Guns

[migrendel]

I would bear no opposition to criminalizing gun ownership. The only entity, according to the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, with the right to own a firearm is the government. If we criminalize possession, we can establish criminality before the weapon is ever discharged, and can prevent crime before it even happens. Then we have to contend with that most ridiculous of special interests, hunters. These people are willing to place some silly recreation before public safety. We will just have to say emphatically that their right to shoot at an animal takes a backseat to the prevention of crime, and animal population can be just as effectively controlled by selectively sterilizing a percentage of the animal population. It's really that simple, and it frustrates me to no end when certain conservatives could care less when freedom of speech and due process are treated like a poor relation in the name of national security, but unmitigated gun ownership is treated like an uncriticizable necessity.

[migrendel]

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

[migrendel]

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

[migrendel]

The criminal code says nothing about being beaten to death or sodomized, jravnsbo. If you were confined to a prison for life, one would think that would be bad enough. Adding forcible anal sex and having your eyes bludgeoned out significantly worsens the conditions of the prison. While it might upset me to see these things happen, I become more resolved in my horror when I hear of people like you say that prisoners are deserving of this and those who simply turn a blind eye. I suppose someone like you can never be shown that this is an abomination in the human dignity category, but if you ever get put in Attica, good luck trying to sit down after movie night.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[migrendel]

I must say, Mr. Fresh, describing abortion as cruel and unusual punishment is way out there. First of all, it is an individual choice, not a government decision, so to classify it as punishment would be illogical. Also, read my theory in the Judges discussion as to why fetuses do not have the citizenship right to protect them from such treatment.