normiss 733 #76 August 9, 2012 The system needs people to get stuck in the system for a long time. It's a self feeding monster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #77 August 9, 2012 What do you expect from a state that spends $60 million on a high school football stadium? Football comes first, education comes ... sometime after that."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #78 August 9, 2012 Historically after a state adopted or did away with death penalty there has been a spike or low depending on which action was taken. Main problem with us throwing statistics out about murder rate is theres a second component. I would think the primary reason for the drop across the US is firearm ownership. Not sure how to prove any of this either, just seems to make sense. Raping, killing and general pillaging aren't as much fun or as profitable if all victims are packing.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #79 August 9, 2012 QuoteThis is why I believe that it is appropriate for the worst of the worst - those who kill in or from prison. Do you agree? And for others - what should be done with a person who kills when even segregated from society? What about when prison doesn't help. Many prison systems, among which at least part of the American prison system, often create the right circumstances to promote things like murder. inmates are more or less forced to participate in violent gangs to save their asses. Often quite literally so. If anything being in prison should sometimes maybe even be viewed as a mitigating circumstance. Besides: execution isn't the only option to protect the other inmates from recidivist murderer. So I don't agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #80 August 9, 2012 I don't like to be talked down to, especially by someone who thinks he knows everything because of one anecdote. The great majority of people in prison don't want to be there [period]. Western European prisons are generally better places to be than American prisons, but the multitudes of people lined up to get in there (only) you would expect, aren't there. In fact prison populations are generally small, especially if compared to the US prison population. For most people (let's say 99,9+%) the idea of loosing their freedom is absolutely horrible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #81 August 9, 2012 Odd that everyone that uses the bible to prove the death penalty is wrong uses one verse (Exodus 20:13) KJV "Thou shalt not kill". No need to use just the old testament, Jesus did support the death penalty and He left a hearty biblical record proving the point. Jesus has been so remade by the modern world into a mix of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Tiny Tim that they cannot see the Jesus clearly portrayed in the Bible. Consider this: the Mosaic Law very strongly supported the death penalty in 21 different situations I believe. Jesus never once disobeyed the law or taught against it. He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17 ). The law made numerous provisions for the death penalty. Jesus did not come to destroy these provisions but to fulfill them. As such, He would have supported the death penalty. This has been argued here and all through history, not much chance it will be solved now. Its just annoying people try to use biblical reasons or a supposed moral reason when theres no evidence either is valid. Ok so he has a low IQ, what do you do with him? Institutionalize him for life? Is that a real option, or is it just a way to wash our hands of a distasteful job.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 733 #82 August 9, 2012 I am askeered to smoke that silly christian weed. Look at the insanity it causes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #83 August 9, 2012 Have you ever been to Allen, Texas? There's a lot of money in that area and if they can afford it, let them have it. I know of a high school that spends more money on Athletic tape than on their English dept. I'm not defending any of this. For the last several years, people from all over this country, mostly California, are moving here. Can't be all that bad. The thing that's hurting education here is, all the 'mandated' tests that kids have to take. More time is spent on preparing for these tests than on proper education. If, a certain number of students don't pass these tests... no Federal funding. It's all part of 'No Kid Left Behind' program. I've learned that from talking with teachers and a former education director. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #84 August 9, 2012 You watch to many bad prison movies... If prison was so BAD.... Why do MOST people keep going back... Prison and jail are a big deal till you go.... After a few days / weeks it just another day.... Killler... And he's not the only one I know that did or is doing time.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 733 #85 August 9, 2012 They generally keep going back due to being stuck in the system. The same system that gets budget based on conviction numbers and prisoner head count. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #86 August 9, 2012 Quote You watch to many bad prison movies... If prison was so BAD.... Why do MOST people keep going back... Prison and jail are a big deal till you go.... After a few days / weeks it just another day.... Killler... And he's not the only one I know that did or is doing time.... You must be joking. Otherwise, your posts are simply BS. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #87 August 9, 2012 QuoteYou watch to many bad prison movies... If prison was so BAD.... Why do MOST people keep going back... That's a very good question. We already established it's usually not because they want to go back. Maybe it's because something is horribly wrong with the US prison system, which is among other things visible from the huge number of prisoners that are in it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #88 August 9, 2012 Quote You watch to many bad prison movies... If prison was so BAD.... Why do MOST people keep going back... It's not whether prison is good or bad. It's a matter that some members of our society can't cope in the world outside prison. That's not from some B-grade prison movie, either. I have a question for you... Are you talking Federal prisons or State prisons? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 300 #89 August 9, 2012 [url]http://thenewjimcrow.com/*** Take all the race stuff out of it. Chapter 2 and the last chapter, which kind of summarizes the whole situation is pretty scary and demonstrates that the system is obviously rigged to keep people cycling into the system. No one wants to 'not' be tough on crime, but the fact is the criminal justice system in this country does not work. 3 million people in prison is doing nothing for the rates of crime, and it needs a serious overhaul. And there is no study anywhere that says the death penalty does anything for crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #90 August 9, 2012 http://thenewjimcrow.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #91 August 9, 2012 Quote3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,319 #92 August 9, 2012 QuoteQuote3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. Nah, it is because people like being incarcerated. Just ask killler, he knows criminals and is an expert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #93 August 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote 3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. Nah, it is because people like being incarcerated. Just ask killler, he knows criminals and is an expert. That's right! The county jails are over-loaded with those waiting for the call-up to the 'big show'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites killler 2 #94 August 9, 2012 Look... I grew up in NYC.... Was living on my own and making my way since I was 13yrs old... Last grade I went to and got a passing grade was 7th... I know a lot of people that have done a shit load of time.... That is just the facts... I have no skin in this game you guys play... I just pointed out a fact... Jail and prison really only works to keep good honest people in line... Once you start doing shit and getting caught .... It's just not a big deal... That is the facts.... If prison and jail were such shitty places, people would not keep doing stuff to be sent back... It's a no brainer...... Now you want to call BS... Go ahead.... People that know me.... Know that is not way I play... Just facts... I have no need to make shit up.... I've been there and done that... Killler..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #95 August 9, 2012 QuoteMental Retardation is now referred to as Developmentally Disabled. Intellectually Disabled is just plain dumb. To heap this guy in with the DD crowd is an insult to every DD person in the world. Most of them are more intelligent than this numbskull. Please don't spread bad information. It is hard enough to reasonably educate people without having incorrect terminology and bad definitions thrown around."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #96 August 10, 2012 Quote> The supreme court has said you should not execute people who are mentally retarded. I agree with that only if those people are not mentally capable of understanding right from wrong, if they are unable to understand the consequences of their decisions etc. In other words, if they're not responsible for their actions. If they are, then there should not be any special treatment by the justice system. Well, if you want to know the Supreme Courts reasoning you should read their decision The upshot is that the Supreme Court decided that because of the inherent limitations of a person with intellectual diability 1. It is more problematic to ensure a fair trial and 2. There is reduced (note: not none, which is implied by your not responsible for their actions) moral culpability. The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition Intellectual Disability is a binary condition (you either have it or you don't) but in reality it is a continuum. So somebody who falls just under the line of cutoff may be entitled to state benefits and (in this case) legal protections that somebody who is just over the cutoff is not entitled to even though functionally they look very little different in their day-to-day life. If we take that further, it would clearly be absurd for a court to hold somebody with a very low IQ (say, mid-30s) criminally responsible for any action. In any case, the Supreme Court said you are not allowed to execute those with intellectual disabilities. Texas just created their own set of criteria, not backed by any sort of research or professional organization or diagnostic criteria and created and exception for themselves. I don't believe Texas, or anybody else, gets to exempt themselves from Supreme Court rulings. I believe I am firmly on record here as being against the death penalty in all cases. In the particular case of Atkins v. Virginia I believe the Supreme Court actually did a very good job articulating the issues based on my 15+ years of professional work in this field."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,772 #97 August 10, 2012 > It is more problematic to ensure a fair trial and Agreed there. Again, though, that doesn't apply to just lower intelligence people; how does a blind man rebut photographic evidence, or a deaf man recognize someone's voice? In both cases it is possible but with great difficulty. >The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition >Intellectual Disability is a binary condition . . . I agree that there is a continuum there. However, there should not be for the question of whether someone is responsible for their actions. That is a yes/no decision that carries a host of consequences for someone, including loss of ability to manage one's affairs. > If we take that further, it would clearly be absurd for a court to hold somebody with >a very low IQ (say, mid-30s) criminally responsible for any action. Exactly! But that is not due to a lack of intelligence for the sake of intelligence. That is because their lack of intelligence makes them not (criminally) responsible for any action. Which is my point. There has to be a line. You drew it at mid-30's; fine. It might be an IQ, it might be performance on a test, it might be a conclusion of a psychiatrist. But beyond that line someone is not responsible for their actions, and 1) is less criminally liable and 2) loses many of their rights. Neither is acceptable for someone who is merely dumb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #98 August 10, 2012 Quote> >The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition >Intellectual Disability is a binary condition . . . I agree that there is a continuum there. However, there should not be for the question of whether someone is responsible for their actions. That is a yes/no decision that carries a host of consequences for someone, including loss of ability to manage one's affairs. So, you recognize that there is a continuum of condition. Somehow your only response to that is to impose a binary judicial philosophy? So that the only determination of the court is whether the guy is competent or not? I don't know, that seems awfully far from reality to me. This guy killed somebody. He deserves to be in jail. It is the best way to ensure the safety of the public (as well as being appropriate punishment for his action). His intellectual disability is one mitigating factor (and courts consider all sorts of mitigating and aggravating factors). In this case the Supreme Court has decided it is a serious enough mitigating factor to disallow the death penalty. That seems appropriate to me. Do you have any problem with Texas ignoring the Supreme Court?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites loch1957 0 #99 August 10, 2012 Come on over to our Christian side Normiss, we got cookies !!Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,772 #100 August 10, 2012 >Somehow your only response to that is to impose a binary judicial philosophy? ?? You are aware that that is how our system works, no? The decision in any trial is guilty or not guilty - even though as you mention there is always a continuum of condition/culpability/responsibility. >This guy killed somebody. He deserves to be in jail. But see, that's _you_ going all binary on us. Suppose he was too disabled to be able to tell right from wrong? Shouldn't that enter into the decision? Surely someone who is completely unable to make value judgments should be treated rather than imprisoned to be raped/beaten/(insert favorite prison horror story here.) There should be a line, and that line should be responsibility for one's actions. If someone IS responsible for their actions, they are liable for the consequences if they commit a crime. If they're not responsible, then they are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tkhayes 300 #89 August 9, 2012 [url]http://thenewjimcrow.com/*** Take all the race stuff out of it. Chapter 2 and the last chapter, which kind of summarizes the whole situation is pretty scary and demonstrates that the system is obviously rigged to keep people cycling into the system. No one wants to 'not' be tough on crime, but the fact is the criminal justice system in this country does not work. 3 million people in prison is doing nothing for the rates of crime, and it needs a serious overhaul. And there is no study anywhere that says the death penalty does anything for crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #90 August 9, 2012 http://thenewjimcrow.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #91 August 9, 2012 Quote3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,319 #92 August 9, 2012 QuoteQuote3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. Nah, it is because people like being incarcerated. Just ask killler, he knows criminals and is an expert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #93 August 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote 3 million people in prison I think this says as much about the criminalization of off types of behavior than anything else. Nah, it is because people like being incarcerated. Just ask killler, he knows criminals and is an expert. That's right! The county jails are over-loaded with those waiting for the call-up to the 'big show'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #94 August 9, 2012 Look... I grew up in NYC.... Was living on my own and making my way since I was 13yrs old... Last grade I went to and got a passing grade was 7th... I know a lot of people that have done a shit load of time.... That is just the facts... I have no skin in this game you guys play... I just pointed out a fact... Jail and prison really only works to keep good honest people in line... Once you start doing shit and getting caught .... It's just not a big deal... That is the facts.... If prison and jail were such shitty places, people would not keep doing stuff to be sent back... It's a no brainer...... Now you want to call BS... Go ahead.... People that know me.... Know that is not way I play... Just facts... I have no need to make shit up.... I've been there and done that... Killler..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #95 August 9, 2012 QuoteMental Retardation is now referred to as Developmentally Disabled. Intellectually Disabled is just plain dumb. To heap this guy in with the DD crowd is an insult to every DD person in the world. Most of them are more intelligent than this numbskull. Please don't spread bad information. It is hard enough to reasonably educate people without having incorrect terminology and bad definitions thrown around."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #96 August 10, 2012 Quote> The supreme court has said you should not execute people who are mentally retarded. I agree with that only if those people are not mentally capable of understanding right from wrong, if they are unable to understand the consequences of their decisions etc. In other words, if they're not responsible for their actions. If they are, then there should not be any special treatment by the justice system. Well, if you want to know the Supreme Courts reasoning you should read their decision The upshot is that the Supreme Court decided that because of the inherent limitations of a person with intellectual diability 1. It is more problematic to ensure a fair trial and 2. There is reduced (note: not none, which is implied by your not responsible for their actions) moral culpability. The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition Intellectual Disability is a binary condition (you either have it or you don't) but in reality it is a continuum. So somebody who falls just under the line of cutoff may be entitled to state benefits and (in this case) legal protections that somebody who is just over the cutoff is not entitled to even though functionally they look very little different in their day-to-day life. If we take that further, it would clearly be absurd for a court to hold somebody with a very low IQ (say, mid-30s) criminally responsible for any action. In any case, the Supreme Court said you are not allowed to execute those with intellectual disabilities. Texas just created their own set of criteria, not backed by any sort of research or professional organization or diagnostic criteria and created and exception for themselves. I don't believe Texas, or anybody else, gets to exempt themselves from Supreme Court rulings. I believe I am firmly on record here as being against the death penalty in all cases. In the particular case of Atkins v. Virginia I believe the Supreme Court actually did a very good job articulating the issues based on my 15+ years of professional work in this field."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #97 August 10, 2012 > It is more problematic to ensure a fair trial and Agreed there. Again, though, that doesn't apply to just lower intelligence people; how does a blind man rebut photographic evidence, or a deaf man recognize someone's voice? In both cases it is possible but with great difficulty. >The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition >Intellectual Disability is a binary condition . . . I agree that there is a continuum there. However, there should not be for the question of whether someone is responsible for their actions. That is a yes/no decision that carries a host of consequences for someone, including loss of ability to manage one's affairs. > If we take that further, it would clearly be absurd for a court to hold somebody with >a very low IQ (say, mid-30s) criminally responsible for any action. Exactly! But that is not due to a lack of intelligence for the sake of intelligence. That is because their lack of intelligence makes them not (criminally) responsible for any action. Which is my point. There has to be a line. You drew it at mid-30's; fine. It might be an IQ, it might be performance on a test, it might be a conclusion of a psychiatrist. But beyond that line someone is not responsible for their actions, and 1) is less criminally liable and 2) loses many of their rights. Neither is acceptable for someone who is merely dumb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #98 August 10, 2012 Quote> >The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition >Intellectual Disability is a binary condition . . . I agree that there is a continuum there. However, there should not be for the question of whether someone is responsible for their actions. That is a yes/no decision that carries a host of consequences for someone, including loss of ability to manage one's affairs. So, you recognize that there is a continuum of condition. Somehow your only response to that is to impose a binary judicial philosophy? So that the only determination of the court is whether the guy is competent or not? I don't know, that seems awfully far from reality to me. This guy killed somebody. He deserves to be in jail. It is the best way to ensure the safety of the public (as well as being appropriate punishment for his action). His intellectual disability is one mitigating factor (and courts consider all sorts of mitigating and aggravating factors). In this case the Supreme Court has decided it is a serious enough mitigating factor to disallow the death penalty. That seems appropriate to me. Do you have any problem with Texas ignoring the Supreme Court?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #99 August 10, 2012 Come on over to our Christian side Normiss, we got cookies !!Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #100 August 10, 2012 >Somehow your only response to that is to impose a binary judicial philosophy? ?? You are aware that that is how our system works, no? The decision in any trial is guilty or not guilty - even though as you mention there is always a continuum of condition/culpability/responsibility. >This guy killed somebody. He deserves to be in jail. But see, that's _you_ going all binary on us. Suppose he was too disabled to be able to tell right from wrong? Shouldn't that enter into the decision? Surely someone who is completely unable to make value judgments should be treated rather than imprisoned to be raped/beaten/(insert favorite prison horror story here.) There should be a line, and that line should be responsibility for one's actions. If someone IS responsible for their actions, they are liable for the consequences if they commit a crime. If they're not responsible, then they are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
