Guns

[migrendel]

I apologize to you for jumping to the conclusion of portraying prison as it actually is. But I will say that gym equipment, television, and education might be better outlets for channeling energy, and might allow people to do things as a substitute for such activities.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I apologize to you for jumping to the conclusion of portraying prison as it actually is. But I will say that gym equipment, television, and education might be better outlets for channeling energy, and might allow people to do things as a substitute for such activities.

ah, but I think that modern sitcoms should not be available to prisoners, nor should any news channel. They are there for a reason, and that is not to stay informed of things going on on the outside. They have been ostracized from civilization. All ties to civilization should be cut, for as long as their sentence deems. I know I sound like an Ultra Conservative here, but prisoners sometimes operate criminal rings from the inside, so ties should be cut.

[jravnsbo]

I am all for rehab for them, as I said.  But they shouldn't get luxuries either.  They are in PRISON for gosh's sake.

A lot come out bigger and stronger than ever and more dangerous.  We do need to do rehab, but you can make prisons so contact is more limited and safer and you should definately isolate the most violent of the violent.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I am all for rehab for them, as I said.  But they shouldn't get luxuries either.  They are in PRISON for gosh's sake.

A lot come out bigger and stronger than ever and more dangerous.  We do need to do rehab, but you can make prisons so contact is more limited and safer and you should definately isolate the most violent of the violent.

I think the prison system should be standardized across the nation. The Federal Government could lay heavy mandates on the States until they comply. It shouldn't be up to each State how to treat it's prisoners or operate it's prisons. This may sound extremely liberal, because I am proposing federal regulations, which I am against most of the time. And, there should be no country club prisons for anyone. Prison should be Prison, not relaxing on a gulf course.

[jravnsbo]

I just read that JFK was alifelong NRA member, i didn't know that.

[migrendel]

I, too, believe that there should be standardized federal regulations for prisons. But I say this so that the excesses of states like Texas can be held to a higher standard of recourse.

[jravnsbo]

excesses, please explain?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

excesses, please explain?

For one thing, TX government executes prisoners more often than their Governor changes underwear. That's excessive. It's more expensive to execute someone, [why? I wish I knew] than to keep them in prison. Heck, just tie them up to a post after sentence of death is pronounced, and shoot em'. What? That would cost a lot? Maybe the price of a last cigarette and a couple of bullets!

[jravnsbo]

executions are so expensive because all o the appeals.  That is why VA and TX have both adopted a system of running the state and federal appeals concurrently.  That dramatically reduces the time that prisoners sit and still gives them their full rights and appeals.

Califonria on the other habnd has what like 300 people on death row and it takes FOREVER to execute someone.

Texas-remember that everyone knows they are tough on crime and so some have said they have thought twice b/c they know Texas will carry it out and not p*ss around like California.

Plus if Guilty these killers do not kill again.  Look at the prisoners that killed a few more once they escaped a few years ago.

[© tweed]

executions are so expensive because all o the appeals.  That is why VA and TX have both adopted a system of running the state and federal appeals concurrently.  That dramatically reduces the time that prisoners sit and still gives them their full rights and appeals.

Califonria on the other habnd has what like 300 people on death row and it takes FOREVER to execute someone.

Texas-remember that everyone knows they are tough on crime and so some have said they have thought twice b/c they know Texas will carry it out and not p*ss around like California.

Plus if Guilty these killers do not kill again.  Look at the prisoners that killed a few more once they escaped a few years ago.

The moral of the story-don't wait for somebody to tell their side of the story--light 'em up!!!

[jravnsbo]

no I said they get ALL OF THERE APPEALS which is how it should be.

But by dragging their feet no one benefits except the killer.

What about the victims rights and their families?  that is always lost in these type discussions.

[© tweed]

no I said they get ALL OF THERE APPEALS which is how it should be.

But by dragging their feet no one benefits except the killer.

What about the victims rights and their families?  that is always lost in these type discussions.

I am against the death penalty in all cases.  two wrongs doesn't make a right.

[jravnsbo]

How is it wrong to execute a killer?  What if he escapes and kills again such as the killers in Texas?

So you would spare Timothy Mcveigh, the DC Snipers and Saddam and Possibly Osama Bin LAden?

[© tweed]

So you would spare Timothy Mcveigh, the DC Snipers and Saddam and Possibly Osama Bin LAden?

Yes.  Make them do community service every day and lock them up at night.

[jravnsbo]

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

[© tweed]

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

I know it is a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Opposing the death penalty is a minority opinion.

[© tweed]

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

I know it is a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Opposing the death penalty is a minority opinion.

Doesn't make it right either.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Gustaf]

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

I know it is a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Opposing the death penalty is a minority opinion.

Doesn't make it right either.

So can we conclude that an opinion can not be justified by how many people support it?

[jravnsbo]

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

[migrendel]

I believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual in all cases, and is offensive to the notions of a civilized society. I believe it unconstitutional for a few main reasons. Firstly, I believe it is offensive to the evolving standars of a fair and free nation (this is what makes it cruel and unusual per se). Secondly, I believe it is inflicted arbitrarily, with little rhyme or reason to the reasoning behind its administration. Thirdly, I believe it has the unwholesome effect of treating people unequally, usually along lines of race and class. This argument can't be too generalized, however. While those things might affect broad differences in the quality of the defense, in many cases the disproportionate rates of punishment can be attributed to disproportionate rates of commissioning a capital crime. But those disproportionate rates can be widely considered to be the final result of social deprivation and want, situations which reap their evil fruit. Also, I believe in many cases the criminal procedure shows little regard to the rules of the law and fails to account for mens rea. For example, in the case of Herrera v. Collins, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law limiting the time for application of a petition of habeas corpus was constitutional. In this case, a man was awaiting his execution. His lawyer discovered what he believed to be exculpatory evidence. However, the deadline had lapsed on his right to an appeal. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the it must show deference to a state law, even if it means executing an innocent person. I think Justice Blackmun best summed up the way in which this is unconscienable in light of the modern definition of cruel and unusual punishment when he said this punishment comes "perilously close to simple murder". How sadly true. Also, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of McKleskey v. Kemp that statistical data showing the death penalty was racially discriminatory did not justify the declaration of a violation of Equal Protection. While I do not believe the data individually justifies the cessation of Warren McKleskey's death sentence, because he did not show his conviction was racially biased, it does allow for the complete cessation of executions in Georgia, the venue of the case, which would thus stop the execution of Warren McKleskey. I suppose I will conclude this with two frightening legislative determinations of the mid-90s. In 1994, the Senate rejected a proposal to allow prisoners to challenge their death sentences on the basis of statistical information showing racial bias. This would have solved the McKleskey crisis without forcing the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Also, in 1995, the Congress passed the Effective Death Penalty Act, a law which would restrict habeas corpus appeals at a certain number. The problem of this law is that it has the problem of allowing for executions like the one in the Herrera case, but it limits habeas corpus, something only authorized in times of war, and especially inapposite in a case not even involving the military. I suppose it can only be said that the death penalty is our national shame, and the deep, dark stain upon our moral conscience.

[jravnsbo]

evolving stands-- well there is a fundamental difference there in interpreting between strict contructionist and liberal expansion.

arbitrarily- its called prosecutorial discretion and depends ont eh case and facts.

disproportionately applied--well again your opinion, but there have been many of all races executed and if you did the crime then you could face this punishment no matter what your race.

prisoners should not be allowed to challenge off of data as you say was rejected by the senate-- that has nothing to do with their individual case.  Plus I doubt if that would apply in many state executions, as most murders are charged as state crimes.

--shame; hardly.  Why do killers get so many advocates?  first they are just that Killers.    What about the victims?  Who speaks for them?  

Plus killers should not get endless appeals.  They should get all their appeals through state and federal system, but unlimited appeals is crazy even if not facing the death sentence.

[jravnsbo]

we are getting off topic here--lets keep this forum for GUNS and I'll create another for the death penalty.

[Gustaf]

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

An opinion is not right b/c you have the majority with you or vice versa. I just thought it was a little unnecesary to discuss that. I hate it when people use the argument that "you are not mainstream". One should always produce arguments for one's positions, not hide behind numbers of supporters.

[jravnsbo]

Well when some positions are so out of the normal thoughts of one's society i think they should be pointed out as that way to start.  Then discuss it from there.

But I did think it would be helpful to you to discuss our legal system a bit.

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

An opinion is not right b/c you have the majority with you or vice versa. I just thought it was a little unnecesary to discuss that. I hate it when people use the argument that "you are not mainstream". One should always produce arguments for one's positions, not hide behind numbers of supporters.

[Gustaf]

Well when some positions are so out of the normal thoughts of one's society i think they should be pointed out as that way to start.  Then discuss it from there.

But I did think it would be helpful to you to discuss our legal system a bit.

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! )

An opinion is not right b/c you have the majority with you or vice versa. I just thought it was a little unnecesary to discuss that. I hate it when people use the argument that "you are not mainstream". One should always produce arguments for one's positions, not hide behind numbers of supporters.

Helpful in what way? I am not really sure about what you are referring to.

If someone is disputing facts (like claiming that the holocaust never occured) I agree that it could be important. Otherwise, it's doubtful. The minority can often be right and trying to make someone look suspicious by claiming that the person is extremist is a doubtful way of arguing, but that's my view (maybe I am alone in thinking that. HELP!)