D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I got here via a BBC article, but this case seemed even more absurd.
Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers
Life without parole? For a man who had no criminal record before? And by the looks of it the main accomplishment of this is to trivialise the actual crime (whose perpetrators absolutely deserved punishment) and also to encourage lying and not telling the truth. If the bloke had just said repeatedly that he thought his flatmate was going to get food, he'd have got off. In other cases that might discourage evidence to get a conviction.
This is the original article btw.
In the US, you don't have to kill to be a murderer
That one seems extreme, but depending on what the 'shoot out' was, there seems to at least be a logic in there of sorts.
Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers
Life without parole? For a man who had no criminal record before? And by the looks of it the main accomplishment of this is to trivialise the actual crime (whose perpetrators absolutely deserved punishment) and also to encourage lying and not telling the truth. If the bloke had just said repeatedly that he thought his flatmate was going to get food, he'd have got off. In other cases that might discourage evidence to get a conviction.
This is the original article btw.
In the US, you don't have to kill to be a murderer
That one seems extreme, but depending on what the 'shoot out' was, there seems to at least be a logic in there of sorts.