Killing kids

This prison sentence seems way too soft to me.

Trinaty Monique Howarth died of severe head and internal injuries in November 2005 after Cassidy, using a saucepan and walking stick, bashed her in the back of her mother’s car in a Canberra carpark.

Cassidy said he was trying to discipline the young girl for lying.

A charge of murder was downgraded to manslaughter.

53 thoughts on “Killing kids

  1. Sentencing is a complex topic.

    The guy pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Presumably he wouldn’t plead guilty to murder and the Crown was unable to prove he intended to kill the child. Manslaughter merely requires reckless disregard for the consequences.

    Fifteen years is actually quite a long sentence for manslaughter.

    But that leads to the question – what is the objective of sentencing? Protection of the public? Punishment? Revenge? Should the sentence have been different if the victim had been an adult male rather than a female child?

    If moral outrage is not a valid basis for formulating government policy, why is it OK in sentencing?

  2. You use the word morals differently to me. Libertarianism is in my view all about morals. It entails a quite specific moral perspective in relation to violence, coersion and freedom of the individual. Many people don’t share that moral perspective. Many social democrats that I know regard libertarianism as a form of irrational moral outrage. In my case moral outrage is a part of my libertarian thinking although I would not say it was irrational. For instance I find high rates of taxation morally outrageous and that is part of why I oppose high rates of taxation.

    However I accept the view that sentencing is complex and that without more information it is hard to judge the judges or to judge the prosecution. But my value jugement based on the article is that the guy deserved a longer sentence.

  3. But my value jugement based on the article is that the guy deserved a longer sentence.

    But what values is your judgment based upon? It’s not sufficient to say it’s my opinion therefore it’s my opinion.

    The difference between you and the social democrats sounds like one set of moral values versus another.

    I view morals in the same way most Australians view religion – a personal and private matter. That’s why I have trouble with public outrage over sentencing. Sentences should have a utilitarian purpose, not satisfy someone’s moral expectations.

  4. 15 years may not be adequate, but it’s longer than a lot of people get for murder. From the tone of the OP, I had thought he was going to get off with a couple years.

    I think David is right – the question is what the purpose of jail is. I think it’s a combination of things. Obviously it’s a punishment, but it’s also for public protection. The latter means that rehabilitation is an option – but even then I don’t think it’s enough for some crimes (ie, even if a person is unlikely to commit another crime, I believe they sometimes need to “pay the debt” for their last one). The reason I say this, is that if a loved one was murdered, I would consider taking the law into my hands if the state punishment was inadequate.

    Personally I think they should have thrown away the key… but I guess the argument is that then he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty and that prosecutors need that flexibility. It’s a valid argument, though I think many sentences for serious crimes are too short (whilst other, less serious “crimes”, shouldn’t even be considered as such in the first place)

  5. I view morals in the same way most Australians view religion – a personal and private matter.

    I know. That seems like a common enough position amoungst many of the aussie libertarians that I know. However whilst I obviously identify with the libertarian position I have difficulty seeing it as an amoral perspective. In my view the things that you and I both value, such as liberty, personal responsibility, voluntary civil society, free enterprise, open society, minimal government intervention in peoples private affairs etc are all moral values. They are supported by arguments relating to utility but they are still underpined by moral values. If somebody else doesn’t agree with this outlook it is due either to ignorance about how reality works, or a different moral perspective or both. I think this is a semantic issue but I do note that you and some others use the term “morals” in a way that does not sit easily with me.

    The Wikipedia article on morality says:-

    Morality (from the Latin moralitaser “manner, character, proper behavior”) has three principal meanings.

    In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny ‘morality’ in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1]

    In its third usage ‘morality’ is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

    In my view libertarianism and the associated idea of tolerance is a code of conduct. You don’t use force in the form of government (or any other form) to clobber your neighbours simply to get what you want from them, because it is not a proper code of conduct. Of course you don’t generally or easily take up arms against a government that violates this moral code because such action typically lacks utility.

    Sentences should have a utilitarian purpose, not satisfy someone’s moral expectations.

    Ultimately I agree with this point. However I reserve the right to express moral outrage from time to time. Call it a personal vice.

  6. I’m slightly troubled be the whole concept of ‘plea bargaining’ I have heard it described as a form of mental torture, and I can understand why.

    I understand why it happens so much today, not enough judges and prosecutors etc.

    But I think the answer to this is quite simple, if we were only prosecuting real crimes there would be more courts available.

    If restitution were the primary punishment for property crimes, guilty parties would still have some incentive to confess to avoid court costs.

    If murder, rape, armed robbery and serious assaults were the only things that commonly involved a trial there would be no reason to involve any kind of ‘plea bargaining’ for those crimes.

  7. The latter means that rehabilitation is an option – but even then I don’t think it’s enough for some crimes (ie, even if a person is unlikely to commit another crime, I believe they sometimes need to “pay the debt” for their last one).

    I agree. The reason we as a society hunt down very old men who commited war crimes long ago generally has nothing to do with protecting us from these old men or even in deterring future crimes of this nature (although that is an element) but has a lot to do with notions of justice and “paying a debt”. Revenge has it’s own logic which is why most of us would readily have some sympathy with:-

    if a loved one was murdered, I would consider taking the law into my hands if the state punishment was inadequate.

  8. Andy, plea bargaining is not necessarily a consequence of a shortage of judges and prosecutors.

    In criminal law, guilt requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It applies to both the action and the intention.

    If the level of proof is insufficient for murder because intent cannot be proved, it may sufficient for a lesser offence such as manslaughter where negligent disregard is sufficient. Assault offences tend to have an even lower level of proof of intent – if you did it, it is presumed you must have meant to.

    There are times when the prosecution accepts a guilty plea to a lower level offence due to pressure of time and resources, but it is also often because the required level of proof to a higher offence is in doubt. If the offender is acquitted of a serious offence when he/she could have been convicted of a lesser one, he/she walks free.

  9. This raises the whole question of libertarian justice. I tend to support the anarcho-capitalist view, that all individuals would ideally have Life insurance, and if a court found a person guilty, then the insurer pays the indemnity and the accused then goes through counselling or community service, whatever seems appropriate.
    If you disagree, what is your alternative?

  10. Nicholas – I think I prefer the current system. However you haven’t exactly laid out much in the way of detail.

  11. Who do they pay the indemnity to in case of murder?

    The alternative is obvious. Lock them up. If I had a child, and they were murdered, then I wouldn’t give a damn whether the perp was considered rehabilitated through counselling or whatever.

    You may say that’s merely revenge, but so what? That’s the price I’d demand for my loss – no amount of insurance would cover that.

    I might be a greedy free-market capitalist, but not everything of value can be purchased with cold hard cash.

    I don’t support the death penalty though, because I don’t trust government in its administration.

  12. Maybe John Humphries can tell us all the details of an Anarcho-capitalist justice system, or Tim R.. They have also advocated positions that seem to mimic mine. The basic idea is that Judges and juries would set compensation, or fines, which the insurance company pays. The company then could increase the fees on the accused for each offence. One of the ideas behind this system (which actually worked in Somalia for centuries) was that you then don’t let criminals socialize only with other criminals, and learn new criminal skills. You also don’t need a brutal prison system to keep them in line.
    And if you want vengeance, why not become a vigilante? Challenge the guy to a duel, and take your own chances with our justice system afterwards! (If you survive).

  13. “And if you want vengeance, why not become a vigilante? Challenge the guy to a duel”

    Don’t be absurd… a man kills your kid and you challenge him to a duel? Ideology… making smart people believe stupid things.

    Of course everyone taking the law into their own hands is a bad idea… we have a government to do administer these nasty things to avoid such anarchy. But if the state sanctioned punishment doesn’t fit the crime, people will take the law into their own hands anyway.

  14. So how do you decide what fits the crime? Quite a few writers here seem to feel that 15 years isn’t harsh enough! What is your opinion?

  15. Depends on the circumstances… but crime isn’t a free market. A free market works because people have different values… If I value a computer system more than the cash in my wallet, then I’ll go out and buy one – but I’ll only be able to do so if the present holder values my cash more.

    A person who steals my laptop probably doesn’t value it as much as I do… crime goes against the market in that way. But in the case of a laptop theft, perhaps some value of compensation could be considered. Note however, that to be effective, any punishment must EXCEED the value of the laptop (my value, not theirs) to counter the “discount” of the chance of not getting caught. (This is why mere fines for shoplifting are a stupid idea)

    A person who kills someone in cold blood has little value for life. The life of a loved one is worth more to me than that of a stranger… If order is to be maintained, then the penalty has to be high enough to at least:

    a) PREVENT vigilante justice (which would lead to anarchy); and
    b) deter such crime in the first place (I know it’s debatable how much deterring it does… but I think we can agree that if their were no penalties at all, such crimes would escalate)

    The current system has mechanisms in place to determine this on a case by case basis… my personal view is that the penalty for serious crimes are too lenient – but in general, I prefer the present method.

  16. Nicholas

    do you mean to say that if you go out and commit murder, then you just ring up the insurance company and they pay? and you do a little community service?

  17. Yes, just like our current system, but without the insurance.
    In Somalia, where they tried this system, it was also mandatory for men to be trained in a weapon, and to be armed at all times, so that part might also need to be adopted. Your victim would not be defenceless. And I did NOT say that murder would only be subject to community service- I said ‘Whatever seems appropriate’. That would be up to the judge and jury to decide. And the definition of Community Service could also be broad- have you heard of road gangs, applied to convicts?
    My mind is not fixed on the subject, so if you can come up with a better idea, and can convincingly explain it, go ahead! I just don’t think our current system is the best of all possible worlds, and I would prefer a more libertarian system of justice.

  18. I view the enforcement of criminal law as one area in which the government can’t be replaced by the market. That means the powers of the government have to be circumscribed and monitored to prevent abuse.

    As we do not want the government imposing its moral values on us, the length of jail terms should serve some kind of utilitarian purpose. Neither moral outrage nor revenge are valid, especially since they logically lead to capital punishment.

    There are various utilitarian considerations including prevention of further offences, rehabilitation, restitution and deterrence. Although these have been studied a lot, sentencing is still highly reliant on imprisonment. Alternatives such as post-release restitution, for example, seem to me more appropriate. Especially for property crimes.

    I am opposed to “life means life” jail sentences on the grounds that they contribute to none of these – geriatric criminals do not re-offend and keeping them in jail deters nobody and serves no purpose. On the other hand I have no problem with lengthy jail terms for heinous violent crimes since many criminals do not acknowledge their crime for a very long time.

    Sentencing is not very effective as a deterrent though. The risk of being caught is far more influential, which puts the focus back on the police and how much they waste resources on victimless crimes.

  19. I am in favour of a system of restitution (with punitive damages to serve as deterrence for the reasons outlined by Fleeced) for non-violent crimes even up to things like buglary. These are the sorts of criminals who should be given a second chance and are not really a menace in general if let out (unless they are kleptomaniacs in which case they require some treatment) – they could be tagged and if they can’t find a job, be required to undertake some sort of compulsory hard labour (building roads, etc) until they can find a job and then have a portion of their wages deducted to compensate the victim. But I don’t believe in such a system for violent offenders or sex offenders.

  20. I agree with DavidL on this one.

    15 years may seem short- but is it really?

    What were you doing 15 years ago? I was playing with Lego myself…

    Utilitarian factors should be the primary consideration in sentencing. It is easy to get mad over a little girl being killed, but how is that REALLY different to an adult male being killed? And why should the sentence be any different?

    There are a lot of factors, but moral outrage and revenge shouldn’t have a place in sentencing. As hard as it can be to distance ourselves from the emotions evoked by some crimes.

    We need an objective law, as far as that is possible. Obviously social morals influence law to some degree. Sex crimes have typically been treated quite harshly in our Western judicial system due to social attitudes towards sex.

    Crime is a complex beast, but it only becomes more complex if we let emotional responses influence the legal system.

  21. Let me be the cold-blooded economist here and say that since as a general rule people don’t kill their own children, the optimal jail time needed to deter people from killing their own children is probably a lot lower than that for deterring people from killing an adult male.

  22. Jason- you seem to think burglars are a lesser social menace than murderers. Yet while murder is a far more serious crime with far more serious consequences I believe most murderers are emotionally motivated rather than criminals. Few murderers are repeat offenders. I’d consider burglars and muggers “criminals” whereas most murderers aren’t criminals on a regular basis, rather people that have committed a serious crime.

    I’m even inclined to think that for emotionally motivated murderers jail is just a waste of money. A better investment would be anger management classes, counselling and other forms of rehabilitation.

    For petty repeat criminals, jail is necessary to stop re-offending. For psychotic serial rapists, mass-murderers and brutal sex offenders it’s a hard one. I think such people hold little to no value to society- yet the legal system isn’t infallible either, so I oppose the death penalty. Perhaps a voluntary death penalty? :p Forced labour for the rest with their wages paying for their imprisonment?

  23. Shem

    If non-violent crims are the more ‘rational’ offenders this is exactly why a system of restitution where the fines are set at at least the same deterrence levels as what are currently wasted by taxpayers on keeping them in jail would work just as well. The point is if you can ‘price’ in the externality of the crime (i.e. loss to the victim plus the enforcement cost/security that needs to be expended on preventing it in the first place) then that should be your first resort. Jail should be your last. But I’d rather a burglar or a white collar crim be free to walk the streets and literally pay back society for his crimes than someone with a hair trigger temper who murdered someone.

  24. I think it’s reasonable to think this guy could re-offend. In addition, some punishment is warranted, not to deter others, but to attempt to enforce self responsibility.
    He has shown he’s violent and cannot control his temper. He has also committed a horrific crime.

    However, this was his partner’s child, and therefore he’s probably unlikely to attack random children or children of friends. Therefore, I think 15 years is adequate.

    I think deterrence is way down the list on priorities of law enforcement. eg/ Capital punishment generally doesn’t seem to have any deterring effect.

    Some punishment is needed to teach responsibility, although protection of society is the most important function in my opinion.

    I’m hesitant about rehabilitating prisoners. You’d have to show me that the costs save society money overall by reducing crime.
    People think of psychology in terms of nature/nurture these days and forget that the individual has a lot of choice in his or her own actions. ie: I think the main factor in rehabilitation is the criminal wanting to be rehabilitated. Therefore, some violent crims will never be rehabilitated and we shouldn’t waste money on these people (unless they have a genuine mental illness).

  25. I am still in favour of an insurance scheme to replace our prison system, as locking people up seems a waste of their time and the time of the prison guards. As a Libertarian, I believe in equal trades, and the only reason I oppose the death penalty is because we might accuse the wrong person. If we have a system of monetary fines, then we can compensate any person wrongfully accused, which we couldn’t do if we’d hung him/her. Notice that compensation gives something to the victim, whereas if a hooligan wrecks your lawn nowadays, he might get jail, but you wouldn’t get anything from the state for your lawn!
    As for the people who kill in anger, they need help. Some time in jail might help, especially if mandatory therapy is part of the term.

  26. Jason, that is true.

    I think counselling for the victim also needs to be factored in.

    Being a victim of a crime- even burglary creates a sense of fear regarding the safety of self, privacy and property that has to be factored into the equation.

    Even if you have fully comprehensive home and contents insurance getting money for all your stuff back isn’t the same as not being robbed in the first place.

    But you are right that a fine would be a fine deterrent for thieves.

    Perhaps forced labour for those that can’t afford it? With a wage going towards paying their debts.

    I like the idea that if you can’t pay for your dinner then you need to wash dishes until it is paid for.

    In the case of crims that are long-term unemployed it may even help them get motivated to get a real job.

  27. “Let me be the cold-blooded economist here and say that since as a general rule people don’t kill their own children, the optimal jail time needed to deter people from killing their own children is probably a lot lower than that for deterring people from killing an adult male.”

    Are you looking at that problem through the veil of ignorance, Jase?

  28. Fleeced- I feel that citizenship should be voluntary, so one of the inducements to become a citizen could be a Third-Party compensation scheme. And the colour scheme would not be green, but white with black bars.

  29. “If we have a system of monetary fines, then we can compensate any person wrongfully accused, which we couldn’t do if we’d hung him/her. Notice that “compensation gives something to the victim, whereas if a hooligan wrecks your lawn nowadays, he might get jail, but you wouldn’t get anything from the state for your lawn!”

    Isn’t that the role of civil litigation and tort law?

    As I understand it, criminal law is not meant to repatriate victims, but does harken back to ‘primitive’ objectives of justice, retribution and societal warning/deterrence. Some of you seem to think that these are inappropriate objectives from a libertarian stand point, but I don’t necessarily agree. Libertarian philosophy is useful for guiding what should and should not be crimes, for example – victimless crimes (individual responsibility), violent crimes (non-aggression, non-interference with the rights/freedoms of others). However I don’t think any of this can be convincingly applied to what punishment ‘real’ criminals should receive.

    Libertarians would all agree that the state should have no role in judging the punishment reserved for two men that have sex, because it is a matter concerning only the individuals involved and is thus of no concern for society.
    However, in the case of violent crime, this potentially affects everyone. The state obviously has a role to play, and therefore I don’t see why questions of societal morality (even if they represent religious tenets eg ‘eye for an eye’) should be shunned in favour of removing elements of subjectivity from punishment.

  30. ‘The state obviously has a role to play’.
    Winston, some of our libertarians have the ambition of helping the state to disappear completely, so you will not get whole-hearted agreement here.

  31. The obvious problem of fining burglars for their crimes, is that they will either refuse to pay or simply steal again to pay the fine. It sounds good, but it wont work.

    Prison is about deterrence, punishment and the protection of society. It is not about rehabilitation. I know many social workers and bearded-types think it is, but i cannot think of a scheme less designed to rehabilitate a criminal than a networking haven like prison.

    I like the theory behind compulsory life insurance and damage payments to victims. However, in practice this would only dramatically increase reported crime as every man and his dog would claim he was a ‘victim’.

    The type of crime that i find the most repulsive are the random violent attacks – people kicking others to death for ‘kicks’. these folk should be locked away for good – they are unrehabilitatable.

  32. Huh? Ever heard of electronic tagging and parole officers Pommy? By your logic we should abolish tort law completely so anytime any harm is done to any individual, they don’t get any compensation aside from seeing their hard earned tax dollars used to give the people who victimised them free food and shelter and increasing the criminal abilities of such people. Notice that’s why I made the exception for pathological kleptomaniacs. Notice that’s why I also said the fine should include punitive damages.

    *anything* can be translated into dollar terms. what you refer to as the deterence value of putting people in prison has a dollar value of disutility to the criminal. It is the disutility that constitutes the deterrence. If you steal you get sent to jail for x years can be translated to saying if you steal you pay the ‘price’ of going to jail – all I’m doing is making that ‘price’ fungible. set it as high as you want if you think it isn’t enough. The difference between jail and fine is that jail seems like such a roundabout way of imposing the disutility since some of that is cancelled out by free food and shelter you’re providing the same criminal not to mention employing all those security guards. As a result I would regard jail as being superior to an appropriately set deterrence fine with punitive damages (some going back to the victim) only where you don’t actually want the perp walking around in society. Those who can pay back their debt will pay it back and will be subject to tagging and surveillance until they do and if they reoffend, add on another fine.

  33. e.g. punitive damages – if you steal $5 you pay back $50. How does it become rational for the tagged crim to then steal again to pay that fine and be caught again? Unless he wants to be in servitude for the rest of his life?

  34. “Winston, some of our libertarians have the ambition of helping the state to disappear completely, so you will not get whole-hearted agreement here.”

    Isn’t that anarchism?

  35. the deterence value of putting people in prison has a dollar value of disutility to the criminal

    It does to some, but not a lot. The main deterrence is the potential for being caught.

    But even then it can be assessed in economic terms. If police resources are directed at crimes involving coercion of others, fewer will occur.

  36. e.g. punitive damages – if you steal $5 you pay back $50. How does it become rational for the tagged crim to then steal again to pay that fine and be caught again? Unless he wants to be in servitude for the rest of his life?

    The punitive multiplyer would need to be a lot higher given the poor clear up rate for crimes like burglary.

  37. well sure I agree David – anything that increases detection/conviction probability is better if we can get it.
    Probability of being caught and harshness of sentencing are basically substitutes – if we can increase one, we can decrease the other.

  38. Probability of being caught and harshness of sentencing are basically substitutes – if we can increase one, we can decrease the other.

    I’m not sure if you intended to say what that sentence says. As it’s written, it’s not true. The probability of being caught and the harshness of sentencing are independent variables.

    Being caught depends on a competent police force plus community support. (We have neither currently.) Harshness of sentencing depends on legislation, sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion, influenced by the kind of moral outrage that kicked off this thread.

    Thus we could have competent police and either harsh or lenient sentences. Either way, crime rates would fall.

    We could have incompetent police and either harsh or lenient sentences and crime rates would not fall. The main effect of harsh sentences is to keep habitual criminals in jail so they can’t commit more crimes. As I said earlier, deterrence is negligible.

  39. I agree with David’s comment #39 and totally disagree with Jason who seems to think deterence is the main function of the law. You can’t make a sentence overly harsh just because it’s hard to get caught doing the crime. It’s hard to get caught littering for example.
    Justice is the proper aim of law enforcement.
    Justice is about matching the punishment to the crime – that’s why they have that blindfolded lady with the scales statue in Washington. Her blind fold represents non-partisan rational assessment (ignoring the masses emotional responses) and the scales are the weighing up of a suitable punishment.

  40. And I thought Ms. Statue O’Liberty was a sight-challenged person being given a job by a caring society! And aren’t those scales supposed to be the claims of both sides being weighed as evidence?

  41. I agree that the perceived risk of being caught is generally a more significant deterence than say the difference between 15 and 25 years in jail. Police use this in their marketing. For instance they advertise to increase the perceived risk of being caught by an RBT unit. People put cut out figures of a police man in their shops. The police play visibility games. Zero tolerance policing catches the little guys but creates a hightened sense of risk amoung a larger group of potential criminals.

    David suggests in #39 that moral outrage has utility if the objective is to have tougher sentences. I agree. Where sentences are too soft then members of the public can help out by expressing outrage. Of course “too soft” is open to some debate. I don’t think judges should be ignorant of community opinion about the sentences that they give, even if ultimately we expect them to make the final judgement.

    p.s. My headline was crafted for sensational purposes and my opening statement does reflect my view however I’m not sure outrage correctly characterises my tone. My intent relates mostly to dialogue and discussion of the relevant issues not some dire worldview about our justice system. But lets call it moral outrage for the sake of the argument.

  42. Perhaps I didn’t express that clearly enough, I was essentially making a simple point of algebra. The deterrence value or disutility of the criminal justice system is equal to the disutility inflicted by the punishment times the probability of actually being caught and convicted and therefore actually having to face it. There are obviously diminishing returns to the first factor – 15 years in prison vs 25 years may not make much of a difference but at some point it does count – a 100% probability of spending 1 year in jail is not as much of a deterrent as a 10% probability of being hanged. So the point is that one or the other can be tweaked to adjust the deterrent value or keep it the same value.

  43. Regarding #41.

    I thought it was thus:-

    1. She wears a blind fold so she can’t see the class or creed of the accused.
    2. She has a balancing scale to carefully weigh the evidence.
    3. She holds a sword to deliver swift and final justice.

    Presumably her gender has some significance as well.

  44. OK looks like I took a bit of poetic license with my interpretation of Lady Justice. I bothered to look her up this time and she comes from Iustitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice.

    Her props are there “in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, power, or weakness”

    A part of this objective approach to justice, is that the punishment should fit the crime. I think that’s important.
    eg/ I am very opposed to extremely harsh (and extremely popular) drug sentences common in the Arab and Asian countries.

  45. Why not have crimes without violence as payable by an insured fine, and crimes with violence as needing therapy? An Adler would be subject to community service, but not jail, so his kids don’t grow up as vandals, and Adler doesn’t learn new lessons from his new mates inside.

  46. Nicholas – Adler should have spent time behind bars. I think your suggestion is silly.

  47. And I think you just want to have the last word. This is in line with the Anarcho-capitalist idea of having insurance schemes and fines for crimes.
    Another thought- people always say ‘You can’t put a price on a human life!’. Has that ever stopped anyone from accepting life-insurance payouts?

  48. Well I don’t want you to have the last word if it is a silly one. In essence your saying that anybody can commit a crime so long as they pay a fee. I think that is ridiculous.

  49. I agree with Terje.

    Nicholas, What is the going rate for having some ex wife’s topped off? Im sure there is a business in here somewhere!!!

  50. You’re down on this because you don’t know how it works.

    The wereguild simply did not work like this. It was more like 25-life of slavery.

  51. Perry, that would be a crime WITH violence, which would merit prison time, and therapy for both the hitman and the contractor.

Comments are closed.