market cigarettes in May 2009, landing him back behind bars and resulting in his full parole being revoked.
Waluk pleaded guilty last October to possession of marked tobacco and possession of unmarked tobacco and ordered to pay fines of about $23,000 and a triple tax penalty of $45,750, court documents state.
He told a NPB panel he was doing a favour for a friend.
Documents indicate Waluk is committed to being released but there are concerns about his pattern of offending and an apparent need to help people and seek approval from negative peers.
If released, Waluk would not look for work due to "medical limitations impacting (his) ability to work," according to documents.
Waluk is a father of three but told a NPB panel he has no involvement in his grown children's lives.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
of course I can't be certain. I don't know the stats on triple murderers getting parole, but I highly doubt he ever will.
Don't be surprised if it happens though. We've got people working really hard at convincing parole boards that violent offenders are not violent anymore and deserve another chance. Every one of them has their personal set of advocates and we have some gullible/weak members that sit on parole boards.
I was about to say "show me someone who has committed a triple homicide and been granted parole and I might agree with you". But I've done it for you. Disgusting. I don't know what to say.
from May 29, 2012
A man convicted for his role in a triple murder on Christmas Eve in 1987 has been granted full parole.
Jon Waluk was convicted of first-degree murder in the killings.
The parole board issued a report on May 25, which pointed to the Correctional Service of Canada assessing Waluk's "overall level of risk as manageable on both day and full parole."
The 63-year-old Waluk, who is in deteriorating health, plans to support himself through his investments.
He was previously granted full parole in 2008 but was suspended less than a year later for being suspected of selling illegal cigarettes.
The parole board imposed some conditions on the new round of full parole, including that Waluk abstain from alcohol and drugs and be required to attend counselling.
He is serving a life sentence for the slayings of Agnes Kirk-Kirton, her five-year-old daughter Sarah and 18-month-old son Evan at their Winnipeg townhouse on Christmas Eve in 1987.
Waluk and co-accused Larry Fisher were convicted of three counts of second-degree murder for gunning down the family members at point-blank range. The pair was looking to collect a drug debt from Terry Kirton, the woman's husband and father of the two children. Terry Kirton escaped through a window and survived.
At trial, Waluk claimed he saved Kirton's life by pushing him out the window. Waluk claims Fisher was the gunman and he had no idea Fisher planned to kill. Fisher was convicted of first-degree murder and died in prison.
Waluk's case has been referred to the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, according to documents.
Waluk wasn't eligible for parole for 20 years.
He was granted day parole in September 2007, then full parole in April 2008 with conditions. Waluk was in the community for a year until he and a second man were caught with almost 80,000 black market cigarettes in May 2009, landing him back behind bars and resulting in his full parole being revoked.
Waluk pleaded guilty last October to possession of marked tobacco and possession of unmarked tobacco and ordered to pay fines of about $23,000 and a triple tax penalty of $45,750, court documents state.
He told a NPB panel he was doing a favour for a friend.
Documents indicate Waluk is committed to being released but there are concerns about his pattern of offending and an apparent need to help people and seek approval from negative peers.
If released, Waluk would not look for work due to "medical limitations impacting (his) ability to work," according to documents.
Waluk is a father of three but told a NPB panel he has no involvement in his grown children's lives.
Allan Schoenborn had a very violent past, but nothing he had done before compared to when he killed his three children with a knife in their home in 2008. The courts ruled him not criminally responsible for the murders of his three children, but most of us felt that decision was made in error. It was very well known he was extremely angry with his ex-wife and his past was laced with violent episodes.
Regardless of the entire story (which is horrific and maddening), it took only three years before 'advocates' had escorted leave on the plate for Schoenborn.
Three years and we see fit for an escorted leave? Wow.
Its such a relief that the authorities were onto this lunatic before he got to act on his impulses. The alternative is just plainly unthinkable.
So where do you sit with this, PD?
I mean, for some it would seem that 27 years is a long time for a guy who never actually committed a murder. People who actually go out and do the things he was thinking about doing spend 30 years in Canada (Olson was eligible for parole after 15 years).
Placing things in perspective:
Rape, torture and kill 11 kids= 30 years.
'Thinking about' killing and eating kids= 27 years.
The fellow I linked in my last post (who butchered his three small children) was on escorted leave after three years.
What should we expect for this bloke who hasn't even acted out on his impulses?
Seems kind of disproportionate to me and I'm sure the legal process people would agree that the only thing this guy is guilty of is possession of child pornography and conspiring to commit an offence. In other words... he'd actually go have to do something before we should look at removing him from society with such a lengthy term. The rights people stand behind apply to all people and... I am assuming that some would agree that this guy is guilty of something much less deserved of 27 years in prison.
There's no flexibility for common sense in the legal system.
whilst what you posted there makes a lot of sense.
I am perfectly happy to see this man put away for as long as humanly possible. he is dangerous, pleased guilty, confirmed he intended to carry through his plans, and only the speed of law enforcement prevented it.
I honestly don't care that he didn't manage to execute his plan, he is one sick individual, and I believe 27 years probably isn't enough, because someone of that mindset is horrendously deranged...
I can only liken it to a suicide bomber who doesn't manage to mass murder through detonation because he is captured on his way to carry it out,......
But again, I get what you say, I just wanted to answer as to where I personally stand.
It is at times like that I have no problem with the level of intelligence being acquired and constant surveillance, its exactly that on this occasion that has prevented a young child becoming his dinner, and sexual toy.
Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice
Ole Petter Ottersen
Theguardian.com, Thursday 12 September 2013
Anders Breivik's application to the University of Oslo for admission to the political science study programme created interest worldwide. Breivik did not qualify for the full programme, but will be able study specific topics. Here the university's rector explains the decision to grant him access to the course.
Through the atrocities he committed, Anders Breivik put to test our democracy and our legal institutions. The calm and reasoned way in which the Norwegian judiciary, the audience in the court room, and indeed the population in general dealt with Breivik, allowing him to be heard, indicates to me that we passed the test.
Why should we not trust our system when it comes to access to education? Our rules say that an inmate, like any other citizen in this country, has a right to pursue higher education on the basis of merit. The fact that his application is dealt with in accordance with extant rules and regulations does not imply that Norwegians lack passion or that anger and vengefulness are absent. What it demonstrates is that our values are fundamentally different from his.
By sticking to our rules and not clamouring for new ones we send a clear message to those whose misguided mission it is to undermine and change our democratic system. We do acknowledge that there are moral dilemmas in this case, but the last thing we need is a "lex Breivik". We keep to our rules for our own sake, not for his.
It falls on our universities to take responsibility for upholding democratic values, ideals and practices, including when these are challenged by heinous acts. We are on a slippery slope should we change the rules and adjust them to crimes committed. Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice, and about how pluralism and respect for individual human rights, protection of minorities and fundamental freedoms have been instrumental for the historical development of modern Europe. Under no circumstances will Breivik be admitted to campus. But in his cell he will be given ample possibilities to reflect on his atrocities and misconceptions.
Although many might disagree with the verdict, those closest to the case- outside of the men who are likely shitting their pants right now- are pleased that justice has been served. The courts called it the harshest sentence available to them- reflecting the disdain felt for the crime:
“This has shocked the collective conscience of society,'' Judge Yogesh Khanna told the attackers, adding the “courts could not turn a blind eye” to such crimes as he handed down the harshest sentence available.
The victim and father can find some comfort in the fact that these monsters were not afforded anything less than they deserved for their obscenity:
"I am very happy our girl has got justice," said the 23-year-old victim's father, who cannot be named under Indian laws guarding his daughter's identity as a rape victim, told the Associated Press.
Her family had earlier said their daughter's dying wish was for her attackers to be "burned alive.''
The verdict has been handed down and the men will pay for their vile behaviour with their lives... but it will not erase a horrific incident that has sparked outrage all over the world. It's very frustrating that we can treat each other with such indifference.
Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice
Ole Petter Ottersen
Theguardian.com, Thursday 12 September 2013
Anders Breivik's application to the University of Oslo for admission to the political science study programme created interest worldwide. Breivik did not qualify for the full programme, but will be able study specific topics. Here the university's rector explains the decision to grant him access to the course.
Through the atrocities he committed, Anders Breivik put to test our democracy and our legal institutions. The calm and reasoned way in which the Norwegian judiciary, the audience in the court room, and indeed the population in general dealt with Breivik, allowing him to be heard, indicates to me that we passed the test.
Why should we not trust our system when it comes to access to education? Our rules say that an inmate, like any other citizen in this country, has a right to pursue higher education on the basis of merit. The fact that his application is dealt with in accordance with extant rules and regulations does not imply that Norwegians lack passion or that anger and vengefulness are absent. What it demonstrates is that our values are fundamentally different from his.
By sticking to our rules and not clamouring for new ones we send a clear message to those whose misguided mission it is to undermine and change our democratic system. We do acknowledge that there are moral dilemmas in this case, but the last thing we need is a "lex Breivik". We keep to our rules for our own sake, not for his.
It falls on our universities to take responsibility for upholding democratic values, ideals and practices, including when these are challenged by heinous acts. We are on a slippery slope should we change the rules and adjust them to crimes committed. Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice, and about how pluralism and respect for individual human rights, protection of minorities and fundamental freedoms have been instrumental for the historical development of modern Europe. Under no circumstances will Breivik be admitted to campus. But in his cell he will be given ample possibilities to reflect on his atrocities and misconceptions.
For the rest of the world it is hard to understand how a man who has murdered 77 people can be given such a lenient sentence - and be allowed to study at the tax payer's expense at one of the country's finest universities.
Yes. Very hard to understand. Here's a country that doesn't have the death penalty, yet it produced one of the earth's worst mass murderers on record. I thought these kinds of people only developed in the barbaric countries?
whilst those courts 'couldn't turn a blind eye' I truly hope that means the authorities in India also decide not to do so moving forward.
the case stinks of hypocrisy in a damaged legal system, and the hanging out to dry (pardon the expression) due to the world attention being focused on this particular case - therefore these men being made an example of.
believe me I find them vile, disgusting and offensive, how any fellow human being can act towards another in the way they did is repulsive in its very nature, but there has to be consistency in the system, and from what I have read about India - it is very much missing.
Still, a worst, todays sentence may prove to deter this kind of behaviour in the future .....MAY. I do hope that is the case.
I just hope these mens allegations were not true of the way they were handled by the police, and that their convictions were sound......
Comments
You might not be suggesting I am morally inferior to you... but some others have painted proponents of the death penalty as such- if not... then cavemen (sick, bloodthirsty, vengeful, etc.). And this is what I alluded to earlier: if you choose to ignore comments that are disrespectful to one side of the argument (with silence)... then i don't think it is fair to be vocal towards the counter-comments they provoke.
If civility and respect is what you expect on this forum then demand it from all sides of the issue- not just the one opposing your position.
I'll repeat myself stating that such dialogue amounts to nothing more than mud-slinging. But given the amount of time and energy I have contributed to this thread, I would hope you could understand the need to preserve my (and others) dignity when charged as nothing more than a buffoon.
As for your last statement... I agree somewhat. It wasn't up to Olson to decide who lived and who died; yet he still decided. Given such... he made the playing field. It makes no sense to me that we would afford him the rights he blatantly abused and ignored.
interesting position.
you attack me for apparently not defending you, when in fact I actually did speak out about that pages ago (maybe not about you specifically, but about calling pro-DP people names-I'm not going to search through 82 pages to find it though). didn't think it was really my responsibility to defend you when you are completely capable of doing so yourself.
I'm not the forum police. don't expect me to be. I'm not here 24/7. If I see a comment I disagree with, I'll comment on it. Sometimes you also don't want to engage with someone who is obviously looking for an argument. I'll call someone (like you) on something because I respect you, not the opposite.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I guess it depends on what one feels is justice, PD.
What is justice for such a barbaric crime? You have stated that the law has been changed since their brutal attack... so, I'm curious to know whether or not this is so because the law feels that the punishment in case does not meet the crime?
They tricked the couple on to the bus and the attackers beat the friend into submission, held down the woman and repeatedly raped her. They penetrated her with a metal rod, causing severe internal injuries that led to her death two weeks later.
The father, no doubtedly tortured by the story and pained by his daughter's departure from the earth and the circumstances in which she was to leave it, has been vocal for what he wishes to see in terms of justice: "For what happened with her, these brutes must be hanged," he told reporters as he left home for the courthouse. "Nothing but the death penalty is acceptable to us."
Let him have his way.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013 ... rdict.html
I never attacked you and I wasn't looking for you to defend me. I pointed out the fact that I was engaged with Callen when you chimed in protesting things I had written in response to some pretty unflattering remarks... while choosing to leave the 'barbaric caveman' comments unaddressed. This is the reality isn't it?
well, if that's your reality, I guess I'll just leave you to it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't though conciously belittle and or look down from my horse but its a very emotional topic as proven by both sides of this argument and as such, sometimes we aren't as civil as we should be. I'm guilty. I respect those on this board and respect more those that are in the minority. Most humans cower in the corner and don't allow others views to interfer with their realities and truths. We on the train are different, we want to be provoked, challenged. Would have a beer with any of you. We'd have actual conversations.
But please understand, I believe we haven't moved forward as a society when we follow the same tactics as the Inca's or fundementalist muslims on punishment. We have to rise above killing as a means of resolution. We have to break the cycle of violence and that starts from the top...from what society says is okay. I'm rambling and will cease for now.
Peace
Callen
Well then explain to me what I am missing here?
In response to Blood and vengeance such wonderful human qualities... I prefaced two statements (one of which you have taken offence to) with: You wish to contribute in this capacity? Okay... I'll offer this
I think the preface would stand alone as a clarification as to where I'm coming from offering what I did, but I also called the 'discussion' a mud-slinging affair. You might not have liked what I was saying, but I didn't like what was offered initially. And, it at least appeared that you chose to ignore the intial slur while focussing on the response. Coincidently, the intial slur that wasn't addressed lies on the side of the fence that you argue for.
What's a guy to think?
Good points,
but on reading up on the legal system in India I wouldn't be convinced of its integrity.
There is every chance and likelihood that these 4 men did what they are accused of. But there is that shadow of doubt, allegations of torture before confessions were forthcoming, denials of guilt now, and a penalty being sought that didn't exist for that crime at the time it was committed.
The crime was sickening, and as always if it had been inflicted on any of my family I am certain I would feel very differently, but I wouldn't think the DP should be considered on this case. After all, I know the young lady died, and that is tragic especially in the circumstances, however was there any intention to kill?
These men were animals, and they should never ever see freedom again, but I think the DP would be a huge mistake. Although I expect that's exactly what will be handed down.
Key phrase highlighted in blue.
It's simply too easy to weigh in with no personal investment and from the bar stool. The family (and country for that matter) is outraged and they seek a death sentence for the kidnapping, bondage, torture and murder of the young woman. For me... these characteristics relevant to the nature of the crime warrant the death penalty.
The crime was brutal. These men are animals (not to be too offensive to animals) and we seem to have no problem placing animals down when they behave poorly.
A much less confrontational post that reflects your values without crapping on other people's here, Callen. Thanks for making this effort.
just out of interest, do you think there should be an intention to kill and commit murder to warrant the death sentence?
Im just of the belief that may have been missing in this case. Although I accept what they are alleged to have done with that metal bar is never going to produce a fairy tale ending.
If she had survived and been disabled by the attack leading to a much less privileged life would the DP still be suitable?
I know what you are saying about the subjectivity I applied which you highlighted, however I move to use those comments for one reason only. If I found myself in that position, I know I would never react rationally, I couldn't even function normally, so I know my reactions would be far from predictable........and that wouldn't be a good platform to work from in determining such an issue. I know my emotional limits, and that would far surpass those and probably challenge my mental capacity for as long as I lived.
For simply raping and destroying her womb... prison would have to suffice. For erasing her consciousness from the earth... more.
Interesting question regarding intent. I think this went very badly, but how could it not? It needs to be a case by case review before deciding that death should serve as justice. As I mentioned before, the variables in this one lead me to believe that a death sentence is warranted.
In the event where a robber whacks a guy over the head intending to take his wallet, but does so too hard and kills him... prison would suffice. Ramming a metal bar forcefully into a woman while laughing and high fiving... and ultimately killing her is a different matter- regardless of intent.
just out of interest, do you think there should be an intention to kill and commit murder to warrant the death sentence?
Im just of the belief that may have been missing in this case. Although I accept what they are alleged to have done with that metal bar is never going to produce a fairy tale ending.
If she had survived and been disabled by the attack leading to a much less privileged life would the DP still be suitable?
I know what you are saying about the subjectivity I applied which you highlighted, however I move to use those comments for one reason only. If I found myself in that position, I know I would never react rationally, I couldn't even function normally, so I know my reactions would be far from predictable........and that wouldn't be a good platform to work from in determining such an issue. I know my emotional limits, and that would far surpass those and probably challenge my mental capacity for as long as I lived.[/quote]
For simply raping and destroying her womb... prison would have to suffice. For erasing her consciousness from the earth... more.
Interesting question regarding intent. I think this went very badly, but how could it not? It needs to be a case by case review before deciding that death should serve as justice. As I mentioned before, the variables in this one lead me to believe that a death sentence is warranted.
In the event where a robber whacks a guy over the head intending to take his wallet, but does so too hard and kills him... prison would suffice. Ramming a metal bar forcefully into a woman while laughing and high fiving... and ultimately killing her is a different matter- regardless of intent.[/quote]
We are agreed on one thing anyway, these men are scum. bottom of the barrel filth, and the punishment they receive has to be a harsh one.
as im not convinced that they ever set out to murder that day, I couldn't support any death penalty (my position on the DP is well documented in this thread), however I certainly understand why many would push for it.
I don't think anyone can comprehend that ladies terror during that attack.....she was disregarded throughout it at all as trivial and unimportant and an object of sexual desire. I haven't read the closer details of the attack, I didn't even know they were high fiving throughout or laughing, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the DP is just.....it just means they are depraved imbeciles, who have been raised in a country where women are largely disregarded as being below men, as commodities, and expendable.....I cannot help but think that in this situation - whilst the world is looking on outraged - India are going to try to make a statement and make an example out of these men.
They are appalling, but its more troubling to learn that there is an attack involving brutal gang rape reported every single day.....many suspected not reported, and through various levels of corrupt authorities and abuses of power many are swept away. This one hit the news, and for that reason they may end up swinging.
Surely India have a responsibility to stand up and start an era of change, starting out at primary education and working equality into their society......
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... tarts.html
and POS
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Calling Baumgartner’s actions “a treacherous betrayal of trust,” the Crown submitted a joint request with the defence that Baumgartner be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years.
If that sentence is approved, it would set a precedent under legislation approved in 2011 preventing sentence discounts for multiple murders, and would be the harshest sentence in Canada since Arthur Lucas was executed in 1962.
Don't judge him too harshly. The guy was broke and needed some cash. We can call him stupid though. I mean... how did he ever think he would get away with such a crime? Of course he didn't and now a bunch of people are dead.
But boy oh boy... don't ever commit a triple homicide in Canada because if you do... 40 years (if that). This guy might have to spend 40 years until he's 63 before he can get out and golf again. I couldn't imagine.
I also couldn't imagine my colleague placing a gun to my head and blowing my face off either, but why focus on that?
40 years. Pffft.
this fucker will never get out.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What you write is true. This guy got more than Pickton or Olson.
As for your last statement... can you be certain?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Don't be surprised if it happens though. We've got people working really hard at convincing parole boards that violent offenders are not violent anymore and deserve another chance. Every one of them has their personal set of advocates and we have some gullible/weak members that sit on parole boards.
I was about to say "show me someone who has committed a triple homicide and been granted parole and I might agree with you". But I've done it for you. Disgusting. I don't know what to say.
from May 29, 2012
A man convicted for his role in a triple murder on Christmas Eve in 1987 has been granted full parole.
Jon Waluk was convicted of first-degree murder in the killings.
The parole board issued a report on May 25, which pointed to the Correctional Service of Canada assessing Waluk's "overall level of risk as manageable on both day and full parole."
The 63-year-old Waluk, who is in deteriorating health, plans to support himself through his investments.
He was previously granted full parole in 2008 but was suspended less than a year later for being suspected of selling illegal cigarettes.
The parole board imposed some conditions on the new round of full parole, including that Waluk abstain from alcohol and drugs and be required to attend counselling.
Read more: http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/man-convicte ... z2edgtvoKO
from July 26, 2010:
He is serving a life sentence for the slayings of Agnes Kirk-Kirton, her five-year-old daughter Sarah and 18-month-old son Evan at their Winnipeg townhouse on Christmas Eve in 1987.
Waluk and co-accused Larry Fisher were convicted of three counts of second-degree murder for gunning down the family members at point-blank range. The pair was looking to collect a drug debt from Terry Kirton, the woman's husband and father of the two children. Terry Kirton escaped through a window and survived.
At trial, Waluk claimed he saved Kirton's life by pushing him out the window. Waluk claims Fisher was the gunman and he had no idea Fisher planned to kill. Fisher was convicted of first-degree murder and died in prison.
Waluk's case has been referred to the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, according to documents.
Waluk wasn't eligible for parole for 20 years.
He was granted day parole in September 2007, then full parole in April 2008 with conditions. Waluk was in the community for a year until he and a second man were caught with almost 80,000 black market cigarettes in May 2009, landing him back behind bars and resulting in his full parole being revoked.
Waluk pleaded guilty last October to possession of marked tobacco and possession of unmarked tobacco and ordered to pay fines of about $23,000 and a triple tax penalty of $45,750, court documents state.
He told a NPB panel he was doing a favour for a friend.
Documents indicate Waluk is committed to being released but there are concerns about his pattern of offending and an apparent need to help people and seek approval from negative peers.
If released, Waluk would not look for work due to "medical limitations impacting (his) ability to work," according to documents.
Waluk is a father of three but told a NPB panel he has no involvement in his grown children's lives.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Allan Schoenborn had a very violent past, but nothing he had done before compared to when he killed his three children with a knife in their home in 2008. The courts ruled him not criminally responsible for the murders of his three children, but most of us felt that decision was made in error. It was very well known he was extremely angry with his ex-wife and his past was laced with violent episodes.
Regardless of the entire story (which is horrific and maddening), it took only three years before 'advocates' had escorted leave on the plate for Schoenborn.
Three years and we see fit for an escorted leave? Wow.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... ew-bc.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ls-2267126
Its such a relief that the authorities were onto this lunatic before he got to act on his impulses. The alternative is just plainly unthinkable.
So where do you sit with this, PD?
I mean, for some it would seem that 27 years is a long time for a guy who never actually committed a murder. People who actually go out and do the things he was thinking about doing spend 30 years in Canada (Olson was eligible for parole after 15 years).
Placing things in perspective:
Rape, torture and kill 11 kids= 30 years.
'Thinking about' killing and eating kids= 27 years.
The fellow I linked in my last post (who butchered his three small children) was on escorted leave after three years.
What should we expect for this bloke who hasn't even acted out on his impulses?
Seems kind of disproportionate to me and I'm sure the legal process people would agree that the only thing this guy is guilty of is possession of child pornography and conspiring to commit an offence. In other words... he'd actually go have to do something before we should look at removing him from society with such a lengthy term. The rights people stand behind apply to all people and... I am assuming that some would agree that this guy is guilty of something much less deserved of 27 years in prison.
There's no flexibility for common sense in the legal system.
where do I stand?
whilst what you posted there makes a lot of sense.
I am perfectly happy to see this man put away for as long as humanly possible. he is dangerous, pleased guilty, confirmed he intended to carry through his plans, and only the speed of law enforcement prevented it.
I honestly don't care that he didn't manage to execute his plan, he is one sick individual, and I believe 27 years probably isn't enough, because someone of that mindset is horrendously deranged...
I can only liken it to a suicide bomber who doesn't manage to mass murder through detonation because he is captured on his way to carry it out,......
But again, I get what you say, I just wanted to answer as to where I personally stand.
It is at times like that I have no problem with the level of intelligence being acquired and constant surveillance, its exactly that on this occasion that has prevented a young child becoming his dinner, and sexual toy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rsity-oslo
Why Anders Breivik is welcome at our university
Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice
Ole Petter Ottersen
Theguardian.com, Thursday 12 September 2013
Anders Breivik's application to the University of Oslo for admission to the political science study programme created interest worldwide. Breivik did not qualify for the full programme, but will be able study specific topics. Here the university's rector explains the decision to grant him access to the course.
Through the atrocities he committed, Anders Breivik put to test our democracy and our legal institutions. The calm and reasoned way in which the Norwegian judiciary, the audience in the court room, and indeed the population in general dealt with Breivik, allowing him to be heard, indicates to me that we passed the test.
Why should we not trust our system when it comes to access to education? Our rules say that an inmate, like any other citizen in this country, has a right to pursue higher education on the basis of merit. The fact that his application is dealt with in accordance with extant rules and regulations does not imply that Norwegians lack passion or that anger and vengefulness are absent. What it demonstrates is that our values are fundamentally different from his.
By sticking to our rules and not clamouring for new ones we send a clear message to those whose misguided mission it is to undermine and change our democratic system. We do acknowledge that there are moral dilemmas in this case, but the last thing we need is a "lex Breivik". We keep to our rules for our own sake, not for his.
It falls on our universities to take responsibility for upholding democratic values, ideals and practices, including when these are challenged by heinous acts. We are on a slippery slope should we change the rules and adjust them to crimes committed. Having been admitted to study political science, Breivik will have to read about democracy and justice, and about how pluralism and respect for individual human rights, protection of minorities and fundamental freedoms have been instrumental for the historical development of modern Europe. Under no circumstances will Breivik be admitted to campus. But in his cell he will be given ample possibilities to reflect on his atrocities and misconceptions.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... cked-india
Although many might disagree with the verdict, those closest to the case- outside of the men who are likely shitting their pants right now- are pleased that justice has been served. The courts called it the harshest sentence available to them- reflecting the disdain felt for the crime:
“This has shocked the collective conscience of society,'' Judge Yogesh Khanna told the attackers, adding the “courts could not turn a blind eye” to such crimes as he handed down the harshest sentence available.
The victim and father can find some comfort in the fact that these monsters were not afforded anything less than they deserved for their obscenity:
"I am very happy our girl has got justice," said the 23-year-old victim's father, who cannot be named under Indian laws guarding his daughter's identity as a rape victim, told the Associated Press.
Her family had earlier said their daughter's dying wish was for her attackers to be "burned alive.''
The verdict has been handed down and the men will pay for their vile behaviour with their lives... but it will not erase a horrific incident that has sparked outrage all over the world. It's very frustrating that we can treat each other with such indifference.
For the rest of the world it is hard to understand how a man who has murdered 77 people can be given such a lenient sentence - and be allowed to study at the tax payer's expense at one of the country's finest universities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24068206
Yes. Very hard to understand. Here's a country that doesn't have the death penalty, yet it produced one of the earth's worst mass murderers on record. I thought these kinds of people only developed in the barbaric countries?
the case stinks of hypocrisy in a damaged legal system, and the hanging out to dry (pardon the expression) due to the world attention being focused on this particular case - therefore these men being made an example of.
believe me I find them vile, disgusting and offensive, how any fellow human being can act towards another in the way they did is repulsive in its very nature, but there has to be consistency in the system, and from what I have read about India - it is very much missing.
Still, a worst, todays sentence may prove to deter this kind of behaviour in the future .....MAY. I do hope that is the case.
I just hope these mens allegations were not true of the way they were handled by the police, and that their convictions were sound......