Well, at last. It's taken close to ten years, but now I can rest assured: AILD was NOT a "Christian metal[core]" band

The author shouldn't say that this is the "worst possible way" for the case to end. This is exactly how the case should have come out, if not with a harsher penalty. Fuck the future of AILD, Tim Lambesis is a criminal, and should be treated and regarded as such. Saying "Things are not looking good for the future of As I Lay Dying" is such bullshit...

In fact it is "in the worst way possible", because actually having someone do this is so deplorable. To have this outcome illustrate "the worst way possible" is like theoretically saying Lambesis being found innocent is the "best way possible". The outcome being the worst possible has absolutely nothing to do with Lambesis being a criminal past describing the truth.

Saying "Things are not looking good for the future of As I Lay Dying" is "such bullshit" also has no bearing on them losing their shit-bag front man. They're simply stating that with the loss of one of, if not arguably the most important member, a lot of bands struggle to continue on, especially when they're only mediocre to begin with. Quit rippin' on the staff for misinterpretations.

The thing about As I Lay Dying is merely acknowledging that he was an important part of the band they had to "stop" because of this that happened. It hinders the band as well.

None of this is condoning what he did or saying he shouldn't pay, guys.

Really? Killing someone just gets you a fine of 10,000 dollars and (at the very worst) 9 years in jail? Whatever happened to 25-life? Fuck, whatever happened to capital punishment?

Also, I think it's been about a decade since As I Lay Dying has been relevant anyway. Fuck, most people dislike them anyway.

Written by Darth Revan on 26.02.2014 at 16:43
Really? Killing someone just gets you a fine of 10,000 dollars and (at the very worst) 9 years in jail? Whatever happened to 25-life?

The hit-man was an undercover law enforcement officer. The wife was never killed.

Written by Darth Revan on 26.02.2014 at 16:43

Really? Killing someone just gets you a fine of 10,000 dollars and (at the very worst) 9 years in jail? Whatever happened to 25-life? Fuck, whatever happened to capital punishment?

Just be glad poor reading comprehension is not punishable in any way or form.


I know I'm glad you are not in charge. I would never send a person to jail for 25 years for accidentally killing someone, or indirectly causing the death of someone. That would be beyond cruel. Are you a sociopath or something?

I always find it funny how people who 'value' human life the most are so quick to demand the death of someone. "Oh noes! He killed someone. Quick, let's kill him too. We're better than him so it doesn't count".

I mean, I don't really care. People value human life way too much. I just sit back and laugh at all the hypocrisy and double standards.

The good point is that in jail he will build up muscle faster than ever...(if he don't want to discover his feminine side under shower)

Written by rpsgc on 26.02.2014 at 16:52

Written by Darth Revan on 26.02.2014 at 16:43

Really? Killing someone just gets you a fine of 10,000 dollars and (at the very worst) 9 years in jail? Whatever happened to 25-life? Fuck, whatever happened to capital punishment?

Just be glad poor reading comprehension is not punishable in any way or form.


I know I'm glad you are not in charge. I would never send a person to jail for 25 years for accidentally killing someone, or indirectly causing the death of someone. That would be beyond cruel. Are you a sociopath or something?

Yeah, I made a mistake, I admit that. That said, accidentally killing someone goes into the category of manslaughter without intent, which usually, barring reckless endangerment, gets you no time at all. Which I agree with. However, this is attempted murder. Yes, I would have someone who attempted (Solicitation counts as attempt, not to mention conspiracy) murder sit 25 years in jail.

I also think that attempting to kill someone should serve the same sentence as actually killing someone. (on purpose)

Written by Darth Revan on 26.02.2014 at 17:01

Yeah, I made a mistake, I admit that. That said, accidentally killing someone goes into the category of manslaughter without intent, which usually, barring reckless endangerment, gets you no time at all. Which I agree with. However, this is attempted murder. Yes, I would have someone who attempted (Solicitation counts as attempt, not to mention conspiracy) murder sit 25 years in jail.

Well, if he would have been convincted for this in Europe he would've spent 5 years or less. For good behavior he would've done 3 and a half years of prison and he would've been out. 25 years for this is way too much. That I would reserve to serial killers. As for death penalty, I think we this is a relic of an age long gone... taking the life of another person arbitrarily, just because he/she killed someone does not make those that decided it any better than the killer himself. A crime is a crime, legal or not. Seriously, what would happen if an innocent person gets a death sentence and you find out years latter that the real criminal is still on the loose? We should never be too quick in deciding the death of a person. There were/are people that stood in prison while they were innocent, what makes you think that innocent people can't get a death penalty?

Instead of just killing him, do it the old communist way. Make him work the land, community service, use his work force for the benefit of the community. Having him dead benefits no one. You cannot bring back a dead person with the death of his/her killer.

Looking forward to the lacklustre keyboard-only dark ambient albums.

Written by Wukk on 26.02.2014 at 19:22

Looking forward to the lacklustre keyboard-only dark ambient albums.

hahahaha:lol:

The only thing that sucks about this is now we're not getting a Pyrithion full-length.

AILD, I couldn't give two shits about.

Never listened to these guys, so decided to give them a chance. Listened to "Shadows Are Security." It's basically 50 minutes of the same shitty song.

If he wasnt christian before he totally will be after being in the joint for a couple of years.

Not a fan of AILD, but I feel bad for those who are however.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 26.02.2014 at 19:04

Well, if he would have been convincted for this in Europe he would've spent 5 years or less. For good behavior he would've done 3 and a half years of prison and he would've been out. 25 years for this is way too much. That I would reserve to serial killers. As for death penalty, I think we this is a relic of an age long gone... taking the life of another person arbitrarily, just because he/she killed someone does not make those that decided it any better than the killer himself. A crime is a crime, legal or not. Seriously, what would happen if an innocent person gets a death sentence and you find out years latter that the real criminal is still on the loose? We should never be too quick in deciding the death of a person. There were/are people that stood in prison while they were innocent, what makes you think that innocent people can't get a death penalty?

Instead of just killing him, do it the old communist way. Make him work the land, community service, use his work force for the benefit of the community. Having him dead benefits no one. You cannot bring back a dead person with the death of his/her killer.

I've entertained the notion of simply using inmates as slave labor. Problem with that is that you'd put construction companies and farmers out of work, depending on what you use them for, and you can bet that they'd be more than happy to half-ass it.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that killing a murderer makes you just as bad as them. Excuse me, but turn the other cheek isn't practical, and eye for an eye makes the world go blind isn't exactly true considering the ever increasing world population.The amount of sympathy generated for the dregs of society is simply appalling, if someone committed a heinous act such as murder or rape, they don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day off of my tax money, they deserve to be put in a hole in the ground. Capital punishment is only more costly than a life sentence due to the length of court procedure necessary to sentence a man to death. Make it easier to kill someone, and you remove an unnecessary burden from society. Why should we pay for the welfare of rapists and serial killers? We need to send out a clear message: Kill a man in cold blood, and you'll face the same treatment.

Yeah, the courts are wrong about 1% of the time... I'm willing to live with that margin of error, no system is perfect. And the 99% assholes who do get killed aren't a burden any longer.

I think the last two posters make some good points... but also some scary-level bad ones as well. How could anyone actually be "okay" if 1 out of every 100 death sentences was putting to death an innocent person? That's an extremely scary and ignorant statement, IMO.

I agree that the courts are often times not harsh enough. However, whenever you guys go about making such extreme-right statements (like saying extreme liberals should be killed), all it does is fuel the public perception that all of the people who want a harsher justice system are whackos.

Written by Darth Revan on 27.02.2014 at 04:22

I've entertained the notion of simply using inmates as slave labor. Problem with that is that you'd put construction companies and farmers out of work, depending on what you use them for, and you can bet that they'd be more than happy to half-ass it.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that killing a murderer makes you just as bad as them. Excuse me, but turn the other cheek isn't practical, and eye for an eye makes the world go blind isn't exactly true considering the ever increasing world population.The amount of sympathy generated for the dregs of society is simply appalling, if someone committed a heinous act such as murder or rape, they don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day off of my tax money, they deserve to be put in a hole in the ground. Capital punishment is only more costly than a life sentence due to the length of court procedure necessary to sentence a man to death. Make it easier to kill someone, and you remove an unnecessary burden from society. Why should we pay for the welfare of rapists and serial killers? We need to send out a clear message: Kill a man in cold blood, and you'll face the same treatment.

Yeah, the courts are wrong about 1% of the time... I'm willing to live with that margin of error, no system is perfect. And the 99% assholes who do get killed aren't a burden any longer.

Not slave labour, rather a paid labour. In other words, they work for their meals and comfort, get it? And yeah, killing someone is a crime, be it legal or ilegal. What would happen if an innocent person gets convicted for a crime he/she hasn't, get the death row, but later you find out 'oops, we killed the wrong person, the real criminal is still on the loose'. And I do not agree about your mizantropic view of humanity. Disposing of someone just because the 'world population' grew, or because they're a burden is not a valid reason. Handicaped people are a burden, if we lived during the Antiquity in Sparta, they would've been disposed. We don't though, we evolved as a civilization.

"Kill a man in cold blood, and you'll face the same treatment"

In other words, if someone kills someone, we already have several killers that are ready to kill you. And anyway, how is it that the states which employ the capital punishment still have the highest crime rates in the world? I mean, look at the northern European countries. No lethal injections, no hanging, no electric chair, no captial punishments, toppled with small prison sentences, you have one of the smallest crime rates in the world!

"1% of the time"

I am not sure if it is just 1%, but instead of a single innocent person being killed for something they did not commit, I prefer to have a criminal on the loose. Why? Because you can catch a criminal as long as he/she lives, but if you kill an innocent person you can't undo what you've done. Basicaly, the whole system becomes criminal when such a deed is done.

Well, this has been a chilling read.

I sort of got a sense this band was on the decline before all this nonsense but at any rate... Shitty way for everything to fall apart.

Never really cared about the band anyway, but this is sick.
Moral lesson of the story?
Stop using steroids or you will encounter an undercover cop when you're trying to kill your wife.


But seriously, this is sick. Just imagine how his wife and children think and feel right now.
"We were a family. How'd it break up and come apart, so that now we're turned against each other?"

Written by deadone on 28.02.2014 at 01:17

So you prefer for a criminal to be on the loose hurting more people than a 1% risk of an innocent hanging.

And catching pukebags isn't as easy as they show it on CSI.

And I have a story!

I was kind of involved in a police chase by accident.

My mate is a guard in a juvenile detention facility. They called them youth workers but his job is pure prison guard.


One night we were driving along after a gig when my mate recognised an escaped felon on a BMX. We called the cops and followed the dude until he turned into a park.

The cops arrived too late. When my mate described the situation, the cops went the wrong way. Yeah they're not bright even the one's with legal degrees (Police Prosecutors who have no ideas about legal process or how to lay down a good case - wife's saying they're always fucking up and as such pukebags are walking free).


Dude was caught about a week later - he was on the run for two weeks in total and did some minor crime - mainly theft.

Now this guy wasn't too major a fish but a full fledged pukebag can do a lot of damage in 2 weeks.




Remember that piece of shit Vrag escaped and carjacked a car from a family. That family is now traumatised for life.

Putting a bullet in Vrag's head would've saved at least 3 people from a trauma they didn't have to experience.

Ok, so for every damn crime commited lets just execute the perpetrator. The US has over 2 million inmates, lets kill all of them and be done with. Is that sane? No, it isn't. Killing, no matter how you look at it, be it legal or illegal it is still a crime. I think we have evolved as a civilization for the last 2000 years at the very least. What I'm saying is that if you give a law, or a measure that is subject to abuse, the abuse will happen. Same with the death sentence. You can't bring back a dead innocent person, but you can still catch a criminal on the loose. You can't bring back the years an innocent person spent in prison, but it is never too late to catch a criminal on the loose, even after years. I saw criminals getting caught after more than 20 years of roaming free. But I never see dead persons coming back to life. So yeah, I prefer to sacrifice a criminal or two than put an innocent person in the position of being executed for something he/she never commited. That would be a grave injustice to that person, to the ones that believed in him until the end, and it will put both the judicial system and the entire society that approved of death sentences in a bad light. Nobody has the right to take some other person's life, be it criminals or those that hide under the law.

As for Varg, the man served his time in prison, he got out, and he remade his life. He has a young wife and 2 kids so I think he learned his lesson. Sure, his distorted view about reality, politics and so on remained the same, but other than a terrorist claim last year that was proven to be a false alarm, nothing else happened. The problem with prisoners though is that society does not accept most of them after they get out and conditions for their reintegration in society, in most of the countries are scarce to nonexistant. Well, you know, instead of going out and starve, it is easy for them to rob someone and go back to jail and have a meal and a roof over your head. This is how a part of them think (not the majority as it is implied many times). But this is not their fault, it is also our fault and I do believe that there are criminals that want to rehabilitate themselves and become viable members of society. Sure, it is hard to rehabilitate a serial killer or a serial rapist, but not all criminals are the same. And seriously, I know way too many cases of people convicted for stuff that should've never happened if the everybody was equal under law. But unfortunately some of us are more equal than others it seems.

I know a close person that had a sad ending. His father was murdered by a neighbour 2 years after he got married. Since the police could not find any evidence nor a witness so that they can catch the culprit, that person chose to investigate independently. He actually found a witness, clues (weapon) + footage from surveillance cameras that actually were ignored by the police only to find out that the culprit had ties with judges and prosecutors. Eventually, after years of neverending trials, the guy had to serve 6 months!!! in prison! The guy considered that it was too little, he grabbed an axe and killed him. Sure, what he did is unexcusable, but would it have gotten to this point if all of us would've been equal under the name of the law? Nope. When even the law betrays you, all you have left is to make justice with your own hands, sometimes. I do not feel pity for his act, but I do feel pity for his circumstances. Lets not forget that those that pass laws are humans as well.

Some people might think that death sentences are there to serve as an example, but when you look in the environment where such punishments are legal, you will see that crime rate does not go down even with it. Why? Because there are many in this world that would commit a crime without thinking of the consequences. In contrast, I look at places where death sentence is not employed. Scandinavian countries, even though they have their own shitty people like Varg, or Breivik, or idk who else, they still have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And there is no capital punishment there either. If migration rate from poor countries would decrease, the crime rate will decrease even further.

Written by Agathomax on 26.02.2014 at 16:52

The good point is that in jail he will build up muscle faster than ever...(if he don't want to discover his feminine side under shower)

hahahahahaha best post XD

Written by deadone on 28.02.2014 at 02:58

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 28.02.2014 at 01:52


"Not a bad idea. "

For me, it is. Thinking about it, there is a huge work force there that would be wasted. Plus, you can decrease the expenditures with their life standard if you put them to work. In my country, during the communist regime, all prisoners were working for their meals. As a result, they received some petty cash and they also helped the community. Now that is what I call a proper punishment. Also, prisons has two meanings, the first stands for punishment, the second for penitence. After 1989 though, in my country, prisoners haven't been working that much though. It would be great to reinstate community labour for all of them 'cause anyway, much land is unworked and not much infrastructure has been built. Still, Romania has a low crime rate compared to Western Europe, Russia or the US, and it keeps decreasing year after year. Without death penalty.

"It's only a crime in your opinion."

Nope, taking somebodies life without his/her consent is a crime, even if it is under the law or not. Laws are made for peasants, the higher ups can always kill someone and have big chances to not spend even a year in prison. And I am talking about real life cases.

So, in other words, is it ok to go back in time when the church could hand and kill anyone they deemed as a heretic? Is it ok to go back in 18th century France with all the public executions? Is it ok to go back in 19th century US with slavery still being legal? With death sentence, it is clear that you don't reduce the crime rate. Heck, the American states where it is employed serve as a great exemple. Look at Belarus from Europe too. Huge crime rate, they introduced death penalty and voila, crime rate is still rising due to the fact that the country is also poor and poverty is a cause that leads to an increase in criminal rates.

"And the police don't just charge some random innocent. There's usual suspects - i.e. people with history of criminal activity etc."

Ow boy, I know so many cases in my country, especially guys convicted because of false rape charges that spent years in prison for nothing. This is a national sport in the feminized european countries, not to mention the US where a guy spent 35 years in prison for an alleged rape case and when they found out it was a fraud, guess what happened to the woman? Nothing, you guessed it. Not a single day in prison and the guy lost 35 years of his life. Can the death of that woman bring back his lost 35 years of his life? Of course not. Nor can any death penalty bring back a killed person, nor can it sooth the pain of the ones left behind.

"Actually you would rather sacrifice many innocents that are to become victims of crime."

That is still not an excuse for executing an innocent person. If such a scenario would happen, and you would have to explain to his/her family, what would you say? I think you would remain without words. And the legal system will recieve a heavy blow. If the judicial system would be 100% correct, I would agree with you, but it isn't, it is subject to mistakes and corruption and innocent people are serving in prison every so often. No amount of money, and absolutely no penalty for the one that sent him there will ever turn back time.

"People make choices in their lives. "

Take in consideration the environment where you live. Sure, this does not apply to anyone, but seriously, if you would go in a prison (I actually conducted many studies and took many testimonies in our prisons) you would find out that many of the prisoners did not become criminal because they wanted. Many of them invoke a messed up family life, messed up childhood, many of them were raped while being underaged and also, many of them were basicaly maginalized by society and had not other choice.

Also, in your country the reintegration in society might work, but in mine not only that it doesn't work, but it doesn't exist! 80% is the relapse rate. And yeah, here the meal and roof over your head thingy applies. There are those that commit small crimes that would rather go back to prison instead of starving as nobody would hire them. Sure, they are a minority, but they do exist. But if such a treatment is applied for a small thief, I wonder how can a criminal that has been released would actually try to rehabilitate himself? No chance. There was a time period when work integration was applied in prisons and relapse rate went under 50% in 3-4 years. But it was abandoned and it went back.

"If the system worked, the father's murderer would've hung as soon as the sentence was read out."

The 'if' is the key. We always forget that systems are man made too, so they are subject to corrupted people and mistakes. I am not implying though that he should've been killed, but 6 months for a crime is a joke.

"Vrag served a mere 15 years in prison for depriving a 25 year old man of the rest of his life."

In the opinion of the Norwegian judicial system it is. Plus, he did not commit anymore crimes after he got released, so I think his case was a happy one in the end. He has a family now, a small house in France, he leads a secluded life too. I am completely oposed to his distorted view about the world, but hey, as long as he doesn't do anymore harm to other people, I do not see the problem. He is lucky though, because if someone in my country would've done the same thing and went out of prison, he would be back in a matter of days after commiting another crime.

"You get free education, free healthcare, subsidised everything else."

Here everything is free on paper only, in reality if you go to school you will have to pay for books, for class funds, school funds, and other stuff, if the school has an uniform you will have to pay for that too, so even though the state pays for you to go to school, you have to also pay in order to attend school in maximum conditions. Not to mention healthcare, if you do not pay the doctor and the nurses a little bit, they might even let you die. Everything is subsidised on paper, but when you go to see if it applies in practice too, you will have to take some money out of you pocket to assure that you will benefit from that service. Sure, Romania is not Australia.

"Killing prisoners has following benefits:

1. Reduces potential for further crime by that offender
2. Allows funding for prisoner upkeep to be spent on better education, health etc.
3. At least there is repurcussion for action."

None of these guarantees that crime rates will decrease. On the contrary though, it either increases or it remains the same. In my country, with all the problems it has, for 6 years in a row it has gone downhill. What is more surprising is that even sentences got smaller. The prison population has also decreased too and the cost with the inmates as well. But, if I were the state, I would take them all out, work the land, build infrastructure there where it is too expensive (we definitely need highways), etc. Sure, some might go bankrupt, but I do not care that much since it is for the benefit of the community. Heck, Ceausescu built this country with prisoners and the army. In 20 years Romania, from an agriculture country became an industrialized one.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 27.02.2014 at 15:36

Not slave labour, rather a paid labour. In other words, they work for their meals and comfort, get it? And yeah, killing someone is a crime, be it legal or ilegal. What would happen if an innocent person gets convicted for a crime he/she hasn't, get the death row, but later you find out 'oops, we killed the wrong person, the real criminal is still on the loose'. And I do not agree about your mizantropic view of humanity. Disposing of someone just because the 'world population' grew, or because they're a burden is not a valid reason. Handicaped people are a burden, if we lived during the Antiquity in Sparta, they would've been disposed. We don't though, we evolved as a civilization.

"Kill a man in cold blood, and you'll face the same treatment"

In other words, if someone kills someone, we already have several killers that are ready to kill you. And anyway, how is it that the states which employ the capital punishment still have the highest crime rates in the world? I mean, look at the northern European countries. No lethal injections, no hanging, no electric chair, no captial punishments, toppled with small prison sentences, you have one of the smallest crime rates in the world!

"1% of the time"

I am not sure if it is just 1%, but instead of a single innocent person being killed for something they did not commit, I prefer to have a criminal on the loose. Why? Because you can catch a criminal as long as he/she lives, but if you kill an innocent person you can't undo what you've done. Basicaly, the whole system becomes criminal when such a deed is done.

Actually it's very easy to explain why countries with the death penalty have higher crime rates. Because, to quote our mutual friend deadone, "bleeding hearts" in western society frown upon the death sentence. And usually, the more prosperous a country is, the more yuppies you're going to get. I bet some of them are even claiming that it's a good thing we're still feeding Charles Manson. There's no actual correlation between crime rates and the death penalty currently, because any country that doesn't have crime rates through the roof can't use it effectively, and even the 2nd/3rd world countries that do have to adhere to UN standards. It takes so much bullshit to finally hang a man that it's essentially inefficient, because of the aformentioned yuppies. If they suck it up, there might be a significant reduction in crime rates.

As for your hyperbolic suggestion of killing disabled people, you see, there's a very big difference between being physically disabled and going out on a murder spree. Namely that physically disabled people don't have malicious intent and that they were merely dealt a bad hand. Felons who choose violence as a means to success are actively malicious to society. Whether or not they came from a poor background, not everyone who came from a poor background chose to make other people's life worse to better their own. Some did. And those people have lost the right to life in my eyes.

Why yes, an innocent man might die rarely. Better than the thousands of murderers running around at this very moment, who are more than likely to take more innocent lives.

Written by Darth Revan on 01.03.2014 at 01:29

Actually it's very easy to explain why countries with the death penalty have higher crime rates. Because, to quote our mutual friend deadone, "bleeding hearts" in western society frown upon the death sentence. And usually, the more prosperous a country is, the more yuppies you're going to get. I bet some of them are even claiming that it's a good thing we're still feeding Charles Manson. There's no actual correlation between crime rates and the death penalty currently, because any country that doesn't have crime rates through the roof can't use it effectively, and even the 2nd/3rd world countries that do have to adhere to UN standards. It takes so much bullshit to finally hang a man that it's essentially inefficient, because of the aformentioned yuppies. If they suck it up, there might be a significant reduction in crime rates.

As for your hyperbolic suggestion of killing disabled people, you see, there's a very big difference between being physically disabled and going out on a murder spree. Namely that physically disabled people don't have malicious intent and that they were merely dealt a bad hand. Felons who choose violence as a means to success are actively malicious to society. Whether or not they came from a poor background, not everyone who came from a poor background chose to make other people's life worse to better their own. Some did. And those people have lost the right to life in my eyes.

Why yes, an innocent man might die rarely. Better than the thousands of murderers running around at this very moment, who are more than likely to take more innocent lives.

One of the main causes of high crime rates is poverty. The poor the country is, the bigger the crime rate is. This is a fact. Usually, it should be the oposite when it comes to developed country but the US is totaly out of the question. Not saying that it doesn't have poor people, but hey, over 2 million prisoners? I just think that the judicial system needs to be reformed a little bit. As for death penalty, fact is, countries that do not employ it currently have lower crime rates. On the oposite, a country that employs it in several states has one of the highest crime rates in the world. This is a fact. Secondly, of course there should be thorough delays in sentencing someone to death. I mean, we're not Stalin nor Hitler here to just wipe out entire populations just like that.

"not everyone who came from a poor background chose to make other people's life worse"

Indeed, but when you live in a place where you have no hope and no future, you learn one vital thing: as long as you're fine, you don't give a damn about others. I said already that it does not apply for everyone, as there are poor people that change their social status, but hey, if everyone could, there would be no crime rates caused by poverty. Expecting that everybody should follow a model while chances differ from an individual to another is just ridiculous. Furthermore, one of the many mistakes that the judicial system makes nowadays is that it looks at the effects of a crime or the effects that a criminal causes rather than the causes. I think that prevention is more important than evaluating the damages.

Written by deadone on 28.02.2014 at 01:17

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 27.02.2014 at 15:36

I prefer to have a criminal on the loose. Why? Because you can catch a criminal as long as he/she lives, but if you kill an innocent person you can't undo what you've done. Basicaly, the whole system becomes criminal when such a deed is done.

So you prefer for a criminal to be on the loose hurting more people than a 1% risk of an innocent hanging.

Yes, because the execution of an innocent person means the law has failed in it's primary purpose of protecting society.

Written by M C Vice on 01.03.2014 at 05:52

Yes, because the execution of an innocent person means the law has failed in it's primary purpose of protecting society.

Because having a killer released to kill another day is top notch protection.

This debate is really getting to the religious debating level of pointlessness. At this point we should all just agree to disagree and leave it at that.