Export thread
Death Penalty
#1
David
David
I'm curious on what everyone's stance on capital punishment is. Good? Bad? A medieval practice that should be abolished? A necessary evil? A just punishment for some types of crimes?
My opinion: No human being or human-created system can be trusted with the authority over another person's life. Even in the case of murderers, they can be locked away from the rest of civilization. I don't have a link to back this up and could be wrong, but I once read somewhere it was actually cheaper to keep somebody locked up for life than the court costs of the mandatory appeals and retrials when a death sentence is issued.
Discuss.
My opinion: No human being or human-created system can be trusted with the authority over another person's life. Even in the case of murderers, they can be locked away from the rest of civilization. I don't have a link to back this up and could be wrong, but I once read somewhere it was actually cheaper to keep somebody locked up for life than the court costs of the mandatory appeals and retrials when a death sentence is issued.
Discuss.
#2
Troll
Troll
The death sentence is fallible. It is also permanent, meaning we can't undo it if we find that the wrong person was convicted. If even a few people are wrongfully convicted, that's too many to allow. And it's cheaper to keep them locked up for life. And there have been studies suggesting that the death penalty is disproportionately used on persons of color, showing one of the greatest flaws in the system. It's not fair.
That pretty much sums up why I'm opposed to it.
That pretty much sums up why I'm opposed to it.
#3
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
No, it's really not. It costs thousands of dollars a year to keep a prisoner fed, clothed, housed, and given necessary medical access. It's one of the biggest problems with our prison system in the US, as we have more prisoners than some countries combined, and yet we keep finding new ways (like the War on Drugs) to feed the system. As it is, we're letting out thousands of violent prisoners every year because we can no longer afford to contain them due to state budget cuts.And it's cheaper to keep them locked up for life.
#4
Troll
It's still cheaper to house them for life because of the automatic appeals process. The cost of legal fees and processing all come out of taxpayer funds, and it quickly costs more than food/clothing/etc for prisoners. Also, while I do favor life sentences over the death penalty, I would like to see some of the comfort taken out of prison (at least for prisoners locked up for life).
Troll
No, it's really not. It costs thousands of dollars a year to keep a prisoner fed, clothed, housed, and given necessary medical access. It's one of the biggest problems with our prison system in the US, as we have more prisoners than some countries combined, and yet we keep finding new ways (like the War on Drugs) to feed the system. As it is, we're letting out thousands of violent prisoners every year because we can no longer afford to contain them due to state budget cuts.[/QUOTE]And it's cheaper to keep them locked up for life.
It's still cheaper to house them for life because of the automatic appeals process. The cost of legal fees and processing all come out of taxpayer funds, and it quickly costs more than food/clothing/etc for prisoners. Also, while I do favor life sentences over the death penalty, I would like to see some of the comfort taken out of prison (at least for prisoners locked up for life).
#5
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
I support the death penalty for 2 reasons.
First being that no matter what people say there are people who shouldn't be breathing the same air as us and some who should never ever get the possibility of release.
Second is that it encourages plea deals which in the current system means that less than half of all murder cases actually go to trial. If the maximum penalty is life without parole I'm pretty sure more criminals will run the risks and go to trial where there is always the possibility of anybody being found guilty by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
First being that no matter what people say there are people who shouldn't be breathing the same air as us and some who should never ever get the possibility of release.
Second is that it encourages plea deals which in the current system means that less than half of all murder cases actually go to trial. If the maximum penalty is life without parole I'm pretty sure more criminals will run the risks and go to trial where there is always the possibility of anybody being found guilty by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
#6
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
Also:
That is some pretty elite company we're in.
Do you not understand the concept of "life without parole"?some who should never ever get the possibility of release.
Also:
That is some pretty elite company we're in.
#7
Rob King
Rob King
Canada does not have the death penalty, but if there were ever a proposal to introduce it (re-introduce? I don't know), I would be a supporter.
I do not subscribe to the belief that every life, big and small, is sacred on a level that should stay one's hand. I stomp on spiders because I don't like them, I eat cows because I occasionally find myself hungry, and I accept the death of human beings as inevitable steps along the path that history takes. Admittedly I am concerned about wrongful convictions and all that jazz, but I trust the legal system and forensic science to improve as time goes on.
I'm sure none of us are under the illusion that the prison systems in our countries are actually about rehabilitation. At best, they are a discard pile for the human race: the place we send people who for some reason find themselves unable or unwilling to subject themselves to the same Social Contract that the rest of us count on to keep us safe and prosperous. This isn't to say that some won't learn to re-integrate. But for the most grievous crimes, death seems to me like an acceptable punishment/discard method.
I do not subscribe to the belief that every life, big and small, is sacred on a level that should stay one's hand. I stomp on spiders because I don't like them, I eat cows because I occasionally find myself hungry, and I accept the death of human beings as inevitable steps along the path that history takes. Admittedly I am concerned about wrongful convictions and all that jazz, but I trust the legal system and forensic science to improve as time goes on.
I'm sure none of us are under the illusion that the prison systems in our countries are actually about rehabilitation. At best, they are a discard pile for the human race: the place we send people who for some reason find themselves unable or unwilling to subject themselves to the same Social Contract that the rest of us count on to keep us safe and prosperous. This isn't to say that some won't learn to re-integrate. But for the most grievous crimes, death seems to me like an acceptable punishment/discard method.
#8
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
The moment they can prove all executions infallible of wrong judgement is the moment I will be for them.
Until then, I am against it.
Until then, I am against it.
#9
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Also, for the record, I'm not for the death penalty even if it's infallible through magic, and the convict threw 1,000 babies off a cliff and raped 2,000 children.
#10
Denbrought
Denbrought
I'd only understand the death penalty if it came along with an abolishment of democracy in the country. As I see it, the people's government and instituted human death just aren't compatible.
Edit: I fail at english verb choice today
Edit: I fail at english verb choice today
#11
Jay
Jay
I'll support death penalties only if the proof is infallible for heinous crimes. I don't believe in allowed pieces of shit to live in jails for their whole life on my government's dime. Just get rid of them.
#12
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
That's nice, literally putting a dollar amount on a human's life. Lovely.
#13
Jay
Jay
Yep, their value = 0$
The killed their entire value when they commit heinous crimes. Why should I pay to have them fed? Have them have a roof over their head? Pay to have someone guard them instead of being eaten by fellow savages? I'm not talking about people who tried to steal something from the store here. I'm talking about fucks such as those who have committed pre-meditated murder. Why should they have a chance to get all of this while there are the homeless who beg for spare change and live under bridges with every day being a challenge for them?
Fuck them I say. Just kill them. Useless rabble. It's very Lovely feeling.
The killed their entire value when they commit heinous crimes. Why should I pay to have them fed? Have them have a roof over their head? Pay to have someone guard them instead of being eaten by fellow savages? I'm not talking about people who tried to steal something from the store here. I'm talking about fucks such as those who have committed pre-meditated murder. Why should they have a chance to get all of this while there are the homeless who beg for spare change and live under bridges with every day being a challenge for them?
Fuck them I say. Just kill them. Useless rabble. It's very Lovely feeling.
#14
Iaculus
Economics is fun, isn't it?
Iaculus
Technically, you sort of have to if you're in government. You have limited resources with which you have to ensure the maximum general quality of life, after all. For instance, would it be worth cutting safety regulations (potentially putting X amount of lives at risk) in order to beef up health-care (potentially saving Y amount of lives)?That's nice, literally putting a dollar amount on a human's life. Lovely.
Economics is fun, isn't it?
#15
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'm in the "only if it's infallible, otherwise no" crowd. I accept the argument that people exist who must be permanently removed for the sake of everyone else should it be necessary and just, but I have no faith in any current human institution that it could be done exclusively when it is necessary and just.
#16
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I'm against the death penalty, and my reasons have already been stated more eloquently than I likely would have managed.
I'm also against the way the american prison system is set up. It's little more than a warehouse to store people so that they don't have to be dealt with by other means. I really don't think prison works as a deterrent, and would like to see more rehabilitation systems and less extended prison sentences for nonviolent crimes (that means you, war on drugs).
I'm also against the way the american prison system is set up. It's little more than a warehouse to store people so that they don't have to be dealt with by other means. I really don't think prison works as a deterrent, and would like to see more rehabilitation systems and less extended prison sentences for nonviolent crimes (that means you, war on drugs).
#17
crono1224
crono1224
Good luck in the infallible situations. The ironic thing is people want to speed up the appeals process/reduce number of them, to make it more cost effective to kill people. But on the other side of the coin this could only increase the number of wrongfully convicted people (even if it is by a very small percent).
Also I love the pushing of rehabilitation or fixing whats wrong with people. Regardless of whether or not some maybe able to be 'fixed' or 'rehabilitated' why have we given up on a certain sect of humanity?
Also I love the pushing of rehabilitation or fixing whats wrong with people. Regardless of whether or not some maybe able to be 'fixed' or 'rehabilitated' why have we given up on a certain sect of humanity?
#18
Troll
Troll
I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate punishment for a person found guilty of a heinous crime like premeditated murder. If prison is cruel and unusual and the death penalty is out of the question (a point on which we agree), what's the alternative?I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
#19
crono1224
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.
crono1224
I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate punishment for a person found guilty of a heinous crime like premeditated murder. If prison is cruel and unusual and the death penalty is out of the question (a point on which we agree), what's the alternative?[/QUOTE]I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.
#20
Troll
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.
Troll
I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate punishment for a person found guilty of a heinous crime like premeditated murder. If prison is cruel and unusual and the death penalty is out of the question (a point on which we agree), what's the alternative?[/QUOTE]I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.
#21
Espy
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.[/QUOTE]
Premium cable tv, cuz peeps need their HBO.
Espy
I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate punishment for a person found guilty of a heinous crime like premeditated murder. If prison is cruel and unusual and the death penalty is out of the question (a point on which we agree), what's the alternative?[/QUOTE]I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.[/QUOTE]
Premium cable tv, cuz peeps need their HBO.
#22
crono1224
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of problems that exist simply when you put dangerous people behind bars. Rape for instance is pretty prevalent in prison and would be considered cruel punishment. As well as all the assaults that happen. You could isolate everyone but then thats cruel because they don't have social interactions. But who knows what he means, just my perspective.
Also I know a lot of people are against tv and 'entertainment' in prison, but I think it is actually a good thing it allows the guards to have a little more control over the inmates by giving them more privileges if they act well.
crono1224
I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate punishment for a person found guilty of a heinous crime like premeditated murder. If prison is cruel and unusual and the death penalty is out of the question (a point on which we agree), what's the alternative?[/QUOTE]I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong and racist, to boot.
I think he was saying our prison system is cruel and unusual, not that prison in general. Though I am only inferring that because he used the word 'our'.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm just curious to hear what changes he would like to see. I'm of the opinion that prison should not be comfortable (within reason) as a punishment for the crime that was committed. I say rehab for lesser crimes, but serious crimes should merit a hard life in prison.[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of problems that exist simply when you put dangerous people behind bars. Rape for instance is pretty prevalent in prison and would be considered cruel punishment. As well as all the assaults that happen. You could isolate everyone but then thats cruel because they don't have social interactions. But who knows what he means, just my perspective.
Also I know a lot of people are against tv and 'entertainment' in prison, but I think it is actually a good thing it allows the guards to have a little more control over the inmates by giving them more privileges if they act well.
#23
Espy
Espy
I understand your point about the dangers of a locked up prison populace, I think you really hit the nail on the head but what is your solution or alternative?
#24
crono1224
But honestly I couldn't give too many ways to avoid this other than really cutting down on both recidivism and people getting in trouble in the first place.
crono1224
Sadly I don't have a lot, the best things I can see are rewards and good punishments, such as outdoor/exercise time, TV time, and other things can help reduce the overt acts of violence. But for other things I would say cut down on recidivism by providing education and/or job training for the outside world. For rape/assault there needs to be better reporting systems and to ensure that the victim doesn't face more punishment as a result of reporting this stuff.I understand your point about the dangers of a locked up prison populace, I think you really hit the nail on the head but what is your solution or alternative?
But honestly I couldn't give too many ways to avoid this other than really cutting down on both recidivism and people getting in trouble in the first place.
#25
Rob King
Rob King
I'm not sure I understand your question. The only thing I can guess is that you're asking "Why would one expect mass murderers to re-integrate to society? Everyone is special in their own way." but that's far to bizarre, so I can only assume I'm confused.Also I love the pushing of rehabilitation or fixing whats wrong with people. Regardless of whether or not some maybe able to be 'fixed' or 'rehabilitated' why have we given up on a certain sect of humanity?
#26
crono1224
I meant why do we throw away the key on most of prison people in general, once you are a convicted felon you have a dark cloud over you as well most of our prisons are to warehouse these people, rather than attempt to help them. Either through education, proper psychological help, or other options that can let the ones that will get parole, have a chance after they get out. What good is it releasing a criminal who has been out of touch with general society and education for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. They are only going to fall back into a life of crime.
crono1224
I'm not sure I understand your question. The only thing I can guess is that you're asking "Why would one expect mass murderers to re-integrate to society? Everyone is special in their own way." but that's far to bizarre, so I can only assume I'm confused.[/QUOTE]Also I love the pushing of rehabilitation or fixing whats wrong with people. Regardless of whether or not some maybe able to be 'fixed' or 'rehabilitated' why have we given up on a certain sect of humanity?
I meant why do we throw away the key on most of prison people in general, once you are a convicted felon you have a dark cloud over you as well most of our prisons are to warehouse these people, rather than attempt to help them. Either through education, proper psychological help, or other options that can let the ones that will get parole, have a chance after they get out. What good is it releasing a criminal who has been out of touch with general society and education for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. They are only going to fall back into a life of crime.
#27
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
Dammit, lost my other post...
I am, have been, and probably always will be in favor of the death penalty.
I've been more educated about it since I started my current career, and even through discussions on this board, so it's not like I still adhere to it blindly. I honestly and truly believe that there is a class of people who, through their actions and crimes, have forfeited their right to life. Just like there's criminals that I deal with daily who have decided through their actions that they don't deserve the same civil liberties that the rest of us take for granted (i.e. they are in need of arrest), there are ones whose crimes go beyond merely surrendering their civil liberties, and surrender their right to live in this society, or any other.
I will stipulate that this is not a decision to be reached rapidly, nor is it one to be reached lightly. However, I will also stipulate that the appeals process needs to be streamlined drastically. When a man can be caught with damning evidence and testimony against him for killing a cop, and he's still evaded his sentence 20 years later, I have a fundamental issue with that that transcends the merely visceral.
The entire system needs a revamp, but I still agree with the death penalty as an acceptable result for someone's conscious decisions to circumvent societal law.
I am, have been, and probably always will be in favor of the death penalty.
I've been more educated about it since I started my current career, and even through discussions on this board, so it's not like I still adhere to it blindly. I honestly and truly believe that there is a class of people who, through their actions and crimes, have forfeited their right to life. Just like there's criminals that I deal with daily who have decided through their actions that they don't deserve the same civil liberties that the rest of us take for granted (i.e. they are in need of arrest), there are ones whose crimes go beyond merely surrendering their civil liberties, and surrender their right to live in this society, or any other.
I will stipulate that this is not a decision to be reached rapidly, nor is it one to be reached lightly. However, I will also stipulate that the appeals process needs to be streamlined drastically. When a man can be caught with damning evidence and testimony against him for killing a cop, and he's still evaded his sentence 20 years later, I have a fundamental issue with that that transcends the merely visceral.
The entire system needs a revamp, but I still agree with the death penalty as an acceptable result for someone's conscious decisions to circumvent societal law.
#28
Chazwozel
I do believe you sign away your humanity the day you decide to commit a heinous crime or crimes.
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------
Chazwozel
That's nice, literally putting a dollar amount on a human's life. Lovely.
I do believe you sign away your humanity the day you decide to commit a heinous crime or crimes.
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------
I'm not. TV and entertainment is the best and cheapest way to keep inmates quite and out of trouble. We should implement a World of Warcraft Prison edition. Keep them in a prison, for their minds...Also I know a lot of people are against tv and 'entertainment' in prison, but I think it is actually a good thing it allows the guards to have a little more control over the inmates by giving them more privileges if they act well.
#29
Rob King
I agree that a de-stigmatization of ex-convicts would be a good thing. But the fact is that history sometimes helps to predict future, and people know that. In a lot of ways there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. The stigma that stems from our past actions are not a consequence of law: it's a consequence of being a human being (a social creature).
And it doesn't only happen to felons. I was in a bad relationship years ago, and was an absolute jerk to the girl I was dating. I can honestly and truly tell you that I've grown up since then, but any time I spend time with my ex's friends it's clear that they still think I'm the biggest kind of asshole.
Of course, I am (as I have stated already) a supporter of the death penalty, so take all that with a grain of salt. I do believe that there are people out there who are lost causes, and locking them away is the best thing for the rest of us. For the more horrid crimes the death penalty should be an option, even if the one convicted shows the ability to change, for reasons of consistency.
As an alternative to the death penalty, I would support a penal colony in the middle of the ocean where we could dump our mass murderers and the like. But it would have to be inescapable, and despite the fact that it would rid society of it's worst enemies and give the convicts a fresh chance at life (admittedly in a much more hostiles social environment), it would still be decried as cruel by some.
Rob King
Ok, that makes a lot more sense than what I thought I was reading.I meant why do we throw away the key on most of prison people in general, once you are a convicted felon you have a dark cloud over you as well most of our prisons are to warehouse these people, rather than attempt to help them. Either through education, proper psychological help, or other options that can let the ones that will get parole, have a chance after they get out. What good is it releasing a criminal who has been out of touch with general society and education for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. They are only going to fall back into a life of crime.
I agree that a de-stigmatization of ex-convicts would be a good thing. But the fact is that history sometimes helps to predict future, and people know that. In a lot of ways there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. The stigma that stems from our past actions are not a consequence of law: it's a consequence of being a human being (a social creature).
And it doesn't only happen to felons. I was in a bad relationship years ago, and was an absolute jerk to the girl I was dating. I can honestly and truly tell you that I've grown up since then, but any time I spend time with my ex's friends it's clear that they still think I'm the biggest kind of asshole.
Of course, I am (as I have stated already) a supporter of the death penalty, so take all that with a grain of salt. I do believe that there are people out there who are lost causes, and locking them away is the best thing for the rest of us. For the more horrid crimes the death penalty should be an option, even if the one convicted shows the ability to change, for reasons of consistency.
As an alternative to the death penalty, I would support a penal colony in the middle of the ocean where we could dump our mass murderers and the like. But it would have to be inescapable, and despite the fact that it would rid society of it's worst enemies and give the convicts a fresh chance at life (admittedly in a much more hostiles social environment), it would still be decried as cruel by some.
#30
Espy
BRILLIANT.
Espy
I'm not. TV and entertainment is the best and cheapest way to keep inmates quite and out of trouble. We should implement a World of Warcraft Prison edition. Keep them in a prison, for their minds...[/QUOTE]Also I know a lot of people are against tv and 'entertainment' in prison, but I think it is actually a good thing it allows the guards to have a little more control over the inmates by giving them more privileges if they act well.
BRILLIANT.
#31
Philosopher B.
I do believe you sign away your humanity the day you decide to commit a heinous crime or crimes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It's like ... somebody rapes a kid. They might as well be an animal.
Philosopher B.
That's nice, literally putting a dollar amount on a human's life. Lovely.
I do believe you sign away your humanity the day you decide to commit a heinous crime or crimes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It's like ... somebody rapes a kid. They might as well be an animal.
#32
Troll
Troll
I consider this to be the cost of making sure that innocent people are not executed for crimes they did not commit. Granted, that will only be the case a fraction of the time (ideally), but it still needs to be done.However, I will also stipulate that the appeals process needs to be streamlined drastically. When a man can be caught with damning evidence and testimony against him for killing a cop, and he's still evaded his sentence 20 years later, I have a fundamental issue with that that transcends the merely visceral.
#33
phil
phil
I don't really like the idea of it, but I suppose it might be a necessary evil. I mean suppose you have someone who is responsible for horrible crimes. Will killing him bring back those who's lives he took? Will it heal any wounds? Of course not. Will sticking him in a cage where he can barely stand and feeding him only enough to keep him alive for the rest of his life? Still, no. There really is just no right answer. If you kill him, you're done with it and I suppose after a while that might sound more enticing than spending all your time in a cell.
I mean, what would we do with Hitler? Is killing him TOO good? Maybe, but if we torture him or keep him and a cage (literally a cage) that seems like sinking to his level. Do we really want that either? So let's put him to work, perhaps. Make him work in a coal mine for the rest of his life. But forced labor seems too risky to me. Who's to say he won't purposefully sabotage something to take other prisoners with him? Or try to escape or use the tools against the guards? I mean you'd have to have a guard or someone down there with them, and that's putting a guard's life needlessly at risk.
So honestly there just isn't any good option. Really they all seem similar to me. It's a shame really.
I mean, what would we do with Hitler? Is killing him TOO good? Maybe, but if we torture him or keep him and a cage (literally a cage) that seems like sinking to his level. Do we really want that either? So let's put him to work, perhaps. Make him work in a coal mine for the rest of his life. But forced labor seems too risky to me. Who's to say he won't purposefully sabotage something to take other prisoners with him? Or try to escape or use the tools against the guards? I mean you'd have to have a guard or someone down there with them, and that's putting a guard's life needlessly at risk.
So honestly there just isn't any good option. Really they all seem similar to me. It's a shame really.
#34
Necronic
Necronic
I believe that some people, and some crimes, do not deserve release and probably deserve death. But not at our hands. Plus it's too expensive, and it doesn't accomplish much. Not nearly as much as studying them. Most crimes that would carry the death penalty would require some severe mental illnesses. I think those people are a resource. Let's study them, do neurological assessments on them that would otherwise be considered dangerous to do on others. Let's poke them, prod them, find out how they tick. If there is nothing all that interesting, use them for clinical drug trials.
They'll never leave of course. But they are a resource.
---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------
Mumia Abu-Jamal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They'll never leave of course. But they are a resource.
---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------
Like Mumia?I will stipulate that this is not a decision to be reached rapidly, nor is it one to be reached lightly. However, I will also stipulate that the appeals process needs to be streamlined drastically. When a man can be caught with damning evidence and testimony against him for killing a cop, and he's still evaded his sentence 20 years later, I have a fundamental issue with that that transcends the merely visceral.
Mumia Abu-Jamal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
#35
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I am not super-researched into how our prison system works and viable alternatives. But I believe it's broken. People on hitler level, or serial rapists should be removed from society and removed from being able to hurt anyone else. I don't think it's our place to torture and/or kill them, no matter what they did. I think there is some middle ground between a resort hotel and systemic beatings and rape and a slow, agonizing death to anyone with a medical condition.
And I just don't buy that someone loses their humanity through any action. That's way too easy to just say "oh, that person's not even human, so we can write them off completely". That's bullshit. They're made up of the same stuff as you and me. They were born from a mother and father, they probably went to the same schools you did at one point. They are human. And more of them will keep doing "inhuman" acts if we don't find a way to fix whatever made them that way. I'm not saying some sort of gene therapy or running medical experiments on prisoners at all. But we just need to fix the huge failures of society that can drive people to become heinous criminals. If it is all genetic (I doubt this), then we can try to help them before they go down that road.
And I just don't buy that someone loses their humanity through any action. That's way too easy to just say "oh, that person's not even human, so we can write them off completely". That's bullshit. They're made up of the same stuff as you and me. They were born from a mother and father, they probably went to the same schools you did at one point. They are human. And more of them will keep doing "inhuman" acts if we don't find a way to fix whatever made them that way. I'm not saying some sort of gene therapy or running medical experiments on prisoners at all. But we just need to fix the huge failures of society that can drive people to become heinous criminals. If it is all genetic (I doubt this), then we can try to help them before they go down that road.
#36
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Death penalty cases cost more. A simple Google search will easily prove that to anyone who doubts.
But as Boner says, can we really put a price on human life? Consider this:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Seven recent studies have concluded that that the death penalty definitely acts as a deterrent against future crime. (see The Death Penalty IS a Deterrent! ) Here is one example:
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
and (cited on the same website):
Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions."
So, while whether or not you put a heinous murderer away for life or give him the death penalty may have no effect on the future murders he may commit, the punishment has a definite effect on the heinous murders others may commit. Therefore, each death penalty execution saves lives.
Morally, and economically, the price of the death penalty is high, no doubt. But what each person has to ask themselves is, is the price worth it? If it means that more innocent people are saved at the cost of the life of one piece of shit murderer, then yes, I personally believe it is worth it. What if one of those innocent lives saved goes on to become the next Hawking, or JFK, or Nelson Mandela? Even if they live a rather ordinary life and even if the deterrent effect saved only half as many future innocents as projected, are those 5-10 lives worth less than the life of the murderer one would seek to spare? I don't think so. Because that's what we're weighing: The cost of one life on death row versus several lives saved due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
It's a simple fact, borne out by the evidence: When there is a moratorium on the death penalty, murders increase. How can you honestly know that and then say that you will be willing to do away with the death penalty, knowing that somewhere, in the future, some child will likely be brutally raped and murdered because of that decision? A child that would have gone on to live a happy life, but for your unwillingness to take a hard stance on these kinds of crimes?
But as Boner says, can we really put a price on human life? Consider this:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Seven recent studies have concluded that that the death penalty definitely acts as a deterrent against future crime. (see The Death Penalty IS a Deterrent! ) Here is one example:
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
and (cited on the same website):
Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions."
So, while whether or not you put a heinous murderer away for life or give him the death penalty may have no effect on the future murders he may commit, the punishment has a definite effect on the heinous murders others may commit. Therefore, each death penalty execution saves lives.
Morally, and economically, the price of the death penalty is high, no doubt. But what each person has to ask themselves is, is the price worth it? If it means that more innocent people are saved at the cost of the life of one piece of shit murderer, then yes, I personally believe it is worth it. What if one of those innocent lives saved goes on to become the next Hawking, or JFK, or Nelson Mandela? Even if they live a rather ordinary life and even if the deterrent effect saved only half as many future innocents as projected, are those 5-10 lives worth less than the life of the murderer one would seek to spare? I don't think so. Because that's what we're weighing: The cost of one life on death row versus several lives saved due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
It's a simple fact, borne out by the evidence: When there is a moratorium on the death penalty, murders increase. How can you honestly know that and then say that you will be willing to do away with the death penalty, knowing that somewhere, in the future, some child will likely be brutally raped and murdered because of that decision? A child that would have gone on to live a happy life, but for your unwillingness to take a hard stance on these kinds of crimes?
#37
Dave
Dave
The sky in Charlie's world is azure.
Some people are just plain evil and need to be exterminated. Do I think we do the death penalty well? No. But in the instances where it's obvious, proven and admitted that the bad guy is the actual perpetrator of the crime - murder and above only - I'm all for eradication.
Some people are just plain evil and need to be exterminated. Do I think we do the death penalty well? No. But in the instances where it's obvious, proven and admitted that the bad guy is the actual perpetrator of the crime - murder and above only - I'm all for eradication.
#38
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
#39
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Yeah, every credible study/source I've read says that the Death Penalty utterly fails as a deterrent.
#40
Tinwhistler
Some of the other studies in the article are useless, for instance taking the one about how Southern states have highest murder rates and highest death penalty rates. The editorial slant of the article might lead one to believe that the death penalty rates cause the murder rates, but that would be a fallacy without supporting evidence. It could be that there are higher death penalty rates simply because there are higher murder rates.
So, if even if we're back to square one, that there may or may not be a deterrence effect, and we just don't have the scienc to know for sure yet, I still have to side with my man McAdams, previously quoted:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Tinwhistler
Got it...the same huffpost article you mention says:
Which makes sense to me. One blanket solution is not appropriate for all areas. Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one. So, it seems to make sense that those states that can benefit from the death penalty should retain it.Other studies also refute the deterrence theory. For example, researchers Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitte and Ellen Shustorovich analyzed state data between 1950 and 1990 and did not find a correlation between the death penalty and crime rates. Moreover, one of the Emory researchers, Joanna Shepherd, published a state study of her own and found that while the death penalty deterred murder in six states, it actually increased murder in 13 states, and had no effect on the murder rate in eight states.
Some of the other studies in the article are useless, for instance taking the one about how Southern states have highest murder rates and highest death penalty rates. The editorial slant of the article might lead one to believe that the death penalty rates cause the murder rates, but that would be a fallacy without supporting evidence. It could be that there are higher death penalty rates simply because there are higher murder rates.
So, if even if we're back to square one, that there may or may not be a deterrence effect, and we just don't have the scienc to know for sure yet, I still have to side with my man McAdams, previously quoted:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
#41
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.Do you not understand the concept of "life without parole"?some who should never ever get the possibility of release.
#42
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I do agree with you on that, at least. I don't think a federal law, in either direction, is particularly appropriate unless it specifically pertains to federal offenders. In which case, I suspect the sample size is a bit too small to make any credible statement on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent against federal capital crimes.Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one.
#43
Tinwhistler
[/QUOTE]
A little digging, interestingly enough, shows that the paper you quoted, critiquing the paper I quoted, has itself been critiqued.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/Reflections_on_a_Critique.pdf
Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty -- Zimmerman 11 (2): 370 -- American Law and Economics Review
Tinwhistler
I do agree with you on that, at least. I don't think a federal law, in either direction, is particularly appropriate unless it specifically pertains to federal offenders. In which case, I suspect the sample size is a bit too small to make any credible statement on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent against federal capital crimes.Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one.
[/QUOTE]
A little digging, interestingly enough, shows that the paper you quoted, critiquing the paper I quoted, has itself been critiqued.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/Reflections_on_a_Critique.pdf
also:Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.
Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty -- Zimmerman 11 (2): 370 -- American Law and Economics Review
In a recent paper Donohue and Wolfers (D&W) critique a number of modern econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment. This paper focuses on D&W's central criticism of a study by Zimmerman; specifically, that the estimated standard errors on the subset of his regressions that suggest a deterrent effect are downward biased due to autocorrelation. The method that D&W rely upon to adjust Zimmerman's standard errors is, however, potentially problematic, and is also only one of several methods to address the presence of autocorrelation. To this end, Zimmerman's original models are subjected to several parametric corrections for autocorrelation, all of which result in statistically significant estimates that are of the same magnitude to his original estimates. The paper also presents results obtained from an alternative model whose specification is motivated on theoretical and statistical grounds. These latter results also provide some evidence supporting a deterrent effect. Finally, the paper discusses D&W's use of randomization testing and their contention that executions are not carried out often enough to plausibly deter murders.
#44
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Death Row is not the only way to keep a dangerous convict away from other people.You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.
#45
Dave
But it is the most foolproof way.
Dave
Death Row is not the only way to keep a dangerous convict away from other people.[/QUOTE]You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.
But it is the most foolproof way.
#46
Jay
Jay
Once again, I’ll reiterate the genre of people who are targeted by the death penalty. Those putrid scumbags whom have been convicted with infallible proof of extreme crimes… such as pre-meditated murderer, serial murders, inhumane actions… etc. These are the targets of the death penalty.
Sometimes people can really be daft marshmallows for the sake of pure ignorance in their own personal agenda that they completely and utterly forget what the justice system is there for. So willing are they to defend these “people” of their rights they completely and utterly forget the most important thing in all of the justice system…. the victims. What about Anna Foti? Where were you oh dear defenders of the anti-death penalty when this 16 year old was kidnapped after work in a shopping mall parking lot then repeated raped and beaten over the course of days in a cabin in the woods then brutally strangled and buried behind the wood shed? What about her rights? What justice is there for such a man to plea-bargain 15 years of jail for insanity? Where he’ll comfortably be provided all the food to sustain himself. A warm bed to sleep in every night. Even be provided an hour or two of leisure time every day for “good behavior”. Bums who have done society no harm try to survive harsh Canadian winters by sleeping under bridges or shelter homes where food is hard to come by.
And for those of you who think that death sentences are expensive. Once again, we try to give them peaceful deaths with injections that send them to sleep. They don’t have to be, there’s perfectly acceptable ways to kill them for little to no costs. Get a shovel and a pile of rocks, it works well for Iran. Some rope, a chair and a butter knife. A Freezer. Go to Walmart and buy a case of bullets for 39.95$.... or just buy bulk.
Sometimes people can really be daft marshmallows for the sake of pure ignorance in their own personal agenda that they completely and utterly forget what the justice system is there for. So willing are they to defend these “people” of their rights they completely and utterly forget the most important thing in all of the justice system…. the victims. What about Anna Foti? Where were you oh dear defenders of the anti-death penalty when this 16 year old was kidnapped after work in a shopping mall parking lot then repeated raped and beaten over the course of days in a cabin in the woods then brutally strangled and buried behind the wood shed? What about her rights? What justice is there for such a man to plea-bargain 15 years of jail for insanity? Where he’ll comfortably be provided all the food to sustain himself. A warm bed to sleep in every night. Even be provided an hour or two of leisure time every day for “good behavior”. Bums who have done society no harm try to survive harsh Canadian winters by sleeping under bridges or shelter homes where food is hard to come by.
And for those of you who think that death sentences are expensive. Once again, we try to give them peaceful deaths with injections that send them to sleep. They don’t have to be, there’s perfectly acceptable ways to kill them for little to no costs. Get a shovel and a pile of rocks, it works well for Iran. Some rope, a chair and a butter knife. A Freezer. Go to Walmart and buy a case of bullets for 39.95$.... or just buy bulk.
#47
Espy
Espy
I don't think you understand what some are saying here, no one is saying (well, not most anway) that one "loses" their humanity (technically impossible) or is "less human", it's that by taking the life of another they choose to GIVE UP their rights as a part of society. No matter what consequence you decide is appropriate (life in prison? Death?) they are losing their rights as a human. They will no longer have freedom, nor should they, even you seem to be agreeing on that.And I just don't buy that someone loses their humanity through any action. That's way too easy to just say "oh, that person's not even human, so we can write them off completely". That's bullshit.
#48
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
The cost of the death penalty is not in the execution method. It only costs about $87.00 for Texas to put someone to death.
It's mostly in the extra pre-trial preparation and initial trial that most of the money is spent.
It's mostly in the extra pre-trial preparation and initial trial that most of the money is spent.
#49
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'm late to the party. I support the death penalty, and think it should be applicable to more crimes than it is. If you want to see the value of human life, tour the darker streets of Calcutta for a while. To put intrinsic value on human life is folly - every life may start with potential, but not every life actualizes that into worth.
#50
Jay
Jay
Oh ok. That's perfectly fine in my opinion. It's every person's right is to be defended regardless of charge.
#51
Dave
BAM!!
Dave
True. Some become Republicans instead.I'm late to the party. I support the death penalty, and think it should be applicable to more crimes than it is. If you want to see the value of human life, tour the darker streets of Calcutta for a while. To put intrinsic value on human life is folly - every life may start with potential, but not every life actualizes that into worth.
BAM!!
#52
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
#53
Espy
Espy
Probably the same thing putting them in a hole for the rest of their life does.What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
#54
Dave
With the added bonus that the guilty party will never get out, never write the family letters, never have the chance to escape, etc.
Some of these victims are afraid and scarred for the rest of their lives from these monsters. They are the Human equivalent of rabid dogs. They should be treated the same way.
Dave
Probably the same thing putting them in a hole for the rest of their life does.[/QUOTE]What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
With the added bonus that the guilty party will never get out, never write the family letters, never have the chance to escape, etc.
Some of these victims are afraid and scarred for the rest of their lives from these monsters. They are the Human equivalent of rabid dogs. They should be treated the same way.
#55
Chazwozel
I'm just wondering how locking up the murderer and throwing away the key is any different? Being sequestered away in some hole isn't exactly a life worth living either. There's a reason why some convicts go on suicide watch. The victims don't get their lives back either way.
I gotta dig up some stuff on pedophiles and child molesters. They seem to be insanely good at being repeat offenders, no matter how tightly they're controlled. Defend their civil rights all you want, Charlie, some people don't want to or can't play by society's rules, and nothing you do for them is going to change that.
This argument is akin to people trying to help crackhead bums. Nothing you do for them is going to help them. They don't want to help themselves. Why do you think that people can change and be different? You attempt the sympathetic approach to you're stance, stating that everyone is somebody's baby. I've encountered bums in Philly and said the same thing to myself. This person was once somebody's baby; an innocent arrival into the world. You have to realize that once a person grows into an adult their actions define who they are, not the mere fact that they share the same species designation as yourself.
The people that murderers and rapists destroy were somebody's baby too. It's not a matter or right and wrong; whether the state killing someone is wicked in the same fashion as the murderers crime. It's a matter of justice. A 30+ serial killer needs to be met with justice, not compassion.
Chazwozel
What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
I'm just wondering how locking up the murderer and throwing away the key is any different? Being sequestered away in some hole isn't exactly a life worth living either. There's a reason why some convicts go on suicide watch. The victims don't get their lives back either way.
I gotta dig up some stuff on pedophiles and child molesters. They seem to be insanely good at being repeat offenders, no matter how tightly they're controlled. Defend their civil rights all you want, Charlie, some people don't want to or can't play by society's rules, and nothing you do for them is going to change that.
This argument is akin to people trying to help crackhead bums. Nothing you do for them is going to help them. They don't want to help themselves. Why do you think that people can change and be different? You attempt the sympathetic approach to you're stance, stating that everyone is somebody's baby. I've encountered bums in Philly and said the same thing to myself. This person was once somebody's baby; an innocent arrival into the world. You have to realize that once a person grows into an adult their actions define who they are, not the mere fact that they share the same species designation as yourself.
The people that murderers and rapists destroy were somebody's baby too. It's not a matter or right and wrong; whether the state killing someone is wicked in the same fashion as the murderers crime. It's a matter of justice. A 30+ serial killer needs to be met with justice, not compassion.
#56
Jay
Jay
I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
#57
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.
#58
Dave
Dave
So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.
#59
The Lovely Boehner
I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.
---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.
The Lovely Boehner
I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.[/QUOTE]What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.
---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.[/QUOTE]Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.
Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.
#60
GasBandit
GasBandit
Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.
#61
Dave
I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.
---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.[/QUOTE]
You're right they don't...every day. But it does and can happen. And then there's the guy who killed the daughter of a family and then wrote them lots and lots of letters mocking them. 1 bullet and a blindfold would have stopped that cold, too.
Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.
Dave
I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.[/QUOTE]What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?
I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.
---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.[/QUOTE]Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.
Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.[/QUOTE]
You're right they don't...every day. But it does and can happen. And then there's the guy who killed the daughter of a family and then wrote them lots and lots of letters mocking them. 1 bullet and a blindfold would have stopped that cold, too.
Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.
#62
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
We should house them at Boner's house..like a half-way house kind of arrangement. They're still people, for god's sake! And he knows just how to treat them best. What's the worst that could happen?Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.
#63
The Lovely Boehner
I don't mean to be all elitist, but I mean, congrats on wanting to be just as evil as those "jackholes".
---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
The Lovely Boehner
You can also stop someone from sending hurtful letters out of a prison in a lot of ways that don't involve killing someone.You're right they don't...every day. But it does and can happen. And then there's the guy who killed the daughter of a family and then wrote them lots and lots of letters mocking them. 1 bullet and a blindfold would have stopped that cold, too.
Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.
I don't mean to be all elitist, but I mean, congrats on wanting to be just as evil as those "jackholes".
---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
I still think murderers should be in some type of heavy-security prison. I don't think I said anything resembling that they should be out with good behavior.We should house them at Boner's house..like a half-way house kind of arrangement. They're still people, for god's sake! And he knows just how to treat them best. What's the worst that could happen?
#64
Dave
Dave
Justice is evil now? Then I guess I'm evil for wanting to make sure these guys can't and won't ever reoffend. I can live with that designation if that's the circumstances.
#65
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
#66
sixpackshaker
I had a student in my detention class, who said that no one ever gave him a break. I laid out many of the breaks afforded him, in the hopes that he would act like a better citizen... I think I did get through to him at that point.
I do feel that there are way too many people in prison for long terms for breaking non-violent laws. I feel everyone in prison for pot possession should be out of there.
sixpackshaker
There are a lot of people that need to be warehoused away from the law-abiding public. The folks that turn their backs on the education system, and all the other outreach programs out there, pretty much deserve to be locked away from breaking the public trust.I'm against the death penalty, and my reasons have already been stated more eloquently than I likely would have managed.
I'm also against the way the american prison system is set up. It's little more than a warehouse to store people so that they don't have to be dealt with by other means. I really don't think prison works as a deterrent, and would like to see more rehabilitation systems and less extended prison sentences for nonviolent crimes (that means you, war on drugs).
I had a student in my detention class, who said that no one ever gave him a break. I laid out many of the breaks afforded him, in the hopes that he would act like a better citizen... I think I did get through to him at that point.
I do feel that there are way too many people in prison for long terms for breaking non-violent laws. I feel everyone in prison for pot possession should be out of there.
#67
crono1224
crono1224
Deterrence is a silly thing, now why would people be more willing to spend the rest of their lives trapped in prison vs dying? The real thing goes back to either A the crime is heat of the moment and they aren't thinking about the consequences, or B they simply don't think they will get caught. Honestly you want a better murder deterrent? Increase police friendliness in the gang land areas, have it so people actually report and testify against the gangs that murder people. In these super bad areas the criminals know that they have a power hold on the citizens, they don't need to fear being caught cause no one is going to say anything anyways.
As for the infallible proof, that is like an oxymoron when it comes to the justice system. It is clear that it has flaws, and that mistakes are made one way or another. People make mistakes, but there is no coming back from killing a person, no rewind button when you kill an innocent person.
Also how do you think it would make someone feel either as the jury who convicted him, the judge who sentenced him, or the executioner to kill someone who hasn't committed the crime?
As for the infallible proof, that is like an oxymoron when it comes to the justice system. It is clear that it has flaws, and that mistakes are made one way or another. People make mistakes, but there is no coming back from killing a person, no rewind button when you kill an innocent person.
Also how do you think it would make someone feel either as the jury who convicted him, the judge who sentenced him, or the executioner to kill someone who hasn't committed the crime?
#68
Chazwozel
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.
Chazwozel
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.
#69
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
I think this conversation needs more Terry Pratchett.
Terry Pratchett said:"Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr. Trooper?" he said.
"Well, in the generality of things I'd say it's hard to tell, given that it's hard to find evidence of crimes not committed," said the hangman, giving the trap door a final rattle. "But in the specificality, sir, I'd say it's quite effacious."
"Meaning what?" said Moist.
"Meaning I've never seen someone up here more than once, sir. Shall we go?"
#70
The Lovely Boehner
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.
The Lovely Boehner
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.
#71
sixpackshaker
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
You are deciding what is and is not evil.
sixpackshaker
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
You are deciding what is and is not evil.
#72
Chazwozel
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.
Chazwozel
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.
#73
Necronic
Necronic
I'm surprised there are as many supporters of the death penalty here as there are. A couple points.
1) It costs more. That's a fact. Should it? That's a different point. If you think that the appeals process is too long, then there's that, but its a different argument.
2) Is it a deterrent? There's 2 arguments here, scientific and rational. The scientific argument has correlations like the one Tin showed, or other correlations like the fact that states without death penalties have lower murder rates, or....you can look at the rest of the first world. But it doesn't matter, because, and this is a secret so I'll say it quietly CORRELATION DOES NOT SHOW CAUSATION. If you don't understand that then please just GTFO and let the grownups talk. The sad fact is that you are not going to be able to show anything other than correlations with this argument (in either direction), and you are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone of a cause and effect relationship.
The second part, the rational part, where we say "if they see that people are(n't) being put to death for committing murders then they will be (dis)inclined to commit more murders". It makes sense. To a rational person. To bad people that commit first degree murders aren't always rational. A crime of passion is one thing, but to methodically plan and kill a person, that's different. That takes a mindset that very few people have. Cop Killers are another thing as people don't usually plan to kill a cop, it happens in the moment. Its actually the only place I do agree with the death penalty, as there needs to be punitive protection for our boys in blue.
Either way, the rational argument rests on some very shaky ground; it assumes to know the mind of a killer.
3) What if it's thought of as a purely punitive action? Well, then there's no argument against that. It's a moral determination, and can only be countered by a different set of morals. Which means there is no middle ground.
4) Do some people simply not deserve to live? On a moral stance, I find it hard to make that statement, but there are other viewpoints that are equally as valid (the beauty of morality is that it is fluid.) On a societal/utilitarian stance (for the good of all), I believe it's fair to argue that removing them from society is all that matters. Once they are removed from society, they are no longer a threat. Assuming that point 2 is considered to be up in the air, and point 3 doesn't have a significant societal impact (victims families not getting vengeance doesn't cause societal unrest).
-----------
I guess my point is, at the end of the day there is only one point that isn't subjective or unprovable, and that is that it costs more. So, guess where I stand.
1) It costs more. That's a fact. Should it? That's a different point. If you think that the appeals process is too long, then there's that, but its a different argument.
2) Is it a deterrent? There's 2 arguments here, scientific and rational. The scientific argument has correlations like the one Tin showed, or other correlations like the fact that states without death penalties have lower murder rates, or....you can look at the rest of the first world. But it doesn't matter, because, and this is a secret so I'll say it quietly CORRELATION DOES NOT SHOW CAUSATION. If you don't understand that then please just GTFO and let the grownups talk. The sad fact is that you are not going to be able to show anything other than correlations with this argument (in either direction), and you are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone of a cause and effect relationship.
The second part, the rational part, where we say "if they see that people are(n't) being put to death for committing murders then they will be (dis)inclined to commit more murders". It makes sense. To a rational person. To bad people that commit first degree murders aren't always rational. A crime of passion is one thing, but to methodically plan and kill a person, that's different. That takes a mindset that very few people have. Cop Killers are another thing as people don't usually plan to kill a cop, it happens in the moment. Its actually the only place I do agree with the death penalty, as there needs to be punitive protection for our boys in blue.
Either way, the rational argument rests on some very shaky ground; it assumes to know the mind of a killer.
3) What if it's thought of as a purely punitive action? Well, then there's no argument against that. It's a moral determination, and can only be countered by a different set of morals. Which means there is no middle ground.
4) Do some people simply not deserve to live? On a moral stance, I find it hard to make that statement, but there are other viewpoints that are equally as valid (the beauty of morality is that it is fluid.) On a societal/utilitarian stance (for the good of all), I believe it's fair to argue that removing them from society is all that matters. Once they are removed from society, they are no longer a threat. Assuming that point 2 is considered to be up in the air, and point 3 doesn't have a significant societal impact (victims families not getting vengeance doesn't cause societal unrest).
-----------
I guess my point is, at the end of the day there is only one point that isn't subjective or unprovable, and that is that it costs more. So, guess where I stand.
#74
Soliloquy
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.[/QUOTE]
That's actually a pretty awesome solution. We need more Australias.
(No one in Australia actually likes fosters, btw.)
Soliloquy
I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.[/QUOTE]
That's actually a pretty awesome solution. We need more Australias.
(No one in Australia actually likes fosters, btw.)
#75
Troll
Troll
So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
That's okay, no one outside of Australia likes it either.(No one in Australia actually likes fosters, btw.)
#76
Jay
Jay
That's pretty hard to say as no system is perfect. However, I'm sure they got convicted for a good reason.
(unless they are in Iran or some other god forsakened country where they'll publically stone you for cheating on your spouse)
(unless they are in Iran or some other god forsakened country where they'll publically stone you for cheating on your spouse)
#77
Dave
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.
Dave
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.
#78
sixpackshaker
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.
sixpackshaker
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.
#79
Dave
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.[/QUOTE]
Huh?
Dave
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.[/QUOTE]
Huh?
Guys like him or that Couey guy in Florida that abducted, repeatedly raped and then buried alive that little girl, then admitted it. Death penalty.In the early hours of December 22, Gacy confessed to police that since 1972, he had committed approximately 25–30 murders, all of whom he (incorrectly) claimed were teenage male runaways or male prostitutes, whom he would typically pick up from Chicago's Greyhound Bus station or off the streets and lure to his house with either the promise of a job with his construction company or with an offer of money for sex. Once back at Gacy's house, the victim would be handcuffed or tied in another way, then choked with a rope or a board as they were sexually assaulted. Gacy would often stick clothing in their mouths to muffle their screams. All but one of his victims had been killed with a tourniquet, which Gacy referred to as his "rope trick." Occasionally, the victim had convulsed for an "hour or two" after the rope trick before dying.
#80
Necronic
Necronic
Don't you see something usefull in studying them though? Like, there is something wayyyy wrong with them. Clearly there is no deterent for people like that. So why do it? It's not hard to keep them in prison forever, look at Charles Manson.
#81
Chibibar
Chibibar
Interesting. I am late in the thread.
I personally support the death penalty, but the current process is pretty lengthy for "partly good reason"
Lovely Boner's view is interesting, but I'm having a hard time to see his view on it. So LB doesn't agree there should be death, but willing to spend countless LB's money (in form of tax) to keep these people fed, house, and well better medical than other people out there (in some cases)
* "Partly good reason" is when a REALLY good person/lawyer manage to frame an innocent to death. I has happen in the past, but not as often. Personally, if you are caught red-handed, proven, and sentence, after 3 appeals, you are done and dead. It bothers me that some of these people continue to live for another 20-30 years waiting to die and will never be let go and wasting tax payer's money.
Why even bother keeping them in prison forever LB? the original idea was so rehabilitate, but if the person is not willing, then repeat offender happens. It suppose to be a deterrent, but to some look forward to prison cause it is "easier" life than living under a bridge and homeless with no food.
"How does killing a criminal help the victim?" to some victim, just knowing the person is alive and in jail scare them. Sure mass murderer don't escape everyday, but as long they are alive, there is a chance of that happening. Some murderers DO get out and could murder again. It is more of a peace of mind for the victim's family and society.
That is what I believe.
I personally support the death penalty, but the current process is pretty lengthy for "partly good reason"
Lovely Boner's view is interesting, but I'm having a hard time to see his view on it. So LB doesn't agree there should be death, but willing to spend countless LB's money (in form of tax) to keep these people fed, house, and well better medical than other people out there (in some cases)
* "Partly good reason" is when a REALLY good person/lawyer manage to frame an innocent to death. I has happen in the past, but not as often. Personally, if you are caught red-handed, proven, and sentence, after 3 appeals, you are done and dead. It bothers me that some of these people continue to live for another 20-30 years waiting to die and will never be let go and wasting tax payer's money.
Why even bother keeping them in prison forever LB? the original idea was so rehabilitate, but if the person is not willing, then repeat offender happens. It suppose to be a deterrent, but to some look forward to prison cause it is "easier" life than living under a bridge and homeless with no food.
"How does killing a criminal help the victim?" to some victim, just knowing the person is alive and in jail scare them. Sure mass murderer don't escape everyday, but as long they are alive, there is a chance of that happening. Some murderers DO get out and could murder again. It is more of a peace of mind for the victim's family and society.
That is what I believe.
#82
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
It is a quote attributed to Gacy when he was arrested.
"The only thing I'm guilty of is running an unlicensed cemetery."
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
It just made me sick all the people that were trying to get Susan Atkins out on parole for humanitarian reasons.
"The only thing I'm guilty of is running an unlicensed cemetery."
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
Manson still gets his parole hearing each time it comes around.Don't you see something usefull in studying them though? Like, there is something wayyyy wrong with them. Clearly there is no deterent for people like that. So why do it? It's not hard to keep them in prison forever, look at Charles Manson.
It just made me sick all the people that were trying to get Susan Atkins out on parole for humanitarian reasons.
#83
Dave
Dave
Like the guy who blew up the Pan Am jet over Locherbie? They let him go because he was dying. Now? Not so much but he's still free.
#84
Iaculus
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
That's not a great incentive for pleading guilty, is it? Generally, the justice system tries to encourage that.
Personally, I've always been slightly unsettled by the casual dehumanisation of the folks involved in these arguments. One of our oldest and biggest issues as a society is that perfectly normal, ordinary people can sometimes do utterly horrible things, and to simply dismiss those who commit such acts as inhuman monsters seems like sweeping it under the carpet. Of course they're human. That's half the problem right there.
Also, you have to remember that it's not a case of 'if you rape/commit murder/abuse a child, you have forfeited your humanity'. Instead, it's 'if we think that you raped/committed murder/abused a child, you have forfeited your humanity'... and if you've looked at how much guesswork, politics, and emotion overcoming logic goes into that sort of case already, that is goddamned terrifying.
Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
Iaculus
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
That's not a great incentive for pleading guilty, is it? Generally, the justice system tries to encourage that.
Personally, I've always been slightly unsettled by the casual dehumanisation of the folks involved in these arguments. One of our oldest and biggest issues as a society is that perfectly normal, ordinary people can sometimes do utterly horrible things, and to simply dismiss those who commit such acts as inhuman monsters seems like sweeping it under the carpet. Of course they're human. That's half the problem right there.
Also, you have to remember that it's not a case of 'if you rape/commit murder/abuse a child, you have forfeited your humanity'. Instead, it's 'if we think that you raped/committed murder/abused a child, you have forfeited your humanity'... and if you've looked at how much guesswork, politics, and emotion overcoming logic goes into that sort of case already, that is goddamned terrifying.
Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
#85
GasBandit
GasBandit
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
#86
Iaculus
Was working for a murderous, fascist superstate dealing with mind-corroding eldritch abominations on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, tentacles for a face and a daemon living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.
Iaculus
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
Was working for a murderous, fascist superstate dealing with mind-corroding eldritch abominations on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, tentacles for a face and a daemon living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.
#87
David
David
I realize that there simply are some people who are a menace to society. But as long as there is the remote risk of being wrong, even if it's a 0.00001% chance, the death penalty should be out of the question until the chance of being wrong is at absolute 0. People make mistakes. Evidence can be planted. Suspects can be coerced into pleading guilty. Jury members can discriminate. Suspects can commit the crime of having the wrong skin color in the wrong district and receive something that doesn't even remotely resemble a fair trial. I believe in parental logic with capital punishment: if everybody can't use it fairly, nobody gets to use it.
What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
#88
Rob King
Rob King
I believe that there is an acceptable rate of collateral damage in the death penalty. I'm not sure where it is ... 2 innocents in a hundred put to death looks like a lot, but 100% accuracy is impossible.
#89
Iaculus
Iaculus
Would that not be dependent on the number of lives it saves, though? I mean, you have to be sure that the drop in the murder rate caused by using the death penalty for certain criminals (rather than imprisoning them for life) will exceed the number of innocents killed by the legal process. That's without considering the extra factor of how many lives might be saved by the potential budgetary differences either way, mind.I believe that there is an acceptable rate of collateral damage in the death penalty. I'm not sure where it is ... 2 innocents in a hundred put to death looks like a lot, but 100% accuracy is impossible.
#90
crono1224
crono1224
Agreed sorry your family member or wife died because she happened to just left a liqueur store before it got robbed where both the clerks were shot dead, and the eyewitness was so scared that they identified your wife/family member though they left just moments before the occurrence, and there wasn't any video evidence one way or another. So now they because of the death penalty they died. (*Not always necessary* But you couldn't afford a decent defense cause you and your wife (or family member) barely make ends-meets.)I believe that there is an acceptable rate of collateral damage in the death penalty. I'm not sure where it is ... 2 innocents in a hundred put to death looks like a lot, but 100% accuracy is impossible.
#91
Necronic
"A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
Necronic
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
"A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
#92
Denbrought
Was working for a murderous, republican superstate dealing with mind-corroding religious nutjobs on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, beards and turbans for a face and a fundamentalist living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.[/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah.
Denbrought
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
Was working for a murderous, republican superstate dealing with mind-corroding religious nutjobs on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, beards and turbans for a face and a fundamentalist living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.[/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah.
#93
Iaculus
Iaculus
... Yeah. I'm just staying the hell away from that one.
#94
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
This shitsack should be put to death: Clifford Olson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Instead he lives in a comfy jail, collects his old age pension (thankfully this got revoked just recently) and applies for parole whenever he eligible (and thankfully it has been denied).
He confessed to raping and murdering two children and nine youths. If you feel sorry for this miscreant at all... there's probably something wrong with you.
Instead he lives in a comfy jail, collects his old age pension (thankfully this got revoked just recently) and applies for parole whenever he eligible (and thankfully it has been denied).
He confessed to raping and murdering two children and nine youths. If you feel sorry for this miscreant at all... there's probably something wrong with you.
#95
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I don't feel sorry for him. But I don't think it's our right to kill him.
#96
Papillon
Or Romeo Phillion?
Papillon
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy.[/QUOTE]So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
Or Romeo Phillion?
#97
Norris
Norris
So, wait. Just locking someone up in prison is cruel and unusual punishment? Should we deal with murderers and rapists by giving them a fine and probation?I feel slightly guilty about being against the Death Penalty because it's far more tortuous to spend any amount of time in our prison system. Our prisons are unfortunately cruel and unusual punishment. But the death penalty is still really heinously wrong.
You said that prison is "cruel and unusual punishment". We shouldn't lock them away, we shouldn't execute them...what exactly does that leave?I still think murderers should be in some type of heavy-security prison. I don't think I said anything resembling that they should be out with good behavior.
You are seriously stating that killing someone for pleasure, money, etc is on the same level as punishing someone, under the law, after they have been tried, convicted, and given multiple chances to get both the conviction and sentencing overturned?I don't mean to be all elitist, but I mean, congrats on wanting to be just as evil as those "jackholes".
#98
Papillon
Papillon
SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.This shitsack should be put to death: Clifford Olson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Instead he lives in a comfy jail, collects his old age pension (thankfully this got revoked just recently) and applies for parole whenever he eligible (and thankfully it has been denied).
He confessed to raping and murdering two children and nine youths. If you feel sorry for this miscreant at all... there's probably something wrong with you.
#99
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
They should be locked away. But prison is the lesser of two evils - it needs reform. And it's not on the same level as what the people in chains did at all. But I think it's kind of evil to wish torture and painful death on someone!So, wait. Just locking someone up in prison is cruel and unusual punishment? Should we deal with murderers and rapists by giving them a fine and probation?
You said that prison is "cruel and unusual punishment". We shouldn't lock them away, we shouldn't execute them...what exactly does that leave?
You are seriously stating that killing someone for pleasure, money, etc is on the same level as punishing someone, under the law, after they have been tried, convicted, and given multiple chances to get both the conviction and sentencing overturned?
#100
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
#101
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
For some reason, edit isn't working and is locking up, but clarifying up there: I said "just as evil" and I meant that in that still, on its face, murderers and death penalty supporters both want painful death on another human being. In a lot of cases, it's even for the same reason: revenge.
#102
Necronic
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.
Necronic
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.
#103
GasBandit
GasBandit
I never claimed it was infallible, I've just noted that there were periods in our history where the equivalent of grand theft auto was a capital offense and yet somehow liberty survived, even flourished as compared to today's soft tyranny of the government protecting you from yourself.Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
That doesn't have to be a fact. It's only more expensive because we let it be. As pointed out, it could be as cheap as the price of a single bullet if we wanted it to be. The fact of the matter is that the emotional argument is the one screeching how wrong it is to kill criminals, not the dispassionate logic of what could be the most cost effective method of removing a criminal from society.Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.
#104
Necronic
Necronic
But that's an entirely different argument, and one that you won't win on this board or in a general election or in a court of law. Partially because your argument rests on the assumption of how easy it is to define a criminal. We have centuries of abuse of judicial authority in human civilization, and due process is a method of limiting that. This concept of a fast track is tempting because due process is a painful and expensive process, but removing it is simply not an option.
#105
Chazwozel
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.
Chazwozel
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.
#106
GasBandit
GasBandit
Lately we seem to be embracing a lot of concepts that previously were considered beyond the pale. It's frightfully easy to redefine what is and isn't an option in the right circumstances.But that's an entirely different argument, and one that you won't win on this board or in a general election or in a court of law. Partially because your argument rests on the assumption of how easy it is to define a criminal. We have centuries of abuse of judicial authority in human civilization, and due process is a method of limiting that. This concept of a fast track is tempting because due process is a painful and expensive process, but removing it is simply not an option.
#107
Necronic
Necronic
Maybe, but if you think that your political energies are best served chasing that dragon then you my friend have given up on any useful contribution to the politic body. That is a fight you will have a hell of a time winning. Even the limited measures bypassing due process and habeus corpus in the Patriot Act have been demonized to hell and back. Moreover, are you willing to pay the toll it would take to get something like that passed? Because to really get that passed you would have to get in bed with Sarah Pailan and people far far worse.
Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
#108
Iaculus
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what return you're getting for that 2% of innocent casualties, doesn't it?
Iaculus
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what return you're getting for that 2% of innocent casualties, doesn't it?
#109
GasBandit
GasBandit
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
#110
AshburnerX
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.
AshburnerX
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.
#111
Troll
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Troll
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.
#112
Rob King
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.
Rob King
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.
#113
GasBandit
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
GasBandit
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Claire Wolfe[/FONT]
#114
crono1224
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]
Hey here is a million dollars sorry that we killed your wife.
I like the argument that the 2% killed innocently is worth the probable 2%+ saved by deterring potential murders. Here is the only problem one can be backed up by fact (people who have been proven to be wrongly executed), the other you can't really say who wouldn't have murdered because of it.
crono1224
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]
Hey here is a million dollars sorry that we killed your wife.
I like the argument that the 2% killed innocently is worth the probable 2%+ saved by deterring potential murders. Here is the only problem one can be backed up by fact (people who have been proven to be wrongly executed), the other you can't really say who wouldn't have murdered because of it.
#115
Necronic
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
I'm confused. Are you saying we have less freedom now than we did before? As far as I can tell we have more freedom than at any other time in American history. And by we I mean all of us: men, women, all races, kids, etc.. Edit: But I think we have had this argument before. I favor social freedoms first and you favor economic freedoms first, so to you the existence of taxes as they are is far more abhorrent than the freedoms given to gays and women and blacks is good.
That aside, I think you are making the same mistake that the Objectivist movement does when it focuses on the hyper-capitalism of Rands work and not the sanctity of the ego. In both cases you are talking about an anachronistic ideal that simply could not exist in the real world, as their sources developed them many many years ago.
Take for instance the defense of property rights, something you and she both would argue as being neccessary. Beyond the simple concepts of real estate it would also delve into IP and technology law. It wouldn't be that hard to argue that environmentalism would fall into the same category as it is impossible to isolate air or water, therefore your pollution damages my property. Then you would have divorce in there too of course. Oh yeah, for that matter you may even have to deal with gay rights legislation due to issues of long term partnerships and deaths without a will, should it go to the family of the deceased or to his partner? And of course the RIAA would want some legislation as well right?
All of that is just property rights (and just a tiny little slice of it.) The reality of government is that it HAS to be complicated. Do I agree with everything it does? Hell no. I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
Necronic
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Claire Wolfe[/FONT]
[/QUOTE]
I'm confused. Are you saying we have less freedom now than we did before? As far as I can tell we have more freedom than at any other time in American history. And by we I mean all of us: men, women, all races, kids, etc.. Edit: But I think we have had this argument before. I favor social freedoms first and you favor economic freedoms first, so to you the existence of taxes as they are is far more abhorrent than the freedoms given to gays and women and blacks is good.
That aside, I think you are making the same mistake that the Objectivist movement does when it focuses on the hyper-capitalism of Rands work and not the sanctity of the ego. In both cases you are talking about an anachronistic ideal that simply could not exist in the real world, as their sources developed them many many years ago.
Take for instance the defense of property rights, something you and she both would argue as being neccessary. Beyond the simple concepts of real estate it would also delve into IP and technology law. It wouldn't be that hard to argue that environmentalism would fall into the same category as it is impossible to isolate air or water, therefore your pollution damages my property. Then you would have divorce in there too of course. Oh yeah, for that matter you may even have to deal with gay rights legislation due to issues of long term partnerships and deaths without a will, should it go to the family of the deceased or to his partner? And of course the RIAA would want some legislation as well right?
All of that is just property rights (and just a tiny little slice of it.) The reality of government is that it HAS to be complicated. Do I agree with everything it does? Hell no. I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
#116
Chibibar
Chibibar
Yea, but I don't see any politician will pass a law (or essentially an amendment) to limit term for senators and house of reps or any government body that already exist.
#117
GasBandit
GasBandit
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
#118
Chibibar
heh. I think you are right Gas. and the problem is that the U.S. can't really afford to collapse and start over like that right now (or any modern time) 200 years ago sure and maybe even 100 years ago, but today, it would be a total disaster for U.S. to go "belly" up and restructure the government (at least from my limited views)
Chibibar
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.[/QUOTE]I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
heh. I think you are right Gas. and the problem is that the U.S. can't really afford to collapse and start over like that right now (or any modern time) 200 years ago sure and maybe even 100 years ago, but today, it would be a total disaster for U.S. to go "belly" up and restructure the government (at least from my limited views)
#119
GasBandit
(obligatory)
GasBandit
No, it can't afford it. But us not being able to afford something seems to have little bearing on what we actually do.heh. I think you are right Gas. and the problem is that the U.S. can't really afford to collapse and start over like that right now (or any modern time) 200 years ago sure and maybe even 100 years ago, but today, it would be a total disaster for U.S. to go "belly" up and restructure the government (at least from my limited views)
(obligatory)
#120
Cajungal
Cajungal
Well at least I'll get to stay the same.
#121
Eriol
Eriol
What's that from Gas? I'm not familiar with the joke (I hope it's some type of joke at least).
#122
Troll
Troll
Aww dammit, why did we have to get lumped in with Hollywood and fucking L.A.? Everyone knows if the US went through some sort of Balkanization that NorCal and SoCal would split. Hell, we want to do it now.(obligatory)
#123
GasBandit
I keep dragging it up as a visual aid whenever I start talking about the inevitable balkanization of the US within our lifetimes.
GasBandit
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured.What's that from Gas? I'm not familiar with the joke (I hope it's some type of joke at least).
I keep dragging it up as a visual aid whenever I start talking about the inevitable balkanization of the US within our lifetimes.
#124
Troll
Troll
Inevitable. Riiiiiiiiight.
#126
Eriol
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.
Eriol
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured. [/QUOTE]What's that from Gas? I'm not familiar with the joke (I hope it's some type of joke at least).
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.
#127
GasBandit
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.[/QUOTE]
Well, bear in mind this map is also circa 1930. I don't know if that actually has any bearing.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------
GasBandit
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured. [/QUOTE]What's that from Gas? I'm not familiar with the joke (I hope it's some type of joke at least).
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.[/QUOTE]
Well, bear in mind this map is also circa 1930. I don't know if that actually has any bearing.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------
Because LA had all the military might (in the context of the game, air power). But the CA "panhandle" is in dispute with the nation of Pacifica, and Hollywood is also trying to exert claims to the Baja peninsula from the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.Aww dammit, why did we have to get lumped in with Hollywood and fucking L.A.? Everyone knows if the US went through some sort of Balkanization that NorCal and SoCal would split. Hell, we want to do it now.
#128
Necronic
Actually, two world wars and a nice helping of friendly geography helped make us the world's foremost superpower, not the government you describe. Before those wars we weren't really all that much compared to Europe.
Necronic
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.[/QUOTE]I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
Actually, two world wars and a nice helping of friendly geography helped make us the world's foremost superpower, not the government you describe. Before those wars we weren't really all that much compared to Europe.
#129
Eriol
No, they're just morons basically. Only one significant difference in the internal boundaries of Canada has occurred since 1912 (the division of NWT into that and Nunavut). Check out the article Territorial Evolution of Canada on wiki for a great quick visual guide.
So I maintain, the creators of this fictional map knew nothing about western Canada, and apparently not a whole lot about US geography either in regards to natural geological/physical features. As I said before, they apparently knew about Ontario & Quebec, then "maritime provinces," but the west was "Thar be dragons" and was apparently divided up very VERY randomly.
Don't fret over it too much though. Most of us out west are pretty sure that's how eastern Canada sees us most of the time anyways, so you're not much different than them!
Eriol
Well, bear in mind this map is also circa 1930. I don't know if that actually has any bearing.[/QUOTE]Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.
No, they're just morons basically. Only one significant difference in the internal boundaries of Canada has occurred since 1912 (the division of NWT into that and Nunavut). Check out the article Territorial Evolution of Canada on wiki for a great quick visual guide.
So I maintain, the creators of this fictional map knew nothing about western Canada, and apparently not a whole lot about US geography either in regards to natural geological/physical features. As I said before, they apparently knew about Ontario & Quebec, then "maritime provinces," but the west was "Thar be dragons" and was apparently divided up very VERY randomly.
Don't fret over it too much though. Most of us out west are pretty sure that's how eastern Canada sees us most of the time anyways, so you're not much different than them!
#130
GasBandit
GasBandit
So you're saying that economic liberty had nothing to do with creating the national economy that drives the economy of the world (for the time being anyway)?Actually, two world wars and a nice helping of friendly geography helped make us the world's foremost superpower, not the government you describe. Before those wars we weren't really all that much compared to Europe.
#131
Necronic
Necronic
Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
#132
crono1224
crono1224
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
#133
GasBandit
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney!
GasBandit
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.[/QUOTE]Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney!
#134
crono1224
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney![/QUOTE]
Don't blame politicians the point of capitalism is companies regulate themselves. Deregulation isn't a scapegoat it is a bullshit excuse. The people who did this shit were dickheads and the ones that bet short against the stuff they knew were turds are the biggest dicks. I support capitalism but it's people like these that make it impossible to ever exist by good faith.
crono1224
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.[/QUOTE]Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney![/QUOTE]
Don't blame politicians the point of capitalism is companies regulate themselves. Deregulation isn't a scapegoat it is a bullshit excuse. The people who did this shit were dickheads and the ones that bet short against the stuff they knew were turds are the biggest dicks. I support capitalism but it's people like these that make it impossible to ever exist by good faith.
#135
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Wait, do you seriously, HONESTLY think the US is going to break up in any way in the next, let's be generous here, 70 years? You think that is going to happen?
#136
Troll
Troll
I can already answer that for you. Yes he does. He's said it time and again, he truly believes that the US will break up in our lifetime.Wait, do you seriously, HONESTLY think the US is going to break up in any way in the next, let's be generous here, 70 years? You think that is going to happen?
#137
AshburnerX
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.
AshburnerX
On one hand, politics have gotten out of control in this country, dividing the population in a fundamental way that we haven't seen in decades... and we certainly have a population that has more than shown itself willing to riot for the stupidest of reasons. I could definitely see a revolution happening in our life time if we are unable to reunify enough politically to at least function as a society again.Wait, do you seriously, HONESTLY think the US is going to break up in any way in the next, let's be generous here, 70 years? You think that is going to happen?
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.
#138
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
If you think the American Public is gonna turn off American Idol long enough to overthrow the government and start a new state, you are deranged.
#139
Necronic
Well, like I said, it was one of a number of causes. Germany was already feeling the pinch from the Treaty of Versailles, then when the Depression hit it pushed them to a point of economic ruin. And if we are arguing about the economic strengths and the sources of them in the US post WW2/Great Depression, remember that the two largest socialist changes the United States ever experienced began there: Social Security and the PWA.
And I'm not arguing that socialism is better. I think that contrasting the situation in Europe vs USA or California vs Texas makes a pretty clear empirical example of the dangers of heavy socialism. All I am saying is that different things work at different times. As a chemist I can have the most simple reaction go completely wrong for the most minor reason. We are talking about a 3 variable system here, and it can be hard to control well enough to get repeateable results. When you are talking about global economic policies the amount of variables are so massive that it's impossible to make an empirical argument that one system works better than the other in every situation.
So what people often do is boil down their philosophies to a myopic ideaoly that they think will be the silver bullet to fix everything. My belief is that any statement as to what a major change in government will cause (outside of becoming a monarchy or dictatorship etc.) is guesswork at best. Then people make appeals to authority of famous thinkers long dead or irrelevant (really all appeals to authority are irrelevant.) And you get the Tea Party and the Anarchists and the Libertarians and yada yada yada.
The only safe way to progress government is slowly and incrementally. It's like walking across an old rickety bridge. Each plank could crack. If it cracks as you walk past it, slow down, look at it. Figure out why the change didn't work and fix it. Don't rush forward. As they say, only fools rush in.
Necronic
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.[/QUOTE]Actually I think its a fair argument that too much economic liberty was one of a number of source causes for WW2 in the form of the Great Depression which was caused by poor regulation of the stock market.
Well, like I said, it was one of a number of causes. Germany was already feeling the pinch from the Treaty of Versailles, then when the Depression hit it pushed them to a point of economic ruin. And if we are arguing about the economic strengths and the sources of them in the US post WW2/Great Depression, remember that the two largest socialist changes the United States ever experienced began there: Social Security and the PWA.
And I'm not arguing that socialism is better. I think that contrasting the situation in Europe vs USA or California vs Texas makes a pretty clear empirical example of the dangers of heavy socialism. All I am saying is that different things work at different times. As a chemist I can have the most simple reaction go completely wrong for the most minor reason. We are talking about a 3 variable system here, and it can be hard to control well enough to get repeateable results. When you are talking about global economic policies the amount of variables are so massive that it's impossible to make an empirical argument that one system works better than the other in every situation.
So what people often do is boil down their philosophies to a myopic ideaoly that they think will be the silver bullet to fix everything. My belief is that any statement as to what a major change in government will cause (outside of becoming a monarchy or dictatorship etc.) is guesswork at best. Then people make appeals to authority of famous thinkers long dead or irrelevant (really all appeals to authority are irrelevant.) And you get the Tea Party and the Anarchists and the Libertarians and yada yada yada.
The only safe way to progress government is slowly and incrementally. It's like walking across an old rickety bridge. Each plank could crack. If it cracks as you walk past it, slow down, look at it. Figure out why the change didn't work and fix it. Don't rush forward. As they say, only fools rush in.
#140
Chibibar
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the government is going to change without the help of major global event.
World War III
Zombie Attack (global scale)
alien invasion
cataclysmic event like major earthquake that literally destroy cities across the globe.
A revolution? in the U.S.? not in this day and age. People are too apathetic.
Chibibar
On one hand, politics have gotten out of control in this country, dividing the population in a fundamental way that we haven't seen in decades... and we certainly have a population that has more than shown itself willing to riot for the stupidest of reasons. I could definitely see a revolution happening in our life time if we are unable to reunify enough politically to at least function as a society again.Wait, do you seriously, HONESTLY think the US is going to break up in any way in the next, let's be generous here, 70 years? You think that is going to happen?
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the government is going to change without the help of major global event.
World War III
Zombie Attack (global scale)
alien invasion
cataclysmic event like major earthquake that literally destroy cities across the globe.
A revolution? in the U.S.? not in this day and age. People are too apathetic.
#141
GasBandit
We won't overthrow our government, it's undermining itself. One day, within our lifetime, the sinkhole will open up underneath it and swallow it. Then when interstate commerce is disrupted, we'll see how long "american idol" stays on the air to keep the proles distracted and sedentary. Things will get very nasty for a while, and a lot of people will suffer and die, and eventually multiple disparate nations will emerge from the ashes.
GasBandit
That would be the point of pure capitalism... something we've not had, ever. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. There is a role for government, but mandating that banks must give mortgages to people who make 20k a year and make it look profitable on paper isn't that.Don't blame politicians the point of capitalism is companies regulate themselves. Deregulation isn't a scapegoat it is a bullshit excuse. The people who did this shit were dickheads and the ones that bet short against the stuff they knew were turds are the biggest dicks. I support capitalism but it's people like these that make it impossible to ever exist by good faith.
That's not what will cause the breakup. The Soviet Union shattered without a shot being fired, after all. I believe that the balkanization of the US will come about through a complete collapse of the federal government due to insanely-in-denial fiscal policy. Republicans spend, Democrats spend faster, and those are our only choices it seems. Eventually something's gotta give, and when it does and the federal gravy train dries up and blows away, where people look for government will also change. First they'll look to their local governments, their City Halls and Councils, to deal with immediate problems such as crime, looting and safety... and naturally, when immediate problems are under control and they start worrying about things like food and trade, governments of communities near each other will attempt to cooperate to better serve the needs of their people, and they may even be able to maintain communication and logistics for the state governments in some cases. But the contiguous "United States" will cease to exist as people fill the vacuum by creating associations with those who are most like themselves and most accessible.If you think the American Public is gonna turn off American Idol long enough to overthrow the government and start a new state, you are deranged.
We won't overthrow our government, it's undermining itself. One day, within our lifetime, the sinkhole will open up underneath it and swallow it. Then when interstate commerce is disrupted, we'll see how long "american idol" stays on the air to keep the proles distracted and sedentary. Things will get very nasty for a while, and a lot of people will suffer and die, and eventually multiple disparate nations will emerge from the ashes.
#142
Chazwozel
We won't overthrow our government, it's undermining itself. One day, within our lifetime, the sinkhole will open up underneath it and swallow it. Then when interstate commerce is disrupted, we'll see how long "american idol" stays on the air to keep the proles distracted and sedentary. Things will get very nasty for a while, and a lot of people will suffer and die, and eventually multiple disparate nations will emerge from the ashes.[/QUOTE]
.
Oh and on the collapse of the Soviet Union I didn't feel like writing up much so I'll just cut and paste the initial steps from the wiki article.
Oh wait, I found a perfect description of the Libertarian mindset:
Chazwozel
That would be the point of pure capitalism... something we've not had, ever. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. There is a role for government, but mandating that banks must give mortgages to people who make 20k a year and make it look profitable on paper isn't that.Don't blame politicians the point of capitalism is companies regulate themselves. Deregulation isn't a scapegoat it is a bullshit excuse. The people who did this shit were dickheads and the ones that bet short against the stuff they knew were turds are the biggest dicks. I support capitalism but it's people like these that make it impossible to ever exist by good faith.
That's not what will cause the breakup. The Soviet Union shattered without a shot being fired, after all. I believe that the balkanization of the US will come about through a complete collapse of the federal government due to insanely-in-denial fiscal policy. Republicans spend, Democrats spend faster, and those are our only choices it seems. Eventually something's gotta give, and when it does and the federal gravy train dries up and blows away, where people look for government will also change. First they'll look to their local governments, their City Halls and Councils, to deal with immediate problems such as crime, looting and safety... and naturally, when immediate problems are under control and they start worrying about things like food and trade, governments of communities near each other will attempt to cooperate to better serve the needs of their people, and they may even be able to maintain communication and logistics for the state governments in some cases. But the contiguous "United States" will cease to exist as people fill the vacuum by creating associations with those who are most like themselves and most accessible.If you think the American Public is gonna turn off American Idol long enough to overthrow the government and start a new state, you are deranged.
We won't overthrow our government, it's undermining itself. One day, within our lifetime, the sinkhole will open up underneath it and swallow it. Then when interstate commerce is disrupted, we'll see how long "american idol" stays on the air to keep the proles distracted and sedentary. Things will get very nasty for a while, and a lot of people will suffer and die, and eventually multiple disparate nations will emerge from the ashes.[/QUOTE]
Oh and on the collapse of the Soviet Union I didn't feel like writing up much so I'll just cut and paste the initial steps from the wiki article.
Late at night on January 19, 1990, 26,000 Soviet troops stormed Baku in order to crush the Popular Front. In the course of the storming, the troops attacked the protesters, firing in the crowds. The shooting continued for three days. They acted pursuant to a state of emergency (which continued for more than 4 months) declared by the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium, signed by President Gorbachev. The state of emergency was, however, only disclosed to the Azerbaijani public hours after the beginning of the storming,when many citizens already lay wounded or dead in the streets, hospitals and morgues of Baku. According to official data, between 133 and 137people died with unofficial numbers reaching 300. Up to 800 were injured and 5 went missing.An additional 26 people were killed in Neftchala and Lankaran regions of the country. The Soviet army soldiers used 5.45 mm caliber bullets with a shifted center of gravity designed to shear after entering the body thus causing an excessive physical damage to the body.
I want to know. What does it feel like to be completely ignorant about a topic, make up half-truths, and proclaim them as fact? That must be an awesome feeling.On January 13, 1991, Soviet troops, along with KGB Spetsnaz Alpha Group, stormed the Vilnius TV Tower in Vilnius, Lithuania to suppress the nationalist media. This ended with 14 unarmed civilians dead and hundreds more injured. Later that month in Georgian SSR, anti-Soviet protesters at Tbilisi demonstrated support for Lithuanian independence
Oh wait, I found a perfect description of the Libertarian mindset:
#143
GasBandit
GasBandit
No, what's batshit crazy is how we think we can keep spending more and more and more without consequences.
If there had been an internet in 1990, and I'd told you the Soviet union was just going to fall apart and break up on its own in a year, you probably would have posted that same image.
If there had been an internet in 1990, and I'd told you the Soviet union was just going to fall apart and break up on its own in a year, you probably would have posted that same image.
#144
Necronic
The question is where do you cut spending? To get things back on track, here's one thought. Abolish the death penalty, as it costs more.
Necronic
That I definitely can't disagree with, the federal deficit is getting out of hand. The only silver lining there is that it is getting out of hand in almost every other first world country, with a couple of exceptions (Australia, Switzerland China if you count that as 1st world)No, what's batshit crazy is how we think we can keep spending more and more and more without consequences.
The question is where do you cut spending? To get things back on track, here's one thought. Abolish the death penalty, as it costs more.
#145
Chazwozel
Ah specious reasoning, how I love thee.
Chazwozel
If there had been an internet in 1990, and I'd told you the Soviet union was just going to fall apart and break up on its own in a year, you probably would have posted that same image.
Ah specious reasoning, how I love thee.
#146
Espy
The question is where do you cut spending? To get things back on track, here's one thought. Abolish the death penalty, as it costs more.[/QUOTE]
Man, I don't think the question is so much "but what on earth can we cut????" but rather, "Where the hell do we start, there are so many obvious options!"
Espy
That I definitely can't disagree with, the federal deficit is getting out of hand. The only silver lining there is that it is getting out of hand in almost every other first world country, with a couple of exceptions (Australia, Switzerland China if you count that as 1st world)No, what's batshit crazy is how we think we can keep spending more and more and more without consequences.
The question is where do you cut spending? To get things back on track, here's one thought. Abolish the death penalty, as it costs more.[/QUOTE]
Man, I don't think the question is so much "but what on earth can we cut????" but rather, "Where the hell do we start, there are so many obvious options!"
#147
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
#1 we should abolish the death penalty we are imposing on Iraq and Afghanistan
#148
Espy
Espy
You know how sometimes people say things that you agree with but they wrap it up in crazy so you don't want to say you agree with them?
#149
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
More innocents have been killed in the last ~10 years of afghanistan and/or iraq than by the death penalty ever in the US. And a whatever stupid tiger $200m missle costs more than death penalty appeals.You know how sometimes people say things that you agree with but they wrap it up in crazy so you don't want to say you agree with them?
#150
Rob King
Actually, I didn't realize how much opposition there was to the war in Afghanistan until very recently. I don't understand it, to be honest. Iraq, sure, I can get how we don't like that one. But in Afghanistan there was a just cause for invasion, the permission of the UN and the obligation of NATO, and on top of that a request from the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
Rob King
Cute.#1 we should abolish the death penalty we are imposing on Iraq and Afghanistan
Actually, I didn't realize how much opposition there was to the war in Afghanistan until very recently. I don't understand it, to be honest. Iraq, sure, I can get how we don't like that one. But in Afghanistan there was a just cause for invasion, the permission of the UN and the obligation of NATO, and on top of that a request from the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
#151
crono1224
Ya good luck pulling out of Afghanistan, people would shit on which ever president does that (Obama or the next, which it will no doubt take that long). It would be nice to find out that in how many years we been there we haven't done a whole lot lately and never got the one guy we were suppose to get in the first place.
crono1224
More innocents have been killed in the last ~10 years of afghanistan and/or iraq than by the death penalty ever in the US. And a whatever stupid tiger $200m missle costs more than death penalty appeals.[/QUOTE]You know how sometimes people say things that you agree with but they wrap it up in crazy so you don't want to say you agree with them?
Ya good luck pulling out of Afghanistan, people would shit on which ever president does that (Obama or the next, which it will no doubt take that long). It would be nice to find out that in how many years we been there we haven't done a whole lot lately and never got the one guy we were suppose to get in the first place.
#152
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
We have done a whole lot of wasting taxpayer money. Support are troooooooooops
#153
Rob King
Rob King
If you can't support your own army and/or the government who got you in a wholly justified war, how about supporting the citizens of Afghanistan who have not a chance at a free or just future if the ISAF were to leave tomorrow.We have done a whole lot of wasting taxpayer money. Support are troooooooooops
#154
Necronic
Necronic
I don't know how many of them are all that obvious though.
Do you cut military spending? We're already doing that with our withdrawal and it will probably turn Iraq into one of the most dangerous places in the world. Should we continue to cut it? Who will step into the breach? China? Russia?
Do you cut Medicare/Medicade spending? Considering that they are both already about to collapse, doing this would probably kill them, and doing that alongside the healthcare overhaul is just stupid.
Well what about wellfare and unemployment? Even assuming you could find enough suicidal politicians to push something like that forward to completion (which is different than the posturing going on right now,) what are the other costs you would get? The housing market would continue to crumble as people would no longer be able to make their rents or mortgages, which would have a ripple effect across the economy.
Then what about increasing taxes? Well, where are you going to increase them? On those big greedy corporations? Ok, then feel free to just dump every penny you earned and then some into unemployment and welfare because those companies will leave the United States. Increasing it on the middle class and wealthy may not be a bad idea, IF you increase it only a slight amount AND you only do it temporarilly. However that could just hurt consumer spending.
Education? Seriously? Cutting education (something Obama is pushing) is probably one of the dumbest ideas out there, dumber than most of the others. The only thing that allows Americans the standard of living we have today is that our best are better educated and have better access to technowledgy (why can I never spell that right) than any other country in the world. Our worst are generally worse than most 1st world countries, and that is something we need to improve. The lack of good education is one of the few things keeping China from becoming the truly dominant superpower in the world.
-------
It's hard to find places to save money right now, because the economy is so completely fubared. We should have been more intelligent about how the stipend money went out though:
Small business loans, something considered to be very important to the stabilization of the economy, accounted for less than 1 billion of the stimulus (636 mil), really only enough to help out a small handful of businesses, while on the other hand, Special Education for people with disabilities recieved a whopping 12 billion dollars. While I am a strong supporter of special education (and it is something I am proud that American's deal with better than almost any other country), this spending had no place in the stimulus package, at least not at that amount.
With all the talk about green green green, advanced battery manufacturing only recieved 2 billion dollars, not much considering, and the beauty is that we have only JUST started to build the plants. Of course that's nothing compared to the fact that Science and Technology only recieved 13 bil or so (some of it does fall into energy, so maybe 30 is a better number) and of that pretty much 1/2 of it was put into the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is actually an infrastructure group.
Most of the funding put into the Stimulus package was just a stopgap to fill funding holes in the existing budget, which means that a lot of it ended up going right back into funding the bureacracy, which is ridiculous. The purpose of it should have been to see more money going into private industry, and really very little of it did. This stimulus was executed incredibly poorly, but what's done is done.
Do you cut military spending? We're already doing that with our withdrawal and it will probably turn Iraq into one of the most dangerous places in the world. Should we continue to cut it? Who will step into the breach? China? Russia?
Do you cut Medicare/Medicade spending? Considering that they are both already about to collapse, doing this would probably kill them, and doing that alongside the healthcare overhaul is just stupid.
Well what about wellfare and unemployment? Even assuming you could find enough suicidal politicians to push something like that forward to completion (which is different than the posturing going on right now,) what are the other costs you would get? The housing market would continue to crumble as people would no longer be able to make their rents or mortgages, which would have a ripple effect across the economy.
Then what about increasing taxes? Well, where are you going to increase them? On those big greedy corporations? Ok, then feel free to just dump every penny you earned and then some into unemployment and welfare because those companies will leave the United States. Increasing it on the middle class and wealthy may not be a bad idea, IF you increase it only a slight amount AND you only do it temporarilly. However that could just hurt consumer spending.
Education? Seriously? Cutting education (something Obama is pushing) is probably one of the dumbest ideas out there, dumber than most of the others. The only thing that allows Americans the standard of living we have today is that our best are better educated and have better access to technowledgy (why can I never spell that right) than any other country in the world. Our worst are generally worse than most 1st world countries, and that is something we need to improve. The lack of good education is one of the few things keeping China from becoming the truly dominant superpower in the world.
-------
It's hard to find places to save money right now, because the economy is so completely fubared. We should have been more intelligent about how the stipend money went out though:
Small business loans, something considered to be very important to the stabilization of the economy, accounted for less than 1 billion of the stimulus (636 mil), really only enough to help out a small handful of businesses, while on the other hand, Special Education for people with disabilities recieved a whopping 12 billion dollars. While I am a strong supporter of special education (and it is something I am proud that American's deal with better than almost any other country), this spending had no place in the stimulus package, at least not at that amount.
With all the talk about green green green, advanced battery manufacturing only recieved 2 billion dollars, not much considering, and the beauty is that we have only JUST started to build the plants. Of course that's nothing compared to the fact that Science and Technology only recieved 13 bil or so (some of it does fall into energy, so maybe 30 is a better number) and of that pretty much 1/2 of it was put into the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is actually an infrastructure group.
Most of the funding put into the Stimulus package was just a stopgap to fill funding holes in the existing budget, which means that a lot of it ended up going right back into funding the bureacracy, which is ridiculous. The purpose of it should have been to see more money going into private industry, and really very little of it did. This stimulus was executed incredibly poorly, but what's done is done.
#155
Chazwozel
Really the only direction to go after the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 is up. The ONLY part of that legislature that was good were the standards for "qualified" teachers. Even in that case though, instead of helping close the achievement gap among students, it helped to widen it since rural and inner city schools can't keep good teachers.
Chazwozel
Uh, Obama is most certainly pushing to reform the completely broken and fucked up Bush era No Child Left Behind act of 2001. Obama: Overhaul The cuts would be in the areas of over excessive use of high-stakes testing since schools wouldn't have the yearly reports to deal with.Education? Seriously? Cutting education (something Obama is pushing) is probably one of the dumbest ideas out there, dumber than most of the others. The only thing that allows Americans the standard of living we have today is that our best are better educated and have better access to technowledgy (why can I never spell that right) than any other country in the world. Our worst are generally worse than most 1st world countries, and that is something we need to improve. The lack of good education is one of the few things keeping China from becoming the truly dominant superpower in the world.
This is a smart move in the right direction to fix a broken system. High-stakes testing alone is not an education. It's kids being taught to learn how to take a test, so the school doesn't get budget cuts. Obama is actively pushing a deep learning agenda mixed with high-stakes testing.And, for the first time in 45 years, the White House is proposing a $4 billion increase in federal education spending, most of which would go to increase the competition among states for grant money and move away from formula-based funding.
Really the only direction to go after the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 is up. The ONLY part of that legislature that was good were the standards for "qualified" teachers. Even in that case though, instead of helping close the achievement gap among students, it helped to widen it since rural and inner city schools can't keep good teachers.
#156
GasBandit
GasBandit
Again, we've spent less on Iraq and Afghanistan combined than we have in slushing political allies and calling it "stimulus," all the while making the economy worse than had government done nothing at all.We have done a whole lot of wasting taxpayer money. Support are troooooooooops
#157
Necronic
Necronic
Good correction Chaz, I was being a bit flippant. However he has held some strange stances, on the one hand pushing the Race to the Top agenda, and on the other cutting funding that is desperately needed to keep from laying off teachers. The worst part of the latter is that it is focused around the 'last in first out' policy, where new teachers are the first to be laid off. This is a serious problem because it maintains a status-quo that is not performance driven (aka a union) which goes against pretty much everything in the Race to the Top initiative.
#158
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
My stance on the entire issue is that the Federal Government should give states and local districts funding and then shut the fuck up about how it's spent. Let the state direct it. That's how No Child Left Behind is supposed to work. Then again, it's a wonder that the Fed even helps schools out at all considering there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about education.Good correction Chaz, I was being a bit flippant. However he has held some strange stances, on the one hand pushing the Race to the Top agenda, and on the other cutting funding that is desperately needed to keep from laying off teachers. The worst part of the latter is that it is focused around the 'last in first out' policy, where new teachers are the first to be laid off. This is a serious problem because it maintains a status-quo that is not performance driven (aka a union) which goes against pretty much everything in the Race to the Top initiative.
#159
GasBandit
That'd be workable I suppose. NCLB was a travesty. If the federal government is to fund education, making the state/local governments decide how it gets spent is better than it being planned centrally from Washington by leaps and bounds.
GasBandit
My stance on the entire issue is that the Federal Government should give states and local districts funding and then shut the fuck up about how it's spent. Let the state direct it. That's how No Child Left Behind is supposed to work. Then again, it's a wonder that the Fed even helps schools out at all considering there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about education.[/QUOTE]Good correction Chaz, I was being a bit flippant. However he has held some strange stances, on the one hand pushing the Race to the Top agenda, and on the other cutting funding that is desperately needed to keep from laying off teachers. The worst part of the latter is that it is focused around the 'last in first out' policy, where new teachers are the first to be laid off. This is a serious problem because it maintains a status-quo that is not performance driven (aka a union) which goes against pretty much everything in the Race to the Top initiative.
That'd be workable I suppose. NCLB was a travesty. If the federal government is to fund education, making the state/local governments decide how it gets spent is better than it being planned centrally from Washington by leaps and bounds.
#160
Troll
Troll
As a teacher, there are few things I hate more than NCLB. What a stupid fucking law. I get so sick of seeing colleagues completely abandon the idea of teaching in favor of "prepping" the students for the test (which really boils down to giving them as many answers ahead of time as possible).
#161
Chibibar
Chibibar
many of my friends who are teachers agree with you. It is so sad to see student only know how to "answer the test" and don't really critically think anymoreAs a teacher, there are few things I hate more than NCLB. What a stupid fucking law. I get so sick of seeing colleagues completely abandon the idea of teaching in favor of "prepping" the students for the test (which really boils down to giving them as many answers ahead of time as possible).
#162
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Dumb them down, it makes them easier to [strike]control[/strike] lead.
#163
Chazwozel
No, that has nothing to do with it. The reason the high stakes testing methods were implemented was because testing is a quantifiable thing to rate schools on. You can't measure deep learning and critical thinking ability as cheaply and quickly as you can with standardized tests.
The whole NCLB act is based on dumbing down the system so that the slower kids can catch up with the brighter ones and close the "achievement gap" i.e. inner city students doing much more poorly in school vs. suburban kids. The problem is and always will be economic status. Suburban kids have access to better resources than inner city kids and those in poverty. Period. It's a quick fix on a much deeper problem. The only thing it's succeeded in is taking really bright and motivated students and holding them back.
All NCLB has done is driven away good teachers from bad schools because those schools cannot afford them and because someone with high qualifications usually has the option to go to a nicer area. Unless you're out on a mission to help inner city kids, why would you risk getting shanked by one and deal with the headaches of low pay, tons more work, and hardly any perks?
The problem isn't going to be fixed with schools. The problem boils down to poverty and the lowest rung of the middle class. Really the only solution would be to ship kids off and mix them up in public boarding schools where they're all on fixed, equal ground to receive an education. I mean let's get that straight right off the bat. The whole point of education in America is to level the playing field so that everyone is educated and on the same footing when they start to compete against one another for work.
And I don't want to hear any of that pull yourself by the bootstraps garbage because it's probably the stupidest ideal ever imagined. You can't expect the achievement gap to be closed when one side of it has access to endless educational resources while the other side is lucky if they have the power bill paid off.
Now, you're a little bit right in terms of another aspect of school systems purpose. Back in the day the public school system was specifically designed around promoting an American culture. This is why we have shit like the pledge of allegiance, but that doesn't mean the government (or the founding fathers) ever wanted dumb citizens. Dumb citizens can't compete in today's market, at all.
---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
Chazwozel
Dumb them down, it makes them easier to [strike]control[/strike] lead.
No, that has nothing to do with it. The reason the high stakes testing methods were implemented was because testing is a quantifiable thing to rate schools on. You can't measure deep learning and critical thinking ability as cheaply and quickly as you can with standardized tests.
The whole NCLB act is based on dumbing down the system so that the slower kids can catch up with the brighter ones and close the "achievement gap" i.e. inner city students doing much more poorly in school vs. suburban kids. The problem is and always will be economic status. Suburban kids have access to better resources than inner city kids and those in poverty. Period. It's a quick fix on a much deeper problem. The only thing it's succeeded in is taking really bright and motivated students and holding them back.
All NCLB has done is driven away good teachers from bad schools because those schools cannot afford them and because someone with high qualifications usually has the option to go to a nicer area. Unless you're out on a mission to help inner city kids, why would you risk getting shanked by one and deal with the headaches of low pay, tons more work, and hardly any perks?
The problem isn't going to be fixed with schools. The problem boils down to poverty and the lowest rung of the middle class. Really the only solution would be to ship kids off and mix them up in public boarding schools where they're all on fixed, equal ground to receive an education. I mean let's get that straight right off the bat. The whole point of education in America is to level the playing field so that everyone is educated and on the same footing when they start to compete against one another for work.
And I don't want to hear any of that pull yourself by the bootstraps garbage because it's probably the stupidest ideal ever imagined. You can't expect the achievement gap to be closed when one side of it has access to endless educational resources while the other side is lucky if they have the power bill paid off.
Now, you're a little bit right in terms of another aspect of school systems purpose. Back in the day the public school system was specifically designed around promoting an American culture. This is why we have shit like the pledge of allegiance, but that doesn't mean the government (or the founding fathers) ever wanted dumb citizens. Dumb citizens can't compete in today's market, at all.
---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
What are you gonna do though? If the school gets bad reports, you get cuts in funding.As a teacher, there are few things I hate more than NCLB. What a stupid fucking law. I get so sick of seeing colleagues completely abandon the idea of teaching in favor of "prepping" the students for the test (which really boils down to giving them as many answers ahead of time as possible).
#164
Troll
I look at it like this: either I did my job all year long, or I didn't. While teaching them properly, they should have learned what they need to know for the test anyway. If they didn't, then I fucked up. I'm not going to spend time focusing on the just the test to make up for shitty teaching the rest of the time.
Troll
What are you gonna do though? If the school gets bad reports, you get cuts in funding.[/QUOTE]As a teacher, there are few things I hate more than NCLB. What a stupid fucking law. I get so sick of seeing colleagues completely abandon the idea of teaching in favor of "prepping" the students for the test (which really boils down to giving them as many answers ahead of time as possible).
I look at it like this: either I did my job all year long, or I didn't. While teaching them properly, they should have learned what they need to know for the test anyway. If they didn't, then I fucked up. I'm not going to spend time focusing on the just the test to make up for shitty teaching the rest of the time.
#165
Necronic
Necronic
It's quite the sticky wicket. You need some sort of standardized assessment tool. This would allow us to judge the performance of teachers and schools and give merit based raises for teachers and help identify schools that need more assisstance. The problem is that almost any assessment tool you get is going to be either tainted by the biases of the principle or going to be heavily test oriented so that you can 'game' it, which is the problem here.
But you do need that tool. In Texas the problems aren't just with inner cities, it's also with the rural areas. Almost every one of those schools sucks. I think a lot of it has to do with the low pay.
But you do need that tool. In Texas the problems aren't just with inner cities, it's also with the rural areas. Almost every one of those schools sucks. I think a lot of it has to do with the low pay.
#166
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Low pay and that highly qualified individuals are far and few in the boondocks of the world.It's quite the sticky wicket. You need some sort of standardized assessment tool. This would allow us to judge the performance of teachers and schools and give merit based raises for teachers and help identify schools that need more assisstance. The problem is that almost any assessment tool you get is going to be either tainted by the biases of the principle or going to be heavily test oriented so that you can 'game' it, which is the problem here.
But you do need that tool. In Texas the problems aren't just with inner cities, it's also with the rural areas. Almost every one of those schools sucks. I think a lot of it has to do with the low pay.
#167
Necronic
Necronic
True. The only way around that, as far as I can tell, is to have a federally mandated minimum salary for teachers, which would have to be subsidized by the federal government. So, let's say the minimum is 35k, you would still make more money in Houston, but if you taught in some boondock town the cost of living would be so low you would actually be making more. Problem is that those school districts are so poor that they couldn't afford that, hence it would have to be federally subsidized. Then of course you have problems with the school itself being underfunded, therefore supplies would be worse. Yet again you would need federal subsidies to deal with that. In both cases I think you could easily calculate the necessary subsidies based on some minimum acceptable taxation rate (property/income/whatever you pay for schools with in said state) and the number of students in a district. If there isn't X$ per student then you subsidize to reach that number.
Past that, and an inspector general type office to make sure there is no fraud going on in the distribution and expenditure of those subsidies, the federal government would be completely hands off.
Of course, there is also the argument that the rural school districts educate rural people to do rural stuff and who really cares? Basically they don't need a good education if they are going to stay out there. I don't really agree with that, but you could make that argument.
Past that, and an inspector general type office to make sure there is no fraud going on in the distribution and expenditure of those subsidies, the federal government would be completely hands off.
Of course, there is also the argument that the rural school districts educate rural people to do rural stuff and who really cares? Basically they don't need a good education if they are going to stay out there. I don't really agree with that, but you could make that argument.
#168
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Well public schools are unionized (I'm pretty sure they all are). Actually, no I'm not sure. Union membership with rural schools might be a factor. Maybe Troll knows something about that.
#169
Troll
Troll
I'm in the suburbs, surrounded by big cities, so I'm not certain. The only rural teachers I've met are union, though, so I would guess all public schools are unionized regardless of their location/economic status.
#170
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Virtually all PUBLIC teachers are unionized. If you work at a private school, you probably aren't. That's the jist of it, according to my mother who's teaching special education right now.I'm in the suburbs, surrounded by big cities, so I'm not certain. The only rural teachers I've met are union, though, so I would guess all public schools are unionized regardless of their location/economic status.
#171
Chibibar
) we should shift that money for something with substance.
Chibibar
I kinda like the federal minimum wage for teachers. If we can subsidize sugar and stuff that is not really useful (bad for youTrue. The only way around that, as far as I can tell, is to have a federally mandated minimum salary for teachers, which would have to be subsidized by the federal government. So, let's say the minimum is 35k, you would still make more money in Houston, but if you taught in some boondock town the cost of living would be so low you would actually be making more. Problem is that those school districts are so poor that they couldn't afford that, hence it would have to be federally subsidized. Then of course you have problems with the school itself being underfunded, therefore supplies would be worse. Yet again you would need federal subsidies to deal with that. In both cases I think you could easily calculate the necessary subsidies based on some minimum acceptable taxation rate (property/income/whatever you pay for schools with in said state) and the number of students in a district. If there isn't X$ per student then you subsidize to reach that number.
Past that, and an inspector general type office to make sure there is no fraud going on in the distribution and expenditure of those subsidies, the federal government would be completely hands off.
Of course, there is also the argument that the rural school districts educate rural people to do rural stuff and who really cares? Basically they don't need a good education if they are going to stay out there. I don't really agree with that, but you could make that argument.
) we should shift that money for something with substance.
#172
Rob King
Rob King
Subsidizing sugar? Are you for real? I'm a dirty dirty socialist, and I think subsidizing sugar is ridiculous.
#173
AshburnerX
That's right: In order to make corn valuable again, we purposefully made the better substance more expensive to import, because nobody was buying as much corn as they used to. And with the recent lab reports claiming that HFCS may actually be harmful to us, it appears we may have been poisoning ourselves for years with this stuff in the name of supporting failing farms in the US. Go go Capitalism!
AshburnerX
Besides, we don't subsidize sugar in the US. In fact we actually Tariff/tax it in order to protect the value of Corn. Corn's number one use in the US? High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is used as a sugar substitute here because it's cheaper to use this (inferior) concoction than natural sugar because of the tariff.Subsidizing sugar? Are you for real? I'm a dirty dirty socialist, and I think subsidizing sugar is ridiculous.
That's right: In order to make corn valuable again, we purposefully made the better substance more expensive to import, because nobody was buying as much corn as they used to. And with the recent lab reports claiming that HFCS may actually be harmful to us, it appears we may have been poisoning ourselves for years with this stuff in the name of supporting failing farms in the US. Go go Capitalism!
#174
Rob King
Rob King
For all the talk of it, you guys don't actually do the whole capitalism thing down there, do you?
#175
Troll
Troll
That is not a debate I want to get into. Some people are rather testy about it.For all the talk of it, you guys don't actually do the whole capitalism thing down there, do you?
#176
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Hm. I was gonna offer some outsider perspective, but it seems we're now talking about sugar subsidies.
Carry on. *throws notes away*
Carry on. *throws notes away*
#177
AshburnerX
Yeah, I'd rather not get into a three page rant from Gas about how government interference is preventing full blown free market enterprise from taking off (even if he IS 100% right in this specific case). Let's try to get back on topic...
AshburnerX
That is not a debate I want to get into. Some people are rather testy about it.[/QUOTE]For all the talk of it, you guys don't actually do the whole capitalism thing down there, do you?
Yeah, I'd rather not get into a three page rant from Gas about how government interference is preventing full blown free market enterprise from taking off (even if he IS 100% right in this specific case). Let's try to get back on topic...
#178
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
There's some cartoon, probably Simpsons or Futurama, that I recall someone doing that for.Carry on. *throws notes away*
#179
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I hate using ~~nerd stuff~~ as evidence, but I do really like this quote, and it captured my imagination on the subject:
J R Tolkien said:“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
#180
Chazwozel
Yeah, I considered that quote back on page one. The key word is "eager". There is nothing eager about the death penalty system.
---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------
First you subsidize da sugar,
then you get da power,
then you get da women.
Chazwozel
I hate using ~~nerd stuff~~ as evidence, but I do really like this quote, and it captured my imagination on the subject:
J R Tolkien said:“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Yeah, I considered that quote back on page one. The key word is "eager". There is nothing eager about the death penalty system.
---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------
In America:Subsidizing sugar? Are you for real? I'm a dirty dirty socialist, and I think subsidizing sugar is ridiculous.
First you subsidize da sugar,
then you get da power,
then you get da women.
#181
GasBandit
Yeah, I'd rather not get into a three page rant from Gas about how government interference is preventing full blown free market enterprise from taking off (even if he IS 100% right in this specific case). Let's try to get back on topic...[/QUOTE]
Gagh! Denied!
GasBandit
That is not a debate I want to get into. Some people are rather testy about it.[/QUOTE]For all the talk of it, you guys don't actually do the whole capitalism thing down there, do you?
Yeah, I'd rather not get into a three page rant from Gas about how government interference is preventing full blown free market enterprise from taking off (even if he IS 100% right in this specific case). Let's try to get back on topic...[/QUOTE]
Gagh! Denied!