Full Version: Is the Death Penalty enough?
But Bof- he gave a very, very good example in the Rosenberg- only 16 years she served. One of the others had a 105 years sentence- walked.
I would say maybe more like 90% than 99.999999% would be more realistic- and 10% is way to high a number for me- though, if I thought it would really be only .000000000000001% of those that get it walked- I would probably accept that- but I have worked too long in this system to really think that there is ANY "truth in sentencing".
Fact of the matter is- the only way to stop a pedophile is to kill him/her, the only way to be sure there are no more victims.
I would say maybe more like 90% than 99.999999% would be more realistic- and 10% is way to high a number for me- though, if I thought it would really be only .000000000000001% of those that get it walked- I would probably accept that- but I have worked too long in this system to really think that there is ANY "truth in sentencing".
Fact of the matter is- the only way to stop a pedophile is to kill him/her, the only way to be sure there are no more victims.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 06:29 PM) 
and Curmudgeons memory of a personal crime-
BD is right- to TRULY have LWOPP- you have to have a federal constitutonal amendment restricting anyone from pardoning these poeple.
BD is right- to TRULY have LWOPP- you have to have a federal constitutonal amendment restricting anyone from pardoning these poeple.
The person mudge told about hadn't been convicted, let alone sentenced to life without parole.
No, CR, BD is wrong, unless you want a 100% guarantee, and like I posted before, that is rarely the case.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 28 2007, 06:39 PM)
I suspect that BD is pointing out that if the fear is we'll torture/execute the wrong person then we must also worry that the correctly convicted might be let free on some technicality or pardon.
I don't need someone to interpret BD for me.
Being freed on appeal, technicality or otherwise, may be more of a possibility than someone being pardoned.
BD, however, has addressed the issue of executive pardons.
The point is BA - carried over from yesterday - you seem to have no problem tearing up the constitution to get what you want or maybe "think" you want.
Bring back the Martians. At least they were entertaining.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 28 2007, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Jun 28 2007, 04:21 PM)
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 28 2007, 05:07 PM)
Most states grant unrestricted ability to pardon to their governors. Texas is one state that doesn't, there may be others.
You're saying we should execute Scooter Libby?
non sequitor
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 28 2007, 06:44 PM)
How likely is it that a convicted Vietnam Era terrorists would receive a Presidential pardon? Yet, Susan Rosenberg did, 16 years in on a 58 year sentence, as did 16 members of FALN, serving sentences ranging from 35 to 105 (effectively life) years... Heck, what's to stop the courts from ruling LWOPP "cruel and unusual"? Stranger things have happened. Nonetheless, the point still stands: the pardon power of the President (regarding Federal crimes) and most governors is limited only by political considerations. It can also be driven by political considerations.
I feel ignorant. I didn't know about those pardons. You're right on this point, but I'm right about committing political suicide for his party. I don't have a problem amending the Constitution to stop presidential pardons but that'll probably never happen.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 28 2007, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 06:29 PM)
and Curmudgeons memory of a personal crime-
BD is right- to TRULY have LWOPP- you have to have a federal constitutonal amendment restricting anyone from pardoning these poeple.
BD is right- to TRULY have LWOPP- you have to have a federal constitutonal amendment restricting anyone from pardoning these poeple.
The person mudge told about hadn't been convicted, let alone sentenced to life without parole.
No, CR, BD is wrong, unless you want a 100% guarantee, and like I posted before, that is rarely the case.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 28 2007, 06:39 PM)
I suspect that BD is pointing out that if the fear is we'll torture/execute the wrong person then we must also worry that the correctly convicted might be let free on some technicality or pardon.
I don't need someone to interpret BD for me.
Being freed on appeal, technicality or otherwise, may be more of a possibility than someone being pardoned.
BD, however, has addressed the issue of executive pardons.
The point is BA - carried over from yesterday - you seem to have no problem tearing up the constitution to get what you want or maybe "think" you want.
Bring back the Martians. At least they were entertaining.
Bof- my point about 'mudge is how memories soften and fog over and we forget the particulars and eventually- we forget the monster.
I think BAs point about making them something "outside the law"- as in "outlaw"- basicaly stripping them of any constitutional protections, is not completely a bad thing.
I would like to see certain classes of criminals be denied all consttutional protections for certain convictions- and a very, very narrow definition of those crimes. One of the onesI think we can really nail down well is the crime of pedophilia- and since the recidivism rate of a pedophile is about 100%- it makes since to take the power out of a future politicians hands to free them.
Look at the link I provided about the judge in England and the rapist- we need to remove the ability for a judge to make these decisions, and an executive from pardoning certain crimes.
I would love to see a constitutional amendment forbiding presidents, current or future from pardoning any executive administrations convictions, and remove appeals processes for them as well- like with Ollie North's overturned conviction on a technicality. Forgive them- then kill them
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 07:18 PM)
I think BAs point about making them something "outside the law"- as in "outlaw"- basicaly stripping them of any constitutional protections, is not completely a bad thing.
BA may not realize this a pipedream. We are not going to rip the constitution to bits to suit his whims.
On the other hand CR, you know this ain't likely to happen.
Well, we all have our political fantasies I guess- dreaming we are the ultimate ruler and all 
That being said- our justice system needs an enema, and the guys BA are talking about need to be flushed as the end product, real bad.
I think the general population really has no idea how many of these monsters do some serious evil before they are really slammed, and then still have a chance of getting out.
That being said- our justice system needs an enema, and the guys BA are talking about need to be flushed as the end product, real bad.
I think the general population really has no idea how many of these monsters do some serious evil before they are really slammed, and then still have a chance of getting out.
As I look at some of the replies on this thread - the willingness to subvert the constitution to deal with monsters, to become torturers willing to prcatice that which we have traditionally loathed - I think about what Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote:
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
QUOTE
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Jun 24 2007, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 23 2007, 08:12 PM)
Strictures concerning torture may not be written “in god’s blood,” but they are written in Amendment VIII of The U. S. Constitution of the United States. Besides, I've always suspected Benjamin Franklin was "god" long before that title was conferred upon George Burns or Morgan Freeman. Unless we have an amendment permitting torture, Amendment VIII outweighs the emotionally laden nonsense BA laid before us in this thread. Indeed, it is outweighs what any individual, including me, has written.
You missed my point, BoF. I was stating the obvious when I said that we are discussing and exchanging ideas on this board. That's all we're doing. And the constitution along with every rule or law that's ever been created is nothing more than "agreed upon opinions". The law is so because we decide it is so. This thread is asking a question and we are answering it.
Opinions are fine, but they are also to be backed up with reason and evidence. BoF's post exemplified what AD is all about. I'm not so certain that one can shrug off the constitution so easily in favor of fist-hitting-the-table-"darn right!" sentimentality.
QUOTE
Quite honestly, I'm pretty tired of hearing people spew their holier than thou "opinions" as if they are the Gospel.
The other extreme calling for blood is tiring as well. Quite frankly, both "opinions" will not gain any quarter here without sound evidence or criticism from others. Members shouldn't be upset when called on it when no evidence is cited as to why that opinion should hold sway. Any strong feeling about "monsters" or "holier than thou" opinions are not above criticism.
QUOTE
We're all entitled to feel how we want to feel.
Yes, but we're not entitled on AD to not be called on it. This board is about proving one's point, not just assessing "feelings."
QUOTE
It's better to send them away quick and easy and be done with them. They are not worth the time spent on caring for their needs and guarding them. (that would also mean it's not worth our energy to spend unecessary time torturing them when they will meet their makers, so to speak, and their day of judgment will come one way or another)
I have to compliment you on your consistency on this, I would have to say that you do an admirable job up to that point.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 8 2007, 09:00 AM)
Opinions are fine, but they are also to be backed up with reason and evidence. BoF's post exemplified what AD is all about. I'm not so certain that one can shrug off the constitution so easily in favor of fist-hitting-the-table-"darn right!" sentimentality.
Point taken. And I do understand that emotion musn't supersede reason. On this issue, it seems that a lot of new laws have come about through the outrage over such crimes (i.e. "Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, etc.). There is an extreme sense of wrongness associated with these types of crimes and that is what brings caring individuals to embrace torture. Yet, I do agree that we must not let our sense of outrage override our use of reason. That is what leads me to advocate the death penalty in as quick of a manner as possible.
QUOTE
Yes, but we're not entitled on AD to not be called on it. This board is about proving one's point, not just assessing "feelings."
I agree. That is the crux of logical debate.
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's better to send them away quick and easy and be done with them. They are not worth the time spent on caring for their needs and guarding them. (that would also mean it's not worth our energy to spend unecessary time torturing them when they will meet their makers, so to speak, and their day of judgment will come one way or another)
I have to compliment you on your consistency on this, I would have to say that you do an admirable job up to that point.
Thank you, kindly.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.