Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan.

[Occhidiangela]

Ok. So lets not argue.

So if you could, please, explain to me how it is "different." The cause, the effect, the outcome. All the same. Kids with guns, killing other kids.

I don't see any difference, other than skin colour here. A life is a life is a life.
[right][snapback]100431[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, Reverand Al, we appreciate your dropping by the board.

Occhi

[Doc]

Thanks, Reverand Al, we appreciate your dropping by the board.

Occhi
[right][snapback]100451[/snapback][/right]

Don't take this the wrong way my friend, by snide remarks like that rather than actually talking about the issue is what has allowed it to continue for so long.

Sure, it is easy to make the snide little remarks... It is not so easy trying to explain the difference on why school shootings have been ignored for so long till it started happening to rich white kids.

So rather than face the issue, a quick jab with a discrediting sort of remark like "Thank you Al" allows everybody to laugh nervously and continue to pretend that the issue does not exist.

[Occhidiangela]

Don't take this the wrong way my friend, by snide remarks like that rather than actually talking about the issue is what has allowed it to continue for so long.

Sure, it is easy to make the snide little remarks... It is not so easy trying to explain the difference on why school shootings have been ignored for so long till it started happening to rich white kids.

So rather than face the issue, a quick jab with a discrediting sort of remark like "Thank you Al" allows everybody to laugh nervously and continue to pretend that the issue does not exist.
[right][snapback]100453[/snapback][/right]

Don't take this the wrong way, Doc, but your habit of bridging to one particular theme gets old, and occasionally evokes a caustic response. One wonders if you assume that if you don't bring it up, no one is or ever has been aware of what you care about. Race baiting gets very old after a while.

Occhi

[Griselda]

Well, I already said that I was talking about how sentencing has affected one anecdotal story that I was personally familiar with. I wasn't particularly talking about media coverage or any other incident. I wasn't talking about the problem of school shootings in general. I was using an example from ONE school shooting to talk about the effects of sentencing. You were hijacking my post to make a point. Maybe Occhi was snide, but he has a point.

You also made quite a few assumptions about race and social class in the incident I mentioned. While several others were wounded, two died. One was a white boy from Massachusetts who was probably middle class at the time of his death, but whose family had been on welfare during his childhood. The other was an Argentinian man who had survived a childhood of poverty in the slums of Buenos Aires only to die from a homicide in western Massachusetts. The shooter was a recent immigrant from Taiwan.

Yeah, rich white people. Whatever. Just because I'm not talking about inner-city gun violence AT THIS EXACT MOMENT IN TIME doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the problem and focusing exclusively on the ills of the poor misunderstood dears in Beverly Hills or whatever.

I also don't tend to talk about inner city gun violence when I'm sleeping, even though I spend about 1/3 of my life asleep. Clearly I'm part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Bah.

[Doc]

Don't take this the wrong way, Doc, but your habit of bridging to one particular theme gets old, and occasionally evokes a caustic response.  One wonders if you assume that if you don't bring it up, no one is or ever has been aware of what you care about.  Race baiting gets very old after a while.

Occhi
[right][snapback]100454[/snapback][/right]

It's not race baiting. It's a reminder of the sorts of things that everybody wishes would just go away so they can comfortably ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, and then not have to worry about doing anything about it or facing the issue.

And I can deal with caustic responses, really... :P I am rather used to the idea that everybody would be much happier if people like me would just go away. Everybody could go back to their ideal little fantasy worlds that they create and then work hard to shelter their views to maintain. People living in their perfect little suburban neighborhoods, like those around Columbine, they could continue to reap sympathy for their own dead and not have to worry about sharing it with anybody else. People can pretend that life is hunky dory and everything is wonderful.

People would be so much happier with out folk like me reminding them of the lessons of their past history, and that if we aint careful, we're going to be right back where we started if we don't pull our collective heads out of our collective asses. Ignoring the problem never makes it go away. But when the chickens come home to roost, wow, everybody panics.

[Doc]

Well, I already said that I was talking about how sentencing has affected one anecdotal story that I was personally familiar with.  I wasn't particularly talking about media coverage or any other incident.  I wasn't talking about the problem of school shootings in general.  I was using an example from ONE school shooting to talk about the effects of sentencing.  You were hijacking my post to make a point.  Maybe Occhi was snide, but he has a point. 

You also made quite a few assumptions about race and social class in the incident I mentioned.  While several others were wounded, two died.  One was a white boy from Massachusetts who was probably middle class at the time of his death, but whose family had been on welfare during his childhood.  The other was an Argentinian man who had survived a childhood of poverty in the slums of Buenos Aires only to die from a homicide in western Massachusetts.  The shooter was a recent immigrant from Taiwan.

Yeah, rich white people.  Whatever.  Just because I'm not talking about inner-city gun violence AT THIS EXACT MOMENT IN TIME doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the problem and focusing exclusively on the ills of the poor misunderstood dears in Beverly Hills or whatever.

I also don't tend to talk about inner city gun violence when I'm sleeping, even though I spend about 1/3 of my life asleep.  Clearly I'm part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Bah.
[right][snapback]100455[/snapback][/right]

Actually Gris, I tend to think with you being a teacher and all, that you are part of the system. On your shoulders lies the potential for progress and great things. The smallest pebble creates many ripples.

And I hold a considerable bit of respect for you because of that. Do not mistake me.

[Griselda]

You know, there's a person on the PTA at my daughter's school who is always talking about her one Pet Issue (and in this case the issue is not racism, fwiw). She finds a a way to relate everything that anybody is talking about to her Pet Issue.

Does that help to make us all more aware of her Issue? No. It makes us all ignore her, even when she's talking about something else.

[Doc]

You know, there's a person on the PTA at my daughter's school who is always talking about her one Pet Issue (and in this case the issue is not racism, fwiw).  She finds a a way to relate everything that anybody is talking about to her Pet Issue.

Does that help to make us all more aware of her Issue?  No.  It makes us all ignore her, even when she's talking about something else.
[right][snapback]100459[/snapback][/right]

Well... Mayhap, if everybody sat down with her for a bit and talked about her pet issue, maybe, just maybe, she would shut up about it in other places once she feels listened to. :D

Or maybe not.

[kandrathe]

...Sure, it is easy to make the snide little remarks... It is not so easy trying to explain the difference on why school shootings have been ignored for so long till it started happening to rich white kids...
[right][snapback]100453[/snapback][/right]

Maybe it was not due to rich vs poor. Maybe it was the anti-gun lobby finding some new ammo. Who can be in support of children killing or being killed?

As for violence in the ghettos and barios of our world; that's been going on for as long as there have been rich and poor.

[Mithrandir]

Ok. Your example of Jeff Luer's is a solitary case. It might be that he received an unjust sentence, and sometimes innocent people are convicted as well. The system has flaws.

Exactly. The system is flawed. The system is not impartial. How can we trust a flawed and impartial system to decide the fate of peoples' lives?

As for Tookie, his sentence was an application of justice for a cold blooded, multiple murderer.

I'm not defending the man's actions earlier in his life. I'm sure that even if he was innocent of this particular crime (which he claimed he was until he died), he had done many others things as the founder of the Crips that warranted an extended prison sentence. But the man wrote childrens books, fostered a peace between the Crips and the Bloods, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five years in a row. If that man isn't considered to have made a significant contribution to society and rehabilitated, and thus deserving of clemency, then who is?

Given that reality, I don't see how they would feel any pain other that the needle prick. The subsequent two injections insure death.

I would argue that "cruel and unusual" is mutually exclusive from where the individual is conscious or not. For example, if you knock someone out with sodium pentothal and then dismember them with a chainsaw, would that not fall under cruel and unusual? That said, I argue against the death penalty because I feel that a) life imprisonment gives an opportunity for inmates to rehabilitate and become productive members of society, b) economic reasons, c) I don't feel that our courts can ever be fair and impartial enough to hold sway over the life of an individuals, d) the death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent, and e) I don't like a Hammurabi's Code way of viewing the law and justice... not because I feel that it is inherently "cruel" to give someone a shot.

I never bought the reconciliation view of the death penalty. It's just creepy to me that people seem to be frothing at the mouth to murder other human beings. Another death won't bring the victim back to life. How is it not an applicable enough punishment to spend the rest of your life behind bars? Also, due to the long appeal proccess, the actual death penalty isn't carried out until years and years after the conviction (I believe the average is somewhere around 10 years, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I know I'm beginning to tread on dangerous ground here, but family members need another human being to die 10+ years after the death of the victim to feel as though they can finally be reconciled? Yikes.

Killing = wrong. But, 2x killing = right? Isn't one of the first things were are ever taught as children that two wrongs don't make a right? Obviously that statement is an oversimplification, but it's an odd thought to me nonetheless.

And finally, a more modern humanitarian (and more expensive) approach to justice introduced rehabilitation during incarceration, to transform the offender into a better citizen upon release. I think most of us would agree it is a noble goal, and that our system has mostly failed with rehabilitation.

If our prison systems are failing at properly rehabilitating prisoners, isn't that a problem that should be addressed with the prison system itself? How is the answer "Let's just kill more people." to the problem "These prisoners aren't properly rehabiliated upon release."?


All I really wanted was a chance to state my opinion and give some reasons for said opinions, not argue with people. I certainly can relate to Occhi's "internet arguing = head + monitor" mathematical relation. A Lounge thread always gives me something to think about, and I appreciate that.

[Occhidiangela]

Exactly. The system is flawed. The system is not impartial. How can we trust a flawed and impartial system to decide the fate of peoples' lives? 

++snip some good points on a merciful system++

All I really wanted was a chance to state my opinion and give some reasons for said opinions, not argue with people. I certainly can relate to Occhi's "internet arguing = head + monitor" mathematical relation. A Lounge thread always gives me something to think about, and I appreciate that.
[right][snapback]100548[/snapback][/right]

I took a fascinating course on Crime and Prison Reform about 30 years ago. The mountain of "the state can't do this and that" rules already hamstrings the capacity for the system to control an environment, which is what one needs to create the climate conducive to behavioral change, which is what the end aim is for a criminal's rehabilitation. "If the patient doesn't want to be rehabbed" -- which applies to some -- no amount of money or time will solve it.

The balancing of punishment versus forgiveness versus rehab is also complex and difficult. I think America gave up on all that in the 1990's, opting for the KISS principle.

During the Clinton administration the "three strikes and you are out" and "minimum sentencing" madness was passed as pols tried to "look tough on crime." Our decision makers and certain very vocal advocacy groups made public policy the following: park certain criminals/people in some place out of the way and forget about them.

A bullet is cheaper, but its finality prevents appeals or the uncovering of some "after the fact" evidence that can overturn a wrongful conviction.

Since the great mass (I presume, I may be wrong) of society has little empathy for a convicted felon, I derive from that an indifference to their fates, so I'll go with "the bullet." The only perfect justice, if there is any, is God's, who I note hasn't dropped by lately to perfect any human justice system.

For those believing in God, one bullet and mark the corpse "return to sender." To err is human, to forgive divine. :rolleyes:

For the more secularly minded, one bullet provides a bit more plant food. :shuriken:

Occhi

[GenericKen]

The only perfect justice, if there is any, is God's, who I note hasn't dropped by lately to perfect any human justice system. 
[right][snapback]100551[/snapback][/right]

Just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

If you ran your government completely darwinistically/pragmatically, you'd be running a fascist state, killing off voices of dissent and "recyling" the elderly and disabled.


The United States happens to run a government of ideals (at least, theorhetically <Ha!>). We count the votes and census one by one even though smaller samples would be statistically identical because of the sentiment of equality (created equal, etc. etc.).

Likewise, we keep murderers alive because of the sentiment that we'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man condemned ("cruel and unusual", "5th amenment", etc. etc.).


It may not be practical, but it's what we do. The theory goes that in the end, the individual rights and emphasis on the welfare of the people of the republic will make us stronger. This remains to be seen, but it's going moderately well so far, imho.

[kandrathe]

...
Likewise, we keep murderers alive because of the sentiment that we'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man condemned ("cruel and unusual", "5th amenment", etc. etc.).
...
[right][snapback]100553[/snapback][/right]

I don't neccesarily agree with that sentiment.

It depends on the 10 guilty ones. There are some very nasty murderers who have slaughtered dozens of people. I think we should do our best to apply the death penalty for cases which are obviously solid, and not apply the death penalty for cases that are not heinous or not solid (circumstantial, with not direct evidence (e.g. DNA)). I'm not a big fan of letting a serial murderer loose because he was improperly mirandized for instance.

Then again, I often see investigative zeal pursuing (hounding) the same suspect without keeping an open mind to other evidence or alternate suspects.

[SwissMercenary]

Since when has the world been in the black and white of 'Kill him or let him go,' again?

[kandrathe]

Since when has the world been in the black and white of 'Kill him or let him go,' again?
[right][snapback]100559[/snapback][/right]

I was reacting to "we'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man condemned". While I would not want to see an innocent man condemned, I would also not want to see the guilty go free. But, this sentiment is in essence why it takes 15 years to carry out a death sentence.

[Occhidiangela]

Since when has the world been in the black and white of 'Kill him or let him go,' again?
[right][snapback]100559[/snapback][/right]

One of the problems with "guilty" is the number of times a felon is never taken to court on the greater charge in order to plea a lesser charge (for example, manslaughter) so that "some punishment" is meted out, but not always to the most deserving in the doses "deserved." Hence, the frustration with the system that the generally law abiding have expressed through the "min sentences" nonsense and "three strikes and you are out" nonsense.

At least, that is how I read it. A draconian response to the matter of loopholes and "swift justice" combined to leave a less than "just" result.

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

One of the changing factors in American justice (since this sentiment is directly stated to be an American idea) is that citizens are relying more and more on the State to provide the primary, if not sole, custodial duty of protecting the innocent from dangerous criminals.

The idea of letting a guilty man go free rather than risk an innocent man stay imprisoned once carried the understanding that the wolf was not exactly being let loose among the sheep— an armed populace learned in self-defense and strong-willed enough to stand against brigandry meant that the unrepentant guilty would likely get their due, one way or another.

[kandrathe]

One of the changing factors in American justice (since this sentiment is directly stated to be an American idea) is that citizens are relying more and more on the State to provide the primary, if not sole, custodial duty of protecting the innocent from dangerous criminals.

The idea of letting a guilty man go free rather than risk an innocent man stay imprisoned once carried the understanding that the wolf was not exactly being let loose among the sheep— an armed populace learned in self-defense and strong-willed enough to stand against brigandry meant that the unrepentant guilty would likely get their due, one way or another.
[right][snapback]100578[/snapback][/right]

Agreed. But, I think the State is also less tolerant of citizens standing against brigandry.

[Occhidiangela]

Agreed.  But, I think the State is also less tolerant of citizens standing against brigandry.
[right][snapback]100594[/snapback][/right]

If I may quote (a bit out of context) from the Declaration:

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Granted, there are a ream of unexploited assumptions in the language of The Declaration, and I have quoted out of context, but let's proceed. :)

If "The State" is negligent, is it considered destructive? A quick look at how tort law has evolved over the past century provides the answer "Yes." (Check out the unrelenting "deep pocketes" suits against various public institutions and organs of government.)

What is "The State?" If it doesn't serve The Citizen, who and what does it serve? If "The State" is unresponsive to appeals to alter -- my preferred course of action and I think the Founders' as well -- what then? Either the citizens accept becoming subjects, or the citizens pursue their "Safety and Happiness" via other means.

In the process of alteration, who should get primacy of consideration "for Safety and Happiness?" In my lifetime, I have observed that a great deal of concern is showered on the scofflaws and criminals, with the law abiding citizen being taken for granted. It is one thing to assume the general population is law abiding (yes, pun intended) and it is yet another to take that habit for granted, to exploit it until a tipping point is reached. If The State fails to serve the citizen, it follows that the people making up the human infrastructure of "The State" have failed, then the exploitatin calls for alteration of infrastructure, either in structure (rules duties and authority) or in detail (specific persons removed from office/public service.)

It is my belief that citizens, and particularly law abiding citizens, whom "The State" allegedly is constructed to benefit, must accrue and be granted primacy of consideration, and that scofflaws and criminals be relegated to a lesser priority.

Civic virtue should indeed be both "its own rewarded" and rewarded by being granted primacy of consideration.

Occhi

[Doc]

If I may quote (a bit out of context) from the Declaration:

Granted, there are a ream of unexploited assumptions in the language of The Declaration, and I have quoted out of context, but let's proceed.&nbsp; &nbsp; :)

If "The State" is negligent, is it considered destructive?&nbsp; A quick look at how tort law has evolved over the past century provides the answer "Yes."&nbsp; (Check out the unrelenting "deep pocketes" suits against various public institutions and organs of government.)&nbsp;

What is "The State?"&nbsp; If it doesn't serve The Citizen, who and what does it serve?&nbsp; If "The State" is unresponsive to appeals to alter -- my preferred course of action and I think the Founders' as well -- what then?&nbsp; Either the citizens accept becoming subjects, or the citizens pursue their "Safety and Happiness" via other means.

In the process of alteration, who should get primacy of consideration "for Safety and Happiness?"&nbsp; In my lifetime, I have observed that a great deal of concern is showered on the scofflaws and criminals, with the law abiding citizen being taken for granted.&nbsp; It is one thing to assume the general population is law abiding (yes, pun intended) and it is yet another to take that habit for granted, to exploit it until a tipping point is reached.&nbsp; If The State fails to serve the citizen, it follows that the people making up the human infrastructure of "The State" have failed, then the exploitatin calls for alteration of infrastructure, either in structure (rules duties and authority) or in detail (specific persons removed from office/public service.)

It is my belief that citizens, and particularly law abiding citizens, whom "The State" allegedly is constructed to benefit, must accrue and be granted primacy of consideration, and that scofflaws and criminals be relegated to a lesser priority.

Civic virtue should indeed be both "its own rewarded" and rewarded by being granted primacy of consideration.

Occhi
[right][snapback]100609[/snapback][/right]

Posting those words will likely put you on a secret government watch list.

<_<