Broomstick wrote:While we have several people voicing emphatic support, I would like to state that I am an American against the death penalty. I don't believe taking human life is justified on anything other than the basis of self-defense, and if we can confine dangerous individuals then we can not justify killing them. (However, if they escape I am in favor of using lethal force if necessary to protect society at large)
And what do you do when your life in prison in-mate kills a guard? Or a fellow in-mate. How dare you kill again, off to Prison again you bad man!
Hell it's time for another death penalty thread.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
You know, there are plenty of places that have outlawed the death penalty. Before scaremongering about all the horrible consequences of outlawing the death penalty, why not look at these places to see if they're drowning in them?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Broomstick wrote:While we have several people voicing emphatic support, I would like to state that I am an American against the death penalty. I don't believe taking human life is justified on anything other than the basis of self-defense, and if we can confine dangerous individuals then we can not justify killing them. (However, if they escape I am in favor of using lethal force if necessary to protect society at large)
And what do you do when your life in prison in-mate kills a guard? Or a fellow in-mate. How dare you kill again, off to Prison again you bad man!
Hell it's time for another death penalty thread.
Well, providing the prison system is not a shit-hole it is possible to remove priviledges and such. Of course you will probably massively reduce instances of those crimes when prisons are not shit-holes as well
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Aren't prisoners who are considered dangerous confined to supermax settings? They don't have any human contact with anyone other than prison staff, and even then only for extremely limited durations. Like Alyrium Denryle said, if they do try to kill a guard, then revoke the 1 hour they get outside their cell.
Lancer wrote:Aren't prisoners who are considered dangerous confined to supermax settings? They don't have any human contact with anyone other than prison staff, and even then only for extremely limited durations. Like Alyrium Denryle said, if they do try to kill a guard, then revoke the 1 hour they get outside their cell.
Which is what they do, but who is to say that isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It completely subjective.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Mr Bean wrote:
And what do you do when your life in prison in-mate kills a guard? Or a fellow in-mate. How dare you kill again, off to Prison again you bad man!
That’s not the best example; even when a guard is murdered its actually pretty rare that the state bothers to seek the death penalty if the person is already serving a life sentence. Too much money, too much trouble.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Well, providing the prison system is not a shit-hole it is possible to remove priviledges and such. Of course you will probably massively reduce instances of those crimes when prisons are not shit-holes as well
Remove privileges? Like say throw them in solitary confinement so that they can go totally insane? That’s what typically happens as a punishment, nothing else is really going to do anything anyway once your behind the wire, but it’s far crueler then killing someone if you ask me. The idea of long term/life term imprisonment is very new to the world, and I don’t think its one of the better ideas we’ve come up with.
It’s nice to talk about having better prisons, but a nation’s prison system is reflective of its society and the people who get thrown in it. You aren’t going to make US prisons better without spending immensely more money, putting fewer people in them, and better subdividing the population within them (which is really just a matter of money), especially separating violent offenders from the nonviolent. I can’t see any of that happening anytime soon or easily, and dumping in even more murders who end up in solitary sure doesn’t help the funding issue (yes I know of the arguments against the cost of death penalty cases)
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Darth Wong wrote:You know, there are plenty of places that have outlawed the death penalty. Before scaremongering about all the horrible consequences of outlawing the death penalty, why not look at these places to see if they're drowning in them?
See my new thread, I'll just say it once hear, if your justice system can lock someone away for the rest of their biologicly possible life it's a death sentance. You simply have a very inefficient death penalty that relies on the inmates biological proccess rather than poison gas, a lethal drug cocktail or a few dozen feet of hemp.
Back to the thread
The decision was a close one again, all their decisions have been close ones, without Roberts these decisisons might have gone the other way so damn easy, had the Democracts had any balls and fought Bush on his Supreme Court picks they likley would have not faced these defeats in Telecom immunity and the Gun ban. Not that I disagree with it theory, but in practice I'm for it.. DC should have a fucking gun ban. It should be an absolute ban that says you can't bring a damn gun within a thirty mile sphere centered on the White-House and it should be a damn national security matter.
Last edited by Mr Bean on 2008-06-27 01:34am, edited 1 time in total.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
At some point, just being "cruel and unusual" becomes a completely retarded yardstick to use. What should matter is if the punishment is cruel and/or unusual in proportion to the offense committed. If they get put in solitary confinement because they tried to kill a guard after getting thrown in prison for murder 1, then so be it. They've just demonstrated their inability to associate actions with conseqences twice, the second time in a highly controlled environment, and they need to be removed in some manner so that they don't pose a threat to others.
Broomstick wrote:While we have several people voicing emphatic support, I would like to state that I am an American against the death penalty. I don't believe taking human life is justified on anything other than the basis of self-defense, and if we can confine dangerous individuals then we can not justify killing them. (However, if they escape I am in favor of using lethal force if necessary to protect society at large)
And what do you do when your life in prison in-mate kills a guard? Or a fellow in-mate. How dare you kill again, off to Prison again you bad man!
Death by inmate is an occupational hazard for prison guards, unfortunately. We do try to minimize the risk.
Those who continue to commit crimes in prison are given progressively tighter restrictions, up to eternal solitary confinement. Frankly, I wouldn't cry if such an inmate did commit suicide in preference to decades in a concrete box
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Darth Wong wrote:You know, there are plenty of places that have outlawed the death penalty. Before scaremongering about all the horrible consequences of outlawing the death penalty, why not look at these places to see if they're drowning in them?
See my new thread, I'll just say it once hear, if your justice system can lock someone away for the rest of their biologicly possible life it's a death sentance. You simply have a very inefficient death penalty that relies on the inmates biological proccess rather than poison gas, a lethal drug cocktail or a few dozen feet of hemp.
By that logic we are all under death sentence.
DC should have a fucking gun ban. It should be an absolute ban that says you can't bring a damn gun within a thirty mile sphere centered on the White-House and it should be a damn national security matter.
So, you're saying the President is so important that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of anyone within 30 miles should be suspended indefinitely? Why? He's not a king or emperor. I mean, yes, forbid high powered rifles within shooting distance of the White House, but that's seriously less than 30 miles.
Justify your position on this matter.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Darth Wong wrote:You know, there are plenty of places that have outlawed the death penalty. Before scaremongering about all the horrible consequences of outlawing the death penalty, why not look at these places to see if they're drowning in them?
See my new thread, I'll just say it once hear, if your justice system can lock someone away for the rest of their biologicly possible life it's a death sentance. You simply have a very inefficient death penalty that relies on the inmates biological proccess rather than poison gas, a lethal drug cocktail or a few dozen feet of hemp.
Do you honestly believe you can nullify death penalty arguments by simply pretending that life behind bars and a death penalty are synonymous? Why are there cases of convicts fighting death penalty sentences for years, then? Surely, according to you, they would not, because life imprisonment is the same thing!
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I love this argument....despite having an amendment specifically for it in the Bill of Rights, and says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed", the right to bear arms is not explictly mentioned, according to the WaPo...
Meanwhile, the Constitution according to the same people, gurantees a woman's right to an abortion, despite it not being explictly mentioned!
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
The WaPo editorial is as intellectually dishonest as the so-called 'conservatives' who oppose habeas corpus for US citizens held in Gitmo or who think that the Executive should have untrammeled power to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant despite the 4th amendment.
Unlike the WaPo editorial board and the Bush administration, I believe in the entire bill of rights.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I love this argument....despite having an amendment specifically for it in the Bill of Rights, and says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed", the right to bear arms is not explictly mentioned, according to the WaPo...
Meanwhile, the Constitution according to the same people, gurantees a woman's right to an abortion, despite it not being explictly mentioned!
Don't forget the right to privacy, also not specifically mentioned, but interpreted through the "right to be secure from unreasonable search and siezure..."
Now we see how the argument is going to boil down-- "You can have a gun, but it has to stay in your home. You can't walk around with it". So instead of splitting the concept between "Militia/People" we'll see a split of interpretation along "Keep/Bear".
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Coyote wrote:Now we see how the argument is going to boil down-- "You can have a gun, but it has to stay in your home. You can't walk around with it". So instead of splitting the concept between "Militia/People" we'll see a split of interpretation along "Keep/Bear".
Well, arguably, if it really is for self-defense and home defense then restricting it to home and (presumably) firing ranges/repair shops as needed would make some sense. Mind you, I don't think I agree with it (I have not deeply considered this viewpoint) but I could see such an argument being made.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Coyote wrote: Now we see how the argument is going to boil down-- "You can have a gun, but it has to stay in your home. You can't walk around with it". So instead of splitting the concept between "Militia/People" we'll see a split of interpretation along "Keep/Bear".
I don;t think so, reading the whole finding, the majority Opinion (which is all that counts) clearly stated that "bearing" arms means carrying them and that is protected under the Second Amendment.
But, this ruling will provide a whole blizzard of lawsuits to define exactly what it means. Keep lawyers in luxury for decades.
Who knows, with luck I may finally be able to register my ICBM as a personal defense weapon.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others
Nations survive by making examples of others
On this morning's Politics Program (a weekly DC-metro area radio program which frequently conducts interviews with local and federal political figures), former Virginia Lt. Gov. Don Beyer (D) brought up the point that when Virgina allowed concealed-carry permits, crime rates didn't increase because those who went through the process of applying for said permits were law-abiding citizens.
Likewise, the lifting of the DC gunban probably isn't going to increase violent crime. People who are willing to go through the registration process to legally obtain a handgun in DC are more likely than not law-abiding citizens. Criminals who wish to obtain guns won't turn to legal channels, not when there is an existing black-market which circumvents any restrictions by smuggling guns in from Md and Va.
Broomstick wrote:Well, arguably, if it really is for self-defense and home defense then restricting it to home and (presumably) firing ranges/repair shops as needed would make some sense.
The only way a restriction like that would make sense would be if the only place people ever found themselves in situations where they needed to defend themselves was in the home. The simple fact of the matter is people are sometimes required to defend themselves outside of the home.
And that is exactly why I do not agree with that stance. However, there are numerous public places where one might be attacked where even the most liberal gun laws in the US do not permit firearms. Government buildings, for example, and airports.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:And that is exactly why I do not agree with that stance. However, there are numerous public places where one might be attacked where even the most liberal gun laws in the US do not permit firearms. Government buildings, for example, and airports.
Airports... only if you're a TSA agent. Ha, ha.
Actually, I'm waiting for a renewal of the questions about liscenced carrying in school zones. Many times the rationale for school shootings (besides the promise of media notoriety) is because rampage shooters are guaranteed a fish-in-a-barrel experience because of their "gun free" status.
There had already been talk about letting teachers carry (if they had a liscence and/or were so inclined to obtain same), so I'm sure a lot of old cans of worms are going to be reopened.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I love this argument....despite having an amendment specifically for it in the Bill of Rights, and says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed", the right to bear arms is not explictly mentioned, according to the WaPo...
Meanwhile, the Constitution according to the same people, gurantees a woman's right to an abortion, despite it not being explictly mentioned!
Its not an 'argument' Shep, there is not A therefore B statement. They're simply stating that Scalia concluded the amendment does guarantee a personal right to bear arms even though the personal right to bear arms is not explicitly enumerated. In, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the "being necessary" clause is a qualification of the right. So the personal right is not explicitly stated (similarly, as you have noticed, to the unenumerated right to privacy that has been held to necessarily guarantee some basic access to abortion).
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Coyote wrote: Now we see how the argument is going to boil down-- "You can have a gun, but it has to stay in your home. You can't walk around with it". So instead of splitting the concept between "Militia/People" we'll see a split of interpretation along "Keep/Bear".
I don;t think so, reading the whole finding, the majority Opinion (which is all that counts) clearly stated that "bearing" arms means carrying them and that is protected under the Second Amendment.
But, this ruling will provide a whole blizzard of lawsuits to define exactly what it means. Keep lawyers in luxury for decades.
Who knows, with luck I may finally be able to register my ICBM as a personal defense weapon.
You'd think I would be more surprised to find out you have an ICBM... but I'm not.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Its not an 'argument' Shep, there is not A therefore B statement. They're simply stating that Scalia concluded the amendment does guarantee a personal right to bear arms even though the personal right to bear arms is not explicitly enumerated. In, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the "being necessary" clause is a qualification of the right. So the personal right is not explicitly stated (similarly, as you have noticed, to the unenumerated right to privacy that has been held to necessarily guarantee some basic access to abortion).
But such an interpretation sets a dangerous precedent when comparing it to the other rights-- the "People" who are addressed in the 2nd Amendment are the same "People" being addressed by the right to free speech, assemble peaceably, to be free of self-incrimination, to be free of unreasomable search... it would not go over well to try to restrict those rights as well under strained concepts of "neccessity"-- which is precisely why some of these being undermined by Bushco. are raising such ire.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Thought of the moment, re: both the DC mayor and Chicago mayor's responses... my response to them would be, "Well, why then are your cities so damn violent as is?" If it's the department not being able to beat violators thereof, "Then why the heck are you losing the fight?"
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. " - bcoogler on this
"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet
Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists." SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
Mr Bean wrote:See my new thread, I'll just say it once hear, if your justice system can lock someone away for the rest of their biologicly possible life it's a death sentance. You simply have a very inefficient death penalty that relies on the inmates biological proccess rather than poison gas, a lethal drug cocktail or a few dozen feet of hemp.
Do you honestly believe you can nullify death penalty arguments by simply pretending that life behind bars and a death penalty are synonymous? Why are there cases of convicts fighting death penalty sentences for years, then? Surely, according to you, they would not, because life imprisonment is the same thing!
If by some lapse of reason we did accept that they are interchangeable in their effectiveness for the guilty (as either punitive or preventive or whatnot), then it seems to follow directly that the death penalty should be abolished in favor of life imprisonment. After all, we can at least partially correct a wrongful life imprisonment, so under this assumption it follows that the death penalty as a policy would never be superior to life imprisonment, but sometimes much worse.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
" - 