Just Another Political Post.

[eppie]

The death penalty is correct.  Convicting a man without sufficient evidence is incorrect,  Your attempt to mix the two is a red herring, go fish.  I will discuss this no further with you, eppie, as you have already made up your mind, for reasons that are completely immaterial to me. 

---So what are you then? Pro death penalty as it is now, or pro theoratical death penalty? And about making up my mind....I pointed out that a lot of people (among who myself) are in favour of sentenceing somebody to death who deserves it (because of things he or she has done). However, we are (almost) never sure, and we all know that thousands of times people have been wrongfully punished (not only to death sentence). And we have also seen than in politically instable times (a president that can get more or less away with everything if he says it is a counterterrorism act) that people can even easier be treated in a wrong way.

So all in all I find it a very legitimate question. But you can choose just to close your eyes and ears, and don't think about it anymore.

As to Pro Choice, you don't understand, it seems, that in a nation of 300,000,000, there can be more than one opinion.

Well I do understand...that is why I wrote what I wrote.

We don't play overfederalist here, or at least, we are in a constant struggle against expanding federalism.  The "you Americans" overgeneralization applied to a matter under dispute is garbage argumentation, and has been your recent statndard.  Next time you want to point a finger somewhere -- and "you Americans" is finger pionting -- point it straight up your colon.   

--Again, thank you for just doing away with my post with some absolutely hilarious toughtalk, but this is what I exactly mean...there are more opinions....why would somebody for something so personal be sentenced to a *** life just because (more or less half of the) other people (among who accidentally some important judges) think things hsould be done in a certain way.

You would do well to take your own advice  -- "mind your own business" -- however, since you were kind enough to offer advice, turn about is fair play.

Wrap your rascal until you want to have kids.  That way, you will never be faced with the choice.  It is good to have to choice, it is bitter to have to face it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89642[/snapback][/right]

I think this is something on which we all agree, no point discussing it.

[Occhidiangela]

Did you remember to trim your fingernails first? :P

OK, you want more. Fine. I have ten minutes to spare for you.

Death penalty as it is now is just fine, and the process by which we determine who should be executed is fine, the process by which we convict anyone of a capital crime could probably use some improvement in terms of allowing more evidence to be submitted so the case is clearer to jurors, or more clearly NOT a clear cut case.

I don't lose sleep if a few dozen people in a year out of 300,000,000 are torched incorrectly. Do the people in car crashes all deserved to die? Not always, but ther are dead anyway. Dead. Dead. Dead. Life's tough, wear a helmet.

Given the appeal process, if the last appeals can't show error, we have met the good enough standard. You don't see all the cases that aren't challenged or later shown to have been imperfect, you choose to see and get all melodramatic, and engage in the moaning and groaning and crying and gnashing of teeth over the cases where something went amiss. Go figure, humans cannot administer perfect justice, so,it appears that, according to Saint Eppie, we shouldn't administer justice at all. Remember to trim those nails.

We don't pay for, and can't afford, zero defects government, nor a zero defects justice system. That does not mean we should not exterminate pests for fear of occasionally poisoning the cat.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I've never understood how Hillary Clinton became such a big deal.  She seems like a plain vanilla standard congressional democrat, nothing more, nothing less, from what I keep seeing. 
Personally, I don't care if someone is "normal" or not, I want someone who agrees more  with what I'd like the country to be like, and can do the job well.  "Normal", or "friendly" fall very far behind.  Hillary clinton is o.k. if no one else was available, but doesn't really stick out.
[right][snapback]89558[/snapback][/right]

Ok, just my two cents on Hillary Clinton. If you examine the facts about Whitewater, you will see everyone involved was held culpable and most were convicted and sent to prison with notable exceptions of the Clintons and Vince Foster (who committed suicide). Hillary acted as the legal advisor to the McDougals, so either 1] she was involved in and knowingly participated in fraud, or 2] she is the most incompetant lawyer in the world for not knowing federal regulations regarding basic fundamentals of business loans. Vince Foster, the guy who oversaw selling out the Clintons Whitewater investment, would have had the most damning evidence. After his suicide his office was noticably cleansed and information was missing. Couple that with the fact that both Bill and Hillary felt that the political sharks of Washington were out to get them (which they were), and that anything was justified to win. To me, there is a stink of fish in Denmark.

I don't think is was appropriate that the Republicans, and Starr went into a feeding frenzy with the Clintons, but I would hardly blame them with all the scandal blood in the water.

[kandrathe]

I'm NOT going to be dragged into an abortion tiff. What I will say is that, while I don't agree with your blanket characterization of 'what it means to be liberal' (which is overly general and seemingly ignorant of the fact that 'liberty' can be decontested/conceived in a many different ways), you have answered your own question within your own definition of the term: it is not any less logical to say that an unborn child ought to be considered a legal individual than to say that the opposite is true.
[right][snapback]89631[/snapback][/right]

Being somewhat a libertarian, this problem is particulary thorny for me. I don't see this as a Pro-choice vs Anti-choice problem, I see it as a classification problem. The fetus is either the "property" of the pregnant mother and she can do with it as she pleases, or it is "an individual" to which we can determine rights. We can argue the medical ethics later, but if a person wanted to sell off one of their kidney's it would be a property issue. If someone wants to have the right to scarify their body, that is an individuals right over their own body.

What is complicated is that at birth, suddenly in a matter of hours to minutes the fetus transitions from having no rights to having full rights. Nevermind that it was viable outside the womb for the past 3-4 months had it been born prematurely. But, to ascribe full personhood to a fertilized egg the day after conception seems somewhat over-zealous (at least in scientific terms). So there must be a transition from non-personhood(very early in pregnancy) to personhood (very late in pregnancy). But where do we draw that line? When it has a beating heart, or an active brain? I don't know. I do know that abortion is not a substitute for birth control, and I fear that some abortions are murder.

[Nystul]

Maybe I should use Centralist?  Doesn't seem to fit.
[right][snapback]89650[/snapback][/right]

I guess it would be more clear that way. A quick google search for "Rehnquist" and "federalist" found numerous articles referring to him as a federalist, and at least one referring to him as an anti-federalist. In every case, they meant that he pushed for states' rights. I think your use is logically and historically correct, but somewhere along the line the meaning has flipped in common use.

[eppie]

Did you remember to trim your fingernails first?  :P

OK, you want more.  Fine.  I have ten minutes to spare for you.

Death penalty as it is now is just fine, and the process by which we determine who should be executed is fine, the process by which we convict anyone of a capital crime could probably use some improvement in terms of allowing more evidence to be submitted so the case is clearer to jurors, or more clearly NOT a clear cut case. 

I don't lose sleep if a few dozen people in a year out of 300,000,000 are torched incorrectly.  Do the people in car crashes all deserved to die?  Not always, but ther are dead anyway.  Dead.  Dead.  Dead.  Life's tough, wear a helmet.

Given the appeal process, if the last appeals can't show error, we have met the good enough standard.  You don't see all the cases that aren't challenged or later shown to have been imperfect, you choose to see and get all melodramatic, and engage in the moaning and groaning and crying and gnashing of teeth over the cases where something went amiss.  Go figure, humans cannot administer perfect justice, so,it appears that, according to Saint Eppie, we shouldn't administer justice at all.  Remember to trim those nails. 

We don't pay for, and can't afford, zero defects government, nor a zero defects justice system.  That does not mean we should not exterminate pests for fear of occasionally poisoning the cat.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89655[/snapback][/right]

I expected more from you...much more..... First you agree that there is much to improve in the way people get sentenced to punishment, and now "it is just fine".
And a few dozen out of 300.000.000 first those are not the ones that stand on trial, and of course if you (or somebody you know) are not one of those few dozen it might seem all right. But there is one thing worse than being murdered, that is being murdered by the state (so with public consensus) if you are not guilty.

And don't saint eppie me, I'm not just some softy that wants to hug criminals, but I at least try to nunacate these things. Society does not get better the harder we punish criminals....and it for sure is not cheaper (these guys are often in death row for years). Punishment has two goals....first...punish people for what they have done (closely related is that you want to scare potential criminals of not doing something or else...... (something which does not work, history shows us), and second is to try to make people a better person so that when they get out they can be a normal member of society again. The last thing is something that not always works when you have sever punishments (long jail time), where the criminal is surrounded only by other criminals. Good, if that is the other possibility I can see why you favour the death sentence.

You last alinea: using more and more posion will not get rid of more pests they tend to become resistant, it will cost more cats. So better change the posion.

[Doc]

Gawrsh. Look what I did.

This was meant to be a joke people... Funny haha joke.

Way to wreck an intentional trolling satire thread.

Failures, the lot of you.

[Doc]

Oh yeah. Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day.

Let's have more AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH with those flames mateys!

Land lubbering scurvied dog faced eejits.

[kandrathe]

Doc, that is the way of politics (and Lurker threads) you start a serious topic and some troll takes it off course, or you start a troll and someone serious takes it off course. Anyway, the result is with the best or worst of intentions you never get what you wanted, or even needed. :D

Punishment has two goals...
[right][snapback]89665[/snapback][/right]

I always thought of our justice system as three things. 1] Justice, in that the society exacts a penance comensurate with a crime against the society, 2] Rehabilitation, to attempt to repair or redeem a broken citizen, and 3] Protection, by removing that offender from the society for a period of time (sometimes indefinately if they are deemed unworthy of any participation). The death penalty seems to fit in 1] to exact the highest punishment for heinous crimes, or 3] to rid society of a pariah.

[Occhidiangela]

First you agree that there is much to improve in the way people get sentenced to punishment, and now "it is just fine".

You are wrong again. I feel both at the same time, there is no order. You got more than you deserved from me. This discussion is now you talking to yourself, or thinking out loud, which is fine. You and I disagree on the death penalty, which is also fine.

Your attempt at logic and argument is not the kind of reasoning that will have a hope in hell of inducing me to change my position, if anything would.

So, stop tallking at me. I am done talking at you on this topic.

Occhi

[jahcs]

Gawrsh. Look what I did.

This was meant to be a joke people... Funny haha joke.

Way to wreck an intentional trolling satire thread.

Failures, the lot of you.
[right][snapback]89666[/snapback][/right]

I'll be down below decks eating my square and drawing my ration of ale. The rest of these scurvy sea dogs will be swabbin the poop deck.

[Occhidiangela]

I'll be down below decks eating my square and drawing my ration of ale.  The rest of these scurvy sea dogs will be swabbin the poop deck.
[right][snapback]89679[/snapback][/right]

Ye won be a findin' no ale rashun, friend Jahcs, as this be a Pirate ship. If yer wantin' a fine measure of the grog, o'course, that'd be a sea horse of another color! ;)

Occhi

[Ashock]

Pro Choice?  Yes, but make it early.  :)

Pro Death Penalty?  Yep.  And faster.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89623[/snapback][/right]

Yep, my sentiments exactly. 1st trimester - np. Last trimester - there better be a damn good reason and "just because I want to" is not one. Mid trimester - grey matter.


-A

[jahcs]

Ye won be a findin' no ale rashun, friend Jahcs, as this be a Pirate ship.  If yer wantin' a fine measure of the grog, o'course, that'd be a sea horse of another color!  ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]89681[/snapback][/right]

The fine edge on me cutlass and strength of me arm ensures a share of the booty. Gold, grog, and women!

[Occhidiangela]

The fine edge on me cutlass and strength of me arm ensures a share of the booty.  Gold, grog, and women!
[right][snapback]89685[/snapback][/right]

Aye, add a touch o' the boucan for lunch when ye be done with the booty considerations.

Occhi

[Archon_Wing]

Maybe everyone's just kidding and the joke's on us.

Just pray that it was only a dream.

[Minionman]

Death penalty as it is now is just fine, and the process by which we determine who should be executed is fine, the process by which we convict anyone of a capital crime could probably use some improvement in terms of allowing more evidence to be submitted so the case is clearer to jurors, or more clearly NOT a clear cut case. 

I don't lose sleep if a few dozen people in a year out of 300,000,000 are torched incorrectly.  Do the people in car crashes all deserved to die?  Not always, but ther are dead anyway.  Dead.  Dead.  Dead.  Life's tough, wear a helmet.

Given the appeal process, if the last appeals can't show error, we have met the good enough standard. 

We don't pay for, and can't afford, zero defects government, nor a zero defects justice system.  That does not mean we should not exterminate pests for fear of occasionally poisoning the cat.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89655[/snapback][/right]

Cars are given air bags, seat belts, people are taught to drive safer, etc. to prevent car crahes. Same thing about getting sick, that's another possible "life is tough" example, that's what doctors, water treatment, etc. are for. If someone could magically prevent car accidents, they probably would do it, unless it causesmore serious problems in the process. Accidental death penalties are really easy to prevent, just drop death penalty.

As to 'poisoning the cat", the point of the poison is not to show the pests that poison is there, or to make them writhe in pain, the point is to keep the pests away. If mousetraps work, than mousetraps get used for some of the poison. If leaving less crumbs around keeps pests away, that's also useful as well. In terms of death penalty, the most important question is whether it reduces crime. If not, that's twelve or so preventable pointless deaths a year, not a good system.

[Minionman]

I always thought of our justice system as three things.  1] Justice, in that the society exacts a penance comensurate with a crime against the society, 2] Rehabilitation, to attempt to repair or redeem a broken citizen, and 3] Protection, by removing that offender from the society for a period of time (sometimes indefinately if they are deemed unworthy of any participation).  The death penalty seems to fit in 1]  to exact the highest punishment for heinous crimes, or 3] to rid society of a pariah.
[right][snapback]89676[/snapback][/right]

Arguments around crime policy seem to revolve around these arguments, but I'm surprised that it doesn't all focus onto one thing: reducing crime. I don't care if someone gets 3 years jail or community service, I just want to have less chance of getting beat up or killed or such. Whether death penalty does this is up for grabs.

[kandrathe]

Arguments around crime policy seem to revolve around these arguments, but I'm surprised that it doesn't all focus onto one thing:  reducing crime.  I don't care if someone gets 3 years jail or community service, I just want to have less chance of getting beat up or killed or such.  Whether death penalty does this is up for grabs.
[right][snapback]89718[/snapback][/right]

Justice needs to hold people equally accountable for their transgressions. It seldom does, but that is the ideal that we strive for. Rehabilitation is a modern concept. Back in the good old days, most often prison is where you went to suffer a death of negligence and disease at best and torture at the hands of sadistic guards at worst.

If you want to focus on reducing crime you are looking at the wrong end of the horse. Try the feeding side where you educate the disadvantaged, provide jobs for the unemployed, and hope for the hopeless.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's hardly accurate as applied to the "typical American Liberal".[right][snapback]89643[/snapback][/right]

Yep. You are using the capital 'L' Liberal, a usage made common by the ignorance of the press and politicians. I am using lower 'l' liberal, which is what is found in most dictionaries, e.g. M-W:
"liberal: noun: a person who is liberal: as
a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party
c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights."

Of course, if a political party calls itself 'liberal' but does not embrace 'liberalism', then we have two choices. We can be good sheep and go along with their 'authority'. Or we can call bull#$%& on the lying bastards. I am not yet so senile that I'll accept gobbledygook as correct usage.

--Pete