Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the female that falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape be criminally charged?
Answer:
I don't think so.....I believe that she doesn't even deserve any more attetion on this matter. Everyone knows she is a liar that was just looking for $$$$. It sucks though that she has made a bad name for women and people will question women more when they claim rape. I think we should all chip in on a one way ticket to Iran.........She puts those guy's through a living hell.
No she should make love to them all to make up for it.
Absolutely YES !
She should get, if convicted, just as much time in the slammer as her victims would had they been falsely convicted.
Yes. When girls do that, it makes other victims less believable and maybe not even come forward, for fear they just won't be believed. She needs to know it's not OK.
YES YES YES YES..look at what she did to those guys, all the time and money wasted in the courts for what? hell yeah she should be TARRED AND FEATHERED, then jailed
yes, she should
Yes. In fact they can sue her for false info
From what I understand she is mentally ill. She or her legal guardians should be held liable though to keep anything similar from happening in the future.
its defamation of character. but they'd have to prove that, in addition to not doing the crime, their reputation had been affected.
Yes i believe she should get charged. It's because of her and women like her that the women who truly gets violated have such a hard time getting the ones that actually did it charged and/or convicted.
Yeah. The fact is she false reported an incident and ruined the lives of these young men. Maybe that'll teach college boys to stay away from strippers.
Send her to jail for as long as the accused would have been in prison. Make the false witness server ALL their terms consecutively.
Lets wait and see what happens to the D.A. Not just now.
yes,there should be a criminal penalty for falsely accusing someone of such a serious crime.
yes..if they prove she falsely accused them...that has not been shown....less than 33% of rapists are convicted....just because charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent...it just means there was not enough evidence...do you know how many rapists use condoms now or days?
I believe Nifong knew this woman suffered from mental problems and used it to his advantage. Her mental state would need to be examined to determine if she knew this action she was doing was wrong, it appeared to me she did because of the civil lawyer that was waiting in the wings to pounce on the Duke guys, that ain't going to happen. This is an injustice to the accuser and the three men. Nifong should get the fullest weight of the law against him and it already started with the NC bar telling him that all charges are STILL pending against him, we will need to wait until June to see what happens to him as for her that will be looked at carefully as well. The AG stated that NO criminal charges against the accuser due to medical history, as for civil action the same history would be used and she most likely would not pay anything, but we will see.
From what I understand of what was said by the new prosecutor that dismissed the charges, he things that she actually believed her statements. If so, it would be difficult to justify a criminal prosecution against her and nearly impossible to convict.
The Lacrosse players might have a claim against her and the original prosecutor for malicious prosecution/abuse of process.
Should the FCC fine Imus for his insensitive remarks? How Much?
Singapore jails bloggers for racist remarks
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
Should the elderly have to take an eye test every year to drive.?
One day I actually saw an old man walk into Braums Restraunt and ask if it was the eye clinic (which was across the street). This man was driving all by himself.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
Should the Duke lacrosse players counter sue ?
Answer:
Heck yeah they should. Why some beotches have to lie about being raped I will have no idea.
THe stripper? FOr what - her millions???
I would, especially those butthead 88 professors that slandered them so bad, Nifong, and the "victim"
A B S O L U T E L Y !
The School and the hoe they should but i don't know if they can sue nifong or what ever the prosecutor name is i'm not sure if prosecutor's are protected like judges i think the judges are bonded.
either that or buy an assault rifle.
One recalls the old quot, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
I hope that the profs at Duke have a few troubled nights sleeping for their courageous stand for their students.
The stripper is pretty much judgment proof. She has nothing of value. That leaves the prosecutor/state.
Counter sue who? You would have to prove alot of things that would be unlikely to prove...remember just because the charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent.
They can't counter sue because they were never sued.
Should the driving age be kept at 16?
I'm writing an essay on the driving age being kept at 16. THIS ESSAY IS DUE THIS WEEK SO I NEED ANSWERS QUICK!! Can you help me think of 16 REAL FACTS on why the driving age should be kept at 16?
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Should the death sentence be introduced for paedophiles?
i have been reading in my local paper about a portuguese child snatcher who flew over 50 children out of Faro airport in 8 months.children as young as 5 were
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
Should the death penalty be gone?
yes or no
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)