Foxy Knoxy Guilty

[tiger_rick]

Both are reasonable reasons for not awarding a custodial sentence. The first point explains why she should not be 'punished' by imprisonment, the second point explains why she should not be 'locked away for the public safety' by imprisonment, dealing with the two main reasons for using the jail system.

You seriously suggesting that people who take part in a murder should not be imprisoned if they happen to be young, handsome and charismatic?

[Surf Digby]

b. Knox is young, intelligent, articulate and beautiful, having much to offer the world. Hindley was the opposite.

Hindley was young, intelligent, articulate, and someone probably fancied her. You're still justifying locking up one and not the other based on you finding one more attractive than the other.

 

The "Hindley was clearly guilty" is of no relevance when you clearly said:

In my view, Knox should not be imprisoned even if found guilty because;

 

3. She's beautiful and intelligent and has something to offer to society.

The "something to offer" being people such as yourself being able to ogle her.

[Tommy!]

My response to insults has been essentially polite.

 

Shame it hasn't been to sod off and take your bollocks with you.

You really do just cave my brain in with your total shite. I can't think of one positive thing about you, and sadly your the only person on here I could say that about.

 

Sorry to bring the off topic bring down, but by god you are infuriating.

[JNLister]

There's also the Italian man whose been acquitted, but who gives a shit about him with his ugly Y chromosome.

[The Cum Doctor]

Probably not a good idea to post idiotic opinions on a public message board if you don't want to be slated for them. Just a thought.

[Steve Justice]

That's because your point is:-

 

1. She may not be guilty.

 

2. If she is doesn't matter because she's hot and may not re-offend.

 

You're a fucking moron.

 

Both are reasonable reasons for not awarding a custodial sentence. The first point explains why she should not be 'punished' by imprisonment, the second point explains why she should not be 'locked away for the public safety' by imprisonment, dealing with the two main reasons for using the jail system.

 

If I am, as you so eloquently put it, a 'fucking moron', why bother reading my posts at all? Why not place me on ignore? Why do I anger you so much? I've never insulted you, I can't even remember responding to one of your posts, ever.

 

Why should that stop me from thinking you a moron?

 

Your point about not locking her up based on her possibly not being guilty is a fair comment. To say that she shouldn't be locked up because she's good looking and there is a possibility that she may not re-offend is not. The first part of that is moronic, the second part is completely short sighted. What if she does re-offend? Not only has she got away with one murder, but may now commit another.

 

And what about Meredith Kerchers family in all of this. I can't honestly say that yes, Amanda Knox is guilty. But think of this family now. They had a hope of finally putting all this behind them and getting on with their lives. Now they must be questioning there own thoughts based on the original case, and are now nowhere to knowing the actual truth which they so rightfully deserve and may well have seen the murderer of their daughter go free. But that's OK, because you want to wreck that flange up.

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

You seriously suggesting that people who take part in a murder should not be imprisoned if they happen to be young, handsome and charismatic?

 

That helps, but the real crux is that if,

 

a. They are unlikely to reoffend

b. They can play a useful role in society (i.e. they are intelligent, skilled and capable of work)

c. They are not irrefutably guilty of violent murder with intent performed alone or as a ringleader. (i.e. if the evidence is not 100% concrete, if it's manslaughter, if it's a crime of passion, if an accomplice cajoled them into it)

 

In those circumstances a prison service is expensive to the economy and serves only the purpose of punishment. Community service, curfews etc should be enforced to save cost to the public purse.

 

Hindley was young, intelligent, articulate, and someone probably fancied her. You're still justifying locking up one and not the other based on you finding one more attractive than the other.

 

If you read my post properly you'd see that my main differentiation between the two cases was that Hindley showed little remorse and was likely to reoffend, whereas Knox looked simply scared and regretful of any crimes she might have done.

 

The "something to offer" being people such as yourself being able to ogle her.

 

Clearly, her beauty gives her a unique opportunity to bring people pleasure who appreciate being around attractive people, but watch her speech, the 'something to offer' referred mainly to the fact she's an articulate, passionate, capable young women who could have gone far (and still could given the opportunity). It would seem a shame to throw away her entire life of being profitable to society on one mistake she might have made, while heavily intoxicated. Releasing her makes her a productive member of society, imprisoning her makes her a burden to the economy of the society. As it turned out she was innocent, but even if found guilty I don't believe in this case that custodial sentencing was the right path.

 

You really do just cave my brain in with your total shite.

 

If this is true then why not put me on ignore months ago?

 

Probably not a good idea to post idiotic opinions on a public message board if you don't want to be slated for them. Just a thought.

 

Got no problem being slated for opinions and debating them, as I've been with Rick and Baz#1Fan. It's the personal insults with no relevance to the thread that I find pointless; if they need to insult me PM me, don't derail the topic. If they hate me, put me on ignore.

 

Why should that stop me from thinking you a moron?

 

Again, why not read the initial point in that reply; "if you believe me to be a moron simply place me on ignore".

[unfitfinlay]

That's because your point is:-

 

1. She may not be guilty.

 

2. If she is doesn't matter because she's hot and may not re-offend.

 

You're a fucking moron.

 

Both are reasonable reasons for not awarding a custodial sentence. The first point explains why she should not be 'punished' by imprisonment, the second point explains why she should not be 'locked away for the public safety' by imprisonment, dealing with the two main reasons for using the jail system.

 

What kind of message does it send if you let someone who has been found guilty of murder off with community service though? You're essentially saying that taking Meredith Kercher's life is on the same level as shoplifting or vandalism, all because you think Amanda Knox is attractive and felt bad about it.

 

Just how long of a community service order do you think is appropriate for murder?

[big mickey]

I'd pick Knox over Hindley.

 

Louise Woodward or Casey Anthony would provide quite a dilemma though

[Devon Malcolm]

Louise Woodward or Casey Anthony would provide quite a dilemma though

 

There was something about Louise Woodward, wasn't there? Probably took it up the bum, as well.

[Tommy!]

You really do just cave my brain in with your total shite.

 

If this is true then why not put me on ignore months ago?

 

 

I'd still see that little thing to say you have posted and just know its a load of wank like normal. There is no escape.

[shep]

Louise Woodward or Casey Anthony would provide quite a dilemma though

 

There was something about Louise Woodward, wasn't there? Probably took it up the bum, as well.

 

She'd rip your bell end off if she shook your cock like she shakes babies

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

I'd still see that little thing to say you have posted and just know its a load of wank like normal. There is no escape.

 

Well, I see that little thing come on on the TV Guide saying Glee is on; I know it's going to be just a load of wank like normal, but somehow I still restrain myself from watching. It's really not that hard.

[Devon Malcolm]

Louise Woodward or Casey Anthony would provide quite a dilemma though

 

There was something about Louise Woodward, wasn't there? Probably took it up the bum, as well.

 

She'd rip your bell end off if she shook your cock like she shakes babies

 

Got to be worth the risk.

[air_raid]

The truth is that I have committed no personal attacks on anybody, haven't insulted anyone or felt the need to give disparaging responses to posts. I've treated everyone here with respect, at least until they have insulted me.

 

With the best will in the world, it sometimes simply isn't a matter of what you have or haven't done, whether it is "right" or not that one or two (or ten) posters have taken a dislike to you since you've posted nothing which on a personal level should offend anyone in particular. It's sometimes a straightfoward personality clash whereby something you post pushes a button in someone else that makes you think "wow, you're a cunt." Sadly, it's quite a few whose buttons you have pushed.

 

Let me give you some advice, cunt : never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.