Just Another Political Post.

[Doc]

There's a little more horse left over there.

[whyBish]

Bah, still white people living there. And no guns. I'll pass. :P
[right][snapback]89814[/snapback][/right]

Well, with your additional vote we could change that :P

[whyBish]

EDIT:  The nonsense sentence of "life in prison without chance for parole" is to me a cruel and unusual punishment per the Constitution and prohibition therein.  All those thus sentenced should, in my opinion, be put to death sooner rather than later via wastage on the public dime.  My opinion is a minority opinion, of course.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89846[/snapback][/right]

Well, I'm with you Occhi. a bit of lead costs 10c? A life sentence in prison (Life = 14 years here lol.) costs around $60kpa ~= $0.8M which is much more than any crim is likely to contribute back to the public purse even if rehabilitated.

Savings per execution? At least a couple million, as criminals not only cost the country directly and inderectly through the results and repercussions of their original crime, they also cost for the duration of their incarceration, and are likely to commit similar offences upon release.

I wish we had the American system here, our sentences are much to light, and we are strangely focussed on offender rights... A recent event had a person who ran down another person (allegedly accidentally). They did not stop the car to go check if the person was OK, they continued on. They lied to the police and denied it until they were caught out. Final sentence for killing someone? 400hrs community service and no driving for a year....

With being a club captain of the local tennis club here, I am doing 10hrs/wk of what would be counted as community service. I also don't drive. So I can afford to kill a person per year without a change in my lifestyle :angry:

Also sentences here are concurrently served, not consecutively served. If you kill one person and ended up with the max term of 14 years, you are being punished just as strongly as the person that goes on a shooting rampage and kills 100 people. <_<

--Edit all figures are for NZ situation in NZD. Figures are guestimate based on memory last time I looked. They may be out by a large amount, but are order of magnitude correct.

[whyBish]

Now that I think about it seriously, I wouldn't live anywhere where I and others like me might be the minority with out any guns.

I couldn't live that way.

I intended my original statement as a joke. But it turns out I was being serious.

Guns keep minorities empowered enough for the majority to take them seriously.
[right][snapback]89822[/snapback][/right]

Lol. It's a pity that you think the rest of the world is the same way America is.

We have a political system where the minority parties end up with disproportionate power unlike america where you have the choice between two dictators for four years. (apologies for being blunt).

Like I said in the previous post, the Maori party here currently looks as if it holds the balance of power with holding a mere 4/162 seats... yes, that's right 2.5% of the population can have a significant effect on the direction of our government (at least for a period of time, whereas a minority party in American type system is pointless)
Prior periods had different minor parties in such a position (in reverse order: a centrist christian party, the left wing greens, a right wing anti-immigration party)


But if you want empowerment through firepower, perhaps you'll be more comfortable in NK instead of NZ (J/K of course :P )

[eppie]

Well, I'm with you Occhi.&nbsp; a bit of lead costs 10c?&nbsp; A life sentence in prison (Life = 14 years here lol.) costs around $60kpa ~= $0.8M which is much more than any crim is likely to contribute back to the public purse even if rehabilitated.

Savings per execution?&nbsp; At least a couple million, as criminals not only cost the country directly and inderectly through the results and repercussions of their original crime, they also cost for the duration of their incarceration, and are likely to commit similar offences upon release.

But, the costs of a death sentence are not just the 10 cents for a bullet. People often spend years on death row, which is much costier then normal prison.

But is of course not just very sec a question of "what do they deserve" and "how do we pay least", there is also the question of civilization and common decency. And more important then what do criminals deserve, is how can we make sure there will be less crime......harder punshments are not the answer, history told us that.

So on one side you have the guy who raped and killed 5 women and children who deserves the hardest punishment for that....but this same guy (a complete mental case of course) will not be kept from doing the things he does, just because he can get a certain heavy punishment. So if we want to stop things like this to happen, we should find other ways.

It is known that poverty is a basis for crime as well (I'm not talking about the mental case now). I don't believe that people are not responsible for their acts because they are poor, but I do know that punishing them harder is not a solution to end this crime. Ending poverty is.

So the question is what do you want?. Do you want to make sure that everybody has to pay in a major way for their deeds and point all your attention to that. Or do you point your attention on actually trying to bring back crime numbers.

If your living in a small vilage where not much happens I can imagine you will favour the first option. If however you live in area's where there is much crime, you would like to have solutions first.

Please understand, that I do think people should be punsihed for crimes of course.

[Occhidiangela]

1.&nbsp; Well, I'm with you Occhi.&nbsp; a bit of lead costs 10c?&nbsp; A life sentence in prison (Life = 14 years here lol.) costs around $60kpa ~= $0.8M which is much more than any crim is likely to contribute back to the public purse even if rehabilitated.

2.&nbsp; With being a club captain of the local tennis club here, I am doing 10hrs/wk of what would be counted as community service.&nbsp; I also don't drive.&nbsp; So I can afford to kill a person per year without a change in my lifestyle :angry:

[right][snapback]89907[/snapback][/right]

*grin*

1. There is the problem of how long people stay on death row, as the appeals process here requires at least 3, sometimes up to 5. When you figure in the average stay on death row (something I'd like to see reduced) the cost of that 10 cent bullet expands considerably. :(

2. Well, if you can kill a person a year,

"I've got a little list, I've got a little list
Of society's offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed
They never would be missed!"

Let's raise a glass to Koko, the Lord High Executioner! :D

Occhi

[Doc]

There are ways to kill people and very neatly dispose of the body.

Just think of Hoffa.

Or the White Trash Battered Housewife Anthem, Good-Bye Earl.

And it didn't take long to decide
That Earl had to die
Goodbye Earl
Those black-eyed peas
They tasted all right to me Earl
You're feeling weak
Why don't you lay down
and sleep Earl
Ain't it dark
Wrapped up in that tarp Earl
~
Well the weeks went by and
Spring turned to Summer
And Summer faded into Fall
And it turns out he was a missing person
who nobody missed al all

Some people aint worth a finding. So it's like a get out of jail free card. They is just a beggin for somebody to lay them low.

As I have mentioned... If you ever need to dispose of a body kids, visit a hog farm. Or a gator infested swamp. Or deep sea fishing... You will need a lot of chum.

Just get rid of those miscreants that the justice department keeps overlooking.

[ShadowHM]

Some people aint worth a finding. So it's like a get out of jail free card. They is just a beggin for somebody to lay them low.

As I have mentioned... If you ever need to dispose of a body kids, visit a hog farm. Or a gator infested swamp. Or deep sea fishing... You will need a lot of chum.

Just get rid of those miscreants that the justice department keeps overlooking.
[right][snapback]89915[/snapback][/right]

Dear Doc

You crossed a line today, because you finally made me gag. I thought I was able to ignore your trolling, but I was wrong.

Some people ain't worth finding? A hog farm is a great place to dispose of body parts?

Do a Google search on Robert Pickton of Vancouver. He thought he could do just that, and he did for quite some time. The women he killed may not have been 'innocent' but they damn well didn't deserve what they got.

Would you PLEASE have a care on how you spout off the drivel?

[Doc]

Dear Doc

You crossed a line today, because you finally made me gag.&nbsp; &nbsp; I thought I was able to ignore your trolling, but I was wrong.

Some people ain't worth finding?&nbsp; &nbsp; A hog farm is a great place to dispose of body parts?

Do a Google search on Robert Pickton of Vancouver.&nbsp; He thought he could do just that, and he did for quite some time.&nbsp; &nbsp; The women he killed may not have been 'innocent' but they damn well didn't deserve what they got.

Would you PLEASE have a care on how you spout off the drivel?
[right][snapback]89926[/snapback][/right]

Ma'am, incase you missed it, I started this post as a joke. And that post was said as (mostly) tongue in cheek, as per the quote of a very comedic country song.

Would you please have a care to read the road signs along the way? For almost everything in this thread, I took a very hardline stance and make bold extremist statements to poke fun at everybody else being too gosh damned serious and making their own hardline extremist statements. In short, I was mocking them. How many times did I step in and thumb my nose at the fact that people were taking this thread a little to serious?

I am sorry that you got taken in.

My apologies.

[ShadowHM]

Ma'am, incase you missed it, I started this post as a joke. And that post was said as (mostly) tongue in cheek, as per the quote of a very comedic country song.

Would you please have a care to read the road signs along the way? For almost everything in this thread, I took a very hardline stance and make bold extremist statements to poke fun at everybody else being too gosh damned serious and making their own hardline extremist statements. In short, I was mocking them. How many times did I step in and thumb my nose at the fact that people were taking this thread a little to serious?

I am sorry that you got taken in.

My apologies.
[right][snapback]89932[/snapback][/right]

Doc

I was aware this entire thread was a troll. You were shameless about your intent in starting it, and I stated that in my post.

I said that you crossed a line, for me. I would believe in your apology if I thought it might actually change the way you have been treating this forum of late. Sadly, my perception is that you are bored and restless and feeling a need to share that pain. I don't appreciate it. I see this board as a place for discussion, not pot-stirring. And I really didn't, as I said, appreciate the reference you made above, no matter how tongue-in-cheek you meant it. Or did you bother to check the reference I gave you?

[Doc]

Doc

I was aware this entire thread was a troll.&nbsp; You were shameless about your intent in starting it, and I stated that in my post.

I said that you crossed a line, for me.&nbsp; I would believe in your apology if I thought it might actually change the way you have been treating this forum of late.&nbsp; Sadly, my perception is that you are bored and restless and feeling a need to share that pain.&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't appreciate it.&nbsp; &nbsp; I see this board as a place for discussion, not pot-stirring.&nbsp; And I really didn't, as I said, appreciate the reference you made above, no matter how tongue-in-cheek you meant it.&nbsp; Or did you bother to check the reference I gave you?
[right][snapback]89936[/snapback][/right]

Then for you sake, as well as my own, I shall cut back a bit and mellow out for a while. :wub:

I am sorry that my statement offended you. I am so jaded toward these issues that I stick my foot in my own mouth with out stopping to think what others might think or feel.

I promise to only be mischievious in the future with out being hateful.

[Archon_Wing]

Then for you sake, as well as my own, I shall cut back a bit and mellow out for a while. :wub:

I am sorry that my statement offended you. I am so jaded toward these issues that I stick my foot in my own mouth with out stopping to think what others might think or feel.

I promise to only be mischievious in the future with out being hateful.
[right][snapback]89937[/snapback][/right]

As a future note, a good troll generally only targets the anal-retentive, not the general populace. Infurating the later is just being plain mean and we generally try to avoid that. Trolls are supposed to be funny, and although I loved your original post things went a bit astray. But nobody's perfect. ;)

I await your next troll, Doc. Hopefully, the next bridge we come across isn't loaded with mines (which lead to possible actual discussion and heated debate). :)

"A good troll is 15% truth, 50% lies, 10% salt, 10% wit, 5% sterotypes, 8% personal attacks, and the rest is probaly dark matter."


Troll on!

[Doc]

As a future note, a good troll generally only targets the anal-retentive, not the general populace. Infurating the later is just being plain mean and we generally try to avoid that.&nbsp; Trolls are supposed to be funny, and although I loved your original post things went a bit astray. But nobody's perfect.&nbsp; ;)

I await your next troll, Doc. Hopefully, the next bridge we come across isn't loaded with mines (which lead to possible actual discussion and heated debate).&nbsp; :)

"A good troll is 15% truth, 50% lies, 10% salt, 10% wit, 5% sterotypes, 8% personal attacks, and the rest is probaly dark matter."
Troll on!
[right][snapback]89948[/snapback][/right]

I do believe it is your turn to begin the next troll thread. It's been a little to long. Have you grown fat and lazy?

[Archon_Wing]

I do believe it is your turn to begin the next troll thread. It's been a little to long. Have you grown fat and lazy?
[right][snapback]89951[/snapback][/right]

Yes :( :wacko:

[whyBish]

I am sorry that my statement offended you. I am so jaded toward these issues that I stick my foot in my own mouth with out stopping to think what others might think or feel.
[right][snapback]89937[/snapback][/right]

I hear salsa goes nicely with feet :P

[whyBish]

But, the costs of a death sentence are not just the 10 cents for a bullet. People often spend years on death row, which is much costier then normal prison.

But is of course not just very sec a question of "what do they deserve" and "how do we pay least", there is also the question of civilization and common decency. And more important then what do criminals deserve, is how can we make sure there will be less crime......harder punshments are not the answer, history told us that.

So on one side you have the guy who raped and killed 5 women and children who deserves the hardest punishment for that....but this same guy (a complete mental case of course) will not be kept from doing the things he does, just because he can get a certain heavy punishment. So if we want to stop things like this to happen, we should find other ways.

It is known that poverty is a basis for crime as well (I'm not talking about the mental case now). I don't believe that people are not responsible for their acts because they are poor, but I do know that punishing them harder is not a solution to end this crime. Ending poverty is.

So the question is what do you want?. Do you want to make sure that everybody has to pay in a major way for their deeds and point all your attention to that. Or do you point your attention on actually trying to bring back crime numbers.

If your living in a small vilage where not much happens I can imagine you will favour the first option. If however you live in area's where there is much crime, you would like to have solutions first.

Please understand, that I do think people should be punsihed for crimes of course.
[right][snapback]89912[/snapback][/right]

There is no need for them to spend years on death row. If a jury of twelve finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (although over here with the move to allow 11-1 decisions those would have to be voided from the penalty), then get the job done rather than clogging up the legal system and jails.
I'm particularly with Occhi when he says don't be in stupid places at stupid times... one ought to know not to 'polish ones firearm at a gas station' ;)

It's not about deterring crimes from happening, it's about stopping future crimes by a proven criminal... if you want to deter crimes, this measure at least wont make people more likely to commit. You can do this and still put your other deterrent policies in place such as reducing poverty... in fact the amounts saved could be directly transferred to the poor if you want.

"Common decency" is about not commiting capital crimes in the first place. I thought that would have been obvious. If you break that rule then don't expect society to be decent in return.

Mind you, I'd probably also argue that capitalism demands killing those that would take more from the state than give... j/k :P

[eppie]

There is no need for them to spend years on death row.&nbsp; If a jury of twelve finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (although over here with the move to allow 11-1 decisions those would have to be voided from the penalty), then get the job done rather than clogging up the legal system and jails.

Yes but that is the whole difficulty. And also in the USA they know this, at least it gives people time to fight their death sentence, which also happens once in a while succesfully. I agree with you that "a proven" criminal could be executed two days after the death sentence, but this is just theoretical talk. Being a civilized nation costs money.

I'm particularly with Occhi when he says don't be in stupid places at stupid times... one ought to know not to 'polish ones firearm at a gas station' ;)

--this I don't really get..

It's not about deterring crimes from happening, it's about stopping future crimes by a proven criminal... if you want to deter crimes, this measure at least wont make people more likely to commit.&nbsp; You can do this and still put your other deterrent policies in place such as reducing poverty... in fact the amounts saved could be directly transferred to the poor if you want.

Of course there are different things here. The fact is also that somebody who spend 20 years in jail between teh scum of the earth, gets free, has no job etc. is very likely to go back to being a criminal....because there is not that much choice....of course there is....and they are always responsible for their own deeds (I agree) but facts are facts...these people often go back to crime......and that is the problem of the "good people" as well.

"Common decency" is about not commiting capital crimes in the first place.&nbsp; I thought that would have been obvious.&nbsp; If you break that rule then don't expect society to be decent in return.

Yes but thus is all very easy to say. When you live somewhere with millions of people, there will always be several that are not able to behave in a decent way....it is just after the state starts acting undecent that things go really wrong.

Mind you, I'd probably also argue that capitalism demands killing those that would take more from the state than give... j/k&nbsp; :P
[right][snapback]90164[/snapback][/right]

[Minionman]

It's not about deterring crimes from happening, it's about stopping future crimes by a proven criminal... if you want to deter crimes, this measure at least wont make people more likely to commit.&nbsp; You can do this and still put your other deterrent policies in place such as reducing poverty... in fact the amounts saved could be directly transferred to the poor if you want.
[right][snapback]90164[/snapback][/right]

Its about reducing crime period, which in the case of punishments involves both.

[whyBish]

....it is just after the state starts acting undecent that things go really wrong.
[right][snapback]90167[/snapback][/right]

Care to elaborate on that?

Over here we have the problem where the state is too civil, and things have gone really wrong. When you find out on the news that a P-crazed child murderer had 200 prior convictions, surely you have to say a serious WTF. How on earth can a state allow a citizen to rack up 200+ convictions. Surely any more than 3 (or 10? or 50?) is more than enough to indicate someone that is not civilised enough for civilisation???

[ShadowHM]

Over here we have the problem where the state is too civil, and things have gone really wrong.&nbsp; When you find out on the news that a P-crazed child murderer had 200 prior convictions, surely you have to say a serious WTF.&nbsp; How on earth can a state allow a citizen to rack up 200+ convictions.&nbsp; Surely any more than 3 (or 10? or 50?) is more than enough to indicate someone that is not civilised enough for civilisation???
[right][snapback]90268[/snapback][/right]

whybish, could you elaborate on that?

Was this individual convicted of child murder 200 times and still not incarcerated? :blink: Or was it 200 convictions for possession/trafficing in "P" ? (What exactly is "P" anyway?)

Or were they convictions for things like driving too fast and/or failing to wear seatbelts?

On the face of it, that many convictions sounds incredible. I really have no idea what the 'right' number would be to decide that said individual requires permanent incarceration, as a 'dangerous offender'. I just wonder about what constituted a prior conviction.