Man jailed over fatal road smash

I explained what I meant.

 

That was ages ago Nev ;-)


G-S

 

That's clear enough, thanks for your honesty

G-S

 

Then maybe you should be looking here for national homicide
statistics... http://tinyurl.com/d3zn6 where you will see that around
1967 the homicide rate was approx 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people and
peaked approx 20 years later nudging 2.5 deaths per 100,000 people.
That's not a "slight initial trend upward". That is a 100% increase...
and it's wasn't just a spike.. it was a trend which the graph clearly
shows commencing around 1967.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Which brings us back to the problem of getting society to agree to
giving junkies a license to be addicted for life, at the taxpayer's
expense. Nars, I reckon if somebody wants a tax-sponsored free ride
they can sit the exam and join the public service like the rest of
us...

 

Their being sentenced wasn't a direct result of their drug trafficking
activities?

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

It wasn't the only possible outcome.

 

So.. get it done! Write to your representatives, organise petitions...
I'll sign, you've sold me on it. As long as you can eliminate the
whole free-ride factor, I'm in.

 

"Moike" wrote

Hemp (which was pretty mild stuff at the time) was made illegal in the
US so that they could sell their cotton. They then pressurised other
countries to make it illegal too. A hemp rope has more strength than
cotton and more than twice the life.

Theo

 

"Moike" wrote

Long before this thread started.

Theo

 

Thier being sentenced was a direct result of the information the AFP
passed along.

G-S

 

As was the death penalty...


G-S

 

From the URL you quote Nev

*quote*

Homicide rates for the period 1915 to 2000 have fluctuated, often
substantially from one year to the next, but overall within a relatively
small range, i.e. between extreme lows and highs of 0.8 and 2.4
homicides per 100,000 persons per annum
(see graph below). Despite the annual fluctuations and some decades of
relative stability, there were some longer periods over which the rates
tended to rise and fall. Broadly described, these include a decline in
the rates after the 1920s, down to lows recorded during the 1940s -
around the time of World War II. After that, there was a long term
upward trend which reached a peak of 2.4 homicides per 100,000 persons
in 1988. After falling back to 1.8 homicides per 100,000 persons in 1992
the annual rates though the 1990s have fallen slightly further. In 2000
there were 313 homicides recorded in the cause of death statistics: 1.6
homicides per 100,000 persons. Similar data compiled from police records
since 1993 indicate little change through the 1990s.

*end quote*

That graph shows as the text state that despite harsher penalties in the
past that homicide rates have altered little.

It also shows the downwards trend in the 1990's that the Victorian graph
I saw showed.

Ummm not sure what help all that is to your argument though Nev!


G-S

 

Well you are entitled to your opinion... and I strongly suspect your
opinion is closer to the majority one than mine

That doesn't in and of itself however mean that the view espoused by me
and a few others wouldn't in fact reduce fatalities and crime more
effectivly than the current system.


G-S

 

Honestly - how do you think it will SAVE lives?

 

Biggus La Great. wrote:

Most of the deaths of heroin users are because the strength of the 'cut'
heroin varies, with a prescription supplied standard mix overdoses would
be significantly reduced.

If you reduce overdoses then you reduce deaths.

 

News Flash, News Flash! Person considers changing mind on Usenet,
possibly under the influence of a polite and fairly logical argument!

(And in later news, Usenet declared unAustralian!)

-----sharks

 

Well, I agree, but just a _little_ context would be nice ...

-----sharks

 

The main argument for the death penalty isn't as a deterent, but as the
ultimate rehabilitation. Unfortunately there are 'humans' who don't
have the same value system as the majority of us, and actually enjoy,
without remorse actions such as rape, murder, and child molestation.
How do we protect society from these people? I am not sure which is
more cruel - death penalty, life in prison, or risking they reoffend
when released back into society.

 

Errm, I did an MBA with several, know the type well, not getting your
point given I'm suggesting you don't let 'em anywhere within a bulls
roar of the scenario. Generic government controlled substance yes,
pharmaceutical marketing dept. no way jose.

JL