posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:46 AM
Liberal: have you ever noticed how DESPERATE criminals are to live?
Have you listened to their lies?
Have you noticed the appeals they launch?
Have you seen them blame their crime on everyone and everything else, rather than admit to OTHERS, let alone themselves, that THEY are responsible and
Have you noted that regardless of the often lengthy sentences imposed on them (sometimes 30 or more years) that they nevertheless persist in existing,
persist in lodging appeals, persist in marrying, insist (as in the case of Ted Bundy for example) upon procreating whilst incarcerated in order their
often diseased genes will continue after them? And they wait, for 20, 30 or more years, for their chance to re-enter society.
In movies, criminals sometimes claim they would die, if possible, in order to 'repay' their debt to their victims and society.
But in real life ... ?
In real life, they lie like the devil. They will say and do anything if it will grant them their liberty or evan a few more hours of existence.
Just as they lie according to script when their case is before the parole board.
I think you might have a higher estimation of criminals than is justified, in the case of murderers, child rapists, serial killers and other such
freaks of nature.
Suicide platforms? Well, fortunately they wouldn't be terribly expensive to construct, because I suspect they wouldn't get much use.
As to donating themselves to science: in the case of serial killers and paedophiles, perhaps this may have some merit and may possibly provide science
with partial answers.
The bodies themselves would be valueless though: medical research has stockpiles of bodies received as donation and those of the homeless.
Personally, I'd rather see the problem tackled at the start, before monsters such as murderers, child rapists and kilers and serial-killers get the
chance to harm anyone at all.
Psychiatrists and scientists have been credited with saying that the same 5 to 10% of males cause problems throughout life. They are the criminal
element. Their life of crime commences at a young age. As juveniles, they usually commit 'small' crimes such as petty theft, breaking and
entering, bullying, arson, etc. By the time they reach maturity, they already have a long criminal record and go on to spend stretches of time in
Such individuals (generally male) are a drain upon society. Until relatively recently, scientists claimed such anti-social individuals possessed
double X chromosomes.
Then the liberals (zionist led) insisted this anti-social element was the result of poor parenting, lack of education, understanding, opportunity.
Triumphantly, the liberals -- swallowing spin fed them by Frankist lawyers and Frankist behavioural scientists -- claimed that sociopathy was caused
by childhood abuse.
Ergo (according to the liberals and Frankist lawyers) paedophiles had been themselves sexually abused. They claimed child-abusers had themselves been
abused in childhood. Etc.
And it worked like a charm ! While police kept control over their justified emotions of outrage, killers and paedophiles and child abusers walked
free --- often to commit the same crimes as soon as opportunity presented itself.
Yet take a look around. Which sectors of society are MOST often the victims of violent crime. Yes, that's right: women and children.
Yet it is men who are far and away the largest statistic regarding perpetrators of violent crime. And no -------- very often they were NOT themselves
For example: young man brutally raped the daughter of his de-facto wife while she was out of the house for a short time. The attack was SO brutal,
grown men (police, ambulancemen, police) WEPT when called upon to give evidence. The child's hips had been BROKEN by her rapist, in order he could
achieve greater penetration.
Do you imagine that child screamed? Yet the rapist ignored the unimaginable pain and damage he caused that child ------- in order he could sate his
The rapist enjoyed normal sexual relations with his de-facto wife (the mother of the child-victim).
Yet he WOULD not control his lust for the half hour it took for his de-facto wife to return to the home. Instead, he raped a tiny baby. That child
had such massive internal injuries, her grandmother stated that it would have been better had the child died.
Now we come to the trial. The rapist's Frankist lawyer (is there any other kind, any longer?) INVENTED a past-history for his rapist client.
The lawyer claimed his client had been sexually and physically abused in childhood. The lawyer claimed his client therefore believed child abuse was
normal, acceptable. The lawyer also claimed that BECAUSE of the abuse he'd suffered as a child, his client had a diminished appreciation of others'
pain and was stunted, emotionally. The lawyer claimed his client had never been able to establish a normal relationship with adult women because he
still had the mind of a child and 'related' to children more than to adults. Etc.
The jury listened. They'd been programmed --- via innumerable Frankist publications, tv shows, etc. --- to accept that child abusers/rapists WERE
that way because they had themselves been abused/raped in childhood. Simplistic. And for that reason, it makes sense to the simple Sheepies.
BUT ----- evidence was presented to the court which PROVED beyond doubt that the brutal child-rapist had enjoyed an extremely privileged childhood.
In fact, he'd been the golden child within his wealthy family. No expense had been spared on him. He'd been sent to the most prestigious schools,
for example. And far from having a 'stunted' intellect, the rapist (as evidenced by his school reports, etc.) had a HIGHER than average IQ and had
EXCELLED academically and at sports.
The child-rapist had been popular with his peers. He possessed superior communication skills. AND --- he'd enjoyed NUMEROUS intimate relationships
with adult members of the opposite sex and had lived on a number of occasions in de-facto relationships. He was regarded as a playboy by women with
whom he'd had relationships. They all testified to the court that the child-rapist had performed 'normally', sexually.
The child-rapist's family members informed the court that he had never been sexually or physically abused.
Continued next post