Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Well, Somebody's got to say it!

0 helpful
100 replies

by road-dog 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Stanley "tookie" Williams has been denied clemency by the Governator and a stay of execution by the 9th jerkit court of shlemiels.

Bye, tookie, you will NOT be missed. If you did find redemption, you are on a rocket sled to a much better place. If you did not, make that last meal a sno-cone, because in hell thay want ice water.

If any of the Baldwin brothers, Elliot Gould, or any other hollywood limousine liberals want to show solidarity, I hope there's enough potassium chloride to go around. Maybe he'll get that Nobel prize posthumously.

100 replies

by bfilmfan

I am opposed to the death penalty on the basis of inadequate determination of guilt prior to application of sentence and cost to conduct a death penalty case in the original trial and the appeals; it is cheaper to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life.

Will I lose a minute of sleep over Tookie's execution? Not a moment more than if they left him in prison for the rest of his life...

by montgomery gator

..we need to shorten the appeals process. There is already plenty of automatic appeals built in to make sure the process is fair, without having to add additional last-minute appeals. These automatic appeals review to make sure evidence was properly presented, due process was followed, and the defendant's rights were preserved. No need to wait 20 years to execute a criminal. A 1 to 2 year appeals process should be enough to make sure justice was done. With today's science and forensic techniques, a proper conviction is more sure than it has ever been before. Those 20 year old cases that were reversed due to DNA evidence being reviewed would not happen today because we now have the techniques that we did not have 20 years ago.

Also, I would like to go back to public hanging instead of lethal injection. Let the public see that justice is done. Hang them high!!

by bfilmfan

A number of the cases have been reversed on such things as prosecutorial misconduct, perjured tetimony, etc, as well as DNA.

I just believe it is to say "sorry we made a mistake" to a live human being than the deceased's family.

I am arguing that we should keep violent predators locked up and away from scoiety the rest of their lives with no creature comforts.

by Member 25348569

Talking to Americans, I've come to the conclusion that, in general, a retributive style of justice is more prevalent and more well accepted in the US than in Europe, for instance. Here we seem to favour measures of punishment which focus on rehabilitation and reinsertion into society.

The greatest expression of the alternative style of justice is France where the perpetrator of any crime is pressured to say why he did it and hopefully express remorse and the presence or lack of visible remorse is always reported and the press make special note of whether or not a criminal expresses remorse.

In the US, it seems, you are either on the right of the barrier separating the community from barbarity or on the other side amongst the barbarians. Your cultural history of Protestant Christian thought makes it easy for you to divide the world into the redeemed and the damned with no intermediate states. I don't believe that this is openly expoused - aside from fundamentalists - in quite those terms but the cultural heritage is difficult to eradicate from your mindset.

I would think - and please feel free to flame me on any of this - that most Americans easily accept the fact that some people are just bad and incapable of redemption. People come into this category when they commit a brutal and/or cold blooded murder. So, we get retributionary justice - one dies for killing another - and, anyway, there's no point in trying to rehabilitate someone who's bad to the bone.

That's why you do it...

by road-dog

We have a culture of violence in some segments of our society. Oftentimes individuals use up any grace they have coming at a young age and persist in their violent ways. Many times, young people get minimal punishment for crimes involving violence and perhaps sociopathic behaviors. These leniencies unfortunately often result in a lack of fear of the legal system, rather than a true penitence and change of heart. By the time the system takes them seriously, they have committed crimes requiring heavy penalties.

Here in Florida, a minor was sentenced to death in the shooting death of a teacher at his school. His sentence was commuted due to his young age. He was re-arrested last week for a violent robbery of a pizza delivery guy with a firearm.

The gang culture in America is similar to major league baseball. Youths are trained in antisocial lifestyles by senior gang members and initiated into this culture of violence. Sadly, this leads to multiple generations of families with single mothers on the public dole and fathers in the prison system.

Unfortunately, our nation perpetuates this cycle by removing personal accountability from entire generations with social spending that rewards self-defeating behaviors. We financially reward broken families and destroy self-improvement with the cruel racism of low expectations.

Minority "leaders" constantly tell this constituancy that they cannot succeed on their own and need ever more initiative-destroying public spending to cure their ills.

It has gotten so ridiculous that young blacks who excel at school are branded as "sell-outs" and "Uncle Toms" or accused of "acting white".

This doom spiral will continue until the culture implodes or the pendulum swings back and personal responsibility becomes a virtue that is valued in this sub-culture again.

by Member 25348569

what of all of the nations who take the social spending far beyond the levels that your country does - that's most (all?) of Europe and most of the English speaking nations elsewhere?

If this were a simple "cause and effect" then all of those nations would have higher prison populations and crime figures than the US.

They don't.

by absolutely

"Unfortunately, our nation perpetuates this cycle by" keeping drugs, the cash cow of street gangs, illegal. This moronic policy of Tricky Dick Nixon was invented as a response to the perceived excesses of the hippies, but [b]created[/b] the problem of urban street gangs, which ever since have had a source of income far beyond what uneducated street thugs have ever previously had historically. Those street gangs then gave the cowboy Reagan a pet cause in the form of freebase cocaine, aka "crack". The abysmal failure of the drug war has, for the last 30 years, been the single source of the misperception that all Republicans are tougher on crime than all Democrats. In fact, the "War on Drugs" is nothing more than a war on the poor, who can get caught in the crossfire if they have the integrity to not take part in the crime personally.

"Youths are trained in antisocial lifestyles by" foolish prohibition laws that elevate the price of drugs enough that dealing them becomes lucrative, but not too much to deter use by wealthy whites, who are the primary supporters of the drug trade, economically. If you really oppose violent crime, you favor prohibition. If you want to snort cocaine, be able to buy it conveniently at your favortite bar or strip club, and don't care if a few descendants of slaves or recent immigrants get killed and a few more get imprisoned bringing it to you, then you favor harsher prison terms and mandatory minimum sentences.

by jdclyde

as a deterint.

If you commit a "brutal and/or cold blooded murder" and pay the ultimate price (you loose YOUR life) then others will decide that they do not wish this to happen to them.

MOST people follow the laws because they don't want to be punished, than that they feel morally compelled to follow the laws.

The higher the punishment, the more deterent. Or at least that is how the theory is presented.

And no, you can not, nor should you , rehabilitate everyone.

Should Jeffery Dalmer have been set free after therapy if he says he is sorry? Should Ted Bundy be set free if he is sorry for what he has done? Charles Manson? Saddam Husane?

by maecuff

is saying that they should be set free. Seriously,(IMHO) in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, once you actually eat a bunch of other people, you're pretty much beyond rehabilitation. However, I don't believe that killing another human is ever the right thing to do. (In this case. let's head off ALL the reasons and times when killing is appropriate..)

But the death penalty is NOT a deterent. People still kill other people. It's retribution.

by Member 25348569

in my original post to support the death penalty. I was just trying to suggest why I think that the US is more likely to be able to justify it within the society that you have. I gave the opposite example of France because they are a left-wing, Catholic country with a completely different judicial system as well and should be completely the opposite to yourselves - and they are!

One of the things that has not been mentioned is that very, very few people have in fact been executed in the US. In 2004 the US topped 59 people (nearly half in Texas) and had 3,315 on death row out of a prison poulation of over 2,000,000.

If it was that much of a deterrent and so suits your country's concept of proper justice, then why so few? You should either do it properly or stop completely.

Just me being provocative. No harm meant...

Neil

by montgomery gator

Our legal system and our predominant religion in the USA came from our colonial heritage when we were part of the British Empire. However, we in the USA have preserved the traditions (in most, but not all states) of executing murderers. However, we have given up the noose (a very popular form of execution in England until the death penalty was abolished). I think we should cherish the traditions of our forefathers and return to using the noose in both the USA and the UK.

As far as people being "bad to the bone", many of us do believe that. However, it is possible for some to be redeemed after the fact, also. But if someone finds redemption, then it is that person's duty to accept the consequences of his action and submit to punishment. He will find his reward in the afterlife if truly reedeemed. Then again, Neil, I guess you don't believe in redemption in the afterlife.

by Member 25348569

to make up your own mind about it.

As I said in my post to JD, you are a sovereign country and if you want to do it, then do it. My only thought is that if you are going to do it - and I wouldn't - then do it properly, consistently and, above all, quickly.

As for the afterlife, no I don't believe. I do not require anything from Christians in terms of judgement of my ethics.

But, if a murderer is killed in his turn without the chance to come to terms with his crime and to attempt to atone then any form of redemption in this life or the next is forever withheld by your Christian country. I believe that Hell is forever?

Bit of a paradox - to me - how the same Christian person can fight tooth and nail for the life of an unborn foetus and agree with, even revel in, the death of a grown man.

Neil

by maxwell edison

.
The death penalty is barbaric; it's not a deterrent; and it's not necessary. It's time we abolish the death penalty in the United States.

Disclaimer: I'm not crazy about the overall state and dynamics of our entire prison system either. So while I abhor the death penalty, I don't like the current alternative either.

My corrections/prison scenario might be something like this. If criminals can be rehabilitated, trained, turned around, and so on, and go on to become productive members of society, and not be a danger to society, to either life, safety, or property, then so be it. We should strive for such a system. However, we shouldn't automatically assume that every criminal can be (or wants to be) rehabilitated. These people should be identified and treated differently.

We should never return a dangerous criminal to society - never. The serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and so on, the career criminals, and those who just can't (or won't) be rehabilitated, should never see the light of day, so to speak. They should never be released from prison - never. And they should not be able to enjoy the luxuries of color television sets, air conditioned quarters, weight rooms, computers and Internet connections, telephones, and other such amenities that we all have to pay extra for in our every day lives. I'm not suggesting that they should be tortured, abused, or neglected. But they've relinquished the rights to such luxuries by their actions. Moreover, I believe that if a person's crime involves violating the civil liberties their victims (rape, murder, child molesters, etc.), then they should lose their civil liberties as well, as part of their punishment.

Quite frankly, I believe that a "living death penalty", almost to the point of making someone prefer to die over the life they are facing, would be a much more effective deterrent to crime.

by maxwell edison

.
The death penalty is barbaric; it's not a deterrent; and it's not necessary. It's time we abolish the death penalty in the United States.

Disclaimer: I'm not crazy about the overall state and dynamics of our entire prison system either. So while I abhor the death penalty, I don't like the current alternative either.

My corrections/prison scenario might be something like this. If criminals can be rehabilitated, trained, turned around, and so on, and go on to become productive members of society, and not be a danger to society, to either life, safety, or property, then so be it. We should strive for such a system. However, we shouldn't automatically assume that every criminal can be (or wants to be) rehabilitated. These people should be identified and treated differently.

We should never return a dangerous criminal to society - never. The serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and so on, the career criminals, and those who just can't (or won't) be rehabilitated, should never see the light of day, so to speak. They should never be released from prison - never. And they should not be able to enjoy the luxuries of color television sets, air conditioned quarters, weight rooms, computers and Internet connections, telephones, and other such amenities that we all have to pay extra for in our every day lives. I'm not suggesting that they should be tortured, abused, or neglected. But they've relinquished the rights to such luxuries by their actions. Moreover, I believe that if a person's crime involves violating the civil liberties their victims (rape, murder, child molesters, etc.), then they should lose their civil liberties as well, as part of their punishment.

Quite frankly, I believe that a "living death penalty", almost to the point of making someone prefer to die over the life they are facing, would be a much more effective deterrent to crime.

by maecuff

you said it twice! And well worth it. Something else we agree upon. And here I thought, when I opened your post, that you would have said the opposite.

The death penalty is barbaric. And I hate the arguement - "If someone I loved was murdered, I'd want to see them die." I don't buy that. Now, as that has never happened to me, I don't know for sure how I would react, but I'm reasonably sure that I wouldn't not want anyone else to die. Rot for the rest of their life in prison? Sure.

I can honestly say that while I'm against the death penalty, I haven't lost any sleep over, say, John Wayne Gacy, no longer being among the living. As Dennis Miller said "They should have put him in his clown suit before the execution." That doesn't make me FOR the death penalty, I just don't feel real bad about him dying.

And while we're on the subject, as someone else pointed out, there is room for error. How about that woman (can't remember who) who misread a kajillion DNA tests? Once someone is exectuted, it's all over. Can't fix that blunder. That alone, is enough to nix the whole thing.

by bfilmfan

I am in total agreement with your comments.

My only addition is that serial killers and pedophiles can never be made productive members of society. We simply don't have the medical ability to treat these people and fix their issues.

Our only choice is to keep them locked up.

by jdclyde

We have become as a society, WAY too medicated for every condition you can imagine. From that nasty rash where you sit to feeling badly. We medicate kids based on teachers diagnosis.
We make excuses for people, such as the man that rightly got his head blown off by the Air Marshals earlier this week. "he was bi-polar" and not on his meds is NOT justification to sue our security personel that followed every procedure and blew him away. Someone says "I have a bomb" and they reach into their pack that is on their chest, you do exactly what the Marshal did, Take the top of their heads off.

By the way, as for your additions BfilmFan, they were already in Maxs post.

I also would approve of this lifetime lockdown, but there is a lot that goes into locking up someone that KNOWS they will never get out and they are much more dangerous. Especially when dumbasses insist that these people still must be treated "humainly" and have a RIGHT to cable TV and full medical. Don't give them weights that make them stronger and thus MORE dangerous. No exersise, and make them vegaterians so they don't have the strength for an uprising! Oh, in conjunction with the vegies, cut back on air circulation! ;\

Let them sit in a four by six room for 23 hours a day, with food brought to them. No prisoner interactions, and no air conditioning.

Then we are talking deterent.

by maxwell edison

.
....I didn't mean in treated in the medical sense, but rather in the "processed through the system" sense. Identify those who are habitual, dangerous, and show no signs of hope, and process them in a different institution -- not a "correctional" institution, but rather a place from which there is no escape -- banished from society forever.

Two pictures come to mind. The French Penal Colony of Devil's Island, and the old Twilight Zone episode about the criminal left in isolation on an asteroid.

by absolutely

Every prisoner should be imprisoned for their entire sentence. Parole is a mockery of justice.

by Member 25348569

I would have placed you as someone who was against the death penalty because you are usually consistent in what you say.

The right to life is the ultimate right. If someone takes the life of another person then no-one else, not an individual nor any society, can take that right from that murderer. Any other punishment can be argued but not the death penalty.

Neil

p.s. Oh, OK - "always consistent".

by maxwell edison

.
In which areas and/or issues am I not consistent?

Edited part:

I guess I should have read your P.S.

"p.s. Oh, OK - 'always' consistent"

by montgomery gator

Max and I actually disagree with something. I don't want to see the state's resources spent on keeping murderers alive, and I want to see a streamlined appeals system so it does not take 20 years and $1,000,000 or more to string them up. Let them get their one appeal to a higher court guaranteed, and after that, they can swing from the noose.

by maxwell edison

.
However, based on some things I've been reading lately, this 20 year appeal process will be fading away as time goes by. It's taking some time for changes in various laws to catch-up with the current cases.

Besides, in my disclaimer I said that I didn't like the current alternative either. My guess is that a person could be incarcerated, in the right place and in the right manner, for well under ten grand per person per year. A fifty year lockup could cost as little as a half-million.

The basic principle (my basic principle) dictates that we're a society that either respects the sanctity of life or we're not. I choose that we are. And that means no death penalty for anyone -- born or unborn.

The one and only justifiable reason to take a person's life is in the defense of you own (or another's) life. We should respect the sanctity of life -- period; and we should just let the chips fall where they may. And that means no death penalty.

But, I'm sure we can simply agree to disagree on this one. I really don't expect to change anyone's mind.

by tryten

Ok I still like my idea of crucifixion better, no one HAS to die. We can change the rules so that someone who has killed at least...5 people has to back and get 2 years of crucifixion for each infraction. Soo 5 people equalls 10 crucifixions. Kinda like getting a subscription dont ya think.

Hey Hey, another idea, lets save all these guys for a once a year event. Kinda like a superbowl for the department of corrections, and we can televise it through pay-per-view to help feed the criminals and keep them alive until next years event.

And if the money runs out, too bad. Let them make rat steaks. Give the money that is supposed to take care of these guys to the people that need it. The victims families and the corrections officers who have to deal with these degenerates on a daily basis.

I really ought to write a book with this stuff in it. This is pure gold.

by Member 25348569

Crucifiction doesn't take that long to kill. The victim, criminal, whatever alternately tries to suspend their body on the nails through the forearms and then the nails through the ankles and very quickly can do neither, sags forward and dies of suffocation because he can't exhale in that position. Compared to a lot of other things that the Romans did, it wasn't that cruel in their terms. If they wanted to be merciful (relatively!), by the way, they'd break your legs so you'd die much more quickly as you can't take the weight on your legs. If they wanted to be cruel (relatively) they might break one leg.

To be really merciful (relatively), they'd stab you as they did with Christ.

If you're going to try and be shocking and provocative then at least give us a bit of respect and do some homework.

Don't start the book yet.

Supplied free of charge by Neil's Get a Grip on Reality Services (tm)

p.s. For the Christians amongst us, crucifiction was done by nailing between the radius and ulna bones of the forearm and not in the palms and usually not even the wrists as neither of these would support the weight. Yes, I know they were roped up as well but that was just a precaution against tear-out and the ropes were loose.

by thechas

Max,

We have touched on this topic before, so I expected you to post against the death penalty.

I find it contradictory that so many people who claim to be "pro-life" also support the death penalty.

Anyone sentenced to more than 2 years in prison MUST exit with a GED and a marketable job skill. If not a 2 year degree.

The hard part will be reducing the cost of incarceration while improving rehabilitation.

However, I don't believe that any level of harsh penalty has a major impact on the crime rate.

Like the "little" laws we all break, serious crime is based on how the criminal views the odds of being caught and convicted.

If one of low moral standards does not believe they will be caught and held accountable for their actions, they will commit any number or level of crimes.

Chas

by dmambo

I like the idea of essentially forcing education on those in stir, at least those that can handle it. I once hired a guy who had a 10-year gap in his resume for an entry level machine operator job. In the interview, he told me that the gap was because he got involved in a pretty big cocaine deal at AGE 19. He turned out to be a good operator with very good mechanical skills, and showed up for work every day. I often wondered how he would have turned out if he had taked the straight and narrow path.

What was unfortunate was during those 10 years, he had plenty of time to get a free education but was not motivated enough. Would a time for education swap have helped him? Couldn't have hurt. And it probably would have been cheaper for the state in the long run as the education is less expensive than the incarceration.

Hey, what a racket - steal a car, go to college for free :)

by antuck

Some of what you have to say. I do belive in the death penalty but for cases where is is known for sure the person commited the crime. And the only time I really think it should happen is when someones elses life is taken. To me if some one murders someone else, they have no value for life. I don't feel they have the right to live.

I remember a case in CA. I can't remember the persons name but the person had killed two kids over McDonalds hamburgers. Just before putting a bullet into the kids, these kids were crying. This guys says to the kids to take it like a man. Then after years and years of appeals he got his turn. Funny thing was he didn't take it like a man like he told these kids to. He still was figthing for another appeal. The case from what I remember was solid as this guy did it. I remember thinking I wish I had a chance to tell this guy to take it like a man and go away.

In cases like that and the Gacys and Dommers I have no problem at all with the death penalty. But the problem is when an innocent person is put to death.

I like your "living death penalty" idea. I had a chance to visit Alcatraz Island. Now that is a horrid place. It is cold and damp. No luxuries they said that some nights they could hear the people in San Francisco partying. They could also smell the food being cooked in the resturants. Talk about torture and a misrable life. You knew life exsisted outside but couldn't partake in it.

by road-dog

Maybe I failed to articulate the sociological angle well enough. This isn't simply and economic aid issue, raw numbers of dollars are only symptomatic of the flawed approach.

You see, social spending has been deliberately disconnected from personal responsibility in our approach. A state (don't recall which) tried to force welfare recipients to work, even at "makework" to give back to society what is taken from public largess. This was met with a huge uproar from liberals who decried such a thing as "demeaning". (like some of the jobs I've worked weren't)

This causes a perpetuation of irresponsibility that has caused a near complete collapse in social frameworks that ordinarily make people productive members of society. Simply put; the system has subsidized the basest parts of human nature through financial incentive and removal of responsibility to comply with the norms of the social contract.

We are creating armies of people who are unequipped to join "civilized" society. Minority "leaders" and the Democratic party have created a social underclass that is a perpetual constituancy that can be relied upon to give them a 90 percent vote in their favor. For all intents and purposes, this amounts to economic slavery; a system where absolute dependence is fostered and exploited for political gain.

This economic and social slavery results in anarchy (crime) by this underclass through the drug trade and despair that circumstances will not improve.

What is really outrageous is that this approach has been given over 40 years to solve the social ills it was intended to cure. Democrats love to use prejudicial terms like "Vietnam" and "quagmire" to describe things that are really making headway, while 40 years with zero net results is perfectly acceptable in this arena. But then the desired result isn't the creation of productive citizens isn't the objective, vote buying from the public coffers is.

by montgomery gator

You sound like your are familiar with the writings of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, both excellent scholars and commentators on today's society, economics, race, crime, taxes, government spending, and all that.

by absolutely

Something that won't affect the problem is describing the psychological factors from the outside, as road-dog does. You [b]named[/b] the phenomenon that dooms the Republican approach to gang violence to inevitable failure when you described the gang culture as a "sub-culture". The Democrats' approach is equally doomed to failure, by the way, I completely agree. But your observations about who is considered a "sell-out" or "Uncle Ted"(???) by insiders in the gang culture should also make clear that your correct statements about personal responsibility will not be enough, alone, when spoken by outsiders such as ourselves to effect any change in that sub-culture. Just as oil money funds terrorism, drug money funds US street gangs. It's a lot easier to legalize drugs than to switch to vegetable oil-based substitute diesel fuel. When the right president signs the right bill, the prices of "controlled substances" (what a crock of sit! Controlled by whom? Only the druglords!) will plumment like the stock prices of dot-com bubble companies did five years ago, and the problem of youth gangs will disappear as quickly as those legal companies purveying nothing did when their funding vanished.

Finally, the DEA and the war on drugs were initiated by the immediate successor (Richard Nixon) to the jackass who institutionalized poverty under the misnomer "Great Society". You've absolutely correct about the impossibility of LBJ-style Democrats' approach, but the approach of "law and order" Republicans has also been failing equally badly, for very nearly the same amount of time. Both parties have selected one aspect of reality to evade, and stuck to that approach despite all evidence of their respective follies.

Drug laws don't work.

Handouts don't work.

If the two major political parties can't both figure out both those self-evident truths, it is high time to alter or abolish both and support only parties that understand that reality exists, and that A is A.

by jdclyde

to present to Neil the way some people that are in support of it present it.

I feel this is true to a point. Their are a lot of people today that are only alive because there is a law that says your not suppose to kill them and there are heavy punishments if you do that are not worth the killing.

I am more in line with BfilmFans thinking that they aren't worth the COST to kill in the current system. Just make sure they have NO comforts in life and they NEVER walk free again.

by sleepin'dawg

That the particular individual will never be in a position to kill anyone again. I do not believe the state should be trying to seek retribution or vengeance on anyone but when I consider the Dahlmers, Bundys, Bernardos and Olsens of this world I am hard pressed in finding a reason for their continued existense at the cost to the taxpayer. On the basis of economy alone they are wastes of resources and as much can be said for the many repeat recividists or habitual criminals. You can add paedophiles to that list as well. They are incurable and will inevitably reoffend. Elimination of them would guarantee they would never again prey on a defenceless child.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by absolutely

There is no such thing as a statement that is "true to a point". Whatever statement is not entirely true, is false. An argument based in any part on falsehood is duplicitous.

The famous serial killers are no more typical of death row inmates than founders of the crips. How many death row inmates founded a street gang that's known by name across the country, and in many others? Less than a percent. Same for serial killers. The typical case is what should set the policy, not the worst case scenario. The typical case is a single murder, either for social, political or financial advantage, or a crime of passion. In any case, proof is usually less than absolute, and juries are convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" by the heinousness of the crime and their intent to be sure that murder is punished. Is the right person being punished? Blank-out. The most important issue, to many, is that [b]somebody[/b] pays.

We should be discussing the 77-year-old man who was executed in Mississippi for a crime he claims he did not commit 20 years ago. But he was convicted, and presumably also did not say he was sorry. But what if he was not remorseful because he was not guilty?

by jamesrl

We have a number of cases in Canada which demonstrate the problem - people who have been convicted on circumstantial evidence who were later cleared on scientific evidence.

There was also a raft of cases with an expert witness (coroner) who was consistently wrong because of a paranoia over parental abuse - he was responsible for jailing many parents of kids who died of accidents, causing them to suffer greviously twice.

I would rather ere on the side of caution and not jail innocent people at the risk of letting a guilty person going free.

I am not for the death penalty for a number of reasons - studies have shown its not a deterrent because people don't believe they will be caught. And I think its sends the wrong message to do an eye for an eye - if we all lived that way the whole world would be blind.

James

by absolutely

There is no such thing as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The direct perception of eyewitnesses comes closest, and they are never allowed to serve on juries while testifying as witnesses in the same case. So the people deciding guilt (jurors) and the people determining sentences (judges) can in fact never reach the standards set forth by US law.

I also believe that the act of murder negates a person's right to their own life, absolutely. The impossibility of absolute certainty is a practical impossibility, and it is immoral to pretend otherwise. The closest thing to justice that doesn't violate the rights of the innocent (and make murderers of the prison system) is to lock murderers in prison for life without possibility of release unless they can disprove the original conviction.

There are certainly cases in which the evidence presented makes the conclusion of guilt logically inescapable, but only [i]if the evidence presented is taken at face value[/i]. In reality, there is never a 100% guarantee that the evidence presented is not falsified.

The same moral premise that makes murder unacceptable makes execution unacceptable. There should also be no parole for any prisoner. Convicts should see nothing outside of their prison, including via television or computer, until after they have fully served their sentences or successfully challenged their conviction. Torture is cruel and unusual punishment, not imprisonment without luxuries like entertainment or data processing machines.

by tryten

Throwing money at the problem doesn?t solve high crime figures in the US. What we need is mass public crucifixions of violent criminals.

You want to see the crime rate drop nation wide, nail up a few wife beaters next to some violent alcoholic, drug abusers, rapists and money launderers. Broadcast it on CNN and watch them by the hundreds get nailed up.

Now THAT'S cause and effect. You commit a crime. You get nailed up. End of story.

And you don?t have to wait until they die, let a few of them live, just hang some weights on them and keep adding more until they actually sound like they are sorry. Of course, this might leave some people unable to walk, or grab a hold of anything. Well that?s just too bad isn?t it. Maybe next time they get behind the wheel drunk they will look at that mangled foot and realize that if they start to drive they might get tacked up again. Or the guy with the little stub for a hand because he got nailed up for beating his wife. Hey Jr. it?s kind of hard to kick little Debby?s butt when you don?t have hands to hold her down this time.

Hey, here is another idea. If you are a repeat offender and don?t have hands or feet or they are just too mangled to get a nail through to support your weight, NOOOO PROBLEM!!! We just move up the nails up extremities a little bit at a time. That gets kind of scary for some of these male repeat offenders after getting past the knees, starts getting a little close to manland. And hey, let?s just save ourselves some time with the rapists and go ahead and nail on right in the dong.

And if you were innocent TOO BAD. This will just reinforce the need to not commit any violent crimes or commit a crime that helps perpetuate violence. And besides, no one is innocent. If you are born into this world you are guilty, end of story.

by road-dog

Laaaaadeees aaaaannnd Geeentlemeeeenn!

Meet the real right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right-wing!

by montgomery gator

I may support capital punishment, but we should not do like the Romans and line the Appian Way with the condemned rebels from the Spartacus Revolt. Anything worse than hanging or beheading (or other quick ways of execution), goes to the extreme of sadism.

by tryten

Sarcasm...Yes.

But all out honest....frighteningly yes.
I am just putting what thousands of other people think into my own words because this is how I feel and the other thousands that feel the same are afraid of coming out and saying "YES!!! Today I will bash you head in with a Q3964A Color Laser Jet Imaging Drum if you ask me a question that you can answer yourself. Now...think carefully...can....I...help...you?"

Funny thing is I am not a violent person. These are the thoughts I have while Installing software on desktops in other employee's offices.
On occasion I may voice my opinion....and get fired...but I have no complaints performance wise. I just dont think like others. Which is probably why I got detained alot when I was younger.

But hey, here is the good news. If you ever need to have someone severly injured and cant quite find a good way to do it, you know where to find me.

For example, I would like to have George Bush, Bin Laden and Saddam all run naked through a the Saharan landmine field wearing snow shoes, dipped in gravy being chased by hyenas carrying a Saguaro Cactus on their backs with a Pincushion cactus taped to their crotch and one placed in between the rear cheeks in the middle of a sandstorm while being sprayed with saltwater.

See thats good stuff.

by maecuff

You are correct. If you are 'right to life' then you are 'right to life'. This is one case where I see no black or white.

The death penalty is ending the life of an over-developed fetus.

by jdclyde

if your in favor of ending the life of an under-developed fetus?

Much much more under developed get a death sentence carried out than the over developed ones every year. I don't see the hollywood elite out shedding a tear for that.

by absolutely

Ever "shade of gray" in morality, or any abstract question, is composed of elements of black and white. The challenge is to decompose the general, complex question to its constituents parts, weigh each of those independently, then summ the total. [b]Every[/b] real problem has a mathematical solution.

by maxwell edison

.
Drugs.

If the stupid "war on drugs" would end; if the law enforcement authorities didn't gain financially from drug busts (legitimate or otherwise); if a person was allowed to exercise his liberty to the point of choosing to use recreational drugs; if recreational drugs would be made available like liquor is today; then the U.S. prison population would plummet.

by dr dij

too many people make up excuse that 'booze or drugs made me do it'. I'd like to legalize them as Max said but make extra penalties for ANY crime where the person said that the 'drugs made them do it', would automatically double there sentence. this would stop them from pushing reponsibility onto a substance and put it back on them selves.

I think also, that anyone convicted of a crime while high on drugs (or alcohol) should be banned from using that substance, subject to monitoring / parole violations. And drunk drivers should have whatever car they are driving taken away.

by jamesrl

I have met, face to face, an individual who was convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence and is appealing based on dna and other factors.

He was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. There was operating in the same area a serial rapist who was later convicted as a murderer. The victim was driven to her burial spot in a car with a standard transmission. The convicted person did not know how to drive one. Neither the victim or the convicted person smoked yet there were cigarette butts (same brand as the serial rapist smoked) in the car. No physical evidence linking the convicted person to the crime. No motive, other than the parents of the victim didn't like the guy and thought he was creepy.

And yet, if he had been convicted in the US, he may have been killed already - its been 10 years or so since he was convicted.

James

by montgomery gator

This may be making it very simple, but the difference between a fetus and a condemned murder is that a fetus has not committed any crime, while a condemned murderer has. It is a matter of holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I do not revel in the execution of a condemned murderer, but I do see it as justice being done. Not all cases of murder result in the death penalty in death penalty states. Most states have laws that state it has to be premeditated murder, and some even add additional requirements, like murder in connection with another crime (what Alabama does), or multiple murder. Murder in the heat of the moment (crime of passion) is not eligible for capital punishment. Then there is manslaughter, which is not considered murder, because negligence or diminished capacity (such as the offender being drunk), which has a lesser sentence than 1st or 2nd degree murder.

As far as murderers coming to terms with their crimes, even with a streamlined appeals process, they should have at least a year after conviction in a court of law to think about what they have done. That should give the convicted person time to atone according to whatever belief system that person follows.

by Member 25348569

I don't kill adult people or children because, to me, it is against my code of ethics as well as being illegal. I don't want adults to be killed on my behalf, either, because if I won't do it then I certainly wont let you do it in my name. My code of ethics does allow me to sanction abortion - although I would rather it not happen - under certain circumstances because I do not necessarily consider the rights of, say, a twelve-week foetus to supercede those of the mother.

I would have supposed that a Christian would not sanction killing either a convgict or a foetus under any circumstances because it is against the Law handed down by God to Moses. Do not kill - at all. Therein lies the paradox.

An additional paradox, to me, is how Left-wing Fundamentalist Christians and their Right-wing counterparts can have such totally different moral and political viewpoints with their sources being the same book.

I accept what you say about the different degrees of homicide. I've already posted that those executed are very few - 59 in 2004 and nearly half of those in Texas. What has the execution of those 59 achieved? This whole affair started with the execution of Stanley Williams who, it seemed, was attempting to atone for his crimes.

Neil

btw The number of people executed in the USA in 2004 was less than the body count in Total Recall - 65 humans, one rat and one triple-breasted woman.

by john.a.wills

Ex 20:13 and Dt 5:17 both say "lo tirtzach". My Hebrew dictionaries tell me that the verb RTzCh means "murder". Several other verbs are given for "kill".

by montgomery gator

Neil wrote:
"I would have supposed that a Christian would not sanction killing either a convgict or a foetus under any circumstances because it is against the Law handed down by God to Moses. Do not kill - at all. Therein lies the paradox"

Actually the Law of Moses says "You Shall Not Murder" in Exodus 20. It is followed in Exodus 21 by crimes (including murder) that are subject to the death penalty. If all killing was prohibited, then there would be no death penalty in the Torah. The Law of Moses cannot be used to oppose the death penalty when it is read in contect.

There is a distinction between murder, killing in self defense or defense of others, killing in battle, and executing condemned criminals. The first is unjustified killing, the others are justified, according to the moral law set forth by Moses.

I see no contradiction when pro-life in regards to the unborn and pro-death penalty for murderers, since the unborn are innocent while the convicted murderer is not.

Being pro-life and against the death penalty could definitely be considered consistent, and I understand and respect the line of thought that came to that conclusion, even if I disagree with the death penalty part.

However, it is definitely inconsistent to be pro-abortion and opposed to the death penalty, as many liberals are in the USA.

by john.a.wills

It is wrong to kill, imprison or dispossess an innocent person because a person has such creator-given rights as those to life, to liberty and to property. Whoever violates those rights in others forfeits them for himself, so it is justifiable to dispossess, imprison or even kill a criminal. One advantage of an organized state is that we can mete out a less than just punishment. The degree and circumstances of guilt appropriate for such mercy can be discussed for each society.

by road-dog

I've no evidence to support this, but my gut tells me that the death penalty might be on it's way out due to the 3 strikes legislation that is getting traction in the US.

I don't think most criminals debut in their court involvement with a death penalty case. Most probably catch a felony or two (or three) on the way. If 3 felonies get you a life sentence, then most criminals won't be on the street to commit a death penalty crime.

Maybe then this will reduce the number of death penalty cases to those few that very few people will have reservations about.

As is, we need to establish what is the state of our national conscience. It seems that the death penalty might be an issue that requires a ballot revisit. Federally, the Supreme Court has addressed this, so abolishment would be a legislative issue, individual cases notwithstanding.

Does anybody know of any statistical data that links positively or negatively the links between crime rate and administration of the death penalty? Preferably NOT from an activist group.

by absolutely

Any statistical data showing any correllation of crime to capital punishment, positive or negative, is irrelevant until there is a guarantee of absolute certainty for absolutely every conviction. Since that can never happen, the final answer is: the death penalty is always immoral.

by maecuff

We could send them in to clean my 18 year old son's bedroom. That should kill them quickly. Apparently, my son isn't doing the job, because he's afraid of a quick and painful death.

Not to make any general statements or anything..but were ALL you guys disgusting at 18?

by dr dij

visiting my sister near NYC, she showed me around their lovely huge house on a quiet tree lined street. the basement apt? given to my niece, 14? now, was a total pigsty, with clothes strewn all over the floor.

so it isn't just guys

by road-dog

in the barracks I lived in. This guy would cram all his filth into his wall locker on inspection days. The next morning he would dig out his gear to find the outfit that stunk the least, strewing the mess back out in the process.

His roommate got transferred out of the room and we filled his room waist deep with snow. When it melted, things got mildewed and stunk too bad even for him. He cleaned up his act after that.

Force your boy to straighten himself out. Your future daughter in law will thank you after seeing the "before" photos in the family album.

Remember, you aren't raising a son; youre raising a husband...

by dr dij

vegetables make you weaker???
obviously you know little about nutrition.

meat is actually quite low in protein, 6-8%; and while the proportions approximate what is needed for the body, many vegetable items have 2-4 times as much protein.

They also have way more of energy producing nutrients, such as oil from nuts, way more trace elements that are helpful, plus phyto-nutrients which are good for eyes, immune, etc. veg sources of carbs such as fruit pectins deliver energy to the body over much longer periods. you ever wonder why lions sleep 16 hours a day?

I agree, luxuries should be cut to the bone. give them books to read. this will ensure their literacy and is a cheap source of entertainment or education. like the prison in AZ where the inmates are kept in un-airconditioned tents, fed bologna sandwiches and water. they have to work hard being good to get onto external work details.

by jdclyde

First, the veggie thing was a joke. You might have heard of the word before. Lighten up. ;\ (veg-nut)!

Oh I the sherif is a big time hero!

http://www.n6mrx.com/uncle.htm
[i]Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails.

Took away their weights.

Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.

When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports:

About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks. "It feels like we are in a furnace" said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic.

He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one, there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.
[/i]

by Member 25348569

This guy is [b]hilarious[/b]!

I don't have a problem with the way he treats a few criminals but some of the other things he gets up to...

http://www.doney.net/aroundaz/celebrity/arapaio_sheriffjoe.htm

It seems that he has jailcams as well http://www.mcso.org and http://www.crime.com - I haven't sampled these yet but I may do so later.

I have to say that anyone who authorises a bobble-head doll of themselves is, shall we say, slightly lacking in style - but I love his use of the SWAT tank!

Thanks, JD, cos I'd never have known about this guy but for you and the US death penalty.

Neil :D

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddwyn Newydd Dda

or to be more politically correct, Cyfarchion y Tymor

by maecuff

You really are scary, and you've given this stuff a lot of thought, haven't you?

by maecuff

I'm going to let the future daughter in law find out on her own. It will give us something to talk about during those uncomfortable silences..

by jdclyde

Like I said, the only thing about the death penalty I don't favor is how much time and money it actually takes to do it.

Although, for death penalty, I think it should also be a higher burden of proof. More than the "reasonable doubt" biz.

Do I think "tookie" should have been spared just because he decided to play nice later on? Not for a second.

by Member 25348569

In many threads we've had Hebrew scholar, Gret, put us all straight on the correct translation of many bits of the Bible. This particular mistranslation I knew but I suspect that the majority of Christian Fundamentalist do not take their values from the Hebrew texts.

The point that I made - the paradox in that death for some is acceptable to some Christians - still holds as the execution of a criminal by individuals, groups or the State is in no way classifiable as murder without symantic gymnastics. If you take your moral code from a book then you should stick to that code. It's written down and you cannot step outside it and develop any system of ethics.

But thanks for the lesson, anyway.

by tryten

The object is not to kill them but make them suffer. I know that the nails were put through the ankles and behind the wrists. But its more painful to mangle than pierce. And we are not going to break both legs. I didnt know that they would break only one leg sometimes....sounds like a nice addition to my plan.

Allowing them to support their weight keeps them from sagging forward and closing off the airway...until they run out of strength. At that point is when you douse the criminal is corn syrup and yank the criminal down with a goat amd ropes and let them land face first into a pile of fire ants.

p.s. On occasion the torso would be roped off to keep them alive longer so that animals and birds would start to feed on their living flesh after a while. (I learned that is sunday school 20 years ago) Nice idea but we dont have that kind of time on pay-per-view or CNN. This would much more likely fit into a 24 hour web broadcast. You pay a subscription to watch and you and your friends can make bets on how long it will be before the first animal comes along and takes a bit.

by Member 25348569

Apparently the more skilled Roman executioners were able to break the femur in such a way that it broke across flat rather than spiky so that there was no chance of a punctured artery shortening the punishment.

You would obviously need someone with those skills.

As for your other refinements, there are no fire ants in europe (yet) so that's something we couldn't use. Though if it's pain and suffering that you're after than check with the Aussie peers as they have some really wonderful venomous animals.

Now you have a nice day...

by maxwell edison

.
Not too long ago I interviewed a guy who was recently released from prison because of some gun charges. While in prison, he learned our trade, and he had some real nice work to show me. I also got a great reference from his prison supervisor, and the guy seemed motivated to get his life on the right track.

I wanted to hire the guy, but my boss nixed the idea. I was pretty pissed because this was the first time one of my hires was vetoed. (My boss, by the way, is a VERY liberal Democrat -- so much for "compassion" and helping the "little guy"; and it reinforced my notion that liberals want to give the shirt off someone else's back, but never their own.)

My point, I suppose, is that educational opportunities ARE available for prisoners. But requiring a GED or some other training may not work. A person has to WANT to improve himself and/or his lot in life, whether that's in prison or otherwise.

Maybe there's not a collective answer to all problems; in fact, there's definitely not a collective answer to all problems. In the case of this guy, or any other, I suppose, it's a build-up of many factors over the years, all combined to produce a bad outcome. In my opinion, it all starts and stops with parents. I'm absolutely stunned at seeing how many "parents" shun their responsibility onto government or society. It's no wonder so many people end up screwed.

by jamesrl

I agree 100% that the motivation for self improvement has to come from within.

The Ontario government in its infinite wisdom (insert sarcastic remark here) has thought about ways to lower the high school drop out rate. One of the proposals is to only allow those who are enrolled in school or have their diploma to apply for a drivers license. How silly is that. I don't see the point in forcing someone to stay in school if they aren't motivated by the right reasons to be there - its a waste of time for the teacher and a distraction for the motivated students.

James

by absolutely

A waste of time for the students who don't plan to pursue academia. Somebody who plans to make a living in building or mechanical trades that require a 2-year technical degree or less shouldn't be bothered with lab science or foreign language requirements. I'd love to be surrounded by people who speak at least 4 foreign languages and are fluent in science and higher mathematics, but I don't have the right to legislate those goals onto my neighbors. I have the right to work my way into circles of society where such things are common.

by maecuff

and I could be wrong..but I'd be willing to bet that you laugh at all your own jokes..

by jck

I agree that killing someone for vengeance or retribution is not the solution.

[b]HOWEVER...[/b]

You will [b]never[/b] convince me that it is the responsibility of the state or the people to financially support people who murder, maim, rape or molest, or that it is their responsibility to attempt to rehabilitate them.

I learned one thing a long time ago when I lost over 200 pounds and I stopped drinking heavily (1 liter of booze a day):

The only person who can change you...is [b]you[/b].

I hope he found some absolution from God...cause, I can't give him any.

by Member 25348569

Actually, I though that they were God's Laws. From my recollection, Moses just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And, by the way, four thousand years ago in a very different culture.

Is killing your "enemy" in an unjust war for which you are responsible "justified". Is killing in self defense when you could have rendered them immobile by other means "justified".

What sort of "Moral Code Handed Down By God" lets one state carry out nearly half of your country's executions?

Also, don't weasel around the issue by trying to justify it by harking back to the original Hebrew of selected portions the Bible when you are fully aware that any real translation of [b]all[/b] of the scriptures into the original languages would blow the minds of most Christians.

The problem that I have is that the death penalty is applied arbitrarily in your country and I find that very difficult to square with "the Moral Code of Moses". As I've said in other posts - and I wasn't joking - if you're going to do it, then do it. Otherwise, stop, because it doesn't seem to be doing any good.

As for a first trimester foetus. Is it a human being? Well, I don't happen to think so. Under those circumstances, to abhor the death penalty and yet to dislike intensely but sanction early abortion isn't really that difficult. I can do it, anyway.

Also, and this is just a random thought, if a foetus is a human being with the "divine spark" then, as an innocent being it will surely be gathered back to God who will, in due course, punish the mother and those who sanctioned and performed that abortion.

Seems to me that the pro-lifers want it both ways. I never cease to be amazed at the flexibility inherent in a book of so few words.

by absolutely

Biblical death penalties don't square with the New Testament. Jews can support a death penalty and be consistent with their superstition. Christians cannont. Jews believe that the words "you must forgive seventy times seven times", "love your neighbor as you love yourself", and "love even your enemies" were spoken by a man who was a great prophet, but just one of many great prophets in Hebrew history. Christians, by definition, believe that same person to have been [b]the[/b] incarnation of God, or offspring of God, itself, depending on the denomination. For Christians to support [b]any[/b] punishment of [b]anybody[/b] is hypocrisy. For Christians to treat [b]any[/b] crime with [b]anything[/b] other than forgiveness is hypocrisy.

Personally, I think such total forgiveness of absolutely everything would be immoral, and I'm glad that so few self-proclaimed Christians are morally consistent, but total forgiveness is what Jesus commanded, so Christians have no alternative but to forgive everything, to renounce their religion, or to continue living as hypocrites, as most do, expecting their own forgiveness while favoring punishment of the crimes that bother them the most. Luckily, the United States is not a [b]Christian nation[/b]. Although it is a nation [b]of many Christians[/b], there are also enough honest, intelligent people that we do still punish criminals. Unfortunately, there are just enough noisy hypocrites that we still have a death penalty, like many third world theocracies.

by absolutely

Threats are not protected free speech. The man who said he had a bomb necessitated the air marshal's action, which was a legitimate killing [b]in defense[/b] of innocent lives, including his own. If the survivors of the deceased want to blame somebody, they can blame themselves for not reminding their "loved one" to keep taking its meds, or hiring a 24/7 team of caretakers to do so. That is the duty of family & friends, if anybody, and certainly not among the responsibilities of a military or police professional.

Deprivation of luxuries is not "cruel and unusual punishment". Torture is "cruel and unusual punishment" by the standards of the Constitution and its legal tradition. What is a luxury? Anything that is not water, food, air, or protection from the elements.

by absolutely

Too much room for interpretation, meaning too much possibility of error. All criminals should be punished according to the real crime committed, not just "those who are habitual, dangerous, and show no signs of hope". Those ones will suffer the same sentence repeatedly when they are released and commit more crime, or they will be sentenced to a life sentence the first time for a violent crime. Average citizen jurors have enough trouble understanding the simplified explanations of forensic scientists. They should never be trusted to discern "those who are habitual, dangerous, and show no signs of hope" from the others. And none of those things matter. Punishment is for the crime committed in the past, not for the suspected probability of crimes to be committed in the future.

by maxwell edison

.
Geesh, get a friggin life, already, and quit trying to look so high-brow, elitist, and intellectual by nit-picking every little thing a person might say. I wasn't submitting for your approval (or anyone's approval, for that matter) a complete plan, from A to Z, on how I might prefer to see our entire judicial and penal system operate, taking every possible scenario into consideration. I don't think that can be done in a few short sentences, nor was that my intention.

If you didn't understand the gist of my message, then you're an imbecile.

If you did understand the gist of my message, but chose to nit-pick it anyway, and correct something that I didn't even suggest, then you've apparently got some warped and self-indulgent need to fulfill by "correcting" your own interpreted stretch of a person's innocent comment.

I don't mind a person correcting or challenging something I might say. But I draw the line when you attempt to correct or challenge something I did not say.

I'm not impressed. But if you impress yourself by posting such silly comments, well good for you.

by absolutely

The gist of your message is that you, or somebody, is going to decide who is a habitual offender and who is not, and treat the same offense differently on the basis of your judgement of somebody's habits or propensity to commit more crimes [b]in the future[/b]. That isn't your right or anybody else's. You didn't understand the gist of your own message, imbecile, but I will be here to explain things for you as long as you pollute TR with your hypocritical nonsense.

by jdclyde

pink prision underwear.

There was so much of it being stolen, the started to SELL it!

Soooo funny.

Not someone I would want to be on the other side of the law from, but a funny man from this side!

Just a good old boy! As for the bobble-head dolls, that also includes most baseball players over here as well. For some reason, they are a big item. My boys even got a bobble-head TROPHY for soccer a year ago! It is out of control!

by absolutely

"You DID NOT get the gist of my message. Now STFU you friggin moron."

I won't have much difficulty showing where you've gone wrong.

by maxwell edison

.
We basically agree on this issue, as we're both opposed to the death penalty. And that is, after all, the "gist" of this entire discussion. But then you spout off about proving me wrong! This only proves that I've gotten deep under your skin, and you make these lame and stupid attempt to nit-pick something I didn't even say, just to satisfy your warped and childish desire to prove me wrong.

You're a legend in your own mind. You impress no one except yourself. You're a zealot of the worst degree in absolutely every sense of the word and in everything you believe; and you even zealously attempt to prove me wrong about something on which we basically agree. Get help, dude. you need it.

by road-dog

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Habitual offender IS based on PAST offenses. Hence the term habitual. Otherwise the term would be something indicating such. The issue of future offenses was introduced by you.

Perhaps you should debate Max (at your own peril) on his actual positions as opposed to your own flawed and/or conjectured versions of his positions. People say what they say, anything you choose to extrapolate from their statement and argue against is your argument and not his. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting. You might receive some satisfaction from it, but it is really no feat to create both sides of an argument. Any 'debate' in such a situation is illusory at best.

Anyway, habitual offenders should have past offenses taken into account. Based on a documented history of legal entanglements of a similar or escalating nature is more damning than a singular incident which could be considered an abberation as opposed to a lifestyle.

by absolutely

Maxwell could not possibly have been arguing to punish Thief "A" more vigorously than Thief "B" who both stole identical items from the same store, just because Thief "A" stole something else previously, was convicted, and served his time, because Maxwell knows the Constitution too well. That would mean that Thief "A" is punished twice for the same offense, and is illegal in the United States.

It was unclear from my response, but the part of Max's post that logically implies speculation about the criminal's future crimes is not the word "habitual", but the phrase "show no signs of hope". Hope is an expectation about the quality of [b]the future[/b]. I do nit-pick just like Max says, but I am not wrong.

by road-dog

Each defendant is still on trial for the individual incident in question. Double jeopardy is the practice of convening another trial for the same (not similar and subsequent) charge should the outcome not suit the prosecutor's objectives.

The practice of bringing in similar charges in the past goes to the character (or lack thereof) of the defendant. It is a valid practice to examine evidence in the context of preexisting events and conclusions. This is not double jeopardy, which is a very specific legal issue.

Double jeopardy prohibitions mean historic specific and previously dispositioned events cannot revisited for retrial or additional penalties.

The only fair stretch that can be made to Max's original post as to predictive aspects of the defendant's case is that in the individual's timeline, he DID indeed repeat the offense in his "future" at the time of the original trial. In other words, the defendant did indeed continue his behaviors in HIS future, in spite of the repercussions suffered as a penalty for that incident. All this is viewed in the context of the present, which includes events in the past.

Once again, you are arguing against an extrapolation you've drawn, not what Max has said. I find it obnoxious that you will call someone an imbicile for "failing" to understand their own statements better than you do. It is bad form at the very least.

He did not IMPLY, you INFERRED!

In the past, the system hoped the defendant would change his ways. In the present, the systems concludes that he didn't, and the court should conclude that this crime did occur AGAIN in spite of previous penalties, and respond with a higher penalty.

by absolutely

"In the past, the system hoped the defendant would change his ways."

The hopes of the system are not among the defendants' crimes. They may be among the system's own mistakes, but they are not the defendants' crimes.

"In the present, the systems concludes that he didn't, and the court should conclude that this crime did occur AGAIN..."

The second crime is a separate event to be treated separately. To do otherwise [b]is[/b] to try the defendant again for the same crime. I fully understand that the courts do not presently recognize this fact. Yet, it [b]is[/b] a fact.

by road-dog

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

The second trial is not for violating the court's hopes; it is for the second offense.

The consideration of the previous crime in the evidentiary or sentencing process is not a retrial for the previous offense, it provides context for the subsequent offense. It clarifies intent and establishes the defendant?s proclivities for the offense in question. Defense attorneys commonly make issue of the defendant?s ?clean record? where relevant in order to convince the jury that the defendant is incapable of such a crime. Basic fairness dictates that whole hearted pursuits of the truth include this and other mitigating factors.

If you choose to believe that such circumstances shouldn't enter into consideration, then that is your break with reality. You should at least be honest and frame your argument as something other than double jeopardy, which is a clearly defined legal term both in Constitutional terms and established and reinforced in legal precedent. To bend this term to include your definition dilutes the accepted meaning of the term and undermines anyone?s specific interpretation of it.

Words mean things. Established and accepted definitions are the underpinnings of language. Otherwise, any term becomes meaningless by meaning anything to anyone with no common frame of reference.

Once again, you find yourself arguing against your own inference as opposed to the true opposing view.

by maxwell edison

.
.....to put the music to these (edited) lyrics

But this is the tune Absolutely is now singing:

I've got you under my skin
I've got you deep in the mind of me
So deep in my mind
You're really a part of me
I've got you under my skin

I tried so not to give in
I said to myself this debate
Never will go so well
But I try to resist
When, Maxwell, I know so well
That I've got you under my skin

I'd sacrifice anything
Come what might
For the sake of having you lose
In spite of a warning voice
That comes in the night
And repeats and repeats in my ear

Don't you know little fool
I never can win
Use my mentality
Wake up to reality

But each time that I do
Just the thought of you
Makes me stop before I begin
'Cause I've got you under my skin

(Thank you, Frank. And thank you, Cole.)

by absolutely

Everything you said about legal terminology and tradition was accurate, but your conclusion based on those facts is in error. The third part of the definition offered by lectlaw.com makes clear that the situation you, Maxwell and I have been arguing [b]is[/b] Double Jeopardy:

"DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989)."

Multiple punishments for the same offense are illegal. You lose, road-dog.

"Words mean things. Established and accepted definitions are the underpinnings of language. Otherwise, any term becomes meaningless by meaning anything to anyone with no common frame of reference."

And exact meanings of words are necessary for science to be productive and for law to be just. I don't claim that justice is practiced in the United States as well as science. I'm describing how it would, and saying that it should.

by road-dog

Your cited case law was a finding identifying additional civil judgement subsequent to criminal action as double jeopardy. I am in agreement with the finding, as the civil judgement was indeed an additional penalty, (from the EXACT same offense)as the loss to the state should have been addressed and monies recovered as part of the criminal penalty.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=435

Unfortunately, this case has no similarity to the issue being discussed, consideration of previous criminal history as relates to a current criminal prosecution. The legal circumstance being discussed had the following elements:

1) trial of a second and separate criminal offense
2) consideration of the findings of the previous offense as relates to guilt
3) consideration of the previous offense as relates to penalty

Case law cited, deltas:
1) single offense
2) single criminal prosecution
3) subsequent CIVIL case / judgement
4) Judgement rendered as relates to single criminal action, NOT a subsequent and separate criminal action

Proving that double jeopardy exists in no way reinforces your assertion that consideration of previous offense constitutes double jeopardy.

Nobody disputes that double jeopardy exists, or that it is prohibited by the Constitution.

Your "evidence" does not prove your point. Not in the least.

You call it a zebra, I call it a horse. Your proving that zebras exist doesn't mean that the equine in question is indeed a zebra....

by maxwell edison

.
I used to have similar discussions with him, but it soon became obvious to me that Absolutely argues for argument's sake; he stretches a person's comment to the absurd, and then argues against it; and he paints himself into a debate corner, but will neither concede or even agree to disagree.

He apparently has this warped need to prove ABSOLUTELY everyone wrong, himself ABSOLUTELY always right, and he will apparently settle for no less than his opinion being the ABSOLUTELY only one that's valid. He's an adamant anti-religious zealot and an absolutist. In fact, he's a zealot in many areas and in many ways.

This guy is a total waste of time.

I will admit when I'm wrong, but he never will. And if you care to find the message that I posted to Julian (jardinier), you'll see one case in point in which I was ABSOLUTELY wrong. It was a message in which I not only defended Absolutely, but, in some ways, sang his praises. Man, oh man, was I ABSOLTELY wrong with that one.

Two people in these threads have, in my eyes, fallen from the top of my respect list to the very bottom (or shifted to the top of the disappointment list), and Absolutely is one of them. The other is.....

by road-dog

I know that he's the type you indicated. I don't just hammer him in the fruitless pursuit of concession, I do so also to point out to observers the fallacy of his methodologies. You see, non sequitur, straw-man, and circular logic methods are too commonly relied upon by those who are weak in analysis and conclusion.

What I seek to do is to point out the inadequacy of these techniques to those who are interested in a meaningful dialogue and a pursuit of truth.

Ab is a clumsy and amateurish advocate of his beliefs and the abovementioned techniques and his incessant repeat of obviously indefensible positions are the only tools in his discussion toolbox.

I speak to the wider audience to invite a cogent analysis of positions in hope of fostering a more fertile field for reasoned debate.

Too often, people don't even see that the way they formulate opinions and advocate them is based upon unsound logic and techniques that prevent a fair presentation and consideration.

The straw man argument is simply a way of redirecting the debate from it's true course while evading the true nature of the opposing position. I like to point it out when I see it because too often those who view it are inclined to believe it is successful because there is indeed a point made, just not the point in question.

I like to identify those instances because it is really disengenuous to cry victory while sidestepping the true issue at hand. I feel it is important to not only fight my fight in the arena of ideas, but also to protect the integrity of the arena itself.....

This discussion is closed to new replies.